Post/Author/DateTime	Post
XLR8DMadness 04-04-07, 01:56 PM	My Bear Warrior character just hit 8th and is finally taking the Bear Warrior class. What happens to his items now in view of the new LGCS and polymorph/wildshape changes?
King Kashue 04-04-07, 02:19 PM	Nothing different. Bear Warrior still references Polymorph, so you still change type to animal, and you still follow the item rules for Polymorph. Polymorph itself didn't actually change in the errata (though people think it did because of the way folks refer to the errata). :D To sum up, if you can wear the item in the new form, you keep it, if not, it melds with you. Since your form is Black bear, you lose a ton. You always keep your neck and cloak, no matter what size you become (like when you get Brown bear). Everything else is up to the DM. In general, with a Bear's physiology, you're not going to keep much besides the cloak and neck. Hat/Helmet, Goggles, Vest/Shirt, Armor/Robes, Gloves/Gauntlets, Rings, Boots/Shoes are all pretty much out. Having played a Bear warrior for a while now, the only things that I can keep are bracers and a belt. Most DM's (I'd say about 75-85% of those I've played with) allow both of those (Most figure a Black Bear has a waist, and the belt of a 6'6" 285 Half-Orc will fit a 6'6 285 Black Bear :D)
Timlagor 04-04-07, 08:19 PM	KK is right in all important respects... Bear warrior does not and never did use any rules from Polymorph (Polymorph is mentioned but not actually used). The relevant rule is (I believe) in the LGCS where it says that when you change form you can keep Amulet and Cloak slots +anything else that the judge deems appropriate while everything else will meld into your new form unless the ability you are using specifies otherwise. Wildshape 'specifies otherwise' which is why Druids lose all their gear but Bear Warrior has no such text.
King Kashue 04-04-07, 10:38 PM	KK is right in all important respects... Bear warrior does not and never did use any rules from Polymorph (Polymorph is mentioned but not actually used). No, it does, in that you actually become an animal (i.e., the change is as polymorph). That's significant, because with the wildshape errata, Druids no long do. Think about it for a second, if it did not use any rules from Polymorph, why would it even both referencing it? :P
bitznarf 04-04-07, 11:40 PM	Think about it for a second, if it did not use any rules from Polymorph, why would it even both referencing it? :P Why do the inflict and related spells use the 'channel negative energy' wording? Because WotC felt like it basically. Bear Warrior acts in some ways like polymorph, but is totally separated from the spell itself, else the PrC would not still exist in LG as polymorph has been removed.
King Kashue 04-05-07, 12:15 AM	Why do the inflict and related spells use the 'channel negative energy' wording? Because WotC felt like it basically. One's flavor text, the other isn't. The section in the Bear Warrior entry is specifically a rules cross-reference. Bear Warrior acts in some ways like polymorph, but is totally separated from the spell itself, else the PrC would not still exist in LG as polymorph has been removed. Since the Circle explicitly acknowledged the rules reference, and decided it wasn't an issue, since it didn't share any of the issues for which polymorph was removed (physical stats, variability of forms, etc), I don't find your reasoning all that compelling :D And the "acts in some ways"? Yeah, those "some ways" would be the rules reference ;) I didn't say it was polymorph, merely that it referenced some of the rules, which it clearly does :P
bitznarf 04-05-07, 12:37 AM	Since the Circle explicitly acknowledged the rules reference, and decided it wasn't an issue, since it didn't share any of the issues for which polymorph was removed (physical stats, variability of forms, etc), I don't find your reasoning all that compelling :D And the "acts in some ways"? Yeah, those "some ways" would be the rules reference ;) I didn't say it was polymorph, merely that it referenced some of the rules, which it clearly does :P What I am getting at is that we can remove the references and the ability works exactly the same. The ability does not rely on the polymorph rules in any fashion.
King Kashue 04-05-07, 12:40 AM	What I am getting at is that we can remove the references and the ability works exactly the same. The ability does not rely on the polymorph rules in any fashion. Not entirely. Because without the polymorph rules, the Bear Warrior doesn't change type. And not changing type is rather significant for spells, both helpful and harmful.
bitznarf 04-05-07, 01:24 AM	Not entirely. Because without the polymorph rules, the Bear Warrior doesn't change type. And not changing type is rather significant for spells, both helpful and harmful. The only bits that are the same as polymorph are 'physical qualities'. I can see type being part of that group, however in polymorph type is in a seperate portion of the spell than the physical qualities mentioned by Bear Warrior. This doesn't prove that 'type' as defined in D&D is not a physical quality, but I do think that is means *something*.
King Kashue 04-05-07, 01:58 AM	The only bits that are the same as polymorph are 'physical qualities'. The very first line of the ability states that the transformation is "similar to the polymorph spell", and then goes on to outline the differences... It says it's like polymorph. Normally, in polymorph, type changes. The Bear Warrior entry doesn't mention that as an exception, so there's no reason to make it an exception. It doesn't seem complicated to me. Though I'm fine if DM's want to invent some rule to say I don't change type. As I said during the LGCS discussion, staying a humanoid makes it much easier to buff me, and is a definite advantage, so I'll take it if someone wants to give it to me :D
bitznarf 04-05-07, 02:13 AM	The very first line of the ability states that the transformation is "similar to the polymorph spell", and then goes on to outline the differences... It says it's like polymorph. Normally, in polymorph, type changes. The Bear Warrior entry doesn't mention that as an exception, so there's no reason to make it an exception. It doesn't seem complicated to me. I read it the exact opposite way to be honest. It is only the same as polymorph in the stated ways, rather then the same as, except in the stated ways. But like I said, I don't think either of us can prove the other wrong.
King Kashue 04-05-07, 02:36 AM	I read it the exact opposite way to be honest. It is only the same as polymorph in the stated ways, rather then the same as, except in the stated ways. But like I said, I don't think either of us can prove the other wrong. Perhaps... Though how many abilities are written in the manner you describe? I can't think of any off the top of my head. Every example I can think of is "like this spell with these exceptions"... Though I will admit, I'm didn't spend too much time trying to think of examples :D
Arcane Guyver 04-05-07, 02:50 AM	I'm looking at the class right now, and it doesn't say anything about what happens to your gear when you change. The closest it gets is the reference to polymorph. That, and the fact the ability alludes to polymorph three times during the description makes me think it's more than flavor text.
Shandronas 04-05-07, 11:56 AM	As much as I liked the class, not being able to wield weapons just ruined it for me.
King Kashue 04-05-07, 01:26 PM	As much as I liked the class, not being able to wield weapons just ruined it for me. If that's the case, you need to learn to do math :D
ShinAkuma2 04-05-07, 02:40 PM	Not entirely. Because without the polymorph rules, the Bear Warrior doesn't change type. And not changing type is rather significant for spells, both helpful and harmful. ...Thanks to the Polymorph errata, Bear Warrior wouldn't change your type anyway.
Shandronas 04-05-07, 04:22 PM	Math are harding.
King Kashue 04-05-07, 04:45 PM	...Thanks to the Polymorph errata, Bear Warrior wouldn't change your type anyway. There was no errata on the polymorph spell :P As I mentioned above, people think it was because of the way it's generally referred to, but polymorph didn't change. What got errata-ed was Druid wildshape and the alternate form abilities. Those abilities had their ties to polymorph removed. Bear Warrior remains based on polymorph, and polymorph was unchanged by the errata.
Timlagor 04-06-07, 10:14 AM	KK: I simply don't agree that BW makes any use or the oplymorph rules. I agree that that (probably) means you don't change type.
JamesMaissen 04-06-07, 02:22 PM	KK: I simply don't agree that BW makes any use or the oplymorph rules. I agree that that (probably) means you don't change type. From where would you take rulings on what happens to the Bear warrior's gear then? And as an aside, did you always view it this way? It's always interesting to me to learn what changes people's opinions on things. -James
Timlagor 04-06-07, 02:40 PM	There's a general rule somewhere (think it's in the LGCS) that cloak+amulet stay with you and anything inappropriate merges unless the ability specifies otherwise. Wildshape specifies otherwise (to many howls of protest); the BW text does not specify so you use the default rule. Hard to say if I always viewed it that way since I've never actually been at a table with one. Pre-Errata I would probably have ruled that you changed type since at that time all shape-changing made you change type. I don't know what I would have done if someone had argued it ...probably stuck to my ruling. Right now I actually think it's unspecified whether or not you change type ...but I don't want to argue about it: there is definitely an argument that "you change into a bear" (or whatever it says) includes a type change but I haven't looked at the book recently and don't expect to have to rule on it any time soon.
Alpha_Nerd 04-06-07, 04:14 PM	The LGCS states that animals can wear cloaks and amulets. The Alternate Form (Su) ability states that if the new form can wear it it stays and everything else merges, so your Cloak and Amulet stay if you shift into an animal. Wild shape says specifically that no items stay, even if the new form can wear them. So, unless Bear Warrior mentions Wild Shape any where in there, your items stay.
King Kashue 04-06-07, 04:14 PM	There's a general rule somewhere (think it's in the LGCS) that cloak+amulet stay with you and anything inappropriate merges unless the ability specifies otherwise. Wildshape specifies otherwise (to many howls of protest); the BW text does not specify so you use the default rule. Not anymore. That rule was part of the old LGCS and was included in the clarification of...wait for it...the POLYMORPH spell :D With the removal of the Polymorph spell, that rule has also disappeared (it's irrelevant anyway, since it refers to a spell you say has nothing to do with the ability in question) KK: I simply don't agree that BW makes any use or the oplymorph rules. So the fact it makes a specific reference to the spell in the very first line of the ability means nothing?
Timlagor 04-06-07, 09:36 PM	Indeed because it doesn't actually use anything from the Spell. It's purely descriptive.
King Kashue 04-06-07, 10:55 PM	Indeed because it doesn't actually use anything from the Spell. It's purely descriptive. So, despite the fact the spell is mentioned in the very first line (with the phrase "similar to the polymorph spell"), and that half of the first paragraph and the entirety of the second paragraph outline the ability's relationship to the polymorph spell...It doesn't have anything to do with the polymorph spell? It spends a paragraph and a half referencing the rules of the polymorph spell...How can you say it doesn't use those rules? They're explicitly referenced... You can't just say "it's purely descriptive", like that's actual evidence...That's your opinion...That's what you need to support. The only reason you've given so far as to why you think they're purely descriptive is "I think it's purely descriptive"... "Similar to polymorph", "As normal for polymorph, the bear warrior gains...", "unlike the Polymorph spell, the Bear Warrior does not gain..." If the ability weren't referencing polymorph, why would they need to outline the ways in which it differs? If the polymorph rules weren't being used generally, there is no reason to mention what shouldn't be used...
Arcane Guyver 04-07-07, 06:51 AM	Upon checking, they actually reference the polymorph spell in the Complete Warrior errata under 'Bear Warrior'...why would they do that if it wasn't a pertinent game rule?
Timlagor 04-07-07, 01:27 PM	Errata reference to POlymorph is no different in type to the CW ones. You could remove all the references to Polymorph that you mention and the abilities would work exactly the same. In no case is there any need to actually look at the polymorph spell nor are you directed to do so. "Similar to" can't be anything but purely descriptive because you have to go on to define the ways in which it differs from and resembles Polymorph. It would have to say something like "is like polymorphs except for ..." for the polymorph text to actually have any bearing on the issue. They either mention it because of bad editting or because it happens to be similar abnd people are likely to already be familiar with polymorph.
JamesMaissen 04-08-07, 10:07 AM	There's a general rule somewhere (think it's in the LGCS) that cloak+amulet stay with you and anything inappropriate merges unless the ability specifies otherwise. Wildshape specifies otherwise (to many howls of protest); the BW text does not specify so you use the default rule. Ignore for now any campaign ruling (current or not) as we're talking core rules here. And while they might alter things or clarify things, it shouldn't be needed for this discussion. If Bear Warrior doesn't reference Polymorph as you claim then they are silent on the issue of items, right? The 'anything inappropriate' merges is found either in alter self or in alternate form, neither of which would be referenced here except possibly through polymorph, which you claim they don't. There is no defined 'default' rule in my opinion. That's what the polymorph errata attempts to achieve, but does so imho poorly (and not in a well thought out manor even). The bear warrior entry does not expressly make clear on what happens with items nor possible changes to type other than the language refering to polymorph which clearly answers both questions. Why shouldn't one use that entry for the 'default' over, say, an entry not even mentioned by the ability? -James
Timlagor 04-08-07, 05:12 PM	In LG you use the LGCS rule. In a home game you can use whatever rules you like. The Bear Warrior description is indeed silent on what happens to items when you change form.
King Kashue 04-08-07, 07:02 PM	In LG you use the LGCS rule. Except that rule isn't in the LGCS any more... And when it was, it was included as part of the rules for Polymorph...Which, by your claim, doesn't have anything to do with Bear Warrior (despite a specific rules reference, and a paragraph and a half on how it relates)... So the LGCS rule, which is now obsolete, didn't have anything to do with Bear Warrior anyway (by your own claim)...
Timlagor 04-10-07, 11:53 AM	OK the rule I was thinking of is actually in the FAQ and does only apply to Polymorph. It therefore isn't binding on judges for Bear Warrior but is useful guidance: a judge would be entitled to treat it like wildshape if they chose.
Alpha_Nerd 04-10-07, 02:19 PM	OK the rule I was thinking of is actually in the FAQ and does only apply to Polymorph. It therefore isn't binding on judges for Bear Warrior but is useful guidance: a judge would be entitled to treat it like wildshape if they chose. And if they did they would be completely breaking the rules and I hope to never be judged under them again. Bear warrior has zero references of Wild Shape and, IIRC, 3 references to Polymorph.