Creative Director
|
Man it would be nice to have a dev weigh in on this.
It would also be nice to ship the files for the Advanced Player's Guide, Pathifnder #35, Pathfinder #36, Orcs of Golarion, and a few other products to the printer in time for said products to be on sale at Gen Con. The deadline for that ship date is less than a week away, and several of us here at Paizo have been working without a day off for weeks in a frenzied attempt to HIT that deadline.
AKA: We're pretty busy right now.
I have been trying to step in and offer advice and rulings for a lot of question threads nevertheless, but if you don't see me or another Paizo person dropping in to speak to one of these threads lately, now you know why.
As for this specific thread, it's a complex question. My gut tells me that adding the wild ability to a shield is silly, and that if it WASN'T a typo and it WAS intentional, a wild shield should remain visibly a shield when you change form so that you can still use it as a shield in your new shape.
But the complexities of this issue and the length of the thread prevents me from sitting down and offering anything that folks are likely to be comfortable taking as "official errata" for at least a week.
So... please just have a little bit more patience. One of the things I really REALLY want to get off the ground is a FAQ section of these messageboards where these types of clarifications can be presented and organized, but until we get to the other side of the busiest part of the year in a week or so, that process can't even begin.
So... please just have a little bit more patience. One of the things I really REALLY want to get off the ground is a FAQ section of these messageboards where these types of clarifications can be presented and organized, < ... >
Looking forward to that. :) To the Gamemastery Guide and APG, too. :p
I suggest using common sense. A shield is both a weapon and a protective device. It must be wielded to have an effect. A longsword merged with the base form is unusable. So too with the shield...if it cannot be used as a weapon, it stands to reason it cannot be used as a shield.
Likewise with the wild enchantment, which has no effect on weapons. As the shield would still be unusable as a weapon, it shouldn't be eligible for wild, and thus remain unusable.
I.e. have it merge witht he form and be done with it. If he wants to turn into an ape and equip it, that's the druid's call.
I'd also like to point out something sans HP and all. The druid+companion has superior dmg inflicting ability by round, true. However, the instant the druid dies, the animal companion is no longer an animal companion, its just an animal. It loses all benefits thereof...which means its going to die plenty fast.
==Aelryinth
Man it would be nice to have a dev weigh in on this.It would also be nice to ship the files for the Advanced Player's Guide, Pathifnder #35, Pathfinder #36, Orcs of Golarion, and a few other products to the printer in time for said products to be on sale at Gen Con. The deadline for that ship date is less than a week away, and several of us here at Paizo have been working without a day off for weeks in a frenzied attempt to HIT that deadline.
AKA: We're pretty busy right now.
I have been trying to step in and offer advice and rulings for a lot of question threads nevertheless, but if you don't see me or another Paizo person dropping in to speak to one of these threads lately, now you know why.
As for this specific thread, it's a complex question. My gut tells me that adding the wild ability to a shield is silly, and that if it WASN'T a typo and it WAS intentional, a wild shield should remain visibly a shield when you change form so that you can still use it as a shield in your new shape.
But the complexities of this issue and the length of the thread prevents me from sitting down and offering anything that folks are likely to be comfortable taking as "official errata" for at least a week.
So... please just have a little bit more patience. One of the things I really REALLY want to get off the ground is a FAQ section of these messageboards where these types of clarifications can be presented and organized, but until we get to the other side of the busiest part of the year in a week or so, that process can't even begin.
I have seen you and others state the reason why there is no errata yet. It's cool. I will just be happy when Gencon prep is over so I can get errata, and questions answered. That intern has a lot of questions to make note of. I hope they had a headstart.
|
Stuff
That's kind of the point. Pathfinder changed it, so it's not the same. Why are we going back to the non-pathfinder stuff for rulings on things that changed in pathfinder?
Shouldn't we instead be using pathfinder rules to attempt to clarify and define what happens? In this case the rules contradict an earlier rule, which has happened in numerous places in pathfinder.
However, some people think this sounds wrong, and try to find reasons within the rules as to why this doesn't work. That's good and all. But I haven't seen any arguments as to why, within the pathfinder rules, the shield ac doesn't work.
Again, I see a lot of attempts at portraying intent of the rules, and examples from non-pathfinder books such as the 3.5 players handbook *one of the books which I interpret as being a splat book for pathfinder, since it's not part of the core set of Pathfinder Rulebook and Bestiary*, but intent doesn't always follow rules. And intent can vary from person to person, depending on what makes sense to them.
As I mentioned in my last post, I'm concerned about what the rules say happen, not as much about what the rules should say, because of the particular forum this discussion is occurring in. I always try to state what the rules are for something when I *do* give my personal opinion on how it works.
As per the rules, I haven't seen any direct rule that makes me think the shield bonus is lost when you wildshape.
I've seen plenty of intent quotes about why that probably isn't what was intended, and that's fine for ruling the intent. But for ruling as worded, I haven't seen any words that say otherwise about the shield.
Does that help to explain my position? Point out how and where, so it can be addressed, if needed.
Also, I generally reply to multiple posters in each of my posts, so perhaps I wasn't referring to you particularly in regards to *splat books*. I'm just too lazy to go back and double-check atm.
I think that using pathfinder-only stuff to clear up waters muddied by pathfinder is quite appropriate. Now, if we were talking about a prestige class conversion down in the prestige class forums, then I'd be looking for intent of class instead of specific rules, and I'd be willing to look at various iterations of that particular class for intent of theme and so on.
@Grandfather I'm glad we're good :) I particularly enjoy posting on the forums in-between other tasks. I'd hate to develop any animosities here :(
@James Jacobs Crunch time is rough, and you guys've been getting a lot of crunch time lately. Definitely appreciate all the effort you put in to replying to posts and getting everything on track.
I suggest using common sense. A shield is both a weapon and a protective device. It must be wielded to have an effect. A longsword merged with the base form is unusable. So too with the shield...if it cannot be used as a weapon, it stands to reason it cannot be used as a shield.
Likewise with the wild enchantment, which has no effect on weapons. As the shield would still be unusable as a weapon, it shouldn't be eligible for wild, and thus remain unusable.
I.e. have it merge witht he form and be done with it. If he wants to turn into an ape and equip it, that's the druid's call.
I'd also like to point out something sans HP and all. The druid+companion has superior dmg inflicting ability by round, true. However, the instant the druid dies, the animal companion is no longer an animal companion, its just an animal. It loses all benefits thereof...which means its going to die plenty fast.
==Aelryinth
So not allow the shield to transfer the shield bonus to AC when wildshaped OR allow it to get the wild enchantment.
Hmmm...I had always thought that there would either be errata requiring shields to get the "wild" enchantment, or there would be a FAQ stating shields transferred their bonus to AC when wildshaped.
The idea of going with neither - I hadn't considered that before. Intriguing. Certainly a viable houserule. I wonder if the errata will go this way.
@ JJ -
dunno if you'll read this far, but thanks for *not* giving an answer off the cuff. Easy to do, hard to retract.
Nice as developer input is on the boards, I'd rather wait for an errata I can put my faith in. That's not a criticism of company board input, which I think is admirable - but definitive answers are where it's at. Cheers :)
Treantmonk, here's some suggestions.
mention in your guide that there are some debate on the issue with shields and wild shape. Players should talk to their DM/GM
Edit: You do not benefit from iterative attacks in wild shape unless you wield a weapon. So you could wild shape into and ape and you're fine if you wield a scimitar. But using natural attacks (slam, rake etc.) doesn't give you iterative attacks.
Quicken Spell Like Ability is not available if you want to quicken Wild shape because wild shape is not a Spell Like Ability, it's a SU.
I suggest using common sense. A shield is both a weapon and a protective device. It must be wielded to have an effect. A longsword merged with the base form is unusable. So too with the shield...if it cannot be used as a weapon, it stands to reason it cannot be used as a shield.
Likewise with the wild enchantment, which has no effect on weapons. As the shield would still be unusable as a weapon, it shouldn't be eligible for wild, and thus remain unusable.
+1
Treantmonk, here's some suggestions.
mention in your guide that there are some debate on the issue with shields and wild shape. Players should talk to their DM/GM
You do not benefit from iterative attacks in wild shape unless you wield a weapon. So you could wild shape into and ape and your a sword is fine. But using natural attacks doesn't give you iterative attacks.
Quicken Spell Like Ability is not available if you want to quicken Wild shape because wild shape is not a Spell Like Ability, it's a SU.
He knows. He was told that before. I don't think he ever updated the guide though.
I would think that having a shield function as a weapon and deal damage would be an activated ability as one needs to take the action to shield bash.
I mean while one could not attack with a weapon while it is merged any properties on the weapon not dependent on attacking with the weapon should still function. For example the luck blade is the first thing that comes to mind.
Even that is arguable sinse you cannot make AoO with a merged weapon either.
Somthing that we all agree are innate properties of an item, can simply not be taken for granted while affected by polymorph.
I really think you should take a step back from the definition of actions in the rules. Some abilities and effects of equipment are certainly activated by actions (e.g. a shield bash or standard melee attack action with a sword) while others have a more abstract activation method (e.g. an AoO with sayd sword or the protection of a shield).
Action and activation are not synonimous.
...However a shield's bonus is not such a thing any more then the bonus from a ring of protection.
Or so you say ;)
He knows. He was told that before. I don't think he ever updated the guide though.Treantmonk, here's some suggestions.
mention in your guide that there are some debate on the issue with shields and wild shape. Players should talk to their DM/GM
You do not benefit from iterative attacks in wild shape unless you wield a weapon. So you could wild shape into and ape and your a sword is fine. But using natural attacks doesn't give you iterative attacks.
Quicken Spell Like Ability is not available if you want to quicken Wild shape because wild shape is not a Spell Like Ability, it's a SU.
Strangely I did update the Spirit of the Beast guide but not the Wild Mystic guide. QSA is now gone.
I'm unaware of anywhere in either guide where I suggest you get iterative attacks when wildshaped (though I guess Ape+weapon would work), if I did, let me know where and I'll fix it up.
I've also added an "expect possible errata/check with DM" portion to the shield entry.
...However a shield's bonus is not such a thing any more then the bonus from a ring of protection.Or so you say ;)Well since both are always on until some outside condition specifically keeps them from working I see no difference.
However I am curious by what would a shield be activated in your position.
In the magic items chapter (p. 458), use activation of a shield is written as: "interpose a shield to deflect a blow in combat".
Even though it isn't an action to do so, the shield bonus does stem from actively using it in combat, which differs from passively wearing a ring.
I am not able to imagine how you interpose the shield to deflect blows, while it is melded into your body.
In the magic items chapter (p. 458), use activation of a shield is written as: "interpose a shield to deflect a blow in combat".
Even though it isn't an action to do so, the shield bonus does stem from actively using it in combat, which differs from passively wearing a ring.
I am not able to imagine how you interpose the shield to deflect blows, while it is melded into your body.
You sling it across your back and Wildshape. A critter on all fours would get the shield bonus because it is interposed between the critter and the blow.
EDIT: You still get the shield bonus when flat-footed and to me that's kind of not actively being used.
You sling it across your back and Wildshape. A critter on all fours would get the shield bonus because it is interposed between the critter and the blow.
That would be barding in my opinion, more than the effect of something melded into your body.
Otherwise you'd also see a lot of two-handed fighters slinging a shield on their back and demanding the bonus, since there are no facing in the rules.
EDIT: You still get the shield bonus when flat-footed and to me that's kind of not actively being used.
Well, that argument is backwards.
The rules state a certain use activation of shields. While i agree that it makes little sense for the bonus to apply when flat-footed (and even worse paralyzed) that is something concerning those conditions, not the text on how the shield is used.If I am to guess why the bonusses applies in case of flat-footed, it is because it mechanically easier to have shields and armor functioning identically (which they previously have, being the same type of bonus).
I would not be opposed to a change of rules, or just a house-rule, stating that shields does not apply when flat-footed or paralyzed.
EDIT: You still get the shield bonus when flat-footed and to me that's kind of not actively being used.
Being flat-footed does not prevent a character from activating abilities or using items.
A character with combat rexlexes still gets to make AoO. Just like a character with a shield still benefits from it even if flat-footed.
However having a shield slung over the back does not provide any protection, neither in normal nor polymorphed form.
I was answering this question.
"I am not able to imagine how you interpose the shield to deflect blows, while it is melded into your body."
Not making any real statment about shields and wildshaping.
EDIT: You still get the shield bonus when flat-footed and to me that's kind of not actively being used.Being flat-footed does not prevent a character from activating abilities or using items.
A character with combat rexlexes still gets to make AoO. Just like a character with a shield still benefits from it even if flat-footed.
However having a shield slung over the back does not provide any protection, neither in normal nor polymorphed form.
+1.
The Grandfather I agree with you on most, if not all, the things you say, but might as well give it up and wait for the FAQ.You won't be able to persuade anyone that hasn't been persuaded yet ;-)
EDIT: You still get the shield bonus when flat-footed and to me that's kind of not actively being used.Being flat-footed does not prevent a character from activating abilities or using items.
A character with combat rexlexes still gets to make AoO. Just like a character with a shield still benefits from it even if flat-footed.
However having a shield slung over the back does not provide any protection, neither in normal nor polymorphed form.
Yeah, it does. You can't activate any items while flat foot. Combat Reflexes is anm exception to the rule.
Being flat-footed does not prevent a character from activating abilities or using items.
Ummm...what???
You can't even take an immediate action if flat footed.
The combat reflexes feat specifically allows AoO when flat footed - but beyond that, when you are flat-footed, you can't do anything.
Being flat-footed does not prevent a character from activating abilities or using items.
Ummm...what???
You can't even take an immediate action if flat footed.
The combat reflexes feat specifically allows AoO when flat footed - but beyond that, when you are flat-footed, you can't do anything.
True, You can't even take an immediate action.
There are som exceptiosn though. Moment of Prescience, etc.What I meant was I agree on "However having a shield slung over the back does not provide any protection, neither in normal nor polymorphed form".
Ummm...what???
You can't even take an immediate action if flat footed.
The combat reflexes feat specifically allows AoO when flat footed - but beyond that, when you are flat-footed, you can't do anything.
You are still thinking actions. AoO are not actual action, though they are a good example of item activation.
Since this might have gotten lost in the shuffle I am still wondering what you specifically believe to be the conditions under which a nonmagical shield activates.
Exactly the same as a magical one (i.e. one without other properties than enhancement bonuses).
You use a shield to block; or interpose it as the rules state. Every time you interpose the shield (a physical act on the users part) you activate it. Which does not require an action; like a sword swing part of an AoO is not an action either, even though it does qualify as an activation of the item.
What I meant was I agree on "However having a shield slung over the back does not provide any protection, neither in normal nor polymorphed form".
Of course not. Neither does a ring of protection in your pocket.
Interesting, so would you also say that the shield's bonus should be removed from paralyzed characters or in other situations in which the person with the shield can not react to an attack with the shield.
You can reasonably argue for this change, seeing as there is a clear inconsistancy between the use of shields and certain conditions.
It might be an easy fix to adjust the text on shields, although it must avoid misunderstandings concerning shield bonusses that should still apply (specifically magical auto-shields).
Interesting, so would you also say that the shield's bonus should be removed from paralyzed characters or in other situations in which the person with the shield can not react to an attack with the shield.
It would make a hell lot more sense.
However that question has no bearing on RAW.Read p. 458.
It might be an easy fix to adjust the text on shields, although it must avoid misunderstandings concerning shield bonusses that should still apply (specifically magical auto-shields).
I think the best and easiest fix would be to include shield bonuses to the drop in flat-footed AC, and include it in the text for Uncanny Dodge and Combat Reflexes. Shields would then in all senses work exactly as swords in as far as activation method is concerned.
The shield must be interposed. That means it must be out and revealed. A shield applies against flat footed attacks when worn because it is guarding the character from attacks in whatever direction the shield is currently being held at. If the shield is merged with the body, it can't provide either of those conditions.
Nor can it be used as a weapon, nor can weapons be merged. Simply state that you can't wild a shield because of those things, and you are fine.
==Aelryinth
I agree with Aelyrinth.
(Though it should be possible to add the Wild enhancement to a shield, of course).
I think the simplest solution is a mild rejigging of the Polymorph section in the Magic chapter, with more detail on which items meld and how. A rewriting of how shields function is a more sweeping change than that (though not necessarily a worse one). That would be a major shift away from 3.5: an errata to Polymorph (which was already ripe for rewriting and has already been jiggled with) would not.
I too agree with Aelyrinth, although I do not understand what he mean by "nor can weapons be merged"
As for adding the Wild enhancement to a shield? You don't need it.
Just drop the shield on the ground and then pick it up when you have wild shaped or let a party member carry an additional shield for you.
You can't hold a sword +5, wildshape, and have it still usable. You also can't place wild on a weapon.
A shield is a weapon, in addition to being a shield.
Ergo, a merged shield cannot provide a weapon benefit. Since those benefits are part and parcel of the shield as a whole, there's no way a shield can provide an AC benefit while merged, either.
==Aelryinth
You can't hold a sword +5, wildshape, and have it still usable. You also can't place wild on a weapon.
A shield is a weapon, in addition to being a shield.
Ergo, a merged shield cannot provide a weapon benefit. Since those benefits are part and parcel of the shield as a whole, there's no way a shield can provide an AC benefit while merged, either.
==Aelryinth
So, your position is "If you can't use every property of an item when wildshaped, you lose the constant bonuses provided by that item"
So where does that take us?
You can have a hat of Wisdom +4.
Then you can pay to have a second enchantment put on the hat - maybe a helm of telepathy ability.
According to the rules, the wisdom bonus would stick, but the telepathy ability (which isn't constant) wouldn't.
However, if we are to use your logic you lose both.
The rules could be interpreted this way I suppose, when it says that "items that provide a constant bonus and don't need to be activated" I would suggest the "don't need to be activated" would be helping to define what a "constant bonus" is, but it could be interpreted your way as well I suppose...
The rules (as currently written) allow for shield bonuses to apply to wildshape.
I disagree. A shield is not worn; it's wielded -- just like a weapon. You get a bonus from gear you wear, not gear you wield. The rules as currently written to not allow for shield bonuses to apply to wildshape, unless you can somehow get a shield bonus from gear you're wearing.
Another piece of evidence for this: in the Armor section, it consistently refers to "wearing" armor and "using" a shield. It never refers to "wearing" a shield.
You could always wildshape into a dire ape and still wield the shield...
I concede I am arrogant to say this, but this is a forum, so here is my opinion. I believe firmly it is RAI that shields not function in wild shape without the wild enchantment. I believe so for simple balance reasons.
Compared with a typical frontline combatant:
-A druid will have a ring of protection.
-Nothing except an eye for "mighty fists" stops him from having an amulet of natural armor-and he's got greater magic fang, he can still get through basic x/magic DR without mighty fists (And in a form with one big attack, GMF keeps him almost caught up).
-A druid will, starting around mid-levels, have wild armor for 16k. We'll assume they don't spring for the heavy armor prof feat, and have +1 wild ironwood breatplate for about 16k. At which point, they are lagging behind an AC tank by about 6 points (-3 full plate to breastplate, -3 Wild).
-A druid in wild shape will have a base natural armor bonus of, starting around mid-levels, typically +6 in heavy combats. The druid is now caught up with a heavy AC tank.
All that's left is the shield. Are you telling me that the wild shaped druid, without sparing any hands from his full attack, AND without spending an extra cent, gets to have dedicated-tank-level armor class?
What's the drawback? What's balancing this, AND the fact that this is just their basic combat options, they can also turn into birds and unicorns and whatever else? And...not to go all "durid R OP!!!1!' on this thread, but...after you balance all that...what's balancing the NINE LEVELS OF SPELLCASTING?
You're forgetting the tank has a shield that could have a +3 enhancement bonus on it so that's 3 ac more :)
|
|
pg 459 Magic items on the body
"It's possible for a creature with a humanoid-shaped body to wear as many as 15 magic items at the same time."
"A humanoid-shaped body can be decked out in magic gear consisting of one item from each of the following groups, keyed to which slot on the body the item is worn.
The list that follows includes the Shield as a worn item.
So, for pathfinder, shields are effectively worn items. Note that weapons don't appear on the list.
You could always wildshape into a dire ape and still wield the shield...
Is there an actual rule or ruling somewhere that says apes can use weapons, or have people just assumed that they can because their paws seem closer to human hands than other animals'?