| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| Jay_Ibero_91102-12-07, 05:38 PM | Okay, by new errata, when you wildshape, you use your own CON and not the animal's con to determine your HP, and your equipment all melds and becomes non-functional. What if you have a con-boosting item on at the time that you wildshape? For instance, if you have a base 16 con, and a +2 amulet of health, your effective CON score at the time you wildshape is 18. Now, obviously as soon as you wildshape, you no longer get the bonus from the item, so the new animal form would not gain the benefit of the +2 enhancement bonus to con score. The question becomes does your CON score for HP purposes get locked in before or after your equipment becomes non-functional in the wildshaping process? |
| Mithreinmaethor02-12-07, 07:04 PM | I would think that that is self evident. If you lose the 2 Con (i.e 1 hp/level) then you are down those HPs. Being nonfunctional is no different than you taking the thing off. |
| Jay_Ibero_91102-12-07, 07:18 PM | I would think that that is self evident. If you lose the 2 Con (i.e 1 hp/level) then you are down those HPs. Being nonfunctional is no different than you taking the thing off. Yes, but it doesn't become non-fuctional until AFTER you wildshape, at which point you are already going by your pre-wildshape con. |
| Mithreinmaethor02-12-07, 07:33 PM | I would need to look at the FAQ again and I know they reprinted the Alternate Form stuff in a new book. But I would think the differentiation needs to be made in the physical stats and the enhanced physical stats. Wearing items or having enhancing spells enhance your stats. What you are when buck naked should be your physical stats. But we will have to look to the FAQ and any Errata to confirm this or find other sources that make this differentiation. |
| Britt02-12-07, 07:57 PM | Yes, but it doesn't become non-fuctional until AFTER you wildshape, at which point you are already going by your pre-wildshape con. Timing is not stipulated in the ruling. The most reasonable assumption is that it is all simultaneous. If the item becomes nonfunctional, the obvious intent of that is that you lose the benefits. If it did not mean that you lose the benefits, it would not have stipulated nonfunctional. If you are keeping the hit points, you are gaining the benefits and it is not nonfunctional. I understand you wanting to make this interpretation work, but it clearly and grossly violates the obvious intent of the rule. |
| Jay_Ibero_91102-12-07, 08:15 PM | Timing is not stipulated in the ruling. The most reasonable assumption is that it is all simultaneous. If the item becomes nonfunctional, the obvious intent of that is that you lose the benefits. If it did not mean that you lose the benefits, it would not have stipulated nonfunctional. If you are keeping the hit points, you are gaining the benefits and it is not nonfunctional. I understand you wanting to make this interpretation work, but it clearly and grossly violates the obvious intent of the rule. I certainly see how it may be against the intent of the rule, though I wouldn't say grossly, as it is in a singla scenario that it may be applicable. And it cannot possibly be all simultaneous or the question is unresolveable. One part of the rule must take precidence over the other in order for there to be a clear result. Just another complication due to the funky new rules. If you used the new form's con for HP, it wouldn't be an issue because the new form is not benefiting from the magic item. But because of the errata, you use your pre-wildshape con score to determine HP, while your magic items meld and become non-functional. The two rules are mutually exclusive if you have a con boosting magic item unless a timing rule is imlemented within wildshape itself. If your items become non-functional before your con is locked in, then the game plays as apparently intended. If your con is locked in before your items meld, then your HP would continue to be based on your CON with the magic item. This also can lead to issues if, after wildshaping, you recieve a bear's endurance spell, because your current con has no enhancement bonuses, you would gain the full effect of the spell, despite the fact that your HP is being based off a con score that was subject to an enhancement bonus. While I agree with the intent of the errata, I think it leaves a lot to be desired as far as how it goes about achieving it's goals. |
| blood_kite02-12-07, 09:24 PM | Would taking it off before wildshaping and putting it back on after work if you had time? |
| Timlagor02-12-07, 09:35 PM | Taking it off and replacing it would work. I think this thread has been diverted by a misleading statement in the OP (unless I've totally misremembered again..). IIRC The rules don't say anything about going by your original Con score. They say that you "keep the same hitpoints". I therefore see no reason you should lose HP from the now non-functional amulet since your whole previous Constitution is now non-functional and you haven't lost any hp from that. This would make it best to wear a Con amulet, wildshape and then put on a Periapt of Wisdom (though you could put on a second amulet I suppose ;) ..only one would be contributing to your Con score and Fort save but I would give you HP for both. I don't think it's safe to even attempt to make a guess at what they thought they were thinking when they wrote these rules -it's only clear that they didn't know what they were doing (and didn't fix it properly when they rewrote them a week later). It's also clear that there will be widespread variation until they rewrite the errata or we get a clarifying FAQ entry (or DC). |
| Britt02-12-07, 09:39 PM | You could definitely not keep the bonus from an amulet of health AND put on a periapt of wisdom, getting the bonuses from both. That is completely contrary to the spirit of the rules, above and beyond trying to keep the HP bonus from a nonfunctional item. |
| Timlagor02-12-07, 11:35 PM | [sorry this is a bit rambling] You're not keeping a bonus though. You're keeping your HP total. I agree that it's silly but that's only because the Errata is silly. Sillyness is the only argument I can see for removing those HP and that doesn't cut it. You keep the HP you had before wildshaping. The Amulet it active at all times before wildshaping. IE The only time the amulet is not active is when you are already Wildshaping. Thus "before wildshaping" your Hp total includes the amulet's benefit. I don't think there is any obvious intent (I find the intent of the ruling frankly incomprehensible) and even intent must bow before what I perceive to be a clear (unambiguous) consequence (however ridiculous) of the RAW. I'm all for RAI rulings where the RAW is ambiguous or I can reasonably invoke the 'not well modelled' clause; I just don't think this is such a case. It's obvious to most if not all of the LG community that the current rule is very very ill thought out indeed. It has consequences that we are stuck with -this is one of them. That's the way it will work at tables I run until there is something official to the contrary. I actually don't think it's a terribly big issue anyway but if you would care to put it in a DC I'll be happy to abide by your ruling. This really is an honest interpretation. I don't like the rule and I don't much like the consequence but it seems correct to me. I don't have a Druid (well my 1st level druid won't be played again any time soon because the idea I was interested in was a frail little old man and I have other characters clamouring to be played none of whom are druids). I also don't want to deal with this mess as a player (and foist it on judges). [as a judge I'll just make a ruling and move on] **************************************** ****************** Whatever the ruling on those HP there is absolutely no disputing that you can wear and benefit from an amulet/periapt once wildshaped. This is completely independent of the HP issue. It can't properly be used to decide on the HP issue and the HP ruling certainly can't change the fact that you can wear (and benefit from ) an item in the neck slot once wildshaped. It therefore can't be contrary to the spirit of the rules "above and beyond ..."; it's just that the full 'contrary to the spririt of the rules' issue of the HP bonus is not immediately apparent until you consider it. **************************************** **************** |
| sibyl02-13-07, 10:00 AM | What if I normally wear the Periapt of Wisdom, and have an Amulet of Health as backup? I shift, losing the Periapt's bonuses, and have a buddy put on the Amulet of Health. Do I gain HP from the CON adjustment of the Amulet? What happens when I shift back? Does the Periapt become active again, negating the Amulet, or does the Amulet stay active? You could definitely not keep the bonus from an amulet of health AND put on a periapt of wisdom, getting the bonuses from both. That is completely contrary to the spirit of the rules, above and beyond trying to keep the HP bonus from a nonfunctional item. |
| Jay_Ibero_91102-13-07, 10:13 AM | What if I normally wear the Periapt of Wisdom, and have an Amulet of Health as backup? I shift, losing the Periapt's bonuses, and have a buddy put on the Amulet of Health. Do I gain HP from the CON adjustment of the Amulet? What happens when I shift back? Does the Periapt become active again, negating the Amulet, or does the Amulet stay active? That at least is an easy question to answer. Right in the current wildshape text is says: "When the druid reverts to her true form, any objects previously melded into the new form reappear in the same location on her body that they previously occupied and are once again functional. Any new items worn in the assumed form fall off and land at the druid's feet." So peripiapt melds and becomes non-functional, you put on amulet of health for extra HP, you revert, amulet of health falls off, periapt of wisdom returns and resumes function. |
| sibyl02-13-07, 10:26 AM | I knew I was missing something simple. Thanks. |
| ZX67002-13-07, 12:16 PM | That at least is an easy question to answer. Right in the current wildshape text is says: "When the druid reverts to her true form, any objects previously melded into the new form reappear in the same location on her body that they previously occupied and are once again functional. Any new items worn in the assumed form fall off and land at the druid's feet." So peripiapt melds and becomes non-functional, you put on amulet of health for extra HP, you revert, amulet of health falls off, periapt of wisdom returns and resumes function. LOL, how can you come to this answer so easily, yet be arguing that you keep HP from having a Con bonus when you lose the bonus itself? Let me ask you this just to see what you say: When you Wildshape wearing a Con amulet, does your Wildshaped Con equal the form's Con +2 (or whatever the bonus of the amulet), or just the form's Con? If you answered just the form's Con, which would be correct, then there's no way you get to keep the HP from the Con amulet. You are basically saying that you somehow transform HPs from being more hearty (a higher Con), to temporary HPs, which is impossible. |
| Randall Montgomery02-13-07, 01:18 PM | Let me ask you this just to see what you say: When you Wildshape wearing a Con amulet, does your Wildshaped Con equal the form's Con +2 (or whatever the bonus of the amulet), or just the form's Con? If you answered just the form's Con, which would be correct, then there's no way you get to keep the HP from the Con amulet. You are basically saying that you somehow transform HPs from being more hearty (a higher Con), to temporary HPs, which is impossible. What he's saying is that you get the con stat of the new form, but according to the errata, you keep the same hit points you had before wildshaping, regardless of the new forms con. Here's the hypothetical situation they're referring to, with some random numbers thrown in for examples: 1. You have a druid with a amulet of health +2, giving him a total of 16 con. His pre-wildshape HP is 65. 2. He wildshapes into a form that has a 20 con. When he wildshapes, his amulet melds into his new form, but his hit points before changing are not affected by this, and he therefore still has 65 HP. 3. A party member gives the Druid, in his new form, another Amulet of Health +2, giving him a total con bonus of 22 in his new form. Now, does he gain the +1/level HP bonus because his form's con score is greater now, or not? I'm not really up on the errata, so I won't even hazard a guess, but I definitely agree that this errata was very slapshod and not very well implemented. Joe Stalsberg who's really glad none of his characters are Druids... |
| Alpha_Nerd02-13-07, 01:39 PM | Quoted from the Alternate Form description "Any gear worn or carried by the creature that can’t be worn or carried in its new form instead falls to the ground in its space. If the creature changes size, any gear it wears or carries that can be worn or carried in its new form changes size to match the new size. (Nonhumanoid-shaped creatures can’t wear armor designed for humanoid-shaped creatures, and vice versa.) Gear returns to normal size if dropped." From what I've read the Wild Shape ability now functions identically to the Alternate Form Ability, meaning that when a druid Wild Shapes into an animal, the items in his Neck and Cloak slots do not meld as Animals are able to wear those items per the LGCS. Am I correct? |
| bitznarf02-13-07, 01:43 PM | Quoted from the Alternate Form description "Any gear worn or carried by the creature that can’t be worn or carried in its new form instead falls to the ground in its space. If the creature changes size, any gear it wears or carries that can be worn or carried in its new form changes size to match the new size. (Nonhumanoid-shaped creatures can’t wear armor designed for humanoid-shaped creatures, and vice versa.) Gear returns to normal size if dropped." From what I've read the Wild Shape ability now functions identically to the Alternate Form Ability, meaning that when a druid Wild Shapes into an animal, the items in his Neck and Cloak slots do not meld as Animals are able to wear those items per the LGCS. Am I correct? Except that the wild shape class feature directly overrules this... ...This ability functions like the alternate form special ability, except as noted here...Any gear worn or carried by the druid melds into the new form and becomes nonfunctional... Some major snipage but this covers the main bits. |
| Alpha_Nerd02-13-07, 01:47 PM | Except that the wild shape class feature directly overrules this... Some major snipage but this covers the main bits. What a beating. I bet we'll see a lot more druids with 3-4 stones floating around their head in the future. |
| Japangirl02-13-07, 02:08 PM | What a beating. I bet we'll see a lot more druids with 3-4 stones floating around their head in the future. Except that technically, you are using and wielding ioun stones also. By the rules, those meld when a druid wildshapes as well. It is only a standard action to put them back up (well standard action for each) so a friend could just grab them all and then start tossing them up, but they do meld if a druid wildshapes. It sucks but there it is. |
| Alpha_Nerd02-13-07, 02:10 PM | eventhough it says specifically "worn or carried"? I guess Druids will just have to stay wildshaped all day. Wake up in the morning, take off amulet and cloak, turn into a bear, have friend put them back on, continue on with the adventure. |
| Japangirl02-13-07, 02:13 PM | Or just sleep in wild shape form, after they hit 12 or 13 and can carry it off 24-7. |
| sibyl02-13-07, 02:15 PM | Except that technically, you are using and wielding ioun stones also. By the rules, those meld when a druid wildshapes as well. It is only a standard action to put them back up (well standard action for each) so a friend could just grab them all and then start tossing them up, but they do meld if a druid wildshapes. It sucks but there it is. Except that the melding only applies to items WORN or CARRIED. Ioun stones are neither worn, nor carried. They're weidled, but the wording doesn't say weilded, it says worn or carried. Druids are losing enough with the new errata; I'm willing to get a little rules lawyerish on this issue. |
| Japangirl02-13-07, 02:17 PM | I think ioun stones should not meld. I think cloaks and amulets should not meld either, but unfortunately they do. Expect judges to be harsh on this sometimes, and be aware that it is out there. I disagree profoundly with the wild shape changes, especially because they are so poorly worded, but unfortunately there is nothing anyone can do about them now. Technically, ioun stones are worn. Thus, technically, they meld. Will druids be held to that? Only time will tell. |
| ZX67002-13-07, 02:21 PM | Technically, ioun stones are worn. Thus, technically, they meld. Will druids be held to that? Only time will tell. It won't really matter because animals, per the line that states only neck and back slots are usable by animals, cannot use Ioun stones. Even if they didn't meld, they'd just fall onto the ground, unusable in your new form. |
| Timlagor02-13-07, 02:28 PM | I'd let Druids keep their Stones active. The keeping of HP from an inactive Amulet is a direct consequence of 2 very bad rules in the errata: - All equipment merges and becomes inactive - Your Con score changes but doesn't affect HP (the amulet gets sucked into this) The latter being totally contrary to the normal "spirit of the rules" and havign this (presumably unintended) consequence. Going in the other direction is totally unproblematic. |
| ZX67002-13-07, 02:29 PM | 1. You have a druid with a amulet of health +2, giving him a total of 16 con. His pre-wildshape HP is 65. 2. He wildshapes into a form that has a 20 con. When he wildshapes, his amulet melds into his new form, but his hit points before changing are not affected by this, and he therefore still has 65 HP. 3. A party member gives the Druid, in his new form, another Amulet of Health +2, giving him a total con bonus of 22 in his new form. Here's where you need to find your answer: Any gear worn or carried by the druid melds into the new form and becomes nonfunctional... When you meld, the Con amulet becomes nonfunctional, and thus, you lose the HPs before or during your shapechange, meaning your HPs are decreased by 1 per level before you take your new Con. All of your other situationals are obsolete because of this. Basically, and this was covered in another thread, you will need to keep both Con scores accounted for, your Wildshaped Con, and your original Con minus any bonuses from items you Wildshaped with while still wearing, bc they are now nonfunctional. Now, if you get a Bear's Endurance cast on you before or after you Wildshape, this will still be in effect, and thus, both Con scores will be at a +4. If you get Con drained, you will lower both scores by the amount of drain and adjust your Fort saves and skills by your Wildshaped Con, and your HPs by your original Con. If your original Con gets reduced to 0 but your Wildshaped Con is still above 0, you will still be alive, because you Wildshaped Con is your real Con while Wildshaped. If you get any additional Con drain or damage, which would reduce your Con below 0 into negatives, your original Con will stay at 0, however, your Wildshaped Con will continue to decrease. Please note that because your original Con is no longer decreasing, you will no longer adjust your max HP total for Con loss. I think that's everything. |
| Timlagor02-13-07, 02:29 PM | It won't really matter because animals, per the line that states only neck and back slots are usable by animals, cannot use Ioun stones. Even if they didn't meld, they'd just fall onto the ground, unusable in your new form. Ioun Stones are slotless. You don't need a slot to use them. |
| Timlagor02-13-07, 02:31 PM | When you meld, the Con amulet becomes nonfunctional, and thus, you lose the HPs before or during your shapechange, meaning your HPs are decreased by 1 per level before you take your new Con. You keep the HP score you had before wildshaping. The amulet becomes inactive while wildshaping. How do you resolve these two into losing the HP due to the Amulet's effect? |
| ZX67002-13-07, 02:31 PM | The keeping of HP from an inactive Amulet is a direct consequence of 2 very bad rules in the errata: - All equipment merges and becomes inactive - Your Con score changes but doesn't affect HP (the amulet gets sucked into this) Actually, it's not worded bad, you're just reaching in trying to get a favorable conclusion. If your amulet becomes inactive, you'd lose the HPs from it, plain and simple. Then, your new, unmodified Con, would be what you use to get your HPs in your new form. It's not that difficult to understand. |
| ZX67002-13-07, 02:32 PM | You keep the HP score you had before wildshaping. The amulet becomes inactive while wildshaping. How do you resolve these two into losing the HP due to the Amulet's effect? What part of 'your gear becomes inactive' do you not comprehend? Edit: To make this easier: What would happen if your Con amulet suddenly became inactive when you were in your normal form? The same would happen when you Wildshaped too, therefore your HPs would decrease from Con loss before you fully assumed your new form. |
| Timlagor02-13-07, 02:37 PM | What part of 'your gear becomes inactive' do you not comprehend? None of it. You are failing to appreciate the timing issue. It doesn't become inactive until after you have determined your HP score for the new form. |
| Timlagor02-13-07, 02:39 PM | Actually, it's not worded bad, you're just reaching in trying to get a favorable conclusion. I'm really not. I've already made it quite clear that my interpretaion grants me no benefit. I'm not claiming that it's badly worded either. I'm saying it's idiotic in content. If your amulet becomes inactive, you'd lose the HPs from it, plain and simple. Then, your new, unmodified Con, would be what you use to get your HPs in your new form. It's not that difficult to understand. Ordinarily you would be right -this bad rule however changes that. |
| ZX67002-13-07, 02:40 PM | None of it. You are failing to appreciate the timing issue. It doesn't become inactive until after you have determined your HP score for the new form. Where does it say when exactly your gear becomes inactive? It doesn't, but regardless, based on what CustServ has given us, you keep two Con stats, your original and your Wildshaped. When you Con amulet becomes inactive, regardless of when it happens, your original Con will lose the bonus Con from the amulet, and thus, your HP will be adjusted accordingly. This is very basic stuff. |
| ZX67002-13-07, 02:42 PM | Ordinarily you would be right -this bad rule however changes that. Whatever you say, man. It's straightforward and rather simple if you ask me. The way I am presenting it is correct, per CustServ and, imo, per the letter of the rules as written. |
| Timlagor02-13-07, 02:53 PM | Where does it say when exactly your gear becomes inactive? It becomes inactive "when" you wildshape Your HP are the same as "before" you wildshape. "before" happens before "when". CustServ doesn't have a good enough record for me to take their answers seriously when I find them to be contrary to teh RAW -which afaik says nothing to indicate this dual-Con system you advocate. |
| KarmaInferno02-13-07, 03:43 PM | None of it. You are failing to appreciate the timing issue. It doesn't become inactive until after you have determined your HP score for the new form. I dunno about other folks, but this kind of distinction just smacks of cheese weaseling to me. And if *I* am calling something cheese, it's a bad sign. -karma player of a 17th level former cheese-cracked MoMF... |
| ZX67002-13-07, 03:59 PM | CustServ doesn't have a good enough record for me to take their answers seriously when I find them to be contrary to teh RAW -which afaik says nothing to indicate this dual-Con system you advocate. the creature retains the hit points of its original form despite any change to its Constitution. It tells us right there that you will need to track your original form's Con, otherwise it would say your HPs stay the same, not that you retain the HPs of your original form. This means you have to track your original Con for your Con modifier for HP purposes. This also means that when your Con amulet becomes nonfunctional, also per the RAW, your original form's Con, and thus, original form's HPs, drop before or during (timing doesn't matter here) Wildshaping. |
| Jay_Ibero_91102-13-07, 04:05 PM | It tells us right there that you will need to track your original form's Con, otherwise it would say your HPs stay the same, not that you retain the HPs of your original form. This means you have to track your original Con for your Con modifier for HP purposes. This also means that when your Con amulet becomes nonfunctional, also per the RAW, your original form's Con, and thus, original form's HPs, drop before or during (timing doesn't matter here) Wildshaping. I don't think anyone is trying to say that isn't the intent of the current rule, it's more that without such a neatly worded addition, they require too much deduction based on other rulles of the game, whereas, even if it may have been unbalalanced, it was MUCH simpler when you just used the con score of your new form for everything.... |
| ZX67002-13-07, 04:15 PM | I don't think anyone is trying to say that isn't the intent of the current rule, it's more that without such a neatly worded addition, they require too much deduction based on other rulles of the game, whereas, even if it may have been unbalalanced, it was MUCH simpler when you just used the con score of your new form for everything.... Sure, it's easier. However, this way, we still get at least some kind of boon for being able to use the high, or low, Con of the form we assume for Fort saves and skill bonuses (Concentration only, but that can help if you have Natural Spell). If they worded it how I think it would be easiest and just say that only your Str and Dex changes to that of the new form, we'd lose that, so at least they left us with something. |
| Timlagor02-13-07, 04:22 PM | Ahh I'd missed that one thatn's ZX: you can take all the Con damage you want in alternate form without losing a single HP to it. marvellous. |
| lavyan02-13-07, 05:04 PM | It is a poorly written rule because the 'rule' doesn't come close to the 'intent'. That is assuming that the 'intent' is to not get the HP from a nonfunctional item? The rule is simple: 1. Wildshaping is a standard action 2. The rule say you have the HP that you have before you Wildshape 3. What is your HP before the standard action I am fine with the keeping 2 Con stats, but i would like to see it in official errata or a DC. With that rule though, if a druid recieves a Bears Endurance spell it would be in effect when he Wildshapes. I just wonder, if D&D has been using this rule for almost a year, why don't they have it figured out yet? |
| ZX67002-13-07, 05:21 PM | I just wonder, if D&D has been using this rule for almost a year, why don't they have it figured out yet? If CustServ is to be believed, and I think they are right on this one, then they do have it figured out. However, when you fail to believe what they say, it makes things a bit more difficult. The problem with how some of your are trying to interpret the new rules is that some are reading ONLY that your HP stays the same, which is only partially correct. What it does say is that you retain the HPs of your original form. If you have a Con amulet on which will become nonfunctional when you Wildshape, then your original form will lose that Con bonus, and thus, you will lose HPs. If you have a Bear's Endurance on when you Wildshape, then your original form will keep that plus 4, meaning your HPs will not change when you Wildshape, AND the form you assume will also gain a +4 to it's Con, which will affect your Fort save and Concentration check. |
| Cardinal Teplin02-14-07, 07:53 AM | ZX I realise that you've come to a conclusion about how the rules work that you're happy with. That's great. Unfortunately, it's not RAW. There is nothing in the RAW about tracking two seperate con scores. You may think that's the only way the rule can be made to work, but it still isn't RAW. The problem arises that the rules state that you both lose your amulet and have your hp frozen at the same time. Your hp doesn't change as a result of the change, so if your amulet is lost as a result of the change, this loss doesn't change your hp. This is the logical outcome of the RAW and is, as previously mentioned, highly undesirable. The fact that it is undesirable doesn't, unfortunately, make it wrong. It certainly doesn't justify making up a dual con tracking system on the spot. Given a choice, I would rule that the amulet loss happens either before or after the change, not during. It does'nt really matter which, so long as you are consistent. If you assume that the bonus is lost before you wildshape, then you don't get the bonus. If you assume it is lost after you wildshape, then your new form loses an enhancement bonus of +2, and your hp still drop accordingly. Note that the choice you make here will have knock-on effects for other situations, as mentioned in my previous post. However, this being LG, I'm not confident that I actually have the authority to rule that this happens anything other than simultaneously, leading to the same outcome as Timlagor suggested. You note your hp before the change, during the change you lose your con bonus, and after the change your hp as the same as before - before the con bonus was lost. It's not a desirable outcome, it's not one that any of my characters will benefit from (My druid/MoMFs doesn't use a con amulet), but it is RAW. Dumb, but RAW. I don't think this is a serious problem for the most part. While a druid could, in theory, squirrel away a number of hp boosts by using this trick, they'd have to burn up wild shapes to do it, and buy multiple amulets. This is very unlikely to be useful or cost effective in practice. I realise that many posters here have a strong interest in creating a rules interpretation that wouldn't lead to this outcome, but the two-con solution is not RAW, not even hinted at in RAW, and is not suitable for use in LG. |
| Samwise02-14-07, 09:33 AM | It is not RAW. So what? Very seriously, so what? The rules don't say what order you have to select your ability scores in. (I want to decide my Int first. Am I allowed to?) The rules don't say what order you have to assign your skill points in. (Do I have to do it alphabetically? Can I change my mind with new skill points before moving to the next step?) The rules don't say what order you must arrange your equipment list in. (If I don't list my weapons before my armor, does that mean I can't have any weapons?) The rules don't specify the method for keeping track of your hit points. (Is it total damage taken? Or how many hp I have left?) The rules, as written, don't specify how to take care of dozens of minor bookkeeping tasks. And they don't have to. What you have here is a situation where your wild shaped Con score doesn't affect your hp, but does affect saves and other Con related statistics. You are free to select any method you please of keeping track of the values if they are modified after you wild shape. But you must, to follow the rules that are written, keep track of the different values. Claiming that because the rules don't specify a method is deliberately misinterpreting a rule to gain an advantage. That is a rule that is written, and one I strongly encourage everyone to enforce on players of druids who attempt to circumvent this change in the rules. |
| Cardinal Teplin02-14-07, 10:02 AM | It is not RAW. So what? Very seriously, so what? We're obliged to follow RAW in LG. This is necessary to keep consistency across the campaign. Your own home-brewed rules are not permitted. Very seriously, your method produces different results from RAW. We can't use it. I don't like it, I personally don't gain or lose either way, but I'd rather not get into the habit of changing the rules just because I don't like the result. |
| Samwise02-14-07, 10:06 AM | We're obliged to follow RAW in LG. This is necessary to keep consistency across the campaign. Your own home-brewed rules are not permitted. Very seriously, your method produces different results from RAW. We can't use it. I don't like it, I personally don't gain or lose either way, but I'd rather not get into the habit of changing the rules just because I don't like the result. No, we are obliged to follow both the letter and the spirit of the rules. That method produces no result different from the rules as written. Your proposal to ignore the obivous intent of the rule produces a result directly opposed to the rules as written. Specifically, you wish to ignore modifiers to the Con score of a druid after he has wild shaped. The rules, or rather the FAQ, specifically indicates otherwise. You can not ignore that. And misrepresenting the rules to others is also a violation of the rules as written, whether you gain directly from it or not. |
| Cardinal Teplin02-14-07, 10:45 AM | Sure it makes a difference: Take a druid with 8 con, wildshaping into an animal with 16 con.... ...And then taking 8 con damage. Bringing his wildshaped con to 8, and his original con to 0. According to his original con, he's as dead as a doornail. However, you don't track his original con. His present con is 16, minus the 8 con damage, for 8. Dead or not? I'd say not, because you don't track your original con. I don't believe the RAW supports anything else. Similarly with the con amulet issue. Two things happen, your hp get frozen at where they were, and then you lose your amulet. They explicitly happen in that order, or more precisely, your hp are explicitly frozen at the value they were at before your amulet was lost. Spirit of the rules? I suspect when the rules were written, this scenario was not considered. Nor do I think they considered what would happen with druids wearing periapts of wisdom, who now lose spells per day for using their wildshape class to change shape from one creature that can wear an amulet into another creature that can wear an amulet. I don't think the spirit of the rules is clear here. I can understand that you feel otherwise, but I don't agree with you. In addition, I tend to put more emphasis on the spirit of the rules when dealing with ambigious rules. These rules are very clearly written. We don't like the result, but that's not sufficient justification to change them. |
| ZX67002-14-07, 10:54 AM | We're obliged to follow RAW in LG. This is necessary to keep consistency across the campaign. Your own home-brewed rules are not permitted. Very seriously, your method produces different results from RAW. We can't use it. I don't like it, I personally don't gain or lose either way, but I'd rather not get into the habit of changing the rules just because I don't like the result. The RAW state that when you gain or lose Con, your HPs will be adjusted accordingly, except in the case of Wildshape. Now, when you lose the benefit of your Con amulet, which becomes nonfunctional per the RAW, your Con will drop 2 points, regardless of whether it becomes nonfunctional before, during, or after Wildshaping. Now, per the RAW, your HPs will then HAVE to be adjusted accordingly. Since you are NOT using your Wildshaped Con to get the modifier needed to adjust your HPs from the Con loss of losing your Con amulet, which Con score do you think you should be using? Your original Con. That's why you must keep both scores. I'm sorry, but there's no way you will get around not adjusting your HPs if your Con score drops from losing your Con amulet, because that is per the RAW. HPs can't magically turn from Con bonus HPs to Temporary HPs, which is what they would become in the situation you are describing, because that is certainly NOT RAW. I don't understand why some are trying to grasp at these hokey explanations when it's really extremely simple. I really wish a representative from the Circle would get involved and explain it from the Circle's point of view, but they have yet to do so. |
| ZX67002-14-07, 10:56 AM | Take a druid with 8 con, wildshaping into an animal with 16 con.... ...And then taking 8 con damage. Bringing his wildshaped con to 8, and his original con to 0. According to his original con, he's as dead as a doornail. However, you don't track his original con. His present con is 16, minus the 8 con damage, for 8. Dead or not? I'd say not, because you don't track your original con. I don't believe the RAW supports anything else. He's not dead, because his current real Con score is 8. Now let me ask you this: as he's losing that Con, how do you affect his HPs from the Con loss in your opinion? |
| DuctShuiTengu02-14-07, 11:02 AM | Actually, it's not worded bad, you're just reaching in trying to get a favorable conclusion. If your amulet becomes inactive, you'd lose the HPs from it, plain and simple. Then, your new, unmodified Con, would be what you use to get your HPs in your new form. It's not that difficult to understand. Except that your new, unmodified Con is that of the form you shifted into, but the eratta for WS specificly states that you don't recalculate your HP based on this. If the Errata said "You keep your original Con score for purposes of determining hit-points" that would fix this problem. But it doesn't. Your Con score changes for everything, and you just don't recalculate hitpoints based on this change. Of course, where this gets really silly is when your Druid puts their Amulet of Health +4 on after wildshaping into a Dire Bear, and thus gets to recalculate their HP based on their new Con score of 23. Was this what was intended with the Eratta? Probably not. But it is what the current RAW say. |
| ragecage7902-14-07, 11:10 AM | He's not dead, because his current real Con score is 8. Now let me ask you this: as he's losing that Con, how do you affect his HPs from the Con loss in your opinion? Well according to your earlier quote, "the creature retains the hit points of its original form despite any change to its Constitution." If we use the most literal interpretation of RAW here, there would be no change to HP. There would also be no change to HP due to losing the effect of the amulet or even adding an amulet after WS. I think you'd disagree with this result. I don't think the rules were meant to work this way either, but as we are at the most judges, not DMs, we have to follow the RAW and use the spirit of the rules to fill in the missing parts. This looks pretty clearly, even if incorrectly, spelled out. |
| ZX67002-14-07, 11:15 AM | Of course, where this gets really silly is when your Druid puts their Amulet of Health +4 on after wildshaping into a Dire Bear, and thus gets to recalculate their HP based on their new Con score of 23. Ok, if we've going by the RAW, then this is what it says exactly: Apply any changed physical ability score modifiers in all appropriate areas with one exception: the creature retains the hit points of its original form despite any change to its Constitution. Now, if we're going to be so asinine as to take it word for word, then regardless of when your Con changes while Wildshaped, you will never change your HPs. So your example above would be incorrect. Now, let's remove the completely assinine assumptions. You are correct that it says you do not caculate your HPs based on your new Con. This simply tells us that you will use your old Con for this purpose. It doesn't have to explicitly tell us this for this to be correct. The RAW tell us that our Con score will modify our HPs. Now, since the RAW also say our HPs will not be affected by our Wildshaped Con, then the RAW tell us the only other place to get this modifier will be our old Con. |
| ZX67002-14-07, 11:20 AM | Well according to your earlier quote, "the creature retains the hit points of its original form despite any change to its Constitution." If we use the most literal interpretation of RAW here, there would be no change to HP. There would also be no change to HP due to losing the effect of the amulet or even adding an amulet after WS. I think you'd disagree with this result. I don't think the rules were meant to work this way either, but as we are at the most judges, not DMs, we have to follow the RAW and use the spirit of the rules to fill in the missing parts. This looks pretty clearly, even if incorrectly, spelled out. The RAW states clearly in the PHB that when you lose Con, you lose HPs, so yes, you would be incorrect. You are trying to overwrite a Core rule that is absolute in the game of D&D with an errata'd rule about a class ability. Edit: I have no doubt that CustServ, in their response to this dilemma, was correct in the way they described handling this. I don't think it's worth arguing the point anymore, as it's clearly not going to change anyone's mind. Unfortunately, the Circle will have to introduce a precisely clear version of the errata for this ability just to appease the ones who either fail to comprehend how the rules of D&D work, or those who try to snake around the rules for a favorable boon from the way they wish to interpret the rules. Very unfortunate. |
| ragecage7902-14-07, 11:49 AM | The RAW states clearly in the PHB that when you lose Con, you lose HPs, so yes, you would be incorrect. You are trying to overwrite a Core rule that is absolute in the game of D&D with an errata'd rule about a class ability. Edit: I have no doubt that CustServ, in their response to this dilemma, was correct in the way they described handling this. I don't think it's worth arguing the point anymore, as it's clearly not going to change anyone's mind. Unfortunately, the Circle will have to introduce a precisely clear version of the errata for this ability just to appease the ones who either fail to comprehend how the rules of D&D work, or those who try to snake around the rules for a favorable boon from the way they wish to interpret the rules. Very unfortunate. There's no reason to be snarky. I actually agree with your view of how the rule should work, but we're dealing with an FAQ, a rules set that by it's very purpose overwrites the Core rules of D&D. I also agree that the switch to new rules was the right move. However, that doesn't change the fact that it is poorly worded and needs to be clarified. From the amount of posts that agree with me on this thread, maybe you're the one trying to get a reading out of the rule that just isn't literally there. |
| DuctShuiTengu02-14-07, 12:03 PM | The RAW states clearly in the PHB that when you lose Con, you lose HPs, so yes, you would be incorrect. You are trying to overwrite a Core rule that is absolute in the game of D&D with an errata'd rule about a class ability. Edit: I have no doubt that CustServ, in their response to this dilemma, was correct in the way they described handling this. I don't think it's worth arguing the point anymore, as it's clearly not going to change anyone's mind. Unfortunately, the Circle will have to introduce a precisely clear version of the errata for this ability just to appease the ones who either fail to comprehend how the rules of D&D work, or those who try to snake around the rules for a favorable boon from the way they wish to interpret the rules. Very unfortunate. Actually, per the RAW, it's not "you lost 2 Con, you lose 1 HP per level." It's "Your con score changed, recalculate your HP based on your new con score." Now, prior to the Wildshape Eratta, these two were functionally the same (because your HP were always recalculated based on your new con score whenever something changed it). However, once we start introducing Con changes that don't affect HP, it starts to matter. So, assuming we have a 12th level Grey Elf Druid with 6 Con, they would have a base 63 HP (8 at first level, 5 for each of the subsequent 11 levels). However, that 6 Con carries a -2 con modifier with it, which means they have 24 fewer HP (for a new total of 39. Poor fragile Elf) Now, if they put on an Amulet of Health +6, this changes their Constitution score to 12. They no-longer lose those 24 HP for being sickly (bringing them back up to 63) and actually get another 12 from their positive con modifier (for a total of 75). Now, our Grey Elf Druid wildshapes into a Dire Bear (can we tell I like that form?), which has a con score of 19. Pre-eratta, they would lose the 12 HP they got for their 12 Con (with amulet), and gain 48 HP because of their new 19 Con. But, that's not how it works anymore. Now, we have 3 possible interpretations: Items cease to function prior to wildshape changing stats: Our Elf's con score drops back to 6 as the amulet shuts off (bringing them back down to 39 HP), then their new Brown Bear form raises it to 19, but doesn't cause them to recalculate their HP. [I suspect this is what was intended, but the rules aren't clear] Items cease to function at the same time that Wildshape changes stats: Our Elf's con goes from 12 to 19. Either we recalculate HP because the rules for how the amulet not-working say so (thus we get the same result as pre-eratta) or we don't recalculate at all because the new rules for Wild Shape say so (thus keeping the same 75 HP) Items cease to function after wildshape changes stats: Our Elf-turned Bear's con score rises to an impressive 25 (not long enough to matter, but we'll point this part out anyway), but because of the Eratta for wildshape, we don't recalculate HP (not that this is sticking around long enough for such calculations to be worthwhile anyway). Then, the amulet shuts off, the elf/bear's Con drops back to 19, and there's multiple interpretations of how this affects our HP: Anything that modifies the elf/bear's con score while they're wildshaped applies normally. Thus, when the Amulet shuts off and his con drops to the Dire Bear's normal 19, we recalculate his HP based on that. No matter what happens to our druid's con score while they're wildshaped, we don't recalculate HP. Our elf keeps his 75 HP that he had before wildshaping, no matter what happens to raise or lower his con score. |
| JamesMaissen02-14-07, 12:26 PM | The RAW state that when you gain or lose Con, your HPs will be adjusted accordingly, except in the case of Wildshape. Now, when you lose the benefit of your Con amulet, which becomes nonfunctional per the RAW, your Con will drop 2 points, regardless of whether it becomes nonfunctional before, during, or after Wildshaping. But as you, yourself said, 'except in the case of Wildshape' which is this case. The melding of items is PART of wildshape. As I see it there are two parts to this problem. Problem #1: The rules for the new wildshape differ from the rest of the way that CON changing affects hps. Problem #2: The rules have certain items become nonfunctional as part of a wildshape. There are many solutions to this 'problem' that involve changing the rules. One would be to use the old wildshape rules and have the new CON alter the hps. Another would be to simply not alter the CON score at all. The customer service suggestion of having (but not having) two CON scores is suboptimal to either of these imho. Also it's conclusion that your 'unshaped' CON score would not have the effects of melded gear doesn't seem obvious to me (is the druid's body in 'limbo' somewhere but his gear is melded elsewhere?). But regardless of ways to alter or amend this new rule, this 'simpler' rule is simply to take the current hps, plain and simple. And that's what you do.. you don't take the unmodified hps, you take the hps. Just because something could be less than detrimental or even, gasp, advantageous doesn't mean it's 'cheeseweaseling' or obfuscating 'the spirit' of the rules. If ANYTHING the SPIRIT of the rules was to keep it SIMPLE. The simplest thing is to not recalculate the hps from the CON alterations either from the melding or the form's new base CON score. If one assumes that this new rule was meant to 'gimp' druids and 'punish' them for wildshaping, then I grant you that the spirit of the rule is to be completely detrimental. However, if one assumes the rule was meant to make things simpler for 'average' players as I believe is how it was more or less stated then I think that is how we should be viewing the 'spirit' of the rules. -James |
| sibyl02-14-07, 12:31 PM | Everything I've read from Wizards (the errata plus CUST serv) leads me to believe that option one is the right one. Its the most direct interpretaion and the one I assumed was right when I first heard the errata a year ago. Until the Circle or Wizards says otherwise, that's the interpretation I'm using. Actually, per the RAW, it's not "you lost 2 Con, you lose 1 HP per level." It's "Your con score changed, recalculate your HP based on your new con score." Now, prior to the Wildshape Eratta, these two were functionally the same (because your HP were always recalculated based on your new con score whenever something changed it). However, once we start introducing Con changes that don't affect HP, it starts to matter. So, assuming we have a 12th level Grey Elf Druid with 6 Con, they would have a base 63 HP (8 at first level, 5 for each of the subsequent 11 levels). However, that 6 Con carries a -2 con modifier with it, which means they have 24 fewer HP (for a new total of 39. Poor fragile Elf) Now, if they put on an Amulet of Health +6, this changes their Constitution score to 12. They no-longer lose those 24 HP for being sickly (bringing them back up to 63) and actually get another 12 from their positive con modifier (for a total of 75). Now, our Grey Elf Druid wildshapes into a Dire Bear (can we tell I like that form?), which has a con score of 19. Pre-eratta, they would lose the 12 HP they got for their 12 Con (with amulet), and gain 48 HP because of their new 19 Con. But, that's not how it works anymore. Now, we have 3 possible interpretations: Items cease to function prior to wildshape changing stats: Our Elf's con score drops back to 6 as the amulet shuts off (bringing them back down to 39 HP), then their new Brown Bear form raises it to 19, but doesn't cause them to recalculate their HP. [I suspect this is what was intended, but the rules aren't clear] Items cease to function at the same time that Wildshape changes stats: Our Elf's con goes from 12 to 19. Either we recalculate HP because the rules for how the amulet not-working say so (thus we get the same result as pre-eratta) or we don't recalculate at all because the new rules for Wild Shape say so (thus keeping the same 75 HP) Items cease to function after wildshape changes stats: Our Elf-turned Bear's con score rises to an impressive 25 (not long enough to matter, but we'll point this part out anyway), but because of the Eratta for wildshape, we don't recalculate HP (not that this is sticking around long enough for such calculations to be worthwhile anyway). Then, the amulet shuts off, the elf/bear's Con drops back to 19, and there's multiple interpretations of how this affects our HP: Anything that modifies the elf/bear's con score while they're wildshaped applies normally. Thus, when the Amulet shuts off and his con drops to the Dire Bear's normal 19, we recalculate his HP based on that. No matter what happens to our druid's con score while they're wildshaped, we don't recalculate HP. Our elf keeps his 75 HP that he had before wildshaping, no matter what happens to raise or lower his con score. |
| Cardinal Teplin02-14-07, 12:57 PM | I think I've cracked it now. I'll include a summary, so people don't have to wade through. The situation being argued is this: 10th level druid Druid with con of 16, boosted to 18 with an amulet of health +2 If they wild shape into a bear with a con of 23, their con becomes 23 for all purposes, except that they still have the same hp as before they changed: 93 hp. Note that their amulet of health, and all other gear, have been absorbed, and are non-functional. If they take one point of con damage, their con goes down to 22. Their con modifier is unchanged and thus their hp are unchanged. If they take 9 points of con damage, their con goes down to 14. Their con modifier has changed from +6 to +2, a difference of 4. Their max hp goes down 40 points, to 53. If they take 19 points of con damage, their con goes down to 4. Their con modifier has changed from +6 to -3 and their max hp would go down 90 points to 3. However, a character has a minimum of 1hp per hp die, so it goes down to the minimum hp for a 10th level character, 10. If they have bear's endurance cast upon them, their con goes up to 27. Their con modifier has changed from +6 to +8, and thus their max hp goes up 40 points. Following both the spirit and the letter of the rules, you keep your old hp and change them each time your new con modifier changes. This has the annoying side effect that a character who was wearing an amulet before the wild shape will keep the benefit of some extra hp when he changes shape, but it's fairly clear that the writers didn't consider stat boost items when they designed these rules, as any druid with a periapt of wisdom has discovered. The alternative that ZX and others have suggested involves recalculating hp total from scratch (ie max hp of 8 at first level, plus 5 per level, plus con modifiers, etc.) each time con changes. Hence the need to track both your old con score (for hp purposes), and your new one (for everything else). This is actually possible in LG, because we use standardised dice roll results for hp, but in normal AD&D it is NOT possible. Hp total in normal AD&D is the result of historical dice rolls, some of which may have been made years ago or more in real time, and is an arbitrary total recorded on the character sheet. As a normal AD&D characters gains or loses con boost items, or takes con damage, this total changes. It changes by an amount calculated by how much the con modifier changes. It is not rerolled or recalculated from scratch, because there is no requirement to record the orginal dice rolls. It is an arbitrary total, that goes up or down by con mod * level as the con modifier changes. This remains true in wild shape. We have a new con mod, but the same old arbitrary total, and we modify it in the same old way. The problem is simply one of lack of joined up thinking when the errata was written. The rule about absorbing gear and the rule about what happens to your hp are both reasonably straightforward. The combination of both rules leads to a single annoying and undesirable result, that you retain one of the principle benefits of an amulet that is non-functional. However, each rule is very clear and unambigious. Tracking two different con modifiers does remove the undesirable result, but it isn't what you are supposed to do, either by the rules as written, or by what was intended. There are several possible fixes to this. I've suggested three below: a) You could make a specific ruling about the hp gained from wearing an amulet of health. This is the most straightforward solution. It ignores some of the other possible situations, such as a periapt of wound closure, items of invisibility, etc. which remain a problem, but these are comparatively infrequent. b) You could allow druids to retain any gear that would fit their new form. This was previously decided to be amulet, ring and cloak, which seemed to be a workable system. Druids undressing to change form and then being dressed again by your friends is a clumsy compromise that is only workable for PCs (not NPCs), and does little to help the 'feel' of the game. The main advantage of this interpretation is that we've already playtested it for LG. c) You could specify that gear melds as a last and separate step, after everything else in wildshape. This would mean that the con bonus is retained until after the change in shape is completed, and is lost immediately afterwards, adjusting the hp total downwards. This is probably the ruling most in tune (arguably) with the letter of the existing rules, but is also by far the most confusing. For those hunting for personal bias, my own character would benefit the most from c). |
| Cardinal Teplin02-14-07, 01:13 PM | Everything I've read from Wizards (the errata plus CUST serv) leads me to believe that option one is the right one. Its the most direct interpretaion and the one I assumed was right when I first heard the errata a year ago. My only problem with it is that it is directly contradicted by the rules, which specify that you take the hp total from _before_ you wild shape. We're all capable of deciding which interpretation we prefer, and indeed of which one we intend to enforce until told otherwise, but unless we can get some kind of central decision, we're looking at table variation and complexity for GMs and players, precisely what the changes were supposed to avoid. I'd suggest at this point we toss this one up the Circle for a LGCS or dispel confusion entry. In the meantime (and I doubt this one will be seen as a burning priority), we have the arguements here to pick and choose over, when deciding how to enforce the rules of the game. The practical difference is not huge between these interpretations, so I'd suggest making clear to your druid player how you are expecting this to work when the table starts, and to stick with it. |
| ZX67002-14-07, 02:39 PM | Like I said before, no arguments on this board are going to change anyone's mind. They are better off removing Wildshape completely rather than having such diverse opinions on how something should work. I know how I will rule it when I am judging, but if there is going to be 4 or more different ways to rule this, the entire ability has become a joke. I can't believe they haven't corrected this already after having this errata out a year. Which brings me to one final point: If it's been out a year, I would like to think CustServ would know how to adjudicate it, which is why I believe the CustServ response is the correct one. I've also noticed the two threads concerning this issue are two of the very few that a Circle rep hasn't touched, lol. |
| ZX67002-14-07, 02:50 PM | My only problem with it is that it is directly contradicted by the rules, which specify that you take the hp total from _before_ you wild shape. Could possibly be more insight why CustServ rules it the way they do, but it actually doesn't say you take the HP total before you Wildshape, it says you retain the HPs of your original form. Not the HPs your original form plus any bonuses to your Con from things such as Con amulets which will become nonfuctional. From: Apply any changed physical ability score modifiers in all appropriate areas with one exception: the creature retains the hit points of its original form despite any change to its Constitution. Edit: Then we get into spells like Bear's Endurance which stay in effect. So yeah, it's poorly written. |
| Sithobi102-14-07, 02:51 PM | <Snip>Exactly what I was trying to say in the other thread. |
| Timlagor02-14-07, 02:51 PM | Which brings me to one final point: If it's been out a year, I would like to think CustServ would know how to adjudicate it, which is why I believe the CustServ response is the correct one. I'd like to think there's a God and the Universe is Just... doesn't mean I do. [or to put it another way: CustServ just doesn't have that kind of record and it seems clear that if they had hashed out these issues properly they would have rewritten the Errata again] |
| ZX67002-14-07, 02:57 PM | I'd like to think there's a God and the Universe is Just... doesn't mean I do. Lovely touch equating this to one's belief in a superior being. Knowing how to adjucate a rule about a game your employer produced is quite a separate thing. |
| Timlagor02-14-07, 09:41 PM | Lovely touch equating this to one's belief in a superior being. Knowing how to adjucate a rule about a game your employer produced is quite a separate thing. Why thank you. |