Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Citadel97501 07-06-07, 07:04 AM	Hello all, Do you think you would need the Complete Arcane Feat Battle Caster for a Warlock to use a Mithril Breastplate and cast spells without arcane spell failure? The interesting part is that mithril armor counts as one class lighter, (I.E. Medium becomes light) for Barbarians increased speed? I would think that it would count for any relevant feats or class features?
Narthon 07-06-07, 07:12 AM	I'm of the school that says it should. I don't matter though. I'm sure others will step in with why it shouldn't.
Lawkeeper 07-06-07, 07:23 AM	Breastplate are medium armor. Mithral armor are treated as armor one category lighter for all purposes (except proficiency if I'm not mistaken). So, mithral breastplate is a light armor - your warlock doesn't need the Battle Caster feat.
Zekarra 07-06-07, 09:50 AM	Under warlock's armor and weapon proficiency list it states that a warlork can use light armor without the arcane spell failure chance. A mithril breastplate is light armor with a 15% chance of spell failure that you can ignore because it is light armor. Mithril makes the armor lighter and easier to use than the normal armor type. that is why it is classed as a ligher armor with a better bonus to max dex and less arcane spell failure. You should be go to go blast lightning bolts and fireball with no problem. :mage:
RobbyPants 07-06-07, 09:56 AM	Breastplate are medium armor. Mithral armor are treated as armor one category lighter for all purposes (except proficiency if I'm not mistaken). So, mithral breastplate is a light armor - your warlock doesn't need the Battle Caster feat. I might be wrong, but I think the FAQ said that it counts lighter for proficiency too. There are plenty of people who believe that it shouldn't work this way, so check with your DM first. Again, so far as I can tell, by RAW, a warlock could both wear (with no ACP) mithril breast plate as well as cast in it (with no ASF). Of course, even with this potentially liberal ruling, if you wanted to jump up to mithril fullplate, it would take two feats: one to become proficient in the armor and another to be able to cast in it (but you probably already knew that ;)).
runestar 07-06-07, 10:02 AM	Races of the wild clearly lists mithral fullplate as medium armour. There is really no room for any misinterpretation or confusion here.:)
Lawkeeper 07-06-07, 10:25 AM	I might be wrong, but I think the FAQ said that it counts lighter for proficiency too. There are plenty of people who believe that it shouldn't work this way, so check with your DM first. Indeed, I checked. 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). However, the Sage is not categorical. As a DM, I'd rule you're not competent, but we're bordering on the house-rule (at the reading of his answer, I suspect it's a kind of house-rule either way in the Sage's mind). However, Breatplate normally has a -4 ACP. With +3 from mithral and +1 from masterwork (which a mithral armor always is), the penalty is reduced to 0, so it doesn't really matter whether the warlock is proficient in it or not. "When in doubt, pick the simplest answer.":)
rironin 07-06-07, 12:06 PM	However, Breatplate normally has a -4 ACP. With +3 from mithral and +1 from masterwork (which a mithral armor always is), the penalty is reduced to 0, so it doesn't really matter whether the warlock is proficient in it or not. "When in doubt, pick the simplest answer.":)The stats for mithral items already include the effects of masterwork; as you said, all mithral items already are masterwork. Therefore you wouldn't add an additional ACP reduction for masterwork. Mithral Breastplate would still have an ACP of -1. For an example in the SRD, see the mithral full plate of speed; it's ACP is -3, not -2.
tvar1 07-06-07, 12:23 PM	However, the Sage is not categorical. As a DM, I'd rule you're not competent, but we're bordering on the house-rule (at the reading of his answer, I suspect it's a kind of house-rule either way in the Sage's mind). The Sage is, IMO, making the only reasonable conclusion one can make when reading the description of Mithral armor. He says that "This isn't exactly what the DMG says," but he only makes that caveat because the DMG (and all core material) is silent on the issue. Mithral armor makes armor one category lighter. Since armor proficiency is based on the category, someone that is proficient with light armor is proficient with a Mithral breastplate. Chalk it up to the fact that a Mithral breastplate is so light that someone who usually can only use padded armor feels comfortable in it.
Lawkeeper 07-06-07, 01:15 PM	However, an adamantine or mithral weapon isn't a different weapon : it needs exactly the same proficiency as a normal steel, iron, cold iron or any other material, weapon. So, I strongly disagree that it is the only conclusion : silence is worth both sides. On the contrary : mithral states it's considered a one-category lighter armor "for purposes of movement and other limitations". Proficiency in an armor is neither movement nor any kind of limitation : it's an allowance. I would accept the Sage's interpretation if the description said that mithral armor are "considered one category lighter for all purposes", or even "considered one category lighter for most purposes" and it didn't speak of proficiency. By RAW, mithral refers to : - one-category lighter for movement and limitations - weight, ASF, max Dex, ACP - masterwork - cost So, the Sage is actually reading things that are not in the mithral entry.:rolleyes: As mithral is an exception to general rule, it has to be undestood sensu stricto : what is not explicitly stated is not true. Even out-of-game logic is on that side : wearing a half-weight full plate is absolutely not the same as wearing a breastplate : the plate's arrangements are different, preventing different movements. Mithral is lightweight, not more flexible (or the armor bonus would be lowered). The stats for mithral items already include the effects of masterwork; as you said, all mithral items already are masterwork. Therefore you wouldn't add an additional ACP reduction for masterwork. Mithral Breastplate would still have an ACP of -1. For an example in the SRD, see the mithral full plate of speed; it's ACP is -3, not -2. Were it not for that one example, I would have disagreed, as the mithral entry only says the "masterwork cost" is included in the price. Following the "all masterwork bonuses are already included in the description" philosophy lends to interpretate that mithral tools don't give the +2 bonus and that mithral weapons don't have a +1 enhancement bonus due to masterwork craft. BTW, mithral breastplate is listed in the MIC, indeed with a -1 ACP. That said, Races of the Wilds' table is askew : its ACP are wrong for several mithral armors, taking only a 2-point reduction to ACP instead of 3.
tvar1 07-06-07, 02:45 PM	However, an adamantine or mithral weapon isn't a different weapon : it needs exactly the same proficiency as a normal steel, iron, cold iron or any other material, weapon. So, I strongly disagree that it is the only conclusion : silence is worth both sides. Well clearly Mithral armor is the exception to all other armor/weapon materials since it changes the category of the armor. What I meant by silence is that the DMG does not specifically state whether or not the "one armor category lighter" applies to proficiency or if it is excluded. On the contrary : mithral states it's considered a one-category lighter armor "for purposes of movement and other limitations". Proficiency in an armor is neither movement nor any kind of limitation : it's an allowance. An allowance is simply the flip side of a limitation. It is kind of a tortured interpretation to think the kind of armor a character cannot wear without imposing armor check penalties as not a limitation.
Ketone 07-06-07, 03:29 PM	On a side-note, is it possible to take battle caster twice to be able to use heavy armor with no problem?
NoldorForce 07-06-07, 03:42 PM	Regardless, the Magic Item Compendium clarifies mithral in stating that proficiency is one of the things under the category of limitations. The DMG wasn't quite being silent on the issue of what limitations meant; it was instead being vague. Things would have been much easier if they had stated that the encumberance subtype changed for all purposes. And even that's not outright stated in the rules, it's the obvious intent.
RobbyPants 07-06-07, 03:42 PM	On a side-note, is it possible to take battle caster twice to be able to use heavy armor with no problem? Yes.
Lawkeeper 07-06-07, 03:48 PM	The thing is : exceptions are to be interpreted restrictively, by their very nature. If an exception doesn't state an effect, then that effect doesn't happen. It's the same that applied to 3.0 fire spells that didn't specifically stated they put things on fire : they didn't do it. In this case, mithral speaks about movement and limitations - not proficiency. Proficiency is not an attribute of an armor : it's an attribute of the person wearing it. You know how the various plate are gonna preventing that elbow from raising this high, and it's that knowledge that prevents you from suffering the ACP on your attack rolls - by adapting your attacking maneuvers to the physical limits of your armor. Reducing the weight of it has absolutely no effect on the movements you're able to do - and reducing the weight is all that mithral does. So, indeed MIC says otherwise, but that's a revision of the rules since it says "movement, proficiency and other limitations". Not that "proficiency is part of the limitations". And I will never apply that small revision in my games, nor refrain of stating its absurdity. @Ketone : no, the feat's description doesn't say so. Usually, when a feat can be taken several times, it's explicitly stated.
JulesCARV 07-06-07, 03:52 PM	On a side-note, is it possible to take battle caster twice to be able to use heavy armor with no problem? As far as I know, the Battle Caster feat does not include the phrase "this feat may be taken multiple times. Its effects stack," which would be necessary for it to work that way.
Spikes01k 07-06-07, 03:54 PM	On a side-note, is it possible to take battle caster twice to be able to use heavy armor with no problem? Last I checked you couldn't do that.
rironin 07-06-07, 03:58 PM	On a side-note, is it possible to take battle caster twice to be able to use heavy armor with no problem?Only if you interpret the wording of the feat differently than I. The feat says you can "wear armor one category heavier than you can normally wear." You could say that once you take this feat, the category of armor you can "normally wear" changes from light to medium, so that if you took it again, it would go from medium to heavy. I personally would side with "normally" describing a character with your normal class abilities; I don't think taking the feat once changes your "normal" armor availability, it makes you special. Still, that's just me. Looking at it really quickly, I probably wouldn't think twice if one of my PC casters really wanted to spend a second feat just to wear heavy armor instead of medium. Unless anyone can come up with any scary repercussions, I don't think it would be overpowered in any way.
Ozymandias V. 07-06-07, 04:52 PM	So Lawkeeper doesn't like the official ruling and is choosing to ignore it. Despite the fact that if the armor weighs less and has a lower ACP then clearly it is less difficult to wear and should count as a lighter category, as the official rules say it does. It's not a revision, it's a clarification to kill debates like this one.
rironin 07-06-07, 05:07 PM	Were it not for that one example, I would have disagreed, as the mithral entry only says the "masterwork cost" is included in the price. Following the "all masterwork bonuses are already included in the description" philosophy lends to interpretate that mithral tools don't give the +2 bonus and that mithral weapons don't have a +1 enhancement bonus due to masterwork craft. BTW, mithral breastplate is listed in the MIC, indeed with a -1 ACP.Just came across a note in the FAQ too, just in case:Any mithral item is masterwork, but the –3 armor check reduction for a mithral item already includes the adjustment for a masterwork item.So Lawkeeper doesn't like the official ruling and is choosing to ignore it. Despite the fact that if the armor weighs less and has a lower ACP then clearly it is less difficult to wear and should count as a lighter category, as the official rules say it does. It's not a revision, it's a clarification to kill debates like this one.Yes, but that's his prerogative. I think that most players, once directed to the FAQ and the Magic Item Compendium, will probably play it your way, but Lawkeeper is free to do as he pleases. No worries!
NoldorForce 07-06-07, 05:14 PM	The thing is : exceptions are to be interpreted restrictively, by their very nature. If an exception doesn't state an effect, then that effect doesn't happen. It's the same that applied to 3.0 fire spells that didn't specifically stated they put things on fire : they didn't do it. In this case, mithral speaks about movement and limitations - not proficiency.But the very concept of "limitations" was left vague. This isn't a debate about what to do if the text doesn't grant you something; without clarification, we don't know if the text grants it to you or not.Proficiency is not an attribute of an armor : it's an attribute of the person wearing it. You know how the various plate are gonna preventing that elbow from raising this high, and it's that knowledge that prevents you from suffering the ACP on your attack rolls - by adapting your attacking maneuvers to the physical limits of your armor. Reducing the weight of it has absolutely no effect on the movements you're able to do - and reducing the weight is all that mithral does.But proficiency remains a limitation by the fact that it's not automatic. You're only limited to wearing certain armor types without penalty. Besides, nonproficiency is obviously a limitation on its own.So, indeed MIC says otherwise, but that's a revision of the rules since it says "movement, proficiency and other limitations". Not that "proficiency is part of the limitations". And I will never apply that small revision in my games, nor refrain of stating its absurdity.It's a clarification of the rules rather than an outright revision. Evidence? The very fact that we're arguing about something that can be and has been interpreted multiple ways. How is it absurd, anyway? It's certainly not unbalanced, being the whole intent of things. If you don't like the fact that it's a revision of core...do you consider Quickened spells to be cast as free actions or swift actions.
Merestil Haye 07-06-07, 05:27 PM	Hello all, Do you think you would need the Complete Arcane Feat Battle Caster for a Warlock to use a Mithril Breastplate and cast spells without arcane spell failure?I'm one of those diehards who considers that the word "limitation" needs to be defined within the game. Until it is, the question on whether proficiency is a limitation must be settled by each DM. My definition is that a limitation is a restriction that prevents the character from using or attempting to use a class feature, or from performing or attempting to perform an action. From that definition, the lack of proficiency is not a limitation and therefore making armour out of Mithral does not affect it. I am not changing this because of an ill-considered sentence in the MIC. That being said, the answer to your question is "no, Warmages do not need Battle Caster to use Mithral breastplate and cast spells without risk of ASF." All they need is 8 levels of Warmage. At that level they get medium armour proficiency and the ability to cast arcane spells with no ASF chance in medium armour. At which point their Battle Caster feat means they can cast in heavy armour with no ASF chance.
Lawkeeper 07-06-07, 06:01 PM	All right, the -3 includes the masterwork then, due to FAQ. However, by RAW without the FAQ, it's not so. Again the very bad quality of rule-writing by WotC : first paragraph gives the ACP reduction, and the last paragraph states that they "are always masterwork items as well". That's an "as well" that in common language means "in addition"... My bet would be that the Sage got it wrong, or should have stated that the "as well" was an error. That's the difference between FAQs and erratas : erratas fix errors and change things, FAQ are meant to follow the written rules and give explanations - not change them outright because they got it wrong during the writing. It's a clarification of the rules rather than an outright revision. Sorry, but a clarification would have been : "proficiency in an armor is considered part of the limitations". In the MIC, what has been written is an addition to the list of topics covered by the lightenning effect of mithral. That said, I've better for you.;) Rule number one of WotC : primary sources. PHB is primary for that matter - including towards MIC. If MIC and PHB disagree and MIC doesn't explicitly introduce a change, by WotC rule, you have to discard MIC. Here, the contradition is flagrant : there's an addition. It's added where it didn't exist, and no errata is issued - either on WotC's website or in a splatbook. So, it's to be discarded. If WotC wants to change the rule, they should at the very least make it official, in an errata or a polymorph-school or swift/immediate way of doing it. But the very concept of "limitations" was left vague. This isn't a debate about what to do if the text doesn't grant you something; without clarification, we don't know if the text grants it to you or not. So, for you, not knowing makes you believe you actually get something ? Hmmm, let's see... no. The text is silent - hence, you don't get it. Pretending that if the text is silent you get it, is the same as pretending that fly makes you get a breath weapon because dragons can both fly and breath fire and the fly spell is silent about breath. Does it make sense ? Not for me, at least. For the absurdity that you don't see : read the second paragraph of my previous post (the one you quoted) again. And remember that mithral material reduces the weight of the armor, but neither its form, shape or flexibility. A mithral full plate is a full plate with a shiny material and half its weight - but it's full width and encumbrance. You have a bunch of plates, rigid plates, from toe's nail to top-most hair. It is lighter, indeed - but in no way do you more more fluidly. And it is unbalanced. Armor proficiency is worth a feat - and there, we get a simple material costing 4000 or 9000gp that gives you the feat-equivalent of proficiency, in addition to its other effects ? Even without the proficiency, mithral armor are already sought after...
rironin 07-06-07, 07:13 PM	All right, the -3 includes the masterwork then, due to FAQ. However, by RAW without the FAQ, it's not so. Again the very bad quality of rule-writing by WotC : first paragraph gives the ACP reduction, and the last paragraph states that they "are always masterwork items as well". That's an "as well" that in common language means "in addition"... My bet would be that the Sage got it wrong, or should have stated that the "as well" was an error. That's the difference between FAQs and erratas : erratas fix errors and change things, FAQ are meant to follow the written rules and give explanations - not change them outright because they got it wrong during the writing.I never saw too much of a problem with it. If you think about it, the way they displayed the tables is really the only way that would've made sense. Why would they ever print a table or even a description of the armor check penalty for a non-masterwork piece of mithral armor, if all mithral armor is by definition masterwork? There is no armor that has an armor check penalty reduction due to being mithral that does not also have an armor check penalty reduction due to being masterwork, so why print the reductions separately? Also, it's sort of hilarious that you grudgingly agreed with me on the ACP because of the FAQ, when the FAQ also sides with those who go along with the Magic Item Compendium's note on mithral armors and proficiency. I expected you to tell me that anything from the FAQ was hogwash! :P
NoldorForce 07-06-07, 08:20 PM	Sorry, but a clarification would have been : "proficiency in an armor is considered part of the limitations". In the MIC, what has been written is an addition to the list of topics covered by the lightenning effect of mithral.What's the difference? By mentioning "..., proficiency, and other limitations", MIC implied that very phrase above, that "proficiency in an armor is considered part of the limitations". (Bolding mine.)That said, I've better for you.;) Rule number one of WotC : primary sources. PHB is primary for that matter - including towards MIC. If MIC and PHB disagree and MIC doesn't explicitly introduce a change, by WotC rule, you have to discard MIC. Here, the contradition is flagrant : there's an addition. It's added where it didn't exist, and no errata is issued - either on WotC's website or in a splatbook. So, it's to be discarded. If WotC wants to change the rule, they should at the very least make it official, in an errata or a polymorph-school or swift/immediate way of doing it.This is not a contradiction, as above. It is instead a slight clarification between texts. And the PHB doesn't mention special materials, by the way - that's the province of the DMG. Why didn't they call it out as a change? As in the FAQ, the official stance is already this way.So, for you, not knowing makes you believe you actually get something ? Hmmm, let's see... no. The text is silent - hence, you don't get it. Pretending that if the text is silent you get it, is the same as pretending that fly makes you get a breath weapon because dragons can both fly and breath fire and the fly spell is silent about breath. Does it make sense ? Not for me, at least.You're not paying attention to my argument. The text is unclear as to what the other "limitations" are, and in fact may not be silent as to the issue of proficiency. It's like this: Set S has elements {X, Y, ...}. Say that you have the elements of set S for some use. Can you do anything with item G? The analogue of your argument seems to assert that as item G is not in set S, you cannot use it. But the initial assumption is flawed; item G may well be in set S within the "..." portion. Similarly, you seem to argue that because proficiency is not a limitation, that text doesn't affect it. Some of the rest of the posters are taking issue with that assumption.For the absurdity that you don't see : read the second paragraph of my previous post (the one you quoted) again. And remember that mithral material reduces the weight of the armor, but neither its form, shape or flexibility. A mithral full plate is a full plate with a shiny material and half its weight - but it's full width and encumbrance. You have a bunch of plates, rigid plates, from toe's nail to top-most hair. It is lighter, indeed - but in no way do you more more fluidly.Arguing from a realism standpoint is a bit fishy, considering that there's already a certain level of abstraction going on even with the most realistic stuff. I'd read your earlier argument, and found it to be entirely on the basis of realism. That said, I still made a counterpoint, that proficiency is a limitation in a certain sense and that nonproficiency is more obviously a limitation. Limitations are not necessarily binary things - the mithral text, even in the DMG, refers to affecting movement as a limitation of armor. You can move in any sort of armor, but it's easier with lighter armor. Similarly, you can perform the expanded ACP set of rolls in any armor, but it's easier in armor with which you are proficient.And it is unbalanced. Armor proficiency is worth a feat - and there, we get a simple material costing 4000 or 9000gp that gives you the feat-equivalent of proficiency, in addition to its other effects ? Even without the proficiency, mithral armor are already sought after...It's sought after more because of the explicit things it does than anything else. People most commonly use it to get a higher maximum Dexterity bonus to AC, to reduce armor check penalties, and/or to reduce arcane spell failure. And not all feats are created equal. Effectively buying a relatively low-power feat like Armor Proficiency is fine with me at those prices. Besides, the most common items of mithral armor explicitly are considered lighter for all purposes. They appear in the DMG (chainmail), Races of the Wild (chain shirt and breastplate?), and Races of Stone (full plate).
Saurus33 07-07-07, 08:08 AM	I remember in the class articles, the armour recommended for a Dread Necromancer was mithril breastplate, and it has only light armour proficiency, so as far as I know, it counts as light armour.