Wildshape and Drow Sign Language

[etrpgb]

I have a player playing a renegade Drow Druid. And in the game the question actually come out, can a Druid use the Drow Sign Language while in Wildshape?



A druid loses her ability to speak while in animal form because she is limited to the sounds that a normal, untrained animal can make, but she can communicate normally with other animals of the same general grouping as her new form. (The normal sound a wild parrot makes is a squawk, so changing to this form does not permit speech.)


We are confused because the Faerun Manual seems to imply that the language uses only gestures, but the Encyclopedia Vinculum Draconis states that the language is: A complex harmony of gestures, facial expressions, and body language, it is all but impossible to comprehend by those not fluent in the “tongue.”

So, assuming reasonable limbs the first interpretation would suggest that the transformed Druid can communicate, the second much less so. Unless it is a very expressive animal perhaps (apes come to mind).

I guess at the end of the day it is DM decision, but I was wondering what the hive mind of the forum thinks about it or if there is an official answer.

[Deophaun]

By either, the answer is "depends." Wild shape into a monkey and you probably can as you have a hand and a reasonably humanoid face. Wild shape into a bear and no. The gesture part was always going to be the major hurdle; other animal species have the body language part down already.

[daremetoidareyo]

Common sense says: Sign language needs fingers arms and a face. If your wildshape form has those, it works.

RAW says nothing so... Remember that you can use survival to make trail signs that others can read with survival checks...

[Fouredged Sword]

If this happened on my table I would treat it as a diplomacy check to attempt to be understood with a stiff penalty based on the complexity of the message and the divergence of your form VS standard humanoid.

A monkey would have no problem saying "Go that way."

A narwhal would not be able to give a doctorate thesis.

[Venger]

as mentioned, RAW, if you speak it and they speak it, there's no actual barrier, but if your gm's going to throw up roadblocks, just buy a pearl of speech like everyone with wild shape does, it's only 600gp.

[Twurps]

as mentioned, RAW, if you speak it and they speak it, there's no actual barrier.

Really? I would say RAW states you can speak the language of your assumed form, but not you normal language. So unless you assume a 'drow sign language speaking form' you cannot speak it.

I don't find the argument that RAW doesn't specifically adres sign language very convincing. It doesn't adress sylvan or any other language either. It states: 'a druid loses her ability to speak' signing is a form of speaking, so it's off the table.

'But wait' you say. There's more. RAW continues with 'because she is limited to the sounds that a normal, untrained animal can make'. 'Obviously this doesn't apply to sign language.'
Well: no. I don't care what reason they give. It might as wel read 'because pigs fly'. The reason doesn't change the rule. So RAW is clear.

To be clear: I support RAW readings this way about as much as I support drown-healing. But that's RAW.
Fortunately, I don't think RAI disagrees with RAW in this case (At least not for me). You aren't supposed to be able to 'speak' in wild shape form, for sensible reasons, and for most forms this makes just as much sense for sign language.

[Deophaun]

'But wait' you say. There's more. RAW continues with 'because she is limited to the sounds that a normal, untrained animal can make'. 'Obviously this doesn't apply to sign language.'
Well: no. I don't care what reason they give. It might as wel read 'because pigs fly'. The reason doesn't change the rule. So RAW is clear.
I disagree. The rule is not simply "Y," it's "Y because X." If X is not true, then the rule is suspect. The game does not give the reasoning behind the rule so that you can throw reason out the window, but so you can extrapolate for situations where the reason may not hold.

[Twurps]

I disagree. The rule is not simply "Y," it's "Y because X." If X is not true, then the rule is suspect. The game does not give the reasoning behind the rule so that you can throw reason out the window, but so you can extrapolate for situations where the reason may not hold.

I agree the reason is there for a reason (Weird sentence). I also agree it's there so we can extrapolate. However: From the many discussions on this forum I've gathered that even the most basic of extrapolations aren't agreed on, and argued to the absurd. This is because an extrapolation usually requires some sort of interpretation, which quickly puts us in RAI territory.

So I guess I agree with your full statement, exept it's not RAW, its RAI.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Yeah, sorry Twurps but that's not RAW.

It says you cannot -speak- not you cannot use a language. Speaking is explicitly verbal. Signing is not speaking, even if it conveys similar amounts of information.

[Hiro Quester]

As a Druid wild shaping, I asked DM about this. He suggested it would only work if took a couple of ranks in perform (pantomime) to try to use gestures and such while in animal shape to communicate with party members.

The DCs would depend on the similarity of my shape to humanoid (monkey>bird>big cat>fish) and the complexity of the message I was trying to convey.

Instead I commissioned a custom magic item (hat of 5/day speak with animals) instead, that I give to our sorcerer when I wildshape.

[Deophaun]

Instead I commissioned a custom magic item (hat of 5/day speak with animals) instead, that I give to our sorcerer when I wildshape.
A pearl of speech would probably have been cheaper. And it's continuous.

[Geddy2112]

I second that if you have a form that can make facial expression and hand gestures, you are capable of using the language. This would pretty much be limited to primates and similar fictitious animals, but it would work.