|
So, some of these seem pretty evident to me how they go, but being unable to find a specific answer, I'll ask them here too.
1 When a druid wildshapes while wearing armor, is he still affected by the armor check penalty?
2 If a druid is wearing armor he isn't proficient in, and wildshapes, does he still take the non-proficiency penalty?
3 What if, as above, the armor also has the wild enchantment? Armor check penalties, non-proficiency penalties?
4 Is there any way at the moment to change to gargantuan size animals within pathfinder rules? I notice that enlarge spells don't work with polymorph.
5 would there be any issue with wearing a regular amulet of might fists and a slotless amulet of mighty fists to get the +5 enhancement and +5 special ability bonuses?
6 Is it worth it to create a higher level beast shape spell that grants gargantuan size so that my players can fight the 5 power druids:
"It's wild-shaping time!*
*Mastodon!*
*Pteranodon!*
*Triceratops*
*Saber-tooth Tiger!*
*Tyrannosaurus!*
/chuckle
1) No, armour is subsumed into the new form.
2) See 1.
3) This is the exception to no. 1
4) Not that i'm aware of.
5) The cost of either would be +50% = 93750 gp
6) Better off going for the Predacons > Predaking. That'd be freaking orsm!
3) Technically the wild enchantment doesn't say anything about armor check penalties and non-proficiency, whereas it specifically says that you gain the armor bonus from the armor. Personally I would rule that ACP does not apply when wildshaping, but non-proficiency does, since you have to be able to use the armor normally to be able to do it properly when wildshaped.
4)Why doesn't enlarge person work? Specifically you can't use multiple polymorph spells at the same time, but Enlarge Person isn't a polymorph spell, just regular transmutation.
5)Depends on your GM. I'd be inclined to disallow slotless items, just to stack an existing magic item. However in many cases you'll be better off saving the money and using Greater Magic Fang anyway.
3) Technically the wild enchantment doesn't say anything about armor check penalties and non-proficiency, whereas it specifically says that you gain the armor bonus from the armor. Personally I would rule that ACP does not apply when wildshaping, but non-proficiency does, since you have to be able to use the armor normally to be able to do it properly when wildshaped.
3) If it says that you gain the armour bns, why wouldn't you apply the ACP as well as any non-proficiency penalty?
Pg 212, top right of the page.
"In addition, other spells that change your size have no effect on you while you are under the effects of a polymorph spell."
Missed that, thanks:)
3) If it says that you gain the armour bns, why wouldn't you apply the ACP as well as any non-proficiency penalty?
It specifically states that you preserve the armor bonus and enhancement, but the armor is not visible.
IMO armor check penalty should be explicitly mentioned in the Wild text to apply, if we're looking at it from a pure rule-wise point of view.My understanding of the wild enchantment is, that it magically enhances your skin (or subskin) when you wildshape. This does not mean that you are wearing the armor (since it isn't visible), so you are not hindered by the armor, thus no ACP.
Gaining the armor bonus does not directly entail and armor check penalty, otherwise we have to make on up for bracers of armor as well.
You're right, it specifically says that you keep the armour bns, but that doesn't mean that it magically enhances your skin. It doesn't even imply that.
It may not be visible, but it's there - you're still wearing it. All it says is "the armor cannot be seen".
As for bracers of armour, the entry says "as though he were wearing
armor". That's it. You're not actually wearing anything. Therefore, no ACP.
3) I think that the Wild Enchantment's cost of +3 is high enough to allow you the armor bonus without its miscellaneous penalties. FWIW, I added (through house-rules) a lesser versions of this enchantment, costing less but giving half the armor's bonus and half its penalties as well.
4) If your character takes INA for his natural attacks (which you can, since you do have them, contrarily to the monk *sigh*), they deal damage as though he was one size larger. Barring this, I don't see PRPG RAW allowing Gargantuan creatures. I found this the hard way when trying to morph into a Dire Crocodile (which was Huge in 3.5 but Gargantuan in PRPG).
5) As said before, depends on your DM - but the rules allow it, I think, even putting mighty fists and natural armor on the same amulet... for a price: 200k for both +5 (125k+1.5x50k), or 66.5k if you crafted for your class and you have the Hedge Magician trait.
6) Depends on your DM and your group. Beware of using house-ruled spells and abilities (because, if you want your druid to use that spell, you have to modify Wild Shape - which, remember, doesn't even give access to Beast Shape IV) especially if you intend to port your character through different gaming groups. Beware of opponents using the same tools.
You're right, it specifically says that you keep the armour bns, but that doesn't mean that it magically enhances your skin. It doesn't even imply that.
It may not be visible, but it's there - you're still wearing it. All it says is "the armor cannot be seen".
As for bracers of armour, the entry says "as though he were wearing
armor". That's it. You're not actually wearing anything. Therefore, no ACP.
Well at some point you have to decide whether you gonna argue by the text of the enhancement or you own interpretation.
You might not agree with how I imagine the effect (eg. by toughening your skin).
By leaving the interpretation aside, look at the text. You preserve your armor bonus and enhancement. It does not mention that you actually wear the armor, thus gaining the drawbacks. The explicit mention of the armor bonus does not in any way entail other effects.
Your interpretation seems rather odd to me, since you expect the wildshaped druid to wear an invisible armor. It has to be, if you want it to hinder the movement of said druid. How does this exactly work? Does it change to barding for the relevant creature and then become invisible?
It gets even stranger when considering shields. By the same logic, a shield with wild enhancement should still be worn even if it by now is invisible. So it will take up a limp of the creature you change into, even if the limp is normally incapable of holding anything.
As with anything the rules are open to interpretation. If you like you way better, make a houserule and do it that way.
Heck, even me demanding the druid to be proficient with the wild armor is a interpretation of my own, and nothing that can be found i RAW.
3) Technically the wild enchantment doesn't say anything about armor check penalties and non-proficiency, whereas it specifically says that you gain the armor bonus from the armor. Personally I would rule that ACP does not apply when wildshaping, but non-proficiency does, since you have to be able to use the armor normally to be able to do it properly when wildshaped.
3) If it says that you gain the armour bns, why wouldn't you apply the ACP as well as any non-proficiency penalty?
You only take penalties when wearing the armor. When you wildshape the armor is melded with your body. Now if wildshape made the armor wearable I would agree, and probably enforce it in my games. Yeah it's kind of cheesy to get the benefits without the penalties, but it's not something I think matters all that much.
Edit: I just read a post here that says the armor can not be seen. Now I have decisions to make. Darn internets always making me make decisions. I guess I should have read the entire thread before posting.
Well at some point you have to decide whether you gonna argue by the text of the enhancement or you own interpretation.
Yes and the text of the enhancement says nothing about removing armor penalties. Wearing armor gives that armors penalties. That is part and parcel of the armor 'item'. The only thing that the Wild Shape enhancement DOES do is allow you to get worn armor benefits while Wild Shaped.
Since it does not SAY you no longer suffer armor penalties from the armor you still would. NOT suffering armor penalties while wearing armor is a pretty nice ability and probably would be explicitly stated if the enchantment actually did that.
Generally speaking, magic items do only what they say they do explicitly in their descriptions. Anything more is DM/house rule.
Well at some point you have to decide whether you gonna argue by the text of the enhancement or you own interpretation.Yes and the text of the enhancement says nothing about removing armor penalties. Wearing armor gives that armors penalties. That is part and parcel of the armor 'item'. The only thing that the Wild Shape enhancement DOES do is allow you to get worn armor benefits while Wild Shaped.
Since it does not SAY you no longer suffer armor penalties from the armor you still would. NOT suffering armor penalties while wearing armor is a pretty nice ability and probably would be explicitly stated if the enchantment actually did that.
Generally speaking, magic items do only what they say they do explicitly in their descriptions. Anything more is DM/house rule.
I am sad to say that you are reading the wild enchantment wrong, then.
It does not say that you are wearing armor, which is your premise for giving penalties.
It simple states that you preserve your armor bonus and enhancement, no more no less. That is what is explicit in the text.
Having an armor bonus it self does not give penalties.
Anything else, is your understanding of how it functions, which seems like an invisible suit of armor over your current form. Any argument you derive based on 'wearing armor' is nowhere substantiated in the text.
By leaving the interpretation aside, look at the text. You preserve your armor bonus and enhancement. It does not mention that you actually wear the armor, thus gaining the drawbacks. The explicit mention of the armor bonus does not in any way entail other effects.
What it does mention is that "While the wearer is in a wild shape, the armor cannot be seen". That's it. It's still there...just cannot be seen.
make a houserule and do it that way.
Heck, even me demanding the druid to be proficient with the wild armor is a interpretation of my own, and nothing that can be found i RAW.I'm not making a houserule, i'm applying what is actually written and not interpreting it widely to gain an undue advantage.
Granted, not a cheesy or even massive advantage, but an advantage that wasn't intended IMO, unnecessarily.
What it does mention is that "While the wearer is in a wild shape, the armor cannot be seen". That's it. It's still there...just cannot be seen.
Not surprisingly, I disagree;-)
I maintain that it is a specific interpretation of yours, which IMO raises a lot of unanswered questions, such as: Is the armor magically refitted to the new form, without the text explaining it? Is the fur of your animal for pressed together because of the armor enclosing it?
My interpretation is based on the general rules for polymorph: Your armor melds into your body, and ceases to function.
Wild enhantment is the only exception, which specifically grants the armor bonus and enhancement. No more, no less.
The enchantment refers to a given set of rules given in the polymorph, not rules on how mundane armors normally function.
If the intention of the wild ability was to let armor function as normally, it would have been much easier just to write: "while wildshaped the armor or shield continues to function".
Obviously, it's not clear-cut :p Oh, well, just another thing to adjudicate :P Thanks for all the interesting points of view :)
And thanks for that meaningful post;-)