Quick Druid - Wild Shape questions

[GPS]

Every creature is capable of having an AC.





It certainly COULD be made of metal and wood. It worked for the T-800.

The use of it isn't based off of whether something has an AC, it's based off of whether a thing can use armor.

[DivisibleByZero]

The use of it isn't based off of whether something has an AC, it's based off of whether a thing can use armor.

The use of it isn't based off of whether something has an AC, it's based off of whether a thing <is made of composite plating which provides the racial +1 to AC>, which a natural beast such as a bear is not.

FIFY

[Tetrasodium]

The use of it isn't based off of whether something has an AC, it's based off of whether a thing can use armor.

So... a wizard with no armor proficiency that is not willing to wear armor they can't use can't use a ring of protection? How strange, I don't see anything about that in my DMG where it says

RING OF PROTECTION
Ring, rare (requires attunement)
You gain a +1 bonus to AC and saving throws while wearing this ring.

Do you think one of us could have a misprint?... or are you just trying to pretend your own houserule is covered by RAW rather than accept responsibility for choosing to create that houserule you chose to create?

[LordVonDerp]

I'm pretty sure that the "magic items meant to be worn resize to fit the wearer" is a general rule, and "the DM decides if your Wildshape can wear it" is a specific rule. I think this because the former statement applies to all magic items that are meant to be worn (with exceptions), while the latter rule applies only to Druid Wildshapes.

So by the argument of "specific trumps general," "DM chooses whether they fit" is the winner.

EDIT: I took so long to write this post it doesn't even count as being ninja'd......

Equipment would be General, Magic Items would be Specific.

[LordVonDerp]

The use of it isn't based off of whether something has an AC, it's based off of whether a thing <is made of composite plating which provides the racial +1 to AC>, which a natural beast such as a bear is not.

FIFY

The exact words are that the bonus comes from the construction of the warforged, not it's exterior.

[DivisibleByZero]

Equipment would be General, Magic Items would be Specific.

"These magic items change shape to fit the wearer" would be general
When you stop being an humanoid and turn into an octopus or something, "Your equipment doesn’t change size or shape to match the new form" would be specific.
The former is a general rule regarding worn magic items. The latter is an exception to that rule when a specific class feature is used. The exception is the specific, not the general.
Wild Shape equipment rules trump general rules.

The exact words are that the bonus comes from the construction of the warforged, not it's exterior.

So now are you trying to argue that your beast is constructed?
You can't turn into a construct, you can turn into a beast. Beasts have natural armor of their own sometimes. Assuming that your DM is going to allow you to stack construct racial abilities onto the beast is a mistake.

[jaappleton]

"These magic items change shape to fit the wearer" would be general
When you stop being an humanoid and turn into an octopus or something, "Your equipment doesn’t change size or shape to match the new form" would be specific.
The former is a general rule. The latter is an exception to that rule. The exception is the specific, not the general.



So now are you trying to argue that your beast is constructed?
You can't turn into a construct, you can turn into a beast. Beasts have natural armor of their own sometimes. Assuming that your DM is going to allow you to stack construct racial abilities onto the beast is a mistake.

I clarified this earlier, perhaps you missed it.

Warforged is simply what mechanically fits best. The character itself is a golem created as a defense mechanism, created magically by an ancient Druidic circle that's been forgotten.

Given that, do you still take issue with the +1 to AC?

[DivisibleByZero]

I clarified this earlier, perhaps you missed it.

Warforged is simply what mechanically fits best. The character itself is a golem created as a defense mechanism, created magically by an ancient Druidic circle that's been forgotten.

Given that, do you still take issue with the +1 to AC?

Why does this golem have that +1 AC? What prompts that bonus? Where does that bonus come from?

[jaappleton]

Why does this golem have that +1 AC? What prompts that bonus? Where does that bonus come from?

Because.... I want to maximize the ever loving crap out of Wild Shape since I've had 3 characters die in the last 5 sessions?

That's where it comes from?

[DivisibleByZero]

I think you l know how I'm going to answer your previous question.

[Tetrasodium]

"These magic items change shape to fit the wearer" would be general
When you stop being an humanoid and turn into an octopus or something, "Your equipment doesn’t change size or shape to match the new form" would be specific.
The former is a general rule regarding worn magic items. The latter is an exception to that rule when a specific class feature is used. The exception is the specific, not the general.
Wild Shape equipment rules trump general rules.

I can't help but notice you keep misquoting raw when trying to make a point about raw. the actual text from DMG140 is

In most cases, a magic item that's meant to be worn
can fit a creature regardless of size or build. Many
magic garments are made to be easily adjustable, or the:
magically adjust themselves to the wearer.
Regardless of weather or not

You donb't have away from books as an excuse considering I quoted the entire section on the first page including the bit talking about why "rare exceptions" might not.

What I don't understand is why you are so set on blaming the rules rather than accepting responsibility for choosing to apply wildshape's override clause of "DM decides whether it is practical for the new form to wear a piece of equipment" in a reasonable manner. Could it be that you know that you are trying to take an unreasonable stance & subconscious guilt encourages you to suggest others share your guilt rather than taking the harder road & simply accepting it?

[SilverStud]

Equipment would be General, Magic Items would be Specific.

You know, I'm not really sure we can count magic items as different from equipment. After all, you equip them, don't you?

Probably the source of this whole argument is whether equipment is different from magic items.

I think equipment refers to anything you can equip. If it meant either magic or mundane, it would say so. Since it only says "equipment," we have to assume it means all equip-able things.

[DivisibleByZero]

What I don't understand is why you are so set on blaming the rules rather than accepting responsibility for choosing to apply wildshape's override clause of "DM decides whether it is practical for the new form to wear a piece of equipment" in a reasonable manner. Could it be that you know that you are trying to take an unreasonable stance & subconscious guilt encourages you to suggest others share your guilt rather than taking the harder road & simply accepting it?

Are you kidding me?

Go ahead and tweet JC about it. I don't have to, because I already know the answer. Mainly because we've had this discussion before and have already heard an official ruling, and I'm just to lazy to bother looking it up to prove you wrong yet again.
You're wrong. I'm not going to spout a bunch of pseudo-psychology at you. I'm simply going to tell you that you are, once again, completely and utterly wrong.

Or better yet, I'll be nice and stop being lazy.
http://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/02/24/...and-retain-ac/

Richard A Weeks @weeksra
---- Druid wildshape: Does magical armor shape with the new animal form and retain AC?

Jeremy Crawford @JeremyECrawford
---- The rules assume that wearable magic items are made for humanoids. See "Wearing and Wielding Items" (DMG, 140).

The rules assume that wearable magic items are made for humanoids. See "Wearing and Wielding Items" (DMG, 140).

And in case you're wondering, DMG 140(141) says:
A magic item meant to be worn must be donned in the intended fashion: boots go on the feet gloves on the hands, hats and helmets on the head, and rings on the finger. Magic armor must be donned, a shield strapped to the arm, a cloak fastened about the shoulders. A weapon must be held in hand.
<snip>
When a nonhumanoid tries to wear an item, use your discretion as to whether the item functions as intended. A ring placed on a tentacle might work, but a yuan-ti with a snakelike tail instead of legs can't wear boots.

So we've come full circle, and even under the magic items entry it tells us that this is going to be the DM's decision as to whether or not you can wear it in wild shape. That's what "use your discretion" means, as this is the DMG, the DM will use his or her discretion. Just like it says in the wild shape description.
DM's call.
Period.
Deal with it. I know you hate it when the DM gets to make calls about anything, but deal with it.

Incidentally, your entire post (not just the part I quoted here, but the whole thing) is particularly hilarious to me considering the garbage you just posted a minute ago.
I love how you quote pg140 for me, and conveniently leave out the relevant parts regarding actually WEARING the things....

[RickAllison]

You know, I'm not really sure we can count magic items as different from equipment. After all, you equip them, don't you?

Probably the source of this whole argument is whether equipment is different from magic items.

I think equipment refers to anything you can equip. If it meant either magic or mundane, it would say so. Since it only says "equipment," we have to assume it means all equip-able things.

I would say that magic items are a specific subset of equipment. I am basing this from Chapter 5: Equipment, which contains potions of healing, which are a magic item according to the DMG, under adventuring gear. So magic items are equipment, just equipment with additional rules.

[SilverStud]

You said it better than I did, but that's my line of thinking too. I follow it from there to say that if it says "equipment" it is referring to all subsets.

[jaappleton]

So if a Beast can feasibly wear it, yes?

And if I could reflavor it (And of course get the DM to agree to it) as a 'Collar of Protection', or even a 'Medallion of Protection' instead of it being a 'Cloak of Protection', more Beasts can feasibly wear such a thing... Correct?

[DivisibleByZero]

So if a Beast can feasibly wear it, yes?

And if I could reflavor it (And of course get the DM to agree to it) as a 'Collar of Protection', or even a 'Medallion of Protection' instead of it being a 'Cloak of Protection', more Beasts can feasibly wear such a thing... Correct?

That's between you and your DM.
Just like it always has been.

[jaappleton]

That's between you and your DM.
Just like it always has been.

.....Not the answer I was hoping for. Though admittedly, it is one I agree with.

[RickAllison]

That's between you and your DM.
Just like it always has been.

Always keeping in mind that some magic items should ALWAYS work. Ioun stones just float around your head regardless of it being humanoid or snake. An amulet may not work on a snake or bug (no neck, slips off head or way too big, etc.), but those mammalian forms shouldn't have much trouble. The only problem comes with gloves, boots, rings, and similar items that have incompatible anatomy. Rings may fit onto other parts of a form, but it is entirely reasonable that sticking it on a snake's tail would have no more of an effect than putting it on a chain and wearing it around the neck, they aren't being used like they should for the magic to work (and octopus should work given that the arms serve the same function as the fingers, but that is a corner case and shouldn't be taken to apply on all forms).

Some restrictions on items may really be the sign of a tyrannical DM. But not the Bracers of Defense, not any boots or gloves, not a ring stuck on a tail. Who knows how cloaks work, and hats are potentially incompatible as well. The items that you should be able to claim simply work while transformed are the exception rather than the rule.

[jaappleton]

Always keeping in mind that some magic items should ALWAYS work. Ioun stones just float around your head regardless of it being humanoid or snake. An amulet may not work on a snake or bug (no neck, slips off head or way too big, etc.), but those mammalian forms shouldn't have much trouble. The only problem comes with gloves, boots, rings, and similar items that have incompatible anatomy. Rings may fit onto other parts of a form, but it is entirely reasonable that sticking it on a snake's tail would have no more of an effect than putting it on a chain and wearing it around the neck, they aren't being used like they should for the magic to work (and octopus should work given that the arms serve the same function as the fingers, but that is a corner case and shouldn't be taken to apply on all forms).

Some restrictions on items may really be the sign of a tyrannical DM. But not the Bracers of Defense, not any boots or gloves, not a ring stuck on a tail. Who knows how cloaks work, and hats are potentially incompatible as well. The items that you should be able to claim simply work while transformed are the exception rather than the rule.

I'm allowed to start with two Uncommon magic items. I figure Warforged's +1 to AC and Cloak of Protection's +1 essentially allow me to add +2 to all forms I'd typically use in combat. So with Barkskin on a Dire Wolf and these two items, that makes me a Dire Wolf with 18 AC. 16 without Barkskin, 14 normally with no items.

I was going to start with a... 'Medallion of Protection' (with DMs permission) and the... Oh darn it, whats the item from one of the adventures? +1 to attack rolls and damage with unarmed strikes and natural weapons. It's from STK or HotDQ. WHAT IS ITS NAME?! I'm totally blanking!

EDIT: INSIGNIA OF CLAWS!!!

[Arkhios]

And a Warforged Druid always retains its bonus +1 to AC, even in Wild Shape, right?

As for Warforged, I imagine that is dependent on how you and the DM handle his transformation. If the PC becomes a robotic, Warforged version of the beast a la Transformers, then it should work but he will not be able to pass for the creatures on close inspection without something like an illusion. If it is magically becoming that form and so being biological, you certainly couldn't benefit from it as you have lost the source.

This is slightly off-topic, but this gave me an idea. I've been heavily restricting some classes (mostly spellcasting classes) to certain races in the campaign i've been occasionally babbling about, and currently I've allowed druids (moon circle only) for Shifters, because, well, they have a racial shapeshift-esque ability anyway. Now, with this idea I began to consider allowing warforged to be druids as well, only that they'd have to be "transformer-like" xD

[DivisibleByZero]

I'm allowed to start with two Uncommon magic items. I figure Warforged's +1 to AC and Cloak of Protection's +1 essentially allow me to add +2 to all forms I'd typically use in combat. So with Barkskin on a Dire Wolf and these two items, that makes me a Dire Wolf with 18 AC. 16 without Barkskin, 14 normally with no items.

I was going to start with a... 'Medallion of Protection' (with DMs permission) and the... Oh darn it, whats the item from one of the adventures? +1 to attack rolls and damage with unarmed strikes and natural weapons. It's from STK or HotDQ. WHAT IS ITS NAME?! I'm totally blanking!

Hate to break it to ya, but that isn't how barkskin works.
Barkskin doesn't set your AC to 16. It makes 16 the floor. Your AC is whatever your AC is, and 16 is the minimum. So it isn't 16+2=18.
It's 13+x= <16 = 16

[jaappleton]

Hate to break it to ya, but that isn't how barkskin works.
Barkskin doesn't set your AC to 16. It makes 16 the floor. Your AC is whatever your AC is, and 16 is the minimum. So it isn't 16+2=18.
It's 13+x= <16 = 16

F--- you're right. Damn it.

I should've seen that, that was an obvious one.

-head desk-

[RickAllison]

F--- you're right. Damn it.

I should've seen that, that was an obvious one.

-head desk-

Sorry. Curse of the druids. On the plus-side, Druids tend to be rather good at evading danger when they wish, so bad AC isn't so terrible as it it is for a Barbarian or Sorcerer.

[jaappleton]

Sorry. Curse of the druids. On the plus-side, Druids tend to be rather good at evading danger when they wish, so bad AC isn't so terrible as it it is for a Barbarian or Sorcerer.

Its not just that. I pride myself on being fairly knowledgeable on 5E in general terms, and to have missed something so incredibly obvious bugs the crap out of me.

[Tetrasodium]

Sorry. Curse of the druids. On the plus-side, Druids tend to be rather good at evading danger when they wish, so bad AC isn't so terrible as it it is for a Barbarian or Sorcerer.

Yea, barkskin is pretty awful b/c of the concentration requirement instead of a flat duration. The fact that druids can trivially get 16 ac outside of wildshape when they might choose to cast nonconcentrate spells. being only 3 ac better than mage armor's 13AC & 8 hour duration from a first level slot in exchange for being a second level spell that needs concentration pretty much murders the justifications for it. Druids having so many other concentration spells that are likely to be better options for things to maintain concentration on instead while wildshaped doesn't help it much either.

[LordVonDerp]

"These magic items change shape to fit the wearer" would be general
When you stop being an humanoid and turn into an octopus or something, "Your equipment doesn’t change size or shape to match the new form" would be specific.
The former is a general rule regarding worn magic items. The latter is an exception to that rule when a specific class feature is used. The exception is the specific, not the general.
Wild Shape equipment rules trump general rules.

Other way around. Equipment not changing shape is a general rule, Druid Wild shape is a general rule. Magic items are a specific type of equipment that can specifically change shape.

So now are you trying to argue that your beast is constructed?
You can't turn into a construct, you can turn into a beast. Beasts have natural armor of their own sometimes. Assuming that your DM is going to allow you to stack construct racial abilities onto the beast is a mistake.

Except that none of that actually matters. Warforged have their racial bonuses, and they get to keep them when transformed. RAW.

[DivisibleByZero]

You didn't bother with finishing the thread before posting that, did you?
Because the PHB, DMG, & JC all disagree with you, as I showed above.

[Solunaris]

Except that none of that actually matters. Warforged have their racial bonuses, and they get to keep them when transformed. RAW.

I disagree.

You retain the benefit of any features from your class, race, or other source and can use them if the new form is physically capable of doing so.

Your construction incorporates wood and metal, granting you a +1 bonus to Armor Class

Relevant sections bolded for clarity, but a beast is not constructed of wood and metal. Since the +1 to AC is dependent on the incorporation of the wood and metal in the body of the Warforged and the beast is not made of wood or metal we can infer that the beast is not physically capable of gaining that +1 to AC.

[LordVonDerp]

I disagree.




Relevant sections bolded for clarity, but a beast is not constructed of wood and metal. Since the +1 to AC is dependent on the incorporation of the wood and metal in the body of the Warforged and the beast is not made of wood or metal we can infer that the beast is not physically capable of gaining that +1 to AC.

That depends on both the warforged and the player. Some players will have theirs wildshape into a normal beast and others will wildshape into something more mechanical. If you feel like penalizing players based on fluff choices then you are free to do so, but it goes against the spirit of 5e.