Mithral Armor - Proficiency

[LOLC2k]

So yes, I am well aware that Mithral bumps the armor down a category, but does it grant proficiency? For example, does a character with light and medium armor prof have proficiency with mithral fullplate, or does the fullplate just not restrict movement as if it was medium armor? Thanks.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

So yes, I am well aware that Mithral bumps the armor down a category, but does it grant proficiency? For example, does a character with light and medium armor prof have proficiency with mithral fullplate, or does the fullplate just not restrict movement as if it was medium armor? Thanks.

In 3.5, a PC with Medium Armor Proficiency is considered proficient with mithral full plate. It's a common houserule to go the other way, though.

 

[Kask]

For example, does a character with light and medium armor prof have proficiency with mithral fullplate, or does the fullplate just not restrict movement as if it was medium armor? Thanks.

Not per the DMG or PHB. There may be a splat book that has a rule about it.

 

[Foxworthy]

So yes, I am well aware that Mithral bumps the armor down a category, but does it grant proficiency? For example, does a character with light and medium armor prof have proficiency with mithral fullplate, or does the fullplate just not restrict movement as if it was medium armor? Thanks.

According to the DMG the armor is treated as one step lighter for movement and other limitations. Some people don't believe armor proficiency is considered a limitation on the armor, personally I do as even the DMG makes Elven Chain [Mithral Chainmail] to be light armor.

Also the FAQ supports that mithral full plate is medium armor, and I believe that Races of the Wild also places mithral fullplate under medium armor on it's armor chart.

So while it's not expressly stated in the DMG that proficiency is one of the limitations that armor is considered lighter for it does seem to be what was intended.

 

[frankthedm]

I'm of the option the proficiency to use the armor should not change. There is no need to devalue the Heavy armor Proficiency.

The proficiency issue was mentioned in one of the best entries in the 3.5 FAQ. While I don't agree with the entry, i respect it because it cites the rules, explains that there is some vagueness and does not hide what it is suggesting IS a suggestion.

Originally Posted by Da Faq
Is a character proficient with light armor, such as a rogue, considered to be proficient with mithral breastplate? What about a character proficient with medium armor, such as a barbarian—is he considered proficient with mithral full plate armor?

The description of mithral on page 284 of the DMG 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 DMG 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 DMG 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 ECS).

Related thread

http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-3rd-edition-rules/250891-ranger-wearing-med-mithral-armor.html

 

[Kask]

While I don't agree with the entry, i respect it because it cites the rules, explains that there is some vagueness and does not hide what it is suggesting IS a suggestion.

Correct. Some DMs use that suggestion to create a house rule. Some don't.

 

[Starbuck_II]

Granted, all books after the DMG list mithral armors as one less for everything. So designers sure liked thast "suggestion".

 

[Kask]

Granted, all books after the DMG list mithral armors as one less for everything.

Nope. It actually lists the items. If you quote the exact text you'll see that your statement is false.

 

[Starbuck_II]

Nope. It actually lists the items. If you quote the exact text you'll see that your statement is false.

Nope, you won't fine me seeing my statement false. BEcause it is true. Funny how that works
Examples: MIC, Races of Wild, DMG (Elvin Chain was light in every way even proficiency) , etc.

Every book after DMG that metioned it treated it as one lighter even in proficiency.

In fact, I'd like someone to find a WotC book that doesn't treat it that way. 3.5 perferably, but I would'nt mind seeing how 3.0 was different.

 

[Kask]

Nope, you won't fine me seeing my statement false.

I haven't a clue what you are trying to say here.

Every book after DMG that metioned it treated it as one lighter even in proficiency.

I'm speaking (as I said) of Core book rules. Not crap books.