# Studded Leather, is it a metal armor for game purposes?



## Wolfix (Feb 11, 2005)

Would someone casting the electric version of Energy Ray [XPH] at someone in a studded leather armor gain the +3 attack bonus? The armor is made of leather, but does have lots of metal studs on it. What do you think the rules would say?

For reference:


			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Energy Ray
> Psychokinesis [see text]
> Level: Psion/wilder 1
> Display: Auditory
> ...


----------



## Crothian (Feb 11, 2005)

I vote yes on the metal but really the rules don't seem to say for sure


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Feb 11, 2005)

Based on the fact that Druids are prohibited from wearing it, I'd say that, yes, it is metal armor.


----------



## diaglo (Feb 11, 2005)

they have bone versions of studs in some books.


----------



## Creat (Feb 11, 2005)

I would clearly vote for no, since the armor is only reinforced with metal parts. It does not supply a conducting surface, only some conducting points, but I would probably rule this as something in between and still give a +1 bonus instead of +3.

Look at it the other way: Would you allow a player to craft a studded leather armor with the advantages of adamantine or mithral? I certainly would not.

Or just look at the AC bonus: A normal leather armor gives +2, a studded leather gives +3. Now consider that steel (or any metal for that matter) is singnificantly stronger than leather, but it only gives a +1 boost to the AC of the armor, it can't be that much metal after all.

But looking at those AC boni the +1 mentioned in my first paragraph would make sense, since thats the effect the metal has on the AC. though one could argue the metal is not helping since its isolated against the body and the other metal plates by all the leather =)

hope that helps,
Creat


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Feb 11, 2005)

Studded leather is (or should be) a catchall category for various types of reinforced leather armors.  Reinforcement could be by any combination of metal, bone, and/or more layers of leather.

As for the spell based I the PHB description of studded, I would lean strongly towards no.  It is ambiguous.

Realistically speaking, armors are not generally made out of one single material.  Metals armors are always worn over padded armor and held in place by leather straps.  But we call plate metal armor, and not "mostly metal with some leather worn over cloth" for mechanics purposes.  Likewise I would call studded leather a leather armor, and not "mostly leather with some metal".


----------



## Wolfix (Feb 11, 2005)

Creat makes some good points, but I find the fact that druids are prohibited from wearing it a really convincing argument. I hadn't thought of that at all. The quote from the druid in the SRD seems useable for this situation: "Druids are proficient with light and medium armor but are prohibited from wearing metal armor; thus, they may wear only padded, leather, or hide armor."

Thanks for the swift replies!


----------



## RigaMortus (Feb 11, 2005)

Wolfix said:
			
		

> "Druids are proficient with light and medium armor but are prohibited from wearing metal armor; thus, they may wear only padded, leather, or hide armor."




What makes ya think studded leather isn't included in this?  Studded leather IS leather after all.


----------



## KarinsDad (Feb 11, 2005)

Creat said:
			
		

> I would clearly vote for no, since the armor is only reinforced with metal parts. It does not supply a conducting surface, only some conducting points, but I would probably rule this as something in between and still give a +1 bonus instead of +3.
> 
> Look at it the other way: Would you allow a player to craft a studded leather armor with the advantages of adamantine or mithral? I certainly would not.




This is a tough one. There appear to be rules to support both interpretations.


CON:

"Items not primarily of metal are not meaningfully affected by being partially made of mithral."

Leather Armor weighs 15 pounds. Studded leather weighs 20 pounds. It appears that Studded Leather is primarily made of leather, not metal.

Also, in the FAQ:

"As an object, armor has a hardness appropriate to its construction: 10 for metal, 5 for leather or hide, and 0 for padded armor. (Treat studded leather as leather.)"

In regard to the original poster's question, if you rule that studded leather (at about 5 pounds of metal) is metal armor, then a guy in leather armor carrying 50 pounds of metal weapons would not be affected by the +3 bonus of the power and a guy in studded leather with no extra metal would be. This does not really seem reasonable to me.


PRO:

"Druids are proficient with light and medium armor but are prohibited from wearing metal armor; thus, they may wear only padded, leather, or hide armor."

I think the pro side wins out here since studded leather is explicitly called out as metal armor with this statement.


----------



## Creat (Feb 11, 2005)

Well that's your call, but after all I think that's because they contain a noticeable amount of metal (1/3 from the AC or weight differences).

Or just a nice picture: picture

Or the text that describes the armor in the PHB (3.0 and 3.5 edition, it didn't change):
"This armor is made from tough but flexible leather (not hardened leather as with normal leather armor) reinforced with close-set metal rivets."

it's not even metal plates as I thought, it's only rivets (also the picture in the phb shows the difference between studded and non-studded leather quite nicely, only those few dots are metal, that's all.

but then I seem to be alone on this 

bye
Creat


----------



## Creat (Feb 11, 2005)

RigaMortus said:
			
		

> What makes ya think studded leather isn't included in this?  Studded leather IS leather after all.




Because it would be the only armor no mentioned by its full name. They probably would've used "all leather" or something to indicate both leather types

bye
Creat


----------



## KarinsDad (Feb 11, 2005)

From a balance perspective, I think it is reasonable to rule that studded leather is metal armor (at least for this power). The power does 1D6+1 damage per PP for fire and cold, but 1D6 for Lightning, just in order to get +3 to hit. Since it is a range touch attack, it will hit most of the time anyway, so the manifester is giving up 1 point of damage per PP in order to get +3 to hit.

Ranged touch attacks hit at least 50% of the time (and often a lot more often) for most characters against most similar CR level opponents. Hence, 50% * 4.5 per die = 2.25 per die versus 65% * 3.5 per die = 2.275 per die means that the manifester is often averaging about the same damage for the attack by using the Lightning. And as the chance to hit increases (as levels go up), the Lightning option averages even less damage per die in comparison.

Pros and cons, it seems balanced (at least in this case).


----------



## UltimaGabe (Feb 11, 2005)

RigaMortus said:
			
		

> What makes ya think studded leather isn't included in this?  Studded leather IS leather after all.




No, it's Studded Leather. The rules aren't saying, "You can only wear armor that's made of leather," just like they're not saying, "You can only wear armor that's padded," because if that were the case, Full Plate would be a viable choice for Druids (as even Full Plate has padding). Padded Armor, Leather Armor, and Hide Armor are three specific kinds of armor.


----------



## Storyteller01 (Feb 11, 2005)

A few things come to mind here:  

- Someone sticking a screwdriver where it doesn't belong can expect to get fried, and that screwdriver possesses much less metal than the studded leather.

EDIT: And usually has a plastic or rubber handle (not much for insulation, but better than leather)

- Lightning can hit a tree, travel several dozens of feet through the ground soil, and kill a human by travelling up one leg and down the other. The human doesn't have to stand under the tree. Using that, I would guess that the leather may not be much of an insulator.

- Anyone wearing that much leather in combat will be sweating!! All that moisture would complete the circuit between all those metal studs and your body.


----------



## Nail (Feb 11, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> I think the pro side wins out here since studded leather is explicitly called out as metal armor with this statement.



Whereas I think the CON side has the better arguement list.  

Moreover, you could interpret the druid statement as "its got enough metal to count against the druids restrictions.....but not enough to be treated as a mostly metal armor".  I don't see any subtantial problem with that distinction, especially as it is backed up by common sense.


----------



## Creat (Feb 11, 2005)

While we're talking about the actual physics/reality (as far as you can speak of those in a fictional world only loosely based on the real world to be able to fit into simple rules):
A guy wearing a padded leather armor and a club with a wooden shield is on watch. The party gets ambushed. The poor guy is a much easier target (by +3) than the fighter who was just woken up by him (hence not wearing his whatever-heavy metal armor since it takes a few minutes to put it on) carrying a bastard sword and a large steel shield (the bastard sword alone would have easily (!) twice the amount of metal compared to the studded leather, I'm not even gonna start talking about the shield).

Storyteller01: You can't comparte a directed attack to an actual lightning (though, granted it's the closest thing we have in reality). If you include sweat in that calculation you're just making it more impossible to solve than it already is. The thing with the legs is based on the human body beeing a by far better conductor compared to dry (or possibly even wet) earth.

My final point: If you want realism and you want to give the +3 against someone wearing leather armor, you'd have to give it against pretty much everyone who even has as much as a sword or 2 to 3 daggers somewhere. As far as the actual rules go, the only one point that references studded leather as metal armor is the druids description (which could just as well be just a balance issue from the creators). All others - at least the ones listed by KarinsDad - consider it a non-metal armor (I'm including things like the relative weights of metal and leather in the armor in question here as well)

That should be enough to set your mind to non-metal, or just go with the balance comment  concerning attack/damage - also given by KarinsDad - wich is probably the most relevant for this question, after all we don't want to have a copy of our reality we want a playable game. So balance is the key!

bye
Creat


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Feb 11, 2005)

Well, other than the fact that the druid restrictions say, "You can't wear metal armor."

They then provide a list of things that aren't metal armor.  Everything else, thereby, _is_ metal armor (barring special materials, discussed separately).


----------



## Nail (Feb 11, 2005)

Interestingly, not even chainmail is listed as being a "metal armor" in the equipment section of the SRD.     I'd say it's made out of cheese.....but then again, I'm from Wisconsin.


----------



## Nail (Feb 11, 2005)

Fortunately, I have a PH on pdf.

*Studded Leather:* This armor is made from tough but flexible
leather (not hardened leather as with normal leather armor) reinforced
with close-set metal rivets.

So, can this armor gain the advantages of being made with adamantine?  No....then it's not mostly metal, and therefore not "metal enough" to count vs this energy ray.

That's the part I'm hung up on, at any rate.  But hey: like studded leather, I'm flexible on my position.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Feb 11, 2005)

Earlier, someone posted a picture of studded leather armor.

I think it's a bad picture, because I don't think it really represents what the PHB terms studded leather.

I think:

http://xoomer.virgilio.it/amasoni2002/shl/marvel/conan_the_barbarian_(1982).htm

(scroll nearly down to the bottom, look for the one with Conan on the horse) is really more what D&D is talking about.  I'm still trying to find a better picture, though ...


----------



## Creat (Feb 11, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Well, other than the fact that the druid restrictions say, "You can't wear metal armor."
> They then provide a list of things that aren't metal armor.  Everything else, thereby, _is_ metal armor (barring special materials, discussed separately).




And how exactly are you trying to contradict me when I wrote:


			
				Creat said:
			
		

> [...] the only one point that references studded leather as metal armor is the druids description [...]




My point was that all other sources (or all that I know of in the PHB/DMG and so on) treat Studded leather as NON-metal armor (see posts above), so its one against many.

bye
Creat


----------



## Creat (Feb 11, 2005)

> [...]is really more what D&D is talking about.




Yes I would agree, that's what I would understand as "close-set metal rivets", unfortunately that's just never gonne work out with the given weights in th PHB, which says 15 pounds of leather and 5 pounds of metal, so it can't be this dense.
Also take another look at the studded leather picture from the PHB, it shows the rivets clearly in a much greater distance to another, and I do assume they thought about if this picture looked right and like they imagined the armor before they printed it.

bye
Creat


----------



## Nail (Feb 11, 2005)

How about here for a picture of studded leather?

There are several sites which show what video games think are the best representations of studded leather.....FWIW.


----------



## Storyteller01 (Feb 11, 2005)

Creat said:
			
		

> Storyteller01: You can't comparte a directed attack to an actual lightning (though, granted it's the closest thing we have in reality). If you include sweat in that calculation you're just making it more impossible to solve than it already is. The thing with the legs is based on the human body beeing a by far better conductor compared to dry (or possibly even wet) earth.
> 
> bye
> Creat




Sorry, just comparing electricity in general. Lightning strikes me (no pun intended) as a relatively adequate example, given that it is a directed burst of energy (those crazy electrons balancing themselves out!!)

Another example: military personel working on vehicles (and I'm sure anyone else) are ordered to remove their dog tags, watches, and jewelery. If these bits of metal make contact with the battery, said mechanic is a dead man (again with the electrons!)! If this is the case with two pieces of metal on a chain (or something equally small), what will studded leather do with a directed burst?

Also, remember that the lightning traveled through the earth (most likely wet) before it hit said human.

I hereby end my arguement before I go overboard...


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Feb 11, 2005)

Creat said:
			
		

> Yes I would agree, that's what I would understand as "close-set metal rivets", unfortunately that's just never gonne work out with the given weights in th PHB, which says 15 pounds of leather and 5 pounds of metal, so it can't be this dense.




This is where I think your problem lies.  Specifically, your math's wrong.

The difference between the weight of leather armor and that of studded leather armor is 5 pounds.  I agree.

The difference between leather armor and studded leather armor, however, is not just the presence or abscence of metal rivets.

Rather, leather armor relies on the toughness and thickness of the leather for its protection.  That leather is boiled and beaten into shape, and is applied in multiple layers.  It is rigid armor; a given piece does not flex.

Studded leather armor is made of softer leather, and relies on the metal rivets for protection.  In fact, the only difference between studded leather and a thick leather coat is the presence of the metal rivets.  It is not rigid armor; a given piece will flex.


----------



## Creat (Feb 11, 2005)

> Another example: military personel working on vehicles (and I'm sure anyone else) are ordered to remove their dog tags, watches, and jewelery. If these bits of metal make contact with the battery, said mechanic is a dead man (again with the electrons!)! If this is the case with two pieces of metal on a chain (or something equally small), what will studded leather do with a directed burst?




OK sorry, but that's just plain wrong and against the laws oh physics! The human skin has a certain resistance, you just need at least round about 60 Volts to pass it (and all vehicles use 12 (cars) or 24 (trucks) Volts for their devices as far as I know even in military vehicles). Even if you anchor your waches under your skin (ouch!) it wouldn't work cause you still need to complete the circuit, which means you need an entry and an exit point. So IF the watch would have a metallic or otherwise conducting connection to under the skin (where the blood would easily conduct it through the body) it would still have to get back out of your body on the other side, presumeably through the hand to the frame or another part connected to the negative pole of the battery but still through the skin! So unless you're incredibly unlucky and have a screwdriver sticking through your hand that's just not gonna happen.

But my actual point why a lightnig is not such a great example is that it searches for its easiest way to discharge, if you want. The ray shot by this Psionic (I think?) is directed, which is against the laws of physics already all by itself. That's just not how electricity works...

But I don't think that's helping to solve the problem anymore 

Patryn of Elvenshae: Yea actually that might be right, it would also work out with the weight of the chainshirt which is again 5 pounds heavier, so the remaining leather would've been replaced by steel (over all thinner steel I guess, the rivets seem to be more massive than the construction of a chainshirt).

bye
Creat


----------



## Creat (Feb 11, 2005)

Oh I forgot, Storyteller01: Even if all that would happen its still not relevant because the metal of the chain or the watch doesn't attract a lightning, it would simply conduct the electricity if it came in contact with, say, the positive pole itself (again: and the voltage would be high enough to bridge all the other obstacles and thereby complete a circuit). You need 10.000 volts to bridge about 1 cm of air if I recall correctly (not 100% sure but the dimensions should be right) and you have nowhere NEAR that in a car (as I said 24 the most in trucks, assuming you have military equipment that has it's own power generator maybe 110-220, but that would be on the back of the truck an nowhere near the engine!)

ok, done with off-topic now (sorry)
Creat


----------



## KarinsDad (Feb 11, 2005)

Nail said:
			
		

> Whereas I think the CON side has the better arguement list.
> 
> Moreover, you could interpret the druid statement as "its got enough metal to count against the druids restrictions.....but not enough to be treated as a mostly metal armor".  I don't see any subtantial problem with that distinction, especially as it is backed up by common sense.




There is a difference between interpreting the Druid statement and reading it as is.

They could have written it as:

"Druids are proficient with light and medium armor but are prohibited from wearing any armor with metal in it; thus, they may wear only padded, leather, or hide armor."

but they didn't.

Unlike the CON list (although reasonable and longer), this is an actual rule that indicates that studded leather (and all other armors with metal in them) are metal armors.


This is the only definition of metal armor (tmk) that we have, so we have to go with it. The CON rules are implications, this one is a statement.


----------

