Wildshape/tough/ability score debate

[Invader]

As started in this thread http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?384022-What-does-Wild-Shape-replace&p=18425626#post18425626 we're debating if you keep the extra hit points from the toughness feat and physical ability score increases from feats like athlete.

I argue that you don't because wildshape specifically says you take the ability scores and hit points of the beast. The rebuttal is that feats are class features and you keep class features while wild shaped.

Thoughts?

[Eslin]

I'd say they get everything except toughness - toughness specifies 2hp whenever you level, it really does seem incompatible with the druid's wildshape hp pool.

[Invader]

It also begs the question if you keep racial traits do you keep physical racial ability score increases?


Again I would say no.

[Z3ro]

It also begs the question if you keep racial traits do you keep physical racial ability score increases?


Again I would say no.

This is where natural language loses to clear keywords. In the wild shape description, it says you "retain the benefit of any features from your class, race, or other source...". We then look to the racial section to see what exactly is a benefit, and we get a list of "racial traits" and "inborn abilities". Nothing is ever classified as a "benefit", so the DM has to make the call.

[Perseus]

It also begs the question if you keep racial traits do you keep physical racial ability score increases?


Again I would say no.

That's well and good RAI but by RAW you keep class features.

You don't get to keep the base (say Strength 14) to an ability score because they aren't class features. You however have a class feature that calls out a bonus to said base ability score if you so choose.

[archaeo]

As far as the ability score increases go, I'd nix that as the Wild Shape rules being the "specific" that beats the "general," insofar as Wild Shape specifically says "Your game statistics are replaced by the statistics of the beast." Allowing feat-based ability score improvements doesn't seem any different from allowing the ability score increases you'd get from the class features, and it seems absurd to allow those.

The "features" clause in Wild Shape is such a headache; I'm not totally sure what it's meant to accomplish other than creating a bunch of corner cases that DMs will have to decide on individually.


That's well and good RAI but by RAW you keep class features.

You don't get to keep the base (say Strength 14) to an ability score because they aren't class features. You however have a class feature that calls out a bonus to said base ability score if you so choose.

By this logic, literally every ability score increase is a "class feature" and should be added to the creature's statistics whenever you Wild Shape. I can't imagine WotC really intended for you to keep separate track of all the attribute bonuses you've accrued over the course of the campaign so you can apply them to the physical attributes of your beasts.

[Eslin]

As far as the ability score increases go, I'd nix that as the Wild Shape rules being the "specific" that beats the "general," insofar as Wild Shape specifically says "Your game statistics are replaced by the statistics of the beast." Allowing feat-based ability score improvements doesn't seem any different from allowing the ability score increases you'd get from the class features, and it seems absurd to allow those.

The "features" clause in Wild Shape is such a headache; I'm not totally sure what it's meant to accomplish other than creating a bunch of corner cases that DMs will have to decide on individually.

Which seems a little odd. That means if you spend your boost on a feat, you benefit from it in wild shape, but if you spend your boost on an ability increase it goes to waste?
I honestly don't think it's that big of a deal considering the high CR creatures already have 20+ str and con and you can't increase beyond that.

[archaeo]

Which seems a little odd. That means if you spend your boost on a feat, you benefit from it in wild shape, but if you spend your boost on an ability increase it goes to waste?
I honestly don't think it's that big of a deal considering the high CR creatures already have 20+ str and con and you can't increase beyond that.

You can't? I'm a level 20 Druid with Athlete and Resilient (Str): what happens when I transform into a Mammoth, which has 24 Str? Do I get 26? Do I need to go through my statblock and change all those +7s to +8s?

Admittedly, it's a small bonus, but it adds a silly amount of bookkeeping to Wild Shape.

[Eslin]

You can't? I'm a level 20 Druid with Athlete and Resilient (Str): what happens when I transform into a Mammoth, which has 24 Str? Do I get 26? Do I need to go through my statblock and change all those +7s to +8s?

Admittedly, it's a small bonus, but it adds a silly amount of bookkeeping to Wild Shape.

No you don't, since it specifically state such boosts can't increase a stat past 20. Otherwise a druid would just start at 8 strength and spend every boost increasing that to get their strength into the mid 30s in mammoth shape.

[archaeo]

No you don't, since it specifically state such boosts can't increase a stat past 20. Otherwise a druid would just start at 8 strength and spend every boost increasing that to get their strength into the mid 30s in mammoth shape.

Maybe I'm confused about what you're saying then. Let's say I've got the same two feats, netting me 2 Str points, and I transform into a beast with 18 Str. Do I have 20 Str in beast form?

What about when you use "Ability Score Improvement" to improve your attributes. It's a class feature, does it not count? At level 20, I could have raised my Str by 10 points; do those get pushed over, since you're "retaining the benefit"?

Obviously, it's way, way simpler to just say that, when you go into beast form, you get physical attributes from the beast and mental attributes from the Druid. Every other "feature" is fair game, insofar as you still have Lucky if you're a Halfling Druid, but you don't get the attribute bonuses you get from being a Halfling.

[Eslin]

Maybe I'm confused about what you're saying then. Let's say I've got the same two feats, netting me 2 Str points, and I transform into a beast with 18 Str. Do I have 20 Str in beast form?
Yes. Though you're gonna feel the sting of wasting those when you start getting to the 20+ strength shapes.


What about when you use "Ability Score Improvement" to improve your attributes. It's a class feature, does it not count? At level 20, I could have raised my Str by 10 points; do those get pushed over, since you're "retaining the benefit"?
Nope, since it quite clearly says it can't increase your stats past 20.


Obviously, it's way, way simpler to just say that, when you go into beast form, you get physical attributes from the beast and mental attributes from the Druid. Every other "feature" is fair game, insofar as you still have Lucky if you're a Halfling Druid, but you don't get the attribute bonuses you get from being a Halfling.
It's simpler, but it's also really strange - if you take the sentinel feat you get full use out of it as a bear, shouldn't you get +2 dex as a bear if you spent your boost on that instead?

[archaeo]

Nope, since it quite clearly says it can't increase your stats past 20.

Ok, right, but what if you wild shape into something with, say, 10 str, and you've used all your ability score increase chances on str. Do you now have 20 str, since "ability score increase" is a class feature?


It's simpler, but it's also really strange - if you take the sentinel feat you get full use out of it as a bear, shouldn't you get +2 dex as a bear if you spent your boost on that instead?

It's not all that strange; a feat represents something you've trained to do, more or less. When I take Sentinel, I've trained so much that I've improved my actual physical fitness, but I've also learned the techniques you use to stop an enemy and to target them while they're distracted hitting other people. When I use Wild Shape, I lose the physical fitness because I'm a new creature, but I remember the techniques.

But whatever, like I said, that "features" clause is such a half-baked idea that leads to all kinds of ridiculous questions like these. It's easy enough to see how WotC likely intended it, but it has clearly created endless and time-consuming confusion.

[Eslin]

Ok, right, but what if you wild shape into something with, say, 10 str, and you've used all your ability score increase chances on str. Do you now have 20 str, since "ability score increase" is a class feature?
Yes, just as you would if your strength was 10 in your humanoid form and you used all your ASIs on strength.


It's not all that strange; a feat represents something you've trained to do, more or less. When I take Sentinel, I've trained so much that I've improved my actual physical fitness, but I've also learned the techniques you use to stop an enemy and to target them while they're distracted hitting other people. When I use Wild Shape, I lose the physical fitness because I'm a new creature, but I remember the techniques.

But whatever, like I said, that "features" clause is such a half-baked idea that leads to all kinds of ridiculous questions like these. It's easy enough to see how WotC likely intended it, but it has clearly created endless and time-consuming confusion.
And yes, it's weird and confusing. I honestly have no idea how it was intended or how it should be ruled, but I'm inclined to allow it on the grounds that A) since the ability scores can't go above 20, you're wasting it every time you pick a beast with a high score already and B) spending your ASIs on physical stat boosts for the sole purpose of giving the wild shape forms a stat boost honestly doesn't seem that strong.

By the same metric, since it doesn't have much impact I wouldn't really care that much if it was banned.

[Invader]

You don't get to take part of your human or elf ability points and add them to a beasts scores.

"You take the beasts ability scores" end of story.

[GiantOctopodes]

It actually seems quite clear to me. You modify your stats and abilities, in the order presented by the text. As an example, Spellcasting is a class feature. If in a form physically capable of it, you would be able to use it (let's say as an Elemental, or as a Gorilla, as long as a spell doesn't have a verbal component). However, in the point before it, it explicitly states that you cannot cast spells, thus, regardless of spellcasting being a class feature, you don't gain the benefit of it.

Similarly, ASI choices are a class feature. However, in the point three before it, it explicitly states that your stats for those characteristics are replaced by those of the creature. Thus, despite your form being capable of it, you don't gain the benefit from them, unless of course they are in stats that you retain. I should also point out, that Ability Score Increase indicates that you increase an ability score (go figure), not that you have a bonus to that score. It's not that you have a score of 18 with a +2 bonus. It's that you have a score of 20. That score is being replaced. Your strength score is directly modified by that class feature, and directly replaced by that of the creature.

The same is true of toughness, by the exact same logic. Toughness increases *your* hit point total by 2 points when you gain a level. The same hit point total that is replaced by the creatures. The one that gets drawn from if and when you revert forms. That is not to say that those choices are useless. However, just like a spellcasting class feature from a non-druid class, or a class feature that is not possible to use by a form you are in, it does not benefit you while you are wild shaped.

DMs are always free to play their game however they want. The RAW is quite clear, quite explicit, and calls out exactly how it works. Arguing it works differently because of later text in the feature, when it was already clarified above, is being obtuse as far as I'm concerned. Anyone arguing that they gain the benefit of those would also have to successfully argue they get spellcasting, as the treatment of those items in the text is identical.

[Perseus]

You don't get to take part of your human or elf ability points and add them to a beasts scores.

"You take the beasts ability scores" end of story.

You're right about that, but you forgot that ASI are class features not racial features and you get your class features.

The real end of story.

[GiantOctopodes]

You're right about that, but you forgot that ASI are class features not racial features and you get your class features.

The real end of story.

You're right about that, but you forgot that you also get racial features, and in the same way that being a Dwarf doesn't mean you have a Con of 14 with a +2 bonus, but rather have a con of 16, having taken an ASI does not mean you have a con of 14 with a +2 bonus, but rather have a Con of 16. You get the ASI, but the benefit is completely overridden, as your new Ability Score (16 or whatever it may be) is overridden by the ability score of the creature, as explicitly called out in the description of the ability. There is no difference between saying you get to keep your improved ability scores from your class feature and saying you get to keep your improved ability scores from your racial feature, and both statements are completely wrong and invalid per the RAW.

The real end of story.

[Perseus]

You're right about that, but you forgot that you also get racial features, and in the same way that being a Dwarf doesn't mean you have a Con of 14 with a +2 bonus, but rather have a con of 16, having taken an ASI does not mean you have a con of 14 with a +2 bonus, but rather have a Con of 16. You get the ASI, but the benefit is completely overridden, as your new Ability Score (16 or whatever it may be) is overridden by the ability score of the creature, as explicitly called out in the description of the ability. There is no difference between saying you get to keep your improved ability scores from your class feature and saying you get to keep your improved ability scores from your racial feature, and both statements are completely wrong and invalid per the RAW.

The real end of story.

Sure if you really want to use backwards logic then sure you are correct.

Except you know what it says about keeping racial and class features as part of wildshape but then again we aren't talking bout wildshape I guess.

One could easily say, that yes you get that racial +2 also. your ability scores are what you generate and then they are modufied by a racial feature. So a dwarven lion will be tougher than an elven lion who will be even more dexterous than said dwarven lion.

This actually makes sense.

I have a few questions

Are ASI a class feature?
Are feats a class feature?

Does wildshape allow you to keep class features?

[Shadow]

One could easily say, that yes you get that racial +2 also. your ability scores are what you generate and then they are modufied by a racial feature. So a dwarven lion will be tougher than an elven lion who will be even more dexterous than said dwarven lion.

Dwarven lion?
Elven lion?
I think you just mean *lion*. There's no such thing as a dwarven or elven or gnomish or human or tiefling lion.
It's a lion.

As for whether ASIs are class features. They are, and ther again for the purposes of this discussion they aren't.
Yes, they are on the class table. But no, if you change your physical ability scores with them that change doesn't port.
You gain the hit points of the beast.
You gain the physical stats of the beast.
Full stop.

In the case of Power Word Kill (was that this thread or the other one?) your HP are equivalent to the beast's HP, and you are vulnerable to PWK with that HP count. If you have less than 100 HP and get hit with a PWK, you die. The fact that you have a separate pool of HP doesn't matter, because you don't have access to those HP at the moment.
PWK + wildshaped druid + failed save = dead druid, just like it would mean dead anyone else.

[Invader]

Sure if you really want to use backwards logic then sure you are correct.

Except you know what it says about keeping racial and class features as part of wildshape but then again we aren't talking bout wildshape I guess.

One could easily say, that yes you get that racial +2 also. your ability scores are what you generate and then they are modufied by a racial feature. So a dwarven lion will be tougher than an elven lion who will be even more dexterous than said dwarven lion.

This actually makes sense.

I have a few questions

Are ASI a class feature?
Are feats a class feature?

Does wildshape allow you to keep class features?

Yes the GENERAL rule is that you keep class and racial abilities. The SPECIFIC rule says you take the hit points and scores of the beast. It's the same as dark vision. It specifically says you don't get it even though the general rule says you do.

Once again specific > general

[Perseus]

Yes the GENERAL rule is that you keep class and racial abilities. The SPECIFIC rule says you take the hit points and scores of the beast. It's the same as dark vision. It specifically says you don't get it even though the general rule says you do.

Once again specific > general

You are using the same ruling of wildshape and picking and choosing what you want to be specific and general. You don't see how that is backwards?

You aren't using specific versus general you are using 1 part of a rule to prove your point when another part of a rule already says you are wrong. You are then spouting off specific versus general as if that supports you.

The rule isn't Wildshape A, Wildshape B, and Wildshape C. The rule is wildshape and you are just trying to twist it to fit your version of RAI.

(On racial bonuses I see where people could take it as you are a dwarven lion, or just a lion this is probably the only ambiguous part of the rules. I wasn't saying that is my ruling only that I see how one could argue that point and be right :smallsigh:)

[GiantOctopodes]

You are using the same ruling of wildshape and picking and choosing what you want to be specific and general. You don't see how that is backwards?

You aren't using specific versus general you are using 1 part of a rule to prove your point when another part of a rule already says you are wrong. You are then spouting off specific versus general as if that supports you.

The rule isn't Wildshape A, Wildshape B, and Wildshape C. The rule is wildshape and you are just trying to twist it to fit your version of RAI.

(On racial bonuses I see where people could take it as you are a dwarven lion, or just a lion this is probably the only ambiguous part of the rules. I wasn't saying that is my ruling only that I see how one could argue that point and be right :smallsigh:)

Class features are a general thing. Class features that modify game stats are a specific thing. Game stats (such as Dex) already have a specific part of the rule which applies to them (you replace your game stat, whether 18, 20, 12, or whatever it may be) are replaced by the Beast's form. It does not say that your "base" stats are replaced, and then modified by your racial bonuses or ability score increases, as those are not bonuses. They take your stat from one figure to another. That figure is then, pursuant to the description of this ability, replaced by those of the Beast.

[Fwiffo86]

I would keep attribute increases to mentals.
Overwrite the attribute increases to physicals.


Better question:

Does a Druid/Monk get to do a flurry-of-claws attack as a bear?

[Shadow]

I would keep attribute increases to mentals.
Overwrite the attribute increases to physicals.

Better question:

Does a Druid/Monk get to do a flurry-of-claws attack as a bear?

Mental attributes do not change, so tat would be correct.
Claws are not a monk weapon, so the answer would be No (subject to DM fiat if he wanted to allow it).

[Invader]

I would keep attribute increases to mentals.
Overwrite the attribute increases to physicals.


Better question:

Does a Druid/Monk get to do a flurry-of-claws attack as a bear?

That's a question for another thread, please don't hijack this one.

[silveralen]

What in the world is it about Druid which causes people to lose all sense of reason.

This is like arguing that if you took a +1 in str and get gauntlets of ogre power it counts as 20 because you add the class feature after.

You increased your strength, but you aren't using your strength and you didn't increase the item/animal's strength.

[Shining Wrath]

I hereby say that I would rule thus:

Your physical attributes become that of the beast, for that is the point of Wild Shape. If, for example, your dexterity is now lower, then it is lower. You don't get to pick and choose.
Your mental attributes and things you are capable of doing, you retain; the new body may make you better at some things, worse at others, and entirely preclude some others (no, your mammoth may not ride a bicycle. It lacks a thumb to ring the little bell).

If someone has taken Resilient (CON) and Resilient (INT), they get the +1 benefit to INT but not to CON. However, a saving throw is something you are capable of doing, so they get the save benefit to both INT and CON.

[Shadow]

What in the world is it about Druid which causes people to lose all sense of reason

It's a byproduct of the rules-lawyer mentality from 3.x and 4e. The Druid is just the one that lends itself to this thought process the easiest. Because of the number of changes to mechanics that coincide with wildshape, it is more vulnerable to the rules-lawyer mindset than other classes.
Using a "sense of reason" would involve thinking the concept through from start to finish to determine the intent of the abilities in question. But the rules-lawyer mindset leaves that step out and simply reads any individual sentence in a vaccuum, with complete disregard for the context.
Things such as the argument that a warlock can use any magical ranged weapon as a pact weapon, even though one of the sentences specifically states that it must be a melee weapon, simply because every single sentence doesn't state that.... it's asinine. These players don't take into account the fact that the publishers were trying to cut down on word count and page count so that we didn't end up with a three thousand page legal document for a rulebook, thus costing them two or three times as much to publish it, and instead relied on people to be reasonable with cause/effect/intent in mind.
But that brings us right back to the 3.x and 4e rules-lawyer mindset prevalent in the past two editions, which doesn't mesh well with the new edition.

Bottom line: People need to forget everything they knew of D&D and start over, reading the rules with the RAI in mind at every turn, which they aren't used to doing.
And Druid is the worst offender when read without the RAI in mind.

[Safety Sword]

You don't get to take part of your human or elf ability points and add them to a beasts scores.

"You take the beasts ability scores" end of story.

That's what it does did said.

People always try to make this way harder than it needs to be.

You turn into an animal. You get the physical traits of the animal. Pull out the MM and copy the stats down. Job done.

You just keep your mental stats so you can play Yogi and be "smarter than the average bear".

As for feats and stuff: you're a bear. Do bear stuff.

[Eslin]

It's a byproduct of the munchkinism mentality from 3.x and 4e. The Druid is just the one that lends itself to this thought process the easiest. Because of the number of changes to mechanics that coincide with wildshape, it is more vulnerable to the munchkin mindset than other classes.
Using a "sense of reason" would involve thinking the concept through from start to finish to determine the intent of the abilities in question. But the rules-lawyer mindset leaves that step out and simply reads any individual sentence in a vaccuum, with complete disregard for the context.
Things such as the argument that a warlock can use any magical ranged weapon as a pact weapon, even though one of the sentences specifically states that it must be a melee weapon, simply because every single sentence doesn't state that.... it's asinine. These players don't take into account the fact that the publishers were trying to cut down on word count and page count so that we didn't end up with a three thousand page legal document for a rulebook, and instead relied on people to be reasonable with cause/effect/intent in mind.
But that brings us right back to the 3.x and 4e rules-lawyer mindset prevalent in the past two editions, which doesn't mesh well with the new edition.

Bottom line: People need to forget everything they knew of D&D and start over, reading the rules with the RAI in mind at every turn, which they aren't used to doing.
And Druid is the worst offender when read without the RAI in mind.

I'm a little confused. Why would 3.5 or 4e reward a munchkin mentality? 3.5 was incredibly easy to break, you had to place upper bounds on the optimisation yourself to keep the game going, and 4e had the optimisation floor and ceiling quite close together.

Regarding magical ranged weapon: They can. You can't create your choice of ranged weapon, but you can make any magical weapon your pact weapon. Please note that this is still less powerful than just using eldritch blast, so what problem is there with doing so?

And how on earth are we supposed to read the rules with RaI in mind when we for the most part have no way of working out what it is? Everyone has their own way of reading into things, deciding you somehow know what the designers were thinking beyond very basics things like steeds not being able to chain lightning is kind of dangerous. The rules are here so we don't have to do that sort of thing, you can just read the rules and play the game - RaI should be reserved for when the rules break down, not used every time you read one.

[Shadow]

Thank you for proving my point regarding reading sentences in a vaccuum and disregarding context.

[Safety Sword]

Regarding magical ranged weapon: They can. You can't create your choice of ranged weapon, but you can make any magical weapon your pact weapon. Please note that this is still less powerful than just using eldritch blast, so what problem is there with doing so?

Take it to another thread guys.


And how on earth are we supposed to read the rules with RaI in mind when we for the most part have no way of working out what it is? Everyone has their own way of reading into things, deciding you somehow know what the designers were thinking beyond very basics things like steeds not being able to chain lightning is kind of dangerous. The rules are here so we don't have to do that sort of thing, you can just read the rules and play the game - RaI should be reserved for when the rules break down, not used every time you read one.

It's not that hard to work out what the designers were thinking if you do as Shadow suggested and read the rules in context. Picking individual sentences out of a description is the leading cause of misunderstandings of the rules. And also the leading cause of me throwing my books at people.

With Druid Wildshape the intent is clear. You turn into an animal and get the physical body of the animal. You keep your mental stats so that spellcasting doesn't change at later levels when you can do that in wild shape. Stop trying to make it any more complicated and you'll be fine.

[Devils_Advocate]

The wildshape rules state that "Your game statistics are replaced" AND "You retain the benefit of any features from your class, race, or other source".

Hoo boy. :smallsigh:

Well, let's see. You could try to reconcile those statements by saying that having the benefit of a feature isn't the same thing as having the feature itself, but quite plainly that way lies madness: What the FRELL would the difference be? The notion that some features "don't have sources" is likewise sanity-eroding. So that leave us with the idea that "game statistics" isn't synonymous with "features". Well... "statistics" is only really a term for numerical stuff. So I guess that, barring specific exceptions, your numbers get replaced but you retain non-numerical thingies?

That is fairly weird and arbitrary, but, well... wildshape seems to be meant to weirdly and arbitrarily replace some stuff and not other stuff, so there ya go. :/ Just replacing everything -- or going with "can summon whatever animal they choose" instead of "can turn into any animal they choose" -- and designing around that probably would have made wildshape considerably more balanced and a LOT more straightforward and simple to use, but for whatever reason that isn't what they did. OH WELL!

Accusing others of "rules lawyering" while arguing for a particular reading of a text based on legislative intent strikes me as fairly ironic, as that's either using the term to refer to something different from what actual lawyers do or pretty hypocritical. Also, the idea that designer intent is clear here seems specious. A bunch of people arguing over how something is supposed to work is generally a pretty strong indicator that it's not clear how it's supposed to work. Or that it's clear to different people that it's supposed to work different ways, which frankly seems worse than things being equally unclear to everyone.

Saying that something is obvious doesn't even seem to make sense as an argument in favor of said thing. If it were really obvious, then wouldn't whoever you're arguing with already agree with you? At best, it's something that's obvious to you, but it's not obvious to them. Obviously! :P

What is obvious to one person may not be obvious to another, and may not even be true. The idea that a belief can be justified but nevertheless false is fairly important in epistemology.

Finally, I would like to submit that designer intent may be as complicated, ambiguous, and/or outright internally contradictory as D&D's rules text is unfortunately prone to be. For example, it may be that players were intended not to be able to break the game, but also intended to have various particular abilities which, as it turns out, let them break the game. (Whoops!) So, y'know. There's that.

[Giant2005]

A bunch of people arguing over how something is supposed to work is generally a pretty strong indicator that it's not clear how it's supposed to work.
That isn't necessarily true.
It might be perfectly clear to anyone that doesn't have a stake in the matter but that clarity is lost when someone has their own agenda and is looking for evidence to support their personal bias. That is what a Lawyer does.

[GiantOctopodes]

The wildshape rules state that "Your game statistics are replaced" AND "You retain the benefit of any features from your class, race, or other source".

Hoo boy. :smallsigh:


The wildshape rules also state that "You can't cast spells" AND "You retain the benefit of any features from your class, race, or other source". Please note that Spellcasting is quite clearly a class feature. Is that part unclear to you? Do you have any questions regarding whether or not you can cast spells while in wildshape (beyond the notable and clearly defined exceptions for druid spells starting at level 18)?

[Eslin]

Take it to another thread guys.

It's not that hard to work out what the designers were thinking if you do as Shadow suggested and read the rules in context. Picking individual sentences out of a description is the leading cause of misunderstandings of the rules. And also the leading cause of me throwing my books at people.

With Druid Wildshape the intent is clear. You turn into an animal and get the physical body of the animal. You keep your mental stats so that spellcasting doesn't change at later levels when you can do that in wild shape. Stop trying to make it any more complicated and you'll be fine.

I'm not trying to make it any more complicated, that's exactly how it works. You turn into an animal, gain its stats, keep your own mental stats and class abilities, but can't cast spells. Seems pretty simple.


Thank you for proving my point regarding reading sentences in a vaccuum and disregarding context.
How is that disregarding context?

[Safety Sword]

That isn't necessarily true.
It might be perfectly clear to anyone that doesn't have a stake in the matter but that clarity is lost when someone has their own agenda and is looking for evidence to support their munchkinism bias. That is what a rules Lawyer does.

Fix'd this for you.

[silveralen]

I'm not trying to make it any more complicated, that's exactly how it works. You turn into an animal, gain its stats, keep your own mental stats and class abilities, but can't cast spells. Seems pretty simple.

Yes. You increased an ability score from 14 to 16. So you have a 16. That ability score was replaced by one of 19. Your ability score is 19. So simple, yet people struggle because... I honestly don't know. There is really no excuse for not being able to read how that works properly.

[Eslin]

Yes. You increased an ability score from 14 to 16. So you have a 16. That ability score was replaced by one of 19. Your ability score is 19. So simple, yet people struggle because... I honestly don't know. There is really no excuse for not being able to read how that works properly.

And so that ability score becomes 20, because ability score increases are a class ability and you keep class abilities while wildshaped.

[Devils_Advocate]

I think it's pretty normal for people to come in with the assumption that everything a rulebook says will be true in the game that the rulebook is for, and indeed that a game in which all of the things that the rulebook says are true is the game that the rulebook is for, by definition. That's... pretty much how games normally work, I'd say?

So when you tell those people that that isn't the case, and that it's literally impossible for that to happen because statements in the rulebook contradict each other, and that there are even meta-rules about how to determine which rule beats another rule when two rules engage in rule-to-rule combat, they're liable to stare at you in amazement and announce "That's CRAZY! **** be straight-up BANANAS, yo."

Dungeons & Dragons is not written like a normal game. It's closer to being written like a code of laws (than a normal game is), and more intended to be used in the same way (than the rules of a normal game are). There's a fairly specific flavor of bizarre to it all that's gonna be counterintuitive to people accustomed to saner rulesets.

I'd go so far as to speculate that rules-lawyering is one of the relatively few things that D&D is particularly good at supporting.

[Eslin]

I think it's pretty normal for people to come in with the assumption that everything a rulebook says will be true in the game that the rulebook is for, and indeed that a game in which all of the things that the rulebook says are true is the game that the rulebook is for, by definition. That's... pretty much how games normally work, I'd say?

So when you tell those people that that isn't the case, and that it's literally impossible for that to happen because statements in the rulebook contradict each other, and that there are even meta-rules about how to determine which rule beats another rule when two rules engage in rule-to-rule combat, they're liable to stare at you in amazement and announce "That's CRAZY! **** be straight-up BANANAS, yo."

Dungeons & Dragons is not written like a normal game. It's closer to being written like a code of laws (than a normal game is), and more intended to be used in the same way (than the rules of a normal game are). There's a fairly specific flavor of bizarre to it all that's gonna be counterintuitive to people accustomed to saner rulesets.

I'd go so far as to speculate that rules-lawyering is one of the relatively few things that D&D is particularly good at supporting.
Yup. If I'm being honest, that's a good fifth of my fun as a DM, the highlight of the session where they destroyed the castle full of lawful evil knights wasn't the fight against the death knight, it was my players convincing me that placing two arcane gates above each other, fabricating a whole bunch of airfoil shaped missiles and dropping them in then turning the gates towards the castle once they hit terminal velocity was a legitimate strategy.

[silveralen]

And so that ability score becomes 20, because ability score increases are a class ability and you keep class abilities while wildshaped.

So... ability bonuses stack with magic items that set attributes to a certain level?

That feature applies to yor default attribute, not the attribute you gained via other means. It changes your base. I honestly can't understand how that's hard for you to grasp.

Okay, simplest possible way I can explain this: features the beast form can't use don't apply, okay? The attribute bonuses increase your normal stats, which you don't use in beast form. Therefor those stat boosts can't be used by the beast form.

Or just common sense that the druid's personal strength has no effect on the strength of the animal form (since a Druid starting at 8 and 14 have the same strength in every form). But common sense is so rare these days, I don't know why I mention it.

[Eslin]

So... ability bonuses stack with magic items that set attributes to a certain level?

That feature applies to yor default attribute, not the attribute you gained via other means. It changes your base. I honestly can't understand how that's hard for you to grasp.

Okay, simplest possible way I can explain this: features the beast form can't use don't apply, okay? The attribute bonuses increase your normal stats, which you don't use in beast form. Therefor those stat boosts can't be used by the beast form.

Or just common sense that the druid's personal strength has no effect on the strength of the animal form (since a Druid starting at 8 and 14 have the same strength in every form). But common sense is so rare these days, I don't know why I mention it.

Oh right, because common sense was so much more common in the past. Are we applying this to people in general or TTRPGs? Because neither is true.

Explanation wise, it's weird as hell if you boost the dexterity score of the bear you turn into by taking a feat that increases dexterity, and it's also weird as hell if you retain your feats as a bear but don't gain some the benefits of them if those benefits increase stats. Either way it's weird and screwy, with RaW pointing to neither and no RaI. I'd honestly base it on whether you think the druid spending their boosts on dexterity so their bear forms will be more dextrous is unbalanced.

[Gwendol]

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

However:
Your game statistics are replaced by the statistics of
the beast, but you retain your alignment, personality,
and Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma scores.

Benefits from features are retained if the new form is physically capable.
Druid class features are:

Hitpoints
Proficiencies
Equipment
Druidic
Spellcasting
Wildshape (Duh!)
Druid circle
Ability score improvement
Timeless body
Beast spells
Archdruid

The rules for wildshape are that the game statistics are replaced by the statistics of the beast, i.e. the statblock, with the exception of the mental ability scores, and proficiencies from skills and saving throws. That means that the ability scores, hitpoints, AC, speed, etc are all that of the beast. Ability score improvements, while being a class/race feature are not applied any more than Druid hit dice.

[Gnaeus]

That isn't necessarily true.
It might be perfectly clear to anyone that doesn't have a stake in the matter but that clarity is lost when someone has their own agenda and is looking for evidence to support their personal bias. That is what a Lawyer does.

A good lawyer does not present stupid arguments, that reduces credibility with the judge (DM). He saves his energy for arguments that are winnable and important.

A good lawyer analyzes issues from all sides, so that by understanding the counter-arguments, he can defeat them. He does not have a personal bias, he has a desired outcome.

A good lawyer knows the rules of statutory construction, which state that you look first to the plain language of the text, and then if there is ambiguity you attempt to clarify it with tools like legislative intent (RAI) so far as that can be determined, comparing the rule language with other similarly worded statutes, and analyzing why interpreting a rule in the way he suggests leads to the best outcome in this and other cases.

[silveralen]

Oh right, because common sense was so much more common in the past. Are we applying this to people in general or TTRPGs? Because neither is true.

Explanation wise, it's weird as hell if you boost the dexterity score of the bear you turn into by taking a feat that increases dexterity, and it's also weird as hell if you retain your feats as a bear but don't gain some the benefits of them if those benefits increase stats. Either way it's weird and screwy, with RaW pointing to neither and no RaI. I'd honestly base it on whether you think the druid spending their boosts on dexterity so their bear forms will be more dextrous is unbalanced.

People in 2nd edition relied on common sense quite a bit, because half the time the rules would end up functioning incorrectly and you needed to adjust things a bit.

That's not any weirder than it being a less than amazing idea for fighter to boost INT or CHA because he doesn't gain much benefit from them. The Druid shouldn't be increasing those stats because it doesn't benefit him to. That's... not counter intuitive at all that's why wildshape replaces those stats so Druid doesn't end up becoming overly MAD. Is that not immediately obvious to you?

The Druid can do that, and will benefit from it when not in animal form (which is going to be at least a significant portion of a day until they hit 20). That's what is intended.

[GiantOctopodes]

Not to mention that you could similarly invest in spellcasting, and pre-level 18, or for classes other than Druid, forever, it would similarly provide no benefit while in WildShape. It does benefit you when not wildshaped, yes, and you could have invested those same choices in other things, and it would then have applied. It's not weird at all that you can make a choice and not get the same benefit vs had you chosen a different option, or were you in different circumstances.

I must also disagree, regardless of what you think of the RAI, the RAW is quite clear and describes exactly what to do (replace your stats with those of an animal), with anything else being suggested (then apply the same modifiers that originally applied to your base stats from racial and class features) being a departure from RAW. Regardless of if your Str is 16 or 8, regardless of if it's 16 because it started there, because it got a boost based on your race, or because you invested in ASI for that stat, it gets replaced, that's what RAW says happens.