Monstrous Druid AC...

[Scion]

like I said though, magical things already tend to resize.

So, what benefit does wild have over glamor?

Also, I think that the wording 'does' make the shield dissapear, and allows the use of all limbs. After all, the druid can shift into things which 'cannot' hold the shield and the ability goes out of its way to name 3 different things, the third of which I believe is meant to include the previous 2.

That isnt a big deal though, I am just wondering what benefit you see the wild enhancement providing. Especially to shields (as of right now it seems there would be no reason at all to get it instead of animated for the way you are reading it, it is still visible, it takes up an arm or something, and it costs more).

I know you said that it makes it useful to different forms, but you also said that it takes up the bears arm, which means it is much less useful than other things.

That sort of thing doesnt really make sense to me I feel that wild is designed to make the armor and shield look like they are not there, allow a full range of abilities, but still keeping all of the armor check penalies, movement restrictions, and special problems, other than being seen.

Otherwise, it just isnt very worthwhile.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Not at all!

The wild enhancement allows the animal form to use the shield. It's as simple as that! How else would a crocodile use a shield? Or a snake? or a shark?

Lets make this clear nail.

With a normal shield/armour
Druid wildshapes into bear. Armour 'melds' into the form, giving no bonuses. Shield 'melds' into form, giving no bonuses.

With a wild shield/armour
The same thing as without wild, except the druid preserves the armour bonus.

The item STILL melds. It is gone. It is not there. It is not sunderable, held, worn or otherwise existing in the normal world. It has no effect other than giving it's armour bonus. No armour check penalty, no casting failure, technically no weight, etc etc.

It still provides it's armour bonus. By the rules, the shield does not still provide it's shield bonus, but I'm fairly confident that's something that should be erratad.

Sensible GMs might want to change that, so that acp, encumbrance and arcane failure still apply.

I think changing it so that the armour is still physically present, or that the animal form somehow loses access to a limb is being extreme, and with the existence of animated shields, it seems to be extreme for little real value - the player will simply get one of those instead, and look even more ridiculous.

 

[Nail]

So, what benefit does wild have over glamor?

Glammered armor and shields can't be used while wildshaped. Why is this even a question? (I'm not being snarky here. I'd like to know what you're trying to get at.)

Glammered armor looks like a normal set of clothing. Crocodiles don't wear clothes (generally). Of what use would glammer be?

Also, I think that the wording 'does' make the shield dissapear, and allows the use of all limbs.

The text does NOT imply the shield does not take up a limb. That's clear enough. If it did, it would have text similar to that of the animated property.

The Wild property text is perfectly usable (and it even makes sense!). Why make up house rules unnecessarily?

After all, the druid can shift into things which 'cannot' hold the shield....

Exactly. That's what this power is good for: allowing a form that is not equiped to use a shield to do so!

... I am just wondering what benefit you see the wild enhancement providing......instead of animated ....

An excellent question! Let's look at the text for Animated:

Upon command, an animated shield floats within 2 feet of the wielder, protecting her as if she were using it herself but freeing up both her hands. ....

You'll note the part in yellow. A Dire Bear or a Giant Crocodile can't use a shield, so they would not be able to use an animated shield, regardless of their training.

 

[Scion]

in this case I think you are misrepresenting the rules quite a bit.

The armor and shield would normally be inuseable while wildshaped, the wild enhancement doesnt change that, it simply makes the armor bonus still accessable.

If it simply made it invisible then other properties would still survive, instead of just the armor bonus.

Crocadiles 'can' wear armor though, glamored would just make it not look like armor, just like what you are saying as to what wild does. So, one costs a +3 enhancement while the other costs +2,700gp. I know which I would choose if they both did effectively the same thing.

A wild shield does not take up a limb, no reason that it should, it has been wildshaped away.

An animated shield can be used by pretty much anything, the restriction is to make it so that people still get arcane spell failure and make monks unable to use them and retain their bonuses. I see nothing to say that an awakened bear or crocadile or whatever could not use an animated shield.

 

[Nail]

The armor and shield would normally be inuseable while wildshaped, the wild enhancement doesnt change that, it simply makes the armor bonus still accessable.

Uhm....huh? ....I'l take that as I think you meant it.

For armors, the wild property allows the armor bonus (plus armor enhancement), while allowing the armor to meld. For shields, the text is decidedly less clear. It's the shield text were disagreeing about, right? Glammer does nothing for the poor crocodile.

If it simply made it invisible then other properties would still survive, instead of just the armor bonus.

True enough. I'm not sure why I was convinced the armor's ACP, Max Dex, etc was still there. It's true the text doesn't say the wearer has those restictions for armor. The Alter self text implies that they are gone.

I'm just imagining the repercussions. Druids should wear the biggest, most restrictive armor possible - as long as it has the Wild property on it. Then wildshape, and all of the restrictions disappear! No more ACP! No more Max Dex! Heck, no more encumberance!

In fact: why bother with the ironwood spell at all? Since the armor can't be targeted with anything (barring an Antimagic Field or the like), it can't be damaged. Heck, make it out of enchanted toilet paper!

And why bother with a proficiency in Heavy Armor? The ACP disappears when wildshaped.

Wow. :\

A wild shield does not take up a limb, no reason that it should, it has been wildshaped away.

Except that the wild property doesn't say that for shields. It does call it out specifically for armors.

 

[Jolly Giant]

He believes also that ring of deflection stacks, but since it is melded in when wildshaping I pointed it out that it wouldn't (right? correct me if i'm wrong).

The ring will meld into his new form and thus not grant its benefit, yes. He could, however, take the ring off before wild shaping and then put it back on once he's in bear shape (or rather get another partymember with decent fingers to put it on for him). Bears do have digits of a sort, but wether or not they are sufficiently finger-like for wearing a magic ring is entirely up to you as DM. Personally, I would not allow it. If he wild-shapes into an ape; yes, but a bear; no.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Normally, when you are in a wild shape, you are unaffected by the various properties of your armour. No check penalty, no encumberance, nothing. You have full use of your natural weapons, and can use all your limbs for whatever you want. The Wild property allows you to retain the armour bonus and enhancement bonus of your armour and shield. Shields do not have an armour bonus, but this is likely a 3.0->3.5 oversight. Fine.

The wild property does not indicate that you also retain the armour check penalty, the encumberance, or any other drawback of wearing armour. Quite simply, you get to keep the bonus but suffer none of the penalties, because the description of the property says only that you can keep the bonus, and makes no mention of anything else. It's very clear and unambiguous. The only ambiguity is whether the shield bonus from a shield is kept while in wild shape. However, it is clear that a shield's enhancement bonus is retained.

Anything else is a house rule.

Whether this is balanced for a +3 bonus is debatable, but that's the way it is. I can't speculate on whether this is a balanced property, although pricing for a Wild item starts at about 16000, so it's not cheap. Certainly not if you want both armour and shield to have it. Perhaps this is reasonable for a high-level druid. I can't say, since I haven't played in a game with one. Perhaps someone else?

 

[Scion]

Glammer[/i] does nothing for the poor crocodile.

From what it seems like you were saying before glamor would actually do 'more'.

And why bother with a proficiency in Heavy Armor? The ACP disappears when wildshaped.

Note that you are responding to the wrong person, I said nothing about the armore check penalties going away, in fact I thought I remembered an faq about the restrictions of the armor still staying along with the armor bonus, but nothing else.

I have even made it a point of saying that the armor check penalties would still be immense.

Hence why I said that you are quoting the wrong individual. You will want to point these comments at Dr. Awkward, enjoy.

Except that the wild property doesn't say that for shields. It does call it out specifically for armors.

Actually, like I said before, it mentions three things: a suit of armor, shield, armor.

I feel that the last takes into account both of the previous, as it does not specify suit of armor as it did earlier and it is true that a shield is a type of armor. Whether the last is specifying something directly with the proper vernacular or it is being loos with the language, either way though I still believe that the shield melds. Anything else would lead to very, very odd results. Especially as animated would be simply better in effectively every way.

 

[Nail]

...in fact I thought I remembered an faq about the restrictions of the armor still staying along with the armor bonus...

Anyone confirm this?

 

[Spatula]

"Cannot be seen" means what it says. I agree.

It does NOT mean "the armor cannot be felt, hit, cannot be the target of a dispel, does not make noise, does not prevent arcane somatic components from working correctly, etc".

In fact, the armor would do exactly zero good to the wildshaped druid if it were the case that the armor wasn't there. If it's not there, it can't protect the druid, nicht wahr?

It's magic, it doesn't need to be "there."

Two things:
A shield is not usually absorbed into wildshape, as many forms have arms to which a shield may be attached. The Dire Bear is an excellent example.

How is a bear going to use a shield, exactly? Bears can stand on two legs but can't easily walk when standing. Furthermore, large and tower shields require the use of a hand to hold a shield, which bears don't have.

The Wild ability doesn't make the shield dissappear, only the armor. Says so right in the SRD and RAW description.

That's an overly rules-lawerly interpretation, IMO.