Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Cynric 11-06-06, 04:45 AM	Ok I have a half elf druid at 12th level (well 11 and 1 beastmaster). I am looking at my next few levels and came up with an interesting idea. It sounds cheesey to me and I was just wondering how you learned people would rule with this concept. I have wild armour and buckler. Does it count as being worn when wildshaped. The reason I ask is that with a wisdom 24, monk AC bonus would make a big difference when I am called on to tank.:embarrass If I take level 13 and 15 as natures warrior along with the monk at 14 I think I can handle the fromt liner side of things, especially if I take natural bond again at fifteen to help the Animal Companion out again. So really that is a few questions. Anyone got any answers?:confused: Thanks in advance.:D
Sieylianna 11-06-06, 07:37 AM	Ok II have wild armour and buckler. Does it count as being worn when wildshaped. The reason I ask is that with a wisdom 24, monk AC bonus would make a big difference when I am called on to tank.:embarrass Yes, armor with the wild enchantment counts as being worn while wild-shaped, that is the purpose of the enchantment. Ed
smerwin29 11-06-06, 08:16 AM	I may be wrong, but I don't think you can take the Wisdom bonus to AC when you are a monk wearing armor. So if armor with the wild enhancement counts as worn while you are wildshaped, then you can't get the Wisdom bonus to AC. But you probably already knew that, hence the question.
KShaver 11-06-06, 10:16 AM	I may be wrong, but I don't think you can take the Wisdom bonus to AC when you are a monk wearing armor. So if armor with the wild enhancement counts as worn while you are wildshaped, then you can't get the Wisdom bonus to AC. But you probably already knew that, hence the question. Thats where it gets a bit odd. The wild enhancement doesn't actually count as wearing armor while shapeshifted, it just gives an armor bonus, any other part of wearing the armor, such as armor check penalty is dropped. While a bit cheesy, it theoretically falls under the same category as a monk using bracers of armor or the mage armor spell (except its not a force effect).
JamesMaissen 11-06-06, 10:17 AM	Yes, armor with the wild enchantment counts as being worn while wild-shaped, that is the purpose of the enchantment. Ed No, it doesn't. You retain the armor bonus and that is all. If you had +1 wild fireresistance light fortification armor when wild shaped you would neither get the resistance or the fortification. A wildshaped druid with wild armor is no more wearing armor than one with a mage armor spell cast on them. All they have is an armor bonus. This is of course assuming that the form chosen is making the armor meld (as there are MMF out there and awakened animal druids as NPCs). -James
Sieylianna 11-06-06, 12:24 PM	A wildshaped druid with wild armor is no more wearing armor than one with a mage armor spell cast on them. All they have is an armor bonus. You are getting an armor bonus from the armor. So no monk wisdom bonus to AC at my tables. Ed
Arvagor 11-06-06, 12:39 PM	You are getting an armor bonus from the armor. So no monk wisdom bonus to AC at my tables. While I potentially agree with your original position -- i.e., that wild armor counts as being worn when wild-shaped -- the above is a poor rationale to deny wisdom bonus to a monk. A monk with mage armor cast on him has an armor bonus, but we don't even consider denying him his monk abilities in that situation.
amnuxoll 11-06-06, 01:16 PM	While I agree it seems to work, the bottom line is that it's unbalancing. AFAIC, that's sufficient grounds to disallow it. Even if you do get away with it, will that be a satisfying end? "My PC defeated the bad guy handily because of a loophole in the rules." Cheap victories are worth their cost. :AMN:
smerwin29 11-06-06, 01:20 PM	No, it doesn't. You retain the armor bonus and that is all. If you had +1 wild fireresistance light fortification armor when wild shaped you would neither get the resistance or the fortification. A wildshaped druid with wild armor is no more wearing armor than one with a mage armor spell cast on them. All they have is an armor bonus. The issue then becomes this: where does the +x armor bonus come from? Is it like mage armor, a force effect? Thinking outside of the numbers an in the actually reality of the fantasy, what exactly happens? I can certainly see both sides on this, but without a clear ruling in the RAW, I have to do the twin test: common sense and rules balance. Both of these tests, at least to me, scream for no Wisdom bonus. Unless I'm wrong, of course . . . ;-) Shawn
JamesMaissen 11-06-06, 02:34 PM	The issue then becomes this: where does the +x armor bonus come from? Is it like mage armor, a force effect? Thinking outside of the numbers an in the actually reality of the fantasy, what exactly happens? I can certainly see both sides on this, but without a clear ruling in the RAW, I have to do the twin test: common sense and rules balance. Both of these tests, at least to me, scream for no Wisdom bonus. Unless I'm wrong, of course . . . ;-) Shawn Well, wild armor doesn't stop the armor from melding. That much is uncontested. I don't believe many would claim to gain armor benefits (ie like fortification) when the armor is melded. I think that should be clear. At the same time a Monk should be able to benefit from his Wis to AC should the armor be melded. This makes sense as it no longer hinders the monk in any way. And without wild armor to consider I don't think there would be many objecting to that as it makes sense. So the question then becomes 'what does wild armor do'? It doesn't make the armor reshape to fit. That's a +2 enhancement from races of the wild as I recall. The +3 enhancement still has the armor meld and all that's associated with that, with the exception that the armor bonus is retained. As other factors of the armor are now surpressed this seems inferior in many respects to the +2 armor. Is it powerful? Sure. Overpowered even possibly. But other than that I think it works, James
Piuro 11-06-06, 03:29 PM	Does the armor still cause you to suffer penalties (or would it, had it been heavier armor?) If so, I would say that no, it wont work. In the event that it doesnt though, I would say there is no reason it wouldnt work. While I agree it seems to work, the bottom line is that it's unbalancing. AFAIC, that's sufficient grounds to disallow it. So lets ban half the books wizards is ever published!
smerwin29 11-06-06, 04:00 PM	So lets ban half the books wizards is ever published! Finally someone is talking some sense! :cool:
Mommy was an Orc 11-06-06, 05:39 PM	Well, wild armor doesn't stop the armor from melding. That much is uncontested. I wouldn't go that far... The Wild property says the armor cannot be seen. That means one of two things: Despite the armor melding, and therefore being unable to be sensed already, the armor cannot be seen. There's no need for the sentence. The cannot be seen is the state of the armor which replaces the default melded status. It is there, it could be felt, it gives armor mod penalties, dex mod limits, it has weight, etc...the sentence isn't as clear as it could be, but the sentence is now there for a reason.
Cynric 11-06-06, 06:10 PM	No, it doesn't. You retain the armor bonus and that is all. If you had +1 wild fireresistance light fortification armor when wild shaped you would neither get the resistance or the fortification. A wildshaped druid with wild armor is no more wearing armor than one with a mage armor spell cast on them. All they have is an armor bonus. This is of course assuming that the form chosen is making the armor meld (as there are MMF out there and awakened animal druids as NPCs). -James Thats is pretty much what the Wild enhancement says. While it meakes sense given how it is written that monk AC would stack while wildshaped, mainly due to the fact that wildshaped armour melds as normal but you retain the armourt bonus, nothing else. It was just a thought I had. If it was combined with a level of Natures warrior for DR and Barkskin etc. AC 50 is not unacheivable.
Tamanous 11-06-06, 07:38 PM	The fact is its just stupid, unbalanced and wrong. You are still technically wearing armour correct? It melds, but you are still wearing it, and monk states that you dont get monk ac bonus while wearing armour, and the simple fact is that if you have armour equipted you are WEARING IT.
JJeff 11-06-06, 10:33 PM	In my opinion, since it specifies that the armour cannot be seen, means that the armour is still present and considered functional as opposed to the normal armour that would be non-functional (as per description of Wildshape). So no monk Wis bonus. I personally feel that this would be debatable and should have an official ruling or Dispel Confusion or FAQ-ed or something. So we can stop this debating.
Cynric 11-06-06, 10:35 PM	Ok. I guess it is time to write to the sage then. Hopefully he can sort it out one way or another.
JamesMaissen 11-07-06, 01:54 AM	I wouldn't go that far... The Wild property says the armor cannot be seen. That means one of two things: Despite the armor melding, and therefore being unable to be sensed already, the armor cannot be seen. There's no need for the sentence. The cannot be seen is the state of the armor which replaces the default melded status. It is there, it could be felt, it gives armor mod penalties, dex mod limits, it has weight, etc...the sentence isn't as clear as it could be, but the sentence is now there for a reason. So you take from the fact it says you can't see it that it resizes and refits itself into say large sized barding? That's interesting. How is that then different from the armor that does resize and refit itself (I don't have access to Races of the wild right now)? -James
Japangirl 11-07-06, 02:39 AM	I'd say it works. The +2 bonus makes it resize and reshape, so for +3 you'd better get something really awesome. That awesome is that you get the armor bonus but none of the associated penalties (weight, armor check penalty, non-proficiency penalties, etc) because you aren't actually wearing it. That said, you are unarmored and eligible to add your monk's wisdom bonus to AC. If a monk/sorc/enlightened fist can wear greater mage armor and add wisdom to AC, so can a druid who spent a LOT of money on a +4 armor and +4 shield.
Cynric 11-07-06, 04:40 AM	If a monk/sorc/enlightened fist can wear greater mage armor and add wisdom to AC, so can a druid who spent a LOT of money on a +4 armor and +4 shield. Which is exactly what I have done. +1 wild armour and buckler.
Maesto 11-07-06, 05:17 AM	I think it doesn't work. The reason: Wild armour states "The wearer of ..." etc, implying that the druid is actually wearing this armour to get the benefit. Thus, no monk bonus AC. However, I would allow a druid/monk wearing armour that isn't wild to have their monk bonus while wildshaped. Anybody disagree? Jolyon
Mommy was an Orc 11-07-06, 08:48 AM	So you take from the fact it says you can't see it that it resizes and refits itself into say large sized barding? That's interesting. How is that then different from the armor that does resize and refit itself (I don't have access to Races of the wild right now)? -James The +2 Beastskin is visible and also costs a Wildshape use to use. The additional +1 for no extra Wildshape and being invisible seems more than appropriate - hard to pretend to be an innocent squirrel who wandered onto the battlefield when you're obviously wearing tiny fullplate...
Samwise 11-07-06, 11:43 AM	The +2 Beastskin is visible and also costs a Wildshape use to use. The additional +1 for no extra Wildshape and being invisible seems more than appropriate - hard to pretend to be an innocent squirrel who wandered onto the battlefield when you're obviously wearing tiny fullplate... Like a scene out of Bunnies and Burrows . . .
Japangirl 11-07-06, 12:24 PM	But can they make their spot checks to see the tiny fullplate? That is the question!
Cynric 11-07-06, 05:25 PM	I think it doesn't work. The reason: Wild armour states "The wearer of ..." etc, implying that the druid is actually wearing this armour to get the benefit. Thus, no monk bonus AC. However, I would allow a druid/monk wearing armour that isn't wild to have their monk bonus while wildshaped. Anybody disagree? Jolyon Good point. I missed that word, wearing in the Wild entry. This is why it always hepls to read and ask as it is easy to miss something. Thanks Jolyon.
ezreal2001 11-07-06, 05:55 PM	Thats is pretty much what the Wild enhancement says. While it meakes sense given how it is written that monk AC would stack while wildshaped, mainly due to the fact that wildshaped armour melds as normal but you retain the armourt bonus, nothing else. It was just a thought I had. If it was combined with a level of Natures warrior for DR and Barkskin etc. AC 50 is not unacheivable. AC 50 sweet. can I get the stats for that so I can use it next time I do some writting:)
_m_ 11-07-06, 07:33 PM	AC 50 sweet. can I get the stats for that so I can use it next time I do some writting:) touch spells and will saveordie's for the wins methinks.
Cynric 11-07-06, 07:51 PM	AC 50 sweet. can I get the stats for that so I can use it next time I do some writting:) Pm me or email me ezreal, I will give you cynrics build and how I think I can do it.
_m_ 11-07-06, 08:04 PM	but we ALL wanna know :D
Cynric 11-07-06, 08:33 PM	Ok. Basically it is polar bear form. + 1 buckler wild. +1 Breastplate wild. Barkskin +4. Elephants hide wild feat. From memory it gets you around AC42. Having a wisdom of 24 if monk wisdom stacked would put you there. You would be able to pull the same trick at a lower level than I was looking at though.
_m_ 11-07-06, 08:47 PM	Ok. Basically it is polar bear form. + 1 buckler wild. +1 Breastplate wild. Barkskin +4. Elephants hide wild feat. From memory it gets you around AC42. Having a wisdom of 24 if monk wisdom stacked would put you there. You would be able to pull the same trick at a lower level than I was looking at though. ok, now look at wiz / cle cast stackables. (as in some of them stack with some of what you have. not all stack with all. just options) g/mage armour shield shield of faith haste cats grace nightstalkers i think? um... shadow armour (whatever the hell the spell is called, i cant remember) owls wisdom ioun stone obviously armour wont stack with armour... but an argent savant (i think thats the right class) could give you 8 from a g mage armour :D again, not all practical, but you could definately get higher with a few buffs and or potion buffs.
jmweber9 11-07-06, 10:17 PM	This has been debated to death over the last couple of years. We (the druids Yahoo group as well as dozens of individuals) have asked for a Circle ruling, we've asked our Triads, we've asked WoTC customer service and we've asked the Sage and no one has ever responded with an official ruling. For whatever reason, no one wants to define 'melding' and it's properties or clarify/fix the mechanics of wildshape. With all that said, the important thing to remember is that wildshape refers to polymorph which refers to alter self. There is a line in alter self that distinguishes between melded and non-melded equipment. Here it is: "When the change occurs, your equipment, if any, either remains worn or held by the new form (if it is capable of wearing or holding the item), or melds into the new form and becomes nonfunctional." So, according to the text, there are only two states that the equipment can be in- worn/ held or melded. They are mutually exclusive states. The LGCS (pg 49) states that in LG equipment does not resize and that only cloaks, amulets/brooches and weapons continue to function normally. Everything else is absorbed into the new form and ceases to function. So, if armor cannot be resized to fit your new form it is melded and therefore not worn (according to Alter Self's two states). The Wild armor enhancement description does not contradict the fact that the armor is melded (and therefore not worn) and so it still obeys the rules of melding. However, it does specifically contradict the fact that it is completely non-functional by granting the ability to retain the armor and enhancement bonus. The Wild enhancement ONLY contradicts this part of the melding conundrum. Therefore, the armor is not worn, since it is melded, but the armor bonus and any enhancement bonus is preserved. It also states that the armor cannot be seen, but that is true regardless. It still does not say that the armor does not meld. That's the key. Anything else is just reading things into it. The term quoted where it states in the beginning of the Wild enhancement description "the wearer of..." refers to the wearer when not in wild shape since, according to the alter self definition, he is technically not wearing the armor WHILE in wild shape. "The wearer" is referring to the non-wildshaped druid, not the creature he shifts into. So, as a result you do, in fact, get the monk's Wis bonus to your armor. There's no rule to support otherwise. I've seen a whole bunch of druids who've used this tactic to very good use. WoTC, the Sage and several levels of the RPGA ruling bodies have all been aware of this use since Year 4 and have chosen not to make any sort of ruling on it one way or another or even mention it in the FAQ. So, if after two and a half years, they still don't think it's broken enough to address or fix, how can we consider it broken/ cheese or decide to make our own unsupported table rulings against it? John Weber
Cynric 11-07-06, 10:26 PM	ok, now look at wiz / cle cast stackables. (as in some of them stack with some of what you have. not all stack with all. just options) g/mage armour shield shield of faith haste cats grace nightstalkers i think? um... shadow armour (whatever the hell the spell is called, i cant remember) owls wisdom ioun stone obviously armour wont stack with armour... but an argent savant (i think thats the right class) could give you 8 from a g mage armour :D again, not all practical, but you could definately get higher with a few buffs and or potion buffs. I agree, you could get higher. But get there in one round, two at the most without anyone else buffing youwould be difficult
Cynric 11-07-06, 10:41 PM	Ok. I am definately going to have a closer look at it and probably email the sage to "try" and get it clarified. Thanks everyone.
ezreal2001 11-07-06, 10:50 PM	Ok. Basically it is polar bear form. + 1 buckler wild. +1 Breastplate wild. Barkskin +4. Elephants hide wild feat. From memory it gets you around AC42. Having a wisdom of 24 if monk wisdom stacked would put you there. You would be able to pull the same trick at a lower level than I was looking at though. So at most, you're getting +8 AC from the buckler and breastplate [these being made of darkwood and dragonhide at a guess]. OTH with Wis 24, the Monk dip supplys a +7 bonus to AC if you don't wear armour. Mmmm, seems to me you're better off with the dip into Monk than worrying about the total bonus from armour...
_m_ 11-07-06, 11:16 PM	also keep in mind that if you arent wearing armour, then when you arent wild shaped, you still get ac bonus without penalties (asuming we're talking penalty free wildshape, which still seems debate-able... ok i didnt word it well, you know what i mean). also, if you do go with the monk for ac, then you can easily get a mage with an extend rod and a pearl to whack you with a mage armour that'll last you all day, and you end up with a higher ac then you have with the armour on :D
Mommy was an Orc 11-08-06, 12:54 AM	The Wild armor enhancement description does not contradict the fact that the armor is melded (and therefore not worn) and so it still obeys the rules of melding. Except it does. It says it is unseen. You can pretend that the writer was writing a sentence for no reason, but any ruling based on assuming the writer had no reason for writing it down is almost certainly breaking the spirit of the rules - and the LGCS treats the spirit of the rules as being just as important as the RAW. And I'd still like to know why the writer is putting down meaningless sentences of rules text - the obvious answer to the armor being unseen is it is just that - unseen aka invisible, but therefore not melded. WoTC, the Sage and several levels of the RPGA ruling bodies have all been aware of this use since Year 4 and have chosen not to make any sort of ruling on it one way or another or even mention it in the FAQ. So, if after two and a half years, they still don't think it's broken enough to address or fix, how can we consider it broken/ cheese or decide to make our own unsupported table rulings against it? Of course, the nice aspect about it, if we're going to play legalistic games, is that the Wild Enchantment doesn't actually say it preserves your shield bonus, it says you preserve your armor and any enhancement bonuses. So in other words, using say a +1 Tower Shield Wild only gives a +1 shield bonus. After all, if they haven't fixed that after two and a half years, it must be correct, right?
KShaver 11-08-06, 07:47 AM	Ok. Basically it is polar bear form. + 1 buckler wild. +1 Breastplate wild. If you can get them, there are better items for this, theoretically you could have a tower shield and full plate. Of course you'll need proficiency and access to the right materials and enchants.
Japangirl 11-09-06, 06:19 PM	"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." emphasis mine. It works just fine on shields. Shields give you a special type of armor bonus called a shield bonus, but it is a subtype of an armor bonus.
Arvagor 11-09-06, 07:50 PM	Shields give you a special type of armor bonus called a shield bonus, but it is a subtype of an armor bonus.DMG, page 21, lists "shield" as its own distinct bonus, separate from "armor" (although it is "much like an armor bonus"); there are no "subtypes" of bonuses. That being said, it's clear the wild entry implies that shield bonuses are retained as well as armor bonuses.
jmweber9 11-09-06, 10:39 PM	Except it does. It says it is unseen. You can pretend that the writer was writing a sentence for no reason, but any ruling based on assuming the writer had no reason for writing it down is almost certainly breaking the spirit of the rules - and the LGCS treats the spirit of the rules as being just as important as the RAW. And I'd still like to know why the writer is putting down meaningless sentences of rules text - the obvious answer to the armor being unseen is it is just that - unseen aka invisible, but therefore not melded. First of all, it is not meaningless, it is redundant. Melded armor cannot be seen. To me, the writer seems to be clarifying that the armor is, in fact, melded and not simply Invisible or Glamered (which would, of course, be additional enhancements that are not mentioned in the Wild description). The text only says it cannot be seen. That does not necessarily mean that it is invisible. There are other ways to make something unseen: perhaps it has 100% concealment or it is ethereal or astral in nature; maybe it has the hide-in-plain-sight ability with a +100 hide modifier. I realize these are luducrous suggestions, but I'm trying to make the point that if the writer meant that it was invisible, he would have written that it was invisible. Second, I don't know why it was worded that way. And I can't see making a table ruling based on what you are guessing he was thinking or what he might have meant when he wrote it. In the absence of an official ruling you have to use the mechanics that are given. In this case, the armor/ shield is melded and not considered to be 'worn'. It's a little bit of a circuitous way to get there but that's the way it works. There are lots of instances like this. Take, for instance, the LGCS where it states that you cannot take the hybrid form of a lycanthrope. Since a lycanthrope is a template, you couldn't shift into one anyway, so why make the distinction? Does that mean that because it only delineates that you can't take the hybrid form of a werebear that you could take the full animal form thus overriding the original template rule? According to your logic it does, but that doesn't make it right or legal. Of course, the nice aspect about it, if we're going to play legalistic games, is that the Wild Enchantment doesn't actually say it preserves your shield bonus, it says you preserve your armor and any enhancement bonuses. So in other words, using say a +1 Tower Shield Wild only gives a +1 shield bonus. After all, if they haven't fixed that after two and a half years, it must be correct, right? You are absolutely correct. The way it is currently written, that's how is would work. Except that it wouldn't preserve a +1 Shield bonus but a +1 Enhancement bonus. This is another aspect that we've asked for clarification on and have heard nothing. It doesn't make sense as written or for the spirit of the rule. But then again, the text also says that only the armor can't be seen. So, according to your definition, the shield can be seen and is therefore melded (not sure how that works and seems to run contrary to RAW and the "spirit of the rules") and so allows the monk's Wis bonus to stack. That means that if someone at your table with druid/ monk levels had a +5 small wooden shield and no armor wildshaped you'd allow them to keep the +5 Enhancement bonus as well as the Wis bonus to AC. Does that sound correct? That just makes everything cloudier and more convoluted. Best to simply take the text at face value or you run into so many more problems that can't be solved adequately. My contention is that the spirit of the rules and the RAW coincide here. Just because the text says that the armor can't be seen doesn't mean it isn't melded. After all, melded armor can't be seen, can it? I don't see how there is any sort of conflict in the RAW or the spirit of the rules here. I believe the spirit of the rule is that Wild armor melds into your new form but allows you to just keep the armor/ shield bonus as well as any enhancement bonus to your AC but that any other enhancements (such as fortification) are not preserved and are non-functional while in wildshape (otherwise, why go to all the trouble and expense to research/ create this kind of armor in the first place?) and the RAW as well as existing mechanics support this. There's no reason to go making up new house rules to cover a regrettable redundancy in some text.
Mommy was an Orc 11-10-06, 01:15 AM	Second, I don't know why it was worded that way. And I can't see making a table ruling based on what you are guessing he was thinking or what he might have meant when he wrote it. In the absence of an official ruling you have to use the mechanics that are given. Right. Which means the armor is unseen and not melded. If he meant melded, he would have said melded.
JamesMaissen 11-10-06, 08:49 AM	Right. Which means the armor is unseen and not melded. If he meant melded, he would have said melded. I'm sorry but the fact that it would meld (assuming it could not be still worn) is from the normal rules, if the item is altering that it needs to say so, shouldn't it? Also woouldn't it be possible, via the wording to have a situation where a druid is in a wildshape and their armor wouldn't be melding? Examples would be a MMF into another medium humanoid shape or an awakened animal druid into another similar animal. In that case wouldn't the armor not be melded, but unseen as per the entry? -James
Mommy was an Orc 11-10-06, 12:41 PM	I'm sorry but the fact that it would meld (assuming it could not be still worn) is from the normal rules, if the item is altering that it needs to say so, shouldn't it? They said it becomes unseen. If someone tells me that a suit of armor which is normally melded now becomes unseen, I take that to mean it is no longer melded. They could have expressed it more clearly, as I did above, but that's what they said in the paragraph. And given the wacky mechanical results from not doing that, I think that's the intent, too. Also woouldn't it be possible, via the wording to have a situation where a druid is in a wildshape and their armor wouldn't be melding? Examples would be a MMF into another medium humanoid shape or an awakened animal druid into another similar animal. In that case wouldn't the armor not be melded, but unseen as per the entry? -James Yes, it would be unseen, as long as they are Wildshaped. As per the item.
jmweber9 11-10-06, 01:39 PM	They said it becomes unseen. If someone tells me that a suit of armor which is normally melded now becomes unseen, I take that to mean it is no longer melded. They could have expressed it more clearly, as I did above, but that's what they said in the paragraph. And given the wacky mechanical results from not doing that, I think that's the intent, too. If the author meant it wasn't supposed to meld, he would say: the armor does not meld when the wearer is in wildshape and maintains all of the armor's properties regardless of shape. He wouldn't simply say the armor + enhancement bonus is preserved while in wild shape. You're basing your entire argument on the fact that the descriptive text says the armor cannot be seen. You're reading so much into it that it is distorting the function of the item as well as the mechanic of wildshape itself if it follows your "rules". If you really need help understanding the difference, look at Beastskin armor. It spefically states that the armor does not meld and then goes on to detail exactly how it works since it does not follow the standard rules of wildshaping. Since the Wild enhancement has no such text delineating that it functions outside of the normal wildshape rules, it therefore adheres to them with the sole exception of what IS expressed as operating outside those parameters- namely the preservation of the armor and enhancement bonuses. The fact that the armor is unseen is a property of the melding and is therefore still operating within the wildshape parameters and does not run contrary to them. It's all pretty simple once you understand the melding rules. Now, you can speculate on why they worded it the way they did all you like, but making a house rule that changes the properties of a core magic item without a single rule or precedent to support it is against the rules of Living Greyhawk, plain and simple.
Mommy was an Orc 11-10-06, 02:39 PM	Now, you can speculate on why they worded it the way they did all you like, but making a house rule that changes the properties of a core magic item without a single rule or precedent to support it is against the rules of Living Greyhawk, plain and simple. :rolleyes: If it isn't obvious by now, I think you're the one choosing to make up a house rule by ignoring a sentence of rules text. You can claim that we can't speculate on why they worded it in a particular way all you want - but the fact remains that your interpretation only works if a writer had no intent behind a sentence. And I think that's blatantly against the spirit of the rules of the game - which the LGCS states quite clearly is just as important as the rules as written.
jmweber9 11-13-06, 08:51 PM	:rolleyes: If it isn't obvious by now, I think you're the one choosing to make up a house rule by ignoring a sentence of rules text. You can claim that we can't speculate on why they worded it in a particular way all you want - but the fact remains that your interpretation only works if a writer had no intent behind a sentence. And I think that's blatantly against the spirit of the rules of the game - which the LGCS states quite clearly is just as important as the rules as written. This is my last post on this oh-so-dead issue. I am not ignoring a sentence in the text. I am merely saying that that sentence is in full agreement with the way alter slef/ polymorph/ wilshape works and that there's no need to assume that the writer intends anything different since he makes no allusions to any other rule override besides the fact that the armor bonus and enhancement bonuses are preserved. If you want to read something else into it you can. You just have no right to do so in LG and no support for your claim. End of story. Later guys.
_m_ 11-13-06, 10:21 PM	i assume everyone is saying the same thing hundreds of times and making me wonder why im subscribed to this silly thread... and mommy is right... ... as always.
Japangirl 11-15-06, 07:14 PM	Grrr, m, and I wanted so much to agree with you! But in this case, Mommy is actually *gasp* wrong! At least I think so.
Mommy was an Orc 11-15-06, 07:55 PM	Grrr, m, and I wanted so much to agree with you! But in this case, Mommy is actually *gasp* wrong! At least I think so. :) I don't think I'm infallible by any measure, but I'm not the guy telling Ed, Shawn Merwin, and amnuxoll that them ruling the same way I'm doing has no place in LG. That's the possibly the worst use of 'has no place in LG' I've seen.
_m_ 11-15-06, 07:59 PM	:) I don't think I'm infallible by any measure, but I'm not the guy telling Ed, Shawn Merwin, and amnuxoll that them ruling the same way I'm doing has no place in LG. That's the possibly the worst use of 'has no place in LG' I've seen. lol, its ever1 else who thinks you are :D as for you actually being right... i actually stopped reading the important bits of the thread about 40 posts ago, and have just be reading the b!tch!ng... which is funny. and since mommy has been b!tch!ing more politely and rationaly... mommy is right. see?
Samwise 11-15-06, 08:35 PM	This has been debated to death over the last couple of years. We (the druids Yahoo group as well as dozens of individuals) have asked for a Circle ruling, we've asked our Triads, we've asked WoTC customer service and we've asked the Sage and no one has ever responded with an official ruling. For whatever reason, no one wants to define 'melding' and it's properties or clarify/fix the mechanics of wildshape. I just got a (reasonably) direct answer: Framing Question: When equipment melds with your body, does it still count as worn in that slot? Q: For example, if you are wearing magical full plate and polymorph into a dog, can your friends put magical barding on you and will it be active? (Since only the first item worn in that slot will be effective.) A: 1) No it does not count against slots, and you can wear other items after you transform. these items will fall to the ground when change back. Q: What if you change size, like turning into a troll? Could you put on another suit of armor? A: 2) Yes you could put on another suit of armor if you change size. Q: What about different types of equipment? If you change into a troll, can you wear bracers of armor even though you have a suit of armor melded with your body? 3) The suit of armor gives you no benefit while melded, and will therefore not affect your use of Bracers of Armor. Q: And what about effects or class abilities that only work if you are not wearing armor? Will they work if your armor melds with your body? A: 4) this is not specifically covered by the rules, but Since you are gaining no bonuses from the melded armor, you should be able to use class abilities that require you be un armored. Follow Up Q: How does this interact with the *Wild *armor enhancement? (DMG 219) The armor (or shield) is still providing a bonus. Actually, that description seems a bit unclear. Is the armor melded, and thus all the other answers apply, or is it just unseen (presumably just not visible so nobody can tell where the extra armor bonus is coming from), and you can't wear other items of armor or gain bonuses dependent on not wearing armor? (Like say a druid/rogue who wanted to use evasion but was wearing *Wild *hide armor.) A: Again, the rules are not totally specific. This armor suggests that it does not meld and is just unable to be seen. Whatever the case may be you are gaining benefit and will not be able to benefit from another set of armor. Wild armor is armor and will count as such for effects that do not allow armor to be worn for them to work. In the end this all really comes down to your DM, since the rules are not completely specific. That seems clear enough to me. If you use Wild Armor, because you are getting the bonus you can't benefit from other armor, or use an ability that requires you to be wearing no armor. If you otherwise wild shape, or polymorph or whatever, and your armor melds, you can use the other abilities. As a note, that also seems quite reasonable to me. You are getting the benefit, you have the side effects.
Japangirl 11-16-06, 12:53 AM	Except you aren't getting full benefit of a +3 enhancement. If you just wanted to wear the armor, you'd get Beastskin which is a +2. Not using a wild shape use does not justify an entire additional +1 cost. Beastskin is very specific that you are still wearing the armor and you have all the armor check penalties associated with it. Same with animated shields: they are very specific that you are still wielding it for all purposes including armor check penalty, spell failure, and proficiency. Because Wild doesn't say that you are wielding it, the counter examples above would suggest you are not. I would agree with the long post above me laying out all the reasons why the armor does meld, starting by the fact that Wild doesn't say that it doesn't meld. Wild shape is based off polymorph, and all your stuff melds with you. The previous post (right above mine) is just the same as all of them, basing the argument off the fact the sentence says it stays unseen. However, to me that would suggest that the armor melds and there is no way to see it at all because it is part of the animal form. You are, for all practical purposes, completely unarmored when wild shaped and using wild armor, you just get bonuses to AC equivalent to the ones your armor would have given you.
JamesMaissen 11-16-06, 09:52 AM	I would agree with the long post above me laying out all the reasons why the armor does meld, starting by the fact that Wild doesn't say that it doesn't meld. Wild shape is based off polymorph, and all your stuff melds with you. The previous post (right above mine) is just the same as all of them, basing the argument off the fact the sentence says it stays unseen. However, to me that would suggest that the armor melds and there is no way to see it at all because it is part of the animal form. You are, for all practical purposes, completely unarmored when wild shaped and using wild armor, you just get bonuses to AC equivalent to the ones your armor would have given you. I too believe the armor enhancement doesn't prevent the meld. The whole part about retaining the armor bonus (with enhancement bonus) would be pointless otherwise. As it stands it implies that other armor bonuses and enchantments (such as slick, elemental resistance and fortification) would not be retained. A simple statement of the armor doesn't meld would suffice to encompass all of this were that the case. Meanwhile the only judgement for it not to meld is that the armor is unseen. Well there are cases where the armor would NOT meld and it would then be applicable. In either case the armor is not visable when the druid is wildshaped whether into a form that would cause melding or into a form that would not mandate it. As for customer service, they are not rules arbiters but rather customer service. I would suggest that you go back and forth and press against whichever answer they give should you be trying to illicit a rules arbitration from them. I went with this approach when asking about caster level for potions of enlarge person on the DMG table. They started with stock (and previously given/consistant) set of answers, but when pressed for logical consequences then turned around (after a delay rather than lightning fast responses) to give the opposite side of the debate's answer. Now don't get me wrong, customer service has improved drastically since it's inception. But it is customer service, and not arbitration between rules lawyers. Since we try to use them for the later, we have to take the results in perspective that they are instead the former. -James
Samwise 11-16-06, 01:23 PM	As for customer service, they are not rules arbiters but rather customer service. I would suggest that you go back and forth and press against whichever answer they give should you be trying to illicit a rules arbitration from them. Actually they are rules arbiters. As long as WotC and the RPGA have them set up to provide answers that can be used in the game as they do, they are by definition arbiters of the rules. Even if you engage them in an extended debate they are still, in fact and function, arbitrating the rules. The same applies to Sage Advice and thus the FAQ.
Mommy was an Orc 11-16-06, 01:58 PM	Except you aren't getting full benefit of a +3 enhancement. If you just wanted to wear the armor, you'd get Beastskin which is a +2. Not using a wild shape use does not justify an entire additional +1 cost. Cost of +3 Dragonhide Full Plate = 12300 Cost of +4 Dragonhide Full Plate = 19300 Difference in cost between +3 and +4 = 7K Cost of a Druid's Vestment * 2 for unslotted = 7.5K That makes sense to me. It might not be the cost I'd like to pay, but it is clearly in line with how WotC values it. That's also undervaluing the Druid's Vestment in this case - the minimum number of Wildshape uses pretty much any Druid is going to use per day is 2, which means Beastskin uses up 4 total. And we're not calculating in the value of the armor being unseen, either. I'd also note, that if I were playing a Druid, I'd easily go for the Wild enhancement over Beastskin - simply because I'd likely use those 2 Wildshapes for something else and not be the armored bird trying to look innoculous while summoning. Lion's Pounce or the Treeskin armor feat. Your interpretation on the other hand, essentially turns that +4 Dragonhide Full Plate into Bracers AC 9 when Wildshaped(no max dex, no weight, no non-proficiency penalty, no movement restrictions, etc...) That's a huge difference which is not justified with a mere +1 cost.
Japangirl 11-16-06, 03:39 PM	Druid's Vestments aren't unslotted, but rather vest slots. Given, there aren't terribly many vest slots you can use, but Vests of Resistance open up cloak slots to other things. Once you're a fighting druid, you generally pick a form and stick with it all day, and only use wild shape uses to turn humanoid and talk to people (a rarity) or turn into a little birdy and run away (hopefully a rarity). It rapidly becomes apparent that the dire bear isn't *just* a dire bear when it starts casting flame strikes and arc lightnings and has a cloak and amulet on. There isn't any point in buying Wild just so you can hide the armor, you might as well buy glamered Beastskin armor at that point. It's much cheaper. Yes, my interpretation does turn the Wild fullplate into Bracers of Armor +9 . . . useable only by druids in wild shape form. Not to mention the difficulty of killing a dragon big enough to give dragonhide fullplate, the only kind a druid can wear. Greater Mage Armor is a level 3 spell that gives 6 AC for hours/level and doesn't have any penalties and can be used with a monk's wisdom bonus, are you going to call sorceror/monks broken because of it? It doesn't even have a cost! Additionally, given that the other armor/shield enchants you would think make said armor/shield not wielded are very specific on that the armor is wielded, the fact that this information is not included in the description of Wild means that it isn't wielded. Animated says you are still wielding the shield for the purpose of armor check penalty, spell failure, and nonproficiency; Wild says nothing of the sort. Both enchants were written into the same book at the same time so I doubt it is an oversight on the author's part, if we are back to author's intent.
Mommy was an Orc 11-16-06, 04:36 PM	There isn't any point in buying Wild just so you can hide the armor, you might as well buy glamered Beastskin armor at that point. It's much cheaper. Yes, squirrels wearing clothing don't stick out at all...and as I said, I think the payment of a Wildshape per use is high - any Druid in LG is going to need to Wildshape twice per day, because it doesn't last long enough. With Beastskin in the mix, that means four times per day, something which doesn't happen until 10th level. Even then, you're not Wildshaped all the time until 12th. And I happen to like a few of the Wild Shape feats for Druids(especially Lion's Pounce for Shock Trooper Charges...) Yes, my interpretation does turn the Wild fullplate into Bracers of Armor +9 . . . useable only by druids in wild shape form. Not to mention the difficulty of killing a dragon big enough to give dragonhide fullplate, the only kind a druid can wear. Greater Mage Armor is a level 3 spell that gives 6 AC for hours/level and doesn't have any penalties and can be used with a monk's wisdom bonus, are you going to call sorceror/monks broken because of it? It doesn't even have a cost! You're the one stating the viewpoint that Wild, as I run it, isn't worth an additional +1 enhancement by WotC standards. It clearly is. I don't think Spell Resistance(13) is worth a +2 as an example. Killing a Dragon for Dragonhide armor is only an issue if your DM or campaign(as LG did) make it one. Greater Mage Armor has the obvious cost that it is a spell. A simple Dispel Magic on an Altered Self, Mage Armored Monk/Sorc can drop that AC a lot and finding out that your AC just dropped by 12 when you're next to the delaying evil BDF... Both enchants were written into the same book at the same time so I doubt it is an oversight on the author's part, if we are back to author's intent. It clearly is an oversight to not have spelled out what the author meant by being unseen. He obviously meant something by it. Whether or not he was saying it melded in a very unusual manner or meant it was unseen and not melded, he meant something.
katrick 11-30-06, 02:25 AM	Thats is pretty much what the Wild enhancement says. While it meakes sense given how it is written that monk AC would stack while wildshaped, mainly due to the fact that wildshaped armour melds as normal but you retain the armourt bonus, nothing else. It was just a thought I had. If it was combined with a level of Natures warrior for DR and Barkskin etc. AC 50 is not unacheivable. AC's over 50 without armor are possible if you are high level and look hard enough take for example 10 to start with, 4 mage armor, 6 alter self(troglodyte), shield 4, ring of Pro +3, at 12th level Improved Combat Expertise +10, defending sword +3 (+4weapon enhancement), dodge +1, Titan fighting +4(with dodge), dwarf deepwarden ( use Con instead of Dex +5-7 with standard +4 amulet of health), 2 lvls Duelist add +2 int, wear masterwork leather +2,for a total of 53 now an amulet of natural armor stacks with alter self ,dragonskin spell also stacks with natural armor, add Improved mobility from Duelist +8 for Aoo's and you can still find more i'm sure if i wasn't chaotic all the dwarven defender stuff stacks as well another 10+ if you build it they will come P.S. my attack bonus is zero
Maesto 12-01-06, 09:40 PM	Yeah sorry, it's not quite that good. Titan fighting changes the dodge bonus from +1 to +4 against a bigger target. Mage armour doesn't stack with your leather armour. I think that's all. Wizards can get fairly high: 10 base 6 Greater Mage Armour 4 Shield 6 Alter Self (trog) 5 Dragonskin That's 31 without a deflection bonus, insight bonus, or dex. Say a +3 deflection (ring), +1 insight (ioun stone), and a +5 dex (including gloves), and you've hit AC 40. Alternatively, you can get to 50 really cheaply, using polymorph to change into a will-o'-wisp. Granted, you need to use your other buffs first, 'coz you lose spellcasting abilities when changed into that form, but hey. Base 29 + 2 (cat's grace) + 6 (GMA) + 5 (dragonskin) + 4 (shield) gives AC 46 in a pinch (AC 31 touch!). A cleric with shield of faith will give you more, depending on caster level, and the ioun stone will give you another +1. You want your AC to be ridiculous? Then go for a mystic theurge. I'm told that a 20th level mystic theurge can walk around with AC 80, although I'm not quite sure how to push it _that_ high. Cheers, Jolyon
_m_ 12-06-06, 05:24 PM	Yeah sorry, it's not quite that good. Titan fighting changes the dodge bonus from +1 to +4 against a bigger target. Mage armour doesn't stack with your leather armour. I think that's all. Wizards can get fairly high: 10 base 6 Greater Mage Armour 4 Shield 6 Alter Self (trog) 5 Dragonskin That's 31 without a deflection bonus, insight bonus, or dex. Say a +3 deflection (ring), +1 insight (ioun stone), and a +5 dex (including gloves), and you've hit AC 40. Alternatively, you can get to 50 really cheaply, using polymorph to change into a will-o'-wisp. Granted, you need to use your other buffs first, 'coz you lose spellcasting abilities when changed into that form, but hey. Base 29 + 2 (cat's grace) + 6 (GMA) + 5 (dragonskin) + 4 (shield) gives AC 46 in a pinch (AC 31 touch!). A cleric with shield of faith will give you more, depending on caster level, and the ioun stone will give you another +1. You want your AC to be ridiculous? Then go for a mystic theurge. I'm told that a 20th level mystic theurge can walk around with AC 80, although I'm not quite sure how to push it _that_ high. Cheers, Jolyon tack a stoneskin, and perhaps a flying +1 towershield (you know, the ones that fly around and dont need to be held...) and ul get sum dr and another few ac again.
PaulH 12-06-06, 07:52 PM	Hi Elephant's Hide Complete Divine, Pg 81 "....This does not stack with any natural armour you currently have." Not all bonuses stack. :( Cheers Paul H
nobodez 12-14-06, 02:20 AM	Only one person brought it up, but I'm hoping you do have a darkwood buckler, or else you don't even have to worry about it melding or not, as you'd lose your druid abilities while wearing it (and 24 hours afterwards). Buckers are metal (its in the PHB), though a Darkwood buckler from the DMG special shield list would qualify, but only if you have access to that specific shield, and not just darkwood access. Now, as to if it melds or not, I'm not sure, but I know I would rule as judge that you're still wearing armor, and can't get your monk bonus to AC.
Japangirl 12-14-06, 04:10 PM	That's why you go with a tower shield! Those are wooden :D.
_m_ 12-18-06, 05:19 PM	That's why you go with a tower shield! Those are wooden :D. so... they burn?
Japangirl 12-18-06, 06:17 PM	If you wanted to set it on fire, I imagine it would burn. It'd be a shame to burn a +5 wild tower shield though.