Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Maesto 06-18-07, 12:33 PM	Ok, so I said I'd make a Bear Warrior for a friend. Has to be playable from low levels, as she'll just loose interest if there's some crappy levels to it. Bear Warrior: can get in at level 8, want to take at most 7 levels (for an extra rage per day). 5 levels is almost a certainty. After reading through the CW version of Bear Warrior, be sure to read the errata for the class. The best synergy with Bear Warrior by far is Warshaper. At least two levels, third level somewhat cool, fourth level is probably decent for 15th level. 5th level is useless. The other synergy I can see is two levels of Deep Warden, as a Bear Warrior will suffer from AC problems, given that even wild armour won't help it. Given that Deep Warden will squeeze in quite nicely before Bear Warrior can be taken, it's almost a given also. I kinda like the idea of a dwarven Bear Warrior =) Track fits in nicely with the scent ability of the Bear Warrior too. This build would work very nicely in a 20 level situation, but curtailing it at 15th, we end up with: Dwarf STR 17 DEX 9 CON 18 INT 10 WIS 10 CHA 6 (which is really fitting given that all the bears in the MM except for the Dire Bear have CHA 6 ;-) 1. Ranger, Endurance 2. Barbarian 3. Fighter, Extra Rage, Power Attack 4. Fighter, Improved Unarmed Strike 5. Barbarian 6. Deep Warden, Reckless Rage 7. Deep Warden 8. Bear Warrior 9. Warshaper, Instantaneous Rage 10. Warshaper 11. Warshaper 12. Bear Warrior, Multiattack 13. Bear Warrior 14. Bear Warrior 15. Bear Warrior, [your choice of fun feats] Three attribute bumps to strength. Skills to keep up are survival, climb, jump, swim, spot, and listen. Five ranks in knowledge (dungeoneering) and heal will qualify for Deep Warden. There's only so many ranks you need in swim and climb, however, so Int 10 should be enough to get by with. A single rank in tumble will be amusing. You end up with a stupidly large con when in bear form. Assuming a +6 con boost item (which will be high on the agenda), you have 18 base +6 amulet +4 warshaper +8 brown bear form + 2 reckless rage = 38, so a +14 touch AC from constitution when in bear form. Oh, that's silly. Note - rage will last for up to 17 rounds, which is quite impressive. Items to get: Armour just isn't a priority here; you've got 7 AC from con which will be capped by max dex for armour, so go for padded armour. Make it +1, get some nice enhancement on it. A ring of protection +1 or 2 will help nicely when you're not in bear form. You will have a pretty damn good touch AC, considering you're going to be a raging barbarian. A rod of lesser extend and a couple of third level pearls of power will make the wizard your friend, and get you greater mage armour armour all day long. If you have a friendly druid, it will also get you a greater magic fang all day long. A dusty rose ioun stone would be good. Gloves of Dex+2 will get your initiative modifier out of negatives, and allow you to actually make the DC 10 balance checks taking 10, which is probably a good idea. If you can find access, a Bear Helm from the MIC would be very characterful. As mentioned above, the +6 con boost item is a must, as it remains with you in bear form. If you're willing for a bear to wear a cloak, a cloak of resistance +x would be great. The will save isn't completely pathetic, but hey - it isn't great. It's the reflex save which is really bad, but most of those you're not worried about anyway - you've got the hitpoints to take whatever fireballs they want to throw your way. Ioun Stone of strength +2 will remain with you in bear form. Grab it if you see access. When not in bear form, a belt of giant strength, although it won't stack, will give you extra to hit and damage. +4 or +6, depending on how wealthy you're feeling. Some weapon for when you're not in bear form, which is basically when you're not raging. Strength will be 22 (or 24 or 26 if you buy the belt) at 12th level, so go for a two handed weapon and power attack away. Get an adamantine something, make it +1 and be happy. You don't plan to use it that often. Get the usual boots of speed (pity they won't help in bear form, but you may as well enjoy them when you're not going troppo for some reason), a magical backpack of some sort, and any other pretty trinkets you want. Eyes of the eagle won't go astray, nor will a lens of detection. All up, it should come to about 160K give or take a bit, which is about right for a 15th level character. Because there is no focus on armour or weapons, and most items will meld when you rage anyway, there's little more to buy I think. All in all, you'll be a brute of a character. You may not do as much damage as a two handed power attacking fighter with lots of strength, but you won't be far off. Using morphic shapes for a gore, claw, claw, bite, haste, you'll get five attacks in with a +17 or so strength modifier and 1-to-1 power attack. Damage output should be very decent. You'll end up with over 300 hitpoints whilst in brown bear form, and an AC of about 30. Your staying power is amazing. That said, the cleric will absolutely hate putting you back together. Skillswise, you'll be ok at spot and listen, you'll be decent at survival and tracking, and you'll be excellent at swim/climb/jump. Levels 1-6 are not nearly so cool as the rest of the levels. You'll just be starting out, and none of your tricks will have matured yet. You'll just be a fairly typical angry barbarian =) Levels 7 - 11 all add new tricks to the repetoire, levels 12-14 are pretty so-so, but level 15 is pure awesomeness. I think that's about all that I've got for this character. I hope you enjoyed reading all of this long post :) Please leave any comments! Cheers, Jolyon
rutrow424 06-18-07, 12:44 PM	I think that's about all that I've got for this character. I hope you enjoyed reading all of this long post :) Please leave any comments! Just left a dwarf BW build in the barbarian stat thread, so I totally approve! Are you sure recklass rage stacks with BW? That was my one sticking point, since the feat only mentions stacking with the barbarian-class rage features, not the BW class ability. If it doesn't, it is still ok for pre-BW levels and could be retrained later, I just think it could be a DM call after that.
Maesto 06-18-07, 12:50 PM	Ok, I've screwed up. None of the rage feats are fighter bonus feats, so one of them will have to be dropped for a fighter bonus feat, if this build is followed. Not quite sure what to do about it. If Reckless Rage is a sticking point with some people (and I agree it isn't totally clear), that one is the best one to drop, I think. Perhaps cleave would be most useful, although I'm open to suggestions. Improved Bullrush could be funny, although it really has limited applications. Improved Grapple could also be useful, if you want to capitalise on your improved grab ability.
MatteBlack 06-18-07, 01:08 PM	A gnomish bear warrior could give an enemy a nasty surprise if they attempted to take advantage of the gnomes small size by grappling.
King Kashue 06-18-07, 01:23 PM	I've not run into anyone who says reckless rage doesn't stack. You are raging (that's explicit), so there shouldn't be an issue. As for the build, cool in general (I have a friend who's doing the deepwarder/bear warrior thing)...couple of suggestions though: -One, don't take extra rage twice. You say you think it's necessary, but I've never needed more than three rages in a day and that's playing my Bear warrior for a long time. This is obviously a bit of meta-gaming, but there are generally only three fights in an entire module, much less in a single day. -Two, consider something else instead of improved nat. weapon. It's nice, but remember, you can do that with your morphic weapon ability. It costs a move action, but that's what surprise rounds are for :D Taking a feat to do something you can already do in another form may not be the best thing. Also, even if you do take it, don't take it before improved crit. Improved crit adds 9% to damage, imp. nat weapon will take your claws from 1d4 to 1d6, that's an increase of one point of damage. -Three, Instantaneous rage is a feat that I've not found useful. Your mileage may vary, but it's such a situational feat that its utility is limited -Finally, you need to consider a secondary combat mode. Your claws are not magic, they're not aligned, they're not anything. Having had those claws for quite a while, you need to be able to weild a weapon some of the time in order to bypass DR (watching half or more of your damage vanish against DR10 or 15 sucks), or you need to be able to grapple. Now, grappling only works at higher levels if you're absolutely built for it, so it's not the best secondary mode, so just make sure you're solid in combat. Power attack obviously takes care of a decent amount of that, but you may want to consider what else you can do and make sure you can do it (that may not even mean other feats, but just consider it before hand). Other feats to think about if you're going to replace some/all of those I've suggested.: Imp Nat. Armor (since you're going to be sporting a nice AC anyway, though at higher APLs, the mid 20s are nothing more than avg). Improved Toughness, yeah you've got pantloads of hitpoints...you can always have more :D Iron Will, comes in handy. Will saves suck. Cleave, some people like it, I don't. As I've said, I've played my Bear warrior a long time, and it's maybe come up a half a dozen times. I know, because every time it does, someone says "you don't have cleave?!?" :D A final note: unless you're using some special sort of math, you're not going to reach the +22 Str bonus you were discussing, even in brown bear form (at 14th level), and certainly not before. 20 str + 8 Black bear + 4 Warshaper + 2 Reckless Rage + 4 Belt (most DMs I've played with allow the belt for Black bear form, since it's medium) = 38 str = +14 20 str + 16 black bear + 4 Warshaper +2 Reckless Rage + 2 Ioun Stone = 44 Str = +17. Good luck! Your friend should have fun playing him.
ShinAkuma2 06-18-07, 01:40 PM	I've looked at many, many different builds...I really want to make a Bear Warrior with a focus on grappling for the Greyhawk Ruins. Things to consider: Three levels of Hexblade gets you Arcane Resistance (so even a +1 Cha mod is helpful to you) and Mettle (shrug off Disintegrate = awesome), as well as 3 BAB and good Will saves. 2 levels of Monk gives you Wisdom to AC while in Bear form, since regardless of what you wear, you become unarmored, as well as Combat Reflexes to take advantage of the reach granted by Warshaper, and +3 to every save. 4 levels will also get you a speed boost and Magic unarmed attacks, for only the sacrifice of one BAB. If you use Monk, it's usually best to start as Fighter or Ranger, then Monk, then alignment shift for Barbarian later. You probably don't need Barbarian past 2, unless you want to go for DR (which I admit is one of my favorite class features). The feat Instantaneous Rage goes great with Bear Warrior, especially if you can get Intimidating Rage, as well. "He's charging me? I'll morph into Bear...See if he can avoid wetting his pants." I still don't know what I'm choosing, overall...There's just so much to consider. If Complete Champion becomes legal any time soon, I might have to include Fist of the Forest, a sorta Monk-Barb/Ranger hybrid. As far as flavor goes, it matches perfectly with my character...
King Kashue 06-18-07, 01:45 PM	Nothing against you, but I hate monk/barbs...If I hear one more "I was a half-orc raised in a monastery but left and reverted to my wild roots" backstory I'm gonna have an aneurysm...
dkay807 06-18-07, 04:16 PM	Nothing against you, but I hate monk/barbs...If I hear one more "I was a half-orc raised in a monastery but left and reverted to my wild roots" backstory I'm gonna have an aneurysm... I play a Dwarven monk/barb who became a raging alcoholic (emphasis on raging). Even monks can have a nasty temper when they're drunk. Guess what his prestige class will be in a level or two ;) I see no "issues" with that.
ShinAkuma2 06-18-07, 06:34 PM	Nothing against you, but I hate monk/barbs...If I hear one more "I was a half-orc raised in a monastery but left and reverted to my wild roots" backstory I'm gonna have an aneurysm... Normally, I hate Barbarian/Monks as well. However, the concept for my character actually calls for it...He's going to be a Monk of Ehlonna, a very nature- and religion-focused character. After several levels, he'll drop the Lawful aspect of his alignment, becoming Neutral, and only then will he take Barbarian, then Bear Warrior...His version of Wildshaping. I don't think there'll be any monastery in his backstory.
King Kashue 06-18-07, 07:18 PM	But what's the reason for becoming neutral except to take barbarian? That you've got it planned out shows it's not a natural development of the character (like a player who just seems to press the boundaries and naturally shifts). Again, not to pick on you, but even in your plan you didn't state a reason for the change except for the games rule necessity of it (and changes of that sort are exactly why I don't like monk/barbs)
jstorrie 06-18-07, 07:52 PM	Take Reck Rage at 6, instead of the second Extra Rage. Take Close-Quarters combat at 4, since Reck Rage isn't a Fighter bonus feat. Improved Nat Attack and Imp Crit can be replaced with more general feats to shore up your weaknesses–Iron Will and Improved Initiative.
King Kashue 06-18-07, 08:15 PM	Take Close-Quarters combat at 4, since Reck Rage isn't a Fighter bonus feat. That's a good one. Since you're building as a primary "smack you up side the head" character, rather than a grapple, that could be nice... Of course, since you're sporting all natural weapons while furry, attacking in a grapple isn't the worst thing for you.
magebeast 06-18-07, 08:44 PM	Nothing against you, but I hate monk/barbs...If I hear one more "I was a half-orc raised in a monastery but left and reverted to my wild roots" backstory I'm gonna have an aneurysm... I thought about building a monk/barbarian just to irritate a friend who hates them.
King Kashue 06-18-07, 08:57 PM	I thought about building a monk/barbarian just to irritate a friend who hates them. An excellent reason to make a character. I'm sure such a compelling and rich role-playing persona would keep you enthralled as the player :D
magebeast 06-18-07, 10:10 PM	An excellent reason to make a character. I'm sure such a compelling and rich role-playing persona would keep you enthralled as the player :D Sure. I'd roleplay him as a monk who, once he left the monastery and entered the world found his old ways lacking and took up the path of the berserker!
Maesto 06-18-07, 11:46 PM	Fair enough. No, no monk/barbarian combo here - I think any build which has monk and barbarian levels is pushing the boundaries. Any character who isn't planned and just follows RP events can take monk and barbarian levels - the story had better be interesting though. And yes - I forgot to take off 10 before halving 44 for the strength modifier :( Ok, so change extra rage at 6 to reckless rage, change reckless rage at 4 to close quarters combat, and you might as well take three levels of warshaper as soon as you can - reach is a useful thing, and gets around some of the problems with close quarters combat too. I disagree that the move action for morphic shape should be spent to increase the claw damage from d4 to d6. I think that an extra attack is far more useful - a gore for d8 for example, which gets half strength to damage, but 1:1 power attack will be more useful. One of the feats which can be taken to ramp this and the bite attack up is multiattack. Any thoughts on that? Otherwise, I agree that if imp nat attack is only ramping d4 up to d6, then it's not worth spending a precious feat on. Iron will, multiattack and imp crit look like better contenders. If you have a druid on the table, DR/magic should be fine. If not, then you're probably going to have to stick to your trusty weapon. Adamantine +1 Holy should deal with most critters, I think. You're still a raging barbarian with lots of hitpoints and power attack :) Other than that, the two levels of fighter could be substituted for a second and third level of ranger. You trade in a feat, two hitpoints, and +2 to fort saves for 8 extra skillpoints (more than this really, because you needed to spend the fighter skillpoints on cross class skills) and +1 to reflex and will saves. Doesn't sound too bad to me. Is close quarters combat all that useful? The only issue with this is no heavy armour, so your AC is awful before you hit deepwarden 2 (level 7). Then again, you're reckless raging, so what does it matter? If you want your hitpoints back, take barbarian at first and second, then three ranger levels. This sacrifices 8 skillpoints though. Also, there's a floating extra attribute point that I didn't assign... it can basically go anywhere.
Ancillary 06-19-07, 01:22 AM	I play a 13th level Bear warrior so I thought I would weigh in. First off, nothing is more important to a bear warrior than "big" bear. Black bear is okay, but the math doesn't win until you are big bear (vs yourself raging with a greatsword). If your build delays big bear I suggest retooling it. Deepwarden is cool, but I believe the main drawback of the bear warrior is his will saves. I suggest going occult slayer for levels 6 & 7 since it bumps will saves a good amount and gives that wonderful spell turning. Also Deepwarden seems great, but Big Bear gives +2 Dex and +8 Con, so it only really nets you 3 points of armor class. Not that this is not significant, but I believe many other choices would be at least as strong. Also dumping Dex makes you bad with a bow, which is pretty much your only option for things that are out of claw range. I kind of stumbled on this because I had to take Imp unarmed strike for Improved Grapple anyway, but attacking with unarmed strikes with your natural attacks as secondary increases your damage significantly. Monk levels would help this but, besides the stigma which I happen to also apply to it, monk delays big bear which is bad. It is metagaming, but three rages is plenty. Fist of the forest is insane for bear warriors and fits their flavor perfectly, but like a lot of the complete champion probably will not see the light of day in LG. A Bear warrior is no longer limited to just a neck slot and cloak anymore. That was a made up LG rule that they removed in the last LGCS. With the removal of Polymorph and Wild Shape's errata, only the Bear Warrior stands to gain from its removal! A Dm would probably resist you going crazy, but you can probably keep your rings and maybe a belt if you have the new rules at your fingertips and are nice about it. I have all my gold invested in Ioun stones so have not been able to take advantage of this yet, but keeping the rings is nice. Finally, DR is your enemy, but you will blenderize anything without it :)
Ancillary 06-19-07, 01:26 AM	As for the no heavy armor if you take ranger 2, all you lose is the fighting style. Since you get it back when you are a bear, wearing Heavy Armor to make attacks miss before it is your turn, and you turn :) , is a sound investment.
King Kashue 06-19-07, 01:49 AM	Also Deepwarden seems great, but Big Bear gives +2 Dex and +8 Con, so it only really nets you 3 points of armor class. It actually nets him 5, 4 from con, 1 from dex. And he's taking warshaper, which nets him another 4 con, which is another 2. The advantage of warshaper is not just morphic body, it's immunity to crits, and the ability to grow additional natural weapons. And reach. For a non-grappler, "big bear" isn't such a big deal. It's +4 Str over Black Bear + Warshaper 2. If you're a grappler, large size is significant, but if you're not, then it's just +4 str. And in exchange at Warshaper 3, you get reach, which "big bear" doesn't have... A Bear warrior is no longer limited to just a neck slot and cloak anymore. That was a made up LG rule that they removed in the last LGCS. With the removal of Polymorph and Wild Shape's errata, only the Bear Warrior stands to gain from its removal! They were never limited to that unless they changed size. A Dm would probably resist you going crazy, but you can probably keep your rings and maybe a belt if you have the new rules at your fingertips and are nice about it. I have all my gold invested in Ioun stones so have not been able to take advantage of this yet, but keeping the rings is nice. How could you possibly keep rings? You don't have fingers! In order to keep an item, you need to be able to wear it. Bears don't have fingers, hands, feet; they can't wear rings, gloves, boots, etc... Are you actually asking DMs about it, or just assuming they're going to let you? :confused: And read polymorph, it says nothing about equipment resizing, so in Brown Bear you've got that issue. The general state I've found is about 85% let me keep my belt when in black bear form, and no rings, gloves, boots, etc...
Maesto 06-19-07, 02:49 AM	Ancillary - remember that Deep Warden has favoured will saves, so two levels there gives you +3 to your will save... I think Deep Warden is probably the best synergy to put in at levels 6 and 7. Also, if you wear heavy armour without proficiency, you take the armour check penalty to all attack rolls, which isn't cool by any means. Then again, if your con is 24 before raging (or 30 while raging when not in bear form), then you really want something like thistledown padded armour, which can support up to a +10 dex (or in the case of a deepwarden, con) bonus. That will get you a +8 bonus from dex(con) + armour when not raging, and a +11 bonus while raging. Alternatively, something like a mithril chain shirt will give you a +10 bonus whether you're raging or not, but only 6 points of the AC will be touch, as opposed to the 7 while not raging or the 10 while raging that thistledown padded would give. Then again, if you're not going deepwarden, then sure - go for the heavy armour. As for improved unarmed strike, well, how does that work? You take your unarmed attacks up to whatever your BAB allows, doing 1d3+strength+PA (lethal or nonlethal, as you wish), then take your claw/claw/bite/gore at full bonus-5, doing 1d(whatever)+1/2 strength+PA? I don't like the sound of this; using the MM rules p299 under "Full Attack", this only works if you treat an unarmed strike as a manufactured weapon, which clearly it isn't. I'd expect significant table variation _against_ you if you tried this, and explained the mechanics behind it. What does everybody else think?
Maesto 06-19-07, 03:16 AM	Now here's a question... when you transform into a bear, does your type change to animal? If so, hold person/dominate person won't work on you, and nature's favour will... ;-)
King Kashue 06-19-07, 03:39 AM	As for improved unarmed strike, well, how does that work? You take your unarmed attacks up to whatever your BAB allows, doing 1d3+strength+PA (lethal or nonlethal, as you wish), then take your claw/claw/bite/gore at full bonus-5, doing 1d(whatever)+1/2 strength+PA? I don't like the sound of this; using the MM rules p299 under "Full Attack", this only works if you treat an unarmed strike as a manufactured weapon, which clearly it isn't. I'd expect significant table variation _against_ you if you tried this, and explained the mechanics behind it. What does everybody else think? Ah, I forgot to correct this as well (glad you caught it) In bear form, you have natural weapons, you don't get you BAB sequence then your claw/claw/bite/(horns) as secondary. There's no question here, you're absolutely right that this is only the case for manufactured weapons. Honestly, the more Ancillary mentions about how he plays his bear warrior, the more I wonder how carefully he's read the rules :D;)
King Kashue 06-19-07, 03:44 AM	Now here's a question... when you transform into a bear, does your type change to animal? If so, hold person/dominate person won't work on you, and nature's favour will... ;-) Yes, you change to an animal. It's a two way street though. You can't get hit by hold person or dominate person, but you also can't be hit by enlarge person. My bear warrior is a grappler, I'd much rather risk dominate (since I've got circle of prot evil up on me most of the time) and have a 1st level spell bump my grapple by +5...
ShinAkuma2 06-19-07, 12:50 PM	But what's the reason for becoming neutral except to take barbarian? Because Ehlonna (or Obad-hai, not sure yet) is Neutral her (or him) self. In an M. Night Shyamalan twist, his Lawful studying of the ways of his deity leads him to the fact that nature is equally about Law and Chaos, Good and Evil. As such, he will abandon the ways of the ethical extreme, embracing Chaos as much as he embraces Law. Like I said earlier, I don't like Monk/Barbarians in general. Most people hop alignments like they're pairs of pants. However, this character would have one alignment shift by one step, and I think it's for a fair reason. He's following in the path of his deity.
bitznarf 06-19-07, 12:56 PM	It actually nets him 5, 4 from con, 1 from dex. And he's taking warshaper, which nets him another 4 con, which is another 2. I thought Deepwarden replaced then Dex mod with the Con mod, thus the bump to Dex doesn't affect your AC.
Ancillary 06-19-07, 12:58 PM	You can use a BAB sequence with unarmed strikes. They are not natural weapons in that they are limited to one attack, I mean look at monks. Also in the PA feat unarmed strikes and Natural weapons are seperate and in the MM under natural weapons nowhere does it mention unarmed strike. I honestly have no idea where you got the idea that you cannot use iteratives with improved unarmed strike. Look on page 19 of the FAQ. The question uses a monk, but the answer applies to unarmed strikes in general. My BW has 2 levels of fighter, so has Heavy armor proficiency. Barbarian is enough for mithril full plate though which is what I am wearing anyway. Rings do not necessarily need fingers. Bears have toes on their front feet which is a ring slot. Since they line up anatomically with a humanoid there should not be any problem when changing shape. As for the size change look at page 77 of the FAQ. I am totally for warshaper, I just took it after I had gotten big bear. It actually nets him 5, 4 from con, 1 from dex. And he's taking warshaper, which nets him another 4 con, which is another 2. Deepwarden gets Con instead of Dex. So to "net" the bonus to AC you take the +4 you get form Con and subtract the +1 anyone else would have gotten from Dex. Warshaper does make it better. I have nothing against Deepwarden, I was just doing a quick compare and contrast for the thread writer.
King Kashue 06-19-07, 01:54 PM	You can use a BAB sequence with unarmed strikes. They are not natural weapons in that they are limited to one attack, I mean look at monks. Also in the PA feat unarmed strikes and Natural weapons are seperate and in the MM under natural weapons nowhere does it mention unarmed strike. I honestly have no idea where you got the idea that you cannot use iteratives with improved unarmed strike. Look on page 19 of the FAQ. The question uses a monk, but the answer applies to unarmed strikes in general. Except you don't have unarmed strikes as a bear. You have natural weapons. The example is a centaur, who has both unarmed strikes (his hands) and natural weapons (his hoofs). Bears do not have unarmed strikes. You cannot take three attacks using your BAB sequence, then claw/claw/bite/horns. Read the FAQ entry: If the creature normally is allowed to make both weapon attacks and natural weapon attacks as part of the same full attack routine, the monk can do the same (making unarmed strikes in place of weapon attacks). (FAQ7.5 p.19) It's a conditional statement. IF a creature is normally allowed to make weapon attacks during the sequence, THEN they can do the same with unarmed strikes... Except Bear Warriors don't meet the first condition. We can't normally include weapon attacks, therefore we can't include unarmed attacks in their place. Rings do not necessarily need fingers. Bears have toes on their front feet which is a ring slot. Since they line up anatomically with a humanoid there should not be any problem when changing shape. As for the size change look at page 77 of the FAQ. Bears do not have toes. They don't even have feet. They have hind paws and digital pads. Again, are you telling these things to your DMs, or are you making assumptions and leaving them unquestioned? Deepwarden gets Con instead of Dex. So to "net" the bonus to AC you take the +4 you get form Con and subtract the +1 anyone else would have gotten from Dex. No, he gets the bonus from Dex, because it cancels out his existing Dex penalty... Edit: Fixzored Typo
ShinAkuma2 06-19-07, 02:25 PM	Bears do not have natural weapons.[ed. I ssume you meant unarmed strikes] I don't know about that...If a Bear had the intelligence of a human (ie our Bear Warrior friend), you wouldn't let him use headbutts? He'd probably have to give up his Bite attack to do so, but I think if a bear bashed an opponent with his skull, it'd do significant damage.
King Kashue 06-19-07, 02:49 PM	I don't know about that...If a Bear had the intelligence of a human (ie our Bear Warrior friend), you wouldn't let him use headbutts? He'd probably have to give up his Bite attack to do so, but I think if a bear bashed an opponent with his skull, it'd do significant damage. It's not a matter of having unarmed strikes, I phrased the first part poorly (and yes, that is a typo on my part, fixed it)...It's a matter of being able to substitute those unarmed strikes for armed attacks (which is what the FAQ allows). The FAQ is expanding on the MM text for combining natural weapons and manufactured weapons. If the creature normally is allowed to make both weapon attacks and natural weapon attacks as part of the same full attack routine, the monk can do the same (making unarmed strikes in place of weapon attacks). (FAQ7.5 p.19) As I said, it's an if/then conditional (technically, it's a biconditional if and only-if conditional, since it's a limited expansion, as all thing in the FAQ are). Since Bear Warriors don't meet the condition (i.e., they are not normally allowed to make weapon attacks) then the apodosis (result) doesn't apply to them. -If (and only-if) I can afford to go to europe this summer, I will. -I cannot afford to go to europe, therefore I won't. -If (and only-if) I am allowed to make weapon attacks in addition to my natural attacks, I can substitute unarmed strikes for those weapon attacks. -I am not allowed to make weapon attacks in addition to my natural attacks, therefore I cannot substitute unarmed strikes.
King Kashue 06-19-07, 02:52 PM	Another way to put it: The FAQ entry allows characters to substitute unarmed strikes for their weaponed attacks. Bear Warriors have no weaponed attacks to begin with, therefore, it doesn't apply to them.
rutrow424 06-19-07, 04:23 PM	No, he gets the bonus from Dex, because it cancels out his existing Dex penalty... This is wrong - the deepwarden uses his Con instead of his Dex (assuming Con is higher), so increasing his Dex via bear shape does not under any circumstance improve his AC; he is not suffering from a Dex penalty before he rages, so how can he cancel out his Dex penalty?
King Kashue 06-19-07, 05:56 PM	This is wrong - the deepwarden uses his Con instead of his Dex (assuming Con is higher), so increasing his Dex via bear shape does not under any circumstance improve his AC; he is not suffering from a Dex penalty before he rages, so how can he cancel out his Dex penalty? Read the class. The ability says nothing about negating a Dex penalty, merely about substituting the bonus. A penalty is not just a negative bonus, it's treated differently in the rules.
bitznarf 06-19-07, 05:58 PM	Just as a note King is right about the difference between a bonus and a penalty. There is no such thing as a negative bonus in the rules. A bonus is always positive (and non-zero), a modifier can be negative, positive, or zero. On the wording of the Stonewarden ability, I don't know as my book is not in front of me.
King Kashue 06-19-07, 06:19 PM	Just as a note King is right about the difference between a bonus and a penalty. There is no such thing as a negative bonus in the rules. A bonus is always positive (and non-zero), a modifier can be negative, positive, or zero. On the wording of the Stonewarden ability, I don't know as my book is not in front of me. Beginning at 2nd level, a deepwarden knows how to use his strengths to compensate for his weaknesses. He adds his Constitution bonus to AC instead of his Dexterity, if the character's constitution bonus is higher. The deepwarden loses this bonus to his Armor Class whenever he would normally be denied his dexterity bonus to AC. (RS p. 105).
bitznarf 06-19-07, 06:44 PM	Beginning at 2nd level, a deepwarden knows how to use his strengths to compensate for his weaknesses. He adds his Constitution bonus to AC instead of his Dexterity, if the character's constitution bonus is higher. The deepwarden loses this bonus to his Armor Class whenever he would normally be denied his dexterity bonus to AC. (RS p. 105). I see 2 ways to read that: 1: The Con bonus replaces the Dex bonus. Any Dex penalty still exists, any Dex bonus is gone. Thus any extra Dex given to you by the bear forms is likely to be useless (for AC purposes) unless you started with 8 Dex. This train of thought stems from the idea that the whole sentence is talking about bonuses. 2: The Con bonus replaces the Dex modifier. Any Dex penalty or bonus is gone. Thus any extra Dex given to you by the bear forms is useless, unless you have like, 24 Dex and 8 Con to start with or something like that. This train of thought stems from the idea that the sentence leaves off any sort of 'bonus/penalty' wording, and thus the more general 'modifier' should be used. I'm not sure where you are getting the idea that the ability replaces your Dex penalty with your Con bonus. 'Penalty' isn't even mentioned anywhere in the part you posted here. If it is because of the 'compensate for his weaknesses' part, I don't see any crunch in that sentence. 'Weaknesses' is not a rules item, penalty is. Many things can make a character 'weak' in one way or another without actually being negative. Like most prospective Bearwarden's Reflex saves.
King Kashue 06-19-07, 06:54 PM	I see 2 ways to read that: 1: The Con bonus replaces the Dex bonus. Any Dex penalty still exists, any Dex bonus is gone. Thus any extra Dex given to you by the bear forms is likely to be useless (for AC purposes) unless you started with 8 Dex. This train of thought stems from the idea that the whole sentence is talking about bonuses. This is what I'm saying. I'm not sure where you are getting the idea that the ability replaces your Dex penalty with your Con bonus. I'm not getting the idea from anywhere, since that is exactly what I'm saying isn't the case. Thus any extra Dex given to you by the bear forms is likely to be useless (for AC purposes) unless you started with 8 Dex. Uh huh...and the character in question (the one in the first post in the thread) has an 8 dex, which is why I'm saying it offsets the penalty :P
bitznarf 06-19-07, 07:04 PM	Uh huh...and the character in question (the one in the first post in the thread) has an 8 dex, which is why I'm saying it offsets the penalty :P Ah.... I was assuming you were talking in the generic case, not this specific one. Opps.
ShinAkuma2 06-19-07, 07:06 PM	It's not a matter of having unarmed strikes, I phrased the first part poorly (and yes, that is a typo on my part, fixed it)...It's a matter of being able to substitute those unarmed strikes for armed attacks (which is what the FAQ allows). Well, you said that bears don't have unarmed strikes, a statement with which I disagree. I never said I thought a Bear could mix them with natural attacks.
King Kashue 06-19-07, 07:24 PM	Well, you said that bears don't have unarmed strikes, a statement with which I disagree. I never said I thought a Bear could mix them with natural attacks. As I said, I phrased that poorly. The statement was in relation to the FAQ entry which was the specific topic of discussion. A Bear warrior can attack with his/her BAB sequence, or they can attack with their natural attacks (the latter being statistically optimal). But, because they cannot mix weapon attacks and natural attacks, they are not valid subjects of the FAQ entry, and thus cannot combine the two.
Ancillary 06-19-07, 09:19 PM	About the natural attacks arguement, you are of the opinion that a troglodyte monk that had unfortunately lost his arms would be unable to combine his unarmed strikes with his bite attack, since he no longer had a place to hold a weapon? But with arms he could combine them, even if he used only his feet and mouth to attack? The point is that unarmed strike is a weapon that any creature can use if they are smart enough to do so. Not a natural weapon (according to the DnD term) but a weapon. I spent some time looking up pictures of bears front feet, and while stubby they do have "fingers" of about one joint. The ring (being magic) would rest in behind the pad. You could not fit a non-magic one over the pad, but then, you do not have to.
Maesto 06-19-07, 09:30 PM	About the natural attacks arguement, you are of the opinion that a troglodyte monk that had unfortunately lost his arms would be unable to combine his unarmed strikes with his bite attack, since he no longer had a place to hold a weapon? But with arms he could combine them, even if he used only his feet and mouth to attack? The point is that unarmed strike is a weapon that any creature can use if they are smart enough to do so. Not a natural weapon (according to the DnD term) but a weapon. If we're going to be semantic, then the troglodyte is a monk, and therefore it all works. Take his unarmed strikes at bab sequence, then his bite attack at -5. Monks are special in that their unarmed attacks are treated as manufactured weapons. The Improved Unarmed Strike feat doesn't treat your unarmed attacks as manufactured weapons, and so by MM 299, a bear warrior does not have manufactured weapons to combine with natural attacks for a full attack. Ergo, they can _either_ do a series of unarmed strikes at BAB sequence, or attack using their natural attacks. On the topic of the gained AC due to con, whoever said that the gain from black bear form was only 3 was correct: 3 more _gain_ from con than from dex. With warshaper levels in the mix, it becomes 5, and that's significant. What's even _more_ significant is the original bonus from the dex/con swap for the build posted above - there's a difference of 5 there, and given that con will be boosted while dex can fall by the wayside, this kind of attribute distribution will greatly benefit from deepwarden levels. I disagree completely that a bear can wear a ring, magical or no, but see no reason to argue this point here.
bitznarf 06-19-07, 09:35 PM	I disagree completely that a bear can wear a ring, magical or no, but see no reason to argue this point here. Right. This is entirely in the arena of GM judgement. Some will say yes. Some will say no. Both are correct at their own tables.
King Kashue 06-19-07, 09:36 PM	About the natural attacks arguement, you are of the opinion that a troglodyte monk that had unfortunately lost his arms would be unable to combine his unarmed strikes with his bite attack, since he no longer had a place to hold a weapon? But with arms he could combine them, even if he used only his feet and mouth to attack? The point is that unarmed strike is a weapon that any creature can use if they are smart enough to do so. Not a natural weapon (according to the DnD term) but a weapon. No, that isn't the point of the FAQ entry, your "example" of an utterly non-standard creature not withstanding... Can a bear warrior normally combine weapon attacks with their normal attacks? That is the question that is crucial to the application of the FAQ entry, and the answer to that question is "no"...
King Kashue 06-19-07, 09:37 PM	Right. This is entirely in the arena of GM judgement. Some will say yes. Some will say no. Both are correct at their own tables. And again, I want to know if Ancillary actually tells his GMs where the rings are, or if he just assumes he can keep them and leaves it unquestioned. He still hasn't answered that question, and this is now the third time I've asked it.
Ancillary 06-20-07, 12:35 AM	To tell you the truth I have not played my bear warrior since the new LGCS came out, or at least not since I realized the shape changing wondrous item limit had been removed. I do not see why you are so opposed to rings on bears. Just about any creature can use rings as long as they have some sort of protruding part, including things much weirder than bears. A monks unarmed attacks only count as manufactured weapons for the purposes of spells/effects that enhance or improve them. Not for any other reason. No sundering! The faq says if they can make "weapon attacks" then they can do such and such. P 113 of the players handbook says unarmed strikes are always considered weapon attacks. This makes the part in parenthesis in the faq redundant. That is why it is in parenthesis. The goal of that question seemed more to differentiate natural attacks and unarmed strikes and the way flurry penalties worked, substantiating my opinion only as a sideline.
King Kashue 06-20-07, 01:16 AM	The faq says if they can make "weapon attacks" then they can do such and such. P 113 of the players handbook says unarmed strikes are always considered weapon attacks. The FAQ isn't referring to the PHB. It's referring to the rule in the MM allowing the combination of weapon attacks and natural weapons. Normally, if you can wield a weapon and have natural attacks, you can make your weapon attacks, then take your natural attacks as secondary. The FAQ is making clear that in a case like this, a monk (or by extension anyone with imp natural strike) could also use unarmed strikes in place of the weapon attacks in such a sequence. However, bear warriors do not have the combined sequence to begin with, therefore the entry doesn't apply to them. For the entry to apply, they would normally need to be able to wield weapons, and be able to make a normal weapon based BAB attack sequence. Then the rule on combining weapons and natural weapons would apply. Then they could substitute unarmed strikes for their weapon attacks. Except they don't fulfill the first condition, therefore they are not eligible for the latter ones... The goal of that question seemed more to differentiate natural attacks and unarmed strikes and the way flurry penalties worked, substantiating my opinion only as a sideline. If you think that's the case, you really ought read it again. What you're saying is the goal of the question is addressed in passing in the second paragraph. The main paragraph is describing what I'm describing. If the creature normally is allowed to make both weapon attacks and natural weapon attacks as part of the same full attack routine, the monk can do the same (making unarmed strikes in place of weapon attacks). Since a centaur can make two hoof attacks in addition to his longsword attack, a centaur monk can make two hoof attacks in addition to his unarmed strike attack (FAQ 7.5 p.19) See how the FAQ provides the same sort of "if you're allowed a weapon attack, then the condition applies" example I am providing? Bear warriors can't make weaponed attacks the same way the FAQ's example can. The Entry doesn't apply.
Maesto 06-20-07, 01:38 AM	I guess the debate is over whether a bear with improved unarmed strike can make unarmed strikes. If they can, then they have both unarmed strikes and natural attacks which they can make. If this is then the case, then yes, they can make an attack sequence which consists of both unarmed strikes and natural attacks. Can a bear make an unarmed strike is the question, given that they already have natural attacks. Obviously, Ancillary thinks the answer is yes, KingKashue things otherwise. I'm not sure which I agree with, actually...
King Kashue 06-20-07, 02:50 AM	I guess the debate is over whether a bear with improved unarmed strike can make unarmed strikes. If they can, then they have both unarmed strikes and natural attacks which they can make. If this is then the case, then yes, they can make an attack sequence which consists of both unarmed strikes and natural attacks. Can a bear make an unarmed strike is the question, given that they already have natural attacks. Obviously, Ancillary thinks the answer is yes, KingKashue things otherwise. I'm not sure which I agree with, actually... Not quite... The question is "Can a bear warrior normally make both weapon attacks and natural weapon attacks as part of the same full attack routine?", which is the condition explicitly set by the FAQ entry... If the Bear Warrior meets that condition, then they can substitute unarmed strikes for those weapon attacks (which is what the FAQ makes allowance for).
JamesMaissen 06-20-07, 04:19 AM	Not quite... The question is "Can a bear warrior normally make both weapon attacks and natural weapon attacks as part of the same full attack routine?", which is the condition explicitly set by the FAQ entry... If the Bear Warrior meets that condition, then they can substitute unarmed strikes for those weapon attacks (which is what the FAQ makes allowance for). So, let's persue this. 1. Can a Troll normally make both weapon attacks and natural weapon attacks as part of the full attack routine? They aren't listed in the MM wielding any weapons, atleast the nonadvanced one isn't. What's the criteria here? 2. Can an awaken animal (or druid, etc) wearing armor spikes make armed attacks with them? Armor spikes certainly are manufactured weapons. Wouldn't they be able to use any remaining natural attacks as secondary natural attacks? So what's your arguement that a bear with improved unarmed strike cannot intermix manufactured and natural weapons in a routine again? Wouldn't page 300 of the Monster Manual be all that's required here? The requirements here are that the creature have both natural and manufactured weapons. Assuming that an Improved Unarmed Strike counts as a manufactured weapon then we're done. Are you contending that they are not? They certainly are not treated as natural weapons. What are they then, if not? -James
_metz_ 06-20-07, 04:45 AM	Just as a note King is right about the difference between a bonus and a penalty. There is no such thing as a negative bonus in the rules. A bonus is always positive (and non-zero), a modifier can be negative, positive, or zero. On the wording of the Stonewarden ability, I don't know as my book is not in front of me. Thats a semantics arguement. One actually CAN have a negative bonus in mathematics. And as such I consider -1 dex to be a -1 bonus. If you have 8 dex and 12 con your AC modifier isn't +0. It is +1. That is my reading, and you are arguing using 'English' which is in fact flawed as you have not encompassed the entire meaning of the word. PARTICULARLY as to how it pertains to mathematics. Its the term 'instead of his Dexterity' That is the key point here. Are you saying that if they are different quantifiable things, than a Deepwarden needs to have at least a +1 Dex mod in order to GET their con modifier? cos if they replace a BONUS then the original score must have a BONUS if that is what you are claiming.
King Kashue 06-20-07, 05:06 AM	So, let's persue this. 1. Can a Troll normally make both weapon attacks and natural weapon attacks as part of the full attack routine? They aren't listed in the MM wielding any weapons, atleast the nonadvanced one isn't. What's the criteria here? Actually, they are listed in the MM wielding weapons. (p. 247) 2. Can an awaken animal (or druid, etc) wearing armor spikes make armed attacks with them? Armor spikes certainly are manufactured weapons. Wouldn't they be able to use any remaining natural attacks as secondary natural attacks? Druid, no, but only because they're metal. So what's your arguement that a bear with improved unarmed strike cannot intermix manufactured and natural weapons in a routine again? Okay, give me any other weapon a Bear warrior can wield in bear form. Any other one. If you could show me that it is a quality of the character that they can wield weapons, instead of a goofy characteristic of a single weapon, and I would find your position much more compelling. Assuming that an Improved Unarmed Strike counts as a manufactured weapon then we're done. Are you contending that they are not? They certainly are not treated as natural weapons. What are they then, if not? They're unarmed strikes...That's why they're called "unarmed strikes"... Why do they need to be either natural weapons or manufactured weapons? Those aren't the only two categories, despite your false dilemma. The fact that they're neither is the whole reason there is an FAQ entry. If they were already one or the other, the FAQ entry wouldn't be needed. Okay, just to sum up: My position remains that the Bear Warrior class cannot wield weapons, and thus cannot take advantage of the FAQ modification of the MM rule. I contend that the intention of the class is to give the Bear Warrior extremely high stats and the natural attacks of a bear. The opposing position is that Bear Warriors can wield armor spikes, but no other weapons (assuming they were actually wearing bear shaped barding before they shifted, otherwise we're dealing not even with only wielding one weapon, but the potential of wielding one weapon and no others). And since they can wield this one weapon, they thus fulfill the MM rule of combining weapon attacks with natural attacks. Thus it was not the intention of giving bear warriors high stats and the natural attacks of a bear, but rather to give them high stats, a full BAB sequence, and then the natural attacks of a bear...All because they could potentially wield armor spikes, if they were wearing barding before shifting (clearly, the authors considered this however)... Hey, it's fine by me if you want to give my Bear Warrior eight attacks per round... I don't really think that's the intent here, but why not, eight attacks is fun city...
bitznarf 06-20-07, 09:40 AM	Thats a semantics arguement. One actually CAN have a negative bonus in mathematics. And as such I consider -1 dex to be a -1 bonus. I am not referring to normal math metz, I am referring to D&D math. In D&D metz, that is not how it works. I suggest you go read the pertinent sections again. In D&D, a bonus is never negative. For example when you lose your Dex bonus to AC, if your Dex modifier is negative, your AC does not go up.
rutrow424 06-20-07, 11:31 AM	I am not referring to normal math metz, I am referring to D&D math. In D&D metz, that is not how it works. I suggest you go read the pertinent sections again. In D&D, a bonus is never negative. For example when you lose your Dex bonus to AC, if your Dex modifier is negative, your AC does not go up. I disagree with the end result, bitznarf, but I agree with your DnD definition of a bonus. Note the passage does not say "instead of his DEX bonus" but says "instead of his DEX." You and King appear to be intrepeting the passage as the former, which would leave a literal meaning to state this ability cannot be used unless you have a DEX of 12 and therefore a +1 bonus (though you also seem to include that a 10 DEX is a +0 bonus, which also is not clear by the rules); I find that interpretation too narrow. I will check when I get home if there is a sample PC and if that can shed any light on the intent.
bitznarf 06-20-07, 11:59 AM	I disagree with the end result, bitznarf, but I agree with your DnD definition of a bonus. Note the passage does not say "instead of his DEX bonus" but says "instead of his DEX." You and King appear to be intrepeting the passage as the former, which would leave a literal meaning to state this ability cannot be used unless you have a DEX of 12 and therefore a +1 bonus (though you also seem to include that a 10 DEX is a +0 bonus, which also is not clear by the rules); I find that interpretation too narrow. Um.. this is why I included the second option in my post here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=12786116#post12786116); I don't recall mentioning which option I would rule with as a DM, simply that both are reasonable and supportable in my opinion. For your addemdum to option 1 that I presented (the needing a bonus to use the ability) I believe there are enough other rules/examples out there that contradict this idea to consider it incorrect. I can't think of any specifics off the top of my head, perhaps someone else can. For a '0' modifier and where it fits into it all, this is what the SRD has to say on the issue of a bonus vs. a penalty. The modifier is the number you apply to the die roll when your character tries to do something related to that ability. You also use the modifier with some numbers that aren’t die rolls. A positive modifier is called a bonus, and a negative modifier is called a penalty. Thus strictly speaking a '0' modifier doesn't exist as a bonus or a penalty. The only reason it is even a modifier is because the table lists it as one (yay for D&D math :rolleyes:), strictly speaking in a non D&D sense, 0 is not a modifier at all when it comes to adding and subtracting.
King Kashue 06-20-07, 12:00 PM	I will check when I get home if there is a sample PC and if that can shed any light on the intent. There is, and he's got a dex of 10, so no help :(
control freak 06-20-07, 01:17 PM	question how do whepons work with the bear forms..? can u drop them then pick them up and just take peneltys or no?
ShinAkuma2 06-20-07, 01:33 PM	question how do whepons work with the bear forms..? can u drop them then pick them up and just take peneltys or no? They don't work, given that a bear can't hold things. They don't have the anatomy for it.
Ancillary 06-20-07, 07:38 PM	Can you imagine a bear warrior getting ahold of a mouthpick weapon from lords of madness? Just as an aside with the unarmed strike bear thing. A bear warrior will generally do more damage with a standard action attack swinging a greatsword instead of changing. If they restrict themselves to their natural attacks they will generally do more damage with a moderately enhanced greatsword, if hasted, with a full attack. Non hasted is closer, but I adventure with an intelligent magic item that casts haste three times a day, so it is almost guarenteed. If there is funky DR than the weapon wins hands down. In NA only enviroment almost the only reason to become a bear is to increase your grapple checks; which is why a made a bear warrior but it does not solve all problems. Adding unarmed strikes into the mix makes fighting as a bear viable, which I think is good.
JamesMaissen 06-21-07, 12:05 AM	Actually, they are listed in the MM wielding weapons. (p. 247) The base troll doesn't have weapons. The advanced one does (as I said). But I take it from this it's the possibility to use a manufactured weapon that's the crux here. Druid, no, but only because they're metal. And? What's the problem with metal armor spikes? It's not armor, it's a weapon. Okay, give me any other weapon a Bear warrior can wield in bear form. Any other one. Who cares? They have the ability.. it applies. The FAQ straightens out that unarmed strikes should be considered manufactured weapons for purposes of mixing with naturals, so there you have it. Hey, it's fine by me if you want to give my Bear Warrior eight attacks per round... I don't really think that's the intent here, but why not, eight attacks is fun city... Shrug. It's the rules. A bear would get those attacks wearing armor spikes, don't see why unarmed strikes should be different. The argument you have against it seems less with intent and more trying to work semantics. -James
Maesto 06-21-07, 12:15 AM	I think I am swayed towards the argument that improved unarmed strike will let a bear warrior have fun and go to town. So, Kashue, take it and run with it. As you said, 8 attacks a round is "fun city" :)
King Kashue 06-21-07, 01:06 AM	Who cares? They have the ability.. it applies. They have the ability to use a manufactured weapon, you've yet to show me anything that suggests it's more than an odd loophole with that one weapon. The FAQ straightens out that unarmed strikes should be considered manufactured weapons for purposes of mixing with naturals, so there you have it. That is not what the FAQ entry says. It says nothing about unarmed strikes being "considered" anything other than unarmed strikes. Shrug. It's the rules. A bear would get those attacks wearing armor spikes, don't see why unarmed strikes should be different. The argument you have against it seems less with intent and more trying to work semantics. No, it really is intent. I cannot at all believe that the authors intended a goofy quality of a single weapon to open an entire path of tactics that would otherwise be unavailable. Heck, it only works for a Bear Warrior if they're wearing spiked barding prior to shifting, which isn't even possible. So it's not just a weird loophole with a single weapon, it's a theoretical weird loophole with a single weapon.
GeorgeFHarris 06-21-07, 02:18 PM	Heck, it only works for a Bear Warrior if they're wearing spiked barding prior to shifting, which isn't even possible. So it's not just a weird loophole with a single weapon, it's a theoretical weird loophole with a single weapon. The Bear Warrior could be wearing "Wilding" armor. Most GM's would let you have that armor in Bear form, and you can put armor spikes on it. I haven't checked Gnome Twistcloth, but Thistledown, Mithral Chain Shirt, and Mithral Breastplate all give the same AC with a really high CON bonus for a Deepwarden2. Thought about the Tumbler's Breastplate which allows one more point of Dex/Con bonus, until someone pointed out that it was an exotic armor, and I'd have to spend a feat on it. Gnome Twistcloth is an exotic armor, but it is better than thistledown, because it has no Max Dex Bonus. It has no ACP, so the only thing that the feat really gets you, is the ability to use tha armor against touch attacks. And as a GM and a player of a Bear Warrior (Deepwarden) PC, I rule that if you have a Dex penalty, you still have it as Deepwarden2. I think we're going to have to expect table variation on this one. The question is, with Warshaper2, could you pick troll claws and pick up your dwarven waraxe? (Probably not, but a generous GM might let you do it to prevent a TPK.) GH
King Kashue 06-21-07, 06:11 PM	The Bear Warrior could be wearing "Wilding" armor. Most GM's would let you have that armor in Bear form, and you can put armor spikes on it. Bear Warrior's aren't based on Wild Shape and the armor specifically says "wild shape". And "Most" DMs are not likely to give it to you, at least in my experience, because I've found only one or two who said they would (out of several dozen)...
Ancillary 06-22-07, 11:44 PM	It isn't legal to use wild type armor and wouldn't be right anyway. You shouldn't be able to beniefit from keeping your items a la polymorph and getting the armor from wildshape as well, since using the wildshape rules would make your items all get absorbed. I would rather have the items anyway since mage armor/ greater mage armor close the armor gap somewhat.