New Rules of the Game from Skip Williams on alternate form

[Iku Rex]

WotC has put up a new Rules of the Game article on (post-errata) alternate form.

Polymorphing Revisited (Part One)
Polymorphing Revisited (Part Two)
Polymorphing Revisited (Part Three) (new)

True to form Skip Williams does his best to muddy the waters.

Equipment

When a creature changes form, any equipment it has either remains worn or held by the new form (if that form is capable of wearing or holding the item), or melds into the new form and becomes nonfunctional. The DM must decide if the new form can handle the equipment. This is best decided on a case by case basis; however, Rules of the Game has previously suggested that one can divide creatures into types that have basically humanoid shapes and those that do not, as follows:

[Table with creature types listed as (usually) "humanoid" or "nonhumanoid"]

In this case, "humanoid" refers to a creature that walks upright on two legs, and has two arms, a head, and a torso. A humanoid might have a few extra limbs, such as an extra pair of arms, a pair of wings or a tail (or perhaps wings and a tail). The suggestions presented here are intended as general guidelines only. For example, most outsiders have generally humanoid bodies, but not all of them do. Likewise, some animals have bodies that fit the humanoid plan.

As a rule of thumb, a change from a form that has a humanoid shape to another form that also has a humanoid shape leaves all equipment in place and functioning. The creature's equipment changes to match the assumed form. It becomes the appropriate size for the assumed form and it fits the assumed form at least as well as it fit the original form. The being can change minor details in its equipment, such as color, surface texture, and decoration.

When a subject changes from a form with a humanoid shape to a form with a nonhumanoid shape (or vice versa) most of his equipment is subsumed into the new form and becomes nonfunctional while the creature remains in the assumed form. Items the subject could conceivably wear in an assumed form remain functional. For example, most items worn on the body, such as armor, cloaks, boots, and most other items of clothing made for a humanoid body won't fit on a nonhumanoid body. Some items can fit on just about any kind of body. For example, a ring fits nearly any form that has digits of some kind (the limit of two rings applies no matter how many hands or similar appendages a creature has). Likewise, a necklace fits on just about any form that has a neck.

The article is supposed to explain how alternate form ("or a class feature that's based on alternate form" = wild shape) works. These are the actual rules of the game...

Add the following text to the end of the entry.
—Any gear worn or carried by the creature that can’t be
worn or carried in its new form instead falls to the
ground in its space. If the creature changes size, any
gear it wears or carries that can be worn or carried in its
new form changes size to match the new size.
(Nonhumanoid-shaped creatures can’t wear armor
designed for humanoid-shaped creatures, and viceversa.)
Gear returns to normal size if dropped.

Notice how it contradicts Skip, who claims that the gear is "subsumed into the new form" if it can't fit. That's a pretty major difference in play.

Of course, the most commonly seen use of the alternate form rules is wild shape. (Which the article is also supposed to cover.) It has its own errata:

Add this new paragraph after the current paragraph 1:
Any gear worn or carried by the druid melds into the new
form and becomes nonfunctional. When the druid reverts
to her true form, any objects previously melded into the
new form reappear in the same location on her body that
they previously occupied and are once again functional.
Any new items worn in the assumed form fall off and
land at the druid's feet.

Now Skip's rule about "subsumed" equipment fits, but unfortunately his rules about resizing equipment don't. "Any gear worn or carried by the druid melds into the new form and becomes nonfunctional." That's a major difference.

Why the mistakes? It looks like Skip is still stuck on polymorph. In fact, in the first article he still thinks alternate from is based on polymorph, despite the new errata changes (on the same page) removing that part of the ability description. For some reason he also fails to include the rule about equipment in the adjusted alternate form text.

In closing I'd like to point out that Skip is wrong even with regards to polymorph. The spell has no rule about resizing equipment. Andy Collins (The Sage) confirmed this in the official FAQ some time after the last article series (part three) on polymorph .

What happens to the equipment worn and carried by a
character polymorphed* into another creature capable of
wearing and carrying the same gear? What if the new
creature’s size is different?
Unless stated otherwise, all spells in the polymorph chain
function as described in the alter self spell description, which
states that if the new form is capable of wearing or holding the
item, it remains worn or held; otherwise it melds into the new
form and becomes nonfunctional. A human polymorphed into
another Medium humanoid-shaped form (such as an elf,
grimlock, or bearded devil) can wear or hold all his gear, so it
remains in place.
However, this is one of those times when size definitely
matters, since your gear doesn’t automatically change size as a
result of polymorph. Assuming the new form has appropriate
body locations—for instance, a human polymorphed into a troll
or a pixie—most of your magic items (rings, cloaks, boots, and
other items of magic clothing or jewelry) still fit just fine
regardless of your new size (see “Size and Magic Items” on
page 213 of the DUNGEON MASTER’s Guide).
Nonmagical clothing and accoutrements that don’t fit the
new size meld into the character’s body when he is
polymorphed. (The Sage recommends that DMs err on the side
of leniency when determining what the new form can or can’t
wear.)
Similarly, armor (even magic armor) doesn’t resize to fit
wearers of different sizes. The human described above loses the
benefit of his +1 full plate armor as it melds into his body,
even though the new form is capable of wearing armor.
As long as your new form can hold weapons (that is, it has
hands or other similarly dexterous extremities), you hold on to
whatever weapons you had before the change. However, since
the weapons are no longer of a size appropriate to you, you take
a penalty on attack rolls with them as described on page 113 of
the Player’s Handbook. A human polymorphed into a troll can
still hold his Medium weapons (although they’re now one size
category too small for optimal use and thus he’ll suffer a –2
penalty on attack rolls). On the plus side, he can now wield that
Medium greatsword with only one hand, meaning he could
pick up a shield or a second weapon to wield simultaneously.
If your barbarian is regularly polymorphed into a troll or
stone giant, you might want to consider carrying an extra Large
weapon for use in those situations.
*The question and answer uses "polymorph" to refer
specifically to spells that rely on the polymorph or alter self
spell to adjudicate their effect (including alter self, polymorph,
polymorph any object, and shapechange), psionic powers based
on the metamorphosis power (including metamorphosis and
greater metamorphosis), and any other effect based on either of
these lists.

 

[Legildur]

Can't they get someone knowledgeable, say Hypersmurf, to write these things?? It would save them a lot of embarrassment... between the errata of the errata, the FAQ, and RotG it can be a mess (and not just for polymorph/alternate form!).

Mind you, it then gives us plenty to bleat over in the Rules thread

 

[Iku Rex]

Can't they get someone knowledgeable, say Hypersmurf, to write these things?? It would save them a lot of embarrassment... between the errata of the errata, the FAQ, and RotG it can be a mess (and not just for polymorph/alternate form!).

New writers couldn't hurt. (Though Hypersmurf's special brand of literal minded rules-lawyering might be a bit too much for an official advice column. ) But what they need is less arrogance. If they asked for advice from the community before making new clarifications and rules "official", possibly through intermediaries, we wouldn't have all these different versions of the rules floating around.

Ways to do that include a separate FAQ and/or RotG and/or new errata mailing list or a message board thread with a link to the as-of-yet unofficial article/FAQ/proposed errata.

A greater willingness to correct mistakes would also be helpful. There's no good excuse for having RotG and the FAQ and the rules (blatantly) contradict each other for more than a few days

 

[Deset Gled]

I wish I could be as bad at my job as Skip is at his and not be fired.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

I wish I could be as bad at my job as Skip is at his and not be fired.

A bit harsh, isn't that?

I suspect the key factor is the details of RotG is not the basis on which his Skip's performance is rated by his supervisor. If it were, he would presumably be given more time to consider the issues.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

A bit harsh, isn't that?

I suspect the key factor is the details of RotG is not the basis on which his Skip's performance is rated by his supervisor. If it were, he would presumably be given more time to consider the issues.

Then there's the other point, which is that Skip is considered probably 1 of maybe 10 people at WOTC who are considered to be rules experts in the system. Even though Skip has a boss, his boss likely doesn't understand the article anywhere near well enough to criticize him for it.