Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="James Gasik" data-source="post: 9173354" data-attributes="member: 6877472">Oh I see what you're saying.&nbsp; Well it comes down to how the DM rules on the following bullet point of Wild Shape:<ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">You choose whether your equipment falls to the ground in your space, merges into your new form, or is worn by it. Worn equipment functions as normal, but the DM decides whether it is practical for the new form to wear a piece of equipment, based on the creature's shape and size. Your equipment doesn't change size or shape to match the new form, and any equipment that the new form can't wear must either fall to the ground or merge with it. Equipment that merges with the form has no effect until you leave the form.</li>
</ul>So here we have the problem that your Wild Shape form simply might not be able to wear a piece of equipment due to it's shape or size, and your equipment doesn't change shape.&nbsp; Thus it might either fall to the ground or merge into your form, at which point it no longer functions as normal.So the difference is between the following two statements:Unarmored Defense: You retain the benefit of any features from your class, race, or other source and can use them if the new form is physically capable of doing so.Defense Fighting Style: the DM decides whether it is practical for the new form to wear a piece of equipment, based on the creature's shape and size.The former really does come down to &quot;does it make sense to me or not&quot; as a ruling.&nbsp; The latter, however, runs into the fact that because your equipment doesn't change size or shape to match the new form, armor worn by a medium-size Druid is not going to fit on their body if they become, say, a mammoth.And because Defense Fighting Style's wording specifies &quot;wearing&quot; armor and Wild Shape specifies that armor melded into your form isn't worn.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="James Gasik, post: 9173354, member: 6877472"] Oh I see what you're saying. Well it comes down to how the DM rules on the following bullet point of Wild Shape: [LIST] [*]You choose whether your equipment falls to the ground in your space, merges into your new form, or is worn by it. Worn equipment functions as normal, but the DM decides whether it is practical for the new form to wear a piece of equipment, based on the creature's shape and size. Your equipment doesn't change size or shape to match the new form, and any equipment that the new form can't wear must either fall to the ground or merge with it. Equipment that merges with the form has no effect until you leave the form. [/LIST] So here we have the problem that your Wild Shape form simply might not be able to wear a piece of equipment due to it's shape or size, and your equipment doesn't change shape. Thus it might either fall to the ground or merge into your form, at which point it no longer functions as normal. So the difference is between the following two statements: Unarmored Defense: You retain the benefit of any features from your class, race, or other source and can use them if the new form is physically capable of doing so. Defense Fighting Style: the DM decides whether it is practical for the new form to wear a piece of equipment, based on the creature's shape and size. The former really does come down to "does it make sense to me or not" as a ruling. The latter, however, runs into the fact that because your equipment doesn't change size or shape to match the new form, armor worn by a medium-size Druid is not going to fit on their body if they become, say, a mammoth. And because Defense Fighting Style's wording specifies "wearing" armor and Wild Shape specifies that armor melded into your form isn't worn. [/QUOTE]

Verification