Armor proficiency and armor that fits a into a lighter category. [Archive] - Wizards Community

Armor proficiency and armor that fits a into a lighter category. [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Vintrastorm
12-11-05, 09:36 PM For example, would your character be proficient in the use of a Fullplate (heavy armor) if it was enchanted to count as a Light armor if your character was only proficient with light armors.

/ Jonis
theplaidknight
12-12-05, 12:23 AM That's an interesting question, and I'm pretty sure it's not covered in any official Wizards text except (remotely) possibly in a Dragon magazine's Sage Advice section. I would prefer to err on the side of caution - if I were the DM I would put forth a strong front against this and apply the nonproficiency penalty anyway because full plate is full plate.

Now I think about it I had a barbarian who wore Mithril full plate and was allowed to wear it as if it were fully medium armour. Then again my group has problems with broken characters and DMs who don't know how to deal with them.

It doesn't seem quite right to me to be able to essentially buy a feat with gold, an issue that's been brought up before, and answered only partially by metamagic rods.

Take it up with the DM, and if you are the DM, then just consider what effect this would have on your game. Does it seem really right for a barbarian/bard/warmage/whatever to so easily wear heavy armour with so few penalties?
Vintrastorm
12-12-05, 12:39 AM Now I think about it I had a barbarian who wore Mithril full plate and was allowed to wear it as if it were fully medium armour.

It's the same with rogues and elven chainmail.... The elven cain is a popular item among rogues (AFAIK) so my guess would be that it works, but it does fee a little cheesy sometimes.

The RAW, however, would support it?
savant_warlord13
12-12-05, 11:27 AM it better, or my character is going to be running into some problems...
tarkin
12-12-05, 11:49 AM A literal reading says NO, you are not proficient with it.

However, the FAQ suggests that you should in fact be considered proficient with it, for little good reason.

I would expect:

Strict Game: No way are you proficient.

Loose Game: Could go either way (before the FAQ, I would have said no way)

Power Game: Definitely proficient with it

Anything Goes Game: Definitely Proficient with it
DarknessEternal
12-12-05, 12:43 PM The rules defined by WotC (across both FAQ and accessories) state that an armor being treated as another weight category because of material, or other property, makes that armor that category for all purposes.

For example, mithral plate is medium armor all the time. There are no cases in which it is treated as heavy armor.
Tony Vargas
12-12-05, 12:56 PM The prudent ruling would seem to be against proficiency (and, BTW, I'd also question moving an armor two 'weight classes,' in the first place), however, it also opens up the possibility of gaining heavy armor /benefits/ from 'light' armor, such as Heavy Armor Optimization, for instance.
Krongurke
12-16-05, 05:07 AM Hi,

yes there is an enchantment, making even a heavy Armor light.
The description says, the armor is light, and can be used with the light armor prof.

It is named Halfweight and is an enchantment found in the Underdark supplement.

Page 70 if i'm not mistaken.

I got that problem myself i few days ago, trying to find a way to tumble in full plate ;)

But it is expensive..its a +3 enchantment.

regards

KG
digoraccoon
12-16-05, 08:33 AM This question came up in my game and the way I ruled it is that if the medium or heavy armor counts as light armor and you have the proficiency for light armors, then you can wear the armor without penalty.

This is my interpretation for things like mithril armor which are very light weight (but very rare in my games). :D I've never heard of the half-weight ability, but for a +3 bonus it seems like a fair trade.
Sluagh
12-16-05, 08:43 AM The armour is Heavy armour that is treated as being in a lower category. As such, it's still heavy in terms of its form and such, but with being reduced in category you gain the benefits of a lighter armour (ie. speed, penalties, etc). I would say that you would require the heavy proficiency to wear it without penalty, but you gain the benefits of having lighter armour.

That's pretty poorly stated, but I'm feeling lazy today and don't want to figure out how to be more clear. Sorry.
Quirriff
12-16-05, 09:19 AM The armour is Heavy armour that is treated as being in a lower category. As such, it's still heavy in terms of its form and such, but with being reduced in category you gain the benefits of a lighter armour (ie. speed, penalties, etc). I would say that you would require the heavy proficiency to wear it without penalty, but you gain the benefits of having lighter armour.

That's pretty poorly stated, but I'm feeling lazy today and don't want to figure out how to be more clear. Sorry.

Ditta, I treat it the same way.

Skip Williams argees with you, in his Spellthieves with class article.

If you're combat-oriented, consider medium armor (such as a breastplate) made of mithral. Such armor is very costly, but it functions as light armor, so it imposes no arcane spell failure chance. However, you still have to take the usual penalties for nonproficient armor use while wearing it unless you spend a feat to become proficient with medium armor.
mvincent
12-16-05, 12:46 PM Skip Williams argees with you, in his Spellthieves with class article.The official FAQ actually takes precedence over Skip's articles. The 3.5 FAQ (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20030221a) (pg. 23) says:
"The description of mithral on page 284 of the DUNGEON
MASTER’s Guide is less precise than it could be in defining how
it interacts with armor proficiency rules. The simplest answer—
and the one that the Sage expects most players and DMs use—
is that mithral armor is treated as one category lighter for all
purposes, including proficiency. This isn’t exactly what the
DUNGEON MASTER’s Guide says, but it’s a reasonable
interpretation of the intent of the rule (and it’s supported by a
number of precedents, including the descriptions of various
specific mithral armors described on page 220 of the DUNGEON
MASTER’s Guide and a variety of NPC stat blocks).
Thus, a ranger or rogue could wear a mithral breastplate
without suffering a nonproficiency penalty (since it’s treated as
light armor), and each could use any ability dependent on
wearing light or no armor (such as evasion or the ranger’s
combat style). A barbarian could wear mithral full plate armor
without suffering a nonproficiency penalty (since it’s treated as
medium armor), and he could use any ability dependent on
wearing medium or lighter armor (such as fast movement).
The same would be true of any other special material that
uses the same or similar language as mithral (such as darkleaf,
on page 120 of the EBERRON Campaign Setting)."The issue itself doesn't matter to me, so play as you like, but the FAQ is intended to resolve exactly this sort of issue. Arguing against the FAQ would be at cross-purpose.
q'afuu
12-16-05, 12:55 PM The FAQ is less than decisive on the issue. It pretty much just says to go against the most logical interpretation of the DMG because that's easier. That's a suggestion, not a ruling.
Rhomphaia
12-16-05, 02:29 PM The general consensus here seems to be that an armor made out of a material that allows it to be treated as a lighter class of armor is still treated the same in regards to proficiency and what class of armor it is based on. Basically, a suit of mithral full plate is still heavy armor.

To me, this is silly, since the only benefit you gain is a reduced or nullified speed penalty and the armor looks shinier. Big whoop. There are easier and cheaper ways to go about getting such.

Mithril is expensive for a reason, it is supposed to confer a boatload of benefits. Enchantments that do the same thing are also expensive. To me, this is worth a lot more than a few extra feet of movement.

It is in no way game breaking to have either an enchanted or mithril suit of full plate that is treated as medium armor in all ways. Same goes for any suit of armor. The only one that MIGHT have some game breaking potential is the mithril shirt (listed in the DMG) because it has obvious use to arcane spellcasters due to a low arcane spell failure chance.

As for how the FAQ gave a 'suggestion' on how to interpret the rules, this is what I have always used. It made more sense to me that way. Hell, to me, most of you guys are overcomplicating the situation for no logical reason.
q'afuu
12-16-05, 03:14 PM Mithril is expensive for a reason, it is supposed to confer a boatload of benefits. You must have been distracted for a moment and forgot the weight benefit, the reduced ACP and chance of spell failure and the increased max Dex bonus. Added together, that *is* a boatload. Mithral doesn't make weapons any easier to use, why should it confer that benefit to armour?

As for how the FAQ gave a 'suggestion' on how to interpret the rules, this is what I have always used. It made more sense to me that way. Hell, to me, most of you guys are overcomplicating the situation for no logical reason. The logical reason, for me at least, is that the DMG is actually fairly clear on how being made from mithral affects armour. Aside from the benefits listed above, the armour is treated as one category lighter for purposes of movement and other limitations. I find it more logical to follow the written rule than to change it, but maybe that's just me. ;)
Rhomphaia
12-16-05, 03:38 PM From page 284 of the DMG

...Most mithral armors are one category lighter than normal for purposes of movement and other limitations (such as whether a barbarian can use her fast movement ability while wearing the armor or not)...
The description goes on to say that heavy armor is treated as medium and that medium and light mithril armors are treated as light.

So according to the DMG, class features are a non-issue. A core rulebook has given precedence that it works for one class feature, so it should work for all of them...now, on to proficiency.

First off, nothing states that the armor is treated as the same class for proficiency purposes. An inference can be made, from the above quote, that the armor is treated as a class lighter than normal for proficiency purposes as well (down to a minimum of light), since the lack of proficiency in the armor type can reasonably be seen as a limitation, especially since while an example is given, no specific list of applicable limitations appears.

Also, as has been stated before, there is a convention and precedent set by gear possessed and used by NPCs. Plus the FAQ (the closest we have to an official ruling so far) supports the issue.

To me, the weight of the argument tips the scales more in favor of downgrading required proficiency than not doing so.
q'afuu
12-16-05, 03:45 PM So according to the DMG, class features are a non-issue. A core rulebook has given precedence that it works for one class feature, so it should work for all of them... Not really. It works for that one class feature because that particular class feature involves a limitation (a Barbarian's Fast Movement doesn't work when he's wearing heavy armour). There is no cause to assume that mithral applies to all class features just because they're class features.

First off, nothing states that the armor is treated as the same class for proficiency purposes. An inference can be made, from the above quote, that the armor is treated as a class lighter than normal for proficiency purposes as well (down to a minimum of light), since the lack of proficiency in the armor type can reasonably be seen as a limitation, especially since while an example is given, no specific list of applicable limitations appears. Beg to differ. Proficiency, or lack thereof, doesn't limit you in any way. You can wear armour and enjoy all of the benefits that come from wearing that armour whether you're proficient with it or not. Non-proficiency imposes penalties, but penalties are not limitations.
Rhomphaia
12-16-05, 03:59 PM Not really. It works for that one class feature because that particular class feature involves a limitation (a Barbarian's Fast Movement doesn't work when he's wearing heavy armour). There is no cause to assume that mithral applies to all class features just because they're class features.

I could have worded this better. There are other class features that are dependant on what kind of armor a character wears. For all of those features, the issue has been settled. Would it really be fair if you allowed a barbarian to use fast movement while wearing mithril chain mail, but disallowed a ranger to use his combat style while wearing the same armor?

Beg to differ. Proficiency, or lack thereof, doesn't limit you in any way. You can wear armour and enjoy all of the benefits that come from wearing that armour whether you're proficient with it or not. Non-proficiency imposes penalties, but penalties are not limitations.

Another way to look at it is that by wearing armor with which you are not proficient, then you are limited by non-proficiency penalties.

You can look at this whatever way you want. All that I am saying is that RAW has no definitive answer and that other officially published and released material supports the argument that a reduction of weight also equals a reduction in the proficiency needed.

I do agree with you on one thing though. Light mithril armor still needs light armor proficiency.
mvincent
12-16-05, 04:18 PM This issue has been debated constantly in many threads (and this probably won't be the last). Obviously, there are two sides and there are people on either side that feel strongly about their position (citing good reasons).

The FAQ was intended to settles issue just like this so that people didn't feel the need to incessantly pick at each other. You don't have to agree with the official answer at all (just like you don't have to agree with any D&D ruling), but arguing against it is just being intractable (especially since it doesn't actually violate RAW).

Prior to the FAQ ruling, many of us played that proficiency was not modified, and that was fine (although some players got around that by simply buying/modifying Elven Chain and Mithral Full Plate of Speed*). Now that the FAQ answered the question though, I'm completely fine with accepting it and moving on with my life.

*the description of these armors seems to imply how those writer's interpreted mithral
q'afuu
12-16-05, 04:24 PM I could have worded this better. There are other class features that are dependant on what kind of armor a character wears. For all of those features, the issue has been settled. Would it really be fair if you allowed a barbarian to use fast movement while wearing mithril chain mail, but disallowed a ranger to use his combat style while wearing the same armor? Of course not, but I never suggested that. A Ranger's Combat Style also involves a limitation with regards to the weight category of the armour you can be wearing while still benefiting from the Combat Style advantages. It's exactly the same as Fast Movement in that regard.

Another way to look at it is that by wearing armor with which you are not proficient, then you are limited by non-proficiency penalties. Except that penalties don't limit you. If you're non-proficient, you can do everything you could do if you were proficient. The penalty for non-proficiency doesn't change any of that.

I disagree that the RAW doesn't provide a conclusive answer, just as I disagree that that FAQ entry doesn't go against the RAW. The RAW are clear enough: if it involves movement or a limitation, the weight category reduction applies and otherwise it doesn't. There is no ambiguity. NPC builds or specific weapon stats are not valid counterarguments: with regards to what the benefits of mithral are, the DMG entry for mithral is the primary source. With regards to specific items made from mithral, their descriptions are the primary source - but you can't extrapolate general rules about mithral from them.
savant_warlord13
12-16-05, 05:13 PM The general consensus here seems to be that an armor made out of a material that allows it to be treated as a lighter class of armor is still treated the same in regards to proficiency and what class of armor it is based on. Basically, a suit of mithral full plate is still heavy armor.

To me, this is silly, since the only benefit you gain is a reduced or nullified speed penalty and the armor looks shinier. Big whoop. There are easier and cheaper ways to go about getting such.

Mithril is expensive for a reason, it is supposed to confer a boatload of benefits. Enchantments that do the same thing are also expensive. To me, this is worth a lot more than a few extra feet of movement.

It is in no way game breaking to have either an enchanted or mithril suit of full plate that is treated as medium armor in all ways. Same goes for any suit of armor. The only one that MIGHT have some game breaking potential is the mithril shirt (listed in the DMG) because it has obvious use to arcane spellcasters due to a low arcane spell failure chance.

As for how the FAQ gave a 'suggestion' on how to interpret the rules, this is what I have always used. It made more sense to me that way. Hell, to me, most of you guys are overcomplicating the situation for no logical reason.

I agree, particularly because of the precedents (as mentioned in the FAQ that someone posted)
jaelis
12-16-05, 05:40 PM It just bugs me because it's one more nail in the fighter's coffin compared to the barbarian.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Vintrastorm 12-11-05, 09:36 PM	For example, would your character be proficient in the use of a Fullplate (heavy armor) if it was enchanted to count as a Light armor if your character was only proficient with light armors. / Jonis
theplaidknight 12-12-05, 12:23 AM	That's an interesting question, and I'm pretty sure it's not covered in any official Wizards text except (remotely) possibly in a Dragon magazine's Sage Advice section. I would prefer to err on the side of caution - if I were the DM I would put forth a strong front against this and apply the nonproficiency penalty anyway because full plate is full plate. Now I think about it I had a barbarian who wore Mithril full plate and was allowed to wear it as if it were fully medium armour. Then again my group has problems with broken characters and DMs who don't know how to deal with them. It doesn't seem quite right to me to be able to essentially buy a feat with gold, an issue that's been brought up before, and answered only partially by metamagic rods. Take it up with the DM, and if you are the DM, then just consider what effect this would have on your game. Does it seem really right for a barbarian/bard/warmage/whatever to so easily wear heavy armour with so few penalties?
Vintrastorm 12-12-05, 12:39 AM	Now I think about it I had a barbarian who wore Mithril full plate and was allowed to wear it as if it were fully medium armour. It's the same with rogues and elven chainmail.... The elven cain is a popular item among rogues (AFAIK) so my guess would be that it works, but it does fee a little cheesy sometimes. The RAW, however, would support it?
savant_warlord13 12-12-05, 11:27 AM	it better, or my character is going to be running into some problems...
tarkin 12-12-05, 11:49 AM	A literal reading says NO, you are not proficient with it. However, the FAQ suggests that you should in fact be considered proficient with it, for little good reason. I would expect: Strict Game: No way are you proficient. Loose Game: Could go either way (before the FAQ, I would have said no way) Power Game: Definitely proficient with it Anything Goes Game: Definitely Proficient with it
DarknessEternal 12-12-05, 12:43 PM	The rules defined by WotC (across both FAQ and accessories) state that an armor being treated as another weight category because of material, or other property, makes that armor that category for all purposes. For example, mithral plate is medium armor all the time. There are no cases in which it is treated as heavy armor.
Tony Vargas 12-12-05, 12:56 PM	The prudent ruling would seem to be against proficiency (and, BTW, I'd also question moving an armor two 'weight classes,' in the first place), however, it also opens up the possibility of gaining heavy armor /benefits/ from 'light' armor, such as Heavy Armor Optimization, for instance.
Krongurke 12-16-05, 05:07 AM	Hi, yes there is an enchantment, making even a heavy Armor light. The description says, the armor is light, and can be used with the light armor prof. It is named Halfweight and is an enchantment found in the Underdark supplement. Page 70 if i'm not mistaken. I got that problem myself i few days ago, trying to find a way to tumble in full plate ;) But it is expensive..its a +3 enchantment. regards KG
digoraccoon 12-16-05, 08:33 AM	This question came up in my game and the way I ruled it is that if the medium or heavy armor counts as light armor and you have the proficiency for light armors, then you can wear the armor without penalty. This is my interpretation for things like mithril armor which are very light weight (but very rare in my games). :D I've never heard of the half-weight ability, but for a +3 bonus it seems like a fair trade.
Sluagh 12-16-05, 08:43 AM	The armour is Heavy armour that is treated as being in a lower category. As such, it's still heavy in terms of its form and such, but with being reduced in category you gain the benefits of a lighter armour (ie. speed, penalties, etc). I would say that you would require the heavy proficiency to wear it without penalty, but you gain the benefits of having lighter armour. That's pretty poorly stated, but I'm feeling lazy today and don't want to figure out how to be more clear. Sorry.
Quirriff 12-16-05, 09:19 AM	The armour is Heavy armour that is treated as being in a lower category. As such, it's still heavy in terms of its form and such, but with being reduced in category you gain the benefits of a lighter armour (ie. speed, penalties, etc). I would say that you would require the heavy proficiency to wear it without penalty, but you gain the benefits of having lighter armour. That's pretty poorly stated, but I'm feeling lazy today and don't want to figure out how to be more clear. Sorry. Ditta, I treat it the same way. Skip Williams argees with you, in his Spellthieves with class article. If you're combat-oriented, consider medium armor (such as a breastplate) made of mithral. Such armor is very costly, but it functions as light armor, so it imposes no arcane spell failure chance. However, you still have to take the usual penalties for nonproficient armor use while wearing it unless you spend a feat to become proficient with medium armor.
mvincent 12-16-05, 12:46 PM	Skip Williams argees with you, in his Spellthieves with class article.The official FAQ actually takes precedence over Skip's articles. The 3.5 FAQ (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20030221a) (pg. 23) says: "The description of mithral on page 284 of the DUNGEON MASTER’s Guide is less precise than it could be in defining how it interacts with armor proficiency rules. The simplest answer— and the one that the Sage expects most players and DMs use— is that mithral armor is treated as one category lighter for all purposes, including proficiency. This isn’t exactly what the DUNGEON MASTER’s Guide says, but it’s a reasonable interpretation of the intent of the rule (and it’s supported by a number of precedents, including the descriptions of various specific mithral armors described on page 220 of the DUNGEON MASTER’s Guide and a variety of NPC stat blocks). Thus, a ranger or rogue could wear a mithral breastplate without suffering a nonproficiency penalty (since it’s treated as light armor), and each could use any ability dependent on wearing light or no armor (such as evasion or the ranger’s combat style). A barbarian could wear mithral full plate armor without suffering a nonproficiency penalty (since it’s treated as medium armor), and he could use any ability dependent on wearing medium or lighter armor (such as fast movement). The same would be true of any other special material that uses the same or similar language as mithral (such as darkleaf, on page 120 of the EBERRON Campaign Setting)."The issue itself doesn't matter to me, so play as you like, but the FAQ is intended to resolve exactly this sort of issue. Arguing against the FAQ would be at cross-purpose.
q'afuu 12-16-05, 12:55 PM	The FAQ is less than decisive on the issue. It pretty much just says to go against the most logical interpretation of the DMG because that's easier. That's a suggestion, not a ruling.
Rhomphaia 12-16-05, 02:29 PM	The general consensus here seems to be that an armor made out of a material that allows it to be treated as a lighter class of armor is still treated the same in regards to proficiency and what class of armor it is based on. Basically, a suit of mithral full plate is still heavy armor. To me, this is silly, since the only benefit you gain is a reduced or nullified speed penalty and the armor looks shinier. Big whoop. There are easier and cheaper ways to go about getting such. Mithril is expensive for a reason, it is supposed to confer a boatload of benefits. Enchantments that do the same thing are also expensive. To me, this is worth a lot more than a few extra feet of movement. It is in no way game breaking to have either an enchanted or mithril suit of full plate that is treated as medium armor in all ways. Same goes for any suit of armor. The only one that MIGHT have some game breaking potential is the mithril shirt (listed in the DMG) because it has obvious use to arcane spellcasters due to a low arcane spell failure chance. As for how the FAQ gave a 'suggestion' on how to interpret the rules, this is what I have always used. It made more sense to me that way. Hell, to me, most of you guys are overcomplicating the situation for no logical reason.
q'afuu 12-16-05, 03:14 PM	Mithril is expensive for a reason, it is supposed to confer a boatload of benefits. You must have been distracted for a moment and forgot the weight benefit, the reduced ACP and chance of spell failure and the increased max Dex bonus. Added together, that is a boatload. Mithral doesn't make weapons any easier to use, why should it confer that benefit to armour? As for how the FAQ gave a 'suggestion' on how to interpret the rules, this is what I have always used. It made more sense to me that way. Hell, to me, most of you guys are overcomplicating the situation for no logical reason. The logical reason, for me at least, is that the DMG is actually fairly clear on how being made from mithral affects armour. Aside from the benefits listed above, the armour is treated as one category lighter for purposes of movement and other limitations. I find it more logical to follow the written rule than to change it, but maybe that's just me. ;)
Rhomphaia 12-16-05, 03:38 PM	From page 284 of the DMG ...Most mithral armors are one category lighter than normal for purposes of movement and other limitations (such as whether a barbarian can use her fast movement ability while wearing the armor or not)... The description goes on to say that heavy armor is treated as medium and that medium and light mithril armors are treated as light. So according to the DMG, class features are a non-issue. A core rulebook has given precedence that it works for one class feature, so it should work for all of them...now, on to proficiency. First off, nothing states that the armor is treated as the same class for proficiency purposes. An inference can be made, from the above quote, that the armor is treated as a class lighter than normal for proficiency purposes as well (down to a minimum of light), since the lack of proficiency in the armor type can reasonably be seen as a limitation, especially since while an example is given, no specific list of applicable limitations appears. Also, as has been stated before, there is a convention and precedent set by gear possessed and used by NPCs. Plus the FAQ (the closest we have to an official ruling so far) supports the issue. To me, the weight of the argument tips the scales more in favor of downgrading required proficiency than not doing so.
q'afuu 12-16-05, 03:45 PM	So according to the DMG, class features are a non-issue. A core rulebook has given precedence that it works for one class feature, so it should work for all of them... Not really. It works for that one class feature because that particular class feature involves a limitation (a Barbarian's Fast Movement doesn't work when he's wearing heavy armour). There is no cause to assume that mithral applies to all class features just because they're class features. First off, nothing states that the armor is treated as the same class for proficiency purposes. An inference can be made, from the above quote, that the armor is treated as a class lighter than normal for proficiency purposes as well (down to a minimum of light), since the lack of proficiency in the armor type can reasonably be seen as a limitation, especially since while an example is given, no specific list of applicable limitations appears. Beg to differ. Proficiency, or lack thereof, doesn't limit you in any way. You can wear armour and enjoy all of the benefits that come from wearing that armour whether you're proficient with it or not. Non-proficiency imposes penalties, but penalties are not limitations.
Rhomphaia 12-16-05, 03:59 PM	Not really. It works for that one class feature because that particular class feature involves a limitation (a Barbarian's Fast Movement doesn't work when he's wearing heavy armour). There is no cause to assume that mithral applies to all class features just because they're class features. I could have worded this better. There are other class features that are dependant on what kind of armor a character wears. For all of those features, the issue has been settled. Would it really be fair if you allowed a barbarian to use fast movement while wearing mithril chain mail, but disallowed a ranger to use his combat style while wearing the same armor? Beg to differ. Proficiency, or lack thereof, doesn't limit you in any way. You can wear armour and enjoy all of the benefits that come from wearing that armour whether you're proficient with it or not. Non-proficiency imposes penalties, but penalties are not limitations. Another way to look at it is that by wearing armor with which you are not proficient, then you are limited by non-proficiency penalties. You can look at this whatever way you want. All that I am saying is that RAW has no definitive answer and that other officially published and released material supports the argument that a reduction of weight also equals a reduction in the proficiency needed. I do agree with you on one thing though. Light mithril armor still needs light armor proficiency.
mvincent 12-16-05, 04:18 PM	This issue has been debated constantly in many threads (and this probably won't be the last). Obviously, there are two sides and there are people on either side that feel strongly about their position (citing good reasons). The FAQ was intended to settles issue just like this so that people didn't feel the need to incessantly pick at each other. You don't have to agree with the official answer at all (just like you don't have to agree with any D&D ruling), but arguing against it is just being intractable (especially since it doesn't actually violate RAW). Prior to the FAQ ruling, many of us played that proficiency was not modified, and that was fine (although some players got around that by simply buying/modifying Elven Chain and Mithral Full Plate of Speed). Now that the FAQ answered the question though, I'm completely fine with accepting it and moving on with my life. the description of these armors seems to imply how those writer's interpreted mithral
q'afuu 12-16-05, 04:24 PM	I could have worded this better. There are other class features that are dependant on what kind of armor a character wears. For all of those features, the issue has been settled. Would it really be fair if you allowed a barbarian to use fast movement while wearing mithril chain mail, but disallowed a ranger to use his combat style while wearing the same armor? Of course not, but I never suggested that. A Ranger's Combat Style also involves a limitation with regards to the weight category of the armour you can be wearing while still benefiting from the Combat Style advantages. It's exactly the same as Fast Movement in that regard. Another way to look at it is that by wearing armor with which you are not proficient, then you are limited by non-proficiency penalties. Except that penalties don't limit you. If you're non-proficient, you can do everything you could do if you were proficient. The penalty for non-proficiency doesn't change any of that. I disagree that the RAW doesn't provide a conclusive answer, just as I disagree that that FAQ entry doesn't go against the RAW. The RAW are clear enough: if it involves movement or a limitation, the weight category reduction applies and otherwise it doesn't. There is no ambiguity. NPC builds or specific weapon stats are not valid counterarguments: with regards to what the benefits of mithral are, the DMG entry for mithral is the primary source. With regards to specific items made from mithral, their descriptions are the primary source - but you can't extrapolate general rules about mithral from them.
savant_warlord13 12-16-05, 05:13 PM	The general consensus here seems to be that an armor made out of a material that allows it to be treated as a lighter class of armor is still treated the same in regards to proficiency and what class of armor it is based on. Basically, a suit of mithral full plate is still heavy armor. To me, this is silly, since the only benefit you gain is a reduced or nullified speed penalty and the armor looks shinier. Big whoop. There are easier and cheaper ways to go about getting such. Mithril is expensive for a reason, it is supposed to confer a boatload of benefits. Enchantments that do the same thing are also expensive. To me, this is worth a lot more than a few extra feet of movement. It is in no way game breaking to have either an enchanted or mithril suit of full plate that is treated as medium armor in all ways. Same goes for any suit of armor. The only one that MIGHT have some game breaking potential is the mithril shirt (listed in the DMG) because it has obvious use to arcane spellcasters due to a low arcane spell failure chance. As for how the FAQ gave a 'suggestion' on how to interpret the rules, this is what I have always used. It made more sense to me that way. Hell, to me, most of you guys are overcomplicating the situation for no logical reason. I agree, particularly because of the precedents (as mentioned in the FAQ that someone posted)
jaelis 12-16-05, 05:40 PM	It just bugs me because it's one more nail in the fighter's coffin compared to the barbarian.