Mithral Studded Leather?
Jomo Kenyatta
rogue/wizard, emphasis on the rogue, and I came across all of this
mithral business in this group. Seems to be the only thing to reduce
arcane spell failure besides well, not wearing armor. But to me, a
mitrhal chain shirt's 15% chance of failure is a little too high for
my liking. I was wondering if studded leather with mithral studs is
possible, and how much the spell failure would be be reduced. I'd ask
my DM, but I don't want him to laugh at me, so I'm asking you all
first. Thanks.
James Quick
the_fighti...@yahoo.com (Jomo Kenyatta) wrote:
> Hello all, first time poster. I've recently started playing D&D as a
> rogue/wizard, emphasis on the rogue, and I came across all of this
> mithral business in this group. Seems to be the only thing to reduce
> arcane spell failure besides well, not wearing armor. But to me, a
> mitrhal chain shirt's 15% chance of failure is a little too high for
> my liking.
A Mithral Shirt has only a 10% arcane spell failure chance (pg 182 DMG).
A regular Chain Shirt has a 20% chance (pg 104 PH).
> I was wondering if studded leather with mithral studs is
> possible, and how much the spell failure would be be reduced. I'd ask
> my DM, but I don't want him to laugh at me, so I'm asking you all
> first. Thanks.
I don't think that there is enough metal in the studded leather for it
to make a difference. However, if I was feeling _extraordinarily_
generous, I would reduce it by 5% (to 10%), but I doubt it.
--
James Quick
Is this where I am supposed to put the funny quote?
Chris Camfield
wrote:
As far as I know, there is no definition for such armour but it stands to reason
that it would be possible. However it should not get as much of a bonus (or, on
the other hand, cost as much) as 'full' armours made of mithral because the
amount of metal involved is so much less.
Halving the benefits wouldn't seem unreasonable - the resulting armour (getting
-5% spell failure, max dex +1, and armor check penalties +1) would have most of
the same properties as leather, except for the AC.
For that matter you might be better off (if it's cheaper) with enchanted
leather.
Chris
Michael Scott Brown
> Hello all, first time poster. I've recently started playing D&D as a
> rogue/wizard, emphasis on the rogue, and I came across all of this
> mithral business in this group.
You could also come across this mithral business by reading the
rulebooks.
> Seems to be the only thing to reduce
> arcane spell failure besides well, not wearing armor.
Bah. Metamagic Feat: Still Spell
> But to me, a
> mitrhal chain shirt's 15% chance of failure is a little too high for
> my liking.
15% seems high for mithral chain.
1/6 chance of spell failure is plenty low.
Quit whining and accept the consequences of your lust for armor.
> I was wondering if studded leather with mithral studs is
> possible, and how much the spell failure would be be reduced.
The rules in the books for mithral indicate that it modifies the
properties of armor *when it is primarily metal*. This is a poor
description of studded leather - which only adds 5 pounds to the weight of
leather armor. Even if mithral weighed half as much as steel, you've a
weight savings of a whopping 2 pounds...
> I'd ask my DM, but I don't want him to laugh at me, so I'm asking you all
> first. Thanks.
If you really want to lower your arcane failure rate, ditch the armor
and find yourself Bracers of armor and items of Protection.
-Michael
David Dorward
> If you really want to lower your arcane failure rate, ditch the armor
> and find yourself Bracers of armor and items of Protection.
Well, some item of protection - they don't stack :) Throw in a THING of
natural armour and you're laughing though.
--
David Dorward http://david.us-lot.org/
"You cannot rewrite history, not one line."
- The Doctor (Dr. Who: The Aztecs)
Hong Ooi
wrote:
>Michael Scott Brown wrote:
>
>> If you really want to lower your arcane failure rate, ditch the armor
>> and find yourself Bracers of armor and items of Protection.
>
>Well, some item of protection - they don't stack :)
Actually, they do. Bracers of armour give an armour bonus to AC, and
protection rings (or whatever) give a deflection bonus.
Hong "consider yourself bah'ed" Ooi
--
Hong Ooi | "Then they started on their journey
ho...@zipworld.com.au | to the lost elven valley."
http://www.zipworld.com.au/~hong/dnd/ | -- GW
Sydney, Australia |
Chris Camfield
<mister...@earthlink.net> wrote:
[snip]
>> I was wondering if studded leather with mithral studs is
>> possible, and how much the spell failure would be be reduced.
>
> The rules in the books for mithral indicate that it modifies the
>properties of armor *when it is primarily metal*. This is a poor
>description of studded leather - which only adds 5 pounds to the weight of
>leather armor. Even if mithral weighed half as much as steel, you've a
>weight savings of a whopping 2 pounds...
According to the description in the DMG, studded leather is not cuir bouilli
(i.e. leather armour) with studs added, but based on an untreated leather, so
the metal has to be providing a higher proportion of the weight (and
protection).
Chris
Michael Scott Brown
news:3decab2...@news1.on.sympatico.ca...
> > The rules in the books for mithral indicate that it modifies the
> >properties of armor *when it is primarily metal*. This is a poor
> >description of studded leather - which only adds 5 pounds to the weight
of
> >leather armor. Even if mithral weighed half as much as steel, you've a
> >weight savings of a whopping 2 pounds...
>
> According to the description in the DMG, studded leather is not cuir
bouilli
> (i.e. leather armour) with studs added, but based on an untreated leather,
so
> the metal has to be providing a higher proportion of the weight (and
> protection).
I don't see how that follows - a suit of leather is still a suit of
leather, does boiling it somehow make it *heavier*? This would surprise me
immensely, though I admit that I don't know the Real Truth of the matter and
thus am open to enlightenment should my instincts prove wrong. Certainly,
the metal is providing more of the defense, but that's not neccessarily the
same as the armor being primarily *made* of the stuff, it just means that
it's main component isn't as sturdy. <shrug>
Hmm. If we were really anal, we could postulate a size and density of
studs and work out how much a tunic of the stuff would have to weigh in
metal and see where the truth lies...
-Michael
Jomo Kenyatta
> You could also come across this mithral business by reading the
> rulebooks.
Thanks bucko, you are a helpful guy. I don't have a DMG and I didn't
ask my DM about it yet.
> 15% seems high for mithral chain.
> 1/6 chance of spell failure is plenty low.
> Quit whining and accept the consequences of your lust for armor.
I didn't realize I was whining, thanks for pointing that out there
chief... lusting is another story, but for armor? What kind of weird
fetish is that. Anyway, apparently a mithral buckler has no arcane
spell failure so that would be the way to go, besides ditching armor
all together and getting bracers and rings and amulets to buff up the
AC. I guess just running away also works too. Thank you all (except
for M. Brown) for your help.
Matthew Miller
>Thanks bucko, you are a helpful guy. I don't have a DMG and I didn't
>ask my DM about it yet.
<http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/srd/srdmagicitemscreatingmagicitems.html>
--
Matthew Miller mat...@mattdm.org <http://www.mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/>
Michael Scott Brown
> for M. Brown) for your help.
Whiner.
-Michael
Chris Camfield
<mister...@earthlink.net> wrote:
[snip]
> I don't see how that follows - a suit of leather is still a suit of
>leather, does boiling it somehow make it *heavier*? This would surprise me
>immensely, though I admit that I don't know the Real Truth of the matter and
>thus am open to enlightenment should my instincts prove wrong.
Actually, that's a good point. For some reason I assumed that boiling leather
in wax or oil would increase its weight but that isn't necessarily true.
Chris
Garth Michel
where you have trained to cast in armour. Basicaly it lowers the Arcane
Casting Failure by 5% and I think you can take it a couple times. I
could be wrong about this. You might want to ask your DM, he would know,
if not ask him if you can't create a feat like that.
David Dorward
> On Tue, 03 Dec 2002 08:08:28 +0000, David Dorward <dor...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Michael Scott Brown wrote:
>>
>>> If you really want to lower your arcane failure rate, ditch the
>>> armor
>>> and find yourself Bracers of armor and items of Protection.
>>
>>Well, some item of protection - they don't stack :)
>
> Actually, they do. Bracers of armour give an armour bonus to AC, and
> protection rings (or whatever) give a deflection bonus.
But multiple items (plural) of protection don't :)
Jomo Kenyatta
>
> -Michael
(Hmm, now what is the protocol here when someone posts a completely
*useless* one word message such as that one? Ignore it? Start an 'am
not/are too' debate? Come back with some equally dumb barb at the
other person? In order to blend in with other posters should I go
find a stick outside and then place it where the sun don't shine? Any
help would be appreciated, and yes I do realize that this message is
off topic, but I am new here. I'm going to go ahead and say
something, so let me know if it fits in with this dnd group protocol.)
Oh man dude, either you need the attention or you weren't hugged
enough as a child. I wasn't whining, I was asking for advice. You
didn't have to answer with the attitude, and you didn't have to answer
at all... although you seem to post an awful lot so maybe you have
some quota to fill. I wish you all the best in life, and from now on
I'll completely ignore you.
Jeff Sullivan
Boiling it does make it harder, though, so the metal studs ARE providing
more of the protection. Based on this construction, a studded leather
suit w/o the studs would be worse than a regular leather suit.
jeff
Michael Scott Brown
news:asllri$qgh$1...@news01.cit.cornell.edu...
> Boiling it does make it harder, though, so the metal studs ARE providing
> more of the protection. Based on this construction, a studded leather
> suit w/o the studs would be worse than a regular leather suit.
Obviously. However, the issue remains: how much of a suit of studded
leather is *studs* and how much is *leather*?
-Michael
Jim Davies
>Boiling it does make it harder, though, so the metal studs ARE providing
>more of the protection. Based on this construction, a studded leather
>suit w/o the studs would be worse than a regular leather suit.
Clearly so. It would be full of holes.
You should wear a colander on your head to go with it :)
--
Jim Davies
----------
No, not that one.
Jeff Sullivan
> Jeff Sullivan <jms...@no.spam.cornell.edu> typed:
>
>
>>Boiling it does make it harder, though, so the metal studs ARE providing
>>more of the protection. Based on this construction, a studded leather
>>suit w/o the studs would be worse than a regular leather suit.
>
>
> Clearly so. It would be full of holes.
>
> You should wear a colander on your head to go with it :)
>
Never did that, though I did once have a character who wore a bucket on
his head for a while. I don't remember exactly how it got on there, but
removing the bucket involved a gnome, some thrown-together contraption,
and one dead character. Playing a guy dumb enough to get a bucket stuck
on his head was fun for a while, but I was glad it was over. Other
players were starting to get a little annoyed...
jeff
Michael Scott Brown
news:al6tuuge86vagcm0k...@4ax.com...
> Jeff Sullivan <jms...@no.spam.cornell.edu> typed:
>
> >Boiling it does make it harder, though, so the metal studs ARE providing
> >more of the protection. Based on this construction, a studded leather
> >suit w/o the studs would be worse than a regular leather suit.
>
> Clearly so. It would be full of holes.
>
> You should wear a colander on your head to go with it :)
<applause>
-Michael
Darklord JonnyDigital
> I was wondering if studded leather with mithral studs is
> possible, and how much the spell failure would be be reduced.
You can make mithral studded leather, but I don't think the mithral
studs would make a significant enough difference to lessen the arcane
spell failure chance.
I might suggest that you wear Bracers of Armor, which have no spell
failure chance. You don't need to spend anything on armor or shields,
so you can easily afford one or two magic weapons and maybe a
permanent item of a bonus to Dex.
Ask your DM if you can take a feat like Armored Caster that lets you
ignore 10% armor failure. (It's not a standard feat, so the DM may
disallow this). Or, take the Spellsword prestige class, which lets you
ignore a certain amount of arcane spell failure.
--
JD
Talen
the_fighti...@yahoo.com (Jomo Kenyatta) wrote:
In my campaign world, I ruled that Dragonscale, if freshly obtained,
has the same practical effect to leather and hide armours that mithral
has to metal ones.
You might consider petitioning your DM as to this ruling.
Ultimately, however, a Mithral Buckler +1 should be quite a handy
investment for you.
--
Talen
http://shatteredreality.net/talen/
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.jay-denebeim.
tied-to-a-sheep.naked.being-whipped-with-daffodils.
and-covered-in-butter.d
- Newsgroup available on Optusnet. No, really.
The Gurus love you
James Quick
Talen <tal...@spamspamspamspam.optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.jay-denebeim.
> tied-to-a-sheep.naked.being-whipped-with-daffodils.
> and-covered-in-butter.d
> - Newsgroup available on Optusnet. No, really.
That has to be the most truly bizarre group I have ever heard of.
My server carries
<alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.Gillian-Andersons-head-on-other-womens-bod
ies> and <alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.disney>
People are weird. Especially where sex is concerned.
Talen
<Jam...@verizon.net> wrote:
>In article <i0iuuuc1v6lv4ogl4...@4ax.com>,
> Talen <tal...@spamspamspamspam.optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>> alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.jay-denebeim.
>> tied-to-a-sheep.naked.being-whipped-with-daffodils.
>> and-covered-in-butter.d
>> - Newsgroup available on Optusnet. No, really.
>
>That has to be the most truly bizarre group I have ever heard of.
It does actually exist. Scarily, about a year or two ago when I found
and sigfiled it, it was getting traffic, as well.
>People are weird. Especially where sex is concerned.
Yeeees, yes they are.
--
Talen
http://shatteredreality.net/talen/
"We've got to THINK here. What would Brian Boitano do?"
"He'd die horribly, Lina, he's just an ice skater."
- Lina Inverse and Naga The Serpent, Ultra Rage Gamma
The Gurus love you
Rick Rauser
> > tied-to-a-sheep.naked.being-whipped-with-daffodils.
> > and-covered-in-butter.d
> That has to be the most truly bizarre group I have ever heard of.
> >
> <alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.Gillian-Andersons-head-on-other-womens-bod
> ies> and <alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.disney>
>
> People are weird. Especially where sex is concerned.
Heh. I remember about ten years ago there was an "alt.mcdonalds"
group...probably still is, but I don't get it on my server. Anyway, I
remember that the sole purpose of this group was for people to discuss
what they had eaten at McDonalds on such-and-such a day. The real
highlights were the "The Best McDonalds Commercial Is" threads.
On the other hand, there was also alt.sex.watersports...
Rick Rauser
rau...@canoemail.com