Things Druids can do

[TheTacoBandit]

So, my brother is a Druid and he has been thinking up some interesting ideas. First it was basic stuff like spidering on the ceiling above enemies and turning into a Hippo. Now he wants to turn into a ant, crawl into someone's ear, and turn into a Hippo and explode their face. Technically he can do it but I want some outside opinions please. Thanks. Also post suggestions for other cool stuff Druids can do as they feel redundant without creativity.

[dropbear8mybaby]

Technically he can do it...

No he can't. Druids can't wild shape into ants.

[Flashy]

No he can't. Druids can't wild shape into ants.

Why not? There's no pre-written stat block for them but I can't find anything in the wildshape description that explicitly prevents it.

[dropbear8mybaby]

Why not? There's no pre-written stat block for them but I can't find anything in the wildshape description that explicitly prevents it.

You can only wildshape into beasts. There are no (single) ants anywhere in any published rules. And even the swarms have been changed to be their own monster type, and thus not eligible for wildshape.

[Zevox]

Now he wants to turn into a ant, crawl into someone's ear, and turn into a Hippo and explode their face. Technically he can do it but I want some outside opinions please.
I think any decent DM would disallow that one way or another. Disallow shape-shifting when your current location doesn't have enough room for your new form (3e used to do this explicitly, but I don't see anything one way or the other about it in 5e's Wild Shape rules, which puts it solidly into DM purview), have the magic shunt them to the nearest unoccupied space and take some damage the way teleportation spells that try to put you into a solid object do, something along those lines.


You can only wildshape into beasts. There are no (single) ants anywhere in any published rules. And even the swarms have been changed to be their own monster type, and thus not eligible for wildshape.
Unless you're going to argue that ants aren't beasts - which would be extremely silly - that doesn't preclude wild shaping into one. It just means you have to ad-hoc the stats. Which shouldn't be hard, since the only important ones would be a health of 1, AC of like 10-12 depending on what you think their dex would be, and movement speed.

[Giant2005]

I think any decent DM would disallow that one way or another. Disallow shape-shifting when your current location doesn't have enough room for your new form (3e used to do this explicitly, but I don't see anything one way or the other about it in 5e's Wild Shape rules, which puts it solidly into DM purview), have the magic shunt them to the nearest unoccupied space and take some damage the way teleportation spells that try to put you into a solid object do, something along those lines.
I'd allow it but I wouldn't to the extent that I'd actually go to the effort of trying to calculate the densities of the Druid and the target he was Wildhsaping within. Instead of trying to figure out which one dies via density, I'd just rule that they had the same density and both die. That way if the Druid really feels like being a hero, he can perform his kamakaze mission without having it be a gamble.
then again, if the Druid wanted to make it a gamble, I'd probably allow that too with a 1D2 roll - odds the Druid died and evens the target died.

[dropbear8mybaby]

Unless you're going to argue that ants aren't beasts - which would be extremely silly - that doesn't preclude wild shaping into one. It just means you have to ad-hoc the stats. Which shouldn't be hard, since the only important ones would be a health of 1, AC of like 10-12 depending on what you think their dex would be, and movement speed.

If you want to make up new rules then that's fine, but you can't then argue that it creates a problem in the system.

[some guy]

If you want to make up new rules then that's fine, but you can't then argue that it creates a problem in the system.

Not really a new rule is it? Making stats for new monsters is basic dm skill and there are already stats for a normal spider, which a druid can wildshape into, so an ant would be totally in the rules of the game.


That said, I don't like level 2 druids changing into tiny creatures, I feel at lower levels scouting should be reserved to the non-magical classes.

[arrowstorm]

We have always done that if a creature exists in real life, it is a beast. But if someone feels an ant on them and smashes it, so be it. Or have some territorial spider come after him. Just be equally as creative.

[Ultimate_Coffee]

Now he wants to turn into a ant, crawl into someone's ear, and turn into a Hippo and explode their face. Technically he can do it but I want some outside opinions please.
As dropbear8mybaby already stated, there is no statblock for an ant, and therefore a druid cannot wild shape into one by RAW. A DM could easily build the statblock if they choose to allow this, but it is a slippery slope, as turning into ordinary sized insects, like ants and flies would give the druid an even greater level of access to hard to reach places, and make them undeniably the greatest spies.
As for occupying a small space and wild shaping, I would probably disallow doing so in most situations, using the rules from previous editions for this kind of thing. But if I had a player that wanted to kill enemies by exploding their heads with wild shape, I would just allow them to make an attack roll as the new shape and probably give them advantage. If they hit and did enough damage to kill the target, then they successfully exploded the head, if not, then they got shunted out.

Also post suggestions for other cool stuff Druids can do as they feel redundant without creativity.
Druids probably have the greatest level of versatility of any class, especially at low levels. I don't find that they ever get redundant. In addition to full spellcasting, which gives tons of options, they get wild shape. Wild shape can give you tons of vision types and movement types that allow for all sorts of shenanigans. I can't count the number of times the giant badger's burrow speed has proved useful.
IMHO, the druid doesn't need crazy options or any kind of buff to make them interesting/powerful. They have plenty going for them already.

[Mellack]

So, my brother is a Druid and he has been thinking up some interesting ideas. First it was basic stuff like spidering on the ceiling above enemies and turning into a Hippo. Now he wants to turn into a ant, crawl into someone's ear, and turn into a Hippo and explode their face. Technically he can do it but I want some outside opinions please. Thanks. Also post suggestions for other cool stuff Druids can do as they feel redundant without creativity.

My opinion is that the Druid can do it, once. Then the rest of the party can talk about how cool it was as he and him target both exploded into a mixed pile of goo and random body parts. I would probably not even allow a raise dead as the bodies are so thoroughly mixed/fused together that you do not have a complete body.

[coredump]

According to RAW, Druids can WS into a beast. There is no RAW requirement of a published stat block.
WS into an ant is RAW.

[Mara]

I would let the druid turn into an ant. I wouldn't let turning into a hippo explode someone's head. I would either use the hazard chart in the DMG to figure out appropriate saves/damage or just say the druid wildshapes and ends up next to the target.

[Steampunkette]

Bugs are Beasts this addition? Neat.

I kinda liked the vermin category, but this makes vermin controllers easier to play.

[Zevox]

If you want to make up new rules then that's fine, but you can't then argue that it creates a problem in the system.

According to RAW, Druids can WS into a beast. There is no RAW requirement of a published stat block.
WS into an ant is RAW.
Yeah, what coredump said. Also, no, it creates no problems, at least not any that weren't already there. Druids already have very small things they can wild shape into that do have stats, like spiders and rats.


Bugs are Beasts this addition? Neat.

I kinda liked the vermin category, but this makes vermin controllers easier to play.
Yeah, I don't see a Vermin creature type in the DMG, so it looks like it was removed in favor of making everything a Beast in 5e.

[dropbear8mybaby]

Druids already have very small things they can wild shape into that do have stats, like spiders and rats.

Those are Tiny creatures which take up roughly 2.5 feet by 2.5 feet square. They are not miniscule creatures that take up 2.5mm by 2.5mm square.


Also, no, it creates no problems, at least not any that weren't already there.

Then why do threads like this exist?

[Zevox]

Those are Tiny creatures which take up roughly 2.5 feet by 2.5 feet square. They are not miniscule creatures that take up 2.5mm by 2.5mm square.
There is no size category below tiny in the 5e rules in the first place.

[dropbear8mybaby]

There is no size category below tiny in the 5e rules in the first place.
And around the circle we go.

You want to allow a druid to wild shape into an ant, that's fine. But the rules don't allow for it so it's a homebrew DM adjudication, and therefore not a problem with the rules themselves.

[Elbeyon]

Handle it raw. If a druid tries to turn into an emo say, "Don't be silly. Emo's don't exist in D&D. Same for any creature below 5/2 feet. You can go into a forest and you will see nothing but giant animals. This is D&D!"

I could correct my typo. But, nah.

[WickerNipple]

Handle it raw. If a druid tries to turn into an emo say, "Don't be silly. Emo's don't exist in D&D.

It's true, they haven't released the Shardar-Kai for 5e yet.

[Steampunkette]

It's Shadar-Kai, damn it!

*flips emo fringe*

[WickerNipple]

So sensitive!

[Zevox]

And around the circle we go.

You want to allow a druid to wild shape into an ant, that's fine. But the rules don't allow for it so it's a homebrew DM adjudication, and therefore not a problem with the rules themselves.
The rules allow for it just fine - Wild Shape allows any beast within certain restrictions, none of which an ant would run afoul of. Only the stats are missing, and since an ant isn't a form you'd use for combat, you don't even need to worry much about those. Plus, as mentioned before, there are very small creatures that a Druid can turn into already, and turning into an ant is no more trouble than those are to begin with.

[coredump]

And around the circle we go.

You want to allow a druid to wild shape into an ant, that's fine. But the rules don't allow for it so it's a homebrew DM adjudication, and therefore not a problem with the rules themselves.
The rules most certainly *do* allow for it.

The rules say ants are beasts
the rules say a druid can WS into a beast.

[Steampunkette]

There are no ants in the Monster Manual, so how does it say they're beasts?

We can -assume- they're beasts, sure. But they might be Undead by default!

[D.U.P.A.]

Honestly, I think that wildshape is quite a half assed feature. The range of animals should be limited like casters' known spells including size limits. If Beastmaster cannot have large animals, then also Druid cannot shape in some gargantuan or very tiny creatures. I would rule (along CR and habitat type) also to limit it to small/medium/large animals and the player can choose number of animals based on level or Wis modifier, for example starting with 4 available animals, gaining some shapes when leveling.

[coredump]

There are no ants in the Monster Manual, so how does it say they're beasts?

We can -assume- they're beasts, sure. But they might be Undead by default!

You are free to "-assume-" all you want. I, instead, will just use the rules about what creatures qualify as a Beast.

If interested, you can find them in the Monster Manual.


You can also find the rules for what qualifies as Undead. (Hint: Ants don't....)

[Elbeyon]

You are free to "-assume-" all you want. I, instead, will just use the rules about what creatures qualify as a Beast.

If interested, you can find them in the Monster Manual.


You can also find the rules for what qualifies as Undead. (Hint: Ants don't....)
Beasts are nonhumanoid creatures that are a natural part of the fantasy ecology. Some of them have magical powers, but most are unintelligent and lack any society or language. Beasts include all varieties of ordinary animals, dinosaurs, and giant versions of animals.Which type are ants? Are they dragons?


Dragons are large reptilian creatures of ancient origin and tremendous power. True dragons, include the good metallic dragons and the evil chromatic dragons, are highly intelligent and have innate magic. Also in this category are the creatures distantly related to true dragons, but less powerful, less intelligent, and less magical, such as wyverns and pseudodragons

[Steampunkette]

Oh, sure. Quote the part of the book that makes sweeping generalizations rather than refers to the specific creature, why don't you!

:P

I need to start using blue text. Even when I can't possibly be serious people think I'm serious.

Take a look at my first post in the thread in which I'm surprised, but happy, that Bugs are Beasts. And how it makes Vermin Commanders possible. Then take a look at the highly hyperbolic argument that all ants could be undead. One of these things is not like the other.

[coredump]

Oh, sure. Quote the part of the book that makes sweeping generalizations rather than refers to the specific creature, why don't you!

:P

I need to start using blue text. Even when I can't possibly be serious people think I'm serious.

Take a look at my first post in the thread in which I'm surprised, but happy, that Bugs are Beasts. And how it makes Vermin Commanders possible. Then take a look at the highly hyperbolic argument that all ants could be undead. One of these things is not like the other.

eh, my bad.



@elbeyon: I am really not sure what you are saying....

[rhouck]

Those are Tiny creatures which take up roughly 2.5 feet by 2.5 feet square. They are not miniscule creatures that take up 2.5mm by 2.5mm square.

So you believe the Spider stat block (regular, not Giant etc) refers to a spider that is roughly 2.5 feet by 2.5 feet in size?

[Vogonjeltz]

So, my brother is a Druid and he has been thinking up some interesting ideas. First it was basic stuff like spidering on the ceiling above enemies and turning into a Hippo. Now he wants to turn into a ant, crawl into someone's ear, and turn into a Hippo and explode their face. Technically he can do it but I want some outside opinions please. Thanks. Also post suggestions for other cool stuff Druids can do as they feel redundant without creativity.

By RAW you can't enter beastform using wildshape except when you're in your natural form. It's a toggled boolean on/off switch.

So no, he can't become an ant and then become a hippo. He'd have to become an ant, then turn off wildshape, then wildshape again into a hippo beastform.

Also, iirc, aren't there rules regarding what occurs if there isn't sufficient room to assume a form? i.e. displacement, failure to assume the new form, etc...

[rhouck]

By RAW you can't enter beastform using wildshape except when you're in your natural form. It's a toggled boolean on/off switch.

Where does it say that? RAW state how you can revert to your normal form, either automatically (based on time) or intentionally (using a bonus action). But I don't see anything that says you can't go from one shape directly to another shape. It says that, while transformed, you "retain the benefit of any features from your class", which would include the ability to use wild shape.

Has this been the source of errata and/or Sage Advice?

[Flashy]

Also, iirc, aren't there rules regarding what occurs if there isn't sufficient room to assume a form? i.e. displacement, failure to assume the new form, etc...

Actually no. The rules provide no conditions under which a wild shape fails whatsoever, so long as a player shifts into a beast within the flying/swimming and CR restrictions. Arguably a character who shifts into something too small for the space might revert because they instantly take a great deal of crush damage, but that would essentially be a house rule.

[Vogonjeltz]

Where does it say that? RAW state how you can revert to your normal form, either automatically (based on time) or intentionally (using a bonus action). But I don't see anything that says you can't go from one shape directly to another shape. It says that, while transformed, you "retain the benefit of any features from your class", which would include the ability to use wild shape.

Has this been the source of errata and/or Sage Advice?

It's on page 66, "You then revert to your normal form unless you expend another use of this feature." If you use the feature while in a beast shape, it only extends the form. That rule specifically changes how the ability performs while it's active. That's prior to the text you're referring to (about retaining class features), and doesn't contradict it. The ability is retained, however it does something different based on circumstances.


Actually no. The rules provide no conditions under which a wild shape fails whatsoever, so long as a player shifts into a beast within the flying/swimming and CR restrictions. Arguably a character who shifts into something too small for the space might revert because they instantly take a great deal of crush damage, but that would essentially be a house rule.

Ah, I'm thinking of every other example of two things sharing the same space in the game where-in if a space is occupied the entering character is shifted to a new, available, location.

The absolute favoring by the rules of using displacement instead of any form of damage in these circumstances suggests that attempting this wouldn't have any ill effect.

Also, non-stat blocked beasts would only be possible via DM discretion as the rules on wildshape state that the character's statistics are replaced by those of the beast.

[rhouck]

It's on page 66, "You then revert to your normal form unless you expend another use of this feature." If you use the feature while in a beast shape, it only extends the form. That rule specifically changes how the ability performs while it's active. That's prior to the text you're referring to (about retaining class features), and doesn't contradict it. The ability is retained, however it does something different based on circumstances.

I disagree. That doesn't say you can't go from one shape to another. It just states that, if you want to can stay in the same shape for longer than a number of hours equal to half your druid level, you can expend another use of that feature (i.e., stating that a 4th level Druid can be a bear for two hours, then spend another use to continue as a bear for another two hours, without ever returning to normal form). It doesn't say you cannot expend another use of the feature to change into a different shape. Those are two different things. You are adding the word "only" where it does not exist.

[Vogonjeltz]

I disagree. That doesn't say you can't go from one shape to another. It just states that, if you want to can stay in the same shape for longer than a number of hours equal to half your druid level, you can expend another use of that feature (i.e., stating that a 4th level Druid can be a bear for two hours, then spend another use to continue as a bear for another two hours, without ever returning to normal form). It doesn't say you cannot expend another use of the feature to change into a different shape. Those are two different things. You are adding the word "only" where it does not exist.

Actually the way the ability is phrased you use it to turn Into beast form, and the only thing the rules says regarding using wildshape while in beast form is that it extends the form.

There is zero support for altering the form while it is active.

[rhouck]

Actually the way the ability is phrased you use it to turn Into beast form, and the only thing the rules says regarding using wildshape while in beast form is that it extends the form.

There is zero support for altering the form while it is active.

The support is what I quoted initially, which is that you "retain the benefit of any features of your class". The ability to wild shape is a class feature. Therefore, you retain that feature in beast form.

Wild shape says "you can use your action to magically assume the shape of a beast you have seen before." It does not say you have to do so from your normal form.

The passage you quoted just confirms that a druid can continue on in a single form without reverting by expending uses. This is useful if you are, for example, a spider and spying on an enemy and you're almost out of time -- it saves you having to revert to humanoid form, and then wild shaping back.

That doesn't mean that the ONLY benefit from expending a use is to extend your form. It just means the ONLY way to EXTEND your form is to expend a use. Those mean two different things.

This has been discussed at length with respect to the level 20 onion druid problem, where the druid expends a use every turn to refresh his hit points. I think the sentence you point to arguably supports the argument that if you can't go mammoth to mammoth and refresh your hit points, as then you are not wild shaping into a new form but just extending the current one. But it doesn't prevent the level 20 druid from flip-flopping between earth elemental and mammoth every turn, without ever returning to humanoid form.

If there has been some new development (e.g., published Errata, Sage Advice, etc.) on this point, I'd be happy to read it. But RAW nothing states that you cannot go, for example, from bear to snake by expending a use.

[Vogonjeltz]

The support is what I quoted initially, which is that you "retain the benefit of any features of your class". The ability to wild shape is a class feature. Therefore, you retain that feature in beast form.

Wild shape says "you can use your action to magically assume the shape of a beast you have seen before." It does not say you have to do so from your normal form.

The passage you quoted just confirms that a druid can continue on in a single form without reverting by expending uses. This is useful if you are, for example, a spider and spying on an enemy and you're almost out of time -- it saves you having to revert to humanoid form, and then wild shaping back.

That doesn't mean that the ONLY benefit from expending a use is to extend your form. It just means the ONLY way to EXTEND your form is to expend a use. Those mean two different things.

This has been discussed at length with respect to the level 20 onion druid problem, where the druid expends a use every turn to refresh his hit points. I think the sentence you point to arguably supports the argument that if you can't go mammoth to mammoth and refresh your hit points, as then you are not wild shaping into a new form but just extending the current one. But it doesn't prevent the level 20 druid from flip-flopping between earth elemental and mammoth every turn, without ever returning to humanoid form.

If there has been some new development (e.g., published Errata, Sage Advice, etc.) on this point, I'd be happy to read it. But RAW nothing states that you cannot go, for example, from bear to snake by expending a use.

The ability says it has a different function (extension of shape) when in beast form. You need a positive expression of the capacity to change when in beast form and that does not exist, only the ability to extend a current form.

[rhouck]

The ability says it has a different function (extension of shape) when in beast form. You need a positive expression of the capacity to change when in beast form and that does not exist, only the ability to extend a current form.

It doesn't say it has a different function, it says it has an ADDITIONAL function. The positive expression of capacity to change is in the aforementioned statement that you retain your class features unless taken away. The only class feature taken away is the ability to cast spells.

[Shining Wrath]

If ants exist in your campaign, then they have a creature type. Not all campaigns have every MM creature; conversely, most campaigns assume the existence of ordinary creatures not found in the MM. Some examples of creatures I would assume exist in most settings but aren't in the MM include:

Ants
Chickens
Mice
Snakes that are not giant and also are not poisonous
Gophers
Trout


Positing a campaign world where small insects do exist (which is strongly implied by the Insect Plague spell, which unleashes locusts), those small insects have a creature type. The DM is free to invent a new creature type as homebrew. If the DM wishes to allocate the listed creatures to an existing type, the most natural one is Beast, and a druid ought to be able to take those forms.

[Vogonjeltz]

It doesn't say it has a different function, it says it has an ADDITIONAL function. The positive expression of capacity to change is in the aforementioned statement that you retain your class features unless taken away. The only class feature taken away is the ability to cast spells.

No, that bullet only indicates that Wildshape is retained, how it functions is not included in that bullet, but in the third paragraph in which it states that using wild shape while in the shape of a beast extends the forms duration.

Changing form necessarily requires that you not have wild shape active. It requires using a bonus action to revert to normal form and then another action (or bonus action for moon druids) to enter the new beast form. That's just how the ability works as written.

[Gwendol]

Wildshape is an ability with a very specific function, it allows the druid to go from normal shape to beast shape. From there the druid can extend the beast shape or revert.
To say otherwise is currently unsupported, but perhaps a common enough rule at the table.

[Steampunkette]

Druids can fly through the night and strike fear into the hearts of criminals, everywhere by fighting crime as BAT-*squeakynoises*

[tieren]

Would you let a druid wildshape into a bison, mingle amongst a herd of natural bison, and attempt to influence them to start a stampede? Per haps by starting to run in a specific direction making snorts of alarm.

What if he cast speak with animals before shifting? how smart do you need to be to trick a herd of bison?

[Trickquestion]

I actually played a druid recently in "Hoard of the Dragon Queen" and they do have a great deal of potential for interesting roleplaying, even more so when your Druid is actually a Gnomish criminal who has infiltrated a druid circle so the government will give his three nephews back.

Over the course of this game I figured out some guy was pretending to be a druid because he didn't know Druid, pretended to not be a druid, set things on fire with a cantrip, melted people's faces with a different cantrip, wild shaped into a cobra to murder people in their sleep, wild shaped into a rat to steal things, wild shaped into a bird to run away with my bag full of money, and used call lightning to massacre huge numbers of people, including fleeing civilians.

[rhouck]

No, that bullet only indicates that Wildshape is retained, how it functions is not included in that bullet, but in the third paragraph in which it states that using wild shape while in the shape of a beast extends the forms duration.

Changing form necessarily requires that you not have wild shape active. It requires using a bonus action to revert to normal form and then another action (or bonus action for moon druids) to enter the new beast form. That's just how the ability works as written.


Wildshape is an ability with a very specific function, it allows the druid to go from normal shape to beast shape. From there the druid can extend the beast shape or revert.
To say otherwise is currently unsupported, but perhaps a common enough rule at the table.

You are both incorrect. Druid can wildshape from form-to-form, as long as he has uses of the ability remaining. As I stated previously, wild shape is an ability and is retained in your forms. Extending is just an additional option for when you are currently in a form -- it does not reduce your available options. And reverting is always "free".

FWIW this is how it has traditionally worked in old editions, so it would not have made much sense to change it.

https://twitter.com/mikemearls/status/629352176335364098
https://twitter.com/mikemearls/status/629352267397922816


rhouckdnd ‏@rhouckdnd 31m31 minutes ago
@mikemearls can druid wild shape from form to form? (eg,druid is bear, can he change direct to snake?) or only extend bear?@JeremyECrawford


Mike Mearls
‏@mikemearls
@rhouckdnd @JeremyECrawford yes


Mike Mearls ‏@mikemearls
@rhouckdnd @JeremyECrawford however, each change requires a use of the ability, save for returning to your true form

[Vogonjeltz]

You are both incorrect. Druid can wildshape from form-to-form, as long as he has uses of the ability remaining. As I stated previously, wild shape is an ability and is retained in your forms. Extending is just an additional option for when you are currently in a form -- it does not reduce your available options. And reverting is always "free".

FWIW this is how it has traditionally worked in old editions, so it would not have made much sense to change it.

https://twitter.com/mikemearls/status/629352176335364098
https://twitter.com/mikemearls/status/629352267397922816

Reversion requires a bonus action (pg 66), and as much as I respect their twitter opinions for the intent, the written text says otherwise.

[Gwendol]

The game rules rest on the published material, their twitter replies do not change that.

[rhouck]

Reversion requires a bonus action (pg 66), and as much as I respect their twitter opinions for the intent, the written text says otherwise.

Of course it does, "free" as in it doesn't use up any uses of the ability to drop out of form early.

And the written text is clear that you can go form to form, despite your attempt to read in an additional restriction where none exists. Your interpretation is clearly contrary to both RAW and RAI. But feel free to play as you wish.

[Thisguy_]

[In wildshape,] You retain the benefit of any features from your class, race, orother source and can use them if the new form is physically capable of doing so...


Wow. Looks like you're right; a Druid by the rules as they're written can expend a use of Wild Shape either to lengthen the current form or take on a new one without ever reverting to their normal form. If I am not mistaken, this must be what the "more HP than a god" tactic of the moon druids is based on. Once a Moon Druid reaches level 20, they have limitless uses of Wild Shape, and therefore can go back and forth between Elephant and Elemental forms (or whatever they like) as they so wish.

Overpowered, but in the RAW.

[Gwendol]

If the new form is physically capable... So no.

[Ferrin33]

If the new form is physically capable... So no.

How do you come to that conclusion? Wild Shape does not have any criteria that you need to be in a humanoid form for.

[Gwendol]

Right, but there are no shapechanging beasts either. I'd say a great many class abilities are lost while in beast shape due to that restriction.

[MaxWilson]

How do you come to that conclusion? Wild Shape does not have any criteria that you need to be in a humanoid form for.

He's misunderstanding what "physically capable" means.

[Mellack]

There are not shapechanging elves either, yet somehow they can become druids and shapechange. Why can they not as an elephant?

[falloutimperial]

Cause: expending another use of wild shape
Effect: magically assume the form of a beast you have seen before
Effect: not reverting to your normal form

When you expend another use of wild shape, you do not revert to your normal form. This by no means implies that the only use of wild when in the form of a beast is to stay in that form. None of their language says that expending another use of wild shape ignores its primary effect or trades that effect exclusively for the secondary effect.

Also, if it was like that, how much longer would you get to stay in that new form? "You then revert to your normal form unless you expend another use of this feature." Since this second effect is supposedly not just a specific use of the first, it has no duration. It would be silly if a druid could make a wild shape permanent at second level, so it probably doesn't.

Supplementary Evidence: I think the above is concrete enough to be convincing. However, which of the two following incidents are more likely?

1. The writers intend that "not reverting to your normal form" is the strict alternative use of wild shape. They write the description of wild shape, barely mention this strict alternative, fail to mention it is a strict alternative, fail to mention its duration, and then Mike Mearls publicly misunderstands the rules, as do many players, even under heavy scrutiny.

2. The writers intend that druids can wild shape from form-to-form. Someone points out that you can turn from a fox to a snake, so shouldn't they explicitly point out you can turn from a fox to that same fox? This makes sense so they point out that the effect of wild shape is such that it can be used to double the duration of a form. Mike Mearls publicly clarifies this, and a couple of players misunderstand the rules, even under heavy scrutiny.

I know that D&D has plenty of dysfunctional rules, but this isn't one of them. One interpretation has the actual verbiage (RAW,) the explicit intent of a creator (RAI,) and Occam's Razor supporting it. The other might just have a misunderstanding of what "unless you expend another use of this feature" means.

[NotVeryBatman]

This might be the wrong kind of question but: how could an ant possibly attack this victim in question. Presumably the druid is wildshaping from outside the victim's line of sight. How is this druid/ant going to pursue it's target across wide plains, badlands and canyons? An ant can't possibly move more than 5 feet per round.

[djreynolds]

You might die as well in the change. I've always envisioned changing from like the old werewolf movies and not just "poof." That said you might both die.

[Vogonjeltz]

Of course it does, "free" as in it doesn't use up any uses of the ability to drop out of form early.

And the written text is clear that you can go form to form, despite your attempt to read in an additional restriction where none exists. Your interpretation is clearly contrary to both RAW and RAI. But feel free to play as you wish.

Ah, it looked like you were making the fairly common mistake of thinking that free actions from 3.5e still existed in 5e. Thank you for clarifying your intent, even if it wasn't written that way.

Actually, my reading of the written rules is just that, Rules as Written. Your attempt to insert personal preference doesn't change the fact that the written rules make use of wild shape when in beast form only extend that form.

Now, it may be that the intention of wild shape was to perform similarly to Shapechange where you explicitly can enter a new form without first reverting; however that also carries the explicit restriction that hit points remain at their current level if the new form would have more.

But neither of those are true for wild shape, only for shapechange.

[Thisguy_]

Wild shape is not a spell. It doesn't have a verbal, somatic, or material component; therefore, I can only assume that Wild Shape is based off of your personal energy (as it's limited to 2 hours per short rest, and definitively has an "ignition cost," in that you cannot shift back and forth wildly for those two hours) and your force of will: your desire to shift, shifts you. Not anyone can do this, and it's difficult, represented by the fact that you need druid levels, but it's also all mental, and Wild Shaping doesn't change your mind: your mental ability scores, alignment, etc. are unaffected by it.

You can in fact cast spells with only somatic components while you're polymorphed into things, so by that logic, without a verbal, somatic, or material component to it, the fact that it's a class feature, and the fact that while wild shaped, you're still a druid, you are able to wild shape in wild shape.

Further, what happens when you unlock beast spells at level 18 and still cannot wild shape? How do you explain that to your party?

I ask of you: what is the restricting factor preventing a wild shaping from occurring while you're wild shaped? Your logic is that you must still be physically able to perform the action, but a bound, a shackled, a PARALYSED Druid should still be able to Wild Shape, right? So why does being a bear stop you turning into a mouse?

What is physically so different about a human being and a bear that the MENTAL wild shape ability can't work on a bear?

Or is your argument that wild shape has a physical component to fulfill? If that's your argument, where is it in the rules?

[MaxWilson]

I ask of you: what is the restricting factor preventing a wild shaping from occurring while you're wild shaped? Your logic is that you must still be physically able to perform the action, but a bound, a shackled, a PARALYSED Druid should still be able to Wild Shape, right? So why does being a bear stop you turning into a mouse?

No, actually, by RAW Paralyzation incapacitates you, preventing all actions/bonus actions and IIRC reactions. It wouldn't be unreasonable for a DM to rule otherwise, allowing e.g. a paralyzed sorcerer to Subtly cast Dimension Door to escape, but by RAW this doesn't work.

[Thisguy_]

No, actually, by RAW Paralyzation incapacitates you, preventing all actions/bonus actions and IIRC reactions. It wouldn't be unreasonable for a DM to rule otherwise, allowing e.g. a paralyzed sorcerer to Subtly cast Dimension Door to escape, but by RAW this doesn't work.

Ah, maybe I meant stunned. Check the book, I will...

...nope, Stunned prevents it as well. Huh. Whatever though, if the druid was by some magic means prevented entirely from moving his body, but not Incapacitated, he could, by RAW, still Wild Shape; therefore, I'd say anything with the Druid's mind is responsible for activating Wild Shape's effect, and thus anything with its mind and a body to shift (Like the Druid in bear form) should be able to use Wild Shape to shapeshift.

[Gwendol]

The way the ability is phrased expending a use of wildshape while in beast form extends that beast form.
The description of the ability only ever describes the change from normal shape to wildshape (and back). Therefore the proposed intent of allowing beast to beast transformation is unsupported, by RAW, and considering the metagame implications (practically infinite HP) I'd say the limitation is intentional.

[rhouck]

Ah, it looked like you were making the fairly common mistake of thinking that free actions from 3.5e still existed in 5e. Thank you for clarifying your intent, even if it wasn't written that way.

Actually, my reading of the written rules is just that, Rules as Written. Your attempt to insert personal preference doesn't change the fact that the written rules make use of wild shape when in beast form only extend that form.

Now, it may be that the intention of wild shape was to perform similarly to Shapechange where you explicitly can enter a new form without first reverting; however that also carries the explicit restriction that hit points remain at their current level if the new form would have more.

But neither of those are true for wild shape, only for shapechange.

I didn't say "free action", I said "free". And it was the context of options and using form changes, not with respect to Actions versus Bonus Actions. Your incorrect inference that I was discussing a rule that does not exist in 5e (outside of object interactions) is a reflection of you, again, inserting your personal biases and adding words where they do not exist.

It says if you don't expend a use to stay in beast form, you revert to natural form. It doesn't say that is the only available effect if you expend a use. Nor does it say you lose the class ability to assume the shape of a beast (i.e., a different beast) while in beast form. You keep adding the word "only" and it does not exist in the text.

It made no sense from them to start the Wild Shape paragraph by talking about extending because it's not relevant until you're actually in the form of a beast. When you change into the form of a beast, you get an additional ability. It is not talked about earlier because it is only relevant when in beast form. The rules are quite explicit that you lose no abilities versus your natural form, except for those listed. Those listed are (1) abilities that the beast form is physically incapable of performing, and (2) the ability to cast spells (prior to 18th level). That's it. I don't believe anyone except Gwendol believes the ridiculous idea that (1) applies, as there are no listed physical requirements for wild shape. And (2) has nothing to do with the ability to wild shape.

The clear intent was it function as druids have functioned since druids were introduced in the 70s, which includes being able to go straight from one beast to another (including even up through 4th Edition, which was the most explicit in stating "you can shapeshift directly between two forms without returning to your normal form"). Which, by the way, also used to HEAL the druid every time he did so (except in 4e iirc).

This "extending" piece is a new thing, but it is was quite clearly added as an ADDITIONAL ability (allowing druids to remain in the same form for longer), and there is no support for your "only" interpretation, removing their 40+ year old ability to go straight from form to form.

And it has nothing to do with the spell Shapechange. That is completely different, especially since it offers far superior form options (by being restricted to "creatures" rather than "beasts", and of CR equal to your level rather than 1/3). There is zero point in comparing the two.


The way the ability is phrased expending a use of wildshape while in beast form extends that beast form.
The description of the ability only ever describes the change from normal shape to wildshape (and back). Therefore the proposed intent of allowing beast to beast transformation is unsupported, by RAW, and considering the metagame implications (practically infinite HP) I'd say the limitation is intentional.

There is also no text that states that you have to be in natural form before wild shaping. It says "you can use your action magically assume the shape of a beast". It does not say "While in your natural form, you can use..." Just because MOST of the time that you use the ability you will be in natural form does not make it a REQUIREMENT to use. Read the text as written -- don't add words and limitations that do not exist.

You may dislike the result because of "metagame implications" (that are only even remotely relevant at 20th level for a single-classed druid...), but that doesn't mean that WotC shared your worry (and they obviously did not).

[Gwendol]

Way to set the double standard: I'm not the one arguing that you may wild shape while in wild shape since the rules don't say otherwise.

The rules clearly state that while in wild shape the druid may either revert (listing the conditions) or extend.
The use of class abilities is conditional, and thus not all-encompassing.

[tieren]

I think you also need to think about the consequences.

Suppose you could wild shape while in beast form into another beast form (I don't believe you can).
Now suppose the second beast form takes enough damage to force it to revert. Does it revert to caster form or into the original beast form before the second wild shape?

I think it would be unduly burdensome to have to force the druid through a series of wildshapes to get him back to caster. Think of a level 20 arch druid, he could shift through a hundred different shapes first thing in the morning and claim it would take thousands of hp of damage to kill him in a single hit.

[falloutimperial]

Suppose you could wild shape while in beast form into another beast form (I don't believe you can).
Now suppose the second beast form takes enough damage to force it to revert. Does it revert to caster form or into the original beast form before the second wild shape?

Great question. Any reference to "reverting" pretty much explicitly says "reverting to your normal form." So regardless of how many beast forms you've become in sequence, you would revert to your normal form after taking enough damage.


This discussion really hinges on the phrase "You then revert to your normal form unless you expend another use of this feature." Please look this phrase over carefully, and tell me that it implies a new use of wild shape. Because that's the only line that I can find that could potentially be taken to mean that it either reverts or extends. So much is being hanged on that one phrase, and it wasn't meant to hold such weighty implications.

[Gwendol]

Also if the Wild shape action is something the beast form is able to do.

[tieren]

Another question is the action economy involved.

My group's tank is a moon druid. Normal wildshape is an action (reversion is a bonus action) but PHB says moon druids gain the ability to change as a bonus action "rather than as an action". My DM has ruled that means moon druids can ONLY shift on a bonus action and never as their normal action so to change from one form to another requires two turns (because you never have more than one bonus action per turn, one turn to caster and one to new form).

[Ferrin33]

Another question is the action economy involved.

My group's tank is a moon druid. Normal wildshape is an action (reversion is a bonus action) but PHB says moon druids gain the ability to change as a bonus action "rather than as an action". My DM has ruled that means moon druids can ONLY shift on a bonus action and never as their normal action so to change from one form to another requires two turns (because you never have more than one bonus action per turn, one turn to caster and one to new form).

Well yeah, that's RAW, I can imagine plenty of DM's allowing you to still do it as a standard though.

[Vogonjeltz]

I didn't say "free action", I said "free". And it was the context of options and using form changes, not with respect to Actions versus Bonus Actions. Your incorrect inference that I was discussing a rule that does not exist in 5e (outside of object interactions) is a reflection of you, again, inserting your personal biases and adding words where they do not exist.

You did say free, and you were were responding to my post where-in I said: "It requires using a bonus action to revert to normal form and then another action (or bonus action for moon druids) to enter the new beast form."

Perhaps unknowingly you used a loaded word that carried other connotations (and is well known among players of previous editions). In the future if you choose your words with more care, you can avoid sowing confusion unintentionally.


It says if you don't expend a use to stay in beast form, you revert to natural form. It doesn't say that is the only available effect if you expend a use. Nor does it say you lose the class ability to assume the shape of a beast (i.e., a different beast) while in beast form. You keep adding the word "only" and it does not exist in the text.

It made no sense from them to start the Wild Shape paragraph by talking about extending because it's not relevant until you're actually in the form of a beast. When you change into the form of a beast, you get an additional ability. It is not talked about earlier because it is only relevant when in beast form. The rules are quite explicit that you lose no abilities versus your natural form, except for those listed. Those listed are (1) abilities that the beast form is physically incapable of performing, and (2) the ability to cast spells (prior to 18th level). That's it. I don't believe anyone except Gwendol believes the ridiculous idea that (1) applies, as there are no listed physical requirements for wild shape. And (2) has nothing to do with the ability to wild shape.

It is the only listed effect of using wild shape while in beast form. The other listed effect is turning into beast form from your natural form.
The use of only is simply descriptive of the fact that there is only the one feature.

The rules are explicit that you don't lose abilities, but they also specify that the ability functions in a different way while in beast form vs in natural form. I'm not arguing that there's any physical incapacity.


The clear intent was it function as druids have functioned since druids were introduced in the 70s, which includes being able to go straight from one beast to another (including even up through 4th Edition, which was the most explicit in stating "you can shapeshift directly between two forms without returning to your normal form"). Which, by the way, also used to HEAL the druid every time he did so (except in 4e iirc).

This "extending" piece is a new thing, but it is was quite clearly added as an ADDITIONAL ability (allowing druids to remain in the same form for longer), and there is no support for your "only" interpretation, removing their 40+ year old ability to go straight from form to form.

And it has nothing to do with the spell Shapechange. That is completely different, especially since it offers far superior form options (by being restricted to "creatures" rather than "beasts", and of CR equal to your level rather than 1/3). There is zero point in comparing the two.

Previous versions also had limited uses and healed them as if they had a nights rest which was character level hp not all of the hit points. If you want to try and infer intention consider that a 20th level moon druid would be able to reset their hit points to (what is it, 120?) every single turn for the cost of a bonus action. This seems all the less likely when we consider that the first sub-class ability of the moon druid is to both set wild shape to a bonus action AND to allow the character to expend a spell slot to restore 1d8 hit points per level of the spell slot expended.

The point in comparing shapechange is that it demonstrates a balanced functionality of switching between forms without returning to normal form.

If the intent is as you want it to be, why would they bother with the hit points being regained? There would be no need, the Druid would always heal more hit points just by resetting wild shape as a bonus action (they have apparently nothing else competing for the bonus action).

[Thisguy_]

The rules clearly state that while in wild shape the druid may either revert (listing the conditions) or extend.
The use of class abilities is conditional, and thus not all-encompassing.

The rules say that Wild Shape shifts forms from the current to a beast form of the Druid's choice, within restrictions set by circle. The rules go on to state that while already in beast form, you may revert for no cost, and you may choose to expend a use of wild shape to extend when time is up.

But nowhere in the rules does it say that while in beast form, you are restricted to reversion or extension of form.

If I am wrong, quote text from the rules as citation when you argue against me. If you cannot, you're making a RAI argument over a RAW argument.

I think, personally, that RAI is this way as well: Druids are animal shapeshifters. To require them to return to human form in order to take on a second animal shape seems arbitrary, and the rules as written seem to support direct transformation (and, frankly, so do the developers, via Twitter).

EDIT: Well, I think the devs said something on Twitter. It's pretty much always 2am when I post, so I might be wrong.

[Vogonjeltz]

The rules say that Wild Shape shifts forms from the current to a beast form of the Druid's choice, within restrictions set by circle. The rules go on to state that while already in beast form, you may revert for no cost, and you may choose to expend a use of wild shape to extend when time is up.

But nowhere in the rules does it say that while in beast form, you are restricted to reversion or extension of form.

If I am wrong, quote text from the rules as citation when you argue against me. If you cannot, you're making a RAI argument over a RAW argument.

I think, personally, that RAI is this way as well: Druids are animal shapeshifters. To require them to return to human form in order to take on a second animal shape seems arbitrary, and the rules as written seem to support direct transformation (and, frankly, so do the developers, via Twitter).

EDIT: Well, I think the devs said something on Twitter. It's pretty much always 2am when I post, so I might be wrong.

Someone (rhouck I think) asked mearls if Druids should be able to wild shape into a beast form while already wild shaped, and he said yes. What was not asked (and this seems more crucial) is if the Druid could shift from one form back to itself, and if that would also reset the characters hp to the new form. For example, Druid shifts to mammoth, takes 100 points of damage, Druids shifts to mammoth, gets mammoth hp again, as naseum.

If mearls thinks that latter interaction is intended I would be fascinated to know why.

[tieren]

Someone (rhouck I think) asked mearls if Druids should be able to wild shape into a beast form while already wild shaped, and he said yes. What was not asked (and this seems more crucial) is if the Druid could shift from one form back to itself, and if that would also reset the characters hp to the new form. For example, Druid shifts to mammoth, takes 100 points of damage, Druids shifts to mammoth, gets mammoth hp again, as naseum.

If mearls thinks that latter interaction is intended I would be fascinated to know why.

Well druids are still limited in the number of forms until level 20 per short rest so it wouldn't be ad nauseum until level 20, then its just nuts, but getting knocked out of form and jumping right back into it every round appears to be the intent at that point anyway.

[Thisguy_]

...getting knocked out of form and jumping right back into it every round appears to be the intent at that point anyway.

This puts a really funny image in my head.

God, though, what counters a 20th level moon druid other than a huge nuke?

[ZenBear]

Another question is the action economy involved.

My group's tank is a moon druid. Normal wildshape is an action (reversion is a bonus action) but PHB says moon druids gain the ability to change as a bonus action "rather than as an action". My DM has ruled that means moon druids can ONLY shift on a bonus action and never as their normal action so to change from one form to another requires two turns (because you never have more than one bonus action per turn, one turn to caster and one to new form).

The wording is important here. Does it say "can use a bonus action" or "must use a bonus action"? If the former, then it is your choice to use a bonus or standard action. Frankly your DM is being a jerk trying to gimp his players with slanted interpretations of the rules. I see this behavior in DMs all the time and it sucks every time.

On the heated debate about Wildshaping while in beast form, I once again have to stress that wording is important. One side keeps slapping the word "only" in the middle of their interpretation of the rules. Unless you can quote the book saying "only" in regards to using wildshape to extend wildshape while in beast form, then it is not RAW.

Would changing the level 20 ability from infinite wildshape uses to no longer having a time limit for wildshape alleviate some of the OPness of L20 Druids?

[goldenfoxx]

My response to this situation would be a physics principle; For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Therefore, while you could certainly do it (if the DM allowed shapechanging into ants), it would do a comparable amount of force damage to the druid changing into a new form. Secondly, I would say that since this damage is done mid transformation, I would say that the druids "instantaneous" max hit points in mid shapechange would be an average between the two forms. So a druid could do it, most likely proving fatal to the victim, but doing an incredible amount of comparable damage to the druid (depending on how tough the victim is), most likely killing the druid in the process.

[Thisguy_]

Would changing the level 20 ability from infinite wildshape uses to no longer having a time limit for wildshape alleviate some of the OPness of L20 Druids?

God, yes. But I think it would be better if an Archdruid unlocked a totally different magic, "True Wild Shape," with limitless time and shifts but which uses your real health on a percentage factor (at 90% HP shifting into a tiger (37HP) sets your real HP to 33.

That opens up the opportunity for heal cheese in forms, but keep in mind that for 1HP forms, anything lower than 100% HP would round down to 0HP.

EDIT: Actually, you could say forms heal by allowing your true form to heal from the spell, then recalculating based on %HP. For clarity, all of those new rules on WS HP only apply to True shapes, so there's reason to use normal Wild Shape as well.

[ZenBear]

God, yes. But I think it would be better if an Archdruid unlocked a totally different magic, "True Wild Shape," with limitless time and shifts but which uses your real health on a percentage factor (at 90% HP shifting into a tiger (37HP) sets your real HP to 33.

That opens up the opportunity for heal cheese in forms, but keep in mind that for 1HP forms, anything lower than 100% HP would round down to 0HP.

EDIT: Actually, you could say forms heal by allowing your true form to heal from the spell, then recalculating based on %HP. For clarity, all of those new rules on WS HP only apply to True shapes, so there's reason to use normal Wild Shape as well.

%HP is a hassle to figure. 5E is all about simplicity, and that's a good thing, so that wouldn't work.

[Thisguy_]

%HP is a hassle to figure. 5E is all about simplicity, and that's a good thing, so that wouldn't work.

I admit that. But the flavor might be worth it, and I'd put it in the player's hands as an option, or take away unlimited wild shape, if I had a problem with that feature. I feel like nobody I know would abuse the feature.

[Skade]

This Wildshape discussion has gotten kind of intense. I doubt I'm going to be changing minds at this point, but would like to throw in my two cents.

"You can stay in a beast shape for a number of hours equal to half your druid level (rounded down). You then revert to your normal form unless you expend another use of this feature. You can revert to uour normal form earlier by using a bonus action on your turn. You automatically revert if you fall unconscious, drop to 0 hit points, or die."

What this paragraph says:
The time limits of Wildshape,
The conditions under which Wildshape ends,
And how to prolong your eventual return to your normal, non-beast body.

It does not say that you cannot use Wildshape while Wildshaped. In fact, there are no qualifications I can see for Wildshape aside from consciousness, a positive hit point total, and being alive. The later bullet point stating what class features are lost while Wildshaped does not include Wildshape. If the writers intended the limitation to exist then it is a massive oversight on their part.

If you read the sentence about using an additional Wildshape while Wildshaped it quite literally says that this will prevent you from returning to your normal form. It does not say that you must continue the newly extended duration in the same form. Maybe it is what they intended, but it is not what they wrote.

Of course, as a DM, you can forbid such an action, but it is not ruling based on the rules as they are written. If such a restriction exists elswhere then I definitely encourage a quote, a page number, or something so the rest of us have something to go on.

[ZenBear]

Would it be an unreasonable nerf to houserule that if a Druid dies in beast form they actually die? It's how I've always seen it in books.

[tieren]

The wording is important here. Does it say "can use a bonus action" or "must use a bonus action"? If the former, then it is your choice to use a bonus or standard action. Frankly your DM is being a jerk trying to gimp his players with slanted interpretations of the rules. I see this behavior in DMs all the time and it sucks every time.



Book doesn't say can or must, it says rather. I agree the word rather connotes instead of not in addition to.

[Vogonjeltz]

Well druids are still limited in the number of forms until level 20 per short rest so it wouldn't be ad nauseum until level 20, then its just nuts, but getting knocked out of form and jumping right back into it every round appears to be the intent at that point anyway.

Yes, but at that point it would be absurdly broken. Anyway, I figure someone (cough rhouck) should tweet mearls to see if that's really the interaction he intends with that bit of RAI.


The wording is important here. Does it say "can use a bonus action" or "must use a bonus action"? If the former, then it is your choice to use a bonus or standard action. Frankly your DM is being a jerk trying to gimp his players with slanted interpretations of the rules. I see this behavior in DMs all the time and it sucks every time.

It says gain as a bonus action instead of an action. The use of instead (rather than, in addition to) indicates that only a bonus action change would be possible. If the intent was to allow the change using either a bonus action or an action...they probably should have said that/errata that.


On the heated debate about Wildshaping while in beast form, I once again have to stress that wording is important. One side keeps slapping the word "only" in the middle of their interpretation of the rules. Unless you can quote the book saying "only" in regards to using wildshape to extend wildshape while in beast form, then it is not RAW.

Only is just an expression of the same thing. i.e. If I wrote: Bob stands in the room, alone. It would be the same as saying Bob is the only one in the room, and he is standing. Don't get hung up on it.


Would changing the level 20 ability from infinite wildshape uses to no longer having a time limit for wildshape alleviate some of the OPness of L20 Druids?

See, I don't have a problem with the idea of the unlimited shifting, I think that's totally appropriate thematically, as a capstone.

The problem comes from the cognitive dissonance of having the healing by using a spell slot for a bonus action as the 3rd level ability of the Moon Druid and that shifting into wild shape swaps the characters hit points for the hit points of the form taken.

If wild shape in form was intended to essentially heal the character to full (as a bonus action no less) then why go through the charade of allowing the druid to heal for d8/spell level spent as a bonus action? That design would make no sense at all.


Would it be an unreasonable nerf to houserule that if a Druid dies in beast form they actually die? It's how I've always seen it in books.

Why is that better than just requiring them to return to their normal form or not having them assume new hit points if they exceed their current wild shape hit points, as in shapechange?

[Shaofoo]

The wording is important here. Does it say "can use a bonus action" or "must use a bonus action"? If the former, then it is your choice to use a bonus or standard action. Frankly your DM is being a jerk trying to gimp his players with slanted interpretations of the rules. I see this behavior in DMs all the time and it sucks every time.

Just wanted to clear this up, you are using 4e rulings here and this does not apply.

The book clearly states you only get one bonus action per turn, makes no mention on turning actions into bonus actions and the rules give a specific list as to what you can do with your action in addition to abilities that says that they use an action.

You can't do two bonus actions in a turn even if you want to use your regular action.

This doesn't change the fact that moon druids can both transform as an action or bonus action but they require two different abilities to allow them to do so, it is an addendum to the rules instead of a change.

[ZenBear]

Just wanted to clear this up, you are using 4e rulings here and this does not apply.

The book clearly states you only get one bonus action per turn, makes no mention on turning actions into bonus actions and the rules give a specific list as to what you can do with your action in addition to abilities that says that they use an action.

You can't do two bonus actions in a turn even if you want to use your regular action.

This doesn't change the fact that moon druids can both transform as an action or bonus action but they require two different abilities to allow them to do so, it is an addendum to the rules instead of a change.

I didn't say trade down a Standard Action for a Bonus Action. I know the difference between 4th and 5th.

The exact wording of Combat Wild Shape:
"When you choose this circle at 2nd level, you gain the ability to use Wild Shape on your turn as a bonus action, rather than as an action."

Gaining an ability does not strip away a different ability. Nothing about this says you cannot still use an Action to Wildshape. Ergo, a Moon Druid can revert to their normal form as a bonus action and Wildshape again in the same turn as an Action, same as Land Druids. The DM who said the Moon Druid can only Wildshape as a bonus action (thus has to take two turns to do what a Land Druid can do in one) was just being a bad DM.


Book doesn't say can or must, it says rather. I agree the word rather connotes instead of not in addition to.

I didn't say it connotes instead of not in addition to. Don't put words in my mouth.

The exact wording of Wild Shape:
"Starting at second level, you can use your action to magically assume the shape of a beast that you have seen before.
...
You can stay in a beast shape for a number of hours equal to half your druid level (rounded down). You then revert to your normal form unless you expend another use of this feature.
...
While you are transformed, the following rules apply:
...
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."

Nothing here says or implies that you cannot Wild Shape into a different Beast Shape while in Beast Shape. You retain the Wild Shape feature, ergo you can Wild Shape as normally. RAW it's perfectly legal. RAI I don't know, you should ask Mearls.


Why is that better than just requiring them to return to their normal form or not having them assume new hit points if they exceed their current wild shape hit points, as in shapechange?

Because once they've returned to their normal form, they can just Wild Shape again into a full hit point Beast Shape and they are still nearly unkillable. Especially since they can revert to normal as a bonus action and Wild Shape again as an Aciton, thus they don't have "current wild shape hit points" to factor into the equation.