|
With the recent Wild armor's FAQ, Wild armor will affect a wildshaped druid's armor check penalty, movement speed reduction, and arcane spell failure chance.
Does this means that Max Dex Bonus is not affected? And a wild shaped druid wearing a set of wild armor, can still add his dex bonus to his AC, with no limit on the amount of bonus?
With the recent Wild armor's FAQ, Wild armor will affect a wildshaped druid's armor check penalty, movement speed reduction, and arcane spell failure chance.
Does this means that Max Dex Bonus is not affected? And a wild shaped druid wearing a set of wild armor, can still add his dex bonus to his AC, with no limit on the amount of bonus?
From the FAQ they were pretty specific, DEX Bonus is not affected and you have no limit on it. They specifically states ACP, Speed Reduction and ASP
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.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, good, yet more proof Wild is no longer +3 worthy.
|
|
@Cheapy,
Thanks Cheapy. Would have easily miss that reply by the PDT.
Hope PDT could add the max Dex rule into the FAQ as well? Just to help clarify things further.
@Azten,
I have to agree with you. With this FAQ, Wild armor really don't fit the cost of a +3 armor. It has become way too overpriced for the benefits it gives.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, good, yet more proof Wild is no longer +3 worthy.
I don't see this changing much for the vast majority of characters that are interested in wild armor. Usually a druid isn't a dex monster, and shaping into a big nasty means they aren't piling on more dex than normal anyway. The only thing they really take a hit on is the speed penalty, and that is really pretty minor.
I guess I think if wild was ok before, it is pretty much ok still.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The FAQ itself has a FAQ? They could be more clear on their stuff honestly.
I don't know if it's worth the +3, we're talking about 16k, can't use full plate because of proficiency and +6 for a breastplate? Might as well ask my mage to cast Mage armor and it costs me only 1k once in my whole career for Pearl of Power and it even works against incorporeal attacks.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, good, yet more proof Wild is no longer +3 worthy.I don't see this changing much for the vast majority of characters that are interested in wild armor. Usually a druid isn't a dex monster, and shaping into a big nasty means they aren't piling on more dex than normal anyway. The only thing they really take a hit on is the speed penalty, and that is really pretty minor.
I guess I think if wild was ok before, it is pretty much ok still.
I'm playing an Eagle Shaman in PFS, and this FAQ is pretty significant.
Since most of my wildshaping would be a flying eagle or Roc, I needed a good dex score to make the most of the fly skill.I was working under the understanding that Wild armor being an expensive +3 armor special property would not have a penalty to my Max dex and armor check penalty.
Now this FAQ just grounded my character... The irony is I would be expecting to cast Fly on my eagle or Roc wildshape just to have a good fly skill.
(My druid has the fly spell via domain spell.)
I have to note that in a homebrew, where spells like ironwood can be make perm, it won't be that big of a deal to druids, as they don't have to pick up Wild armor to have a good AC score.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
just get barding :P
just get barding :PHadn't really thought of that.
Would have a hard time deciding tho... There are 3 different sizes for a Eagle Shaman.
get three different bardings... barding suits? barding armors? what is the plural of barding?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
it is odd that the ruling was a complete 180 from James Jacob's take on it. I know "he isn't the rules guy" but the confidence he had in his response and the attitude of 'obviously you get those benefits - otherwise it wouldn't be worth 16,000 gp' just stands in such stark contrast to the FAQ response (and followup response). It just further supports the idea that Paizo is sweeping through everything they can with the nerf stick.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
5 years can do things to people
horrible things
Oddman80: You got a link to JJ's statement by chance just for reference?
JJ's name was the link in my post... but here: http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2klg4?WILD-enchant-to-armor#3
How'd I miss that? Sorry. Thanx. ...odd.
|
I don't know if it's worth the +3, we're talking about 16k, can't use full plate because of proficiency and +6 for a breastplate? Might as well ask my mage to cast Mage armor and it costs me only 1k once in my whole career for Pearl of Power and it even works against incorporeal attacks.
Your math is off. It'd be 16k (plus the breastplate itself) for +7 AC from the breastplate as it is +1 besides Wild.
Even if you put it on a mithril breastplate due to being horrified by the movement speed penalty - it's 19.2k more than the pearl of power for +3 extra AC (assuming you have a wizard etc in the party). That's only barely more than a +3 AoNA or RoP - which are 18k. It lets you spread around the gold cost onto more items (always a big plus).
Seems about right to me. I don't know why people are getting grumpy about it.
(WHAT!? YOU CAN'T USE ARMOR WITHOUT PROFICIENCY AND HAVE TO TAKE THE SAME PENALTIES EVERYONE ELSE DOES!? THE NERVE!)
Frankly - it's not a change anyway. Just a clarification. The new FAQ is how I always ruled it anyway.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Casters... can't have nice things?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
the armor's wearing you now, it only has a speed of 20, but can't gain a bonus to movement speed from you.
^LOL
Fair enough. I'll shut up.
Ok... I think I was quiet long enough.
Here's the thing - unlike most of the other casters that got ported over from 3.5, the Druid had already gotten a HUGE nerf applied to their main unique class feature.
The difference between the different size animal wildshape a as you level are just useful in terms of utility, but not really in terms of power.
Maybe I am just cranky... I need lunch
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It seems to have been valued as "the druid can wear armor while wildshaped" rather than "the druid can wear wild armor in different wild shapes"
Its just not worth it vs. picking one combat form, buying barding for it, and having the party dress you in it in the morning.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm with Oddman80 on this one. It doesn't make sense and the change doesn't make sense. I don't have a character that it affects currently so I'm just not as passionate about it. But he is speaking logic.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You get the AC from something you are no longer wearing.
I think the change is ok for the penalty, but the cost?
+2 NA is 8k and mage armor +4 that's +6 AC for only 8k and whatever the wands cost against 16k.
I might as well get barding and some spells to insta wear gear and it's ten times cheaper and I can put it fortification.
Yes, If I get a flying form I probably won't have them, but in all honestly the price is too expensive.
In all honestly, I'm just pissed off by the Speed Reduction and the ACP can be heavy, but it's probably balanced.
Thought speed reduction sucks early
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
it is odd that the ruling was a complete 180 from James Jacob's take on it. I know "he isn't the rules guy" but the confidence he had in his response and the attitude of 'obviously you get those benefits - otherwise it wouldn't be worth 16,000 gp' just stands in such stark contrast to the FAQ response (and followup response). It just further supports the idea that Paizo is sweeping through everything they can with the nerf stick.
I wonder if Paizo has undergone a massive personnel turnover or something. You are correct that it is 180 degrees from the prior interpretation offered by James Jacobs. Moreover, Paizo used to have more respect for the 3.5 origins of the game. Notably, 3.5 had a +2 option that had your animal form wearing the armor (thus suffering the penalty). The reason to take the +3 Wild option was that this was not an issue.
For the life of me, I can't understand why Paizo is running around messing with really old rules, such as it did with the ARG. If Wild armor were really a problem, you would have thought it would have been evident much sooner.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
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. 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 unless its a cursed item, magic items usually do what they say they do - and that's it - nothing more.
Lets say I am a Druid who is used to wearing a suit of heavy dragon hide armor, and it DOES NOT have the WILD property... that means I am used to wildshaping, and the armor simply melds into my body. While I am in whildshape, I gain no benefit from it, and incur no penalties.
But now i go to see a wizard, and he has a nifty pamphlet of cool things he can do - one of which says he can magically make it so i can still get all the protection my armor would normally give me even when i wild shape.. and that was ALL it said.
I would be pretty pissed at the wizard if i paid him the money, and then discovered it made me significantly slower now (both in my normal movements and when running), i couldn't jump as well, fly as well, or move as stealthfully as i once had... OH! and suddenly, my attacks are not landing the way they used to either??? I used to only have to deal with that when I walked around in my humanoid form... Did I just pay 15K gold to make my Wildshape ability WORSE???
|
|
just get barding :PHadn't really thought of that.
Would have a hard time deciding tho... There are 3 different sizes for a Eagle Shaman.
this could perhaps work... but would require time donning the armor...
this could perhaps work... but would require time donning the armor...just get barding :PHadn't really thought of that.
Would have a hard time deciding tho... There are 3 different sizes for a Eagle Shaman.
Armiger's Panoply or Wand of Swift Girding fix time issue.
It's basically an enhancement that allows you to have armor that shape shifts.
It's basically an enhancement that allows you to have armor that shape shifts.
A horribly overpriced one when you can replicate what it does for under 3000gp...
I'll grant it offers more utility to those that take drastically different forms all the time but that usually isn't the case. 13000 to fit different shapes seems a bit salty. If ALL it does is allow the armor to shift shape, a simple upgrade to fitting with a set cost seems much more appropriate than a +3 enchant.
It's basically an enhancement that allows you to have armor that shape shifts.A horribly overpriced one when you can replicate what it does for under 3000gp...
here's the thing though, as far as i'm aware it only changes size, not who it is an appropriate piece of armor for.
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...
What you would want is some suit or property that would quickly let the armor be donned or removed, in addition to the above.
Most of the grumps I have heard have to do with the ACP and speed reduction now being applied when the enchantment is that expensive. We'd followed Jacobs' interpretation of Wild until this point, so nonproficiency abuses were not an issue.
What you would want is some suit or property that would quickly let the armor be donned or removed, in addition to the above.
Most of the grumps I have heard have to do with the ACP and speed reduction now being applied. We'd followed Jacobs' interpretation of Wild until this point.
Considering how long Wild Shape last, it seems pretty decent choice. If you're already limiting my ACP/Movement might as well not pay 16k for that.
Only problem with that is how it is rule when you switch forms. You can't take out an armor yourself if you're a bear
|
|
Even if you put it on a mithril breastplate due to being horrified by the movement speed penalty...
That's a great way to play as a low skill expert for the day, but isn't really an option for druids. If you're wanting armor that doesn't slow you down as a druid and that will have a max Dex bonus that's not likely to be lower than you're wild shaped Dex, you're probably looking at Darkleaf leather lamellar, or if the GMs not cool with that Darkleaf leather armor. For lamellar you're looking at +5 with the wild enchantment, with a max dex of 5, leather is +3 with a max Dex of 8. So for 16000 you're basically paying for a +1 over mage armor, or for -1 compared to mage armor. And mage armor works against incorporeals. And even at low level, when a single casting of mage armor won't last all day, it's entirely within the WBL guides to afford a couple pearls of power so the wizard/sorcerer can continue casting it.
So if you're looking to play a high dex/high mobility druid, like a lot of caster druids tend to do, this is a terrible option unless the party lacks any ability to cast mage armor.
Even if you're playing a melee based druid, it's still easy to run into the Max dex penalty on any of the armors you're likely to enchant with the wild enchantment. Horn Lamellar, and Dragonscale breastplate cap out at 3 max dex, or dragonscale fullplate at 1. Half of the elemental shapes and most of the decent flying options increase your dex, and even going to a small animal, you can easily meet or exceed the max dex of the armor.
So the wild armor enchantment is basically only useful if you choose a large, or larger form, where you're likely to lose Dex, and even then after, a +3 enchantment, you're still slower and less capable then a lot of alternatives. At high levels where belts of physical perfection are affordable, this enchantment is next to useless, and can cost up to 51000 GP.
If this was a +15000 GP addition it might not be as bad.
|
|
Yeah, if you could make all armor druids wear out of darkleaf (and if darkleaf reduced the movement penalty), or if they could wear mithril, it wouldn't be such a bad thing. And as it stands, it's still not a terrible option for certain builds, but at a +3 ability it went from being one of the only good +3 abilities, to another one that's probably not worth taking a lot of the time. It would be nice if it was changed to a +2 ability to reflect the FAQ, but Paizo doesn't seem to be in the habit of making options better these days.
Also, I don't think it's been mentioned yet either, but for high dex, high mobility druid, bracers of armor are almost universally better than wild armor, costing roughly the same as wild armor for equivalent AC, but without any of the drawbacks, though they do use up the wrist slots.
|
|
Also, I don't think it's been mentioned yet either, but for high dex, high mobility druid, bracers of armor are almost universally better than wild armor, costing roughly the same as wild armor for equivalent AC, but without any of the drawbacks, though they do use up the wrist slots.
Yeah - though of note - at really high levels the bracers give better AC for all dex builds if you don't allow Celestial Chainmail to be upgraded in your world.
Mithril Breastplate maxes out at 16 AC between armor & dex (11 & 5 respectively), and non-upgraded Celestial Chainmail maxes at 17 AC (9 armor / 8 dex), and since bracers max at +8 AC, once a build has a 30 Dex, the bracers allow for higher AC than even non-upgraded Celestial Chainmail.
Also, I don't think it's been mentioned yet either, but for high dex, high mobility druid, bracers of armor are almost universally better than wild armor, costing roughly the same as wild armor for equivalent AC, but without any of the drawbacks, though they do use up the wrist slots.Yeah - though of note - at really high levels the bracers give better AC for all dex builds if you don't allow Celestial Chainmail to be upgraded in your world.
Mithril Breastplate maxes out at 16 AC between armor & dex (11 & 5 respectively), and non-upgraded Celestial Chainmail maxes at 17 AC (9 armor / 8 dex), and since bracers max at +8 AC, once a build has a 30 Dex, the bracers allow for higher AC than even non-upgraded Celestial Chainmail.
And since Mithral Breastplate and Celestial Chainmail aren't options for druids...
|
it is odd that the ruling was a complete 180 from James Jacob's take on it. I know "he isn't the rules guy" but the confidence he had in his response and the attitude of 'obviously you get those benefits - otherwise it wouldn't be worth 16,000 gp' just stands in such stark contrast to the FAQ response (and followup response). It just further supports the idea that Paizo is sweeping through everything they can with the nerf stick.
Not really. that was 5 years ago and a lot of discussion has he effect of changing the opinions of open minds.
Not really. that was 5 years ago and a lot of discussion has he effect of changing the opinions of open minds.it is odd that the ruling was a complete 180 from James Jacob's take on it. I know "he isn't the rules guy" but the confidence he had in his response and the attitude of 'obviously you get those benefits - otherwise it wouldn't be worth 16,000 gp' just stands in such stark contrast to the FAQ response (and followup response). It just further supports the idea that Paizo is sweeping through everything they can with the nerf stick.
I don't recall a post stating he's changed his mind on this. Jason is the final word for ruling so he may have seen it differently.
PS: Don't see anything to stop the bracers/spell from working. The FAQ is JUST about wildarmor.
|
|
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.
:(
|
|
Not really. that was 5 years ago and a lot of discussion has he effect of changing the opinions of open minds.it is odd that the ruling was a complete 180 from James Jacob's take on it. I know "he isn't the rules guy" but the confidence he had in his response and the attitude of 'obviously you get those benefits - otherwise it wouldn't be worth 16,000 gp' just stands in such stark contrast to the FAQ response (and followup response). It just further supports the idea that Paizo is sweeping through everything they can with the nerf stick.
I don't recall a post stating he's changed his mind on this. Jason is the final word for ruling so he may have seen it differently.
PS: Don't see anything to stop the bracers/spell from working. The FAQ is JUST about wildarmor.
Thanks. I was asking about bracers because the provide an armor bonus, and polymorph says "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)."
Bracers (or mage armor) provides an armor bonus. Sorry if this has been covered.
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.
Mage armor of course isn't an item and isn't affected by wildshaping.