Amshegar... in regard to your multiple appeals to your own form of "logic" in how wildshape works, I will just point out that magic is inherently illogical.
Things do what the rules say they do, not what you think logically makes sense.
This is an argument you need to take up with your GM. You're not going to convince anyone here.
|
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.
It also doesn't say that dead creatures can't take actions. It also has extremely hazy rules regarding non-spellcasters going without sleep. Sometimes the rules leave things out and you have to use common sense to avoid ridiculous situations, like a druid of average strength being unable to move as a bat because he was wearing leather armor and carrying a dagger as a humanoid.
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.
Which is why I'm suggesting using relative encumbrance. If a druid is carrying a medium or heavy load as a humanoid, sure, apply those encumbrance penalties in Wild Shape. Prevent them from melding more gear than they can carry as a heavy load into their Wild Shape. But don't require a druid to be able to carry their humanoid load as a mouse.
I'm also suggesting that you shouldn't be able to meld items carried in your alternate dragon or huge animal into a different form, which prevents characters from using polymorphed forms as a portable hole that can't be stolen.
As he did say, he played AD&D in 1990. He is trying to play wildshape as the first edition shapechanging ability of the druid. But that is completly different from the current version.
Still wouldn't have stood up as an argument back then either, in fact it was probably even more cut and dried.
Armor with Wild on it melds into the druid and thus toughens his skin to the extend of the armor bonus.
Actually, the armour does nothing of the sort, it is simply not visible. There's no mention at all about any 'melding' taking place, no mention of anything being 'absorbed', and no mention of 'hardening any skin', its just not 'visible' - which is a bit odd, but regardless, it doesn't say the armour becomes 'sub-dermal' or anything at all that could be even taken as anything other than the armour simply not being 'visible' to an observer.
Interestingly, that would then suggest that it hasn't freed up the slot, as you are still 'wearing' it, so you can't really layer something over it anyway, ie no 'barding'.
WildAura moderate transmutation; CL 9th;
DESCRIPTIONThe 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.
Shifty, armor is melded with the wearer via the polymorph rules (They have been. The 'cannot be seen' phrase in Wild does not change that. If anything it reinforces it.
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).
So, armor is melded and since nothing in Wild states it is not it remains so.
- Gauss
Normally I'd be prone to agree with you, based on the wording of the RAW section on Polymorphing. However in this case 'Wild' armour seems to be an exception to the rule in that unlike 'normal' armour it continues on functioning. If the intent was that the armour became 'melded' per RAW, wouldn't it be redundant to make a point of it not being 'visible' when Wildshaped?
If it was melded it wouldn't be visible, so why mention visibility as an issue... that seems to be a 'water is wet' conversation, unless of course, the armour is not actually being subdermalised per normal polymorph rules and is indeed upon the skin rather than within it...
Regardless, still saying no to this stacking armour business, and certainly not accepting it as transmuting into 'natural armour'. :)
Of course it is redundant, and since when has that ever stopped writers? Perhaps at some point a writer thought: 'Hmmm, if I dont say that the armor cannot be seen someone will think the creature is now wearing the armor normally.' We dont know, but there is a lot of redundancy in PF and some outright contradictions. In this case we can only state that Wild does not specifically counter the melded statement and thus armor is still melded.
Of course, I agree with you on all other points and what the OP was trying to do does not work for the reasons we have both already mentioned. :)
BTW, consider this: What happens if a Wild Shield is not melded into your Dire Tiger form? Wild specifically states you keep the armor or shield bonus, but if a Wild Shield is not melded a number of other questions crop up (such as, how do you walk on a paw that has a heavy shield on it).
- Gauss
Yeah ok the Wild Shield is pretty oddball and probably works as a case-in-point.
I think Wild Armour is a great concept but rather curiously executed.
I just use it as written and try not to wrap my head around it too much. There are way too many little issues like this one in 3.5/PF for me to bother trying to resolve each little issue.
Just an example: Ever look at Enlarge vs Reduce and notice the discrepancies? Reduce person has projectiles damage dice based on the current size of the device firing them. Enlarge person has projectiles damage dice based on the original size of the device firing them.
- Gauss
Reduce person has projectiles damage dice based on the current size of the device firing them. Enlarge person has projectiles damage dice based on the original size of the device firing them.
I always had a soft spot for that particular oddball set of rules. I think I get what they are getting at, or perhaps I am just imagining it :p
Shifty: I have houseruled that inconsistency out, in fact, in my games Enlarge and Reduce both do the damage you would expect them to (enlarged or reduced) when using missile weapons. The -2dex is bad enough. :D But I dont allow any damage dice increase spells to stack.
- Gauss