WagnerSika |
Enkili wrote:James Jacobs wrote:
The armor, once you wildshape, no longer impedes your movement. its max Dex no longer applies, nor does its armor check penalty. This is what helps make the "wild" armor quality a +3 equivalent bonus and not +2 or +1.
Does this include the non-proficiency penalty? Could a druid who spends most of combat wildshaped, or spellcasting wear wild dragonscale full-plate with no "real" penalty?
Nope; the non-proficiency penalty should still apply, just for game balance reasons.
Also there is some discussion here
Cap. Darling |
Quote:
Enkili wrote:James Jacobs wrote:
The armor, once you wildshape, no longer impedes your movement. its max Dex no longer applies, nor does its armor check penalty. This is what helps make the "wild" armor quality a +3 equivalent bonus and not +2 or +1.
Does this include the non-proficiency penalty? Could a druid who spends most of combat wildshaped, or spellcasting wear wild dragonscale full-plate with no "real" penalty?
Nope; the non-proficiency penalty should still apply, just for game balance reasons.
Also there is some discussion here
I have seen this used at the standart rule several places on the forum. But i also use this as an example of why mr. Jacobs is not a rules guy. With way he suggest the rules are working Druild can wear heavy armor and towershields with no profession (pehaps even with a monk dip for wis to AC as well).
WagnerSika |
I have seen this used at the standart rule several places on the forum. But i also use this as an example of why mr. Jacobs is not a rules guy. With way he suggest the rules are working Druild can wear heavy armor and towershields with no profession (pehaps even with a monk dip for wis to AC as well).
Well, you would get -16 to attack rolls if you are not proficient with tower shields and heavy armor. There does not seem to be any other "official" response about this issue. There are numerous discussions about armor and wildshaped druids.
I would go with James Jacobs' take on it, but ultimately I think it is a GM call at the moment. A FAQ answer would be nice :)
Cap. Darling |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Cap. Darling wrote:
I have seen this used at the standart rule several places on the forum. But i also use this as an example of why mr. Jacobs is not a rules guy. With way he suggest the rules are working Druild can wear heavy armor and towershields with no profession (pehaps even with a monk dip for wis to AC as well).
Well, you would get -16 to attack rolls if you are not proficient with tower shields and heavy armor. There does not seem to be any other "official" response about this issue. There are numerous discussions about armor and wildshaped druids.
I would go with James Jacobs' take on it, but ultimately I think it is a GM call at the moment. A FAQ answer would be nice :)
accordingly to the JJ quote he dosent think there would be any -16.
bookrat |
WagnerSika wrote:Quote:
Enkili wrote:James Jacobs wrote:
The armor, once you wildshape, no longer impedes your movement. its max Dex no longer applies, nor does its armor check penalty. This is what helps make the "wild" armor quality a +3 equivalent bonus and not +2 or +1.
Does this include the non-proficiency penalty? Could a druid who spends most of combat wildshaped, or spellcasting wear wild dragonscale full-plate with no "real" penalty?
Nope; the non-proficiency penalty should still apply, just for game balance reasons.
Also there is some discussion here
I have seen this used at the standart rule several places on the forum. But i also use this as an example of why mr. Jacobs is not a rules guy. With way he suggest the rules are working Druild can wear heavy armor and towershields with no profession (pehaps even with a monk dip for wis to AC as well).
Anyone can wear heavy armor and use a tower shied without a proficiency. They just incur a massive penalty to all attack rolls, skill checks that involve moving, Dex based skill checks, and strength based skill checks.
bookrat |
WagnerSika wrote:Cap. Darling wrote:
I have seen this used at the standart rule several places on the forum. But i also use this as an example of why mr. Jacobs is not a rules guy. With way he suggest the rules are working Druild can wear heavy armor and towershields with no profession (pehaps even with a monk dip for wis to AC as well).
Well, you would get -16 to attack rolls if you are not proficient with tower shields and heavy armor. There does not seem to be any other "official" response about this issue. There are numerous discussions about armor and wildshaped druids.
I would go with James Jacobs' take on it, but ultimately I think it is a GM call at the moment. A FAQ answer would be nice :)
accordingly to the JJ quote he dosent think there would be any -16.
Reread the quote all the way to the last sentence.
In wild shape, the non-proficiency penalty still applies. Now, if the Druid was proficient in the armor and shield, then that would remove the weight, movement, and skill check penalties. But since the non-proficiency penalty still applies, then this particular Druid in the OP is screwed
Cap. Darling |
Cap. Darling wrote:WagnerSika wrote:Cap. Darling wrote:
I have seen this used at the standart rule several places on the forum. But i also use this as an example of why mr. Jacobs is not a rules guy. With way he suggest the rules are working Druild can wear heavy armor and towershields with no profession (pehaps even with a monk dip for wis to AC as well).
Well, you would get -16 to attack rolls if you are not proficient with tower shields and heavy armor. There does not seem to be any other "official" response about this issue. There are numerous discussions about armor and wildshaped druids.
I would go with James Jacobs' take on it, but ultimately I think it is a GM call at the moment. A FAQ answer would be nice :)
accordingly to the JJ quote he dosent think there would be any -16.
Reread the quote all the way to the last sentence.
In wild shape, the non-proficiency penalty still applies. Now, if the Druid was proficient in the armor and shield, then that would remove the weight, movement, and skill check penalties. But since the non-proficiency penalty still applies, then this particular Druid in the OP is screwed
I ditent see the last sentence but since he alread made the ACP be 0 the it dosent matter. Any Way he is pulling it out of from rigth under his back there is nothing in the books suggesting what he is saying.
Imbicatus |
In my games - the armor check penalty still applies.
I run wild armor RAW, and allow it to bypass all penalties, because it makes no sense for armor that is non-encumbering to apply an ACP. However, I treat Wild as a +3 enchantment for Light armor, light shields, and bucklers only. It's +4 for medium armor/heavy shields, and +5 for heavy armor or tower shields.
Charon's Little Helper |
Charon's Little Helper wrote:In my games - the armor check penalty still applies.I run wild armor RAW, and allow it to bypass all penalties, because it makes no sense for armor that is non-encumbering to apply an ACP. However, I treat Wild as a +3 enchantment for Light armor, light shields, and bucklers only. It's +4 for medium armor/heavy shields, and +5 for heavy armor or tower shields.
Actually - it's the RAW that's up for debate. I believe that by maintaining the armor bonus, the Wild armor is becoming a part of the new creature in all ways - including movement/acp etc. The armor inherently has those things - and the Wild enchantment lets them keep the armor when shifted.
And it makes as much 'sense' for the ACP/movement speed penalty to still apply as for the armor bonus to still apply.
Taenia |
The only thing from Paizo we have on this is James Jacobs post. In general you can choose to ignore it if you want, but I find that it makes more sense to follow the guidelines of one of the writers of the material then not too.
Imbicatus - I like your strategy. I think I would do it a little different and let it sit at +3 but have it only work on light/medium armor because thats what druid's are proficient with.
Charon's Little Helper |
The only thing from Paizo we have on this is James Jacobs post. In general you can choose to ignore it if you want, but I find that it makes more sense to follow the guidelines of one of the writers of the material then not too.
If it makes sense - I agree with you. But in this case - James Jacobs was self-contradicting.
When he said that the druid would non-proficiency penalties, he was obviously thinking that such penalties would actually exist.
That's not to say that a druid can't get full plate/shield. It's probably worth a feat for heavy armor prof. But in my games they need to spend that feat, they're slowed, and they take ACP.
James Risner Owner - D20 Hobbies |