Monstrous Druid AC...

[Majere]

I would disagree with your interpretation of both animated and wild actually. As long as you activate the 'animated' property before you wildshape, I would suggest the shield continues to function. It seems somewhat silly that in human form a shield will hover around protecting you with no effort on your part (both your arms being free and all), but when you turn into a bear, the shield somehow senses this and suddenly falls to the ground inert...

But it doesnt seem silly that the armor you were wearing in human form has now completely disapeared, melding into your body ?

Its also my opinion that you don't ignore the ACP of wild armour/shields when you wildshape. I'd also apply the movement speed decrease from medium and higher armours to the animal form. And if you use a tower shield without the feat, thats like -10 to attack rolls or something isn't it ? ouch !

Indeed.
Opinions are just opinions and rules are rules.
By the RAW there is no ACP or anything else involved with wildshaped armor.
By the RAW an animated shield behaves just like a shield being wielded by a bear, only a bear cant wield a shield; therefore the animated shield does nothing.

But Of course everyone is free to house rule however they want, Im just trying to help people thread their way through the RAW.

Majere

 

[Diirk]

But the bear doesn't need hands to use it, the animated property frees them both up... so he can use it.

Ps. unless you're using a tower shield, druids have proficiency, so no problems there. And a darkwood shield has no acp.

 

[Spatula]

But it doesnt seem silly that the armor you were wearing in human form has now completely disapeared, melding into your body ?

That's just how polymorph effects work (and have always worked) in D&D. It's spelled out right in the polymorph description. So no, in D&D-land it doesn't seem any more silly than a man turning into a bear.

The animated shield ceasing to function once the man changes into a bear seems silly because it's not a stated property of animated shields. It's a property derived from a particular interpretation of what is stated (and a very rules-lawerly interpretation IMO).

 

[ToddSchumacher]

But it doesnt seem silly that the armor you were wearing in human form has now completely disapeared, melding into your body ?




Indeed.
Opinions are just opinions and rules are rules.
By the RAW an animated shield behaves just like a shield being wielded by a bear, only a bear cant wield a shield; therefore the animated shield does nothing.

Majere

But the shield isn't being wielded by a bear, its being wielded by a Druid.

 

[Majere]

But the shield isn't being wielded by a bear, its being wielded by a Druid.

Let me put it like this
If a druid wildshaped into a bear and wanted to use a shield would you let him ?

If you would let him, then the animated shield would work fine.
If you wouldnt let him then an animated shield would not work.

An animated shield behaves EXACTLY as if being wielded, but doesnt require a limb to use it. Thus if you could not use it in the first place the animated enchantment does nothing for you.

Now bears cannot use shields as far as I understand, I would not allow a bear to use a shield because I would consider this abusable. As with the much earlier comment about wether a creature with paws/hands can attack while wielding a shield, this is something I would not allow because it is more likely to hurt the party if NPC's start using an interpretation of the rules allowing almost anyone to use an animated shield.

For instance, dragons have enourmous intellect and physical prowess, if dragons were to wear as many magical items as players they would be an even fiercer prospect. Dragons using animated +5 shields with a whole stack of elemental resistances would truley be a nightmare for players.
By your interpretation this would be perfectly fair.

Again, saying that bears can use shield is the first step on a daingerous road and I would suggest that you do not make such a house rule.

Majere

 

[Iku Rex]

No one's come up with any RAW that says the melded wild armor retains it's ACP?

That's a strange point of view. No one's come up with any RAW that says that armor retains it's ACP when worn by blonde fighters named Bill under a full moon either, but since the rules don't say otherwise we're left with the default rules for armor.

Nowhere does it say that "melded" armor doesn't have weight, or that it doesn't inhibit your movement. It's simply "nonfunctional". The function of armor is to protect from attacks. If you made a full plate armor out of a material identical to iron, except that it allowed any weapon to pass through it, the armor would be "nonfunctional", yet it would still have an ACP and weight.

This is not the only possible interpretation, but it is a valid interpretation and it is the more reasonable one.

***

An animated shield behaves EXACTLY as if being wielded, but doesnt require a limb to use it. Thus if you could not use it in the first place the animated enchantment does nothing for you.

It does not follow.

An animated shield protects you "as if [you] were using it [yourself]". If a bear is using a shield, it gets the shield's armor bonus. Nowhere does it say that you have to be [normally] able to use a shield for the animated shield to protect you as if you were using a shield. In fact, that's a rather absurd interpretation given that the whole point of the animated ability is to give you the benefit of a shield even when you're [normally] unable to use a shield.

 

[Majere]

In fact, that's a rather absurd interpretation given that the whole point of the animated ability is to give you the benefit of a shield even when you're [normally] unable to use a shield.

Wrong
The whole point of animated is to allow you to use a shield without hving to use any limbs to control it. NOT to allow you to use it when normally you could not.
The whole point for wild shape is to allow you to use a shield when normally you could not.

I will say it again, this is a VERY DAINGEROUS line to go down, A large number of higher CR creatures are balance by the fact that they cannot use certain items; armor shields weapons. If you start breaking that distinction the the PCs will suffer, even though the druid may feel he is being smart and making life for PC's easier, he is infact doing the opposite.
Allowing anything to use an animated shield provided it is proficient, even if it is incapable of wielding a shield is nonsense IMHO.

Majere

 

[Iku Rex]

Wrong
The whole point of animated is to allow you to use a shield without hving to use any limbs to control it. NOT to allow you to use it when normally you could not.

And you know this how? Arcane rituals? Psychic abilities? Divine revelation?

Can a character wielding a weapon in each hand (or a two-handed weapon) normally use a shield?

If your answer is "no" then a character wielding a greatsword can't benefit from an animated shield. He "cannot use [a shield], and therefore [he] cannot gain any benefit from [the animated shield]". (Quote/unquote Majere...)

The whole point for wild shape is to allow you to use a shield when normally you could not.

(I take it you mean "the wild armor ability", not "wild shape", but I still don't get it.)

I will say it again, this is a VERY DAINGEROUS line to go down,

Fallacy: Appeal to Consequences.

Utterly unimportant with regards to the RAW. Feel free to suggest house rules if the RAW aren't to your liking.

A large number of higher CR creatures are balance by the fact that they cannot use certain items;

Some higher CRs are balanced by the lack of pretty much all items - period. You may as well try to "disprove" the animated ability right out of the DMG by pointing out that two-handed weapons are balanced by the wielder's inability to use shields.

 

[Majere]

Say ok :
1) I naughty word hate Macs this is the 4th time I had to type this.

Getting on with the point.
Where are the rules to support your argument ? I have stated the RAW repeatedly to support my argument, where is the evidence to support your assertions ? the RAW explicitally state "As if you were wielding the shield", i.e. :
There is still ASF
There is still ACP
You still require a proficiency.

The rules for animate could be replaced with the line:
" An animated shield does not require a limb to wield" and the rules would be unchanged.

Can you wield two weapons and a shield ? YES
It is called a buckler, you merely cannot use both at the same time. A spiked shield used to shield bash would also qualify as wielding two weapons and a shield. The only effect of an animated shield is to make wielding the shield not require a limb. you can already wield two weapons and a shield but you cannot use a limb to maneuver both a shield and a weapon so you can only use either a shield or a buc kler with any given limb.

If you wish to refute this, please quote some rules which support your interpretation and undermine mine.

Majere

 

[Iku Rex]

Where are the rules to support your argument ?

An animated shield protects you "as if [you] were using it [yourself]". [RULE QUOTE] If a bear is using a shield, it gets the shield's shield bonus. Nowhere does it say that you have to be [normally] able to use a shield for the animated shield to protect you as if you were using it yourself.

Now, what part of this is it you disagree with? (You "forgot" to address it the first time I posted it.)

Do you disagree that a bear using a shield will get the shield's bonus? (Notice that I didn't ask you if a bear could use a shield.)

Do you now have a rule quote stating that you have to be able to use a shield for the animated shield to protect you AS IF you were using it yourself?

Yes, you can in fact benefit from the shield AS IF you were using it yourself even if you can't use it yourself. That's why a fighter wielding a greatsword can benefit from an animated large steel shield even though a fighter wielding a greatsword can't [normally] use a large steel shield. This should be self evident to anyone.

Can a fighter wielding a greatsword normally use a large steel shield?
Can a bear normally use a large steel shield?

Can a fighter wielding a greatsword benefit from an animated large steel shield?
Can a bear benefit from an animated large steel shield?

I have stated the RAW repeatedly to support my argument,

No, you have not. You have quoted the RAW and then invented a new rule (if you cannot use a shield, you cannot gain any benefit from an animated shield), claiming that your invented rule is part of the RAW. Repeating your invented rule over and over does not constitute "stating the RAW to support your argument".

Can a character wielding a weapon in each hand (or a two-handed weapon) normally use a shield?

Can you wield two weapons and a shield ? YES
It is called a buckler, you merely cannot use both at the same time.

Rewording the question is not helpful. :\

I actually considered making a special note about bucklers, just in case you were unable to understand the point of the question, but instead I worded it to exclude bucklers.

1. If you're wielding two weapons or a two-handed weapon you can NOT "normally use a shield". I suppose you could claim that simply having the buckler strapped to your arm means that you're "using it" (even though you don't get the benefit), but in that case bears too can "use" bucklers.

2. Unless you're now trying to tell me that only animated bucklers free up both your hands, bucklers are irrelevant here. Or maybe you're saying that it's enough to be able to "use" ("attach to your arm") some sort of shield to benefit from any animated shield?!

Can a character wielding a weapon in each hand (or a two-handed weapon) normally use a shield?

A spiked shield used to shield bash would also qualify as wielding two weapons and a shield.

I draw your attention to the word "normally" and the words "or a two-handed weapon"...