Bracers of Armor + Wild Shape


Rules Questions

51 to 88 of 88 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Louis IX wrote:
Note that the Wild enchantment grants the armor bonus, without the drawbacks. At the point at which you can afford it, there is only one kind of armor you should seek: the stoneplate, from which you don't gain armor check penalty, max dex bonus, and spell failure. And encumberance. Yum yum for that one-shot +10 to AC (up to +15 but expensive as hell).

This is incorrect.

FAQ wrote:

Wild armor and other transforming armor: When I use a wild armor and gain the armor’s benefits, what restrictions, if any, apply to me? In general, when I transform with a polymorph effect and some of my gear melds into the form, what restrictions do I have for melding with large amounts of heavy gear? What about other types of transforming armor?

If you were in medium or heavy load from encumbrance before transforming, you continue to take those penalties in your melded form. Otherwise, ignore the weight of melded items and calculate your encumbrance in your polymorphed form entirely based on non-melded items. When wearing melded armor and shields, if you gain no benefit from the melded armor, you still count as wearing an armor of that type, but you do not suffer its armor check penalty, movement speed reduction, or arcane spell failure chance. If you do gain any benefits (as with the wild property), then you do suffer the armor check penalty, movement speed reduction, and arcane spell failure chance. This also applies to all other situations where you or an armor transform: you always count as wearing an armor of that type, and if you gain any benefit at all from the armor (such as mistmail), you apply the armor check penalty, movement speed reduction, and arcane spell failure chance.


Louis IX wrote:
Eh. Nope. It's not "items that provide the bonuses". It's the bonuses themselves. Bracers (or anything) that grant armor bonus? The armor bonus ceases to function. Bracers (or anything) that convert those pesky +1s into other bonuses? They stick.

ok....

I fail to see how that makes a difference. Yes, I "misspoke" and it's the bonuses themselves that stop functioning. Doesn't really change anything else I wrote...

Such as, not getting the bonus to ac from a force shield ring, or any of the other items listed.

Bracers of armor IMO are a terrible item anyway. They can provide a total AC of +8 for the exorbitant cost of 64,000 gp. For less then half that cost you could grab a +5 Mithral Haramaki + Armored Kilt. Sure this gives one less ac, and a dex cap of 8. But there is still no ACP or ASP. If they provided say a deflection bonus, or weren't so insanely expensive they would be worth it. Instead, I've yet to have a character where it made sense to use these things. I guess if you're a monk or otherwise can't wear armor at all they're good.

Scarab Sages

I have to agree with those who say the bracers don't work while wild shaped (at least for the armor bonus). They are an item, and the armor bonus is coming from the item. The way that it is described does not affect that.

If you take the item off, does the bonus stop? Yes, in this case, because the item is providing the bonus directly.

For example, a Cloak of the Hedge Wizard (Abjuration) allows you to cast shield 1/day. The item is not providing the bonus in that case. It's casting a spell. If you cast shield and take the cloak off, then shield is still affecting you (up to the 1 min duration, anyway).

Cloak of the Hedge Wizard (Conjuration) lets you cast Mage Armor 1/day. Same thing. If you're wearing the cloak and cast Mage Armor, removing the cloak doesn't remove the spell. That doesn't happen until the duration runs out.

There is a difference between that and the other items being discussed. Take the bracers off, no more armor bonus. Take a Ring of Force Shield off? No more shield bonus. If equipping the item provides the bonus, and removing the item removes the bonus, I feel confident saying that the item is providing the bonus, whatever the special effect for how that manifests in the game world.

Liberty's Edge

LordKailas wrote:
Louis IX wrote:
Eh. Nope. It's not "items that provide the bonuses". It's the bonuses themselves. Bracers (or anything) that grant armor bonus? The armor bonus ceases to function. Bracers (or anything) that convert those pesky +1s into other bonuses? They stick.

ok....

I fail to see how that makes a difference. Yes, I "misspoke" and it's the bonuses themselves that stop functioning. Doesn't really change anything else I wrote...

Such as, not getting the bonus to ac from a force shield ring, or any of the other items listed.

Bracers of armor IMO are a terrible item anyway. They can provide a total AC of +8 for the exorbitant cost of 64,000 gp. For less then half that cost you could grab a +5 Mithral Haramaki + Armored Kilt. Sure this gives one less ac, and a dex cap of 8. But there is still no ACP or ASP. If they provided say a deflection bonus, or weren't so insanely expensive they would be worth it. Instead, I've yet to have a character where it made sense to use these things. I guess if you're a monk or otherwise can't wear armor at all they're good.

Mithral armor isn't exactly an option for druids.


ShadowcatX wrote:
LordKailas wrote:
Louis IX wrote:
Eh. Nope. It's not "items that provide the bonuses". It's the bonuses themselves. Bracers (or anything) that grant armor bonus? The armor bonus ceases to function. Bracers (or anything) that convert those pesky +1s into other bonuses? They stick.

ok....

I fail to see how that makes a difference. Yes, I "misspoke" and it's the bonuses themselves that stop functioning. Doesn't really change anything else I wrote...

Such as, not getting the bonus to ac from a force shield ring, or any of the other items listed.

Bracers of armor IMO are a terrible item anyway. They can provide a total AC of +8 for the exorbitant cost of 64,000 gp. For less then half that cost you could grab a +5 Mithral Haramaki + Armored Kilt. Sure this gives one less ac, and a dex cap of 8. But there is still no ACP or ASP. If they provided say a deflection bonus, or weren't so insanely expensive they would be worth it. Instead, I've yet to have a character where it made sense to use these things. I guess if you're a monk or otherwise can't wear armor at all they're good.

Mithral armor isn't exactly an option for druids.

last time I checked, druids don't have to worry about arcane spell failure. A druid can achieve the same result via dark leaf leather. Alternatively, depending on how much dex they have they can even get darkleaf Leaf armor or darkleaf lamellar.

Scarab Sages

LordKailas wrote:

I fail to see how that makes a difference. Yes, I "misspoke" and it's the bonuses themselves that stop functioning. Doesn't really change anything else I wrote...

Such as, not getting the bonus to ac from a force shield ring, or any of the other items listed.

I checked the items you suggested and they all are explicitly said to provide armor bonus. So, yes, their armor bonus is lost after polymorphing and melding.

However you are still wrong about the Ring of Force Shield as it is completely different. Here is the citation:
"This ring generates a shield-sized (and shield-shaped) wall of force that stays with the ring and can be wielded by the wearer as if it were a heavy shield (+2 AC). This special creation has no armor check penalty or arcane spell failure chance since it is weightless and encumbrance-free. It can be activated and deactivated at will as a free action."
I already discussed this situation before in this thread and received no objections to what I said. First of all the ring does not provide any armor bonus or shield bonus. So, it is functional with the only exception that it can not be activated after it melds into new form. But the wall of force that is produced by the ring is not a part of the ring ant thus is not melded into the new form and can be wielded by the creature as any other shield.
Similar thing happens with the Bracers of armor. As it is written that they produce a force field and the force field is not melded, this field persists after polymorphing and provides the armor bonus as normal.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Noxobar wrote:
I already discussed this situation before in this thread and received no objections to what I said. First of all the ring does not provide any armor bonus or shield bonus.

It is really hard to have a discussion if you keep insisting on alternative facts.

can be wielded by the wearer as if it were a heavy shield (+2 AC)

Armor/Shield Bonus

Each type of armor grants an armor bonus to Armor Class, while shields grant a shield bonus to Armor Class

The ring acts like a heavy shield, the heavy shield oddly enough provides a SHIELD bonus. The ring provides a shield bonus.

Quote:
So, it is functional with the only exception that it can not be activated after it melds into new form. But the wall of force that is produced by the ring is not a part of the ring ant thus is not melded into the new form and can be wielded by the creature as any other shield.

You can try to make that argument. But

1) it's not like there's some independent "right" answer to get to like there is in real world physics. That might be how it works. or not. It works like the dm says it works.

2) It is really, REALLY hard to follow a subjective argument you're making after you are making objective errors like its not a shield bonus (where both common sense and a simple A=A logic say it's a shield bonus) or worse that you say something isn't an armor bonus is flat out called an armor bonus.

No one is going to believe you and not our own eyes. If you want to argue that the reasons armor and shield bonuses shut off when you wildshape don't apply here that's one thing. If you try to argue two obviously wrong things it undermines your ability to be believed with something less obvious.

Scarab Sages

Ferious Thune wrote:


There is a difference between that and the other items being discussed. Take the bracers off, no more armor bonus. Take a Ring of Force Shield off? No more shield bonus. If equipping the item provides the bonus, and removing the item removes the bonus, I feel confident saying that the item is providing the bonus, whatever the special effect for how that manifests in the game world.

The loss of armor bonus after taking the bracers off is because for the force field to be effective both bracers should be worn. Here is the rules citation: "Both bracers must be worn for the magic to be effective."

For the Ring of Force Shield, the rules do not say that the ring has to be worn to provide the force wall (see the citation in my previous post). It is not said that the force shield disappears if you take it off. It is only written that to get the shield bonus you have to wield the wall as a shield (the wall, not the ring).
The force wall is not a manifestation, it is the effect, like conjured animal. But the source is not a spell, but an item. And the duration is "until switched off" for the ring and "while worn" for the bracers.

Scarab Sages

BigNorseWolf wrote:


The ring acts like a heavy shield, the heavy shield oddly enough provides a SHIELD bonus. The ring provides a shield bonus.

Can you provide citation that the ring acts like shield? I did not find any. It is written only that the wall of force can be wielded as a shield. And then (if wielded) it provides the shield bonus.

BigNorseWolf wrote:


2) It is really, REALLY hard to follow a subjective argument you're making after you are making objective errors like its not a shield bonus (where both common sense and a simple A=A logic say it's a shield bonus) or worse that you say something isn't an armor bonus is flat out called an armor bonus.

I have never said that it is not a shield bonus. If I did, please provide citation.

BigNorseWolf wrote:


No one is going to believe you and not our own eyes. If you want to argue that the reasons armor and shield bonuses shut off when you wildshape don't apply here that's one thing. If you try to argue two obviously wrong things it undermines your ability to be believed with something less obvious.

Yes, I think that the reasons armor and shield bonuses shut off when you wildshape don't apply here and that, what I am speaking about. And I am waiting for you to say, what obviously wrong things I say. Supported with citations for simplicity.

Grand Lodge

Expecting GMs to fly with that interpretation is asking for heavy table variation at best. Where's the " Always align with the worst possible " caution ?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Noxobar wrote:


Can you provide citation that the ring acts like shield? I did not find any.

The citation was already provided.

can be wielded by the wearer as if it were a heavy shield (+2 AC)

You didn't find any because you put your hands over your eyes and go "la la la i can't hear you" any time you see data that goes against the answer you want and then pretend other people aren't sufficiently proving their point.

It's bad argumentation and worse posting. If you ask a rules question you have to be able to accept that the rules are NOT on your side.

Scarab Sages

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Noxobar wrote:


Can you provide citation that the ring acts like shield? I did not find any.

The citation was already provided.

can be wielded by the wearer as if it were a heavy shield (+2 AC)

You miss the most important part of the citation. The subject. What can be wielded as if it were a heavy shield? The complete citation:

"This ring generates a shield-sized (and shield-shaped) wall of force that stays with the ring and can be wielded by the wearer as if it were a heavy shield"
Once more "wall of force that stays with the ring and can be wielded". Or "the ring generates and can be wielded"? How to prove, which one is right?

BigNorseWolf wrote:


You didn't find any because you put your hands over your eyes and go "la la la i can't hear you" any time you see data that goes against the answer you want and then pretend other people aren't sufficiently proving their point.

You are not doing better, do not flatter yourself. One incomplete citation that does not prove anything is not s good support of your point of view.

Scarab Sages

Only a few creatures that you can polymorph into where the equipment is absorbed can even wield a shield. And in those cases, you could just pick up a heavy shield or equip the ring after polymorphing. Even if the shield somehow can be manifested when you're turned into a tiger, a tiger can't wield it to get the benefit of it.

Also, the ring contains this qualifier: "This ring generates a shield-sized (and shield-shaped) wall of force that stays with the ring and can be wielded by the wearer..." (EDITED to include more of the quote. By the wearer. If you aren't wearing the ring, you can't wield the shield). That combined with rings only functioning when worn leads me to think that the shield bonus is coming from the ring.

If it created a shield that was completely separate from the ring and lasted for a duration, then I might agree that it continues to function without the ring. The mage armor cast from a Cloak of the Hedge Wizard, for example, doesn't have to be cast on the wearer of the cloak, so it's more obviously a separate effect not tied to the cloak once it's cast.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Im seeing a lot of similarity to the thread where the dude was saying that spell casters got their bonus slots from high attributes all at first level. I recall a post about how sometimes people lock into an argument like that despite nuerotypical (I believe that was the politically correct word used) people presenting an overwhelming amount of evidence that it didn't work that way. I wonder if that is the case here.

Grand Lodge

ShadowcatX wrote:
Im seeing a lot of similarity to the thread where the dude was saying that spell casters got their bonus slots from high attributes all at first level. I recall a post about how sometimes people lock into an argument like that despite nuerotypical (I believe that was the politically correct word used) people presenting an overwhelming amount of evidence that it didn't work that way. I wonder if that is the case here.

Seems it's clearly the case there.


Noxobar wrote:


You are not doing better, do not flatter yourself.

I am. thats not flattery. It's fact.

But you don't accept those.

Quote:
ou miss the most important part of the citation. The subject.

Is irrelevant.

It's wielded like a shield.
A shield oddly enough provides a shield bonus
Shield bonuses shut off when you polymorph into a critter.
You can't turn it back on as a critter because you can't speak command words.

Scarab Sages

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Quote:
ou miss the most important part of the citation. The subject.
Is irrelevant.

Great. Does it really matter, what we are speaking about? :- )

BigNorseWolf wrote:


Shield bonuses shut off when you polymorph into a critter.

Incorrect. Items that meld into the form lose shield bonuses. Others (laying on the ground, or hovering in the air) do not lose anything.

Everything else is OK.

So the question is "does the force field meld into the form?"

Ferious Thune wrote:


If you aren't wearing the ring, you can't wield the shield. That combined with rings only functioning when worn leads me to think that the shield bonus is coming from the ring.

Well, it looks like you are still wearing the items that are melded into you. At least because they still provide bonuses (except armor and shield). But I either didn't find that rings do not function if not worn. Most of them target the wearer, but this ring just generates a shield of force.

Ferious Thune wrote:


If it created a shield that was completely separate from the ring and lasted for a duration, then I might agree that it continues to function without the ring.

First of all, the ring does not disappear, just meld into the new form. And it continues to provide the force field. It is another question if you can wield the shield in a new form. And the most important question is if the force field meld into the body following the ring. I would say no. But I am not sure.

What about Mage Armor? Does it meld into body, if polymorphed after it was cast?

Scarab Sages

Noxobar wrote:
For the Ring of Force Shield, the rules do not say that the ring has to be worn to provide the force wall (see the citation in my previous post). It is not said that the force shield disappears if you take it off. It is only written that to get the shield bonus you have to wield the wall as a shield (the wall, not the ring).

This was your previous statement. It is not correct. The shield can only be wielded by the wearer of the ring. It is in the text that you quoted, and that I quoted and bolded. Whether or not the shield disappears when you take the ring off is irrelevant. If you are not wearing the ring, you cannot wield the shield.

Quote:
This ring generates a shield-sized (and shield-shaped) wall of force that stays with the ring and can be wielded by the wearer as if it were a heavy shield

I don't really know how to argue that in general you don't get a benefit from a ring if you aren't wearing the ring. That would seem to be obvious. They take a magic item slot. If they are not in that magic item slot, then you don't get their benefit. Taking off rings (and other items) which create an effect that is independent of the ring (cast a spell) would not end that effect unless they state otherwise, as it would be tied to the duration of the spell. If you disagree, feel free to run your game as you like.

Thankfully, as quoted again above, the ring of force shield has specific language that the shield created by it can only be wielded by the wearer, so we have an answer to that question.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Noxobar wrote:
Incorrect..Items that meld into the form lose shield bonuses.

That isn't the rule just because you want it to be.

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).

The item needs to be activated so it doesn't function. The ring not functioning means it's not making the shield.

IF you rule that the item is constant then it is a shield bonus and it shuts off.

You cannot simply declare that the force shield is an independent entity from the RING OF FORCE SHIELD or whatever blatherskite logic you think applies because it's the one that gets you the answer you want.

A shield is somewhere that the wildshape enchantment is actually worth it. And cheaper than the ring per the amount of AC you get. So you're making a ridiculously nonsensical argument for no reason.

Scarab Sages

Ferious Thune wrote:
Noxobar wrote:
For the Ring of Force Shield, the rules do not say that the ring has to be worn to provide the force wall (see the citation in my previous post). It is not said that the force shield disappears if you take it off. It is only written that to get the shield bonus you have to wield the wall as a shield (the wall, not the ring).

This was your previous statement. It is not correct. The shield can only be wielded by the wearer of the ring. It is in the text that you quoted, and that I quoted and bolded. Whether or not the shield disappears when you take the ring off is irrelevant. If you are not wearing the ring, you cannot wield the shield.

I do not really see what you disagree here. Maybe was not clear enough. I agree that you have to wield the shield to get the bonus. I agree that you have to wear the ring to wield the shield. Yes, most of the forms can't wield a shield, but some can.

Do you disagree that after melding you are still wearing a ring? This is reasonable, but following the rules you still benefit from the ring, so I assume it is considered to be worn.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Noxobar wrote:

Incorrect..Items that meld into the form lose shield bonuses.

That isn't the rule just because you want it to be.

Well the rules says so.

"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)."
If the item is not melded into the body all these rules do not work. Your citation also does not say that
the "item needs to be activated so it doesn't function."

However I really found the sentence I previously missed that you didn't include into citation.
" Items that require activation cannot be used while you maintain that form."
I thought that "use" here means "activate" (just not to repeat the same word, sinonyms are usually used). But it also can be read directly, that you can't use it in any way. So my conclusion for the ring - if it is melded into your body you can't use it by RAW.

Now we should return to the OP question about the bracers of armor. It does not need to be activated, so this part of rule does not work. There, as I recall, were two problematic moments
1) Does "granting him an armor bonus" refer to the force field or to the bracers?
2) Does the force field meld into the body if you polymorph? Connected question "does Mage Armor force field meld into the body if you polymorph?


willuwontu wrote:
Louis IX wrote:
Note that the Wild enchantment grants the armor bonus, without the drawbacks. <snip>

This is incorrect.

FAQ wrote:

Wild armor and other transforming armor: When I use a wild armor and gain the armor’s benefits, what restrictions, if any, apply to me? In general, when I transform with a polymorph effect and some of my gear melds into the form, what restrictions do I have for melding with large amounts of heavy gear? What about other types of transforming armor?

If you were in medium or heavy load from encumbrance before transforming, you continue to take those penalties in your melded form. Otherwise, ignore the weight of melded items and calculate your encumbrance in your polymorphed form entirely based on non-melded items. When wearing melded armor and shields, if you gain no benefit from the melded armor, you still count as wearing an armor of that type, but you do not suffer its armor check penalty, movement speed reduction, or arcane spell failure chance. If you do gain any benefits (as with the wild property), then you do suffer the armor check penalty, movement speed reduction, and arcane spell failure chance. This also applies to all other situations where you or an armor transform: you always count as wearing an armor of that type, and if you gain any benefit at all from the armor (such as mistmail), you apply the armor check penalty, movement speed reduction, and arcane spell failure chance.

Wow. Bigger text. Can't argue that.

However, I can criticize the fact that it's not an errata. If what you wrote is true, it's a FAQ, which means that it should clarify rules, not add to them. Especially as FAQs aren't included in subsequent printings of the rules. "Here's what we intended when we wrote that. Capisce? Next question..."

Not capisce'd. Polymorph rules say melded items disappear? I'm not going to be burdened by this. Wild enchantment says nothing about this? Nothing happens.

Hey, noticed something in your FAQ (I mean, the one you quoted): "you always count as wearing an armor of that type". So, it's melded in your form but still prevents you from equipping some barding?


Noxobar wrote:
1) Does "granting him an armor bonus" refer to the force field or to the bracers?

Raw there is no distinction. The bracers grant an armor bonus and that's the end of it. It doesn't matter to the raw if it's a helmet or a force field.

It IS possible to accept that fact and argue for a more simulationist approach that they should work anyway, especially since

1) most forms have wrist slots anyway and you can have your party play dressup
2) the bracers are hardly game breaking at their price vs. other armor options (mage armor wand/pearl of power

but there's no objective argument for that working. If the DM is sticking with raw or decides no it's a legitimate decision.


Quote:

"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)."

If the item is not melded into the body all these rules do not work. Your citation also does not say that

It absolutely says that. There is no reason to be that specific with things that work if everything that isn't on that list also work. That's how conversational english works and thats what the rules are written in.

Why would someone say that red and green lasers work if orange blue purple and yellow lasers also work? The sentence has no reason to say A B and C work unless it means that X Y and Z don't work.

I don't know why you're reading the rules like this. It's not clever, it's not original, it's not how the rules are written, and pretty much defeats the entire point of the rules if you can rules lawyer any answer you want by banally being as stubborn as possible in requiring more specific language to specifically exclude the answer you want.

Scarab Sages

BigNorseWolf wrote:

There is no reason to be that specific with things that work if everything that isn't on that list also work.

There is a reason. The list of remaining things can be not uniform. There can be some conditions. The next sentence could say that they all work under the full moon. You never know by default. It is always better to read the rules to the end. Everyone can miss something, and that's why we are here.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Why would someone say that red and green lasers work if orange blue purple and yellow lasers also work? The sentence has no reason to say A B and C work unless it means that X Y and Z don't work.

Because he is concerned only about orange blue purple and yellow lasers, or does not know about them. They are all separate and independent.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Noxobar wrote:
Does "granting him an armor bonus" refer to the force field or to the bracers?
Raw there is no distinction.

That's not good, because the bracers meld and the force field does not. So the bracers will lose the armor bonus, but the force field will not. That is why the mage armor works - it is a force field that do not meld into body as it is not an item.

So, if it is the bracers, that provide armor bonus, then they will not work. If it is the force field, that provide the armor bonus, it will work. I would say, it is not important, what the source of the force field is.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Noxobar wrote:


There is a reason. The list of remaining things can be not uniform. There can be some conditions. You never know by default. It is always better to read the rules to the end.

Making vague insults that you do not and cannot back up doesn't make your point. The rules were read to the end. Multiple times. Nothing there helps you.

Quote:
Because he is concerned only about orange blue purple and yellow lasers, or does not know about them. They are all separate and independent.

No.

I don't know if English is your second language or you're deliberately misreading the rules for mechanical advantage or you follow some paradigm of rules "interpretation" where you say anything to get the ruling you want what but stating that x y and z are allowed also says that other options aren't. If you can't accept that you cannot read the rules correctly.

Quote:
That's not good, because the bracers meld and the force field does not.

And you know this because....?

with the exception of armor and shield bonuses, which cease to function)<----- whats the function of those bracers? Oh right. They're making the force field.

There is no distinction between the field and the armor bonus it provides.

Quote:
So, if it is the bracers, that provide armor bonus, then they will not work. If it is the force field, that provide the armor bonus, it will work. I would say, it is not important, what the source of the force field is.

Absolutely nothing you're stating is stated, implied, or even logically follows from any of the games rules. It is the height of rules lawyering chicanery to deny the rules of english to avoid having your position disproven by the rules while just flat out making stuff up to support it.

Ask your DM for a house rule. The raw is clearly against you here. You start with incorrect facts and back them completely nonsensical arguments. That is a horrible combination.


Louis IX wrote:
However, I can criticize the fact that it's not an errata. If what you wrote is true, it's a FAQ, which means that it should clarify rules, not add to them. Especially as FAQs aren't included in subsequent printings of the rules. "Here's what we intended when we wrote that. Capisce? Next question..."

Paizo has used FAQs to deliver errata since they started producing them. You're right about the normal meaning of FAQ, but not the meaning as used by Paizo.


Noxobar wrote:
So, if it is the bracers, that provide armor bonus, then they will not work. If it is the force field, that provide the armor bonus, it will work. I would say, it is not important, what the source of the force field is.

Unfortunately the reasoning and the distinction you're making simply aren't in the rules, and contradict the rules. Magic items which provide a shield bonus get turned off by polymorph effects (well, those which turn you into animal forms etc.) as cited earlier.

Scarab Sages

BigNorseWolf wrote:


Quote:
That's not good, because the bracers meld and the force field does not.

And you know this because....?

"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."

Bracers are part of the gear. Force filled, created by them, is not an item and not a part of the gear.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
There is no distinction between the field and the armor bonus it provides.

Ordinary armor also provides armor bonus. Is there distinction between the armor and armor bonus it provides? One is the source and the other is an effect.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Quote:
So, if it is the bracers, that provide armor bonus, then they will not work. If it is the force field, that provide the armor bonus, it will work. I would say, it is not important, what the source of the force field is.
Absolutely nothing you're stating is stated, implied, or even logically follows from any of the games rules. It is the height of rules lawyering chicanery to deny the rules of english to avoid having your position disproven by the rules while just flat out making stuff up to support it.

I thought my first statement in the citation above coincides with your opinion and flows from the rules - the item provide armor bonus and loose it after polymorph.

The second statement on its own also flows from the rules, describing the way Mage Armor works under polymorph. As I remember, nobody argued with that. And the fact that melded items continue to generate bonuses other that armor and shield bonuses (including magic effects and force fields) is directly from the rules.

Scarab Sages

avr wrote:
Noxobar wrote:
So, if it is the bracers, that provide armor bonus, then they will not work. If it is the force field, that provide the armor bonus, it will work. I would say, it is not important, what the source of the force field is.
Unfortunately the reasoning and the distinction you're making simply aren't in the rules, and contradict the rules. Magic items which provide a shield bonus get turned off by polymorph effects (well, those which turn you into animal forms etc.) as cited earlier.

Magic items which provide a shield (or armor) bonus do not get turned off by polymorph effects. They only lose that armor or shield bonus. Their other bonuses remain functional. If the bracers of armor provided Mage Armor (as they do in 2nd edition test) they would work fine. The description of the bracers looks exactly as if they just cast permanent Mage Armor on you. But unfortunately there is a coma, that I kept missing for quite a long time, which makes a change. So that formally the bracers provides the bonus, not the field.


Noxobar wrote:


"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."
Bracers are part of the gear. Force filled, created by them, is not an item and not a part of the gear.

...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).

This doesn't work. You cannot simultaneously and coherently argue that the force effect is completely separate from the bracers which is completely separate from the force field which is completely separate from the armor bonus but that the force field is connected to the armor bonus. What your argument, IF true, would lead to is a force field with no armor bonus because the force field is a separate entity.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Call it "mild Asperger" and let him by. He doesn't read the rules the same way as the majority of the players and will not listen to them. It is useless to argue.

Scarab Sages

BigNorseWolf wrote:
You cannot simultaneously and coherently argue that the force effect is completely separate from the bracers which is completely separate from the force field which is completely separate from the armor bonus but that the force field is connected to the armor bonus. What your argument, IF true, would lead to is a force field with no armor bonus because the force field is a separate entity.

Too many "which". I don't say they are all separate. The idea was simple. Bracers generate the force filled, the force field provides armor bonus. Just direct sequence. Bracers were thought to be "separated", if you want, only from armor bonus as armor bonus was thought to be the property of the force field. As if providing permanent mage armor (the descriptions are very close, almost word by word.) The force field is not an armor bonus, so it is not negated by polymorph, but it can give armor bonus if written to do so.

Dark Archive

Noxobar wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
You cannot simultaneously and coherently argue that the force effect is completely separate from the bracers which is completely separate from the force field which is completely separate from the armor bonus but that the force field is connected to the armor bonus. What your argument, IF true, would lead to is a force field with no armor bonus because the force field is a separate entity.
Too many "which". I don't say they are all separate. The idea was simple. Bracers generate the force filled, the force field provides armor bonus. Just direct sequence. Bracers were thought to be "separated", if you want, only from armor bonus as armor bonus was thought to be the property of the force field. As if providing permanent mage armor (the descriptions are very close, almost word by word.) The force field is not an armor bonus, so it is not negated by polymorph, but it can give armor bonus if written to do so.

If it does not say it works as Mage Armor, it does not work as Mage Armor. It can have a very similar description, but they are not the same thing unless it specifically states it is the same thing (such as with the Monk and Sacred Fist Warpriest's AC Bonus class features).


Ok, personally I disagree with JJ on this one. That said, if you rule that the bracers work like the Wonder Woman bracers, and not like mage armor, (I would not) then yes they would not work in Wildshape. I suppose if you want Chainmail bikinis to not be stupid, then Wonder Woman bracers make just as much sense. This goes back to the fantastically stupid wording of armor bonus and shield bonus which is up there with race and racial traits. Basing erudite arguments on flawed text oh never mind.

Liberty's Edge

Daw wrote:
Ok, personally I disagree with JJ on this one. That said, if you rule that the bracers work like the Wonder Woman bracers, and not like mage armor, (I would not) then yes they would not work in Wildshape. I suppose if you want Chainmail bikinis to not be stupid, then Wonder Woman bracers make just as much sense. This goes back to the fantastically stupid wording of armor bonus and shield bonus which is up there with race and racial traits. Basing erudite arguments on flawed text oh never mind.

No one is arguing they work like wonder woman bracers, we all acknowledge that they make a force field around the wearer. The thing is, the force field doesn't matter rules wise, it is not, in any way, separate from the bracers.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Noxobar wrote:


Too many "which". I don't say they are all separate. The idea was simple.

As presented here it is non completely incoherent and totally evidenced. The armor bonus ceases to function. You cannot two step the bracers not functioning over to the force field functioning and then back over to the armor bonus functioning. It is both completely unevidence and totally inconsistent.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Noxobar wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
Noxobar wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:


You are fixated on the "how it does it", but for the polymorph rules, what matters are two things: 1) "It is generated by an item" and 2) "what bonus is it".

But to apply those rules this item also should be a part of your gear that was melded into your body, isn't it? You just do not apply those rules to other things. For example you can put the bracers (or barding) on after you was polymorphed. And the items do not lose the armor bonus.
Yes, if you don the item after polymorphing it work without problems. You can even activate items that you have don after polymorphing if you can take the appropriate action.

So your "what matters 1" should be changed to "It is generated by an item that was in character gear and is melded into his new form." ** spoiler omitted **

Then, return to your example with the wall. Assume that the item generates the wall of force.
1) Is it the character's gear and is it melded into new form?
Yes.
2) What bonus is it?
It is a wall of force.
So the wall is in play. It is another item.
1) Is it the character's gear and is it melded into new form?
No.
2) Already doesn't matter, the rule is not about this item.
So, this wall would provide all it's bonuses, including armor bonus, if one is written in its rules.

The same should apply to the bracers.
"Bracers of armor surround the wearer with an invisible but tangible field of force, granting him an armor bonus of +1 to +8".
Bracers meld and produce a field. The field is not melded and gives the armor bonus. Everything is as written.

So lets investigate this entire notion of Bracers of Armor being a force effect.

Force effects generally stop intangible things from passing through. Is there any mention that inantgible creatures can use them, can't ignore the armor bonus, that this armor bonus works vs touch attacks, or anything else associated with a force effect?

No. Nothing other than the flavor description of the item. In other words, that entire lead in to the description of the item is fluff that can be ignored like almost every other magic item's description for anything carried over from D&D into Pathfinder.

All the item does is provide a enhancement to Armor Bonus for characters that do not wear armor. The costs are the same as enchanting armor from +1 to +8. The things you are allowed to do are the same as following the normal procedure of enchanting armor.

Stop trying to make the fluff description into something that matters, because by RAW this item very clearly stops functioning when the subject wild shapes.


There's something to be said for a more simulationist argument as long as you acknowledge that it's a more simulationist and less raw argument.

51 to 88 of 88 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder RPG / Rules Questions / Bracers of Armor + Wild Shape All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.