Wild armor's FAQ and Max Dex Bonus


Rules Questions

51 to 85 of 85 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

graystone wrote:
Secane wrote:

Armiger's Panoply seems really nice. But it may not work with wildshape.

Reason being that the bracers is part of the magical item and Armiger's Panoply is an activated magic item. So once you wildshape and the bracers merged into your ploymorphed form, you can't activate it any more.

Wand of Swift Girding on the other hand is not a druid spell, so you will have to depend on an ally to cast it on you.

:(

The easiest thing for both is have an ally to help.

If not, you can bypass the need by taking mage hand (with two worlds) and tying some string/twine around the bracers. Take them off, cast magehand, wildshape and then move the string/twine so you can slip the bracers back on. You have to drop the bag too before you start or have someone else carry it. That's pretty convoluted was to do it though when you can just say 'hey, can you put these on when I change?'

Ronnie K, our group has always taken that quote for armor and shield bonuses from physical objects instead of magical effects. It seemed silly to have, for instance, an item than grants continuous haste not give out it's dodge bonus.

Now taken literally 100% RAW then no the bracers don't work unless you take them off, wildshape then put them back on.
Thanks. I agree the quote is speaking to bonuses granted from armor, not necessarily armor bonuses.
Mage armor of course isn't an item and isn't affected by wildshaping.


CWheezy wrote:
This is a pretty good nerf imo, Wild armor was crazy op for druids

As a +3 enchantment that only worked if you 4 levels in the only class(until recently) that could use it should be.

Now it's +1 at best. I'll call it "Lesser Wild".

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber

Yeah i agree that this should be recalculated as a static gp add on cost...


Azten wrote:


As a +3 enchantment that only worked if you 4 levels in the only class(until recently) that could use it should be.

Now it's +1 at best. I'll call it "Lesser Wild".

Hi, Having something in the game be brokenly good for only one class does not mean it is fair. It is still brokenly good.

Now it is no longer brokenly good, just regular good.

Grand Lodge

Ok, I'm starting to understand. Sorry if i'm a I'm a bit slow. But say I'm a druid with +4 dragonhide breastplate vs +1 wild dragonhide breastplate, what are the +/- of each. As best I can figure when you are in your normal form there is no doubt you want the +4 armor!!! But when you have wildshaped the wild armor provides a +6 bonus to AC. This is only 3 less than than +9 provided by+4 breastplate. And it is +6 more than non-wild armor.

Trying to think outloud here;
So if I had a +9 armor bonus, that was cut to+ 0 for wild-saping, and I had an item that increased my +0 back to +6, is that worth a +3 cost bonus. My question is what else give me a +6 bonus?

No reply necessary at this point, i have more posts to reread. Like I said just thinking out-loud.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The only way in which it was brokenly good is that it didn't require the headache of finding workarounds and/or carrying numerous sets of barding to acquire a similar AC. Now it's worse than most of those workarounds.

Liberty's Edge

I'm not a fan of the Wild Enhancement anymore, I might run it at +1 in home games, though +2 would seem fair to me for the general rules.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Oddman80 wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
Oddman80 wrote:

forget proficiency penalties... even if you take the heavy armor proficiency feat, the fact that your dex is being limited by something you are no longer wearing... your speed is being reduced by something you are no longer wearing... and you are considered encumbered by a an item that you are no longer wearing because it has fully melded into your body and become one with you in your wildshaped form... To me it makes no sense.

If they errata'd the wild special property description to say that wild armor DOES NOT meld into your body per the polymorph rules, but rather it causes the affected armor to change form with you as you wildshape so that it becomes barding of the appropriate size and shape.... well - then i would have no problem with this FAQ ruling of what penalties are maintained.

You get the AC from something you are no longer wearing.

yes... for 15K gold, you get to keep the Armor bonus to AC. Why do you get to do this? because that is exactly what the magical property you have paid all that money for, says it does.

Quote:

Wild

Aura moderate transmutation; CL 9th; Weight —; Price +3 Bonus
_____________
DESCRIPTION
_____________
Armor with this special ability usually appears to be made from magically hardened animal pelt. 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.
____________________________
CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS
____________________________
Craft Magic Arms and Armor, baleful polymorph; Cost +3 bonus
So you paid money for a magical effect... if this were a genie wish - yeah - i'd expect to get screwed with the unwritten small print. but...

There is or ever was something in the rules that say "when you change shape with a polymorph spell your encumbrance disappear"?

Or when you change shape with a polymorph spell your armor penalties disappear"?

We assumed the latter and someone the former, but I recall a few thread speaking about that. People assuming that they could load up to maximum encumbrance and the wildshape to be at no encumbrance, people saying that the equipment weight don't change (and woe if you become tiny while encumbered). My interpretation was that you maintain the same level of encumbrance.

There were a discussion with Sean K Reynolds when he was a developer about encumbrance. His stance was that unless you are carrying a lot of stuff the best way to manage it isn't to calculate every item but use the armor encumbrance as a placeholder. This FAQ seem to follow the same philosophy

Read how polymorph work:

PRD 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. 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.

It don't say anywhere that your gear weight, encumbrance or penalties disappear.

In the absence of that specification the simplest interpretation is that it don't disappear.

If you wear medium armor you are suffering from medium encumbrance and carry that on when polymorphed.
If you wear heavy armor you are suffering from heavy encumbrance and carry that on when polymorphed.

The FAQ is more lenient than that, so that you get the penalties only if you get the benefits? Good.

But let's be honest, what you get from wild armor?
At least 7 points of armor bonus (wild dragonhide breastplate +1) at the cost of a +4 enhancement. 1.000 gp for the breastplate, 16.000 for the enchantments. 17.000 gp for 7 points of AC.
You really are crying that it cost too much?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Diego Rossi wrote:
....Lots of stuff....

As to your first issue - the fact that the Polymorph rules don't say you lose the encumbered state. Honestly, it doesn't matter, because polymorph DOES say that all that gear melds into your body. That means it is now part of your body. Hence you are no longer carrying those items. Even if you house ruled that the extra armor and gear that got melded made the animal form you polymorphed into to be overweight, there are no mechanical penalties for being rotund or having extra mass as part of your body. If you are not 'wearing' or 'carrying' those items, then the encumberance rules never take into effect in the first place. The FAQ actually gets this part right. (I feel bad for the Druids at your table that were needlessly subjected to encumberance penalties this whole time)

As to the second issue - am I crying about the price? This is a little more nuanced. The issue I have is that they copy/pasted the WILD armor property language directly from 3.5/SRD, without changing a thing. As such - it should be assumed it functions the same.

To argue that the 3.5 WILD enchantment acted the way the Paizo FAQ just ruled pathfinder's WILD armor acts is empirically wrong. As others have pointed out, 3.5 had a different armor property it offered called BEASTSKIN (Magic Item Compendium, p7). It was a +2 armor bonus enchantment, and it did exactly what Paizo is now describing the +3 WILD to be doing.

So in 3.5 you could purchase a +2 armor property that let you get your armor bonuses but also all of the encumberance and Dex penalties, etc. while wildshaped. OR, you could spend the extra gold to get a +3 armor property that let you get the bonuses without having to take on those penalties while wildshaped.

As I stated previously - if paizo wanted to nerf it (as they are doing with so many other random things throughout the game) then they should errata it. They should re-write the wild armor listing. But they aren't doing that - they are treating it as a simple answer to a FAQ. But the answer they provide is not consistent even within itself, let alone with any meaning even remotely able to be pulled from the description in the Wild Armor listing.

Had they even added the tag line "this change will be addressed in future errata" then we'd be good. It would acknowledge that this is a rules change and not a simple clarification.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I have to say that I am firmly in Oddman80's camp on this one.

Just looked back at 3.x rules and he is right the new Wild is the old Beastskin and that was (and really only should be) worth +2 enhancement bonus.

I think everyone would be alright with it if it were just a +cost bonus rather than a +x enhancement bonus.

Either way this isn't really a FAQ type thing. They are not providing clarity about the way something works. They are changing it. It is the same kind of thing that they did with a number of other rules CHANGES like Slashing Grace, Spirit's Gift, etc. I am opposed to this new change in how things are done.

If it is a rules change then it should be errata and should be changed in future printings. If it is a FAQ then it should not be a change. FAQ is for clarifications.

I think this is what has a lot of people upset. If Paizo would just admit that they are changing something and a simple reason of why it would avoid a lot of these debates. Just something as simple as "we felt this needed to be changed due to balance issues that it caused" would probably be fine (although I would disagree with it on this particular ruling based on a long established accepted bonus:power ratio).


I don't see how this is a rules change. It was about a 50 50 split in how people interpreted it when it came out.

Sovereign Court

BigNorseWolf wrote:

I don't see how this is a rules change. It was about a 50 50 split in how people interpreted it when it came out.

This. It's how I always ruled it.


You think 50% of the people ruled both, that
1) Any armor worn prior to wild shaping, so long as it does not have the Wild special property, has no impact (positive or negative) once wildshaped.

And

2) despite the +3 bonus property simply saying that "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. " that *obviously* this magically brings with it the max DEX restrictions, armor check penalties, and speed reductions of the armor as well.

Are you saying that 50% of people believed that was the RAW? Or that you think 50% made a house rule because they dealt getting the armor bonus but no penalties for +3 was too broken?


Charon's Little Helper wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

I don't see how this is a rules change. It was about a 50 50 split in how people interpreted it when it came out.

This. It's how I always ruled it.

My experience is completely different than yours and BigNorseWolf. I don't recall ever having a DM rule it this way and I've had a LOT of GM's over the years (play on line games a lot).

So from my perspective, it's nothing but a rules change. Revisiting it's cost seems appropriate as it's functionality has clearly dropped.


Oddman80 wrote:

You think 50% of the people ruled both, that

1) Any armor worn prior to wild shaping, so long as it does not have the Wild special property, has no impact (positive or negative) once wildshaped.

That ones pretty universal. It explicitly drops out of the polymorph rules

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.

That hide armor isn't protecting your kidney if it IS your kidney

And

Quote:

2) despite the +3 bonus property simply saying that "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. " that *obviously* this magically brings with it the max DEX restrictions, armor check penalties, and speed reductions of the armor as well.

Are you saying that 50% of people believed that was the RAW? Or that you think 50% made a house rule because they dealt getting the armor bonus but no penalties for +3 was too broken?

Some people interpreted the above to mean that the armor shifted with you , would be worn outside of your new form instead of melding into you, and thus have all the weight and encumbrance issues.

I can't say I know how much of that was raw and how much was power level because i don't have a mind reading machine, but game balance is a legitimate factor in rules interpretation when raw could mean multiple things.

I don't like the ruling, It means my saurian shaman has a set of dragon hide full plate he'll eventually have to either sell back or let collect dust in storage, but its hardly in the faqratta catagory.


graystone wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

I don't see how this is a rules change. It was about a 50 50 split in how people interpreted it when it came out.

This. It's how I always ruled it.

My experience is completely different than yours and BigNorseWolf. I don't recall ever having a DM rule it this way and I've had a LOT of GM's over the years (play on line games a lot).

So from my perspective, it's nothing but a rules change. Revisiting it's cost seems appropriate as it's functionality has clearly dropped.

Its possible they went with james jacobs interpretation of it, which seemed to shift opinion in that direction a fair bit.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
graystone wrote:
LOL now if there where rules for 'appropriate' armor. Are there rules for different kinds of barding other than size I'm unaware of? The only thing I see is serpentine, porcine and vermin can wear armor...

well, it's kind of specified here by the nonhumanoid descriptor.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

I don't see how this is a rules change. It was about a 50 50 split in how people interpreted it when it came out.

This. It's how I always ruled it.

i'm the same, it just allowed the wearer to keep wearing armor without having to do special hoop jumping, in all his shapes.


Bandw2 wrote:
graystone wrote:
LOL now if there where rules for 'appropriate' armor. Are there rules for different kinds of barding other than size I'm unaware of? The only thing I see is serpentine, porcine and vermin can wear armor...
well, it's kind of specified here by the nonhumanoid descriptor.

Yes, there is a cost. Is there a description of who has to use it? If you follow the suggestions, all the native outsiders like tieflings and assimars need to pay extra. Then, once you have Armor for Unusual Creatures, does it then work like normal armor for those kind of creatures? IE: does that then mean that ANY unusual creature of the correct size can wear it?

So, we really don't have a rule for it but just a cost.

PS: Magic armor is slightly different: "Armor for Unusual Creatures: The cost of armor for non-humanoid creatures, as well as for creatures who are neither Small nor Medium, varies. The cost of the masterwork quality and any magical enhancement remains the same." Note magic armor doesn't care about "unusually big creatures" or "unusually little creatures" just "non-humanoid creatures" and the size category.

Sovereign Court

graystone wrote:


PS: Magic armor is slightly different: "Armor for Unusual Creatures: The cost of armor for non-humanoid creatures, as well as for creatures who are neither Small nor Medium, varies. The cost of the masterwork quality and any magical enhancement remains the same." Note magic armor doesn't care about "unusually big creatures" or "unusually little creatures" just "non-humanoid creatures" and the size category.

Actually - that's not what it says.

It says that the cost of the armor is the same - it says nothing about whether a horse, a dire bat, and a megaraptor can all wear a suit of magical armor interchangeably.

The RAW appears to be silent upon that subject. The RAI seems pretty obvious though.


Ok, the way i read it

1) When you wild-shape, you keep your med to heavy encumbrance weight = This i have no problem with.

2) If you are wearing armor, you are considered to be wearing armor when wild-shaped = This kills the whole level dipping into monk for the Wisdom bonus to AC. Which you would loose now, since you are considered to be wearing any kind of armor. == am neutral on this: It mainly hurts low level druids under level 11 as they can no longer use the ac bonus, unless they take off there armor before wildshape. After 11 level, you can afford the wild armor bonus ( +3 +1 = +4 or greater total ), at which point (under the old rules), you gained both, which i was against. As again, am neutral.

PS= You now might still be better off with a full Dex build, 1 level dip into monk, and just do without armor alltogether. at low level to mid level games, + the elf trait if you an elf for higher natural armor.

3) You now suffer speed, armor check penalty, dex limits = This just makes the whole armor kind of pointless as a +3 wild armorr enchantment.

=============================================

All these rule = At this rate, i would have preferred the simple version.

A druid who wild-shape, get to keep all his armor bonus and penalty that the armor grants, and any enchantment bonus.

Then get ride of wild enchantment although,


1 person marked this as a favorite.

More and more reason to just ignore Paizo, never play in PFS, and game how I want.
Whoever gave the toddler the nerf bat and let them loose on the Paizo offices needs to have their head examined. :P


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The one question I have is how does this effect things like elementals and their speed? Is the fly reduced to 40 ft or remain at 60 when you are an air elemental?


Neo2151 wrote:

More and more reason to just ignore Paizo, never play in PFS, and game how I want.

Whoever gave the toddler the nerf bat and let them loose on the Paizo offices needs to have their head examined. :P

Because you never disagree with mature adults.

Yeah.
If you don't want to play Paizo's game, you don't have to.
But how many times do you have to post about that on Paizo's boards?
Your continued fixation on Paizo rather pulls the rug out of your purported critique, because Paizo still has you coming back for more.


I think the reason it's so costly isn't the benefit of a few AC. It's the fact that AC is being added on to a rather hefty AC of a Druid that shifted into a NA heavy form.

Druids are still getting a great deal here. It's expensive but if making yourself unhittable then it's not bad.

Plus it's saying "let's add 7 ac to a sparrow" and it's not like that sucks.

I get its a hefty cost but for a shifter that can't have these things normally it's what you paid for.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Any idea about speed on elementals? The descriptor for elemental body makes things a little fuzzy


2ndGenerationCleric wrote:
Any idea about speed on elementals? The descriptor for elemental body makes things a little fuzzy

My own understanding is you'd reduce the speed of the form according to the armor you wear, no matter what.

Ofc, I'm in the boat that the Wild enchant is more worth a +2 with ACP and max Dex now added in. That is not something Paizo will errata, but we might see them offering an alternative down the line.

I suspect the reason they went with the across-the-board interpretation is that it's simpler and more direct, with fewer caveats.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

That's what I thought about the speed as well. Then I looked closer at the spell and it says it grants you fly (60ft) but doesn't say if it's your base speed or not.

Shadow Lodge

Since this new version of Wild is quasi-present, do armor spikes on it work while Wild shaped?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber

Just for the people bringing up that Beastskin armor at +2 is the same as the new Wild property in Pathfinder, they are forgetting the other caveats of the ability. Beastskin cost a +2, required you to spend an extra wild shape and made the armor appear on you.

So for the extra plus 1 enchantment compared to Beastskin, you save the extra wild shape use and can still appear to be a completely normal animal while wearing dragonhide full plate, you just move a little slow (which can be fixed by Greater Longstrider at least in part)

Many are people are asking where this came from and why it changed. The answer it didn't necessarily change anything. In many cases with rules clarifications in the past, they are simply stating the way that had intended it and not realized that other people had read it a different way. The FAQ is there sometimes to clarify the original intent sometimes rather than to institute a new rule. I have talked to a few of the Paizo staff and found that the opinion varied but was predominantly in line with the FAQ.

On another note for those in PFS interested in someone helping them put on their armor, check out the Squire vanity. It provides a way to put on armor without the need of help from anyone else and will even watch and feed your Animal Companion if it is a mount.

Liberty's Edge

Well, now.

I am playing a Hunter (Feral), so I can wild shape almost as well as a druid. I have +1 mithral breastplate (+5 maximum DEX bonus), and with Aspect of the Tiger active, my DEX bonus as a Large creature is +5, so there's no issue there. Mithral breastplate has ACP -1 and I have the Armor Expert trait, so there's no issue there. Mithral armor carries no speed penalty, so there's no issue there.

So, either I pay 15000 gold to keep my armor bonus (+7) in animal form, or I talk the sorceress into casting Mage Armor on me in the morning and get +4 armor bonus free.


or you have animal barding made and use that.

Liberty's Edge

Chess Pwn wrote:
or you have animal barding made and use that.

Then I'd have to find some way to lug it around when I am in my normal (if a half-elf is ever normal) form. But it's good to have options.


pack mule?
Buy an animal of the type you shift that wears it around for you.

So the armor doesn't work if you're shifting at random types. But if you shift and are in that form for hours then it's a decent idea.

Liberty's Edge

Chess Pwn wrote:

pack mule?

Buy an animal of the type you shift that wears it around for you.

So the armor doesn't work if you're shifting at random types. But if you shift and are in that form for hours then it's a decent idea.

I am not certain that buying a dire tiger would be such a good idea...

The party oracle can make the armor for me the next time we do the kingdom-running stuff. It's cheaper that way.

51 to 85 of 85 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Wild armor's FAQ and Max Dex Bonus All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.