@Miniman My argument is pretty simple, the text speaks for itself really.

At least to me it seems pretty self-explanatory. The art is les conclusive, but I believe it too is demonstrative of my overall interpretation of the text.

@Dyndrilliac I remain unconvinced that "melding into a werebear" isn't being transformed in some way.

Why? What about the equipment is changing?

@Dyndrilliac It's being absorbed into the body of a werebear? I would consider that a change. Armour doesn't usually do that.

But the text of polymorph is clear -when the effect ends, it returns unchanged. I would call it a temporary change at best.

The point is that the equipment is unusable, not that it is being transformed. I envision it similar to rules that say you can wear multiple suits of armor if you wish but you only get the effects of one.

@Dyndrilliac By that logic, polymorph itself isn't a transformation

How so? speciically says that it changes your stats. By contrast, the stats of the equipment do not change.

Temporary change isn't somehow not a change at all.

I remain unconvinced that it is a change, temporary or not. The equipment does not change. It merely becomes non-functional.

Becoming non-functional is a change.

But it is not non-functional because the equiment has changed, it becomes non-unctional because the wearer's form has changed to encompass it.

Excuse the typing my keyboard is wearing out so soe keys once struck don't hit the sensor beneath all the way :P

This is extremely tortured logic.

Regardless, it's not you that needs convincing, it's everyone else that you need to convince. The votes are fairly clear on whether that has been accomplished.

@Dyndrilliac I don't think the plate armour is sitting inside the werebear's body completely intact

If you're firm in your position despite objections though, that's fine and there are better things to do than to argue about it. G'night!

@SevenSidedDie Surely you do not suggest that an answer cannot be true simply because it is not popular? I care not for some imaginary metric of approval. I saw a question I could answer, the asker is largely inclined to agree with me, and the rest of the user base disagrees as they are free to do. I see no need to convince anyone of anything.

Typical. No interest in discussion and no willingness to put forth his own answer. Oh well.

@Dyndrilliac If you "care not for some imaginary metric of approval", there's not that much point in discussion, surely? d7 disagrees with you, you don't care, why waste time trying to talk him into agreement?

I don't think it's correct. You're answer isn't persuasive that it's correct. That's a fairly normal state of affairs for human discourse.

I am convinced I am correct, but that doesn't mean I'm not interested in hearing other's input. I do wish to understand why he disagrees.

@SevenSidedDie Okay, let me approach this from a different direction. What is your answer to the asker's question? How do you believe the process works?

And what is your justification?

I have said why I disagree though, and it hasn't been regarded with interest.

If there was no interest, I would not be here.

All that you have said is that you disagree because I am not persuasive. I have offered text from the book, inferences based on what text is and is not present, what more do you ask? More importantly, what is your alternate theory?

What you've described is "the armour doesn't change". You apparently think that the armour changes into bear-ness, but that doesn't count as transformation somehow. So, I'm deeply unconvinced at that point. Given that the sentence is provided as an addition to the normal polymorph rules, that also seems wrong.

@Dyndrilliac Also, the last point I made was that I don't think the plate armour is sitting inside the werebear's body completely intact, so it must have changed. You ignored this.

If worn equipment was affected identically to how polymorph already does, that sentence would not exist. Since that sentence does exist, it probably means something.

@Miniman I did not ignore it, I am simply trying to keep up with conversng with mutliple people. I apologize for my slowness.

While I would agree that it is not a situation where the armor is like a metallic implant, I would disagree that it is not within the bears body.

The text "melds into the new orm" is pretty clear the armor and bear are one.

form*

Where is that text from?

@SevenSidedDie I disagree. To me that sentence tells you that the effect is identical to that of polymorph.

The description of Polymorph.

The equipment is not transformed; it s not destroyed thereby penalizing the old form nor changed to accommodate new size thus benefitting the new form.

It remains unchanged, not transformed.

@Dyndrilliac But if it's inside the bear's body, surely it must have been transformed? Otherwise the bear would be, like, messed up

It's magic? I agree if this were a setting where the laws of physics as we know them this would be impossible, but if that is the case we have much more complicated logical problems than a bear with armor inside it.

Given that "the gear doesn't transform" has been used in some variation since the dawn of D&D to mean that it does not transform along with the shapeshifter, and as the writers of 5e would have every reason to mean the same thing, I'm going to have to remain perplexed at that belief and continue disagreeing.

Our laws of science tell us gravity is constant, yet there are many spells that change this. Given that lycanthropy curse is a magical efect, I fail to see how that argument holds.

@SevenSidedDie you are free to agree or disagree as you wish. Why then would a werewolves clothes be destroyed but not a wererat or wereboar? The art shows them wearing gear, based on your apparent belief their original gear - they are medium bipedal creatures. Why is the wolf'storn but the others intact?

The question's asker based his question on the inconsistency of the visual representation. I propose that the visual representation is meaningless. The wereboar and wererat are wearing clothes because they want to, and so could the werebear; he would simply need clothes made for a large creature.

But that werebear will eventually revert to his human form and that gear fit fora large creature will be useless. So he chooses not to wear any.

Because when he reverts, he will have his original gear, untouched because it melded into his body as per the description of Polymorph.

Falling back to "but the art" is a weak argument, but I'll bite. What exactly is wrong with the toga the werewolf is wearing? It looks like it fits well enough.

"but the art" is not my argument, it was the question asker's. I've already said I think it is meaningless. But if your position holds, then the werewolf was wearing that same toga in human form. So why is it ripped along the bottom? He is still in the same size category and still walks on two legs.

It shouldn't have suffered any serious damage from the transformation.

It couldn't possibly have gotten ripped by any other means, you mean?

I'm sure it could have been ripped by any number of reasons. But d you thing the artists made a detailed backstory for this character they were drawing where they envisioned it being ripped prior to the transformation? If the art is indicative of what they were wearing prior to changing form (and I do not believe it is), then it stands to reason they are depicitng these characters this way because it ties in how their curse works.

Now you really are arguing "but the art". Look, I'm not buying what you're selling, your argument rests on a twist of semantics that is plainly mistaken to me and is contrary to the way those words have been used in D&D since forever.

You wanted to know what the objection was. Now you know. You're not interested in this water and I'm not interested in foolishly trying to make a horse drink, so I don't see the point of continued discussion.

I think you are taking this all a bit too personally. I feel a lot of aggression over something as simple as a disagreement. I understand you eel like you are wasting your time, but if that's the case why come to talk at all?

@Dyndrilliac Because he didn't think/know it would be a waste of time?

I did check out. I got another notice that I was messaged, and you said nearby that you honestly wanted to know, and were somewhat insulting about me being uninterested in continuing. I'm not actually worked up here.

> Typical. No interest in discussion and no willingness to put forth his own answer. Oh well.

I also wanted to know what your alternate theory was which you have yet to pose.

I do not feel I was insulting you, in fact your "that's fine and there are better things to do than to argue about it. G'night!" was fairly dismissive considering you not only chose to come here but also dogged me in comments on my answer when you as a mod should know better than most that we are to take extended discussions to chat.

My alternate theory is simple: the armour doesn't change, as the ability plainly says. It is then the DM's job to get creative about what happens when the wearer of the armour suddenly gets bigger than the armour. I expect it's catastrophic for the armour and painful for the bear. Probably the werebear should take it off before shapechanging.

Ah, I see. So the answer is "Let the DM figure it out."

Is that correct?

I didn't write it up as an answer, because I was reading a rule book that's much more interesting.

That's central to how RPGs operate, yes.

it may interest you to know the asker was the DM asking for advice regarding one of his PCs. He was asking for guidance, so your "Let the DM figure it out." was even more pointless.

Also, it's highly unlikely to need improvising, because "the gear doesn't change" is plenty of warning hat he character should remove such things and not find out what bad things happen otherwise.

Just because a DM is asking, doesn't mean Occam's Razor is inapplicable and suddenly some other, more convoluted situation is the new truth.

Well despite the general pompousness of your attitude, this has still been rather enlightening and I thank you for taking the additional time to better explain your position. I just hope if I am ever in the asker's position, someone will come along and give me a more useful answer than "You're the DM, you figure it out."

@Dyndrilliac Doesn't really seem that pompous. Definitely not on the level of "The truth is often unpopular, as history often shows."

Apologies, my connection timed out.

@Miniman it was a quote from Adlai Stevenson, a famous American statesmen.So, at best, I feel I split the degree of pompousness equally :) Standing on the backs of giants, and all that.

@Dyndrilliac Fair enough