Wilding Clasps vs. Wild Armor or Beastskin armor

[eamon]

Would a 4k Wilding clasp (MIC p.190) work on an armor - thereby far outclassing the Beastskin armor property which costs +2 (MIC p.7)?

The item to which a Wilding clasp is attach remains functional when wild shaping. Beastskin costs an extra usage of Wildshape to allow the armor not to meld, costs at least 8k (and more for higher bonus armors) and isn't as flexible (only applies to armor), so if wilding clasps do apply to armor... why bother with Beastskin armor (let alone Wild Armor, which is a +3 modifier).

So my question is why does a wilding clasp not work, or if it does... why do these other things exist?

 

[eamon]

On a related note, is it unbalancing to allow these wild-shape specific effects to apply identically to shapeshift (PHB2 alternative), when doing so makes sense (i.e. clearly not for Beastskin armor, but perhaps for Wild Armor)?

I'm encouraging my players to use the (simpler, less abusable corner-cases) shapeshift, and don't want to discourage them with this kind of limitation.

 

[Patlin]

The shifter variant shouldn't experience any problems allowing wildshape based items to work with it, except for those based on unsing extra wildhsapes per day. Wildling clasps prevent an item from being absorbed, but do not change its shape, and so would not work on armor as the armor would not fit the new shape. The clasp works great on a periapt of wisdom, though.

 

[eamon]

Thanks! That's a sufficiently self-consistent interpretation I can sell to my characters ;-). It's still a little vauge around the edges though... How about size differences then - or wildshaping into something vaguely humanoid - like, a dire ape?

 

[Dagredhel]

On a related note, is it unbalancing to allow these wild-shape specific effects to apply identically to shapeshift (PHB2 alternative), when doing so makes sense (i.e. clearly not for Beastskin armor, but perhaps for Wild Armor)?

I'm encouraging my players to use the (simpler, less abusable corner-cases) shapeshift, and don't want to discourage them with this kind of limitation.

Note that the Shapeshift alternative class feature isn't a variant wildshape ability; it is a separate ability in it's own right that replaces wildshape (and animal companion.)

So by the RAW, shapeshift is never the equivalent of wildshape for the purposes of PrCs, feats, magic items, and etc.

On the other hand, as DM, you can surely rule differently on a case-by-case basis, and even should do so.

For example, the Nature's Warrior PrC is perfect for a Druid with shapeshift, and probably should be allowed. However, the Bestial Charge tactical feat definitely should not, since the primary balancer on the bonuses it grants is the limitation that it can only be used immediately after shifting into animal form, which wildshape allows only a limited number of times per day. Since shapechange allows a shift into animal form as a swift action, the balance is lost.

Wildling Clasps are hard to judge.

They used to (pre-MIC) explicity allow for ("polymorph") abilities other than wildshape that allow a change in form. The MoF version also had the limitation that they only worked on items that fill the throat ('amulet or similar item') or torso ('vest or similar item) body slots. (It seems like this was often forgotten.)

So, the older version would have been fine, I'd say.

With the newer write-up, any item worn on the body is fair game, which opens things up much, much more.

Also keep in mind that a shapeshifted Druid can't activate any magic item powers, only benefit from constant or active ones.

Even so, if you allow them, it'll likely mean a bunch of constant buffs on the Druid characters.

Wild Armor is a similar call. Allow it, and you have to expect that the Druid characters will get a big bonus to Armor Class (say +8 from special material plate armor and at least +1 from enhancement.)

So it really comes down to whether your campaign would be impacted by the power creep, or conversely the Shapeshift Druids would be underpowered without it.

 

[eamon]

Thanks for the balanced reply and reasoning!

I think the campaign will be affected by the power creep - but the party is all-round rather powerful and it's not likely to eclipse another PC, so it's OK. Importantly, the player is already a little itchy at how little value he gets from gear, so I think I'll allow it despite the mild power creep. I have noticed that he's got problems spending money usefully. Also, I don't want to encourage them to get a bunch of wands of greater mage armor just to work around "Wild Armor" problems. (which 'll come down to something very similar to wild armor, price-wise).

The difficulty in activating items is a good one! Mental activation would still work, however.

I've told him that I'll try to work with him to rewrite problematic feats, but fortunately that'll hardly be necessary as he's happy enough to just take simple stuff.

All this has made me very curious what a druid would work like in 4e ;-).

It's definitely the case that it's a little too easy to gain AC in the shapeshift variant. At twelfth level (the most extreme example, I find), a druid gains a plant-shape which improves natural armor by 12. This stacks with barksin (+5), greater Mage armor (+6), and you've got an AC of 33, without much effort. Somebody cynical enough to take a level of monk (or god-forbid, a monks-belt), and who has a high dex and wis, could easily push this 6 higher. A decent dex and wild armor leads to the same result. If you allow wilding clasps and rings of deflection (or if a friendly cleric helps you out here) you could add another +5 (which would be expensive, as a ring, however). That's an AC of 44, and you still haven't minmaxed shield or insight bonuses, which I'll bet could push you to around 49. Right now, I'm interpreting the shapeshift variant as if it provided an enhancement bonus to natural armor instead, which fixes things slightly, and I'm not going out of my way to provide the optimal specializes equipment in-game (and the player it's really into complex builds so he's unlike to try a stunt with a monk or something like that), so it's not as bad, but it's still a bit dubious.

Oh well, it's still better than wild shape. That's just Broken!

 

[Jhulae]

Oh well, it's still better than wild shape. That's just Broken!

It's less flexible than wild shape, though. A druid using shapeshift also can't cast spells in wild shape. And, there's the arguable loss of the animal companion.

So, while the option is certainly good, it also comes at some limitations (especially for people who like to have natural casting druids).

In fact, you'll find a lot of posters here who think the Shapeshift variant is weak.

 

[eamon]

I think it's weaker than wild shape + natural spell too!

That's not a bad thing IMHO. In the normal case, it's probably comparable. However, some wild shapes are simply too good and if you have natural spell and an animal companion to boot... well, wild shape will outclass shapeshift.

I still prefer shapeshift though, since it's easier and more fun in play. Also, the faster shifting time is neat. Further, it's less abusable, which is a good thing, because it also means it's more reasonable to just do what you can (whereas if you really try and push wild shape over the edge, you'll succeed, so you shouldn't try).

It's just better mechanically. It doesn't make your physical stats irrelevant (which is a design flaw of wild shape). It scales nicely for odd druids like giants. It's simpler. It's not underpowered compared to other classes. It's what wild shape should always have been.

 

[Jhulae]

Oh, I agree.

My last druid was a shapeshifting druid. I had a lot of fun with her, regardless of the fact I couldn't use Natural Spell.