|
It is commonly understood that when a druid shifts to his Animal form, the armor melds into his body and he loses any benefits from his unenchanted armor. A druid gets over this penalty by applying Wild to his armor. The armor still melds into his body, but he keeps the armor bonus from the Wild Armor. Since the Armor is inside of the newly shifted druid, it is like he gets natural armor. While in Animal form, if a druid is given an item, that item would also meld into the druid when he shifts back into Human form, losing any benefit from said item.
It has been questions and ruled that an Animal can wear equipment Ruleing 1Ruleing 2 There is nothing in the rules (which i can find) that says a Druid, who is in his Wild Shape, can't wear armor, and that armor can't be Dragon Hide. If this is the case, a Druid who has two sets of armor with Wild applied to each set should be able to have one set on his Human body and the other on One of his Animal shapes.
Ex. Wild Armor A +4 ac (Human)
Wild Armor B +4ac (Beast)
Beast AC 18 (4 from the Wild Armor B and 4 from the Wild Armor A)
Human AC 18 (4 from the Wild Armor A and 4 From the Wild Armor B)
This is only possible because any items a druid is carrying while he shifts melds into him and cannot be used (Scrolls, Rings, Wands, Armor, ect.)
If this is the case, a Druid who has two sets of armor with Wild applied to each set should be able to have one set on his Human body and the other on One of his Animal shapes.
Ex. Wild Armor A +4 ac (Human)
Wild Armor B +4ac (Beast)
Beast AC 18 (4 from the Wild Armor B and 4 from the Wild Armor A)
Human AC 18 (4 from the Wild Armor A and 4 From the Wild Armor B)This is only possible because any items a druid is carrying while he shifts melds into him and cannot be used (Scrolls, Rings, Wands, Armor, ect.)
This is not possible because armor bonuses don't stack. Wearing 2 sets of armor gives you no more ac than wearing 1 set of armor.
When the armor melds into the Druid, it becomes nothing more than Natural Armor, and Natural Armor and Normal Armor do stack.
Wild property says nothing about changing Armor Bonus into a Natural Armor Bonus category. They would not stack.
"The wearer of a suit of armor or a shield with this ability preserves his armor bonus (and any enhancement bonus) while in a wild shape."
When the armor melds into the Druid, it becomes nothing more than Natural Armor, and Natural Armor and Normal Armor do stack.
Where does it say the armor bonus becomes a natural armor bonus?
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/magic-armor#TOC-Wild
To me, that sounds like the armor continues giving it's normal armor bonus (plus any enhancements).
|
|
The only reason that you can't wear two sets of armor is because you don't have two slots for said armor. when the armor melds into you, it opens up that slot to dawn a new set of armor.
@Some Random Dood, It doesn't say it, however you are nor wearing armor on the outside of your body, so what else could it be?
@Some Random Dood, It doesn't say it, however you are nor wearing armor on the outside of your body, so what else could it be?
What else could it be? An armor bonus, exactly like the property says. If your gm says it becomes a natural armor bonus, more power to you. But RAW (and probably RAI), it stays as an armor bonus.
While in Animal form, if a druid is given an item, that item would also meld into the druid when he shifts back into Human form, losing any benefit from said item.
Out of interest, where is this from?
Amsheagar, if that were true you could also benefit from two rings of protection (deflection bonus) etc. You cannot. With a couple exceptions (dodge for example) bonuses of the same type do not stack.
Armor bonuses from two different armors do not stack.
Example1: I have Mage Armor and Chain Mail. They do not stack. Only the greatest bonus is effective.
Example2: I have Armor with the wild property and I have armor designed for an animal. I am wearing both while Wild Shaped. Only the greatest bonus is effective.
- Gauss
|
|
Example1: I have Mage Armor and Chain Mail. They do not stack. Only the greatest bonus is effective.
Magic Armor acts like a normal suit of Armor, in where it fits onto your body where the armor would be. ie take up the armor slot.
Example2: I have Armor with the wild property and I have armor designed for an animal. I am wearing both while Wild Shaped. Only the greatest bonus is effective.
If a druid with out Wild on his armor were to shift, he would lose the armor, with it the armor bonus. In this case he can still dawn a new set of armor (designed for animals) to gain armor back. In sense he is wearing two sets of armor. This being said, the same armor with the wild bonus would Still meld into his body and he would still have a slot open up for armor to wear.
it is reverse logic. a druid shifts in-between forms, and when he does that the things he is holding/wearing meld into him. (IE, this is why he can't access any items that he has in a bag.)
I don't think it's the intent. In fact, if this worked, it would be a lot cheaper to enchant the appropriate barding than to have the 'wild' property, which is +3.
Amsheagar, it does not fit onto your body. It can be cast upon you while you are wearing armor. Both are on you at the same time.
Look, this is not about slots. It is about the bonuses.
Stacking: Stacking refers to the act of adding together bonuses or penalties that apply to one particular check or statistic. Generally speaking, most bonuses of the same type do not stack. Instead, only the highest bonus applies. Most penalties do stack, meaning that their values are added together. Penalties and bonuses generally stack with one another, meaning that the penalties might negate or exceed part or all of the bonuses, and vice versa.
Armor/Shield Bonus: Each type of armor grants an armor bonus to AC, while shields grant a shield bonus to AC. 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.
Armor bonuses do not EVER stack with other armor bonuses. No matter how you try to sidestep the rules.
- Gauss
|
|
it is reverse logic. a druid shifts in-between forms, and when he does that the things he is holding/wearing meld into him. (IE, this is why he can't access any items that he has in a bag.)I don't think it's the intent. In fact, if this worked, it would be a lot cheaper to enchant the appropriate barding than to have the 'wild' property, which is +3.
That is true, unless the druid changes inbetween more than one other form. My druid changes into an air form, a land for and a water form.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Example2: I have Armor with the wild property and I have armor designed for an animal. I am wearing both while Wild Shaped. Only the greatest bonus is effective.If a druid with out Wild on his armor were to shift, he would lose the armor, with it the armor bonus. In this case he can still dawn a new set of armor (designed for animals) to gain armor back. In sense he is wearing two sets of armor. This being said, the same armor with the wild bonus would Still meld into his body and he would still have a slot open up for armor to wear.
Ok sure, you're now wearing 2 sets of armor. But as Gauss pointed out the armor bonuses don't stack, which then makes it rather pointless to wear more than 1 set of armor.
That is true, unless the druid changes inbetween more than one other form. My druid changes into an air form, a land for and a water form.it is reverse logic. a druid shifts in-between forms, and when he does that the things he is holding/wearing meld into him. (IE, this is why he can't access any items that he has in a bag.)I don't think it's the intent. In fact, if this worked, it would be a lot cheaper to enchant the appropriate barding than to have the 'wild' property, which is +3.
Even so, adding 'wild' to +1 armour costs 15,000 gp. That's nearly 15 sets of +1 armour. You can easily afford 3 sets of barding.
(I'm feeling a bit peeved this morning that my correct English spelling's being auto-corrected. It was our language first, dammit) :(
It is melded, you wearing a second suit of armor is not relevant. Only the greatest armor bonus applies.
You can absolutely do this: Wear Armor with the wild property, then wildshape into a tiger, and then put on Armor designed for a tiger. BUT, only the greatest armor bonus counts. They do not stack.
- Gauss
|
Reverse melding is a neat idea, but opens up a host of other potential abuses. For example, Wild Shape into an Elephant, pile all your gear onto the Elephant, and resume humanoid form. Your gear is now stowed in elephant form (and presumably weightless). Save on Bags of Holding! Alternatively, you could hide items almost irretrievably by melding them into an animal form.
Alternate forms are already different from natural forms. Some effects reveal natural forms or cause shapeshifters to revert to their natural form. Because of this, it's reasonable to say that the magic that merges gear into a natural form cannot merge gear into an alternate form. That avoids the above problems and more.
You could have someone put barding on you after you wild shape, but it ought to drop off once you shift back.
Example1: I have Mage Armor and Chain Mail. They do not stack. Only the greatest bonus is effective.Magic Armor acts like a normal suit of Armor, in where it fits onto your body where the armor would be. ie take up the armor slot.
Not magic armor, Mage Armor. There is nothing in the spell description that suggests it takes up a slot. You could, for example, wear full plate but have Mage Armor cast on you to give you a +4 armor bonus to vs incorporeal attacks (which your full plate does not block).
Have another look at the bonus stacking rules Gauss quoted.
|
|
Reverse melding is a neat idea, but opens up a host of other potential abuses. For example, Wild Shape into an Elephant, pile all your gear onto the Elephant, and resume humanoid form. Your gear is now stowed in elephant form (and presumably weightless). Save on Bags of Holding! Alternatively, you could hide items almost irretrievably by melding them into an animal form.
You don't gain the animals stats when you shift into them, so you are limited to what you can carry. That being said, you still have to factor in the weight of items you are carrying when shifted.
Alright I have seen two threads of yours both based on trying to get cheese out of the druid based on your view of how things work fluff and flavor wise.
Armor bonuses don't stack. Full stop there. Your view on the fluff of what happens to the armor means nothing. Your opinion on what "makes sense" also has no effect on the rules.
The whole "Makes sense" thing never has and never will have a place in this system. What makes sense will always take a back seat to mechanics and balance as it is in fact a game.
Fact #3: Enchantment bonuses do stack.
Armour enchantment bonuses don't stack. If, for instance, you were to wear enchanted padded armour under an enchanted breastplate, you would only get the best enchantment, not the sum of both.
Fact #3 what enchantment bonuses? Enchantment bonus is not a bonus type.
If you mean 'enhancement bonus', again, what enhancement bonus? In and of itself enhancement is not a type. You have enhancement bonuses to armor, they do not stack with other enhancement bonuses to armor. You have enhancement bonuses to natural armor which again, do not stack with other enhancement bonuses to natural armor. You have enhancement bonuses to dexterity, those do not stack with other enhancement bonuses to dexterity.
A +1 Wild Dragonhide Breastplate has an Armor bonus of 7.
A +3 Dragonhide Breastplate made for a tiger has an armor bonus of 9.
As a druid, I can wear both simultaneously when I am wild shaped. But I only benefit from one of them. Either I get an armor bonus of 7 or I get an armor bonus of 9. I take the greater of the two and my armor bonus is 9.
- Gauss
And who misread it? I only read what you wrote. You wrote 'enchantment bonus'. A quick PDF search of the Core Rulebook does not find one single instance of the term 'enchantment bonus'.
However, there are many instances of 'enhancement bonus'.
I understand you are asking for these clarifications but when we answer you, with cited sources, you then argue them. Why?
- Gauss
|
|
Fact #3, An enhancement bonus represents an increase in the sturdiness and/or effectiveness of armor or natural armor, or the effectiveness of a weapon, or a general bonus to an ability score. Multiple enhancement bonuses on the same object (in the case of armor and weapons), creature (in the case of natural armor), or ability score do not stack. Only the highest enhancement bonus applies. Since enhancement bonuses to armor or natural armor effectively increase the armor or natural armor's bonus to AC, they don't apply against touch attacks.
An enchantment to Natural Armor and an enchantment to Armor would stack.
+1 amulet of NA
+1 Wild Dragonhide Breastplate +7
AC 8
Again, this question boils down to What happens to the armor when it is melded into the body of the druid when he wild shapes.
You get Armor Bonus from a set of Armor that you wear. When you meld into you beast shape, you are no longer wearing said armor.
Ok, so I was correct that you were meaning enhancement bonuses when you said enchantment bonus.
Next, those are different types of enhancement bonuses, exactly as I stated. And, as you pointed out, enhancement bonuses of the same type do NOT stack. Also as I stated. So why are we debating this?
The armor is melded. It is either:
Nonfunctional, in which case the armor you are wearing that is not melded, the armor designed for your wild shape form is functional.
OR
Functional due to the Wild property, in which case you only benefit from one of the two suits of armor. Either the Wild armor OR the armor designed for your wild shape form benefits you, not both.
Lets assume you have a ring of protection +1, Amulet of natural armor +1, +1 Wild Dragonhide breastplate, and +4 Dragonhide Breastplate armor designed for your Dire Tiger form. Note: Beast Shape 2 gives you a +4 natural armor bonus for a Dire Tiger.
When wild shaped you have the following ACs (not including dexterity):
10(base)+1(deflection)+5(natural armor)+7(wild armor)=23
OR
10(base)+1(deflection)+5(natural armor)+10(Dire Tiger armor)=26
Since you take the best armor bonus, your AC is 26.
It cannot be any simpler than this.
- Gauss
Edit: fixed the natural armor bonus to account for the large Beast Shape II bonus.
You get Armor Bonus from a set of Armor that you wear. When you meld into you beast shape, you are no longer wearing said armor.
Whether you are 'wearing' it or not becomes pretty irrelevant, you are still 'wearing' the bonuses, and thats all that matters.
|
|
You get Armor Bonus from a set of Armor that you wear. When you meld into you beast shape, you are no longer wearing said armor.Whether you are 'wearing' it or not becomes pretty irrelevant, you are still 'wearing' the bonuses, and thats all that matters.
It matters if the armor stays as a normal armor bonus or if it changes to an enchantment bonus(it would be a +x enchantment to you) or if it becomes part of your body, making it Natural Armor.
The wild enchantment tells you exactly what it is.
The wearer of a suit of armor or a shield with this ability preserves his armor bonus (and any enhancement bonus)
You liking it or not has no bearing on it.
Amsheagar: NOTHING states the normal armor bonus changes in any way shape or form. It does not change. It is exactly as it was. The ONLY thing that Wild modifies is whether or not that bonus is functional while you are wild shaped and the armor is melded with your form.
- Gauss
It matters if the armor stays as a normal armor bonus
Which it does...
or if it changes to an enchantment bonus(it would be a +x enchantment to you)
Which it doesn't, there's no mention of the 'type' changing.
or if it becomes part of your body, making it Natural Armor.
It doesn't make it 'natural armour', even if it was part of your body.
There is no suggestion anywhere that it changes any types of bonuses, in fact it suggests quite the opposite with the word 'preserves'.
Ripper Jack XXX:
I agree with most of your points except #1 and a clarification for #5.
1. The polymorph school states armor melds. The Wild armor property does not counter this statement and thus it is still melded.
5. You are correct here, but when armor is melded (due to polymorph effects) it is not worn. You can wear other armor while armor is melded with you.
- Gauss
Amsheagar why do you keep claiming that wild armor turns into a natural armor bonus when you change forms? absolutely nothing in the book says that, or even implies it.
an armor bonus is completely different than natural armor bonus, which is completely different than shield bonus.
let me ask you this: what happens when you have a +1 wild dragonhide breastplate AND a +1 wild heavy wooden shield? both of them are absorbed into you, how would you get both bonuses if they didnt stack?
the reason they DO stack is because they are different bonuses, even when they meld with you. one is a shield bonus, the other is an armor bonus (NOT NATURAL ARMOR, JUST ARMOR)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*opens popcorn*
Funny, how everybody cites RAW and you're the only one supporting your arguments.
Reverse logic does not work here, since it's a game with its own rules. If logic would apply at all there'd be no magic, thus no wildshaping, thus argument ends.
Fact #1: When a druid shifts, he loses any items he has.
Fact #2: Animals can wear Armor.
Fact #3: Enchantment bonuses do stack.
Fact #4: Wild is an Enchantment that you can put onto Armor.
Fact #1: Wrong, he might loose the benefits, but even that depends. True is, he will not be able to use most of its equipment, but if he puts aside his weapon, shifts into an animal having opposable thumps he might be able to pick it up and wield it in combat. If said shape was humanoid to boot, he might even be able to don armor and benefit from its armor bonus.
Fact #2: Animals can wear Armor, which is called barding.Fact #3: Wrong, they overlap. Only bonusses from different categories stack.
Fact #4: True.
And the conclusion?
Ruyan.
Fact: Wild is a special property that can be put on armour that "preserves his armor bonus (and any enhancement bonus) while in a wild shape." It's still an armour bonus. It therefore does not stack.
|
|
Wild: The wearer of a suit of armor or a shield with this ability preserves his armor bonus (and any enhancement bonus) while in a wild shape. Armor and shields with this ability usually appear to be covered in leaf patterns. While the wearer is in a wild shape, the armor cannot be seen.
This description is vague but it reads like the shifted Druid has a Tattoo that preserves his Armor Bonus, but it doesn't state what kind it stays as.
4. wild shape = beast shape, you should read the spell.
Wild Shape = Beast Shape = Polymorph which states that your armor melds into your body. you lose any use of an item while in the shifted form.
5. you can only wear one armor at a time. again like bonus dont stack.
The Armor melds into you, you are no longer wearing the armor.
#6. = IMPORTANT = you are new, 7 different more experienced players of both D&D and pathfinder say your wrong.
10 years exp here.
I played AD&D back in 1990, i have 3 years of experience in PFS, I have GM'ed at Gen Con. Don't assume that i am a noob because i argue this point.
Amsheagar why do you keep claiming that wild armor turns into a natural armor bonus when you change forms? absolutely nothing in the book says that, or even implies it.
Reason i argue the point and claim that it turns into natural armor is that the description of Wild is poorly written, which gives room for interpretation. Natural Armor is the toughness of the skin of a creature. Armor with Wild on it melds into the druid and thus toughens his skin to the extend of the armor bonus. when wearing armor, an creature has to get through the armor's bonus, which is also the toughness of the armor. incorporeal get around this by going through the armor as if it was not there.
Reverse logic does not work here, since it's a game with its own rules. If logic would apply at all there'd be no magic, thus no wildshaping, thus argument ends.
Not True. Logic is not bound to reality. If you fall off of a building, you take fall damage unless you can fly. If a dragon is hungry and you are foolish enough to bug it, you will be eaten. This is logic in D&D and PF.
Fact #1: Wrong, he might loose the benefits, but even that depends. True is, he will not be able to use most of its equipment, but if he puts aside his weapon, shifts into an animal having opposable thumps he might be able to pick it up and wield it in combat. If said shape was humanoid to boot, he might even be able to don armor and benefit from its armor bonus.
If he puts aside his weapon, he is no longer an item that he is carrying, thus it wouldn't meld, true. He would not be able to get into a bag, he would not be able to hand off a weapon That he was holding/carrying when he shifted.
|
So here's a question: if you're not going to listen to the very definitive answers that people are giving you, why on earth did you start this thread to begin with?
The Wild property states very clearly that its wearer "preserves his armor bonus (and any enhancement bonus) while in a wild shape". There's nothing vague about that; the property allows you to keep your armor's armor bonus even when the general polymorph rules say you shouldn't. It doesn't change the type of bonus the armor provides, nor does it change the fact that armor bonuses don't stack. You had an interesting idea, but it's been conclusively disproved by about a dozen posters. It's time to let it go.
|
|
The description says that Wild armor allows the wearer to "preserve his armor bonus" from the armor. It does not say anything about "converts his armor bonus to a natural armor bonus," so the type does not change. This is not ambiguous wording. This is using your fluff interpretation to infer a mechanical effect that is clearly not there.
Reverse melding is a neat idea, but opens up a host of other potential abuses. For example, Wild Shape into an Elephant, pile all your gear onto the Elephant, and resume humanoid form. Your gear is now stowed in elephant form (and presumably weightless). Save on Bags of Holding! Alternatively, you could hide items almost irretrievably by melding them into an animal form.You don't gain the animals stats when you shift into them, so you are limited to what you can carry. That being said, you still have to factor in the weight of items you are carrying when shifted.
You get a strength bonus and the multiplier due to being a huge quadruped. Thus your carrying capacity is greatly increased. A puny Str 10 druid gets Str 16 as an Elephant. Light load = 76lbs x 6 = 456lbs. I played a druid with Str 16 in natural form who could carry 1000 lbs as a light load when wild shaped into an elephant or other huge quadruped. That's a Type III Bag of Holding.
And if you don't take any encumbrance penalties for your 30lbs gear when wild shaped into a hawk, and you can reverse meld items into your elephant form, you could carry several hundred pounds of melded gear with no encumbrance.
I am not allowing reverse melding in any games I run.
|
The only reason that you can't wear two sets of armor is because you don't have two slots for said armor. when the armor melds into you, it opens up that slot to dawn a new set of armor.
@Some Random Dood, It doesn't say it, however you are nor wearing armor on the outside of your body, so what else could it be?
Note that Natural armor bonus don't stack, too.
Even accepting your wild interpretation you would have to choose between the natural armor of your animal form or that of your artificial armor.Keeping it a armor bonus is more beneficial for the druid.
Another little thing that you are forgetting with your trick is that the weight of your equipment don't disappear when you shape change. Exactly how strong is your druid? How many different set of barding he is trying to haul around?
Reverse melding is a neat idea, but opens up a host of other potential abuses. For example, Wild Shape into an Elephant, pile all your gear onto the Elephant, and resume humanoid form. Your gear is now stowed in elephant form (and presumably weightless). Save on Bags of Holding! Alternatively, you could hide items almost irretrievably by melding them into an animal form.
Alternate forms are already different from natural forms. Some effects reveal natural forms or cause shapeshifters to revert to their natural form. Because of this, it's reasonable to say that the magic that merges gear into a natural form cannot merge gear into an alternate form. That avoids the above problems and more.
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 require activation cannot be used while you maintain that form. While in such a form, you cannot cast any spells that require material components (unless you have the Eschew Materials or Natural Spell feat), and can only cast spells with somatic or verbal components if the form you choose has the capability to make such movements or speak, such as a dragon. Other polymorph spells might be subject to this restriction as well, if they change you into a form that is unlike your original form (subject to GM discretion). If your new form does not cause your equipment to meld into your form, the equipment resizes to match your new size.
Anything about your gear becoming weightless? No?
There is no problem, your gear still encumber you, regardless of you changing shape.|
|
It makes no sense to play that the absolute weight of gear you have melded into you encumbers your new form normally. Otherwise it would be nearly impossible to wild shape into a Diminutive creature without collapsing under your 15 lbs of leather armor.
Maintaining your relative encumbrance penalties from a medium or heavy load makes some sense, but I've seen this debated.
Yet another reason not to let polymorph meld all those sets of armor into all those different shapes.
|
|
The description says that Wild armor allows the wearer to "preserve his armor bonus" from the armor. It does not say anything about "converts his armor bonus to a natural armor bonus," so the type does not change. This is not ambiguous wording. This is using your fluff interpretation to infer a mechanical effect that is clearly not there.
Reverse melding is a neat idea, but opens up a host of other potential abuses. For example, Wild Shape into an Elephant, pile all your gear onto the Elephant, and resume humanoid form. Your gear is now stowed in elephant form (and presumably weightless). Save on Bags of Holding! Alternatively, you could hide items almost irretrievably by melding them into an animal form.You don't gain the animals stats when you shift into them, so you are limited to what you can carry. That being said, you still have to factor in the weight of items you are carrying when shifted.You get a strength bonus and the multiplier due to being a huge quadruped. Thus your carrying capacity is greatly increased. A puny Str 10 druid gets Str 16 as an Elephant. Light load = 76lbs x 6 = 456lbs. I played a druid with Str 16 in natural form who could carry 1000 lbs as a light load when wild shaped into an elephant or other huge quadruped. That's a Type III Bag of Holding.
And if you don't take any encumbrance penalties for your 30lbs gear when wild shaped into a hawk, and you can reverse meld items into your elephant form, you could carry several hundred pounds of melded gear with no encumbrance.
I am not allowing reverse melding in any games I run.
a) The druid can transport 30 lbs of equipment without while staying in the low encumbrance bracket, so let's say 10 strength
b) use wild shape to become an hawk, a tiny animal:- Tiny animal: If the form you take is that of a Tiny animal, you gain a +4 size bonus to your Dexterity, a –2 penalty to your Strength, and a +1 natural armor bonus.
- his carrying capacity is halved as he is tiny
c) final strength 8, light/medium/heavy load: 13 lbs. or less/14–26/27–40.
d) your hawk form is heavy encumbered.
Start with 17 strength and he will have a light load.
|
|
It makes no sense to play that the absolute weight of gear you have melded into you encumbers your new form normally. Otherwise it would be nearly impossible to wild shape into a Diminutive creature without collapsing under your 15 lbs of leather armor.
Maintaining your relative encumbrance penalties from a medium or heavy load makes some sense, but I've seen this debated.
Yet another reason not to let polymorph meld all those sets of armor into all those different shapes.
Beast Shape III
Diminutive animal: If the form you take is that of a Diminutive animal, you gain a +6 size bonus to your Dexterity, a –4 penalty to your Strength, and a +1 natural armor bonus.Bigger and Smaller Creatures: The figures on Table: Carrying Capacity are for Medium bipedal creatures. A larger bipedal creature can carry more weight depending on its size category, as follows: Large ×2, Huge ×4, Gargantuan ×8, Colossal ×16. A smaller creature can carry less weight depending on its size category, as follows: Small ×3/4, Tiny ×1/2, Diminutive ×1/4, Fine ×1/8
So to move under freely under 30 lbs of equipment the shapechanged druid need to have an initial strength of 22.
If he accept a medium load he only need 15 strength.That is why a druid shouldn't dump strength.
Remember, you apply the spell modifiers, not the size modifiers to stats for creatures.
BTW, the Str 10 druid, while in elephant form can carry:
a) Huge animal: If the form you take is that of a Huge animal, you gain a +6 size bonus to your Strength, a –4 penalty to your Dexterity, and a +6 natural armor bonus.
b) Huge ×4
c) 312 lbs as a light load. The same of a 27 str human. Or the heavy load of a str 19 dwarf that isn't even slowed down by all that stuff.
Or the medium load of the 22 str, level 7 figther in my campaign.
It isn't so impressive if you look it that way.
|
|
First, the elephant is a Quadruped and gets a x6 carrying capacity modifier. That's ~450lbs, or a Str 29 human, or at minimum a heavy load of a Str 21 dwarf.
Second, I know you apply spell modifiers. It's still ridiculous to require a druid to have a Str 22 (equal to that of the 7th level fighter!) in order to carry 30lbs of equipment without encumbering himself if he turns into a bat.
The reason you shouldn't dump strength as a druid is because your polymorphed Str is affected by your natural Str, and having a high natural Str makes you more effective in melee combat while polymorphed. It's nothing to do with encumbrance!
|
|
It is very simple: you see any location where the Polymorph rules say that your gear become weightless when polymorphed? No?
Then it don't become weightless.
That is bad for wizards shapechanging into diminutive or smaller creatures but it is logic too. They don't get to transform into a dragon, pick up enough stuff to become heavy loaded and then change into an unencumbered hawk.
Used your way a druid could take up enough stuff to be unable to do more than dragging it, then shapecange to any animal and be totally unencumbered. Too convenient.