Un-hittable druid- legal?

[Cheiromancer]

Gloves (on bear claws sounds) like a stretch as well... And just to confirm you would have to remove the amulet, gloves, and belt before wild shaping would you not?

I suppose they would have to be fingerless gloves if the claws would get in the way. Do apes have huge talons?

But yeah, I was thinking that the ape would put on the amulet, gloves and belt.

 

[ruleslawyer]

The only thing I'll say on this thread is that as DM, the Legendary Animals from MOTW are one of the things I don't use and would not allow. If you do an analysis of size-versus-power in 3E they radically break the standard -- in fact, the MOTW text actually says they were designed specifically to break the normal sizing rules to allow druids extra-powerful allies in dungeons (which seems unnecessarily out of character).

It's this kind of thing that gives the splatbooks a bad name.

Why? Note that under the rules at the time MotW was written, wildshaping into dire creatures was a completely separate ability from wildshape by size. What this meant was that you could NEVER wild shape into a legendary animal; they were intended for use only as animal companions, not new opportunities for wild shape.

In 3.5, legendary animals are either really unnecessary or useful summoning stock for high- or epic-level druids. If you like, just give them the Archetypal Form (Ex) quality and have done with.

 

[Cheiromancer]

Not to mention that legendary animals are not unique to MotW. They are in the MMII as well. Since they have the sub-type "animal" it seems within the remit of the rules that they could be objects of wildshaping. Even in 3.0, but certainly in 3.5.

And as far as critters go, I just wanted a human shaped animal with a fair dex and natural armor. The legendary ape has a killer strength, but for the purposes of this exercise that wasn't the aim.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Bracers of Armor give an armor bonus. Are they incompatible with a monk's belt?

Of course not. That's an example of an Armor Bonus from a non-armour source

-Hyp.

 

[Cheiromancer]

You are definitely wearing armor! The Wild property just allows you to retain your armor bonus while wildshaped and makes the armor unseen. It doesn't reduce armor penalties, weight, etc. It is a weird ability in that they don't explicitly clarify some of those issues. I would probably have it resize to whatever size you wildshape to. That way, you don't have a sparrow trying to fly around with really heavy armor. The armor would resize to appropriate size. However, that does not change the fact that you are still wearing armor.

True, the wild property allows you 'merely' to preserve an armor or shield's armor bonus (and any enhancement bonus) while in wild shape. It doesn't reduce armor penalties, weight, etc. But it doesn't have to: it is wildshape that removes those effects of armor.

Wildshape refers to polymorph, and polymorph refers to alter self. Alter self says that equipment "either remains worn or held by the new form (if it is capable of wearing or holding the item), or melds into the new form and becomes nonfunctional. When you revert to your true form, any objects previously melded into the new form reappear in the same location on your body they previously occupied and are once again functional."

Non-functional suggests that any of its effects cease the moment it becomes melded. This certainly includes any benefits the item would provide, but would logically also include any drawbacks. I would argue, for example, that a melded Robe of Powerlessness would no longer have any effect on the character. Now does encumbrance and weight count as a function that "disappears" when wild-shaped? That's not clear. But if they are unchanged, wildshaping into tiny and fine shapes would be extremely inconvenient, which doesn't seem to be the case. So what does happen?

Your suggestion that the items resize themselves certainly suggests that the encumbrance and weight is reduced, perhaps greatly reduced. However, I don't find any support for the notion that armor would resize itself because the wearer changed size. The Size and Magic Items section of the DMG (p. 213) indicates that magic armor does not change size on its own; thus if a wearer becomes tiny, the armor doesn't shrink with you. Normal items, of course, do not have the ability to change their size. Unless a spell or ability says otherwise (like Reduce Person) I can't see where this new ability would come from.

But I do find evidence to suggest that the item disappears: The fact that the armor "reappears" when you reassume normal size suggests that it has disappeared. This is also compatible with the notion that equipment that melds into your form does not significantly encumber you, and is compatible with the (strained) reading that weight and encumbrance is one of the "functions" of equipment that cease when the equipment melds.

So if a druid who turns into a sparrow is not to be immobilized by the weight of her equipment, one of two things has to happen: either the equipment reduces proportionally in size, or it disappears. My argument is that the first possibility cannot be squared with the rules, and that the second is quite probable. So I go with the second.

One argument that I *do* see as being plausible is that the dragonhide armor would not disappear when one changes into the form of an ape. Rather, the armor reshapes itself so the ape wears the armor. It might be necessary to change into a Large creature in order to make the (Medium-Size) armor disappear.

 

[Cheiromancer]

Of course not. That's an example of an Armor Bonus from a non-armour source

-Hyp.

Well, my position is that I am getting an armor bonus from an armor source without wearing the armor. Where is the flaw in that position?

 

[MerakSpielman]

Well, my position is that I am getting an armor bonus from an armor source without wearing the armor. Where is the flaw in that position?

If you weren't wearing the armor, you wouldn't be getting any bonuses from it at all. You're wearing the armor. You just can't see it.

 

[Cheiromancer]

The reason I can't see it is because I am not wearing it.

Normally, not wearing armor means you don't get the benefit from it. But the wild enhancement says that you *can* get the armor bonus from armor that has melded with your form when you wild-shaped.

 

[Camarath]

Wild Tower Shield +5 (32,000* + 180)= AC +9

I believe that in 3.5 Shields now give a Shield bouns to AC and the Wild ability only allows the item's Armor and Enhancement bonuses to remain in effect. But this may be a minor point since Wild is a 3.0 ability.

The reason I can't see it is because I am not wearing it.

Normally, not wearing armor means you don't get the benefit from it. But the wild enhancement says that you *can* get the armor bonus from armor that has melded with your form when you wild-shaped.

The Wild ability allows the armor's armor bonus to remain in effect while the "wearer" is in wild shaper. This means to me that the creature gaining the armor bonus from the Wild ability is still considered to be wearing the armor because if it was not considered to be wearing the armor it would not be the armor's wearer. And since a Monk loses his AC bonus when he "wears any armor" I think that a creature using Wild armor would not be able to gain the benefits of the Monk's AC Bonus ability.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I believe that in 3.5 Shields now give a Shield bouns to AC and the Wild ability only allows the item's Armor and Enhancement bonuses to remain in effect. But this may be a minor point since Wild is a 3.0 ability.

No, it made it to 3.5 in the DMG.

But you're right - it doesn't actually state that it allows you to retain a shield bonus! Oops!

-Hyp.