Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Tiddlywinks 06-05-07, 04:47 PM	What I wanted to know was if this feat would make my Wizard function as if he were wearing armor with which he is not proficient. Is he going to suffer -5 to all of his attack rolls and movement based skill checks? Since the feat says that "you are considered to be wearing heavy armor," it seems like my Wizard will suffer this fate. You gain a penalty to the same skills, but it is not an ACP. Wow, thanks Edymnion, you're absolutely right. I'll try to read more carefully next time. ;)
Edymnion 06-05-07, 04:59 PM	What I wanted to know was if the feat would make my Wizard function as if he were wearing armor with which he is not proficient. Is he going to suffer -5 to all of his attack rolls and movement based skill checks? Since the feat says that "you are considered to be wearing heavy armor," it seems like my Wizard will suffer this fate.1) It is a feat, not physical armor. 2) There is no armor check penalty, hence nothing to apply to attacks/checks/etc. No, really, read the feat again. You will not find the words "armor check penalty" in it anywhere. You gain a penalty to the same skills, but it is not an ACP. Reguardless, you do not need a proficiency feat for your own skin.
Kinger 06-05-07, 05:42 PM	You do, however, get that nasty Arcane Spell Failure chance. Unless you like Still Spell and Wands, you're Adamantine Bodied Warforged is discouraged from trying out Wizardry.
garner_adam 06-05-07, 08:08 PM	However Adamantine Body does effect Ranger Combat Style, Monk Fast Movement, and Barbarian Fast Movement because you're considered to be wearing heavy armor.
Edymnion 06-05-07, 09:36 PM	However Adamantine Body does effect Ranger Combat Style, Monk Fast Movement, and Barbarian Fast Movement because you're considered to be wearing heavy armor.Yes, you are considered to be wearing heavy armor essentially for any class ability that is restricted when wearing certain types of armor.
Ramrod_The_Wizard 06-06-07, 11:58 AM	I dont have to Campaign setting with me, but does Adamantine body reduce speed?
Edymnion 06-06-07, 12:22 PM	I dont have to Campaign setting with me, but does Adamantine body reduce speed?Yes, to 20', standard speed for heavy armor.
UnderworldLord 06-06-07, 03:13 PM	Correct me if I'm wrong, but you recieve -5 penalty as though you had an ACP with Adamantine body, don't you?
tallric_kruush 06-06-07, 03:50 PM	Correct me if I'm wrong, but you recieve -5 penalty as though you had an ACP with Adamantine body, don't you? Yes, that's correct. Your speed is reduced to 20ft, you have a Max Dex bonus to AC of +1, you suffer a "-5 penalty on all skill checks that armor check penalties apply to", and a 35% Arcane Spell Failure Chance. All exactly as if you were wearing heavy armor. (ECS 50)
ChristopherGroves 06-07-07, 01:17 PM	No, it's incorrect in an important way. Specifically this: but you recieve -5 penalty as though you had an ACP You receive a -5 on the same skills as ACP but it is not an ACP and not as though it was an ACP ... there is no wacky doubling of the ACP for swimming, etc. ... so it isn't a -5 penalty as though you had an ACP as ACP specifically would be doubled for swimming.
tallric_kruush 06-07-07, 05:06 PM	No, it's incorrect in an important way. You receive a -5 on the same skills as ACP but it is not an ACP. Note there is no wacky doubling of the penalty for swimming, etc. ... so it isn't a -5 penalty as though you had an ACP as ACP specifically would be doubled for swimming. Both Underworld Lord and I phrased it correctly. In fact, mine was a direct quote from the feat's entry on ECS page 50.
yrogerg 06-08-07, 06:37 PM	Your speed is reduced to 20ft, you have a Max Dex bonus to AC of +1, you suffer a "-5 penalty on all skill checks that armor check penalties apply to", and a 35% Arcane Spell Failure Chance.(ECS 50) Right, but since a) the -5 penalty applys to armor check skills, but *isn't* an Armor Check Penalty, and b)Armor Check Penalties apply double to the Swim skill, a technical read of the feat suggests that it only imposes a -5 penalty to Swim, rather than the -10 that comparable armor would.
Edymnion 06-08-07, 07:09 PM	Right, but since a) the -5 penalty applys to armor check skills, but *isn't* an Armor Check Penalty, and b)Armor Check Penalties apply double to the Swim skill, a technical read of the feat suggests that it only imposes a -5 penalty to Swim, rather than the -10 that comparable armor would.Which makes sense when you remember that WF cores are made of darkwood. Sure, they're weighted down in steel and stone, but they're still mostly wood, they're naturally more boyant than a human with the same amount of armor weighing them down.
Cifer 06-10-07, 05:17 AM	Which makes sense when you remember that WF cores are made of darkwood. In case you kids are trying this at home and getting no results, I'd try using lifewood. Eberron has a little too many wood types.
Edymnion 06-10-07, 05:15 PM	In case you kids are trying this at home and getting no results, I'd try using lifewood. Eberron has a little too many wood types.My ECS says Darkwood under wf physical description.
Cifer 06-12-07, 01:07 PM	That's funny. What was lifewood used for then?
Edymnion 06-12-07, 01:33 PM	That's funny. What was lifewood used for then?Dunno, I don't recall ever officially reading that it is used in WF in any way. Far as I know, it was just some people on the boards that saw it, went "Hey, wood that repairs itself, I bet thats what the warforged are made of!" and it went from there. Or, Keith may have accidentally said lifewood instead of darkwood in one of his posts (or could have even intended it to be lifewood and it got changed by somebody else for the final print of the book).
ZappoHisbane 06-23-07, 07:24 PM	Quick nitpick: It's livewood, not lifewood. :)
Kaladon7779 06-23-07, 07:51 PM	says its a -5 armor check penalty, as if you were wearing heavy armor. So you would take a penalty to all the following skills, Balance, Climb, escape Artist, Hide, Jumpe, move Silently, Sleight of Hand and Tumbling. Then you double the penalty applied to Swim
yrogerg 06-23-07, 09:31 PM	says its a -5 armor check penalty, as if you were wearing heavy armor. So you would take a penalty to all the following skills, Balance, Climb, escape Artist, Hide, Jumpe, move Silently, Sleight of Hand and Tumbling. Then you double the penalty applied to Swim No, it says it's an unnamed -5 penalty to all skills that an armor check *would* (counterfactually) apply. It is not an actual armor check penalty, and isn't doubled for swim, nor does it cause non-proficiency penalties to attack and your other movement-related skills
ZappoHisbane 06-23-07, 09:51 PM	Which makes sense when you remember that WF cores are made of darkwood. Sure, they're weighted down in steel and stone, but they're still mostly wood, they're naturally more boyant than a human with the same amount of armor weighing them down. I wonder what would happen if they used Soarwood instead? Would the WF gain a Float speed? :D
gensuke626 06-23-07, 09:57 PM	I could have sworn I saw that Livewood was used in WF construction. Oh Well. ECS is as close as I have to Hellcow's words atm...I'll go look around
zuul88 06-28-07, 08:20 PM	I got a question........I dont play WF or Eberron so I have very limited experience(read a book in the bookstore once.) But can the non-ACP penalty be absolved by abilities, feats that would normally reduce them, HAO, GHAO, dread commando, twilight enchanment, things of that nature? Just out of sheer morbid curosity. Respect Nathan
Kinger 06-28-07, 10:54 PM	I'd have to see the abilities in question, but I'm guessing no. Since Adamantine Body doesn't GIVE an ACP, effects that lessen ACP shouldn't do anything.
yrogerg 06-29-07, 02:20 AM	I got a question........I dont play WF or Eberron so I have very limited experience(read a book in the bookstore once.) But can the non-ACP penalty be absolved by abilities, feats that would normally reduce them, HAO, GHAO, dread commando, twilight enchanment, things of that nature? Just out of sheer morbid curosity. Respect Nathan Twilight just decreases the Arcane Spell Failure, which Adamantine Body *does* have, so it would have the desired effect. I don't remember what benefit any of the others offer, though.
The White Sorcerer 06-29-07, 07:38 AM	says its a -5 armor check penaltym No it doesn't. Please re-read it.
Kaladon7779 06-29-07, 09:23 AM	No, it says it's an unnamed -5 penalty to all skills that an armor check *would* (counterfactually) apply. It is not an actual armor check penalty, and isn't doubled for swim, nor does it cause non-proficiency penalties to attack and your other movement-related skills Hmmm, I'm looking at a Summarized 3.5 rule of it from http://www.crystalkeep.com/d20/index.php Feats section, go to warforged, it says "Your body is effectively wearing Heavy Armor at all times". under that it says there's an armor check penalty of -5. Could somebody post the entire description of Adamantine Body feat please. I've talked to two other people that checked it out in the book and they said the same thing. You take a armor check penalty as if you were wearing heavy armor, -5 to the appropriate skills and double that for swimming.
The White Sorcerer 06-29-07, 09:46 AM	under that it says there's an armor check penalty of -5. The rules of Adamantine Body don't say that.. What they actually do say is "a -5 penalty on all skill checks to which armor check penalties apply". That index thing has it wrong and is propably sort of illegal anyways.
Kaladon7779 06-29-07, 10:01 AM	What they actually do say is "a -5 penalty on all skill checks to which armor check penalties apply". What is the difference?
The White Sorcerer 06-29-07, 10:13 AM	What is the difference? No double penalty to Swim, no non-proficiency penalties.
Kinger 06-29-07, 12:38 PM	Contrary to reality, in D&D and other constructed rules, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's not necessarily a duck unless it's called a duck in its rules entry. A warforged, despite having two arms, two legs, and standing upright, is not a Humanoid despite having the humanoid shape. Similarly, Adamantine Body provides a penalty to skills to which ACP applies, not an ACP. It looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, but it ain't a duck. ... Did that make any sense?
Kaladon7779 06-29-07, 01:03 PM	Adamantine Body Benefit: Your armor bonus is increased to +8 and you gain damage reduction 2/adamantine. However, your base land speed is reduced to 20 feet, and you are considered to be wearing heavy armor. You have a +1 maximum Dexterity bonus to AC, a -5 skill penalty on all skill checks that armor check penalties apply to (Balance, Climb, Escape Artist, Hide, Jump, Move Silently, Sleight of Hand, Swim, and Tumble), and an arcane spell failure chance of 35%. Swim Skill Special Swim checks are subject to double the normal armor check penalty and encumbrance penalty. Where in there does it say that you don't double your swim penalty. You are considered to be wearing heavy armor, thus treated the same way with penalties. BTW, if it... Walks like a duck... quacks like a duck... looks like a duck... its a ficken duck.
The White Sorcerer 06-29-07, 02:06 PM	Where in there does it say that you don't double your swim penalty. Nowhere, because it doesn't need to say it. Swim only takes a double penalty from ACP. Adamantine Body doesn't have an ACP. You are considered to be wearing heavy armor, thus treated the same way with penalties. No. While you are indeed treated as wearing heavy armor, you aren't treated as having an ACP. In summary: If it doesn't say you get an armor check penalty, you don't! Seriously, please quote the part that says Adamantine Body gives an ACP.
Kaladon7779 06-29-07, 04:02 PM	Nowhere, because it doesn't need to say it. Swim only takes a double penalty from ACP. Adamantine Body doesn't have an ACP. It says specifically as if wearing heavy armor -5 penalty on all skills that armor check penalty applies. Then it lists the skills that are effected by Armor Check Penalties. Then when you look into swim skill, double for armor check penalties, yes I understand it doesn't say specific in the skill but it is treated as if your wearing heavy armor, so armor check penalty applies it doesn't have to say "double this for swimming", its implied that you know this already. besides it wouldn't make any sense to not have a double swim penalty its heavy, its bulky, its metal, it even slows your movement like heavy armor does. If he has a shield embeded in his arm, can be made of Adamantine doesn't matter makes the same situation he takes the full armor check penalty Look at it finally this way, if it were actually Skin like you guys say, then it would be a Natural Armor Bonus like an Adamantine Golem, its body is natural armor. This is not, its is Heavy Armor, Bonus at Heavy Armor, Speed reduced becouse of Heavy armor, Skill's Penalized as Heavy Armor, with all that you double the swim penalty becouse it is for all purposes treated as heavy armor.
Lafarallin 06-29-07, 04:48 PM	Right out of Main 3.5 Faq on this website: Can a warforged swim? Should I double its armor check penalty when applying it to Swim checks? Although slightly denser than most other characters warforged can swim about as well as any other race. A warforged has a penalty on Swim checks, but this isn't an "armor check penalty" and thus isn't doubled for such checks. However adamantine body: Is a warforged considered to be wearing armor for the purpose of using special abilities, such as a monk's fast movement? The composite plating of a typical waforged doesn't count as armor. Certain warforged feats, such as Adamantine Body specifically state that the character is considered to be wearing armor, and thus would limit use of such abilities. So technically a warforged without admantine body does not double the penalty. However, as it clearly states, when they have adamantine body, then it would double the penalty. Not sure how the other body feats read.
Kinger 06-29-07, 05:28 PM	So technically a warforged without admantine body does not double the penalty. However, as it clearly states, when they have adamantine body, then it would double the penalty. Not sure how the other body feats read. I'm sorry, but I can't see how you draw that conclusion. In fact, it even "clearly states" 'this isn't an "armor check penalty" and thus isn't doubled for such checks.' An ordinairy warforged without a body feat doesn't have a penalty to skills in the first place, so it can only be assumed the penalty refered to is that granted by Adamantine Body or another body feat. Your second quote only refers to Adamantine Body's interaction with special abilities limited by armor. The fact that Adamantine Body counts as Heavy Armor for the purposes of class abilities is irrelevant to this discussion. Someone wearing Studded Leather Armor, with its ACP of -1, still doubles that for swimming. Skill penalties and the like are only related to the class of armour worn in that heavier armours just typically have higher ACPs. Adamantine Body is a feat. It is not armor any more than Mage Armor (the spell) or Bracers of Armor are. They are rules that each provide an Armor bonus to AC through a means OTHER than wearing armor. You can't remove an Adamantine Body as if it were armor, you can't target the armor with Rusting Grasp, etc. And if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it isn't a "ficken" duck, as has been so eloquently put, unless the rules entry for it says: "Duck." Contradiction does not disprove this statement.
Lafarallin 06-29-07, 05:33 PM	I'm sorry, but I can't see how you draw that conclusion. In fact, it even "clearly states" 'this isn't an "armor check penalty" and thus isn't doubled for such checks.' An ordinairy warforged without a body feat doesn't have a penalty to skills in the first place, so it can only be assumed the penalty refered to is that granted by Adamantine Body or another body feat. Your second quote only refers to Adamantine Body's interaction with special abilities limited by armor. The fact that Adamantine Body counts as Heavy Armor for the purposes of class abilities is irrelevant to this discussion. Someone wearing Studded Leather Armor, with its ACP of -1, still doubles that for swimming. Skill penalties and the like are only related to the class of armour worn in that heavier armours just typically have higher ACPs. Adamantine Body is a feat. It is not armor any more than Mage Armor (the spell) or Bracers of Armor are. They are rules that each provide an Armor bonus to AC through a means OTHER than wearing armor. You can't remove an Adamantine Body as if it were armor, you can't target the armor with Rusting Grasp, etc. And if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it isn't a "ficken" duck, as has been so eloquently put, unless the rules entry for it says: "Duck." Contradiction does not disprove this statement. Frankly I can't see why you disagree with what I stated. It clearly shows that normal composite plating is not considered wearing armor. However, it then clearly shows that adamantine body is for all purposes wearing heavy armor. So you treat it as if wearing heavy armor in "ALL" aspects. Why pick one aspect to not treat it like heavy armor, but for the rest treat it as such? This seems silly, a waste of time, and frankly there is no basis for such an interpretation. Basically I disagree with you, the rules clearly in my opinion show how it is intended to work, and in all reality, this is such a stupid thing to argue about. It really matters in the grand scheme of things because what? Who cares if a warforged sinks, they can't drown. Unless they are in the ocean, and fail multiple swim checks, they aren't going to pop like a grape.
keropie 06-29-07, 05:53 PM	So, let's see... we have a penalty that's applied to the same skills as an ACP would be, but it's not an ACP. Pretty specifically, it's not an ACP. But, it counts as heavy armor, which has an ACP, so let's apply one. But what ACP? Cause there isn't a specific armor on the list called 'heavy armor.' So yeah, I'm going to go with the side that votes that it isn't actually an ACP, just something similar. So no applicability to double swim/attack penalties/etc.
Darkwulf 06-29-07, 05:55 PM	Frankly I can't see why you disagree with what I stated. It clearly shows that normal composite plating is not considered wearing armor. However, it then clearly shows that adamantine body is for all purposes wearing heavy armor. So you treat it as if wearing heavy armor in "ALL" aspects. Why pick one aspect to not treat it like heavy armor, but for the rest treat it as such? This seems silly, a waste of time, and frankly there is no basis for such an interpretation. Basically I disagree with you, the rules clearly in my opinion show how it is intended to work, and in all reality, this is such a stupid thing to argue about. It really matters in the grand scheme of things because what? Who cares if a warforged sinks, they can't drown. Unless they are in the ocean, and fail multiple swim checks, they aren't going to pop like a grape. Well, if you'd like a third party to step in (and I've worked with these rules before), you could take a look at the specific wording. Swim doesn't suffer from the fact you're wearing armor, it is just worsened by an "Armor Check Penalty". Adamantine Body affects you as if you're wearing armor (so it would prohibit some class abilities, like Barbarian fast move, or Ranger TWF), but its penalties are specifically worded as to NOT be an "Armor Check Penalty". If it were an armor check penalty, it would be phrased as such, but this is a "penalty that affects skills that would be affected by an Armor Check Penalty". They were very careful in their wording, so the intent seems to be such that a Warforged is more comfortable in his body than a normal person is in armor, even IF said body is particularly unwieldy.
Lafarallin 06-29-07, 06:08 PM	EDIT: Okay I see your point. I guess when reading the feat I am guilty of reading a bit into what was intended. It appears to me that they basically were offering a feat that gave a warforged the ability to have the equivalent of adamantine full plate. Granted it is 2/adamantine instead of 2/-; however, you're getting it for a feat and not paying a dime. Basically this puts a warforged character on par armor wise to a human fighter with full plate, but much earlier then any human would be able to afford such armor. A huge benefit and pretty cool. Now when they mention it is not an armor check penalty, I view that as far as it being like skin. Meaning they don't have to worry about a proficiency with it, if not normally proficient. Because frankly not being proficient in your own skin doesn't make any sense. However, as far as all other penalities it seems fair to treat it as full plate. Hence why it seems to just seem in the spirit of things that you would sink just like a human warrior wearing full plate armor. This is my opinion, I see your point too. Guess I just feel my view makes more sense to me, and seems more balanced.
ChristopherGroves 06-29-07, 10:46 PM	And the lack of non-proficiency penalties are the nicest boon ... swimming is hardly needed for a 'forged, but still handy.
turalisj 06-29-07, 11:41 PM	BTW, if it... Walks like a duck... quacks like a duck... looks like a duck... its a ficken duck. Until it's eyes start glowing green and it's quacks cause a sonic boom. :P
Edymnion 06-30-07, 12:14 AM	Granted it is 2/adamantine instead of 2/-; however, you're getting it for a feat and not paying a dime.Just a quibble, but adm full plate grants DR 3/-, not DR 2/-. Actual adm full plate has better DR that cannot be bypassed. Now when they mention it is not an armor check penalty, I view that as far as it being like skin. Meaning they don't have to worry about a proficiency with it, if not normally proficient. Because frankly not being proficient in your own skin doesn't make any sense.Except the rules don't work that way. You either take all of the penalties at all times listed in the rules, or you don't. You don't get to have your cake and eat it too. If the feat counts as heavy armor and has an armor check penalty, than you *ALWAYS* require heavy armor proficiency from your class or another feat in order to use it properly. It doesn't matter that its your skin, because you are treating it rules-wise as armor. So, either its ACP and you take *ALL* the assotiated penalties for ACP, or it isn't, and proficiency etc is not an issue. Its purely either or, by the RAW.
The White Sorcerer 06-30-07, 01:18 AM	It says specifically as if wearing heavy armor -5 penalty on all skills that armor check penalty applies. Then it lists the skills that are effected by Armor Check Penalties. Then when you look into swim skill, double for armor check penalties, yes I understand it doesn't say specific in the skill but it is treated as if your wearing heavy armor, so armor check penalty applies WTF!?! How is everyone coming to the conclusion that "treated as wearing heavy armor" equals "armor check penalty?" Hell, I'm taking this a step further. Since composite plating doesn't count as being armor, you don't get an armor bonus from it.
Gevuri 06-30-07, 02:40 AM	Hell, I'm taking this a step further. Since composite plating doesn't count as being armor, you don't get an armor bonus from it. LMAO Well played.
yrogerg 06-30-07, 03:02 AM	Frankly I can't see why you disagree with what I stated. It clearly shows that normal composite plating is not considered wearing armor. However, it then clearly shows that adamantine body is for all purposes wearing heavy armor. So you treat it as if wearing heavy armor in "ALL" aspects. Why pick one aspect to not treat it like heavy armor, but for the rest treat it as such? This seems silly, a waste of time, and frankly there is no basis for such an interpretation. Basically I disagree with you, the rules clearly in my opinion show how it is intended to work, and in all reality, this is such a stupid thing to argue about. It really matters in the grand scheme of things because what? Who cares if a warforged sinks, they can't drown. Unless they are in the ocean, and fail multiple swim checks, they aren't going to pop like a grape. Just out of curiousity, how is "a -5 penalty to all skills that armor check penalities apply" more clear-cut, concise, and unambiguously an actual armor check penalty than something such as, say, saying "a -5 armor check penalty... however a Warforged is always considered proficient with its body feat"? The fact that they took great pains not to use the words "Armor Check" to refer to the penalty itself should make it clear that it's *not* an Armor Check Penalty. Thus, the language in the Swim skill -which applies to Armor Check Penalties and ACP alone- never activates.
Lafarallin 06-30-07, 10:45 AM	Just out of curiousity, how is "a -5 penalty to all skills that armor check penalities apply" more clear-cut, concise, and unambiguously an actual armor check penalty than something such as, say, saying "a -5 armor check penalty... however a Warforged is always considered proficient with its body feat"? The fact that they took great pains not to use the words "Armor Check" to refer to the penalty itself should make it clear that it's *not* an Armor Check Penalty. Thus, the language in the Swim skill -which applies to Armor Check Penalties and ACP alone- never activates. Well if you followed the thread a little further, you would notice that I stated quite clearly that I see his point. That being said, I disagree with it. An unarmored warforged does not float any better or any worse then an unarmored human. An adamantine body warforged is very equivalent to a human wearing full plate. I therefore feel that the penalty should be the same for swimming. If I am reading the rules wrong, which I concede I could be, I guess this will be the time as a DM (which I'm not DMing right now) that I will rule Zero and say, no you frick'n sink like a rock. Makes far more sense to me then saying well, even though you are no less dense then someone wearing steel, you float better because it is your skin. That is on par with saying that earth elementals have no penalties swimming because they are made of rock, not really wearing rock armor. :)
Kaladon7779 06-30-07, 12:12 PM	Sorry people, but it says by RAW, from the book, Feats such as Adamantine body are considered wearing heavy armor. So you... A, need the heavy armor proficiency feat to wear it without penalties. B, have a skill check penalty treated just as if you were wearing heavy armor. you can see it this way A Naked Human Floats and Sinks the Same as a Naked Warforged Now with that in mind Why the hell would a Human with Full plate sink faster then a Warforged with Adamantine Body. They are both the same. Infact Adamantine is heavier then Steel. I don't see why you all are argueing this, we have posted RAW. I'm sorry but its doubled, that is a downfall of wearing Heavy armor which it clearly states in the feat and the body discription that it is for all purposes treated as wearing heavy armor.
The White Sorcerer 06-30-07, 12:45 PM	Sorry people, but it says by RAW, from the book, Feats such as Adamantine body are considered wearing heavy armor. However, RAW doesn't say they get an armor check penalty. I repeat: Please quote the passage that says Adamantine Body, or any body feat for that matter, gives an armor check penalty.
Ozymandias V. 06-30-07, 02:53 PM	IT. IS. NOT. A. F#$%ING. ARMOR. CHECK. PENALTY. IT. IS. A. SKILL. PENALTY. ARMOR. CHECK. PENALTIES. TO. SWIM. ARE. DOUBLED. Arcane and divine are not the same just because they're both spellcasting. Armor check penalty and skill penalty are not the same just because they are both penalties to skills. "Treated like heavy armor" means you lose class feature that don't work in heavy armor, you move slower, etc. It does NOT mean that a SKILL PENALTY magically becomes an ARMOR CHECK PENALTY.
The White Sorcerer 06-30-07, 03:43 PM	Hey, I know, we should start doubling every penalty to Swim if the swimmer is wearing armor. Circumstance penalties, Strength penalties, everything, since those penalties become armor check penalties when you're wearing armor! Brilliant!
Lafarallin 06-30-07, 04:03 PM	Hey, I know, we should start doubling every penalty to Swim if the swimmer is wearing armor. Circumstance penalties, Strength penalties, everything, since those penalties become armor check penalties when you're wearing armor! Brilliant! Well sarcasim aside, the reality of someone in full plate armor, or an adamantine body warforged swimming at all is absurd. It is hard enough to swim with winter clothes on, let alone a suit of armor.
Kinger 06-30-07, 04:34 PM	Of course it's absurd. That's what makes it entertaining to envision. :) Level 14 Wizard: "Oh gods, I'm drowning!" Level 14 Fighter in Full Plate: "Me? Not so much. Sucker."
Cifer 06-30-07, 04:44 PM	Well sarcasim aside, the reality of someone in full plate armor, or an adamantine body warforged swimming at all is absurd. It is hard enough to swim with winter clothes on, let alone a suit of armor. As absurd as a monk leaping pretty absurd distances? Not everything that is supernatural by our standards is considered supernatural in D&D. @Kaladon "Is considered to be wearing heavy armor" simply means that barbarians can't use fast movement and monks can't do pretty much anything at all. Otherwise please show me where the stats of this nondescript suit of heavy armor are listed - I can't find them. I see only a feat that hands out an AC bonus, a maximum dex, a skill check penalty, an arcane spell failure and a restriction to class features restricted by heavy armor. They almost took pains not to say "This feat makes the WF have a suit of armor with the following stats:".
Kaladon7779 06-30-07, 04:45 PM	Wow since none of you really care to accept that Laf and I are correct about this, AND i'm get sick of White Sorcerer Sarcasim I"m pulling the big guns. Here Everybody read this. Straight from the Book...Like Laf and I have been posting by RAW Feat Mithral Fluidity [Warforged] Your movements are smootheer and more fluid then those of other warforged. Prerequisites: Warforged, Mithral Body. Benefits: The maximum Dexterity bonus a warforged with Mithral Body feat can apply to Armor Class is increased by 1. In addition. the Armor Check Penalties to Balance, Climb, Escape Artist, Hide, Jump, Move Silently, Sleight of Hand, and Tumble checks are reduced by 1. Special: This feat can be taken multiple times. However, armor check penalties cannot be reduced to less then +0. It says right out of the book, Armor Check Penalties. Note, Mithril Body reads exactly identical to Adamantine Body
Lafarallin 06-30-07, 04:54 PM	As absurd as a monk leaping pretty absurd distances? Not everything that is supernatural by our standards is considered supernatural in D&D. Well it is a fantasy world; however, it is based on some reality and such. Otherwise you can just have rabbits flying around with vorpal fangs, and Mighty Mouse lifting up Castle Ravenloft and flying away. Yes it is fantasy, but making physics (not including magic) work like reality, makes the game seem real and hence not so silly.
turalisj 06-30-07, 05:26 PM	Wow since none of you really care to accept that Laf and I are correct about this, AND i'm get sick of White Sorcerer Sarcasim I"m pulling the big guns. Here Everybody read this. Straight from the Book...Like Laf and I have been posting by RAW Feat Mithral Fluidity [Warforged] Your movements are smoother and more fluid then those of other warforged. Prerequisites: Warforged, Mithral Body. Benefits: The maximum Dexterity bonus a warforged with Mithral Body feat can apply to Armor Class is increased by 1. In addition. the Armor Check Penalties to Balance, Climb, Escape Artist, Hide, Jump, Move Silently, Sleight of Hand, and Tumble checks are reduced by 1. Special: This feat can be taken multiple times. However, armor check penalties cannot be reduced to less then +0. It says right out of the book, Armor Check Penalties. Note, Mithril Body reads exactly identical to Adamantine Body Except you have mithril fluidity posted.
stone_dog 06-30-07, 05:49 PM	Wow since none of you really care to accept that Laf and I are correct about this, That is because you are objectively wrong according to all sources but your imagination. Enjoy your houseruling, but don't pretend it is anything else.
Lafarallin 06-30-07, 05:51 PM	Mithral Body states: ...you are considered to be wearing light armor. You now have a +5 maximum Dexterity bonus to AC, a -2 penalty on all skill checks that armor check penalties apply to.. Adamantine Body states: ...you are considered to be wearing heavy armor. You have a +1 maximum Dexterity bonus to AC, a -5 penalty on all skill checks that armor check penalities apply to... Mithral Fluidty states: The maximum Dexterity bonus a warforged with Mithral Body feat can apply to Armor Class is increased by 1. In addition, the armor check penalties to Balance, Climb, Escape Artist, Hide, Jump, Move Silently, Sleight of Hand, and Tumble checks are reduced by 1. So, the penalties you receive for mithral body are armor check penalties. Since mithral body and adamantine body are worded almost identically the same, it makes prefect sense to come to the conclusion that it is no different for adamantine body. They are the same feats essentially, one is heavy armor, the other light armor. Mithral Fluidity clearly states it is an armor check penalty. That is not a house rule, that is RAW. If it is an armor check penalty for mithral body, it is an armor check penalty for adamantine body.
DarkPawn 06-30-07, 07:05 PM	Mithral Body states: ...you are considered to be wearing light armor. You now have a +5 maximum Dexterity bonus to AC, a -2 penalty on all skill checks that armor check penalties apply to.. Adamantine Body states: ...you are considered to be wearing heavy armor. You have a +1 maximum Dexterity bonus to AC, a -5 penalty on all skill checks that armor check penalities apply to... Mithral Fluidty states: The maximum Dexterity bonus a warforged with Mithral Body feat can apply to Armor Class is increased by 1. In addition, the armor check penalties to Balance, Climb, Escape Artist, Hide, Jump, Move Silently, Sleight of Hand, and Tumble checks are reduced by 1. So, the penalties you receive for mithral body are armor check penalties. Since mithral body and adamantine body are worded almost identically the same, it makes prefect sense to come to the conclusion that it is no different for adamantine body. They are the same feats essentially, one is heavy armor, the other light armor. Mithral Fluidity clearly states it is an armor check penalty. That is not a house rule, that is RAW. If it is an armor check penalty for mithral body, it is an armor check penalty for adamantine body. Hahaha they are right. The peanut gallery is suddenly silenced! :rofl: :rofl:
yrogerg 06-30-07, 07:40 PM	Mithral Fluidty states[/B]: The maximum Dexterity bonus a warforged with Mithral Body feat can apply to Armor Class is increased by 1. In addition, the armor check penalties to Balance, Climb, Escape Artist, Hide, Jump, Move Silently, Sleight of Hand, and Tumble checks are reduced by 1. So, the penalties you receive for mithral body are armor check penalties. Only Mithril Body can tell you what type the skill penalties conferred by Mithril Body are. It leaves them untyped and pointedly refuses to use the term "armor check" in reference to the penalties. The fact that a supplemental feat (albeit from the ECS as well) refers erroneously to Armor Check penalties is a problem with Mithril Fluidity, not a clarification of Mithril Body. NTM that if you *do* decide to read AB and MB as providing *all* of the penalties of heavy and medium armor, respectively, that means you *do* need to assign those skill penalties to all movement-based skills (including Ride) and to attack rolls, as well. In which case, good for you. Don't let the fact that even the FAQ and the various setting designers who post here regularly disagree with you stop you.
Lafarallin 06-30-07, 08:08 PM	Only Mithril Body can tell you what type the skill penalties conferred by Mithril Body are. It leaves them untyped and pointedly refuses to use the term "armor check" in reference to the penalties. The fact that a supplemental feat (albeit from the ECS as well) refers erroneously to Armor Check penalties is a problem with Mithril Fluidity, not a clarification of Mithril Body. NTM that if you *do* decide to read AB and MB as providing *all* of the penalties of heavy and medium armor, respectively, that means you *do* need to assign those skill penalties to all movement-based skills (including Ride) and to attack rolls, as well. In which case, good for you. Don't let the fact that even the FAQ and the various setting designers who post here regularly disagree with you stop you. I think it is pretty clear from the synergy between Mithral Fluidity and Mithral Body, that it is an armor check penalty. Mithral Fluidity specifically states that you reduce the armor check penalty caused by mithral body. Mithral Body and Adamantine Body are for all purposes the same type of feat. Exactly, they almost read word for word identical. You can choose to not read something because you don't like it, but it doesn't change the fact that it is there. You're wrong, we've shown you something in the book that shows you're wrong, and now it is time to accept that and move on.
Kinger 06-30-07, 08:38 PM	I have to say I've seen that argument before and still don't buy it. Going by the source material (as in, the feat Adamantine Body), it does not say there's an ACP. Similarly, Mithral Body doesn't say there's an ACP. Mithral Fluidity says it lowers the ACP of Mithral Body. It's a secondary source of information whose contents, I think, take lesser priority than the original's (ie: Mithral Body) and whose wording is an oversight on the part of the writer/editor/whoever. I dismiss this as a mistake. Bawk at that as you will, but mistakes HAVE been made in the ECS (ie: Infusions never give a save?!?), and I choose to believe the single referance to an ACP in Mithral Fluidity to be the mistake, not the wording of both Adamantine and Mithral Body. That it was not yet changed in errata simply indicates the editors have not yet seen it to be an issue, like an unsaveable Blade Barrier might be. You may disagree, and it is quite reasonable to do so. Now, having said ALL that, I retire from this discussion. I've given all my arguments, and I expect you've given all yours, so there's probably nothing more to be had here than a delightful series of contradictions that could be boiled down to "Nuh-uh!" "Yuh-huh!" "Nuh-uh!" "Yuh-huh!" etc.
ZappoHisbane 06-30-07, 09:07 PM	Why not treat ACP the same way Natural Armor is? Since Mithral Body doesn't have an ACP, the ACP is 0? Mithral Fluidity reduces the ACP by 1, making it a net +1 to the affected skills. Of course the only flaw in this interpretation is that Mithral Fluidity would give you a +2 to your Swim checks. :)
Lafarallin 06-30-07, 09:15 PM	I have to say I've seen that argument before and still don't buy it. Going by the source material (as in, the feat Adamantine Body), it does not say there's an ACP. Similarly, Mithral Body doesn't say there's an ACP. Mithral Fluidity says it lowers the ACP of Mithral Body. It's a secondary source of information whose contents, I think, take lesser priority than the original's (ie: Mithral Body) and whose wording is an oversight on the part of the writer/editor/whoever. I dismiss this as a mistake. Bawk at that as you will, but mistakes HAVE been made in the ECS (ie: Infusions never give a save?!?), and I choose to believe the single referance to an ACP in Mithral Fluidity to be the mistake, not the wording of both Adamantine and Mithral Body. That it was not yet changed in errata simply indicates the editors have not yet seen it to be an issue, like an unsaveable Blade Barrier might be. You may disagree, and it is quite reasonable to do so. Now, having said ALL that, I retire from this discussion. I've given all my arguments, and I expect you've given all yours, so there's probably nothing more to be had here than a delightful series of contradictions that could be boiled down to "Nuh-uh!" "Yuh-huh!" "Nuh-uh!" "Yuh-huh!" etc. So it is a mistake so you aren't going to believe it because you don't want to. Um...okay. I should just do this every time I debate a rule with someone. Haha, whatever man. They are in the same book, it clearly states how it works. If it wasn't an ACP then they wouldn't have said it reduces the ACP. Some of you people are biggest babies when it comes to being wrong. I have yet to see any of you admit when you make a mistake. ...this is just silly now. Both feats say they act as if wearing "heavy" or "light" armor. Both heavy and light armor have ACP. They could have assumed you would put two and two together. Do they have to spell everything out exactly for you?
Ozymandias V. 06-30-07, 09:36 PM	Damn straight they do. The only ONLY reason they would just say 'penalty on skills to which armor check penalties would apply' instead of 'armor check penalty' on every single body feat except Mithral Fluidity is if IT WERE NOT AN ARMOR CHECK PENALTY and Mithral Fluidity is in fact in error. Also, (overkill emphasis mine): Although slightly denser than most other characters, warforged can swim about as well as any other race. A warforged has a PENALTY on Swim checks, but this ISN'T AN "ARMOR CHECK PENALTY" and thus ISN'T DOUBLED for such checks. I hear salt makes crow taste better.
decembersfrost 06-30-07, 09:53 PM	Amen, Ozy!
ChristopherGroves 06-30-07, 10:12 PM	Seriously - didn't someone post the FAQ and Errata text like last page? It isn't an ACP. It is specifically addressed in the FAQ and Errata. Specifically. With examples. It isn't an ACP.
Lafarallin 06-30-07, 10:42 PM	So mithral fluidity doesn't reduce your penalties for swim or run at all then? Checking errata, nothing in the eberron campaign setting (errata) says anything contrary. So then you're going to point to the faq. This from some of the same people that state the Faq is often wrong...when you don't like the ruling, but point to it as right when you do?
ChristopherGroves 06-30-07, 11:08 PM	Er....what? Got a basis for that? And just so I'm clear, your counter-arguement is not about the rules as clearly written and published but rather a personally-directed one? Really? That's where you stand on this?
Edymnion 06-30-07, 11:19 PM	That is not a house rule, that is RAW. If it is an armor check penalty for mithral body, it is an armor check penalty for adamantine body.No, if anything you've just pointed out that Mithril Fluidity is a pointless feat as it reduces a non-existant penalty. It doesn't change the fact that the body feats don't have ACP.
ChristopherGroves 07-01-07, 12:10 AM	Are you still ignoring the FAQ? Do you need another link to it? Is your position that it is wrong? (Regardless of whether or not it conflicts with what you think the book's intent is - which you don't know - it is the written rule provided by the developers) Okay Mr. Baker, if you say so. ... look, you're obviously not going to be convinced on this one. No need to snipe. Keith Baker is the creator of the setting, but he's not the developer of all of the rules. He can talk to what his intent would be (and often does) but the rules are as the rules are written in the rulebooks, FAQs, errata. Those were designed and developed by a team of people (often different for each book).
DarkPawn 07-01-07, 12:18 AM	In all fairness there are many times when people find conflicts between the published material, errata, and the faqs. I think most realize that in order of importance you would go with errata first, then it is really a toss up between published material and the faqs. A developer commenting on a rule written by someone else is always subject to error.
ChristopherGroves 07-01-07, 12:34 AM	They better find conflicts between the original material and FAQs, errata - they exist to modify the original material (similar to the rules that the lastest printing of a feat, ability, whatever is the now-correct version ... check out the spells that worked one way in Complete Whatever and were updated in the Spell Compendium).
DarkPawn 07-01-07, 12:42 AM	They better find conflicts between the original material and FAQs, errata - they exist to modify the original material (similar to the rules that the lastest printing of a feat, ability, whatever is the now-correct version ... check out the spells that worked one way in Complete Whatever and were updated in the Spell Compendium). Well this guy is obviously pretty fired up about this. Maybe he was an author and got fired because he kept messing with the other author's rules. ;)
The White Sorcerer 07-01-07, 12:54 AM	It DOES not, anywhere in the feat say it does not have an armor check penalty. Nor does it say that it does have one. Thus, it doesn't.
Ozymandias V. 07-01-07, 08:46 AM	Okay, everyone? He's either trolling or just stupid. I don't think discussing it further with him is going to change anything. He's ignoring logic, majority rules opinions, and the rules themselves.
Edymnion 07-01-07, 02:53 PM	They better find conflicts between the original material and FAQs, errata - they exist to modify the original material (similar to the rules that the lastest printing of a feat, ability, whatever is the now-correct version ... check out the spells that worked one way in Complete Whatever and were updated in the Spell Compendium).Correction, you had better find contradictions between the original material and the errata. You should *NEVER* find contradictions between the FAQ and the original material/errata. If you do find a contradiction, the FAQ is *WRONG*. The FAQ is not allowed to change any rule, period. It can only explain how the current rules work. If it ever conflicts, its low man on the totem pole as far as order of priority. The original printed book trumps it, and the errata trumps the printed book. About the only thing the FAQ trumps is random posters on the boards, and half the time the random poster on the board has a better answer than it does.
ChristopherGroves 07-01-07, 02:59 PM	Yar, I was more speaking from the interpretive differences in the books vs FAQ. If it is implied in the books it can be explained in detail in the FAQ - and that may differ from someone's opinion on the content of the original source.
Edymnion 07-01-07, 03:03 PM	Yar, I was more speaking from the interpretive differences in the books vs FAQ. If it is implied in the books it can be explained in detail in the FAQ - and that may differ from someone's opinion on the content of the original source.Yeah, but the FAQ goes off on it's own little tangents that have nothing to do with the RAW, and outright changes it at a whim at times. Honestly, pull out your DMG and read the entry on how mithril effects armor, then read the FAQ entry on mithril armor. The DMG goes miles out of its way to avoid saying ot affects proficiency, but the FAQ just basically goes "Okay, since most of you can't figure out what the DMG actually says, just do it this way instead". I mean, it flat out tells you "This isn't what the DMG says, but..." FAQ isn't allowed to do that.
yrogerg 07-01-07, 07:44 PM	It's worth pointing out that by your interperetation, this: Right out of Main 3.5 Faq on this website: Can a warforged swim? Should I double its armor check penalty when applying it to Swim checks? Although slightly denser than most other characters warforged can swim about as well as any other race. A warforged has a penalty on Swim checks, but this isn't an "armor check penalty" and thus isn't doubled for such checks. is a nonsense question that doesn't bear answering. Warforged without a Body feat *have* no penalties to Swim: Armor Check, Racial, or otherwise. This question -and answer- is only relevant with regards to the Body Feats. In the future, you should avoid quoting parts of the FAQ that directly contradict your arguments in a really big, obvious way.
DarkPawn 07-01-07, 10:16 PM	Yeah, but the FAQ goes off on it's own little tangents that have nothing to do with the RAW, and outright changes it at a whim at times. Honestly, pull out your DMG and read the entry on how mithril effects armor, then read the FAQ entry on mithril armor. The DMG goes miles out of its way to avoid saying ot affects proficiency, but the FAQ just basically goes "Okay, since most of you can't figure out what the DMG actually says, just do it this way instead". I mean, it flat out tells you "This isn't what the DMG says, but..." FAQ isn't allowed to do that. Okay I read the mithral fluidity he was talking about and it does indeed refer to the penalty incurred by mithral body as an armor check penalty. So if we ignore the FAQ, would that mean that indeed mithral body and adamantine body incur armor check penalties?
GrimAlchemist 07-02-07, 02:25 AM	Ugh... Though pretty much anything I say would be reiterating what several people have already said (multiple times) in this thread, sometimes I can't help myself. I see the points given by both sides, but if I were DM'ing and had to make a ruling one way or the other for this situation, I would favor not doubling it for swim checks. The body feats as written go to a pretty great length to say that it is not an armor check penalty. It is an unnamed penalty to skills that armor check penalties apply to. The fact that it says armor check penalty in the Mithral Fluidity description is likely a mere oversight by the authors, though a contradictory one to the descriptions of both body feats. Since the source material contradicts itself, however, it becomes the DM's decision at this point, who should weigh both sides of the discrepancy carefully (until an errata clarifies one way or the other... and even then the DM could make it a house rule, if he wanted). My reasoning is that both body feats claim it is an unnamed penalty, not an armor check penalty, and if forced to decide, I would go with the description in the original feat, not a supplemental one. Also, the FAQ (while not canon and easily ignored) DOES favor the non-armor check penalty side. Considering Mithral Fluidity, if you were determined to play the game with RAW, then the changes to armor check penalties would simply have no effect on the warforged, since there is no armor check penalty. But, since you're basically creating a house rule anyway, you could just rule that it's a bonus on the penalty given by the body feat (but to word that properly would be a nightmare, so I think I see why the author(s) decided to say ACP in the description and leave it at that). If you'd like to look at the reasoning from a non-rules standpoint, consider this: A warforged with an adamantine body, and a human wearing full plate armor, would have about the same weight added from the armored layer, recieve nearly the same protection, penalties, and spell failures, because the armor is simairly heavy and unwieldy. But, for a warforged, it is also basically his skin. Therefore, he's proficient in it. When it comes to swimming, I could see why the human in armor gets a greater penalty to swim than the warforged: a warforged's armor is fused to his body, a human's isn't. When that human with full plate falls into a river, his armor starts to fill with water that weights him down even further. THAT makes for some nasty difficulties moving, which is a problem the warforged doesn't experience, since there are no empty spaces between the armor skin and his body.
ArcTan 07-03-07, 02:36 AM	I think it is pretty clear from the synergy between Mithral Fluidity and Mithral Body, that it is an armor check penalty. Mithral Fluidity specifically states that you reduce the armor check penalty caused by mithral body. Mithral Body and Adamantine Body are for all purposes the same type of feat. Exactly, they almost read word for word identical. You can choose to not read something because you don't like it, but it doesn't change the fact that it is there. You're wrong, we've shown you something in the book that shows you're wrong, and now it is time to accept that and move on. Wrong in what? In the abstract imaginary RAW-land? The designers who *worked on the book* said that they never intended the minuses to be an ACP. It would've been very easy to say it was an ACP in the feat in the first place if that were the intention. So easy that it'd also be easy to make the mistake and call it an ACP in another feat, in a typo that was never fixed. Look, it looks a lot like a typo from where I'm standing. The book can, in fact, be wrong. It's not a holy writ. It's pretty obvious this was not the intended rule.
Hellcow 07-03-07, 05:06 AM	I'm one of the designers who worked on the book. And critically, I have discussed this issue specifically with Bill Slaviscek (director of D&D R&D) and James Wyatt, the other two authors of the book. The official conclusion is: The penalties applied by warforged body feats are NOT actually armor check penalties. They are unnamed penalties to the same skills normally affected by armor check penalties. Yes, Adamantine Body means you're considered to be wearing armor. But you could have heavy armor with no armor check penalty - which is, in this case, what you're dealing with. The "treated as armor" clause specifically affects class abilities (fast movement, monk abilities) and movement. The unnamed penalty is an unnamed penalty - NOT an armor check penalty. So: a warforged does not need armor proficiency to be proficient with his own body. He suffers many of the same effects as a character wearing armor with a -5 armor check penalty. But he does not have an armor check penalty - just a negative to the same skills. And yes, the "no doubling of the swim penalty" mentioned in the FAQ applies to all warforged, whether they have a feat that is "considered to be wearing armor" or not. Again, "wearing armor" does not mean armor check penalty: it limits any skill affected by wearing armor and it can reduce movement. As someone who has personally played a warforged artificer with an adamantine body, trust me - I made sure this was official with WotC and not just my personal opinion.
DarkPawn 07-03-07, 11:26 AM	I'm one of the designers who worked on the book. And critically, I have discussed this issue specifically with Bill Slaviscek (director of D&D R&D) and James Wyatt, the other two authors of the book. The official conclusion is: The penalties applied by warforged body feats are NOT actually armor check penalties. They are unnamed penalties to the same skills normally affected by armor check penalties. Yes, Adamantine Body means you're considered to be wearing armor. But you could have heavy armor with no armor check penalty - which is, in this case, what you're dealing with. The "treated as armor" clause specifically affects class abilities (fast movement, monk abilities) and movement. The unnamed penalty is an unnamed penalty - NOT an armor check penalty. So: a warforged does not need armor proficiency to be proficient with his own body. He suffers many of the same effects as a character wearing armor with a -5 armor check penalty. But he does not have an armor check penalty - just a negative to the same skills. And yes, the "no doubling of the swim penalty" mentioned in the FAQ applies to all warforged, whether they have a feat that is "considered to be wearing armor" or not. Again, "wearing armor" does not mean armor check penalty: it limits any skill affected by wearing armor and it can reduce movement. As someone who has personally played a warforged artificer with an adamantine body, trust me - I made sure this was official with WotC and not just my personal opinion. Well that basically ends the debate. Thanks HellCow!
The White Sorcerer 07-03-07, 11:47 AM	Well that basically ends the debate. Thanks HellCow! Don't count on it. I wouldn't be surprised to see someone claim that the designers are wrong and can't even understand rules they designed themselves.
Edymnion 07-03-07, 01:31 PM	Okay I read the mithral fluidity he was talking about and it does indeed refer to the penalty incurred by mithral body as an armor check penalty. So if we ignore the FAQ, would that mean that indeed mithral body and adamantine body incur armor check penalties?http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12920879&postcount=71
Ozymandias V. 07-03-07, 09:09 PM	Also http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12944250&postcount=85
DarkPawn 07-03-07, 09:23 PM	http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12920879&postcount=71 Also http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12944250&postcount=85 Well I'm not sure what the point of your posts were after HellCow answered the debate beyond a reasonable doubt, but thanks I guess. Especially for Ozymandias pointing to the HellCow's specific post, which was three posts above what he linked to. :confused:
Edymnion 07-03-07, 10:14 PM	Well I'm not sure what the point of your posts wereMy point was that the question had already been answered a half dozen posts before you asked it.
DarkPawn 07-03-07, 10:54 PM	My point was that the question had already been answered a half dozen posts before you asked it. Yeah answered by pointing to a FAQ, which you even implied was hardly a solid source of accurate information. The point was why are you making a secondary statement after HellCow clearly answered the question? Just to rub it in the noses of those two guys, Lafarallin and Kaladon, or myself in particular?
Edymnion 07-03-07, 11:19 PM	Yeah answered by pointing to a FAQNo, I did not point to the FAQ. I pointed (and linked to) my post that said "If anything, it means Mithril Fluidity is a worthless feat because it lowers a non-existant penalty". I thought linking to the post was slightly more polite than saying "We already covered that not a half dozen posts ago, its still on this same page. Look up a half dozen posts."The point was why are you making a secondary statement after HellCow clearly answered the question?Because thats when I saw it, I hit Multi-Quote, and proceeded to read the rest of the thread, hit Reply, and then answered the question that was in the multi-quote?
DarkPawn 07-03-07, 11:24 PM	No, I did not point to the FAQ. I pointed (and linked to) my post that said "If anything, it means Mithril Fluidity is a worthless feat because it lowers a non-existant penalty". I thought linking to the post was slightly more polite than saying "We already covered that not a half dozen posts ago, its still on this same page. Look up a half dozen posts."Because thats when I saw it, I hit Multi-Quote, and proceeded to read the rest of the thread, hit Reply, and then answered the question that was in the multi-quote? You sir, are quite rude and must have a been spanked excessively as a child. :mad:
Cutlass 07-04-07, 12:47 AM	I have a sneaking feeling that Edymnion isn't happy unless he has something/someone to rail against or rag on :) Snide comments aside, I only check out the boards here infrequently. Edymnion by contrast seems to just about live here. :) Even though I don't come here that often I can find myself getting mildly annoyed by a long thread on a topic that has already been done to death at least a dozen or so times that I know of. Especially when the same arguments end up getting repeated over and over again by people new to the boards who don't seem to have taken the time to have really gone over the source material that well. (Though I will grant that some of it can be confusing.) I can only imagine what it must be like for Edymnion to have to consistently keep staking vampires as it were on an unceasing basis. So, let's just have everybody cut everybody else some slack, realize that it's just a game and get on with life. :D
turalisj 07-04-07, 01:01 AM	I have a sneaking feeling that Edymnion isn't happy unless he has something/someone to rail against or rag on :) Try running a game with him as a player. Complete Hell. :rolleyes:
Ozymandias V. 07-04-07, 10:52 AM	This thread really should've ended with Keith Baker's post. Words from Keith + WotC are about as final as it gets.
yrogerg 07-04-07, 12:34 PM	No, I did not point to the FAQ. I pointed (and linked to) my post that said "If anything, it means Mithril Fluidity is a worthless feat because it lowers a non-existant penalty". I thought linking to the post was slightly more polite than saying "We already covered that not a half dozen posts ago, its still on this same page And not just by you; Myself and Kinger both made the same point earlier.
Edymnion 07-04-07, 12:42 PM	Try running a game with him as a player. Complete Hell. :rolleyes:Funny, to my knowledge I've never gamed with you in my life, so I don't think you're really qualified to make that statement.I have a sneaking feeling that Edymnion isn't happy unless he has something/someone to rail against or rag on :) And I have a sneaking suspicion that everybody likes to ignore all the times I praise things as being incredible, and just focus on when I say something sucks. Because, honestly, I do them at about equal levels. Its just that nobody pays attention until I, gasp, say something bad about something they like. The fact I praised everything else they liked doesn't matter, all they remember is the one spot where I said something sucked.
Cifer 07-04-07, 04:49 PM	@Edy Well, your rants are more impressive than your praises...
Kaladon7779 07-04-07, 05:57 PM	Just to rub it in the noses of those two guys, Lafarallin and Kaladon, or myself in particular? I take Edymnion word over most posts on this board becouse simply he's right most of the time. Atleast he can post faq, most of you just say something stupid like "Read the book" or "Becouse thats just how it works" Edymnion brings up a very good point, if Mithril Fluidity lowers Armor Check Penalties, and Mithral Body doesn't have an Armor check penalty then its either A. a Mistype, or B. A worthless feat. Even though there in the same book, written by the same writters. Well for those that like to toss out sarcasm it took a writter of the campaign world to explained it to Laf and I becouse simply none of you could explain it by RAW to us, And even he commented about that when he played his Warforged like he stated. So "hence" he even questioned it himself becouse he didn't even know himself. I guarantee you were not the only ones that questioned that.
Edymnion 07-04-07, 07:27 PM	@Edy Well, your rants are more impressive than your praises...Heh, rants are more fun. :D
Cutlass 07-04-07, 08:31 PM	Heh, rants are more fun. :D The prosecution rests ;)
turalisj 07-04-07, 08:55 PM	Funny, to my knowledge I've never gamed with you in my life, so I don't think you're really qualified to make that statement. It was on Rpol.net, the one where you wanted to playtest your monster-catcher class....
Edymnion 07-04-07, 08:59 PM	It was on Rpol.net, the one where you wanted to playtest your monster-catcher class....Ah yes, if memory serves you dropped off the face of the earth before we even got done with the first fight.
turalisj 07-04-07, 09:13 PM	It was after the first fight.... You know, I think I'm just not going to even start... I'd rather not bring back the painful memories... >.>'
Edymnion 07-04-07, 09:32 PM	Alright, well I'm totally confused now.
turalisj 07-04-07, 09:40 PM	I try. :P
The White Sorcerer 07-05-07, 04:30 AM	And even he commented about that when he played his Warforged like he stated. :confused: The above sentence just doesn't make any sense to me. Also, we have been able to explain it by RAW, you have just been unable the accept the explanation.
Kaladon7779 07-05-07, 08:03 AM	What that means White Sorcerer is that Keith Baker himself had to go to a couple of the writters of the book. That even he didn't know himself. And i'm sorry White Sorcerer but your answers where in short... Please re-read it. "Well that tells me a whole lot" No where in there does it say it has an ACP. "Well no where in there does it say that treat it as its not". Just becouse it doesn't say it doesn't mean you should double the swim penalty. "well if its an ACP then it doesn't need to say it now does it, you should just know by raw that's the penalty for swim". Seriously, please quote the part that says Adamantine Body gives an ACP. "Seriously, please quote the part that says that it isn't an ACP". Should I go on? I mean Seriously, Laf and I posted Faq from books actual RAW material to prove you and others that we were right and in the end it turns out that the material that we posted was incorrectly written. And I know your going to respond back by saying "Well what material is incorrectly written?" So here i'll save you the time. Mithril Fluidity. And finally I'm done with this conversation, I got what I needed to hear, which took a designer of the world who has to ask the writters of the book to findout himself about it.
yrogerg 07-05-07, 08:39 AM	No where in there does it say it has an ACP. "Well no where in there does it say that treat it as its not". [...] Seriously, please quote the part that says Adamantine Body gives an ACP. "Seriously, please quote the part that says that it isn't an ACP". But that's the point. That's not a valid counter-argument when discussing the RAW. It doesn't fall to RAW to carefully delineate each and everything something isn't. We are expected to understand that if it's not stated that something is something else, then it's not intended to be. We're expected to understand that these omissions are deliberate, not incidental. As has been noted, it would have saved a great deal of verbiage if the body feats were intended to have an actual ACP. Should I go on? I mean Seriously, Laf and I posted Faq from books actual RAW material to prove you and others that we were right and in the end it turns out that the material that we posted was incorrectly written. The FAQ were actually accurate in this case. You just misquoted it. I pointed that out a dozen or so posts up. (Is that better than providing a link?) And I know your going to respond back by saying "Well what material is incorrectly written?" So here i'll save you the time. Mithril Fluidity. Yes, but this was a lousy argument to make: If Feat B says that Feat A does something that Feat A doesn't say it does, then chances are Feat B was written in error, not that it's modifying Feat A to add additional penalties or bonuses to the base feat on its own. After all, it's easy enough to houserule-out Mythril Fluidity; does that mean suddenly the Body Feats wouldn't be an ACP any more? That makes no sense. There's actually an similar problem within Complete Psionic, as there's no such Thri-Kreen racial ability as Psionic Displacement, but the fact that there's a feat granting a bonus to said fictitious racial ability does *not* mean that suddenly Thri-Kreen have said ability. The one key difference is that in the latter case, later material does technically have precedence, but in the former, both feats are present in the ECS, so it's even easier to ignore Mithril Fluidity's problem.
Kaladon7779 07-05-07, 11:59 AM	Yes, but this was a argument to make: If Feat B says that Feat A does something that Feat A doesn't say it does, then chances are Feat B was written in error, not that it's modifying Feat A to add additional penalties or bonuses to the base feat on its own. After all, it's easy enough to houserule-out Mythril Fluidity; does that mean suddenly the Body Feats wouldn't be an ACP any more? That makes no sense. OMG why am I not suprised that avatar Mugman is responding back with arguements. First off what if Mr Baker has responded back by saying yes it is an ACP for Feat A, then Feat B would be completely valid. Your arguement is moot simply becouse you didn't know which feat was correct until Mr Baker corrected it. Its so easy to just sit back and say "Yeup I was right along, see I know what i'm doing kaladon". When in reality, when we posted our thing on Mithril Fluidity, for awhile everybody got really quiet becouse now people are like Hmmm, wow it really does say it lowers the armor check penalty, so, maybe, just maybe, Kaladon and Laf are correct. But I mean you know Mithril Fluidity was an incorrectly written all along right. I mean everybody should have known that accept Laf and I were just really stupid people that questioned one rule that contradicted another, shame on us. Like somebody said much earlier; we really need to read it. Yeah, shame on us to question poorly written material.
The White Sorcerer 07-05-07, 12:12 PM	What that means White Sorcerer is that Keith Baker himself had to go to a couple of the writters of the book. That even he didn't know himself. Eh. He only needed to ask one of the Official Guys to make sure his answer was indeed the official answer, and not just the correct one. Seriously, quote the part that says warforged don't have bunny ears. They propably get a +4 to Str and Dex, at least I've never seen anything to contradict that.
Lafarallin 07-05-07, 02:11 PM	Eh. He only needed to ask one of the Official Guys to make sure his answer was indeed the official answer, and not just the correct one. Seriously, quote the part that says warforged don't have bunny ears. They propably get a +4 to Str and Dex, at least I've never seen anything to contradict that. Thanks for your 2 cents.
Hellcow 07-05-07, 02:33 PM	What that means White Sorcerer is that Keith Baker himself had to go to a couple of the writters of the book. That even he didn't know himself. Nope. What it means is, as TWS has said, that as I am a freelancer I couldn't be certain that my opinion was in fact the official stance of WotC. There was never any question in my mind that a warforged should never suffer a proficiency penalty for its own body. However, I couldn't be certain that WotC agreed with me, and as in this case I was playing in an RPGA campaign, I wanted to be certain that my opinion was official, and not simply how I'd always interpreted the rules. Thus, I contacted Bill and James - and I'll point out that it was James who actually designed the mechanics of the warforged, and that he specifically called out the fact that it is a penalty to the same skills as an ACP, but not actually an ACP. So: Mithral Fluidity is the mistake. Straight from the mouth of the designer: warforged body feats may apply penalties to the same skills, but they do not give you an armor check penalty. Seriously. You've now heard it from both the creator of the warforged and the designer of the warforged feats. If that doesn't clear it up, I'm not sure what will. It's not an armor check penalty. With that said, excellent catch on Mithral Fluidity. That clearly IS a mistake. Personally - and this is my OPINION, nothing more - I would allow effects that let you reduce or ignore armor check penalties to apply to warforged body feats. The key point here is that the warforged is not required to be proficient with its body type - that because it is considered to be wearing armor for purposes of class features, it doesn't suffer any additional penalties if it isn't proficient with the armor in question. Essentially, warforged are always considered to be proficient with their bodies. Frankly, if I'd written it, I probably would have left it as a normal ACP and simply stated in the warforged racial description "Many warforged feats simulate wearing armor. Regardless of class or feats, a warforged is always considered to be proficient with its body and suffers no additional penalties based on the 'armor type' of its armor feat" or something like that. But I do think that it makes sense to let a warforged dread commando operate more efficiently than another warforged. A warforged doesn't require an additional feat to be familiar with its own body - it learns that through living. But training can, IMO, certainly teach it to move more gracefully. But that is my unofficial opinion. The official ruling is: warforged body feats do not have an armor check penalty, and as such, you suffer no penalty for lack of proficiency. By this official ruling, it would appear that things that reduce ACP have no effect on warforged, as the warforged penalties aren't ACP. However, we're largely dealing with books not written for Eberron, and it is an odd way to handle the mechanic; so I would personally let effects that reduce ACP - like, for example, Mithral Fluidity - apply to warforged. In fact, the warforged went through many iterations of design; I'll bet a donut that what happened is that Mithral Fluidity is a throwback to an earlier design when they DID have an ACP, that it was changed in the main feats and slipped by in the case of MF.
yrogerg 07-05-07, 06:11 PM	OMG why am I not suprised that avatar Mugman is responding back with arguements. First off what if Mr Baker has responded back by saying yes it is an ACP for Feat A, then Feat B would be completely valid. Your arguement is moot simply becouse you didn't know which feat was correct until Mr Baker corrected it. Its so easy to just sit back and say "Yeup I was right along, see I know what i'm doing kaladon". When in reality, when we posted our thing on Mithril Fluidity, for awhile everybody got really quiet becouse now people are like Hmmm, wow it really does say it lowers the armor check penalty, so, maybe, just maybe, Kaladon and Laf are correct. But I mean you know Mithril Fluidity was an incorrectly written all along right. I mean everybody should have known that accept Laf and I were just really stupid people that questioned one rule that contradicted another, shame on us. Like somebody said much earlier; we really need to read it. Yeah, shame on us to question poorly written material. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Mithril body, without Mithril Fluidity, is still a coherent feat that provides an actual benefit. Mithril Fluidity, without Mithril Body, is pretty obviously not. Not only that, but Mithril Body is a prerequisite for Mithril fluidity, and it's referenced by Mythril Fluidity, whereas the converse is not true. It's pretty obvious that Mithril Body the base feat, and I made that comment a page ago, long before Hellcow gave his response. As did Edymnion. And Kinger. (Are you sure you don't want us to provide links?) Honestly, this is a lot like saying that it's impossible to tell which is "correct": the feat in Complete Psionics that references the completely non-existant Psi-like ability attributed to Thri-Kreen, or the earlier errata that clarified that Thri-Kreen get a Psi-like ability that actually exists. And, what the heck was with that dig at my choice in avatar? I've been trying pretty damn hard to be civil here, and I've even managed to refrain from sarcastic comments about how, for example, the rules don't say Warforged get to cast Miracle at will, as a Supernatural ability, so clearly we're intended to assume that they do.
Edymnion 07-06-07, 08:31 AM	It's pretty obvious that Mithril Body the base feat, and I made that comment a page ago, long before Hellcow gave his response. As did Edymnion. And Kinger. (Are you sure you don't want us to provide links?)I'm beginning to question if they have regeneration as a racial ability... and I don't mean the Warforged. ;)
Cifer 07-06-07, 05:10 PM	@Edy CR 5 Giant type creatures?
Edymnion 07-06-07, 05:32 PM	@Edy CR 5 Giant type creatures?A-yup.