It's still baffling that you're arguing that "Your equipment doesn’t change size or shape to match the new form," means something otherwise. Magic items are just like all equipment in that they're meant to fit a variety of humanoids, so you are really trying to argue that this applies to one of those but not the other? For what reason? It can't be "because magic" since the magic item rule doesn't require that to be how magic items adjust.
The wild shape feature is a specific rule going over how wild shape works with how equipment works with the feature. While the feature does state equipment doesn’t resize, I could easily see the interpretation being restricted to nonmagical equipment. ...
Why? No text makes that distinction. I made that point in the post you quoted.
The problem here is that NONE of the relevant rules point to a beast being able to wear equipment other than what the DM deems. When you wild shape into a horse, the short answer is you should need barding (and time to don it) not the armor you were already wearing.
Personally, I think Wolf is right about the RAW, but I don't think it is RAI and the line in wildshape was not meant to exclude magic wearable gear. That said, I also don't think it is RAW that a beast can wear magic armor meant for a humanoid because the armor only adjusts for size not shape.
DMs will have to judge on a case by case basis. <- which is both RAW and RAI. Really we should leave it at that.
It's still baffling that you're arguing that "Your equipment doesn’t change size or shape to match the new form," means something otherwise. Magic items are just like all equipment in that they're meant to fit a variety of humanoids, so you are really trying to argue that this applies to one of those but not the other? For what reason? It can't be "because magic" since the magic item rule doesn't require that to be how magic items adjust.
It isn't absolutely false.
It is a DM decision as to whether the SPECIFIC rules regarding magic items changing shape or the SPECIFIC rules of wild shape saying that your equipment doesn't change shape to match the new form - take precedence. Specific beats general but when two specific rules come into play, a DM needs to make a ruling - all folks are doing in this thread are making different rulings.
Wild shape does NOT remove the ability of magic items to adjust to fit a new form. (Wild shape doesn't say it prevents magic items from functioning). If a druid wild shapes into a bear leaving their magical bracers and armor on the ground THEN the bear puts on the armor - are you saying that the armor is somehow prevented from adjusting to the new shape? What happens if another character of the party has identical magic armor? Can that magic armor be fitted to the wild shaped druid but the suit that the druid was wearing and left on the ground can not be fitted to the wild shape? Wild shape only refers to the items worn by the druid at the moment that they change.
At most, the text you cited might prevent the items from changing shape as the druid wild shapes but there is nothing preventing the druid from leaving these items on the ground and subsequently putting these items on the wild shaped form since adjusting to different sizes and shapes is an intrinsic and specific part of the capability of magic items.
In addition, it is a very reasonable ruling, for a DM to say that the specific rules on magic items take precedence over the specific text in wild shape while the text in wild shape makes it clear that mundane items do not adjust to fit the new form.
P.S. In actual play I have allowed a tattoo and bracers to transfer to a bear form wild shape.
It is a DM decision as to whether the SPECIFIC rules regarding magic items changing shape or the SPECIFIC rules of wild shape saying that your equipment doesn't change shape to match the new form - take precedence. Specific beats general but when two specific rules come into play, a DM needs to make a ruling - all folks are doing in this thread are making different rulings.
That isn't how specific vs general works. Rules aren't categorized into general or specific, you have to compare the 2 rules and the more specific one takes precedence.
In this case it is a rule that applies to all wearable magic items and a rule that applies to equipment being worn by a wild shaping druid. The wild shape rule is more specific.
That said, I don't think the wild shape rule is supposed to mean what it says (because why would it turn off an item's ability to be worn?) And the magic item rule already doesn't apply to this situation most of the time (because the armor adjusts size, not shape).
Again, can there just be an agreement to disagree? This isn't going anywhere and it really only matters if the druid wildshapes into an ape or if they cast shapechange.
In this case it is a rule that applies to all wearable magic items and a rule that applies to equipment being worn by a wild shaping druid. The wild shape rule is more specific.
Maybe, but maybe not. The wild shape rule applies to all wearable equipment. The magic equipment rule only applies to magic equipment. The magic equipment rule is more specific. The context in which we're applying the general vs. specific test already assumes we're using wild shape. Equipment not being worn by a wild shaping druid is outside the domain of the question and not part of the discussion.
In this case it is a rule that applies to all wearable magic items and a rule that applies to equipment being worn by a wild shaping druid. The wild shape rule is more specific.
Maybe, but maybe not. The wild shape rule applies to all wearable equipment. The magic equipment rule only applies to magic equipment. The magic equipment rule is more specific.
But the magic equipment rule doesn't actually require that the equipment resizes/shapes when you change to a nonhumanoid shape. It in fact implies the opposite: nonhumanoids can only wear humanoid armor that their shape allows (per the DM's discretion). Again, neither rule says that a horse can wear a halfling's leathers unless the DM says.
The context in which we're applying the general vs. specific test already assumes we're using wild shape. Equipment not being worn by a wild shaping druid is outside the domain of the question and not part of the discussion.
What? The fact that a rule applies more generally than the context we're discussing is what makes it more general. Throwing out the fact that it is general because we have context for its application is like throwing out the general vs. specific rule alltogether. We're always looking at rules within the context of their potential application. Narrower potential application means a more specific rule.
I would like to actually point out the actual text of the rule on magic items (BR, written to the DM), since it looks like everyone is just assuming that all magic items automatically change size. (emphasis added)
Using a magic item's properties might mean wearing or wielding it. 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 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 they magically adjust themselves to the wearer. Rare exceptions exist. If the story suggests a good reason for an item to fit only creatures of a certain size or shape, you can rule that it doesn't adjust. For example, drow-made armor might fit elves only. Dwarves might make items usable only by dwarf-sized and dwarf-shaped folk.
When a nonhumanoid tries to wear an item, use your [DM's*] discretion as to whether the item functions as intended. A ring placed on a tentacle might work, but a creature with a snakelike tail instead of legs can't wear boots.
*added by me, since this section of the BR originally appears in the DMG, rather than the PHB.
In this case it is a rule that applies to all wearable magic items and a rule that applies to equipment being worn by a wild shaping druid. The wild shape rule is more specific.
Maybe, but maybe not. The wild shape rule applies to all wearable equipment. The magic equipment rule only applies to magic equipment. The magic equipment rule is more specific.
But the magic equipment rule doesn't actually require that the equipment resizes/shapes when you change to a nonhumanoid shape. It in fact implies the opposite: nonhumanoids can only wear humanoid armor that their shape allows (per the DM's discretion). Again, neither rule says that a horse can wear a halfling's leathers unless the DM says.
I have repeatedly stated that I am not interested in this particular topic. You are arguing a point that I am not contending. What I object to is your assertion that if a suit of magic armor had an effect that said "If your form changes, this armor magically reshapes itself to fit the new form" that effect would cease to work with Wild Shape.
The context in which we're applying the general vs. specific test already assumes we're using wild shape. Equipment not being worn by a wild shaping druid is outside the domain of the question and not part of the discussion.
What? The fact that a rule applies more generally than the context we're discussing is what makes it more general. Throwing out the fact that it is general because we have context for its application is like throwing out the general vs. specific rule alltogether. We're always looking at rules within the context of their potential application. Narrower potential application means a more specific rule.
You're missing the point. Depending on how you frame it, either rule can be objectively more specific than the other. One rule applies to all characters, one rule only applies to wild-shaped druids. One rule applies to all equipment, one rule only applies to magical equipment. My argument here is that one framing is much more sensible than the other, because the rules in question are about equipment, not characters; the question we're asking is what happens to a piece of equipment when its wearer uses wild shape. Neither rule is objectively more general; we must define a context before we make the determination. All I'm arguing for is one context over the other.
I disagree, still. On both points, particularly on the second (the first seems to be a straw man, because the suggestion you make isn't what the wearing and wielding magic items section says, and if it were I'd have to take more consideration). But as DJC suggested, I agree to disagree, since we seem to be at an impasse.
I disagree, still. On both points, particularly on the second (the first seems to be a straw man, because the suggestion you make isn't what the wearing and wielding magic items section says, and if it were I'd have to take more consideration).
It's not a straw man at all; again, the disagreement you and I are having is not related to what the wearing and wielding magic items section says. You have stated it's a case of specific vs. general, which means it doesn't matter what the more general rule says, because it's overriden. If you don't agree that what I've suggested is a logical consequence of your position, please explain!
But as DJC suggested, I agree to disagree, since we seem to be at an impasse.
I feel like a lot of the impasse here is that you haven't really been particularly forthcoming with any kind of explanation or justification for your disagreement. Obviously you don't owe me or anyone that, but I've tried hard to explain my thinking and how it interacts with what I can glean of yours, and I'm a little frustrated by what feels like an unwillingness to give anything back. That said, agreeing to disagree is fine. I just hate leaving things when I feel like I don't understand the other party.
I disagree, still. On both points, particularly on the second (the first seems to be a straw man, because the suggestion you make isn't what the wearing and wielding magic items section says, and if it were I'd have to take more consideration).
It's not a straw man at all; again, the disagreement you and I are having is not related to what the wearing and wielding magic items section says. You have stated it's a case of specific vs. general, which means it doesn't matter what the more general rule says, because it's overriden. If you don't agree that what I've suggested is a logical consequence of your position, please explain!
You suggest a different situation where not only does the rule that you propose indicate that it automatically changes when the wearer changes form (where the actual one doesn't); but that it is specific to a particular item, not even a category of items or a particular type of user - so conceivably far more specific than either of the rules already in discussion. The situations seem absolutely different to me, so far so that it is no longer a good test of the question at hand.
But as DJC suggested, I agree to disagree, since we seem to be at an impasse.
I feel like a lot of the impasse here is that you haven't really been particularly forthcoming with any kind of explanation or justification for your disagreement. Obviously you don't owe me or anyone that, but I've tried hard to explain my thinking and how it interacts with what I can glean of yours, and I'm a little frustrated by what feels like an unwillingness to give anything back. That said, agreeing to disagree is fine. I just hate leaving things when I feel like I don't understand the other party.
I think our disagreement is that you seem hyper focused on equipment vs magic items, where I'm looking at more than just that. Who a rule applies to, when it applies, and how it is different from the other related rules.
The rule on wearing and wielding magic items is different than people seem to think. It does not say that all magic items automatically resize - in fact what it does say is that there are options for the DM to decide on.
The Size/Shape argument is a red herring, because both Wild Shape and Wearing and Wielding discuss both terms.
The rule on wearing and wielding magic items is entirely consistent with wearing and wielding other mundane equipment. Both are just handwaving so that you don't have to worry about taking loot from a human guard and not being able to give it to the dwarf fighter. That reason for the rule weighs into my thought that a different rule that says your armor doesn't change size under some condition should (nearly always) take precedence.
The rule on wildshape is not dissimilar (in fact, I'd say it is written to be entirely consistent with) the other rules on equipment, except that it says exactly what your equipment doesn't do when you change form.
I expect that a sentence that starts "Your equipment doesn't" tells you exactly what your equipment doesn't do, and would necessarily be more detailed if it were such an incomplete rule as to have a significant hole in it for particular equipment. For example, if it were only meant to extend to mundane equipment, then "your non-magical equipment doesn't" would be perfectly appropriate.
The rule for the equipment that druids wear when they wildshape should be necessarily narrower of scope, and therefore more specific, than the rule that applies to everyone all the time. I am of the opinion that narrowness of scope is a good test of specificity. The circle of "equipment worn by wild shaping druids" is still smaller than the circle of "magic items." The former still (notably) completely contains the circle of "magic items worn by a wild shaping druid."
Finally, all of that doesn't really matter since all the relevant rules end with essentially "the DM decides what humanoid equipment nonhumanoids can wear" anyway.
I do dislike disagreeing with some particular users, not only because I know that their arguments are usually quite sound, but also because I tend to agree with them more than disagree. I hope that this cleared up where we disagree. You can probably pick apart any or all of those points, but they're my opinions, so if you disagree fine. If you care to ask any other questions of my reasoning I'll try to explain.
I would like to actually point out the actual text of the rule on magic items (BR, written to the DM), since it looks like everyone is just assuming that all magic items automatically change size. (emphasis added)
Using a magic item's properties might mean wearing or wielding it. 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 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 they magically adjust themselves to the wearer. Rare exceptions exist. If the story suggests a good reason for an item to fit only creatures of a certain size or shape, you can rule that it doesn't adjust. For example, drow-made armor might fit elves only. Dwarves might make items usable only by dwarf-sized and dwarf-shaped folk.
When a nonhumanoid tries to wear an item, use your [DM's*] discretion as to whether the item functions as intended. A ring placed on a tentacle might work, but a creature with a snakelike tail instead of legs can't wear boots.
*added by me, since this section of the BR originally appears in the DMG, rather than the PHB.
As you cited, the reshaping/resizing/refitting of magic items to both changes in size of humanoid forms or when worn by a non-humanoid is at the discretion of the DM.
Similarly, whether magic items are a subset of the items worn by a wild shaping druid and thus the rules regarding them are more specific because they apply to a subset of the items worn by the druid while the text from wild shape applies to all of the items - or whether the wild shaping text over rides the capabilities of any worn magic items to change shape as part of the wild shape transformation is also a DM decision.
"Specific Beats General
This compendium contains rules that govern how the game plays. That said, many racial traits, class features, spells, magic items, monster abilities, and other game elements break the general rules in some way, creating an exception to how the rest of the game works. Remember this: If a specific rule contradicts a general rule, the specific rule wins."
Wild shape rules can be looked at two ways -
1) The wild shape rule says that all equipment worn by the druid does not change as part of the wild shape process. This is the general rule on wild shaping. However, the rules regarding items state that magic items can resize to fit the shape of the creature (including nonhumanoids at the DMs discretion). This rule addresses magic items as a specific subset of all items and could be applied to the subset of items worn by a wild shaping druid which happen to be magical. This interpretation makes the magic item rule more specific in the context of all items worn by a druid.
2) The magic item rule says that they may change shape at DM discretion. This applies to magic items as a subset of all items. However, the druid wildshaping rule state that items worn do not change shape to match the new form. It is equally possible to interpret this to mean that the druid wildshape restriction applies to all items worn by the druid (magical or not) as a specific constraint of the ability. With this interpretation, magic items worn by a druid can not change shape.
There is NOTHING wrong with either interpretation and I'd say either could be supported by RAW since it comes down to the DM deciding which rule is more specific in the context of a druid wild shaping. (i.e. magic items as a subset of all items is more general than the wildshape rules vs magic items as a subset of items worn by the druid is more specific than a rule applying to all items worn by the druid).
Finally, the one common aspect to all of this is that everything in this context is at the DMs discretion. Interpreting which is more specific. Deciding if items could reshape to fit the wild shaped form. Everything is entirely up to the DMs call. It is a discussion where no one is "right" (in my opinion) - just one in which there are differing viewpoints on what the rules could say (some of which say that how it works is entirely the DMs decision - "When a nonhumanoid tries to wear an item, use your [DM's*] discretion as to whether the item functions as intended.")
It is a DM decision as to whether the SPECIFIC rules regarding magic items changing shape or the SPECIFIC rules of wild shape saying that your equipment doesn't change shape to match the new form - take precedence. Specific beats general but when two specific rules come into play, a DM needs to make a ruling - all folks are doing in this thread are making different rulings.
That isn't how specific vs general works. Rules aren't categorized into general or specific, you have to compare the 2 rules and the more specific one takes precedence.
In this case it is a rule that applies to all wearable magic items and a rule that applies to equipment being worn by a wild shaping druid. The wild shape rule is more specific.
That said, I don't think the wild shape rule is supposed to mean what it says (because why would it turn off an item's ability to be worn?) And the magic item rule already doesn't apply to this situation most of the time (because the armor adjusts size, not shape).
Again, can there just be an agreement to disagree? This isn't going anywhere and it really only matters if the druid wildshapes into an ape or if they cast shapechange.
The rule for specific vs general isn’t solved by which rule has more detail or intricacy. The rule on magic items being able to adjust is specific since it addresses the general rule that nonmagical equipment doesn’t automatically fit all creatures of varying sizes.
PHB, Pg 144 “In most campaigns, you can use or wear any equipment that you find on your adventures, within the bounds ofcommon sense. For example, a burly half-ore won't fit in a halfling's leather armor, and a gnome would be swallowed up in a cloud giant's elegant robe.”
again, I would be in the camp that the PHB class features mostly address general rules found within the PHB. I don’t know if this would have any bearing in the conversation but the DMG was originally released about 4 to 5 months after the PHB and the Monster manual. I’m not saying there aren’t general rules in the DMG, but what I am saying is that if WOTC goes through the trouble of saying magic items can work for everyone and everything, I don’t see how shafting the druid makes any sense.
there’s also the notion that in the beginning, the WOTC team worked under the idea that people would be able to readily identify and understand the revenant rules interactions regardless of placement within the books. After years of feedback they’ve realized that putting rules that should work together for end of pages apart or perhaps in different books doesn’t work well.
so perhaps the the question is more along the lines of “if magical equipment is known to conform to the user, why would WOTC be redundant in identifying this in a class feature?”
On a side note… is anyone really giving the druid a bunch of equipment they can’t use in the wild shape form?
My opinion is magic items can still be used in wild shape if it is plausible. Like a cloak, or tattoo, belt, or hat. Like the requirements of these items you just need to have a physical body for it to work, and you can leave it in your wildshape.
From the DMG on "Wearing and Wielding Items" it says: "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 they magically adjust themselves to the wearer." and "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 has no way to wear magic boots."
So, in wildshape, a druid is a non-humanoid. Turning into a Direwolf, I would allow them to wearing two boots, bracelet and bracers. But not gloves or rings. They can also wear a tiara and necklace provided the latter is 100% magical in all respects so that it can adjust to fit the neck size of the creature. But armor and shields and weapons would not work in this case. It depends on the creature. A baboon or ape could use armor and weapons. That's just how I roll with it.
Have fun. BTW, I had my Eladrin Elf Druid fey step into the mouth of a massive shark that was destroying the party and then wildshaped into a large elk in its stomach.
From the DMG on "Wearing and Wielding Items" it says: "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 they magically adjust themselves to the wearer." and "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 has no way to wear magic boots."
So, in wildshape, a druid is a non-humanoid. Turning into a Direwolf, I would allow them to wearing two boots, bracelet and bracers. But not gloves or rings. They can also wear a tiara and necklace provided the latter is 100% magical in all respects so that it can adjust to fit the neck size of the creature. But armor and shields and weapons would not work in this case. It depends on the creature. A baboon or ape could use armor and weapons. That's just how I roll with it.
Have fun. BTW, I had my Eladrin Elf Druid fey step into the mouth of a massive shark that was destroying the party and then wildshaped into a large elk in its stomach.
Wearing magic items while wild shaped is entirely a DM call.
RAW, as the druid transformed, any items that do not transform drop to the ground, so transforming into a Dire Wolf - the druid is likely to need help donning any magic items - and it will also take time.
However, depending on the wild shape, a DM could decide that they are capable of wearing various magic items like rings, necklace or bracers for example.
In the case of the Dire Wolf for example, I'd likely allow ring, bracers, necklace but not boots, gloves, armor, hat or helm - but it is entirely a DM decision since a DM could decide that a wilds shape is incapable of equipping any magic items.
There's much better arguments if we read rules as written that's far more abusive with the liberty of interpretation. "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 they magically adjust themselves to the wearer."(Not important to my response unless "You choose whether your equipment falls to the ground in your space, merges into your new form, or is worn by it. Worn equipment functions as normal, but the DM decides whether it is practical for the new form to wear a piece of equipment, based on the creature’s shape and size. Your equipment doesn’t change size or shape to match the new form, and any equipment that the new form can’t wear must either fall to the ground or merge with it. Equipment that merges with the form has no effect until you leave the form." The loop hole I see when I read this is that you can have barding made for your bear form put it on as a bear and transform into a giant snake and the armor will be pulled into your bear form and stored till you take bear your form again. I know this isn't intended but it fits all descriptive rules on the matter. Since I opened this box I'd like to say that moon druid is powerful enough at early level that any additional boost to it at low level would give it a push that could be to far in ways that are hard to gauge. A number cruncher would destroy campaigns with this where as most players would get a little bit more staying power on an already overly beefy build. Isn't it bad enough that your party member can disarm an enemy and your druid can pick up the enemies weapon and wild shape absorbing it leaving the only way to retrieve it being fisticuffs with a bear? Since we're here though, I'd love to hear WOTC or Beyond explain what happens when a Druid(small or medium sized) in Giant snake form(huge Sized) eats another small or medium sized creature. I themed a halfling barbarian druid after real life pygmy cannibals of the Congo and I may have left my DM speechless when I asked him after assassinating a bad guy in the mans own bedroom. After slithering free with a large stomach bulge we swept it under the rug and never spoke of it again. lol
This is a perfect example why we(in the US and most of the world, even China and they're famous for sweat shops/child labor and 90% of the things you own) have the right to counsel and if we can't afford counsel we will be provide counsel in a court of law. After bastardizing and making our language out of many other languages it makes it difficult to be infallible and unmistakably understood especially in a game based in imagination renowned for rewarding critical thinking. Hopefully I've made my point totally clear... That we should be glad we're not arguing over legal binding contracts.
I just want to point out that your plan expends two uses of Wild Shape just in the set up. So it's not effective until your Druid reaches level 20.
I think that they are suggesting that the items worn as a bear can be merged INTO their druid form when they switch back though I may be misinterpreting ...
"You choose whether your equipment falls to the ground in your space, merges into your new form, or is worn by it."
The quote is perhaps out of context but the worn equipment can merge into your new form and the question would be whether items worn while a bear could be merged into the druid form when they switch forms.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Why? No text makes that distinction. I made that point in the post you quoted.
The problem here is that NONE of the relevant rules point to a beast being able to wear equipment other than what the DM deems. When you wild shape into a horse, the short answer is you should need barding (and time to don it) not the armor you were already wearing.
How about ending this with an agree to disagree?
Personally, I think Wolf is right about the RAW, but I don't think it is RAI and the line in wildshape was not meant to exclude magic wearable gear. That said, I also don't think it is RAW that a beast can wear magic armor meant for a humanoid because the armor only adjusts for size not shape.
DMs will have to judge on a case by case basis. <- which is both RAW and RAI. Really we should leave it at that.
It isn't absolutely false.
It is a DM decision as to whether the SPECIFIC rules regarding magic items changing shape or the SPECIFIC rules of wild shape saying that your equipment doesn't change shape to match the new form - take precedence. Specific beats general but when two specific rules come into play, a DM needs to make a ruling - all folks are doing in this thread are making different rulings.
Wild shape does NOT remove the ability of magic items to adjust to fit a new form. (Wild shape doesn't say it prevents magic items from functioning). If a druid wild shapes into a bear leaving their magical bracers and armor on the ground THEN the bear puts on the armor - are you saying that the armor is somehow prevented from adjusting to the new shape? What happens if another character of the party has identical magic armor? Can that magic armor be fitted to the wild shaped druid but the suit that the druid was wearing and left on the ground can not be fitted to the wild shape? Wild shape only refers to the items worn by the druid at the moment that they change.
At most, the text you cited might prevent the items from changing shape as the druid wild shapes but there is nothing preventing the druid from leaving these items on the ground and subsequently putting these items on the wild shaped form since adjusting to different sizes and shapes is an intrinsic and specific part of the capability of magic items.
In addition, it is a very reasonable ruling, for a DM to say that the specific rules on magic items take precedence over the specific text in wild shape while the text in wild shape makes it clear that mundane items do not adjust to fit the new form.
P.S. In actual play I have allowed a tattoo and bracers to transfer to a bear form wild shape.
It means "Your wild shape ability does not cause your equipment to change size or shape".
That isn't how specific vs general works. Rules aren't categorized into general or specific, you have to compare the 2 rules and the more specific one takes precedence.
In this case it is a rule that applies to all wearable magic items and a rule that applies to equipment being worn by a wild shaping druid. The wild shape rule is more specific.
That said, I don't think the wild shape rule is supposed to mean what it says (because why would it turn off an item's ability to be worn?) And the magic item rule already doesn't apply to this situation most of the time (because the armor adjusts size, not shape).
Again, can there just be an agreement to disagree? This isn't going anywhere and it really only matters if the druid wildshapes into an ape or if they cast shapechange.
Maybe, but maybe not. The wild shape rule applies to all wearable equipment. The magic equipment rule only applies to magic equipment. The magic equipment rule is more specific. The context in which we're applying the general vs. specific test already assumes we're using wild shape. Equipment not being worn by a wild shaping druid is outside the domain of the question and not part of the discussion.
But the magic equipment rule doesn't actually require that the equipment resizes/shapes when you change to a nonhumanoid shape. It in fact implies the opposite: nonhumanoids can only wear humanoid armor that their shape allows (per the DM's discretion). Again, neither rule says that a horse can wear a halfling's leathers unless the DM says.
What? The fact that a rule applies more generally than the context we're discussing is what makes it more general. Throwing out the fact that it is general because we have context for its application is like throwing out the general vs. specific rule alltogether. We're always looking at rules within the context of their potential application. Narrower potential application means a more specific rule.
I would like to actually point out the actual text of the rule on magic items (BR, written to the DM), since it looks like everyone is just assuming that all magic items automatically change size. (emphasis added)
*added by me, since this section of the BR originally appears in the DMG, rather than the PHB.
I have repeatedly stated that I am not interested in this particular topic. You are arguing a point that I am not contending. What I object to is your assertion that if a suit of magic armor had an effect that said "If your form changes, this armor magically reshapes itself to fit the new form" that effect would cease to work with Wild Shape.
You're missing the point. Depending on how you frame it, either rule can be objectively more specific than the other. One rule applies to all characters, one rule only applies to wild-shaped druids. One rule applies to all equipment, one rule only applies to magical equipment. My argument here is that one framing is much more sensible than the other, because the rules in question are about equipment, not characters; the question we're asking is what happens to a piece of equipment when its wearer uses wild shape. Neither rule is objectively more general; we must define a context before we make the determination. All I'm arguing for is one context over the other.
I disagree, still. On both points, particularly on the second (the first seems to be a straw man, because the suggestion you make isn't what the wearing and wielding magic items section says, and if it were I'd have to take more consideration). But as DJC suggested, I agree to disagree, since we seem to be at an impasse.
It's not a straw man at all; again, the disagreement you and I are having is not related to what the wearing and wielding magic items section says. You have stated it's a case of specific vs. general, which means it doesn't matter what the more general rule says, because it's overriden. If you don't agree that what I've suggested is a logical consequence of your position, please explain!
I feel like a lot of the impasse here is that you haven't really been particularly forthcoming with any kind of explanation or justification for your disagreement. Obviously you don't owe me or anyone that, but I've tried hard to explain my thinking and how it interacts with what I can glean of yours, and I'm a little frustrated by what feels like an unwillingness to give anything back. That said, agreeing to disagree is fine. I just hate leaving things when I feel like I don't understand the other party.
You suggest a different situation where not only does the rule that you propose indicate that it automatically changes when the wearer changes form (where the actual one doesn't); but that it is specific to a particular item, not even a category of items or a particular type of user - so conceivably far more specific than either of the rules already in discussion. The situations seem absolutely different to me, so far so that it is no longer a good test of the question at hand.
I think our disagreement is that you seem hyper focused on equipment vs magic items, where I'm looking at more than just that. Who a rule applies to, when it applies, and how it is different from the other related rules.
I do dislike disagreeing with some particular users, not only because I know that their arguments are usually quite sound, but also because I tend to agree with them more than disagree. I hope that this cleared up where we disagree. You can probably pick apart any or all of those points, but they're my opinions, so if you disagree fine. If you care to ask any other questions of my reasoning I'll try to explain.
As you cited, the reshaping/resizing/refitting of magic items to both changes in size of humanoid forms or when worn by a non-humanoid is at the discretion of the DM.
Similarly, whether magic items are a subset of the items worn by a wild shaping druid and thus the rules regarding them are more specific because they apply to a subset of the items worn by the druid while the text from wild shape applies to all of the items - or whether the wild shaping text over rides the capabilities of any worn magic items to change shape as part of the wild shape transformation is also a DM decision.
"Specific Beats General
This compendium contains rules that govern how the game plays. That said, many racial traits, class features, spells, magic items, monster abilities, and other game elements break the general rules in some way, creating an exception to how the rest of the game works. Remember this: If a specific rule contradicts a general rule, the specific rule wins."
Wild shape rules can be looked at two ways -
1) The wild shape rule says that all equipment worn by the druid does not change as part of the wild shape process. This is the general rule on wild shaping. However, the rules regarding items state that magic items can resize to fit the shape of the creature (including nonhumanoids at the DMs discretion). This rule addresses magic items as a specific subset of all items and could be applied to the subset of items worn by a wild shaping druid which happen to be magical. This interpretation makes the magic item rule more specific in the context of all items worn by a druid.
2) The magic item rule says that they may change shape at DM discretion. This applies to magic items as a subset of all items. However, the druid wildshaping rule state that items worn do not change shape to match the new form. It is equally possible to interpret this to mean that the druid wildshape restriction applies to all items worn by the druid (magical or not) as a specific constraint of the ability. With this interpretation, magic items worn by a druid can not change shape.
There is NOTHING wrong with either interpretation and I'd say either could be supported by RAW since it comes down to the DM deciding which rule is more specific in the context of a druid wild shaping. (i.e. magic items as a subset of all items is more general than the wildshape rules vs magic items as a subset of items worn by the druid is more specific than a rule applying to all items worn by the druid).
Finally, the one common aspect to all of this is that everything in this context is at the DMs discretion. Interpreting which is more specific. Deciding if items could reshape to fit the wild shaped form. Everything is entirely up to the DMs call. It is a discussion where no one is "right" (in my opinion) - just one in which there are differing viewpoints on what the rules could say (some of which say that how it works is entirely the DMs decision - "When a nonhumanoid tries to wear an item, use your [DM's*] discretion as to whether the item functions as intended.")
The rule for specific vs general isn’t solved by which rule has more detail or intricacy. The rule on magic items being able to adjust is specific since it addresses the general rule that nonmagical equipment doesn’t automatically fit all creatures of varying sizes.
PHB, Pg 144
“In most campaigns, you can use or wear any equipment that you find on your adventures, within the bounds ofcommon sense. For example, a burly half-ore won't fit in a halfling's leather armor, and a gnome would be swallowed up in a cloud giant's elegant robe.”
again, I would be in the camp that the PHB class features mostly address general rules found within the PHB. I don’t know if this would have any bearing in the conversation but the DMG was originally released about 4 to 5 months after the PHB and the Monster manual. I’m not saying there aren’t general rules in the DMG, but what I am saying is that if WOTC goes through the trouble of saying magic items can work for everyone and everything, I don’t see how shafting the druid makes any sense.
there’s also the notion that in the beginning, the WOTC team worked under the idea that people would be able to readily identify and understand the revenant rules interactions regardless of placement within the books. After years of feedback they’ve realized that putting rules that should work together for end of pages apart or perhaps in different books doesn’t work well.
so perhaps the the question is more along the lines of “if magical equipment is known to conform to the user, why would WOTC be redundant in identifying this in a class feature?”
On a side note… is anyone really giving the druid a bunch of equipment they can’t use in the wild shape form?
My opinion is magic items can still be used in wild shape if it is plausible. Like a cloak, or tattoo, belt, or hat. Like the requirements of these items you just need to have a physical body for it to work, and you can leave it in your wildshape.
From the DMG on "Wearing and Wielding Items" it says: "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 they magically adjust themselves to the wearer." and "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 has no way to wear magic boots."
So, in wildshape, a druid is a non-humanoid. Turning into a Direwolf, I would allow them to wearing two boots, bracelet and bracers. But not gloves or rings. They can also wear a tiara and necklace provided the latter is 100% magical in all respects so that it can adjust to fit the neck size of the creature. But armor and shields and weapons would not work in this case. It depends on the creature. A baboon or ape could use armor and weapons. That's just how I roll with it.
Have fun. BTW, I had my Eladrin Elf Druid fey step into the mouth of a massive shark that was destroying the party and then wildshaped into a large elk in its stomach.
Wearing magic items while wild shaped is entirely a DM call.
RAW, as the druid transformed, any items that do not transform drop to the ground, so transforming into a Dire Wolf - the druid is likely to need help donning any magic items - and it will also take time.
However, depending on the wild shape, a DM could decide that they are capable of wearing various magic items like rings, necklace or bracers for example.
In the case of the Dire Wolf for example, I'd likely allow ring, bracers, necklace but not boots, gloves, armor, hat or helm - but it is entirely a DM decision since a DM could decide that a wilds shape is incapable of equipping any magic items.
There's much better arguments if we read rules as written that's far more abusive with the liberty of interpretation.
"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 they magically adjust themselves to the wearer."(Not important to my response unless
"You choose whether your equipment falls to the ground in your space, merges into your new form, or is worn by it. Worn equipment functions as normal, but the DM decides whether it is practical for the new form to wear a piece of equipment, based on the creature’s shape and size. Your equipment doesn’t change size or shape to match the new form, and any equipment that the new form can’t wear must either fall to the ground or merge with it. Equipment that merges with the form has no effect until you leave the form."
The loop hole I see when I read this is that you can have barding made for your bear form put it on as a bear and transform into a giant snake and the armor will be pulled into your bear form and stored till you take bear your form again. I know this isn't intended but it fits all descriptive rules on the matter.
Since I opened this box I'd like to say that moon druid is powerful enough at early level that any additional boost to it at low level would give it a push that could be to far in ways that are hard to gauge. A number cruncher would destroy campaigns with this where as most players would get a little bit more staying power on an already overly beefy build. Isn't it bad enough that your party member can disarm an enemy and your druid can pick up the enemies weapon and wild shape absorbing it leaving the only way to retrieve it being fisticuffs with a bear?
Since we're here though, I'd love to hear WOTC or Beyond explain what happens when a Druid(small or medium sized) in Giant snake form(huge Sized) eats another small or medium sized creature. I themed a halfling barbarian druid after real life pygmy cannibals of the Congo and I may have left my DM speechless when I asked him after assassinating a bad guy in the mans own bedroom. After slithering free with a large stomach bulge we swept it under the rug and never spoke of it again. lol
This is a perfect example why we(in the US and most of the world, even China and they're famous for sweat shops/child labor and 90% of the things you own) have the right to counsel and if we can't afford counsel we will be provide counsel in a court of law. After bastardizing and making our language out of many other languages it makes it difficult to be infallible and unmistakably understood especially in a game based in imagination renowned for rewarding critical thinking. Hopefully I've made my point totally clear... That we should be glad we're not arguing over legal binding contracts.
Enjoy 😘
I just want to point out that your plan expends two uses of Wild Shape just in the set up. So it's not effective until your Druid reaches level 20.
I think that they are suggesting that the items worn as a bear can be merged INTO their druid form when they switch back though I may be misinterpreting ...
"You choose whether your equipment falls to the ground in your space, merges into your new form, or is worn by it."
The quote is perhaps out of context but the worn equipment can merge into your new form and the question would be whether items worn while a bear could be merged into the druid form when they switch forms.