Say a druid has a pair of bracers of armour +2, and wildshapes into a bear. Would he still benefit from the effects of the bracers of armour?
prototype00
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).
Maybe you could take them off before you wildshape and put them back on if your new form can wear bracers?
Yeah, but it seems odd to have magical items giving constant bonuses to armor turn off during a wild shape while magical items giving any other constant bonus to AC stay on.
It's the rules, but I get why someone might ask.
Yeah I understand too. To get to the rules section I quoted I had to follow the trail from Wild Shape (Su) to the Beast Shape 1 spell, and from there to the general rules from the polymorph sub-school of transmutation magic. Pathfinder is not exactly organized in a way that is intuitive to follow for people like me who didn't come to it straight from years of 3.x
yeah it's priced the same way as giving enhancement bonus to conventional armours so it would require the Wild enchantment if you want it to be applied while you WS.
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).
bold=mine
the answer to the OP is no.
Indeed.
I second taking them off, wild shaping, and put them back on. Seems like the armor and shield bonus exclusion was meant to refer to actual armor and shields, but that's not what it says. So just use the work around.
Geez. I suppose that's true, isn't it? Never really considered it. We have a druid in our local game currently that's wearing bracers of armor for this exact purpose. Guess it doesn't technically work. ... meh. I'm willing to bet our GM will rule that the intent was for actual armor/shields, not magic junk. In fact, I'd bet that most GMs would rule that, although it is definitely not RAW, as we've already determined.
Now then, the "take-them-off-then-put-them-back-on" thing. First, not too viable if you're Shaping in the middle of combat. Second, the workaround only makes any sense if you Wild Shape into something that has a)a wrist slot for magic items and b) is something resembling the same size as your original form.
I'm willing to bet our GM will rule that the intent was for actual armor/shields, not magic junk. In fact, I'd bet that most GMs would rule that, although it is definitely not RAW, as we've already determined.
I wouldn't. It's an armor bonus. I see no reason why wildshaping druids should keep their armor when everyone else who polymorphs loses theirs.
Now then, the "take-them-off-then-put-them-back-on" thing. First, not too viable if you're Shaping in the middle of combat. Second, the workaround only makes any sense if you Wild Shape into something that has a)a wrist slot for magic items and b) is something resembling the same size as your original form.
I agree, I would rule that humanoid bracers cannot be worn by a bear. If you want to keep your armor bonus, buy the Wild enchantment. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
I wouldn't. It's an armor bonus. I see no reason why wildshaping druids should keep their armor when everyone else who polymorphs loses theirs.
I don't really see why it's much of an issue because Bracers of Armor just aren't good. You're paying for an armor enhancement bonus without getting the base benefit of the armor... hell, a +1 Wild hide armor would cost you the same as a +4 bracers of armor and give you an additional AC.
I'm willing to bet our GM will rule that the intent was for actual armor/shields, not magic junk. In fact, I'd bet that most GMs would rule that, although it is definitely not RAW, as we've already determined.I wouldn't. It's an armor bonus. I see no reason why wildshaping druids should keep their armor when everyone else who polymorphs loses theirs.
Now then, the "take-them-off-then-put-them-back-on" thing. First, not too viable if you're Shaping in the middle of combat. Second, the workaround only makes any sense if you Wild Shape into something that has a)a wrist slot for magic items and b) is something resembling the same size as your original form.I agree, I would rule that humanoid bracers cannot be worn by a bear. If you want to keep your armor bonus, buy the Wild enchantment. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Just curious, do your groups find small/medium gear or do they find just gear? I have always considered this to be a ridiculous point because I can't imagine looking my players in the face and saying, "No, I'm sorry those boots of speed are size 10, and you clearly have size 12 feet. You will have to sell them in town for half price and come up with the difference if you want size 12." It just feels gamey and stupid. But, I'm not afraid to give a poly-morphed character a +2 AC bonus in my game either.
Take off, put back on. Job done.
Although it should just function like any other magical item - they are not 'armour'.
On a side note, there is no 'sizing' for Wondrous Items, so the bracers fit whatever.
When an article of magic clothing or jewelry is discovered, most of the time size shouldn't be an issue. Many magic garments are made to be easily adjustable, or they adjust themselves magically to the wearer. Size should not keep characters of various kinds from using magic items.
There may be rare exceptions, especially with race-specific items.
Just curious, do your groups find small/medium gear or do they find just gear? I have always considered this to be a ridiculous point because I can't imagine looking my players in the face and saying, "No, I'm sorry those boots of speed are size 10, and you clearly have size 12 feet.
As soon as you can show me a pair of boots that you can fit on a bear reasonably well, I'll concede the point. Until then your argument has absolutely no merit. We're not talking about two creatures that have roughly the same skeletal structure, but are simply a different size. A giant versus a human, for instance. We're talking about a biped versus a quadruped. I wouldn't let you put the bracers on your horse either.
But, I'm not afraid to give a poly-morphed character a +2 AC bonus in my game either.
Where does fear come into it? Or are you merely trying to make a passive-aggressive attack? I don't allow it because I see no reason to bend the rules so a druid gets more out of shapechanging than anyone else, especially when the game already provides a means of procuring that advantage at a cost.
Lately we have just been saying that magic gear resizes to fit the wearer. I got tired of telling halflings and gnomes that the item they were excited about wasn't going to fit.
I would draw the line at something like trying to put magic boots on a bear. But bracers? Why not. YMMV.
As soon as you can show me a pair of boots that you can fit on a bear reasonably well, I'll concede the point.
There are no rules to support this view point. So, now that we are ignoring the fact that we are posting in the rules forum the only reason I can see to force that kind of punishment onto players in verisimilitude. Ok, in for a penny, in for a pound. Where are my size 12 boots?
Where does fear come into it? Or are you merely trying to make a passive-aggressive attack? I don't allow it because I see no reason to bend the rules so a druid gets more out of shapechanging than anyone else, especially when the game already provides a means of procuring that advantage at a cost.
First, I said poly-morphed character, not wild shaped druid. I feel that all characters poly-morphing (via spell or class ability or whatever) should retain armor bonus from bracers of armor. The obvious intent of the rule was to prevent players from saying that their *actual* armor and shields should still provide AC bonuses even though they no longer have a piece of metal between them and the dude swinging a stick at them.
Second, the fear part comes in because when a viable work-around was suggested to correct the gap in RAW you dismissed it out of hand with a non-rules supported reason about "bears are big." That's lame. If I was a player in a game where the DM said that I would tell them to stop being lame. If I did that to a player in my game I would expect them to tell me to stop being lame. I can only assume that you don't intentionally try to be lame, so that leaves that you would have a problem handling that kind of power bump in a game. That's cool. I wouldn't have a problem handling it, that's all.
There are no rules to support this view point.
Huh? The polymorph rules clearly support my view. It's you who are house ruling here. Per RAW bracers of armor do not persist under a polymorph effect.
Regarding the take-them-off-put them on strategy, the validity of it is entirely up to the DM, per this section of the pfsrd. Note the specific text that calls out this specifically being a DM call. So my ruling that a bear can't wear humanoid bracers is RAW as well.
I said poly-morphed character, not wild shaped druid. I feel that all characters poly-morphing (via spell or class ability or whatever) should retain armor bonus from bracers of armor. The obvious intent of the rule was to prevent players from saying that their *actual* armor and shields should still provide AC bonuses even though they no longer have a piece of metal between them and the dude swinging a stick at them.
I see nothing "obvious" about your suggested RAI. The wording is unambiguous. If they'd meant it to only apply to armor and shields, they would have said "armor and shields" instead of "armor bonus and shield bonus." It's my belief that they absolutely intended any bonuses to armor and shield to not carry over, to balance out the large natural armor bonuses most critters get. So they specifically said bonuses to rule out bracers, rings, ioun stones, whatever that provide armor/shield bonuses.
Second, the fear part comes in because when a viable work-around was suggested to correct the gap in RAW you dismissed it out of hand
There's no need for a workaround, and this is the rules forum, not the workaround forum. Have you been to the Advice and House Rules forums? Those are what you're looking for.
with a non-rules supported reason about "bears are big."
You're either not reading my posts, being purposefully obtuse, or making a transparent attempt to rewrite what I said. My reason (rules supported as per the cites above, despite your claims otherwise) is that bears don't have the same anatomy as humanoids. Size has nothing to do with it, since as per RAW you could take a storm giant's bracers and hand them to a pixie and they'd resize to fit.
Note that the cite I gave specifically mentions that horses can't wear belts. Now you might be able to make a claim that you could definitely fashion a belt and strap it around a horse's middle, under the saddle, but the idea is that its body is simply not suited for a belt. My ruling as a DM is that bracers crafted for humanoids are the same, not suited for a bear.
That's lame. If I was a player in a game where the DM said that I would tell them to stop being lame.
I think we can both be glad we don't play in each other's games. While this rules quibble is pretty minor, any player who told me to "stop being lame" would be displaying a lack of respect beyond anything I'd expect from a friend, and I only game with friends.
RAW, Bracers cease functioning if Polymorphed into non-eligible forms, as they grant Armor bonus. IMHO, Bracers should really grant ENHANCEMENT bonus to Armor, just like Armor enhancements do (since they use the same +X equivalent and flat-cost enhancements), but IMHO Bracers should also be crafted with Craft Magic Arms and Armor (Feat)*.
If they granted Enhancement bonus to Armor, I believe Bracers WOULD continue to work in Polymorph, even if actual Armor's Enhancement bonus would not because the base item itself ceases to function. (not quite sure on whether that is the case or not for normal magical Armor)
*Although if they were going to change Craft Wondrous Item to NOT be the UBER-Crafting Feat,
might as well also put Elixirs under a combined Craft Potions and Elixers Feat.
I wouldn't. It's an armor bonus. I see no reason why wildshaping druids should keep their armor when everyone else who polymorphs loses theirs.I don't really see why it's much of an issue because Bracers of Armor just aren't good. You're paying for an armor enhancement bonus without getting the base benefit of the armor... hell, a +1 Wild hide armor would cost you the same as a +4 bracers of armor and give you an additional AC.
Or, if you're doing the take off-put on game anyway, just get Haramaki. It's a silk belt, can't possibly take longer to put on than bracers. While it caps at +6 AC (+5 haramaki) vs. +8 for the bracers, it costs ~ 25,000 gp for that +6, while as bracers +6 costs 36,000 gp. It also, on the upper end, gives you more room for adding special properties than the bracers do. Aaaand.. you can use +1 haramaki with +9 of special properties and then have someone cast Magic Vestment on it for a +5 anyway, while as you can't do that with the bracers.
But yeah, bracers of armor have always sucked. The few extra points of AC it can eke out compared to enhanced light armors or the even just the humble Mage Armor spell just is not worth it. Not in a game where there are like half a dozen different types of Ac bonuses you can easily purchase to stack up together.
Armor, Shield, Dexterity (belt of dex), insight (dusty rose iuon stone), deflection (ring of protect), enhancement to natural armor (amulet of natural armor), luck (jingasa of the fortunate soldier)...
Yeah, unless your game has stupidly high wealth, the bracers will NEVER be more affordable than just stacking up on the other sources of AC.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are no rules to support this view point.Huh? The polymorph rules clearly support my view. It's you who are house ruling here. Per RAW bracers of armor do not persist under a polymorph effect.
Regarding the take-them-off-put them on strategy, the validity of it is entirely up to the DM, per this section of the pfsrd. Note the specific text that calls out this specifically being a DM call. So my ruling that a bear can't wear humanoid bracers is RAW as well.
To aid in understanding, your previous objection to the bear wearing the bracers was that they wouldn't 'fit' on the bear. Non armor magic items explicitly resize to fit the wearer. So when BigDTBone said there were no rules to prevent the bracers from fitting, that's what he was referring to.
If you are saying they wouldn't work because the wrists of a bear are not a 'slot', then the table you posted doesn't support you, as it lists bears having a wrist slot.
Yes, it says that GMs ultimately have discretion over animal item slots. That's not saying much. GMs ultimately have discretion over all rules/guidelines/suggestions presented in any rules material.
There are no rules to support this view point.Huh? The polymorph rules clearly support my view. It's you who are house ruling here. Per RAW bracers of armor do not persist under a polymorph effect.
Regarding the take-them-off-put them on strategy, the validity of it is entirely up to the DM, per this section of the pfsrd. Note the specific text that calls out this specifically being a DM call. So my ruling that a bear can't wear humanoid bracers is RAW as well.
To aid in understanding, your previous objection to the bear wearing the bracers was that they wouldn't 'fit' on the bear. Non armor magic items explicitly resize to fit the wearer. So when BigDTBone said there were no rules to prevent the bracers from fitting, that's what he was referring to.
If you are saying they wouldn't work because the wrists of a bear are not a 'slot', then the table you posted doesn't support you, as it lists bears having a wrist slot.
Yes, it says that GMs ultimately have discretion over animal item slots. That's not saying much. GMs ultimately have discretion over all rules/guidelines/suggestions presented in any rules material.
Thanks. I was going to respond but decided not to derail this thread further.
Per the rules bracers of armor won't work when you're wildshaped (at least not into any of the stuff a regular Druid can wildshape into).
If you're looking for ways to boost your wildshape AC, buying a lesser metamagic rod of extend spell and maybe a pearl of power for the party's arcane caster is a fairly low cost way to get +4 AC for your Druid, Monk, or Druid/Monk. Elemental forms can also potentially use wands such as Shield with the UMD skill. This only helps when you know combat is imminent, but +4 AC from a cheap wand is a pretty good deal.
|
There are no rules to support this view point.Huh? The polymorph rules clearly support my view. It's you who are house ruling here. Per RAW bracers of armor do not persist under a polymorph effect.
Regarding the take-them-off-put them on strategy, the validity of it is entirely up to the DM, per this section of the pfsrd. Note the specific text that calls out this specifically being a DM call. So my ruling that a bear can't wear humanoid bracers is RAW as well.
To aid in understanding, your previous objection to the bear wearing the bracers was that they wouldn't 'fit' on the bear. Non armor magic items explicitly resize to fit the wearer. So when BigDTBone said there were no rules to prevent the bracers from fitting, that's what he was referring to.
If you are saying they wouldn't work because the wrists of a bear are not a 'slot', then the table you posted doesn't support you, as it lists bears having a wrist slot.
Yes, it says that GMs ultimately have discretion over animal item slots. That's not saying much. GMs ultimately have discretion over all rules/guidelines/suggestions presented in any rules material.
To be more precise, wearable items refit, with the exceptions of armors.
Weapons, staffs and wands, potions, flying carpets, etc., etc. don't resize.
To aid in understanding
I understood the argument full well, thank you all the same.
your previous objection to the bear wearing the bracers was that they wouldn't 'fit' on the bear. Non armor magic items explicitly resize to fit the wearer.So when BigDTBone said there were no rules to prevent the bracers from fitting, that's what he was referring to.
*sigh* I am going to presume you didn't take the time to read the paragraphs just above the table I quoted, so eager were you to point out that bears are listed as having a wrist slot. To quote from it:
"While wearable wondrous items typically resize themselves to fit a creature trying to wear them...GMs may use this table as a guide to determine what kinds of magical gear non-humanoid monsters can wear and use. Note that the rules in this section are merely suggestions, and ultimately it is up to the GM to decide what kinds of animals can use particular types of magic items."
Emphasis mine. The table is not a rule. It's a suggestion that the text explicitly states is NOT a hard rule, but merely a suggestion that DMs may or may not use.
My ruling, that humanoid bracers will not resize to fit non-humanoid creatures, is straight up RAW, because RAW states that the DM must make that decision on his own. I suppose I could just rule that bears don't have a wrist slot, but that would rule out bracelets, which I think bears would have no trouble wearing, or bracers specifically crafted for a bear.
If you are saying they wouldn't work because the wrists of a bear are not a 'slot', then the table you posted doesn't support you, as it lists bears having a wrist slot.
To aid in understanding, I suspect you know quite well I made no such argument, so bringing up the argument to tear it down seems suspiciously like a strawman ploy. Incidentally, even if I *had* made such an argument, my cite would support me, if you had bothered to actually read the entire section rather than jumping to the table. It's every individual DMs call, per RAW, so even if I were to rule bears have no wrist slot, that'd be RAW.
Yes, it says that GMs ultimately have discretion over animal item slots. That's not saying much. GMs ultimately have discretion over all rules/guidelines/suggestions presented in any rules material.
Actually it's saying a lot. The rules do not specifically call out GM discretion for every rule in the game. You don't see, for instance, a similar statement in the Spells section. "These spell statistics are merely a suggestion, and it's ultimately up to the DM to determine what fireball does..." etc. Nor do you find under Acrobatics "these DCs are merely guidelines and it's up to the DM to determine what acrobatics actually means in the game."
Players are given a lot of concrete rules around which to base their assumptions about how the game world functions. Yes, DMs can change them, but then he's obliged to let his players know he's altering the game's foundation.
Magic item slots for animals are specifically called out as being purely DM fiat. There's a nice chart there where the devs have put together a list of suggestions so DMs not interested in doing the work themselves have something to fall back on, but the text makes certain that players understand these are not set rules. In this particular case, the only set rule is "ask your DM."
Animal Archive lists what animal types can wear what gear slots, if that is helpful to anyone in this discussion. It could be used to help extrapolate what wild shape critters can wear which 'outside' as well.
Animal Archive lists what animal types can wear what gear slots, if that is helpful to anyone in this discussion. It could be used to help extrapolate what wild shape critters can wear which 'outside' as well.
What's Animal Archive? Is it a recent Paizo product not included in the pfsrd? My position is based entirely on the rules available to me, if Paizo has since made the animal slot rules more concrete, I'd definitely be interested to know.
Yes, Animal Archive is a Paizo product, that is not included in the PRD.
I'm willing to bet our GM will rule that the intent was for actual armor/shields, not magic junk. In fact, I'd bet that most GMs would rule that, although it is definitely not RAW, as we've already determined.I wouldn't. It's an armor bonus. I see no reason why wildshaping druids should keep their armor when everyone else who polymorphs loses theirs.
Ignoring...well, basically the rest of this discussion, as it just seems like arguing over which house rules we do or do not play with to me, I thought I'd jump back to this point, Pendragon.
Let me clarify: Under the house ruling I described, I do believe that all polymorphers would keep their AC bonus from bracers of armor. No reason to single out druids, as all they're doing most days is using a special version of a polymorph spell. Having clarified that, let me go on to explain why I think most GMs (certainly everyone I play with, I've asked) would rule this way.
I believe that the intent of the rule was to take away the obvious, physical bonus of the armor actually being in between you and whatever's hitting you, since it's...well, not there while you're polymorphed. I would figure that a purely magical bonus, such as that applied by bracers of armor, would go ahead and carry over. Why? Mostly because every other purely magical bonus being granted to you carries over. Belt of Strength? Sure. Luckstone? Absolutely. So why not Bracers of Armor? If they're taking up their wrist slot with something that, frankly, is almost never going to do them any good outside of their Wild Shape, then let them have their dinky bonus, I say. That being said, under RAW this is of course a house rule at this point, as we figured out way back at the beginning of the thread - at least until the intent is called out by some dev somewhere.
The Animal Archive info is in the d20pfsrd however.
The Animal Archive info is in the d20pfsrd however.
So it's the same table already referenced. Thought so.
To aid in understandingI understood the argument full well, thank you all the same.
your previous objection to the bear wearing the bracers was that they wouldn't 'fit' on the bear. Non armor magic items explicitly resize to fit the wearer.So when BigDTBone said there were no rules to prevent the bracers from fitting, that's what he was referring to.*sigh* I am going to presume you didn't take the time to read the paragraphs just above the table I quoted, so eager were you to point out that bears are listed as having a wrist slot. To quote from it:
"While wearable wondrous items typically resize themselves to fit a creature trying to wear them...GMs may use this table as a guide to determine what kinds of magical gear non-humanoid monsters can wear and use. Note that the rules in this section are merely suggestions, and ultimately it is up to the GM to decide what kinds of animals can use particular types of magic items."
Emphasis mine. The table is not a rule. It's a suggestion that the text explicitly states is NOT a hard rule, but merely a suggestion that DMs may or may not use.
My ruling, that humanoid bracers will not resize to fit non-humanoid creatures, is straight up RAW, because RAW states that the DM must make that decision on his own. I suppose I could just rule that bears don't have a wrist slot, but that would rule out bracelets, which I think bears would have no trouble wearing, or bracers specifically crafted for a bear.
If you are saying they wouldn't work because the wrists of a bear are not a 'slot', then the table you posted doesn't support you, as it lists bears having a wrist slot.To aid in understanding, I suspect you know quite well I made no such argument, so bringing up the argument to tear it down seems suspiciously like a strawman ploy. Incidentally, even if I *had* made such an argument, my cite would support me, if you had bothered to actually read the entire section rather than...
All my arguments were based on what you said and I addressed them throughout.
This petulant "le sigh" and claiming you never said what you are on record in the thread saying does nothing except confirm I have no further interest in conversation with you.
You first argued fit. Then you argued slot. Then you posted a table showing bears with a wrist slot. Then you quoted a Rule 0 rephrase and pinned RAW claims on that.
And again, GM's have discretion over everything. Noting that tells nothing about what is or is not RAW.
Good day to you sir.
It seems like there's a good case for "FAQ"ing the devs for clarification.
For Polymorph and Wildshape: Are Bracers +1 *Armor*, as per their effect? Or are they Wondrous (Magical) Items, as per the skill needed to craft them?
(Maybe someone with a little more in house respect could request this FAQ?)
All my arguments were based on what you said and I addressed them throughout.
This petulant "le sigh" and claiming you never said what you are on record in the thread saying does nothing except confirm I have no further interest in conversation with you.
I'm on record saying what I said, and you're on record rewriting what I said repeatedly. *shrug* The record speaks for itself.
You first argued fit. Then you argued slot. Then you posted a table showing bears with a wrist slot. Then you quoted a Rule 0 rephrase and pinned RAW claims on that.
I'd ask you to point out where I argued slot, ever. Not once did I suggest bears didn't have a wrist slot, my cite was referring to the text above the table.
But it doesn't really matter, I share your disinterest in further conversation, your passive-aggressive attacks and insistance in misinterpreting my statements makes discussion with you pointless.
Good day to you as well.