Does Templates Prevent Wild Shape?

[Taelas]

In the Simple Q&A thread, Curmudgeon argues the following:


A lycanthrope Druid cannot wild shape.

Creating A Lycanthrope

"Lycanthrope" is a template that can be added to any humanoid or giant (referred to hereafter as the base creature).


Wild Shape (Su)

At 5th level, a druid gains the ability to turn herself into any Small or Medium animal and back again once per day. ... This ability functions like the alternate form special ability, except as noted here.


A creature cannot use alternate form to take the form of a creature with a template.

A Druid who uses wild shape must eventually return to its base form. Since using wild shape to turn (back) into a base form with a template is forbidden by RAW, acquiring lycanthropy permanently removes the Druid's ability to wild shape.

I disagree with this conclusion, on the basis that wild shape has a specific exception in that it can turn back (presumably into its original shape), and that the specific ability wild shape overrules the more general ability Alternate Form (though it does not even need to, as it specifies 'except as noted here' after it refers to Alternate Form).

What do people think? Does having a template prevent you from using wild shape?

[Divide by Zero]

This certainly seems like a case of specific trumps general, yeah. Even if it isn't, it's kind of ridiculous, so I'd house rule it anyway if it ever came up.

[PollyOliver]

I think that interpretation only works if you say returning to your original form is "using" wild shape, as opposed to ending wild shape. Which means you'd also probably have to rule that it takes one of your daily uses to turn back every time, to be consistent. Except wild shape specifies "and back again". So this strikes me as...not making sense.

Edit: As the above poster notes, even if it were the case, I'd say the specific of "and back again" trumps the general "template" rule.

[ffone]

I think that interpretation only works if you say returning to your original form is "using" wild shape, as opposed to ending wild shape. Which means you'd also probably have to rule that it takes one of your daily uses to turn back every time, to be consistent. Except wild shape specifies "and back again". So this strikes me as...not making sense.

My thoughts too.

[Divide by Zero]

Also, if that were the case, wouldn't it also apply to any templated creature with the Alternate Form ability? So lycanthropes would never be able to change form.

[The Glyphstone]

Agreed - if a druid ending Wild Shape counts as 'using' the ability, so does a lycanthrope returning to its base form - so a lycanthrope could never change shape. That, obviously, makes no sense, on the 'drowning to 0 health is RAW' level of makes no sense.

[Cog]

The restriction is that you can't use Wild Shape to assume the templated form. I read that as a restriction on activation of the ability; you can't use it to do that, but it might inadvertently result in that. So: a lycanthrope Druid can activate Wild Shape to become a bear just fine, and when the clock runs out on Wild Shape the effect fades away and the Druid again has a lycanthropic form without actively choosing to assume it. Unlike other Druids, though, this one can't choose to end Wild Shape early, because they'd be actively assuming a templated form in that case.

Edit: as for why Lycanthropes can still use their own alternate form ability, it's because they aren't assuming a form with a template. A human werebear doesn't assume "the hybrid form of a human werebear", he assumes "hybrid form", which has its own set of defined stat adjustments that aren't listed separately in the MM (unlike most alternate form choices).

[Taelas]

Lycanthropes (as well as vampires, the other template I know of with Alternate Form) have specific versions of it -- they do not refer to the general ability at all. So that at least does not have an impact here.

[Divide by Zero]

Lycanthropes (as well as vampires, the other template I know of with Alternate Form) have specific versions of it -- they do not refer to the general ability at all. So that at least does not have an impact here.

Nevertheless, the idea that having a template (a purely metagame construct in most cases) automatically prevents you from ever using any shape-changing abilities makes absolutely no sense at all.

[Yuki Akuma]

All creatures with the (Shapechanger) subtype can return to their normal form at will anyway. So even if Curmudgeon was right (he's really not), it wouldn't matter much.

[Cog]

All creatures with the (Shapechanger) subtype can return to their normal form at will anyway.
I'm pretty sure that's only a description of how the Shapechanger subtype interacts with Polymorph-type effects. I've looked through the SRD and MM, and that language only seems to come up in that particular case. It doesn't seem to be listed in the description of the subtype itself... though I do have a feeling I've seen the wording elsewhere too, so if somebody has a quote I'd be interested, even if it might fall prey to the primary source rules.

[Urpriest]

Also: the term form is consistently used as shorthand for a set of abilities gained from a polymorph or alternate form effect, not for a physical creature. This is why Polymorph Any Object is argued to allow, for example, a character to become a Beholder Mage, while ordinary Polymorph cannot: Polymorph Any Object lacks the "form" language. Upon leaving wild shape the druid does not shift into their lycanthrope "form", they simply leave the borrowed animal form. Their lycanthrope body is not a form.

[Keld Denar]

At the risk of piling on, I'm gonna do it anyway.

Even if you could read it that having a template disallows you from shifting back into your natural form (assuming "no templated forms" trumps "being able to return to your base form"), you could also read it the other way ("being able to return to your base form" trumps "no templated forms"). There are a number of cases like this, where it is rather unclear on which is the rule and which is the exception and which one takes precident.

Given the fact that nobody here is one of the developers of the product (screen shot or it didn't happen), it is impossible for us to know which case is which, and who is right. As such, we have to simply acknowledge that EITHER could be the correct interpretation. In light of that, we can make an educated guess (not RAW explicitly, but an interpretation of the intent of RAW). I think its safe to assume that the intent of the devs was NOT to create a "divide by cucumber" error when your human druid gets biten by a were-rat.

Just my opinion.

[Socratov]

I tend to think in a more Rules as Intended way in these situations.. I think the rules will want to prevent you from taking a lycantrope's alternate form (say werewolf or werebear) because that would be entirely too strong. Also, I think various people here are right in the ruling that ending a wildshape is not the same as using a wildshape. So I'd say go ahead and make that lycantrope druid master of many forms :)

[Curmudgeon]

We seem to be missing my only other contribution on this point:

Re: A 400

Not quite. Remember that when rules conflict, specific goes before general, and we have a specific exception in the part you quoted yourself.
For this to be true, you would need to prove two things:

an individual template has more general scope in the rules than an individual special quality; and
the construction of the wild shape ability does, in fact, create an exception.
I don't see any substantial RAW support for either of those necessary premises, and so I stand by my answer.

[dextercorvia]

What about the Lycanthropy preventing the use of it's own Alternate Form? Each of the three forms is still the character, and therefore still has the lycanthropy template.

[Keld Denar]

It seems that the consensus is against you. Why don't you prove that the rules rule your way.

As I said, we can't possibly prove what the devs intent was on which rule holds over the others. In light of that, either interpretation is valid.

[Curmudgeon]

What about the Lycanthropy preventing the use of it's own Alternate Form?
There's an exception for that:
Special Qualities

A lycanthrope retains all the special qualities of the base creature and the base animal, and also gains those described below.

Alternate Form (Su): A lycanthrope can assume the form of a specific animal (as indicated in its entry). That's inside the template description, so it's a clear override.

[Divide by Zero]

There's an exception for that: That's inside the template description, so it's a clear override.

Then:

Wild Shape (Su)

At 5th level, a druid gains the ability to turn herself into any Small or Medium animal and back again once per dayHow is that not also clear?

[KoboldCleric]

Gaining the ability to do something doesn't necessarily mean that you can do it though. It may not be the best example, but off the top of my head I know the assassin PrC (dmg) says that assassins Gain the ability to cast arcane spells, but that doesn't mean the character can do it in all situations. An intelligence score of less than 10, the presence of an anti-magic effect of some variety, the inability to perform the required verbal or somatic components or the lack of a material component would all render this ability useless; he still retains the ability, he just can't use it.

[Taelas]

My apologies if you felt I misrepresented your position, Curmudgeon, that wasn't my intention.

I never said a template had to be more specific than Alternate Form; I argued that wild shape was more specific.

While I think I can read it the way you do, I do not think it can be the correct way. If merely the presence of templates prevent wild shape, that is a massive restriction which should be expressed clearly in the wild shape itself, and not merely hidden away.

[Curmudgeon]

My apologies if you felt I misrepresented your position, Curmudgeon, that wasn't my intention.
I assumed it was an unintended oversight; no apologies are necessary.

I never said a template had to be more specific than Alternate Form; I argued that wild shape was more specific.

While I think I can read it the way you do, I do not think it can be the correct way. If merely the presence of templates prevent wild shape, that is a massive restriction which should be expressed clearly in the wild shape itself, and not merely hidden away.
There are many rules which are "hidden away" (invoked by reference rather than restated as a reminder), including other restrictions on templates.

Wild Shape (Su)

This ability functions like the alternate form special ability, except as noted here.
Alternate Form

A creature cannot use alternate form to take the form of a creature with a template. The template limitation on Polymorph Any Object is through two levels of indirection, rather than just the one of wild shape.
Polymorph Any Object

This spell functions like polymorph, except that it changes one object or creature into another.
Polymorph

This spell functions like alter self, except that you change the willing subject into another form of living creature.
Alter Self

You cannot take the form of any creature with a template, even if that template doesn’t change the creature type or subtype. Since there's adequate precedence for taking these indirect rules as written, I would expect there to be an explicit exception mentioning templates in wild shape for that normal restriction to be bypassed.

[Gardener]

Firstly, the conclusion in the OP does not follow from its premises. A templated Druid cannot use Wild Shape to assume their own form, so they remain in the last form they assumed until they use an ability to change their form again.

Secondly, the conclusion is, as The Glyphstone pointed out, bucket-of-water-healing stupid. It is debatable which of the two entries ("And back again" and "cannot assume a templated form") is more specific, but one interpretation is simple and straightforward (You can use wild shape to become any untemplated animal of appropriate size and hit dice, and end it to become yourself) while the other is patently ridiculous (A lycanthrope druid loses access to all other forms of shapeshifting, as they cannot turn back into their natural forms using shapeshifting). When two interpretations of the rules are similarly supported by the text, one is absurd and the second fairly senisble, it seems perverse to insist that the ridiculous version is RAW. It's one interpretation of the rules, and it's disingenuous to present only the absurd interpretation to someone asking for clarification on the rules.

[Taelas]

The difference is that wild shape is a class ability, not a spell. All of the cases you show here are, and they are all in the spell section of the same book.

Alternate Form is not even in the Player's Handbook, but in the Monster Manual (and this is one of the core books, not merely an optional handbook, where such an omission can be understood -- as it is already found in the core books). A player should not be forced to have a copy of the Monster Manual (or to seek out the SRD) to understand the abilities of his class (though I do understand this only came about as the result of errata, as the original wild shape was based on polymorph). An additional clarification is in my opinion necessary, in the errata if nowhere else, if that restriction exists, both because of the clause that you can change back, and because templates are not normally a concern for wild shape, as you are already restricted to a specific type.

I am certain there are examples of druids with templates with no references to them losing their wild shape, not the least of which is the feat Corrupted Wild Shape. Most undead (though not all) come about as the result of templates. (Granted, the feat has obviously not been updated to the most recent Druid errata, as it references wild shape as based on polymorph rather than Alternate Form, but polymorph was also unable to assume the form of templates, so the same principle applies regardless.)

If the feat is only intended to be used by the extremely rare undead-PCs that are not the result of templates, it is a very marginalized feat.

[Quietus]

Firstly, the conclusion in the OP does not follow from its premises. A templated Druid cannot use Wild Shape to assume their own form, so they remain in the last form they assumed until they use an ability to change their form again.

This is the route I would take, here. If you want to enforce this, regardless of its rules legality, which I'll leave up to others who are more well versed in such things, then you're looking at a druid who simply has no limit on how long they can stay wild shaped. It would never wear off, due to the "No templates" rule.

However, the Lycanthrope has the "Alternate Form" ability, which would allow them to assume human, animal, or hybrid form. As a special quality of the base form, the wild shaped druid retains this. As a result, they can wild shape, get "stuck" in it for as long as they'd like, then use Alternate Form to get back to their natural state.

[Taelas]

You end up with a different rule conflict if you simply say the templated Druid stays in wild shape -- namely that wild shape only lasts a fixed amount of time.

[Yora]

When a human werwolf druid turns into a wolf and then wild shapes into a bear and then ends the wild shape, would he become a human or a wolf?

[Taelas]

Assuming it is possible to be in both states at once (which is actually the question I asked in the beginning), he would end up as a wolf. If it isn't, he would de facto end his wolf form by wild shaping, and end up as human when wild shape ends.

The idea was for a rather silly concept... a gestalt druid//werebear/barbarian/bear warrior. ;) Wild shape into bear form, then go into rage and turn into a bear (while you're a bear!) then hybrid form for even more bear-ness.

[tonberrian]

Assuming it is possible to be in both states at once (which is actually the question I asked in the beginning), he would end up as a wolf. If it isn't, he would de facto end his wolf form by wild shaping, and end up as human when wild shape ends.

The idea was for a rather silly concept... a gestalt druid//werebear/barbarian/bear warrior. ;) Wild shape into bear form, then go into rage and turn into a bear (while you're a bear!) then hybrid form for even more bear-ness.

That's unbearable. I assume he was bear naked while he was bearing down upon his enemies?

[Taelas]

Considering that all of his gear melts into his forms, yes. :smallwink:

[Keld Denar]

This is simply a matter of Curmudgeon insisting that his RAI is RAW. Granted, his RAI is supported by RAW, but the counterpoint is also supported by RAW. Thus, any interpretation that either argument is correct is RAI, despite both points being equally supported by the rules. Insisting that his interpretation is the only valid interpretation, however, sows confusion among readers, obfuscating the rules.

Proper etiquette would be to state that: A is supported by RAW because of X, Y, and Z, while B is supported by RAW because of P, Q, and R. I believe that A is the correct interpretation because of reason S, but you are free to form your own opinion.

Insinuating that your interpretation of RAI is RAW and the only RAW is intentionally dismissing alternative viewpoints (which are equally valid) and intentionally creating confusion by insisting that the rules are actually more dysfunctional than they really are. Please stop this before you really confuse someone.

[KoboldCleric]

I guess both could be considered plausible readings, but I'm inclined to side with Curmudgeon on this one. It seems, Gardener, that your reading of the Wildshape (su) is just placing the emphasis in a different place. I don't read And back again as a seperate clause; I read "gains the [singular] ability to turn [...] and turn back" as exactly that, a singular ability. Ergo, a templated druid who cannot turn back also cannot turn in the first place. Coupled with the point I made in my last post (gaining an ability does not allow the assumption that one can use the ability) It seems the most logical to me to rule that the druid in question has the ability to wildshape but will only be able to use it if he loses his template first.

[Taelas]

It is not regarded as a separate clause; it is simply taken into account. You have the ability to turn into an animal and back again, and nothing in the wild shape description says you do not gain the ability to do both if you happen to have a template. The ability refers to Alternate Form, yes, but it also notes that exceptions for that reference are in the description of the ability itself.

[KoboldCleric]

I'm not trying to just prove I'm right here, I'm really curious to understand your point of view; I (typically) like to use the correct raw ruling where possible ... where in the description of wildshape does it make an exception for assuming a form with a template? I honestly cannot find it. A druid at level 5 gains the ability to wildshape, but having the ability doesn't mean it can always and in any circumstance be used. Wildshape makes reference to being an (su) ability, so we go over to the (su) ability description and find that (su) abilities are negated in an anti-magic effect. Does this mean that because the description of wildshape does not explicitly mention that it is negated by an antimagic field that the specific lack of this clause trumps the general rule for all (su) abilities? No ... and I don't see how this case is any different. You gain the ability, but you still have to meet certain criteria to use it.

If you or your DM or anyone else wants to read it that way, go for it; it certainly sounds reasonable, but I just don't understand the case that it's just as RAW :smallfrown:

[urbanpirate]

At 5th level, a druid gains the ability to turn herself into any Small or Medium animal and back again once per day. ... This ability functions like the alternate form special ability, except as noted here.

(Emphasis mine.)

It seems to be a pretty clear case of specific trumping general. the specific (wildshape) ability states that it has exceptions and explicitly allows turning back into original form.

[Taelas]

I'm not trying to just prove I'm right here, I'm really curious to understand your point of view; I (typically) like to use the correct raw ruling where possible ... where in the description of wildshape does it make an exception for assuming a form with a template? I honestly cannot find it. A druid at level 5 gains the ability to wildshape, but having the ability doesn't mean it can always and in any circumstance be used. Wildshape makes reference to being an (su) ability, so we go over to the (su) ability description and find that (su) abilities are negated in an anti-magic effect. Does this mean that because the description of wildshape does not explicitly mention that it is negated by an antimagic field that the specific lack of this clause trumps the general rule for all (su) abilities? No ... and I don't see how this case is any different. You gain the ability, but you still have to meet certain criteria to use it.

If you or your DM or anyone else wants to read it that way, go for it; it certainly sounds reasonable, but I just don't understand the case that it's just as RAW :smallfrown:
My point is, if you do have a template, you still get the ability to "turn into an animal and back again". Nothing in the wild shape description forbids this, and as a specific rule in the description of the ability, it functions as an exception to the Alternate Form ability.

[KoboldCleric]

This interpretation confuses me greatly.

So in the assassin PrC entry it says "an assassin gains the ability to cast arcane spells", and then it goes on to explain the restrictions (need an intelligene score of 10+spell level, etc.) There is no specific mention that an assassin who cannot perform the required verbal or somatic components (say, due to a template) cannot cast those spells. So to be consistent, because the specific assassin ability to cast spells trumps the general spellcasting rules surrounding verbal and somatic components, I can only conclude the assassin can cast his spells regardless, right? Or even scarier, what if the assassin is stunned? Or dying? Do they retain the (rather specific) ability to cast spells because it doesn't specifically say they have to take actions to cast spells that generally require actions?

Sorry if that sounded rather tongue-in-cheek, but that's really how I'm understanding the argument at this point. Reading "gains the ability to x" as enough to warrant specific excepton is going to have some wacky consequences on RAW as I know it, not the least of which I mentioned above. On the other hand reading "gains the ability to x" as gaining an ability that can be used within the established general rules, we get the messed up d&d that we know and love.

At this point though, I'm bowing out. It seems the discussion has run its course. Either what has been quoted is enough to warrant specific exception or its not; I understand both sides now.

[Taelas]

No, that is not even remotely a workable analogy.

The Assassin casts spells, according to the rules of casting spells.

The Druid has the ability to turn into an animal and back again, according to the rules of changing shape (which is *just that*).

[Veyr]

He's not saying you can turn into a templated animal. He's saying that a templated Druid can still use Wild Shape to turn into a normal (untemplated) animal, and then revert to his normal (templated) form.

Which I agree with, both because I don't believe that the RAW indicates that turning back is a separate use of Wild Shape that is governed by Alternate Form rules, and because that would be stupid.

[Cog]

Which I agree with, both because I don't believe that the RAW indicates that turning back is a separate use of Wild Shape that is governed by Alternate Form rules, and because that would be stupid.
I think there's two separate situations there:

Turning back by taking a standard action to end your Wild Shape.
Turning back because the time limit on your Wild Shape ran out.

In the first one, you are actively using an ability granted by Wild Shape to assume another form, a form with a template. Curmudgeon's points do seem to apply in that case, though I think the alternate reading is valid as well.

[erikun]

A creature cannot use alternate form to take the form of a creature with a template.

Wild Shape (Su)

At 5th level, a druid gains the ability to turn herself into any Small or Medium animal and back again once per day. ... This ability functions like the alternate form special ability, except as noted here.
This seems pretty clear to me. The ability acts like Alternate Form, except where specified. The ability specifies that the druid can turn back into its normal form. Regardless of what the Alternate Form text states, Wild Shape allows the character to change back.

[Cog]

This seems pretty clear to me. The ability acts like Alternate Form, except where specified. The ability specifies that the druid can turn back into its normal form. Regardless of what the Alternate Form text states, Wild Shape allows the character to change back.
I'm pretty sure every single instance of the Alternate Form and Change Shape abilities have text to the effect of "can change to X form(s)". If that overrode the restrictions given in the Alternate Form basic description, that basic description would be utterly useless.

[Taelas]

Cog, that interpretation breaks Lycanthrope completely. It uses Alternate Form to change shape.

Clearly, it does override it when there is a conflict.

[Cog]

Cog, that interpretation breaks Lycanthrope completely.
No it doesn't, for the reason I stated earlier:

Edit: as for why Lycanthropes can still use their own alternate form ability, it's because they aren't assuming a form with a template. A human werebear doesn't assume "the hybrid form of a human werebear", he assumes "hybrid form", which has its own set of defined stat adjustments that aren't listed separately in the MM (unlike most alternate form choices).
Further, it's an ability granted by that template itself, meaning it is specific enough to override.

[Taelas]

You're right, I'm not sure what I was thinking, there.

Most uses of Alternate Form doesn't have a conflict with the general ability, as it states that they generally can change into forms given in the creature's entry.

But I noticed something else. Not a single use of Alternate Form that I have seen, except for wild shape and the lycanthrope template, has the terminology that it can "change back."

Personally I believe that is rather telling.

[KoboldCleric]

The Druid has the ability to turn into an animal and back again, according to the rules of changing shape (which is *just that*).

I know I said I was bowing out, but now I'm even more confused, as this is what I've been saying all along ... and assuming the form of a creature with a template is explicity disallowed ... So we agree then?

[Taelas]

No, because I am saying that having the ability to change into the animal and back is what is creating an exception when what you are changing back into is a creature with a template.

[KoboldCleric]

Question: Would you agree that changing INTO a creature with a template is against the RAW?

[Taelas]

Yes, obviously.

[Keld Denar]

There is no doubt about that. Without special circumstances (such as a feat or other ability) you can't change into say...a Pseudonatural Badger or Celestial Badger, just a normal vanillia Badger.

[Gardener]

I guess both could be considered plausible readings, but I'm inclined to side with Curmudgeon on this one. It seems, Gardener, that your reading of the Wildshape (su) is just placing the emphasis in a different place. I don't read And back again as a seperate clause; I read "gains the [singular] ability to turn [...] and turn back" as exactly that, a singular ability. Ergo, a templated druid who cannot turn back also cannot turn in the first place. Coupled with the point I made in my last post (gaining an ability does not allow the assumption that one can use the ability) It seems the most logical to me to rule that the druid in question has the ability to wildshape but will only be able to use it if he loses his template first.

Because an Assassin 10 with an 11 Int gains the abiltiy to cast 1st level spells, but not 2nd, 3rd or 4th. Because an Impure Prince with no spellcasting ability can still gain the other class abilities at levels 2-4. Because Practised Spellcaster will increase your caster level to at most your hit dice, even if your CL is only your HD -3. Similarly, a druid who cannot assume his natural form with Wild Shape may still assume any forms that are legal.

It may not be stated anywhere in the rules, but I personally subscribe to the philosophy that when part of something is made impossible, you should do as much of that as you can. So if Wild Shape can't let you take templated forms, and that includes taking your natural form (because you have a template), then you can't use Wild Shape to assume your natural form. This in no way interferes with your abilty to assume other forms.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Assuming a Lycanthrope Druid:

"At 5th level, a druid gains the ability to turn herself into any Small or Medium animal and back again once per day. Her options for new forms include all creatures with the animal type. This ability functions like the alternate form special ability, except as noted here."

Therefore, the specific allowance to being able to turn back into your normal form is an exception to the general alternate form rules.

[KoboldCleric]

I don't read And back again as a separate clause; I read "gains the [singular] ability to turn [...] and [turn] back" as exactly that, a singular ability. Ergo, a templated druid who cannot turn back also cannot turn in the first place.

This is how I understand the ability:

Taking "turn [...] and [turn] back" as a singular ability sets it up as an a^b statement. The statement a^b is true if a and b are both true; else it is false. If we've established that b (turning into a creature with a template) is false, then the whole thing is false; regardless of whether you can turn in the first place. The word "back" here is irrelevant; it's describing the word turn, but it doesn't change the fact that you are turning (in your case, into a creature with a template).

So ... you can use the ability to turn into a creature and turn back, but nowhere in the description of the ability does it specifically allow you to turn into a creature with a template. Or, as I contend above, turn back into one. It seems to me that the word back is just serving as a massive red herring with regard to this argument ... the purpose it serves seems to me to be to make "turn [...] and [turn] back" an a^b statement (and therefore one use of wildshape, as well as avoiding the situation where you can turn into something and never turn back), not to create a specific exception to the clause of Alternate Form which disallows changing into a creature with a template.

So you have the ability to wildshape, but cannot use it so long as either of the forms you are turning into have a template.

---

As I understand it, you are suggesting that it be read "At 5th level, a druid gains the ability to turn herself into any Small or Medium animal and [then turn herself into her specific, even if it has a template, natural form] once per day.

So, once again we reach the impasse where either what has been quoted throughout the thread is enough to warrant specific exception or it's not. I guess we can only agree to disagree :smallsmile:

[Taelas]

That is simply not how gaining abilities work. You gain the ability when you take a level in Druid. The ability specifically allows you to turn back into your natural form.

[Cog]

For all the people saying that the "and back again" is an override, what about these creatures?

Her options for new forms include all creatures with the animal type.

An [sic] succubus can assume the form of any Small or Medium humanoid.

A rakshasa can assume any humanoid form...

A hound archon can assume any canine form of Small to Large size... any doglike or wolflike animal of the animal type.

It can assume two other forms. The first is a unique Small or Medium humanoid...

A phasm can assume any form of Large size or smaller as a standard action.

A young or older bronze dragon can assume any animal or humanoid form of Medium size or smaller as a standard action three times per day.
Can these creatures (and many more) all assume templated forms with their Change Shape or Alternate Form abilities? They have a "specific exception", after all.

[Veyr]

I don't think anyone is talking about shifting into a templated form, merely that if your natural form includes a template you can shift back, i.e. you are neither stuck in whatever form you take nor unable to use the ability to begin with.

[Cog]

I don't think anyone is talking about shifting into a templated form, merely that if your natural form includes a template you can shift back, i.e. you are neither stuck in whatever form you take nor unable to use the ability to begin with.
Except the Wild Shape phrasing isn't that you can dismiss the effect; it's that you can use the ability to assume your original form. Both ways are active (except for when the duration simply runs out), and both are described as "changing form".

[Gardener]

As I understand it, you are suggesting that it be read "At 5th level, a druid gains the ability to turn herself into any Small or Medium animal and [then turn herself into her specific, even if it has a template, natural form] once per day.

So, once again we reach the impasse where either what has been quoted throughout the thread is enough to warrant specific exception or it's not. I guess we can only agree to disagree :smallsmile:

I was going to agree to disagree, but then I stumbled on something...

Wild Shape functions as Alternate Form except where noted.
Alternate Form functions as Polymorph except where noted, and the creature's natural form is never one of the specified allowed forms.
Polymorph is dismissible.

Therefore, a Druid with a template can assume its natural form as a standard action by dismissing Wild Shape. Even if they can't make Wild Shape assume their natural forms, they can still return. No 5th-level druid can use Wild Shape to assume their own natural form, as no Animal can have class levels (Awaken changes type to Magical Beast). "And back again" is simply explanatory text for the new player, so they know that Wild Shape is not in itself permanent.

That seem like a good RAW compromise?

[Divide by Zero]

And for the Assassin example that was inexplicably brought up, the Assassin's "Spells" ability clearly explains the Int restriction as well.

To cast a spell, an assassin must have an Intelligence score of at least 10 + the spell’s level, so an assassin with an Intelligence of 10 or lower cannot cast these spells.
No ambiguity there.

[Curmudgeon]

Not quite. Remember that when rules conflict, specific goes before general, and we have a specific exception in the part you quoted yourself.
For this to be true, you would need to prove two things:

an individual template has more general scope in the rules than an individual special quality; and
the construction of the wild shape ability does, in fact, create an exception.
I don't see any substantial RAW support for either of those necessary premises, and so I stand by my answer.
This is simply a matter of Curmudgeon insisting that his RAI is RAW. Granted, his RAI is supported by RAW, but ...

Proper etiquette would be to state that: A is supported by RAW because of X, Y, and Z, while B is supported by RAW because of P, Q, and R. I believe that A is the correct interpretation because of reason S, but you are free to form your own opinion.

Insinuating that your interpretation of RAI is RAW and the only RAW is intentionally dismissing alternative viewpoints (which are equally valid) ... Please stop this before you really confuse someone.
Since I've already taken the step that you describe as "proper etiquette", I would appreciate it if we could focus on the topic at hand, which I find more interesting than ad hominem issues. :smallsigh:

The thrust of my argument has been that "alternative viewpoints" haven't been shown to be "equally valid"; rather, they have weaker RAW support. That is, a mention in wild shape that it works with a templated Druid would be an explicit exception (strong rules support); the actual statement ─ merely that wild shape functions as described, without templates being addressed ─ is only an exception if you decide to read it that way (weak rules support).

[Keld Denar]

I'm sure you remember this statement:


Errata Rule: Primary Sources
When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct. One example of a primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over a table entry. An individual spell description takes precedence when the short description in the beginning of the spells chapter disagrees.

Another example of primary vs. secondary sources involves book and topic precedence. The Player's Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for playing PC races, and for using base class descriptions. If you find something on one of those topics from the DUNGEON MASTER's Guide or the Monster Manual that disagrees with the Player's Handbook, you should assume the Player's Handbook is the primary source. The DUNGEON MASTER's Guide is the primary source for topics such as magic item descriptions, special material construction rules, and so on. The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities. Note: The most recent updates are shaded like this.


Emphasis mine. Thus, if the rules in the PHB (Wildshape) contradict the Monstrous Manual (Alternate Form) for a player, then the PHB is consider the primary source, and trumps all other rules from all other sources.

Thus, if the PHB states that a character can return to its natural form with no mention of restrictions, then it must be so.

The RAW says it that way. We must listen to the RAW, right?

EDIT: And I'm not attacking you. I'm simply stating that your adherance that your interpretation is the only possible valid interpretation causes confusion among readers. Thus, you are intentionally lying to people and misleading people by ommission. I'm just trying to help people see both sides of the story so they can make their own personal rulings for their own personal games. I happen to believe that my interpretation is correct, but that doesn't stop me from acknowledging that your interpretation is potentially valid.

[Curmudgeon]

Thus, if the rules in the PHB (Wildshape) contradict the Monstrous Manual (Alternate Form) for a player, then the PHB is consider the primary source, and trumps all other rules from all other sources. Absolutely, if you can demonstrate an actual contradiction.

Thus, if the PHB states that a character can return to its natural form with no mention of restrictions, then it must be so.
"No mention" isn't a contradiction. It's the absence of a statement rather than a statement.

[Keld Denar]

Its been quoted many times, but here it is again.


"At 5th level, a druid gains the ability to turn herself into any Small or Medium animal and back again once per day. Her options for new forms include all creatures with the animal type. This ability functions like the alternate form special ability, except as noted here."

I see an exception. It doesn't say "and back again, but only if your origional form doesn't have a template".

As I see it, its like this:
You activate Wildshape. You can assume a form as guided by the restrictions set forth by both Wildshape and Alternate Form. Fine, no arguements.

You end Wildshape (the "and back" part). Since you are no longer affected by Wildshape and thus Alternate Form, the rules for Alternate Form cease to apply. Since there is no restriction on what form you can take, you revert to your templated self.

Its like a toggle switch. While it is active, you obey the applicable rules (thou shalt not turn into something with a template). While its deactivated, those rules don't apply, and you revert to whatever form you had prior to assuming Wildshape, regardless of whether or not it violates the rules that were up-until-that-point applicable.

A similar example would be if you cast Water Walking on yourself and jumped out of the boat. The normal rules state that you should be swimming, but the spell changes those rules, saying you can walk on it as if it were solid. If you dismiss the spell while you are standing on water, the rules of the spell cease to apply, and the rules that normally govern what happens (swim or sink) apply in their absense.

Again, this is my interpretation, and is perfectly supported by RAW. If your opinion and mine are both supported by RAW, but oppose each other, than there are 3 options. My interpretation is correct, your interpretation is correct, or neither of our interpretations are correct. The only people who can answer that question are Andy Collins and friends, and in the absense of their ruling, its up to each DM to determine which is correct for THEIR table. Not for Keld's table, not for Curmudgeon's table. Your RAI is not RAW any more than mine is.

[Curmudgeon]

I see an exception. It doesn't say "and back again, but only if your origional form doesn't have a template".
Again, that's a lack of statement regarding templates, not a statement. Similar examples are easy to produce.
A druid may prepare and cast any spell on the druid spell list, provided that she can cast spells of that level, but she must choose which spells to prepare during her daily meditation. Note that this doesn't say "cast any spell on the druid spell list, but only if they can supply the spell's verbal and somatic components". And yet there's this feat:
You can complete the verbal and somatic components of spells while in a wild shape. You substitute various noises and gestures for the normal verbal and somatic components of a spell. This is a good example showing that statements in the Druid class don't provide implicit exceptions to rules found elsewhere. A Druid still has to obey the component rules for spellcasting, even though the Druid class states that they can cast spells, with no mention of such restrictions. Likewise the Druid still has to obey the template restriction of alternate form, even though the Druid class states that wild shape operates like alternate form without mentioning that restriction.

[Keld Denar]

Your example is flawed. The text only statest that they can cast spells. That references the Chapter 10 in the PHB (Magic), page 174 specifically, which DOES state that there if there are components, they must be provided for. Natural Spell agrees, and allows for those components to be met in a different manner. Never in there is there a conflict where one says you can and the other says you can't.

This is different. The PHB says you can turn back. Period. Your reading of Alternate Form says they can't. Conflict. PHB wins because it is the authoritative source on PC classes and their abilities. My reading of Alternate Form says they can (since the rules for AF no longer apply once you terminate Wildshape). No conflict.

[Curmudgeon]

This is different. The PHB says you can turn back. Period.
Wild Shape also says you can turn into a Small/Medium animal ("all creatures with the animal type"). It doesn't mention that "all" animals still excludes those with a template; regardless, that restriction exists. The exact same restriction exists on turning back: it's disallowed if that form includes a template.

[Taelas]

There aren't any animal templates for them to turn into, regardless. The closest thing is Lycanthrope, and it is still humanoid.

[KoboldCleric]

Dire is an animal template, is it not?

Also: Keld, why not use the same ability and, in fact, the same sentence for a different example ... which I brought up (probably not so clearly) somewhere before.

"Wild Shape (Su): At 5th level, a druid gains the ability to turn herself into any Small or Medium animal and back again once per day."

So ... by your reading, that ability explicitly states that a Druid can turn and turn back once per day. period. end of story. Nowhere in that description does it mention specifically that the ability is negated by an anti-magic field spell or similar effect. So, the specific description of Wild Shape overrules the general rules regarding (su) abilities found in the DMG because it is both more specific and because the PHB is the authoritative source on PC classes and their abilities. Thus, we can only conclude that a druid can wildshape, even in an anti-magic field.

I really don't see the difference in reasoning between the above and the idea that the template restriction is somehow bypassed ...

[Yuki Akuma]

Dire is an animal template, is it not?

No, not at all. A Dire Wolf is a totally different creature to a Wolf.

[The Shadowmind]

There are also two templates that grant wild shape.
The Divine Minion's Fast wild shape, and the Past Life's 1/day wild shape of a 11th level druid.
You retain your type, and several benefits of that type(any that are special qualities). The Lycanthrope would still have the Alternate Form ability from its template, because it is a special quality that does not require a body part that it would no longer posses in wild shape.

[The Glyphstone]

No, not at all. A Dire Wolf is a totally different creature to a Wolf.

Officially, at least. There's multiple third-party Dire Animal templates floating around, but for the purposes of RAW, there is no relation between the Dire and normal versions of an animal.

[Taelas]

No, it isn't. There are different Dire animals, but it is not a template.

EDIT:

It seems to me that Divine Minion alone should end the debate.

[Curmudgeon]

There aren't any animal templates for them to turn into, regardless.
You don't need an "animal template". Any template that will work on an animal without changing its type will create a templated animal.
A creature cannot use alternate form to take the form of a creature with a template. The rule doesn't single out any particular class of templates. An Animal with the Warbeast template remains an Animal, but that template represents enhanced capabilities. The same goes for Horrid and Magebred Animals.

[Taelas]

You don't need an "animal template". Any template that will work on an animal without changing its type will create a templated animal. The rule doesn't single out any particular class of templates. An Animal with the Warbeast template remains an Animal, but that template represents enhanced capabilities. The same goes for Horrid and Magebred Animals.

Right. I was thinking there weren't any that could be applied to animals, but obviously I was wrong. I completely forgot about those.

[Zherog]

Also: Keld, why not use the same ability and, in fact, the same sentence for a different example ... which I brought up (probably not so clearly) somewhere before.

"Wild Shape (Su): At 5th level, a druid gains the ability to turn herself into any Small or Medium animal and back again once per day."

So ... by your reading, that ability explicitly states that a Druid can turn and turn back once per day. period. end of story. Nowhere in that description does it mention specifically that the ability is negated by an anti-magic field spell or similar effect. So, the specific description of Wild Shape overrules the general rules regarding (su) abilities found in the DMG because it is both more specific and because the PHB is the authoritative source on PC classes and their abilities. Thus, we can only conclude that a druid can wildshape, even in an anti-magic field.

I really don't see the difference in reasoning between the above and the idea that the template restriction is somehow bypassed ...

To follow along Keld's logic train (which I agree with, for whatever that's worth), wild shape does not need to call out this exception because the definition of supernatural abilities can be found in the Player's Handbook; therefore all the rules defining Su abilities apply without any problem - there's no primary/secondary conflict here.

[Veyr]

This seems to have been ignored, and seems accurate:

I was going to agree to disagree, but then I stumbled on something...

Wild Shape functions as Alternate Form except where noted.
Alternate Form functions as Polymorph except where noted, and the creature's natural form is never one of the specified allowed forms.
Polymorph is dismissible.

Therefore, a Druid with a template can assume its natural form as a standard action by dismissing Wild Shape. Even if they can't make Wild Shape assume their natural forms, they can still return. No 5th-level druid can use Wild Shape to assume their own natural form, as no Animal can have class levels (Awaken changes type to Magical Beast). "And back again" is simply explanatory text for the new player, so they know that Wild Shape is not in itself permanent.

That seem like a good RAW compromise?

[danzibr]

The idea was for a rather silly concept... a gestalt druid//werebear/barbarian/bear warrior. ;) Wild shape into bear form, then go into rage and turn into a bear (while you're a bear!) then hybrid form for even more bear-ness.

I know this has already been commented on, but I gotta say... this is great!

[The Glyphstone]

The idea was for a rather silly concept... a gestalt druid//werebear/barbarian/bear warrior. ;) Wild shape into bear form, then go into rage and turn into a bear (while you're a bear!) then hybrid form for even more bear-ness.



I know this has already been commented on, but I gotta say... this is great!

You've never seen Bearington Bearman the Bearbarian, have you? Take the above build, but add in Anthropomorphic Bear as a race, the Wild Cohort feat(for a pet bear), Vow of Poverty (so he carries only the bear essentials), and Improved Unarmed Strike(letting him fight with his bear hands).

[Yuki Akuma]

I've always prefered "Barbearian" to "Bearbarian".

[tonberrian]

I've always prefered "Barbearian" to "Bearbarian".

Bah. Bearbearian all the way.

[Urpriest]

I was going to agree to disagree, but then I stumbled on something...

Wild Shape functions as Alternate Form except where noted.
Alternate Form functions as Polymorph except where noted, and the creature's natural form is never one of the specified allowed forms.
Polymorph is dismissible.

Therefore, a Druid with a template can assume its natural form as a standard action by dismissing Wild Shape. Even if they can't make Wild Shape assume their natural forms, they can still return. No 5th-level druid can use Wild Shape to assume their own natural form, as no Animal can have class levels (Awaken changes type to Magical Beast). "And back again" is simply explanatory text for the new player, so they know that Wild Shape is not in itself permanent.

That seem like a good RAW compromise?

An extension to this point: form is defined implicitly in the rules as a set of traits attainable from polymorph-esque effects, as this is the only part of the rules where the phrase appears. Nowhere in the description of wild shape does it assert that the druid takes the form of its natural self, merely that it changes back from the assumed form. It is up to Curmudgeon to show that the "form" language is used for dismissing as well as for using wild shape.

[Curmudgeon]

Wild Shape functions as Alternate Form except where noted.
Alternate Form functions as Polymorph except where noted
No, that hasn't been true for a long time. The Monster Manual Errata removed all references to Polymorph from Alternate Form. The errata-updated text is here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#alternateForm).

An extension to this point: form is defined implicitly in the rules as a set of traits attainable from polymorph-esque effects.
Implicit definitions are awfully subjective because they're dependent on each reader trying to assemble a definition in the lack of any explicit guidelines. Also, again, there are no longer any Polymorph-type references in Alternate Form, so this abilitiy has no "dismissable" spell-like qualities except in death (when there's no longer a creature ─ merely a corpse object).

[Urpriest]

Implicit definitions are awfully subjective because they're dependent on each reader trying to assemble a definition in the lack of any explicit guidelines. Also, again, there are no longer any Polymorph-type references in Alternate Form, so this abilitiy has no "dismissable" spell-like qualities except in death (when there's no longer a creature ─ merely a corpse object).

Unlike form, the suffix -esque is not commonly used in the rules and as such was clearly a colloquialism. My mention of dismissal was less clear, but was intended in the same vein.

Implicit definitions are not subjective in the slightest. For example, every word in a dictionary is implicitly defined by the totality of other words in the dictionary, since dictionaries are designed to not refer to external definitions. Since you have a fondness for quoting dictionary definitions, you should be able to appreciate this point.

I had an interesting argument to propose, but at the moment I'm not sure of it's validity, so I'm going to ask a related question in hopes of clarifying it: does a phasm who has used alternate form retain that form in an antimagic field?

[Taelas]

You've never seen Bearington Bearman the Bearbarian, have you? Take the above build, but add in Anthropomorphic Bear as a race, the Wild Cohort feat(for a pet bear), Vow of Poverty (so he carries only the bear essentials), and Improved Unarmed Strike(letting him fight with his bear hands).

Anthropomorphic Bear is unfortunately a detriment (in effectiveness, at least) rather than an improvement. :smalltongue: The racial bonus to Str is lost in wild shape, and you've given up 5 levels for it.

You also already have a pet bear! Animal Companion, natch. Of course, a second one isn't bad.

I should have remembered bite of the werebear, too. A human werebear druid 15//Animal 6/Lycanthrope 3/Barbarian 1/Bear Warrior 5 with 10 Str in human form would end up with 27 (wild shape) + 16 enhancement (Bite of the Werebear) + 16 (hybrid form) + 16 (Rage), for a total of 75 Str.

He also might burst into flame from the sheer awesomeness of his bear-ness.

The animal companion (a brown bear) would also get bite of the werebear cast on it, plus animal growth. (I can't think of more spells, so if you know of any, feel free to pipe in.) That's 30 (base), +16 enhancement (bite of the werebear), +8 size (animal growth), for a total of 54. Not nearly as impressive, but eh, it'll have to do until I come up with more spells.

The wild cohort (also a brown bear) can't get bite of the werebear, so it'll have to make due with 31 (base) + 8 size (animal growth) for 39. (Yeah, wild cohorts have higher base stats than animal companions of the same type, unless both animals are of the first category a druid can choose. They are available later, but the master isn't treated as being lower level as a druid is. Go figure.)

Hmn. I wonder if you could make your wild cohort into your animal companion...

[sreservoir]

They are available later, but the master isn't treated as being lower level as a druid is. Go figure.)

wait, really? that is... pretty awesome, actually.

[Taelas]

As far as I can tell from the feat (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/re/20031118a), yes.