[MotW] WotC back to its old tricks

[EOL]

I think this is an indication of how spoiled we've become. In 2e there were inconsistancies and problems you could drive a semi through. 3e is such a tight system that even the smallest inconsistences can drive people to exagerrated claims of malfeseance. I think anytime a minor inconsistency like this is noticed it should make us grateful that it isn't any worse, because believe me at one point in time it was, ohhh was it ever....

 

[I'm A Banana]

Realism, but not balance...

I agree that WotC did some good thinking in stopping the new form from altering HP...but it can create some strange situations...

Low hp druid wild shapes into a Dire Bear, two sword blow bring her down....

High hp druid wild shapes into a mouse. A cat claws it, expecting it to go squish. Instead, it barely squeaks, and bites the kitty on the toe.

It helps balance, but it does create some quite silly situations that will indulge my amusement.

 

[Crothian]

Of course there's also the animal acting with (hopefully) human instinct and intelligence. So, the fact that the hp's are off from a normal animal shouldn't be that much of a concern.

 

[Altalazar]

I see no contradiction whatsoever. Rage is an ability.

It is like if there was a special ability to cast Bull Strength. You don't get the strength of the form, but if you cast Bull Strength, your strength increases by 2-5 points. No contradiction there.

Rage is an ability. Barbarians can even rage.

Someone is perhaps trying too hard to find a problem.

Perhaps that is partly WotC's fault for previous experiences that taint views now, but one should try and be objective going in.

 

[Grendel]

You guys are killing me.

1. I will buy the book, I love 3e.
2. Wizards needs to pay closer attention to ruling they make so that they are consistant. A contradictory ruling on the same page is inexcusible in my opinion.
3. I do think druids should gain the (ex) abilities, like rage.

However as stated in the first paragraph the druid woudl not get any benefit to hit points. The CON that the druid aquires while in animal form does not affect their HPs, therefore an increase in that CON would not adust their HPs.

However the second section clearly states that the druid would recieve more hps while raging, which contradicts the first portion.

what if the druid recieved an endurance spell?
Before the change?
after the change?

I think the easiest ruling would have been that CON is not changed with the new form.

 

[Ciaran]

However as stated in the first paragraph the druid woudl not get any benefit to hit points. The CON that the druid aquires while in animal form does not affect their HPs, therefore an increase in that CON would not adust their HPs.

Actually, I think you're misreading the text here. Here's what you quoted at the top of the thread:

"The druid retains her own Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma scores, level and classes, hit points (despite any change in her Constitution score), alignment, base attack bonus, and base save bonuses. (New Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution scores may affect final attack and save bonuses.)"

It seems pretty clear to me that it's not preventing changes in CON while in animal form from affecting HP. Rather, it's saying that the change in CON while changing to animal form doesn't change the druid's HP. Only that specific change in CON is involved. Any other changes while in animal form, such as Endurance, would alter HP accordingly. The changes are relative rather than absolute; simply add 1 HP/level for every +2 to CON, and subtract 1 HP/level for every -2 to CON.

Among other problems with your interpretation would be to provide the druid in animal form a near-total immunity to the effects of Constitution damage. I don't think that reducing a 20 CON druid to 1 CON and having her retain all her hit points is a good idea.

- Eric

 

[The Sunderer]

It seems a nice Mathless fix to me.... No problems here

 

[Ravellion]

This is a fix, not an inconsistency IMO

Rav

 

[Grendel]

That does seem reasonable. And presumable the rule was written as is to avoid having to go back and do the additional math of calculating hps (even if you do have to go back and calculate saves).

I appreciate someone being able to explain it to me in terms that are clear.

I think the most math free solution, for my campaign, will be to leave the original CON score and change only STR and DEX (only because CON affects hps and saves), this will eliminate any rules descrepancies regarding a CON adjust that affects saves but not hps.

 

[Ciaran]

I think the most math free solution, for my campaign, will be to leave the original CON score and change only STR and DEX (only because CON affects hps and saves), this will eliminate any rules descrepancies regarding a CON adjust that affects saves but not hps.

That seems like a reasonable solution, and one that isn't out of line with the spirit of the ability. In fact, I can't think of any reason not to do it that way.

- Eric