You're right I don't like the answer. Because it does not fit within the general rules set and does not have a proper exception to allow for that dissonance.Sure it does.
A character with a belt of strength +2 gets polymorphed/wildshapes. He retains the +2 strength bonus.
A monk wearing a suit of armor gets polymorphed and is no longer wearing armor... the monk bonuses now apply.
Seems to fit the rules just fine. Again it seems you just don't care for the rule and are just seeing 'problems' because of it.
I suggest that you try to separate these feelings from when you read the rules. It will avoid these mistakes that you are seeming to make here.
-James
And can save much face by doing so. :o
As a side question, is it generally agreed that only typed numeric bonuses continue to function while melded?
Not just for armor but for anything? A Ring of Evasion would meld, but the Druid would lose Evasion while Wild Shaped?
Polymorph excerpt: "When you cast a polymorph spell that changes you into a creature of the animal, dragon, elemental, magical beast, plant, or vermin type, all of your gear melds into your body. Items that provide constant bonuses and do not need to be activated continue to function while melded in this way (with the exception of armor and shield bonuses, which cease to function)."
Items that provide continuous bonuses continue to function.
Items that do not need to be activated continue to function.
Exception: Armor and Shield bonuses.
Pretty simple really.
As a side question, is it generally agreed that only typed numeric bonuses continue to function while melded?
Not just for armor but for anything? A Ring of Evasion would meld, but the Druid would lose Evasion while Wild Shaped?Polymorph excerpt: "When you cast a polymorph spell that changes you into a creature of the animal, dragon, elemental, magical beast, plant, or vermin type, all of your gear melds into your body. Items that provide constant bonuses and do not need to be activated continue to function while melded in this way (with the exception of armor and shield bonuses, which cease to function)."
Items that provide continuous bonuses continue to function.
Items that do not need to be activated continue to function.
Exception: Armor and Shield bonuses.Pretty simple really.
Yep. Say hello to the evading, feather falling, AC boosting, saving throw buffing, fast moving, rock'em sockem polar bear. :3
EDIT: Not that they're new or anything. They've been here for a long time now. They've just been practicing their Kung Fu on the rooftop, but it started raining and they're inside now for all to see. :P
As a side question, is it generally agreed that only typed numeric bonuses continue to function while melded?
Not just for armor but for anything? A Ring of Evasion would meld, but the Druid would lose Evasion while Wild Shaped?Polymorph excerpt: "When you cast a polymorph spell that changes you into a creature of the animal, dragon, elemental, magical beast, plant, or vermin type, all of your gear melds into your body. Items that provide constant bonuses and do not need to be activated continue to function while melded in this way (with the exception of armor and shield bonuses, which cease to function)."
Items that provide continuous bonuses continue to function.
Items that do not need to be activated continue to function.
Exception: Armor and Shield bonuses.Pretty simple really.
Yep. Say hello to the evading, feather falling, AC boosting, saving throw buffing, fast moving, rock'em sockem polar bear. :3
EDIT: Not that they're new or anything. They've been here for a long time now. They've just been practicing their Kung Fu on the rooftop, but it started raining and they're inside now for all to see. :PSo, what about Bracers of Armor? Armor bonus, so not granted? Or not armor or shield so you get the bonus?
Given the text, I think you either have to let the Bracers work or let other properties of armor (Slick for example) keep working .
As far as I'm concerned, based on the reading, I'd say secondary effects of armor such as energy resistance, slick, shadowed, and so forth continue to function; just the armor bonus itself does not. Same with shields (if you have a light fortification shield, then you don't retain the shield bonus but you keep the light fortification).
Druid tanks for the win. :P
As far as I'm concerned, based on the reading, I'd say secondary effects of armor such as energy resistance, slick, shadowed, and so forth continue to function; just the armor bonus itself does not. Same with shields (if you have a light fortification shield, then you don't retain the shield bonus but you keep the light fortification).
Druid tanks for the win. :P
Agreed.
But is an effect the same as a bonus? It says items that provide bonuses continue to function. What if a bonus is only numerical stuff, not special effects?
But is an effect the same as a bonus? It says items that provide bonuses continue to function. What if a bonus is only numerical stuff, not special effects?
You are correct Grimmy. Which is why I said I believe that the static effects like fortification and such remains. Here is the relevant quote from the PRD.
Bonus: Bonuses are numerical values that are added to checks and statistical scores. Most bonuses have a type, and as a general rule, bonuses of the same type are not cumulative (do not “stack”)—only the greater bonus granted applies.
You retain all magic item effects that do not require activation. So a wizard wearing a +1 light fortification silk robe (+2 armor bonus, 25% crit evasion) would lose the armor bonus when polymorphed, but would still be 25% likely to ignore a critical hit.
Wild Armor is an exception because it allows you to retain the armor bonus of the armor in question, even while you are wild-shaped (a polymorph effect), but you are no longer wearing the armor or retaining other features beyond the armor bonus and what you would already have from static abilities (in much the same way you retain the wild ability of your armor while wildshaped, as if the static ability went away then you would have no wild armor to benefit from).
Logic...oh it feels good. ^.^
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is really not a problem. They don't need to spell everything out if we can reasonably make the right inferences - such as armor that's absorbed in a polymorphic effect has no appreciable effect on the creature in the new form. The inapplicability of the armor/shield bonus is expressly called out (which wouldn't be necessary at all if they didn't also specify that items with constant bonuses items still work) but we can assume that anything absorbed into the form isn't hindering it like it would be if it were worn.
On the other hand, the wild property establishes a specific exception to the armor being absorbed - part of it still has an effect - the armor/shield bonus. Since the armor isn't suddenly being worn by the transformed creature, we can't assume any other effects of the armor apply.
It really is a problem. You're looking at two different rules and applying logic differently to both and calling it good.
Rule one: The benefits of armor go away.
Your Logic: The armor goes away, so the penalties go away too even though it doesn't say they do.
Rule two: The Benefits of armor come back
Your Logic: The benefits come back, but the penalties don't because it doesn't say they do.
You see what I'm getting at? You're okay with taking the penalties away, even though the rules don't say they go away, but you're not okay with them coming back, and your argument against it? The rules don't say they do. Why is okay to say they go away without explicit rules, but it's not okay to say they come back without explicit rules?
As a side question, is it generally agreed that only typed numeric bonuses continue to function while melded?
Not just for armor but for anything? A Ring of Evasion would meld, but the Druid would lose Evasion while Wild Shaped?Polymorph excerpt: "When you cast a polymorph spell that changes you into a creature of the animal, dragon, elemental, magical beast, plant, or vermin type, all of your gear melds into your body. Items that provide constant bonuses and do not need to be activated continue to function while melded in this way (with the exception of armor and shield bonuses, which cease to function)."
Items that provide continuous bonuses continue to function.
Items that do not need to be activated continue to function.
Exception: Armor and Shield bonuses.Pretty simple really.
If that's the case it could be written better.
"Items that provide constant bonuses and do not need to be activated continue to function..."
That's two conditions that need to be met for an item to continue to function.
Where's that leave a ring of evasion?
Wild Armor is an exception because it allows you to retain the armor bonus of the armor in question, even while you are wild-shaped (a polymorph effect), but you are no longer wearing the armor or retaining other features beyond the armor bonus and what you would already have from static abilities (in much the same way you retain the wild ability of your armor while wildshaped, as if the static ability went away then you would have no wild armor to benefit from).
Logic...oh it feels good. ^.^
Dude!
Wild Armor is an exception because it allows you to retain the armor bonus of the armor in question, even while you are wild-shaped (a polymorph effect), but you are no longer wearing the armor or retaining other features beyond the armor bonus and what you would already have from static abilities (in much the same way you retain the wild ability of your armor while wildshaped, as if the static ability went away then you would have no wild armor to benefit from).
Logic...oh it feels good. ^.^
Haha! I missed you Grimmy. ^-^
It really is a problem. You're looking at two different rules and applying logic differently to both and calling it good.Rule one: The benefits of armor go away.
Your Logic: The armor goes away, so the penalties go away too even though it doesn't say they do.Rule two: The Benefits of armor come back
Your Logic: The benefits come back, but the penalties don't because it doesn't say they do.You see what I'm getting at? You're okay with taking the penalties away, even though the rules don't say they go away, but you're not okay with them coming back, and your argument against it? The rules don't say they do. Why is okay to say they go away without explicit rules, but it's not okay to say they come back without explicit rules?
Because we're supposed to use our ability to read the rules and synthesize what they mean via standard reading comprehension techniques rather than subject them to overly pedantic exegesis. Honestly, rules debates around the internet seem to be less about reading the rules than torturing them.
Haha! I missed you Grimmy. ^-^Dude!
Wild Armor is an exception because it allows you to retain the armor bonus of the armor in question, even while you are wild-shaped (a polymorph effect), but you are no longer wearing the armor or retaining other features beyond the armor bonus and what you would already have from static abilities (in much the same way you retain the wild ability of your armor while wildshaped, as if the static ability went away then you would have no wild armor to benefit from).
Logic...oh it feels good. ^.^
Missed you too! Hopefully you were getting your create on.
Did you hear Baldur's Gate Enhanced is coming out? Delayed til nov I guess. I'm gonna get it on my ipad.
Haha! I missed you Grimmy. ^-^Dude!
Wild Armor is an exception because it allows you to retain the armor bonus of the armor in question, even while you are wild-shaped (a polymorph effect), but you are no longer wearing the armor or retaining other features beyond the armor bonus and what you would already have from static abilities (in much the same way you retain the wild ability of your armor while wildshaped, as if the static ability went away then you would have no wild armor to benefit from).
Logic...oh it feels good. ^.^
Missed you too! Hopefully you were getting your create on.
Did you hear Baldur's Gate Enhanced is coming out? Delayed til nov I guess. I'm gonna get it on my ipad.
Yeah, I'm super psyched about it. I hear it's cross-platform compatible. When I get a copy, we should totally do a multiplayer session. ^-^
And what happens when you have rogue levels? Does dragonhide wild full plate let you treat the armor like it wasn't there for the purpose of evasion? Or for monk armor bonus/arcane spell casting?
If it is melded into your form due to a polymorph effect, then yes.
Yeah, I'm super psyched about it. I hear it's cross-platform compatible. When I get a copy, we should totally do a multiplayer session. ^-^Haha! I missed you Grimmy. ^-^Dude!
Wild Armor is an exception because it allows you to retain the armor bonus of the armor in question, even while you are wild-shaped (a polymorph effect), but you are no longer wearing the armor or retaining other features beyond the armor bonus and what you would already have from static abilities (in much the same way you retain the wild ability of your armor while wildshaped, as if the static ability went away then you would have no wild armor to benefit from).
Logic...oh it feels good. ^.^
Missed you too! Hopefully you were getting your create on.
Did you hear Baldur's Gate Enhanced is coming out? Delayed til nov I guess. I'm gonna get it on my ipad.
Rawk.
RD didn't you ask JJ about this in his thread? I thought you did but I can't find it now.
RD didn't you ask JJ about this in his thread? I thought you did but I can't find it now.
I thought about it, but then changed my mind. I had asked him a rules question every day for the past week.
Don't want to strain relations. He's not a genie in a bottle that comes at my every beck and call, after all.
|
With Ashiel's definition I'm prepared to alter my interpretation.
A polymorphed PC would retain Fire Resistance, fortification qualities, temporary hit points and similar magical qualities because they are both continuous effects and provide numerical or statistical bonuses.
That still leaves out the Ring of Feather Fall, Ring of Evasion, etc. as things that are non-functioning while polymorphed.
Because we're supposed to use our ability to read the rules and synthesize what they mean via standard reading comprehension techniques rather than subject them to overly pedantic exegesis. Honestly, rules debates around the internet seem to be less about reading the rules than torturing them.
Oh I get it, it's your way because you're smarter than everyone else, well why didn't you just say so, you could have solved all our rules issues a long time ago.
Or to say it another way, in order for you to be right, you have to read the same type of rules differently in each instance. To assume that you are correct and any other reading is wrong, even with the cockeyed way you have to read the rules for you to be right, is arrogance in the extreme. All you are doing is making a guess at what the developers mean while anyone who disagrees with you is simply reading the rules the same way in both instances.
You may be right, and as a matter of fact, I think you are, but recently there was a rules question that came up that I had no idea it could be read a different way, and when it was brought up, I thought the "other" way was perposterous. Turns out I was dead wrong, so I don't always assume I have the inside track to the Dev's mind.