Post/Author/DateTime	Post
offtank 04-22-07, 07:20 PM	can a bear warrior wearing beast skin armor use and extra use of this ability and keep his armor bonus to his AC the same way a Druid can since they both are like polymorph.
Jay_Ibero_911 04-22-07, 07:34 PM	can a bear warrior wearing beast skin armor use and extra use of this ability and keep his armor bonus to his AC the same way a Druid can since they both are like polymorph. Unfortunately the Beastskin armor ability specifically requires expending a use of wild shape and only benefits characters using wild shape.
King Kashue 04-22-07, 08:06 PM	Unfortunately the Beastskin armor ability specifically requires expending a use of wild shape and only benefits characters using wild shape. Wild should work, since it doesn't require a use of wild shape. It's not entirely clear however, since Bear Warrior is not the same as wild shape, and a legitimate argument could be made that it doesn't. That said, I've never run into a judge who says it doesn't.
Japangirl 04-22-07, 09:17 PM	Wild does not work either, it is very specific to only adding the armor bonus when the person wearing it is wild shaped. Bear warriors base their ability off polymorph, not wild shape, so neither armor works. Polymorph existed when Wild armor was introduced (both base books), and the Wild enhancement was specifically worded to exclude polymorphed creatures from gaining its benefits. Wild: "The wearer of a suit of armor or a shield with this ability preserves his armor bonus (and any enhancement bonus) while in a wild shape." -SRD
King Kashue 04-22-07, 10:03 PM	Wild does not work either, it is very specific to only adding the armor bonus when the person wearing it is wild shaped. Bear warriors base their ability off polymorph, not wild shape, so neither armor works. Polymorph existed when Wild armor was introduced (both base books), and the Wild enhancement was specifically worded to exclude polymorphed creatures from gaining its benefits. Wild: "The wearer of a suit of armor or a shield with this ability preserves his armor bonus (and any enhancement bonus) while in a wild shape." -SRD And if you look at the PHB before the Wild Shape errata, you'll see that it was based off the polymorph spell, just like the Bear Warrior ability... So the argument "Bear Warrior is based off of polymorph" doesn't work, since that would have excluded Wild Shape on the same grounds. Also interesting to note, the Warshaper class lists as a prerequisite "Wildshape or similar class feature (Bear Warrior, Druid.)" (CW p. 90). That not only suggests that not only are they not unrelated, there are rules that specifically consider them similar.
Japangirl 04-22-07, 11:10 PM	They are (or rather were) two different abilities based off polymorph. Polymorphed people could not use Wild armor; I'm pretty sure we both agree on that. Therefore, Wild was worded in such a way as to deliberately exclude everything that wasn't wild shape from being able to use it. It's still very iffy if the PH2 alternate class feature even counts for the purpose of Wild armor. Unless a FAQ ruled otherwise, I think I would allow it but I'm not sure. Warshaper specifically mentions Bear Warrior as similar to, but not the same as, wild shape. You can use the ability to cast Polymorph, a subtype (Shifter), or a few other methods to qualify for the class as well. Anything that changes your shape pretty much counts. Bear Warrior doesn't qualify for feats that require wild shape either, IMO, so if that comes up you know where I stand on that too :).
King Kashue 04-22-07, 11:31 PM	They are (or rather were) two different abilities based off polymorph. Polymorphed people could not use Wild armor; I'm pretty sure we both agree on that. Therefore, Wild was worded in such a way as to deliberately exclude everything that wasn't wild shape from being able to use it. So they specifically worded it to exclude an ability that they wouldn't create for a year and a half? Interesting theory. The DMG doesn't mention anything not in one of the "core three", so other non-PHB or MM abilities not being present doesn't mean anything, and basing an argument on the lack of inclusion of a book that hadn't been written seems shaky at best. Warshaper specifically mentions Bear Warrior as similar to, but not the same as, wild shape. You can use the ability to cast Polymorph, a subtype (Shifter), or a few other methods to qualify for the class as well. Anything that changes your shape pretty much counts. But it doesn't describe those other methods of qualifying as "similar" to wild shape... There are only two classes listed under the "Wild Shape or Similar" category: Bear Warrior and Druid. Bear Warrior doesn't qualify for feats that require wild shape either, IMO, so if that comes up you know where I stand on that too :). Because those feats require one of the daily allotment of wild shape to "fuel" the feat.
clannagh 04-23-07, 01:28 AM	I kinda see a bear warrior as a candidate for elusive target/karmic strike and forget the armor :) Slightly off topic .... Did the polymorph errata effect a Bear Warrior with levels of Warshaper at all ? On a quick read thru a bear Warrior/War Shaper seems uneffected by the errata .. or am I missing something ??
King Kashue 04-23-07, 02:43 AM	I kinda see a bear warrior as a candidate for elusive target/karmic strike and forget the armor :) Slightly off topic .... Did the polymorph errata effect a Bear Warrior with levels of Warshaper at all ? On a quick read thru a bear Warrior/War Shaper seems uneffected by the errata .. or am I missing something ?? Nope, unaffected by the errata, and the official LG stance is that nothing changed with the class, since it references polymorph but doesn't replicate it (and thus eliminates the two major issues with polymorph in that it has specifically defined forms and does not assume the physical ability scores)...
gomeztoo 04-23-07, 08:25 AM	It is a bit ambiguous. Expect table variation (iow: proabbaly not wise to rely on it). I currently lean towards the idea that bear warrior was intended to be similar in ability to a druid's wild shape, and that it would work. But a faq or errata would help.
magebeast 04-23-07, 02:34 PM	So they specifically worded it to exclude an ability that they wouldn't create for a year and a half? Interesting theory. The DMG doesn't mention anything not in one of the "core three", so other non-PHB or MM abilities not being present doesn't mean anything, and basing an argument on the lack of inclusion of a book that hadn't been written seems shaky at best. You're conflating two different intents. One intent, Japangirl's, simply says that they created the Wild Armor enchant specifically for Wildshape - and no other ability. Whether any other ability comes along that closely mimics wildshape is irrelevant. They weren't seeing the future, they were just being specific. If Wild Armor had intended to be more broad to take in the mechanics available at the time - IE any polymorphed creature as opposed to just wildshape, then the Wild armor would say "wild shape or similar forms", or "wildshape and polymorph" or "polymorph and any spell or ability derived from polymorph". You're implying that SHE is implying some sort of predictive intent about future abilities they would create, which isn't true at all. EDIT: To be clear, here are the rules for wild: Wild The wearer of a suit of armor or a shield with this ability preserves his armor bonus (and any enhancement bonus) while in a wild shape. Armor and shields with this ability usually appear to be made covered in leaf patterns. While the wearer is in a wild shape, the armor cannot be seen. Moderate transmutation; CL 9th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, baleful polymorph; Price +3 bonus. I'd say the intent was pretty clear.
AnexCDC 04-23-07, 07:01 PM	I personally agree that neither armor would work. As a alternative option, you can hope to find access to the Called enchant (flat +2000 gold) from the Magic Item Compendium, and have Called barding. It significantly cheaper than bother beast skin, and wild but lacks the versitility. The only time it will really matter is with antimagic field when bearform would not work (since its a SU ability). Another actual downside is that it takes a standard action to activate the called ability.
King Kashue 04-24-07, 12:05 AM	Whether any other ability comes along that closely mimics wildshape is irrelevant. They weren't seeing the future, they were just being specific. If Wild Armor had intended to be more broad to take in the mechanics available at the time - IE any polymorphed creature as opposed to just wildshape, then the Wild armor would say "wild shape or similar forms" Ah, you can't have it both ways. There were no similar abilities at the time, so for them to write "Wild shape and similar forms" would be requiring them to have predictive intent...And the converse is true, to say that it excludes such future abilities by lack of inclusion has the same assumed premise. You're implying that SHE is implying some sort of predictive intent about future abilities they would create, which isn't true at all. No, her claim does have that, just as your claim above does. The claim "The ability doesn't mention 'or similar abilities', therefore it doesn't include them" can only be valid if similar abilities existed at the time of writing. Since they didn't, to say it definitely excludes later additions to the rules has the implicit premise that they were preemptively excluding them...
magebeast 04-24-07, 01:39 AM	No, her claim does have that, just as your claim above does. The claim "The ability doesn't mention 'or similar abilities', therefore it doesn't include them" can only be valid if similar abilities existed at the time of writing. Since they didn't, to say it definitely excludes later additions to the rules has the implicit premise that they were preemptively excluding them... Yes, but the idea that, at some future point, something like wild shape might come along isn't far fetched. That is predictive in a way that's not surprising. They'd already dealt with all of 3.0 when the Wild that's in the current DMG was introduced. Pick up your 3.0 DMG (if you have one - I have my second edition books still) and you'll note that Wild isn't in it. I imagine that Wild was probably introduced in the Ranger/Druid splat book. I would say at that point they'd had enough experience with expansions and the like to know that it wasn't far fetched that there might be something similar to Wild Shape in the future, and it was their desire to limit the scope of the ability very specifically. You're suggesting that she's saying that they KNEW that Bear Warrior would exist when they created Wild. Which isn't what we're saying. Not at all. In any case, you're being needlessly obtuse about it. When they designed the Wild enchant they intended it specifically for wild shape because it says wild shape. No mind reading is necessary. That's the RAW, there's not a bit of ambiguous wording about it. Removed the bit about "Wild Shape or similar abilities" from my original statement and the argument still stands - you're just nitpicking.
King Kashue 04-24-07, 02:28 AM	You're suggesting that she's saying that they KNEW that Bear Warrior would exist when they created Wild. Which isn't what we're saying. Not at all. Unfortunately, that's the underlying premise to the claim, so yes, that is what you're saying (whether you intend to say it is a separate matter, but that is part of your claim)... If the claim is that the writers are explicitly excluding anything not explicitly included (which is her claim) then excluding later rules (which she is doing) inherently makes the claim that they intentionally excluded rules which had yet to be written. Whether or not she (and you) intends to assume that premise, she is. In any case, you're being needlessly obtuse about it. When they designed the Wild enchant they intended it specifically for wild shape because it says wild shape. No mind reading is necessary. That's the RAW, there's not a bit of ambiguous wording about it. Removed the bit about "Wild Shape or similar abilities" from my original statement and the argument still stands - you're just nitpicking. No, I'm really not. First of all, her first argument was "Bear Warrior is based off polymorph, not wild shape", except Wild Shape is (was) based off polymorph as well, so that was invalid, and then she changed her argument to say "Wild shape only, nothing else"... As I've said, the argument "If they didn't include it, they therefore excluded it" can't be applied to later material (and that's exactly what you're doing, even after you claim earlier in your post that you're not)... There are more than one rules entry that say Bear Warrior is like wild shape. There's more than enough fuel for the argument "It is similar enough to work for wild"... I'm not saying it definitely does. I'm saying there is insufficient basis for saying it definitely doesn't.
magebeast 04-24-07, 04:41 AM	Unfortunately, that's the underlying premise to the claim, so yes, that is what you're saying (whether you intend to say it is a separate matter, but that is part of your claim)... If the claim is that the writers are explicitly excluding anything not explicitly included (which is her claim) then excluding later rules (which she is doing) inherently makes the claim that they intentionally excluded rules which had yet to be written. Whether or not she (and you) intends to assume that premise, she is. Okay, sure, then they intentionally excluded Bear Warrior before it existed. This doesn't imply that they knew it existed ahead of time. It's like saying that the set of numbers I'm including is a set is all primes greater than 7 that themselves do not end in 7. I don't actually have to know what the primes are to exclude them! So, certainly they excluded Bear Warriors in the sense that they were excluding the set of all-not-druids-with-wild-shape. You were, however, inferring something that wasn't entirely true. No, I'm really not. First of all, her first argument was "Bear Warrior is based off polymorph, not wild shape", except Wild Shape is (was) based off polymorph as well, so that was invalid, and then she changed her argument to say "Wild shape only, nothing else"... No, you're actually really reading her wrong. The statement she was making about Bear Warrior being based on Polymorph and not Wild Shape was in connection to Wild armor specifically mentioning it works while in a Wild Shape. If Bear Warrior's ability was based on Wild Shape - as opposed to Polymorph which is in a sense a broader category ABOVE both Wild Shape and Bear form - then an argument could be made that Bear Warrior was a Wild Shape. However, Wild Shape and the Bear Warrior's abilities were, at least at one time, both very specific subsets of Polymorph. So was the Lycanthrope's alternate form - an ability in the original three! So I'll reiterate what I've said before in a different way. Wild Shape is a subset of Polymorph. If they had intended for Wild armor to work with Polymorph and its subsets (at the time, only two subsets) then they would have created armor that dealt with polymorph in a more general sense. See my above statement about sets. As I've said, the argument "If they didn't include it, they therefore excluded it" can't be applied to later material (and that's exactly what you're doing, even after you claim earlier in your post that you're not)... No, I was simply saying that they didn't see into the future and say "Oh well we'll be making Bear Warrior in the future, better make sure this armor doesn't work for that class." They simply excluded an undefined set of abilities. It's quite possible and entirely probable. There are more than one rules entry that say Bear Warrior is like wild shape. There's more than enough fuel for the argument "It is similar enough to work for wild"... You have listed precisely one. Are there more? Please list them. I will give you that they all fall under a broad category of the subset of abilities previously based on polymorph. This does make them similar. Not similar enough to work for Wild, I'm afraid, as the Wild enchant description is quite specific. Are you going to argue that alternate form should allow Wild Armor? I'm not saying it definitely does. I'm saying there is insufficient basis for saying it definitely doesn't. RAW, it does not. Wild Shape is a very, very specific ability. Wild armor was written for one ability.
Timlagor 04-24-07, 11:44 AM	If they wanted it to work they could perfectly well have written the ability to use Wild Armour into the Bear Warrior description. They didn't need to predict the Bear Warrior.