I maintain that armor, rings, hats, gloves, shoes, etc. are worn, while weapons and shields are wielded.
When your gear melds into you body during polymorph, you gain the benefit of items worn (except for armor), and cease to gain the benefits of items wielded, because you can no longer wield them.
Because you're no longer wielding your +2 sword, your attacks no longer gain a +2 enhancement bonus. Because you're no longer wielding your +2 shield, you no longer gain its shield bonus.
The reason why armor and not shield bonus is specifically called out in the rules is because it's an exception to the rules for continuous-use items that you are wearing. Because you don't wear a shield at all, it didn't need to be included in the exceptions.
|
It's interesting how you failed to address the points I made in my post about how being a use-activated item has no bearing on whether it functions as a constant item or not.
So, again, ignore your quote from 458 since it has no bearing on whether a shield as per the rules functions as a constant item or not.
Pg 150-152 talk about how a shield is equipped. It's strapped to the arm. How is that different from a belt strapped to your waist? Again, no mention that it is or isn't a constant bonus.
Also, disregard 3.5 crap when you're posting in pathfinder rules please :P They really have no bearing here.
The section on the shield on page 458 is flavor text when you try to apply the use-activated rules to cover constant bonuses as well -- which they don't.
In the realm of use-activated, they provide descriptions to make it clear that a shield and a hat can both be use-activated.
In the realm of constant bonus vs not, it's text that doesn't relate in any rules-type manner, and thus is flavor text when used in that manner.
You still have not provided any section where it says that a shield strapped to an arm does not function as a constant effect item.
Heck, further down in the section on 458, it implies that a majority of use-activated items are worn, and that almost all continually functioning items are worn. That reinforces the fact that shields, being a worn item, probably function as continually functioning item.
Whether an item has an ongoing affect only depends on whether or not it has to be activated.
Meabolex gave a very good reason as to why shields dont work in wildshape, and since this coincides with 3.5, and the wild enhancement it seems that shields were not meant to be used without paying for it.
I maintain that armor, rings, hats, gloves, shoes, etc. are worn, while weapons and shields are wielded.
When your gear melds into you body during polymorph, you gain the benefit of items worn (except for armor), and cease to gain the benefits of items wielded, because you can no longer wield them.
Because you're no longer wielding your +2 sword, your attacks no longer gain a +2 enhancement bonus. Because you're no longer wielding your +2 shield, you no longer gain its shield bonus.
The reason why armor and not shield bonus is specifically called out in the rules is because it's an exception to the rules for continuous-use items that you are wearing. Because you don't wear a shield at all, it didn't need to be included in the exceptions.
I agree that they are wielded, spell components are also wielded (well held) along with spell focus items. Natural spell (a feat) allows a druid while wild shaped to utilize these components.
So why can't a shield be utilized? It's an enchantment that allows armor and shields to maintain their Armor and enchantment bonuses.
This is why I have some confusion.
@ Magicdealer: Your beligerent tone is uncalled for. While frustrated, I try not to sound hostile and suggest you do the same.
Or there's what I said, which is that there has been a tendency to overuse term "armor" as both a category of items (the armor section, making magic armor, etc.) and as an AC bonus type. This has been true since 3.0. It could be possible for someone to clean up all the references, but at least the Wild ability is rather clear about things are supposed to work.
What surprises me is that PF continued the tradition of the dubious "armor" language in the polymorph section. . .
@ Magicdealer: Your beligerent tone is uncalled for. While frustrated, I try not to sound hostile and suggest you do the same.
I think Magicdealer's tone is entirely justified by how you've treated him in this thread.
I said shields have to be "used" in order to provide protection. And the closest we come to a RAW definition of that is p. 150-152 and p. 458.
If they don't require activation, and provide a constant bonus, then the Polymorph rules say "Items that provide constant bonuses and do not need to be activated continue to function while melded in this way" apply.
I agree shields are "used". However, that has nothing to do with the Polymorph rules.
Your argument is based on the logic that shields do not provide a bonus type called "armor bonus". This is correct. But you're assuming the word "armor" always means the same thing in the rules. It does not.
Since shields are listed in the armor section, they're grouped with armor as a category...
I've heard this one before. Here's the problem with your point: "Armor" and "Armor bonus" are not synonymous. Shields are a kind of armor, but they do not provide an "armor bonus".
How do I know they aren't synonymous? Because the rules specifically say so. The rules specifically differentiate between "armor bonus" and "shield bonus" in the armor class section, and then again in the equipment:armor section.
Yes, the wild enchantment specifies "armor bonus" after saying it can be applied to both armor and shields. This suggests to me that shields being included in the wild enchantment was a mistake.
The polymorph rules say nothing about armor not applying, they say "with the exception of armor bonuses, which cease to function"
Whether shields are "armor" or not isn't relevant. All that is relevant is whether they provide an "armor bonus".
Here's the relevant quote from the rules on that: "Each type of armor grants an armor bonus to Armor Class, while shields grant a shield bonus to Armor Class. The armor bonus from a suit of armor doesn't stack with other effects or items that grant an armor bonus. Similarly, the shield bonus from a shield doesn't stack with other effects that grant a shield bonus."
So according to the rules, shields are a kind of armor that provide a shield bonus to AC and do not provide an armor bonus to AC.
This clearly indicates that armor is a category, not just a specific type of bonus.
Armor is a category, and shields are included in that category.
If the polymorph rules said that "armor" didn't work when polymorphed I would agree with your interpretation, but the polymorph rules specify "armor bonus"
Shields do not provide an "armor bonus" they provide a "shield bonus" the rules on this are quite clear.
What surprises me is that PF continued the tradition of the dubious "armor" language in the polymorph section. . .
They specifically state "armor bonus", not a vague "armor" reference. There is a difference.
I explored this possibility in detail before I wrote the guide - even posted a thread on these forums to discuss.
"Armor" and "Armor bonus" are different. Shields are included in the former, excluded in the latter. The rules are not dubious on this distinction.
Armor = Category of equipment
Armor Bonus = Type of AC bonus
I maintain that armor, rings, hats, gloves, shoes, etc. are worn, while weapons and shields are wielded.
When your gear melds into you body during polymorph, you gain the benefit of items worn (except for armor), and cease to gain the benefits of items wielded, because you can no longer wield them.
I understand your logic, and don't completely disagree (though I disagree that the use of a shield and a weapon are similar since shields provide a constant bonus while weapons require actions to use)
However, I'm not saying shields "should" work with wildshape. I'm saying that they "currently do" work with wildshape as the rules are written now.
If you reread the OP, its pretty clear by my wording that I don't support the logic (the use of the word "currently" should be a dead giveaway), but the mechanics are pretty clear to me on this point.
In order for the logic and the mechanics to agree - errata would be needed.
How is it different from a belt strapped to my waist? If I somehow made an attack "with my waist", I wouldn't lose the bonus, that's how. If I use the limb with the shield for something as involved as wielding a weapon, your vaunted "constantly functioning" argument *ceases functioning*.
You cannot use a weapon with a hand if a shield is strapped to the arm.
Nevermind that though, if I put a ring of feather fall on the same hand as my ring of protection, it ceases to function as well. That doesn't mean it's not a "constant bonus". It means that you can only use one at a time.
Meabolex gave a very good reason as to why shields dont work in wildshape...
What? The "Shields are armor, so "armor bonus" applies to shields as well - just ignore the multiple quotes in the rules that specifically state that armor and shield bonuses are different" argument?
Or did he give another reason I missed?
He also pointed out that by assuming that sometimes the rules mean "armor or shield bonus" when they say "armor bonus", there's no actual rules contradiction anywhere -- the Wild enchantment works exactly as intended, as does the Polymorph description, and both work with the way we all agree is the most logical.
If you assume that a shield bonus is not a type of armor bonus (specifically one that stacks with armor and not with shields), you have errors and contradictions. If you assume that it is, the rules work as written with no errata needed.
Well of course one can always houserule away any problems but the unhouseruled rules are still problematic.
I think there's enough evidence in RAW that shields are sometimes included when armor is discussed that this interpretation is not a houserule; which implies going against RAW. I don't think either interpretation in this case would be a houserule. RAW is simply ambiguous.
What? The "Shields are armor, so "armor bonus" applies to shields as well - just ignore the multiple quotes in the rules that specifically state that armor and shield bonuses are different" argument?
Or did he give another reason I missed?
That was not his point. His point was that the word armor is used when speaking of shields even though it is bad practice to do so. He even gave example of where this happens in the book. This, the 3.5 wording, and the fact that the wild enhancement call out shields as having to be enhanced leaves me to believe that shields were not intended to work that way. Now if they had specifically said shields now work in wildshaped or polymorphed forms I would not have a leg to stand on.
I see no ambiguity. The results may seem to not be what was intended but their workings are not ambiguous with regards to armor and shield bonuses as far as I can tell. Perhaps I am missing the specific case of ambiguity but if that is true then you will need to be more specific.Well of course one can always houserule away any problems but the unhouseruled rules are still problematic.I think there's enough evidence in RAW that shields are sometimes included when armor is discussed that this interpretation is not a houserule; which implies going against RAW. I don't think either interpretation in this case would be a houserule. RAW is simply ambiguous.
Reread Meabolex's post. He listed where they used the word "armor" for things that also include shields.
I think there's enough evidence in RAW that shields are sometimes included when armor is discussed that this interpretation is not a houserule
Sure it is.
Shields are included when "armor" is discussed because shields are a kind of armor.
However, shields do not provide an "armor bonus" this is included in the "armor" section of the rules.
Including shields when "armor" is discussed makes all the sense in the world. Including shields when "armor bonuses" are discussed contradicts the rules clearly.
That was not his point. His point was that the word armor is used when speaking of shields even though it is bad practice to do so.
It is no more bad practice to call a shield "armor" than it is to call a Falchion a "weapon".
Shields are armor. If the Polymorph rules said that armor didn't work when polymorphed their would be no question that shields do not work. However, the polymorph rules don't say any such thing.
I said this before - I'll say it again:
"Armor" = A category of equipment that includes shields
"Armor Bonus" = A type of AC bonus that shields do not provide
The rules on "Armor Bonus" and "Shield Bonus" aren't vague. They are quite clear, and repeated more than once in the rules - with no contradictions.
Reread Meabolex's post. He listed where they used the word "armor" for things that also include shields.
"Armor". Not "Armor Bonus". Not the same.
We can assume the designers didn't know the difference between an Armor bonus to AC and the Armor category of equipment - but considering the experience of the designers - I think that's quite a stretch.
I could buy that either they forgot to add "shield bonus" to the Polymorph description, or they accidentally included "shield" under the wild enchantment description - I don't buy that they thought a shield offered an "armor bonus" to AC.
Shields are armor. They do not provide an armor bonus.
If the rules refer to "armor" it can be inferred that shields are included. If the rules refer to "armor bonus" the rules specifically exclude shields.
|
|
Well, if you think I'm being belligerent, please understand that I'm not. Each reply points out the issues I found in your previous reply to me, and addresses them. If you're getting frustrated, I would suggest some deep breaths, maybe a walk around the room. I'm not arguing against you because I'm angry at you, or hold a grudge because you replied to my post.
I'm arguing with you just because I think you're incorrect about how the rules work. My argument is, again, that as far as the rules are concerned, a shield continues to provide its bonus.
Whether or not this is something that is reasonable or not doesn't concern me that much in these forums. I know that DM's will always rule based on what makes sense to their campaigns. Personally, I'd say that the +2 difference to ac is something that I'm ok with druids having. Others, I know, wouldn't be. And that's ok. Only by clarifying that the rules actually work in a certain way will those rules ever get revised.
And just the fact that this discussion has gone on so long is reason enough for a clarification, I think.
When I reply to the new posts, I look over the last replies to my posts first, and see if I spot any problems or issues.
Including elements that you didn't respond to, areas where I feel that you are in error -backing those up with book references when possible- and so on and so forth.
So, to continue in this proud debating tradition of rebuttals, let me move on to the latest set of posts.
When you shield bash with a shield, it doesn't stop functioning. It just functions in a different manner. That would be as a weapon.
Since you can't shield bash with your shield while in wild shape *so far as I know*, that's not an issue you need to worry about.
To kroarty, same point as just above. The shield still functions. It's just functioning as a weapon now. A change in the manner of function does not denote a cessation of the function.
For example, the defender property allows you to switch attack and armor bonuses to an extent. Moving these around doesn't constitute a cessation in the functioning of the item, just a change in the manner it functions.
I agree that "armor" as a term is often used to mean both armor and shields. However, when referring to "armor bonus", that is a particular type of bonus, and should be treated as such.
While sections of text may use "armor" to mean armor and shields, it's RAI, not RAW, that says you include armor and shields in those situations instead of just armor.
It doesn't matter how often it happens, since those are each separate rules issues. What matters is specifically how the rules are worded, because if the shield bonus to ac is meant to be lost in wildshape, then that is something that needs a clarification in the FAQ. It, however, isn't an argument for how the rules actually work.
Most of the arguments since my last post have focused on *this rule implies this, this text is suggestive that*. If no one can point to a rule one way or the other, then we should all just agree that the rules as worded allow it. But that most dms will end up house-ruling it.
Or we can try to hold out for some higher *cough* intervention *cough*.
Reread Meabolex's post. He listed where they used the word "armor" for things that also include shields.I see no ambiguity. The results may seem to not be what was intended but their workings are not ambiguous with regards to armor and shield bonuses as far as I can tell. Perhaps I am missing the specific case of ambiguity but if that is true then you will need to be more specific.Well of course one can always houserule away any problems but the unhouseruled rules are still problematic.I think there's enough evidence in RAW that shields are sometimes included when armor is discussed that this interpretation is not a houserule; which implies going against RAW. I don't think either interpretation in this case would be a houserule. RAW is simply ambiguous.There is rather a difference between things that don't work and things that are not intended to work in the way that they do.
That being said please be more specific since I have read all the posts in this thread and if there is anything I am obviously missing it and am going to need it pointed out quite explicitly assuming of course that I am missing something and not just disagreeing.
Edit: Oh if it is just "armor" and not "armor bonus" then that is a different matter that does not really seem to apply.
There are places in the book where the words armor and shield apply to their respective items, and there are places where the word armor is used to apply to both when the word shield should be used.
Below is the post by meabolex that breaks this down. This is further supported by the fact that the wild enhancement applies to armor and shields, since not all enhancements that apply to armor apply to shields.
Since shields are listed in the armor section, they're grouped with armor as a category. Thus, according to the rules, since shields and armor fall under the armor section (in both the equipment and magic item sections), they're both considered armor -- though the AC bonus they grant is different than their category type. A bonus from either type of armor might be different (armor bonus vs. shield bonus), but ultimately the bonus comes from armor....
So, in effect, the question is simply unresolved if we look only at the polymorph rules. This is called semantic dissonance -- armor bonus is a game term, but the term "armor" is used in multiple ways. So it is inappropriate to automatically assume that one particular interpretation of the semantic dissonance is correct.
See the Magic Items Creation section -- you have to read to the bottom of the second paragraph under "Creating Magic Armor" to see that it is referring to the armor category of items -- which includes shields.
It is no more bad practice to call a shield "armor" than it is to call a Falchion a "weapon".
If we were talking real life I would agree, but since armor and shield should not be and can not be used interchangably in game terms they should not be lumped together at random.
Shields are armor. If the Polymorph rules said that armor didn't work when polymorphed their would be no question that shields do not work. However, the polymorph rules don't say any such thing.
Shields are in the armor category which means sometimes the word armor means armor only, and other times, it means armor and shields. Normally there is enough distinction that it does not matter, but in this case there is not.
other things
I am sure the polymorph or the wild enhancement is wrong because they contradict each other. I think its the polymorph section because I see no reason why the shield bonus would apply. It makes more sense to me that they forgot to type in. We should have errata in a few weeks so hopefully it will be fixed then.
Well, if you think I'm being belligerent, please understand that I'm not. Each reply points out the issues I found in your previous reply to me, and addresses them. If you're getting frustrated, I would suggest some deep breaths, maybe a walk around the room. I'm not arguing against you because I'm angry at you, or hold a grudge because you replied to my post.
I'm arguing with you just because I think you're incorrect about how the rules work. My argument is, again, that as far as the rules are concerned, a shield continues to provide its bonus.
Whether or not this is something that is reasonable or not doesn't concern me that much in these forums. I know that DM's will always rule based on what makes sense to their campaigns. Personally, I'd say that the +2 difference to ac is something that I'm ok with druids having. Others, I know, wouldn't be. And that's ok. Only by clarifying that the rules actually work in a certain way will those rules ever get revised.
And just the fact that this discussion has gone on so long is reason enough for a clarification, I think.
When I reply to the new posts, I look over the last replies to my posts first, and see if I spot any problems or issues.
Including elements that you didn't respond to, areas where I feel that you are in error -backing those up with book references when possible- and so on and so forth.
So, to continue in this proud debating tradition of rebuttals, let me move on to the latest set of posts.
When you shield bash with a shield, it doesn't stop functioning. It just functions in a different manner. That would be as a weapon.
Since you can't shield bash with your shield while in wild shape *so far as I know*, that's not an issue you need to worry about.
To kroarty, same point as just above. The shield still functions. It's just functioning as a weapon now. A change in the manner of function does not denote a cessation of the function.
For example, the defender property allows you to switch attack and armor bonuses to an extent....
I dont think you are belligerent. I am not even upset. Since errata should be coming out soon I guess I can wait for an official answer. By soon I mean before the end of June. Then I can finally buy a book.
Also, disregard 3.5 crap when you're posting in pathfinder rules please :P They really have no bearing here.
Magicdealer I swear I'm not picking on you but I see this arguement WAY too often on the boards. Paizo has stated the game is backwards compatible. The PFRPG game is based on the 3.5 rule set. It is basically a bunch of houserules they have put together to fix some of the common issues that occured in the rule set. They have also said that if the specific rules have not been changed the old rule set applies. Just read the intro of the core book...
Basically, "3.5 crap" is exactly what you are playing with in PFRPG (with a few tweaks). It is an extension of a well received and popular rule set that Paizo has kindly enough taken on themselves to keep alive. I understand you want to see the PFRPG as something better perhaps but the truth of it is 3.5 rulings have a great deal of bearing on the current game as unless stated otherwise they are the same. PFRPG didn't come from a vaccuum, magically appearing with no predecessor to refer to when something doesn't make sense as you seem to insist in your statement there.
Rant over, sorry ;)
|
|
Backward compatible, yes.
Pathfinder rules are designed to function with other, previously issued books for the dungeons and dragons game.
So ask yourself what happens when a pathfinder rule and a rule in one of those books conflict. Which one takes precedence? It would be the pathfinder rule, right?
So when we are clarifying pathfinder rules, should we be using the rules that we might be overruling as our guide, or the pathfinder core rulebook?
In my opinion, for resolving Pathfinder RPG Rules *forum name btw* questions, you should be using the Pathfinder RPG Core rulebook and bestiary. Not all the supplements that, themselves, were designed to be compatible with 3.0 or 3.5.
If you want to use the splat books as devices for arguing rules, you immediately have tons of examples where 3.0 or 3.5 rules would then supersede the pathfinder changes. That doesn't make sense to me. Pathfinder changed polymorph deliberately, for example. I wouldn't go to the shifter for mechanics questions. Nor does it make sense to me to say "We'll apply splat book rules as decision makers for pathfinder questions, but only in the cases where there's a certain amount of vagueness with the question."
There are other forums on the pazio site that include d20 compatible books. In my opinion, questions in which you want to use non-pathfinder *but still pathfinder compatible* books for rulings should go down in those forums.
Thus I say they have no bearing.
The 3.5 rules effectively gave birth to this new creation of pathfinder. Pathfinder is about finding a better balance in the rules system, thus I feel that using the older, less balanced version of the game to help us answer new questions runs counter to the task. Which is more evenly balancing the game. In places where the pathfinder rules become confusing or unclear, we shouldn't look for the older versions of the rules. We should be clarifying where, how, and why it's unclear so that pazio can determine their stance on what is more balanced, and make it clear in faqs and future printings.
Backward compatible, yes.
Pathfinder rules are designed to function with other, previously issued books for the dungeons and dragons game.
So ask yourself what happens when a pathfinder rule and a rule in one of those books conflict. Which one takes precedence? It would be the pathfinder rule, right?
So when we are clarifying pathfinder rules, should we be using the rules that we might be overruling as our guide, or the pathfinder core rulebook?
In my opinion, for resolving Pathfinder RPG Rules *forum name btw* questions, you should be using the Pathfinder RPG Core rulebook and bestiary. Not all the supplements that, themselves, were designed to be compatible with 3.0 or 3.5.
If you want to use the splat books as devices for arguing rules, you immediately have tons of examples where 3.0 or 3.5 rules would then supersede the pathfinder changes. That doesn't make sense to me. Pathfinder changed polymorph deliberately, for example. I wouldn't go to the shifter for mechanics questions. Nor does it make sense to me to say "We'll apply splat book rules as decision makers for pathfinder questions, but only in the cases where there's a certain amount of vagueness with the question."
There are other forums on the pazio site that include d20 compatible books. In my opinion, questions in which you want to use non-pathfinder *but still pathfinder compatible* books for rulings should go down in those forums.
Thus I say they have no bearing.
The 3.5 rules effectively gave birth to this new creation of pathfinder. Pathfinder is about finding a better balance in the rules system, thus I feel that using the older, less balanced version of the game to help us answer new questions runs counter to the task. Which is more evenly balancing the game. In places where the pathfinder rules become confusing or unclear, we shouldn't look for the older versions of the rules. We should be clarifying where, how, and why it's unclear so that pazio can determine their stance on what is more balanced, and make it clear in...
Most of the rules are the same, and some of the rules are less clear now since it was assumed that we all know the rules in certain cases.
Note that although I think 3.5 is a good source to use when the Pathfinder rules are unclear - doing so with rules regarding polymorph specifically are going to be highly unreliable since the Pathfinder designers quite deliberately scrapped 3.5 polymorph and built up those specific rules from scratch.
The 3.5 rules on polymorph were discarded, because to use a conservative term, the 3.5 polymorph rules were utter crap.
Note that although I think 3.5 is a good source to use when the Pathfinder rules are unclear - doing so with rules regarding polymorph specifically are going to be highly unreliable since the Pathfinder designers quite deliberately scrapped 3.5 polymorph and built up those specific rules from scratch.
The 3.5 rules on polymorph were discarded, because to use a conservative term, the 3.5 polymorph rules were utter crap.
I guess they will fix one of them soon enough.
@ Magicdealer: Then we are OK :)
Avalon XQ made a very pertinent point with weapon enchantment bonuses. They do not apply to a wildshaped druid since they are not a constant effect.
Constancy is vaguely discussed under Use Activated items (which is why I think it is a relevant rules section). Two exemplary Used Activated items that do not provide constant bonuses are weapons and shields.
Why shields? As is evident from the shield bash rule the AC bonus shields provide is not constant, but rather dependant on the way it is used/activated (which has very little to do with actual Actions as described in the rules).
I do not believe we will ever agree on this point, but from my perspective this interpretation of the rules is not only suported by RL logic, but also by the rules themselves.
I've seen a lot of people argue that the mention of shields in the wild property is a mistake, and that it should have been excluded...
...Couldn't it just as easily be possible that it was always meant to be there and that the mistake is that the Wild property's text should have said "armor and shield bonus" instead?
That seems like the easiest fix to me. Shields do NOT work for wildshape unless you can (1) pick them up and use them, or (2) have the wild property and are melded.
I've seen a lot of people argue that the mention of shields in the wild property is a mistake, and that it should have been excluded...
...Couldn't it just as easily be possible that it was always meant to be there and that the mistake is that the Wild property's text should have said "armor and shield bonus" instead?
That seems like the easiest fix to me. Shields do NOT work for wildshape unless you can (1) pick them up and use them, or (2) have the wild property and are melded.
That alone would not fix the issue. You would need to change the text on Wild enchantment to "Armor and Shield bonus" as well as the wording on Polymorph to "armor and shield bonus" - otherwise, shields don't need the wild enchantment - even if they can get it.
This thread is about the latter. The rules (as currently written) allow for shield bonuses to apply to wildshape. The wording in the "wild" enchantment that says shields can get the enchantment (but then fails to allow a "shield bonus" to apply to wildshape) is one of the arguments to suggest that shields are intended to not function in wildshape.
Unfortunately, I tend to be stubbornly skeptical when someone other than the designers tells me what the intention of the designers was.
Why shields? As is evident from the shield bash rule the AC bonus shields provide is not constant, but rather dependant on the way it is used/activated (which has very little to do with actual Actions as described in the rules).
I think there is a difference between having to activate a bonus and having to take an action to suppress a bonus.
If any item that has a bonus that can be suppressed or negated by taking certain actions is not considered a "constant bonus" then there are no constant bonuses.
Putting a second magical ring on the same hand as your ring of protection, wearing a magic hat over your headband, taking off the magical gloves - any magical bonus can be ended if you take an action that specifically ends the bonus.
I would think a constant bonus would be a bonus that you have automatically unless you take a specific action to end or suppress that bonus.
I guess they will fix one of them soon enough
Hopefully. That's why I like to participate in these threads. Make sure the designers know that this either needs clarification (if shields are supposed to work in Wildshape) or errata (if they aren't)
This thread is about the latter. The rules (as currently written) allow for shield bonuses to apply to wildshape. The wording in the "wild" enchantment that says shields can get the enchantment (but then fails to allow a "shield bonus" to apply to wildshape) is one of the arguments to suggest that shields are intended to not function in wildshape.
I believe you are reaching a bit high, by calling your interpretation RAW.
It is true that shield bonus is not mentioned in the polymorph section. But since they aren't, and neither is any definition or reference, which can lead to the assumption that the shield bonus is a constant bonus (since this term is vague at best).
Your interpretation of what kind of effect a shield bonus is, is no more RAW than any argument others base on use of shields.
Well I suppose that if one is taking such a position that without a specific definition nothing is defined as a constant bonus and so nothing at all can be said to be RAW about what is or is not a constant bonus.I personally would find the category of items that function constantly when worn or possessed to be sufficiently constant to be a constant bonus were I the DM but I suppose your point is made that technically the term is not explicitly defined.
However this position would make clarification even more necessary because without clarification how can one know just what a constant bonus is and what provides such a thing.
Clarification is definately necessary.
My point was, as you say, to show the lack of clarification in the rules, because of which it eludes me, why the rules as written is used in this discussion.
While I largely agree with your categorization of constant bonus item, were I the GM, I'd have no doubt as to make shields non-functional when they are melded into the body of the creature.
In case of lack of rules, I believe logic must be made judge. Here I think that there is a significant difference between how a shield is used and other items are worn (or possessed for slotless items). Whether or not the are a few mechanical similarities becomes somewhat irrelevant at this point.
I've seen a lot of people argue that the mention of shields in the wild property is a mistake, and that it should have been excluded...
...Couldn't it just as easily be possible that it was always meant to be there and that the mistake is that the Wild property's text should have said "armor and shield bonus" instead?
That seems like the easiest fix to me. Shields do NOT work for wildshape unless you can (1) pick them up and use them, or (2) have the wild property and are melded.
That's what i was trying to say...
Unfortunately, I tend to be stubbornly skeptical when someone other than the designers tells me what the intention of the designers was.
Forgive me for second-guessing you...but are you really a sceptic in this case, or are you rather hoping to elicit an errata note?
I enjoy and respect your contributions to the game, but find your stance on this issue, I dunno..unexpected. The RAW may be dubious, but the RAI seem to me spring-water clear.
I loathe accusations of cheese - no kind of argument - but equipping mundane shields when wildshaping seems as cheesy to me as the Leadership feat. The Leadership feat is plain as day RAW, but do you use it? Does anyone seriously allow it? I don't think we do, do we?
Assuming you are serious, could you answer these queries, tm?
(1) A wildshaped druid wields a tower shield. He lacks proficiency. Does he suffer the maxdex, skill and attack penalties, as well as gaining the shield bonus?
(If not, a 4th level druid, with 16 Dex, in deinonychus form, can have AC19 before Barkskin...without ever gaining tower shield proficiency; and if the shield *is* kosher, its weight and penalties are surely subsumed, just as the weight of a cloak of resistance is. A 10th level druid, meanwhile, with 18 Dex [Str-Dex belt], in large air elemental form, could easily have AC38 with +2 tower shield and a so-so suit of Wild armour...not bad without stretching, since AC is ostensibly his weakness)
(2) The same tower druid wildshapes while his tower shield is being used for cover. Does he retain full cover, having preactivated it?
(3) A druid wildshapes into a dire tiger while wielding a buckler. Since the buckler still functions, does it penalise one natural melee attack?
(4) Assuming the wording could be better (I hope you agree it could), how would you word a revised version? Would you include mention of slots (I think this might be useful)?
Backward compatible, yes.
***
Pathfinder rules are designed to function with other, previously issued books for the dungeons and dragons game.
***
So ask yourself what happens when a pathfinder rule and a rule in one of those books conflict. Which one takes precedence? It would be the pathfinder rule, right?
***
So when we are clarifying pathfinder rules, should we be using the rules that we might be overruling as our guide, or the pathfinder core rulebook?
The problem is, the "pathfinder rules" are the ones that have caused this debacle. The 3.5 rules for wild shape were ok in this respect, the 3.5 rules didn't allow for this to happen unless you paid for the +3 enhancement to get it. As other people have said - it is expensive to get the enhancement - which limited it even then. PFRPG re-writing the rules is what has allowed for this to even be an issue. So using your reasoning it is allowed as PFRPG core rule book takes precedence and RAW states specifically "armor bonuses" and not "armor and shield bonuses", granted that might have been what was meant but that isn't what was written. RAI debates don't get anywhere on the internet forums, you aren't privy to what was going on in their heads and neither am I. We are left with RAW and RAW states "armor bonus". You don't have to like it, you don't have to use it, but that doesn't change the written word in the book we are all looking at.
In my opinion, for resolving Pathfinder RPG Rules *forum name btw* questions, you should be using the Pathfinder RPG Core rulebook and bestiary. Not all the supplements that, themselves, were designed to be compatible with 3.0 or 3.5.
Names are nouns that mean just about anything or could even be meaningless. We are still debating rules which are based on a solid EXPLAINED ground work from 3.5 and are in fact called out to still use those rules unless the current rule set changes them. Guess what, PFRPG changed the rules on this topic and that is where the problem occured. They cleaned up some things and left others alone. I don't blame them for it, they were rushed and did an admirable job, but there are still problems with the product they published. And as much as there is a vocal hate for "rules lawyers" on the forums - the truth of the matter is "rules lawyers" are the people who go through and find those stupid nit picky things, bring them up and actually make the game better by doing so. Paizo can see these things here and make errata or leave them as they are, RAI.
If you want to use the splat books as devices for arguing rules, you immediately have tons of examples where 3.0 or 3.5 rules would then supersede the pathfinder changes. That doesn't make sense to me. Pathfinder changed polymorph deliberately, for example. I wouldn't go to the shifter for mechanics questions. Nor does it make sense to me to say "We'll apply splat book rules as decision makers for pathfinder questions, but only in the cases where there's a certain amount of vagueness with the question."
Who is arguing splat books, I'm saying PFRPG has let this happen. "The Game Book", not some 3pp or supplement, the core book.
There are other forums on the pazio site that include d20 compatible books. In my opinion, questions in which you want to use non-pathfinder *but still pathfinder compatible* books for rulings should go down in those forums.
***
Thus I say they have no bearing.
The 3.5 rules effectively gave birth to this new creation of pathfinder. Pathfinder is about finding a better balance in the rules system, thus I feel that using the older, less balanced version of the game to help us answer new questions runs counter to the task. Which is more evenly balancing the game. In places where the pathfinder rules become confusing or unclear, we shouldn't look for the older versions of the rules. We should be clarifying where, how, and why it's unclear so that pazio can determine their stance on what is more balanced, and make it clear in faqs and future printings.
Again this is possible because of the changes made by the Paizo crew in the new core book. Not because 3.5 rules said it worked that way. The rules for wild shap used to be cut and dry. You have armor or shield, that bonus goes away, period. You have the wild enhancement on armor or shield (or both), you got to keep those bonuses. PFRPG changed that. The rules you are arguing take precedence made it possible, they muddied the waters so to speak...
Forgive me for second-guessing you...but are you really a sceptic in this case, or are you rather hoping to elicit an errata note?
You speak of these two things as if they are mutually exclusive. I don't think they are.
I enjoy and respect your contributions to the game, but find your stance on this issue, I dunno..unexpected. The RAW may be dubious, but the RAI seem to me spring-water clear.
I lean towards the opinion that the designers did not intend shields to work. However, "lean" is the right word. Whenever I assume to know the intention of the designers I seem to be wrong when they do chime in.
I loathe accusations of cheese - no kind of argument - but equipping mundane shields when wildshaping seems as cheesy to me as the Leadership feat. The Leadership feat is plain as day RAW, but do you use it? Does anyone seriously allow it? I don't think we do, do we?
You aren't serious are you? Mechanically speaking, are you suggesting that allowing a shield when wildshaped creates a game imbalance on par with the leadership feat?
DMing, I would probably allow the shield with wildshape unless some errata comes out, because mechanically, it's not wrecking my game.
If I was playing the Druid - I would talk to my DM before using a shield when wildshaped for sure.
(1) A wildshaped druid wields a tower shield. He lacks proficiency. Does he suffer the maxdex, skill and attack penalties, as well as gaining the shield bonus?
A wildshaped druid wears wild enchantment full plate. He lacks proficiency. Does he suffer the maxdex, skill and attack penalties?
Logically I would say no, but I think the rules don't make any such exceptions to the requirements. Therefore I would suggest that the penalties apply.
(2) The same tower druid wildshapes while his tower shield is being used for cover. Does he retain full cover, having preactivated it?
Of course not. Using your shield for cover is an action and not a constant bonus. You can't take actions with melded items.
(3) A druid wildshapes into a dire tiger while wielding a buckler. Since the buckler still functions, does it penalise one natural melee attack?
Interesting question. Logically I would have to say no, but again, I'm not sure the rules make that exception following the RAW alone.
If the wildshaped Druid was wearing a blindfold, can he see?
I think at some point the DM needs to intercept with a house ruling when things get silly.
(4) Assuming the wording could be better (I hope you agree it could), how would you word a revised version? Would you include mention of slots (I think this might be useful)?
I would errata the Polymorph and Wild enchantment sections to say "Armor and shield bonuses"
I don't think that mention of slots are required. Clearly within the rules you can only benefit from one magical item per slot. This shouldn't be messed with - it works.
Unfortunately, I tend to be stubbornly skeptical when someone other than the designers tells me what the intention of the designers was.
I certainly hope you are not referring to me and my post--as I did no such thing.
If the rules are sufficiently unclear or lacking then nothing can be RAW and logic generally has nothing to do with it because one can not generally use a logical argument to cause additional rules text to appear on the pages of the book unless one can convince a designer to change things with said argument. So I would say that if one thinks the rules are sufficiently unclear that no ruling can be determined all that can be argued is that they need clarification and not that they work one way or the other because it has already been said that they are too unclear for a ruing to be determined.So for clarification on your position I am asking you are you saying the rules are too unclear for a definite ruling to be made or are you arguing that the rules are clear enough to prove that shields do not provide a constant bonus.
As a side note if bringing logic into the question of constant bonuses I find no difference between a shield and other items in terms of the bonus they provide. They constantly provide bonuses once possessed or equipped until some action is take to cause them to stop providing a bonus. This would logically make their bonuses qualify as constant bonuses because the bonus stays constant in the absence of outside forces.
Well I think you have established that RAW er too unclear to provide any final answers to the questions raised in this (and so many other) polymorph discussion.
That is the point I made at first, replying to the argument: "By RAW, shield bonus applies when polymorphed". That is it.Moving a way from RAW, you might make the argument anyway, that shield bonus is a constant bonus and therefore. I disagree on your understanding of constant bonusses and how a shield funtions. I really can't envision how a shield you provide protection for you, when it is melded into your body. To me it seem rather different than items which grant an effect, because they are magical in nature.
Can you explain to me, why a shield should continue to function, apart from being in the ambiguous category constant bonus?
Rules are often imprecise, so I really believe we have to look at the intention behind it. An no, I can't make any final claims on the developers intentions, but in this case, I don't believe there is that much doubt.
Unfortunately, I tend to be stubbornly skeptical when someone other than the designers tells me what the intention of the designers was.I certainly hope you are not referring to me and my post--as I did no such thing.
I'm referring to posts where I'm told that the RAI is that shields don't work with wildshape.
I didn't see any of your posts making that claim...
No, t-monk is right on that, Lazar. You specifically retain your shield bonus when flat-footed. At no point do you have to activate a shield to gain its shield bonus: therefore, by game rules, the item is not use-activated. You are describing simulationist flavour, not RAW.
What I wanted to illustrate with the Q&A above is that allowing a mundane shield to be wildshaped is a messy business, as well as overpowered (granted, not in comparison to Leadership; overpowered, nonetheless, in comparison to the +3 [+4] Wild enhancement it renders pointless).
Whether armour penalties apply to the tower shield or not, t-monk's suggestion is that it is to be treated the same as the Wild enhancement. Given the cost of Wild armour - and the value of armour and shield bonusses to a wildshaped combat druid - that looks to me like an unintended generosity.
No, t-monk is right on that, Lazar. You specifically retain your shield bonus when flat-footed. At no point do you have to activate a shield to gain its shield bonus: therefore, by game rules, the item is not use-activated. You are describing simulationist flavour, not RAW.What I wanted to illustrate with the Q&A above is that allowing a mundane shield to be wildshaped is a messy business, as well as overpowered (granted, not in comparison to Leadership; overpowered, nonetheless, in comparison to the +3 [+4] Wild enhancement it renders pointless).
Whether armour penalties apply to the tower shield or not, t-monk's suggestion is that it is to be treated the same as the Wild enhancement. Given the cost of Wild armour - and the value of armour and shield bonusses to a wildshaped combat druid - that looks to me like an unintended generosity.
The amount of AC variation will change based on level/equipment - but eventually it will settle at no difference (when the high level characters are using either +5 shields or +5 wild enchantment shields) at a difference of 39,000 gp.
Most of the time, the difference will be about +3 AC.
Getting a shield's bonus to armor class while wildshaped (without the wild ability) is utter nonsense. Treantmonk, you should be ashamed for defending it this long (and sparking the craziness in the first place with your guide).
As for where the confusion comes from, this is because Shields *DID* grant "armor bonuses" to AC.
Stacking Modifiers
AC modifiers of the same type do not stack, except:
• Armor bonuses from armor and shields
Wild was originally a 3.0 splat-book (Masters of the Wild) armor ability, and was written under this rule.
There is no reason to think some mundane block of wood, that disappears into your flesh, will somehow protect you from anything.