Do druids count as shape shifters?

[Shining Wrath]

For example, will a druid roll with disadvantage if hit by Moonbeam? Does it matter if the druid is Wild Shaped?

It seems as if you can natively take another form, that's shapeshifting - but then, a wizard that can cast Polymorph can also change shape.

I'd rule that yes, a druid is a shapeshifter.

[King539]

Druids do not have the shapechanger subtype. Therefore, they are not shapechangers.

[hymer]

Druids do not have the shapechanger subtype. Therefore, they are not shapechangers.

I'm inclined to believe that this was indeed the intention, though it isn't made clear in the spell text. I expect it's supposed to be up to the DM.
A similar question can be raised for polymorph, which druids able to take animal shape were, of old, immune to.

[MrStabby]

I would rule that a druid isn't a shapeshifter normally, but in any form other than their own natural form they are.

Likewise anything polymorphed that can chose to revert to its natural form I would consider a shapechanger as well.

It isn't defined in the PHB so it is up to each table to decide. I think that making more effects/specialisms relevant adds to the fun so I would be expansive rather than restrictive.

[xroads]

If memory serves, druids were considered shapeshifters in 3.5. And since they can change shape at will, I think they should be considered shapeshifters.

But I'm not aware of any rules or errata for 5e that says they are.

Edit:
I don't think wizards should be considered shapeshifters. While they can change shape via Polymorph, it's not an inherit ability. They have to actively memorize the spell in order to use it on any given day. Plus it wouldn't work in anti-magic zones, where as I think wild shape still does (don't have the book in front of me).

[nilshai]

The Moonbeam Spell uses the word Shapechanger. The word Shapechanger doesn't exist in the druid's description. The word Shapechanger exists in the statblocks of monsters. Why do you get the impression, that you have to subsume more than the exact term under it?

[hymer]

The Moonbeam Spell uses the word Shapechanger. The word Shapechanger doesn't exist in the druid's description. The word Shapechanger exists in the statblocks of monsters. Why do you get the impression, that you have to subsume more than the exact term under it?

Because it's counter-intuitive that you need to go scouring across the rule books for an explanation instead of them simply calling it 'the monster subtype shapechanger (see the MM p. X)' rather than 'shapechanger'?

[Dr. Cliché]

I'd be tempted to consider druids shapchangers if they are either currently wild-shaped or if they have at least one remaining use of Wild Shape.


The Moonbeam Spell uses the word Shapechanger.

Thank you, Sherlock. :smallwink:


The word Shapechanger doesn't exist in the druid's description.

Fortunately, the word does appear in the dictionary:

"shapechanger. Noun. (plural shapechangers) A creature that can supernaturally change its physical form."

You can argue that it's supposed to be referring specifically to to the in-game term, but the fact that it doesn't say 'creatures with the shapechanger subtype' means that this is far from the only interpretation.

[nilshai]

Because it's counter-intuitive that you need to go scouring across the rule books for an explanation instead of them simply calling it 'the monster subtype shapechanger (see the MM p. X)' rather than 'shapechanger'?

It's not counter intuitive, it's badly arranged. It is actually very intuitive to always use exact terms, because you always do the same.


Thank you, Sherlock. :smallwink:

You'd like to criticise my didactical method? I'm not a fan of letting people search all over the place in other posts for needed parts to get my complete line of thinking.


You can argue that it's supposed to be referring specifically to to the in-game term, but the fact that it doesn't say 'creatures with the shapechanger subtype' means that this is far from the only interpretation.

Congratulations, you can now never read rules.
Choose the easy way.

[hymer]

It's not counter intuitive, it's badly arranged. It is actually very intuitive to always use exact terms, because you always do the same.

The bad arrangement may (if you are right) be the cause of the counterintuitiveness, but you can't argue that it is counterintuitive to some people - such as OP and me. They could have done something, anything, to draw attention to 'shapechanger' being a game term, and they didn't. That may actually be because they did not intend to, and they wanted the DM to decide on the matter. Until we get them to tell us, we won't know for sure.

[Dr. Cliché]

You'd like to criticise my didactical method? I'm not a fan of letting people search all over the place in other posts for needed parts to get my complete line of thinking.

I thought the smiley made it clear that it was a joke, but feel free to take it as an insult if you really want.



Congratulations, you can now never read rules.

So, no actual argument then?


Choose the easy way.

Thanks, but I'd rather choose the right way.

[Gastronomie]

inb410pagestupidflamethread

I would say they're shapeshifters because they change shape. And yes, the only person who has the right to dictate rules in my games is me, so I wouldn't really care if anyone tells me to follow strict terms (which I almost never do).

[Dalebert]

My druids would be pissed if you declared them to be shapeshifters for the purposes of Moonbeam but not for when an enemy spellcaster tries to Polymorph them. Make the call and be consistent.

If simply having the ability to change shape makes you a shapeshifter, then where do you draw the line?

If you're currently wild-shaped?

If you have wild shape as a class feature?

Only if you have wild shapes remaining?

If you can cast Polymorph?

What if you can cast Polymorph but don't have it prepared at the moment?

What if Polymorph is on your spell list but you've never prepared it or found it and written it into your spellbook?

What if someone else can cast Polymorph on you and you allow them to do so?

Okay, the last one is getting particularly silly but the point is I think the ambiguity of applying the label via class features is a path down which madness lies. You can of course rule however you like, but I think the best and clearest line is whether you have it as a type, e.g. are a lycanthrope or something; not that you can do so via magic that you've learned.

FWIW, Crawford has said druids aren't shapeshifters. Not going to dig up the tweet though.