Neat Idea: Goliath Moon Druid

[TheUser]

Moving a Grappled Creature. When you move, you
can drag or carry the grappled creature with you, but
your speed is halved, unless the creature is two or more
sizes smaller than you.




Powerful Build. You count as one size larger when
determining your carrying capacity and the weight you
can push, drag, or lift.


So technically you are not Huge compared to medium creatures.
However, when transformed into one of the many Large creatures that Druids have access to and wish to lift drag or carry a grappled target you count as huge. Unlocking your full movement in Wildshape forms (instead of half).


If you were a DM would you allow it?

[nickl_2000]

No I wouldn't. Simply because I would put the Goliath powerful build in the same boat as Darkvision. You are able to push/pull/carry more because the Goliath is more dense and muscular than other races. When you wildshape, you are no longer have that muscle density that you used to have.

[WickerNipple]

No I wouldn't. Simply because I would put the Goliath powerful build in the same boat as Darkvision. You are able to push/pull/carry more because the Goliath is more dense and muscular than other races. When you wildshape, you are no longer have that muscle density that you used to have.

What he said.

[TheUser]

No I wouldn't. Simply because I would put the Goliath powerful build in the same boat as Darkvision. You are able to push/pull/carry more because the Goliath is more dense and muscular than other races. When you wildshape, you are no longer have that muscle density that you used to have.

The rule you are trying to reference:


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, you
can't use any of your special senses, such as darkvision,
unless your new form also has that sense.


You would do well to read the rules you invoke before haphazardly quoting paraphrasing them. The line specifically excludes senses.

Unless the new form is physically incapable of lifting, carrying, or dragging, you would retain the Goliath benefit.

To be specific I am referring to the broad strokes of the Goliath Feature if they apply to grappling. For instance, if the Goliath were enlarged and then grappled an enemy, would their feature now allow them to move said creature without any movement penalty?

[Naanomi]

I might allow powerful build to apply to wildshape (I don't think it will break anything), but wouldn't allow it to boost grappling in any meaningful way. If powerful build helped grappling, it would say so. If moving people while grappling was limited by carry weight, it would say so

[nickl_2000]

You would do well to read the rules you invoke before haphazardly quoting paraphrasing them. The line specifically excludes senses.



Your specific question was "If you were a DM would you allow it?" My answer is no and my reasoning was stated. I didn't say it was RAW nor did I claim it was RAI, I said at my table where I am the DM the answer is No.

If you are going to ask a question about my table, don't get nasty when I answer how it would work at my table. If you want to know what RAW or RAI is, ask that and I wouldn't have answered at all because I couldn't tell you that one.

[TheUser]

Your specific question was "If you were a DM would you allow it?" My answer is no and my reasoning was stated. I didn't say it was RAW nor did I claim it was RAI, I said at my table where I am the DM the answer is No.

If you are going to ask a question about my table, don't get nasty when I answer how it would work at my table. If you want to know what RAW or RAI is, ask that and I wouldn't have answered at all because I couldn't tell you that one.

Chilout homeslice. You tried to give a reason pertaining to your ruling that you couldn't be bothered to a) read before referencing (this will save you a lot of trouble) or b) quote in your direct response.

If you had a player who pulled out the book and showed you the flaw in your rationale would you call them nasty for politely correcting you? (which is what I did, I made no slights at your character and only gave you a suggestion to avoid looking foolish in the future).

[Naanomi]

Unless the new form is physically incapable of lifting, carrying, or dragging, you would retain the Goliath benefit.
The pertinent point would be if the GM feels a mammoth (or whatever) is capable of having a 'Powerful Build' that lets the count as a size category larger for some purposes... which isn't clearly spelled out and GMs may fall on either position. Senses are explicitly called out, but are not the only limit of what is retained in wild shape. The ability to lift and pull things isn't the Goliath racial, the ability to count as larger is

For example, I would surmise that most forms of (racially granted) natural attack and natural armor do not apply. Powerful Build is not so obvious, but I could see a case against (it is based on muscle groups and the the like that the new form doesn't physically possess) or for (there are probably exceptionally strong giant stag out there, compared to the normal giant stag)

[nickl_2000]

Chilout homeslice. You tried to give a reason pertaining to your ruling that you couldn't be bothered to a) read before referencing (this will save you a lot of trouble) or b) quote in your direct response.

If you had a player who pulled out the book and showed you the flaw in your rationale would you call them nasty for politely correcting you? (which is what I did, I made no slights at your character and only gave you a suggestion to avoid looking foolish in the future).

I will consider it a situation where tonality didn't come through correctly in text then and I misinterpreted.


Yes, the PhB says senses, but the PhB also says

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

If we are getting into RAW, then you could take the phrase "physically capable of doing so" and apply it to my line of thinking. A Snake is physically incapable of having the same muscle density and/or physical training as a Goliath. I would argue that this would be similar to the fact that you can't speak languages in wild shape form (a documented fact), since you don't have the vocal cords capable of producing humanoid noises.

On the other hand, a Gorilla could wear specially made medium armor if they were originally a Mountain Dwarf since they have the mentally training on how to do that. The same could be said for Mask of the Wild since it's special training you learned as a Wood Elf child to blend into your surroundings (and retain since it's mental training).



Still, why don't you ask JC on twitter. Wildshaping is something that certainly confuses pretty much EVERYONE who plays D&D and JC clarifies things on it often.

[TheUser]

The pertinent point would be if the GM feels a mammoth (or whatever) is capable of having a 'Powerful Build' that lets the count as a size category larger for some purposes... which isn't clearly spelled out and GMs may fall on either position. Senses are explicitly called out, but are not the only limit of what is retained in wild shape. The ability to lift and pull things isn't the Goliath racial, the ability to count as larger is

For example, I would surmise that most forms of (racially granted) natural attack and natural armor do not apply. Powerful Build is not so obvious, but I could see a case against (it is based on muscle groups and the the like that the new form doesn't physically possess) or for (there are probably exceptionally strong giant stag out there, compared to the normal giant stag)

I feel like this is handled by the description of the wildshape feature; if the form no longer has said claws to retain that standard claw attack it no longer has it. But if no physical racial traits were meant to manifest they wouldn't include any racial bonuses in their initial description of wildshape since by in large they are a derivative of ones own bodily composition. Tiefling wildshapes but retains fire resistance? Dragonborn retains breath weapons? Light Foot Halfling wildshapes and can still hide behind larger creatures? Half-Elf wildshapes and is immune to sleep magic? Dwarf wildshapes but retains resistance against poison damage and advantage on poison saves? All of these appear to be a result of physiology but the designers felt it necessary for all of these to be carried over. Why all of a sudden are we drawing a line in the sand here?

It's because they don't like it. They just don't want to say "I don't like it."

[nickl_2000]

I feel like this is handled by the description of the wildshape feature; if the form no longer has said claws to retain that standard claw attack it no longer has it. But if no physical racial traits were meant to manifest they wouldn't include any racial bonuses in their initial description of wildshape since by in large they are a derivative of ones own bodily composition. Tiefling wildshapes but retains fire resistance? Dragonborn retains breath weapons? Light Foot Halfling wildshapes and can still hide behind larger creatures? Half-Elf wildshapes and is immune to sleep magic? Dwarf wildshapes but retains resistance against poison damage and advantage on poison saves? All of these appear to be a result of physiology but the designers felt it necessary for all of these to be carried over. Why all of a sudden are we drawing a line in the sand here?

It's because they don't like it. They just don't want to say "I don't like it."

Hit up JC on twitter and ask him. He makes official ruling on confusing things like this for WotC.

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford

[Naanomi]

It's because they don't like it. They just don't want to say "I don't like it."
You seem to want to ascribe specific motivation to other GMs for setting particular limits, but I'm not sure how you can speak so authoritatively on their reasoning.

In point of fact, I would consider every example you cited to be mystical, instinctual, or cultural in origin except dwarven poison resistance which I would also consider cutting from wildshape (though may not, it would depend on the tone of the campaign to a degree).

If I were to cut them, and felt the need to justify it (which I wouldn't at the table), I would point out races don't retain their physicals Stat bonuses into wildshape, so why would they retain related features related to those Stat bonuses? Specifically, why would a Goliath keep Powerful Build when they don't keep the +2 Strength? They are both based on the biological 'strongness'' of the race; not any supernatural or 'weight lifting training' factors...

[TheUser]

You seem to want to ascribe specific motivation to other GMs for setting particular limits, but I'm not sure how you can speak so authoritatively on their reasoning.

In point of fact, I would consider every example you cited to be mystical, instinctual, or cultural in origin except dwarven poison resistance which I would also consider cutting from wildshape (though may not, it would depend on the tone of the campaign to a degree).

If I were to cut them, and felt the need to justify it (which I wouldn't at the table), I would point out races don't retain their physicals Stat bonuses into wildshape, so why would they retain related features related to those Stat bonuses? Specifically, why would a Goliath keep Powerful Build when they don't keep the +2 Strength? They are both based on the biological 'strongness'' of the race; not any supernatural or 'weight lifting training' factors...

http://edit.dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/chris-avellone-and-philip-daigle-planescape-torment-enhanced-edition

If you start at 20:29
21:30 "the message I want to give out to our listeners: this, uhhh... rule is written in the spirit of permissiveness, we actually want you to be able to use as many of your class features, racial features, feats etc. as possible....but with the limit more focused on narrative then on game balance."


He then goes on to use examples such as a feature with something referring to manual dexterity required with hands but not having hands would limit this.

An Arakocra feature which references your wings doesn't work if you no longer have wings.

Dragon Born Breath Weapons only require a "mouth like orifice"

The idea is that the rules are only there to limit something that would affect emersion and make you think "this is impossible"

Let's Digress:
Goliath Feature; working with grappling?

[Naanomi]

Let's Digress:
Goliath Feature; working with grappling?
RAW/RAI I suspect not... usually they call out combat specific applications (and calling a creature an 'object' regarding the weight rules is questionable within the game rules, though less legalistically than in 3.X)

As a house rule, allowing someone to drag people around quicker isn't likely to break things (though I'd watch for Brawny Aaracokra); though I'd be much more wary of players arguing that they should be able to grapple bigger creatures to begin with

[Provo]

RAW, we can't definitively say it is allowed. RAI, TheUser has pretty well defended his case. Nonetheless, I would think this has to be determined on a table by table basis.

I would certainly allow this at my game. A Goliath should be able to turn into Extra burly wildshapes because it's awesome.

[TheUser]

RAW/RAI I suspect not... usually they call out combat specific applications (and calling a creature an 'object' regarding the weight rules is questionable within the game rules, though less legalistically than in 3.X)

As a house rule, allowing someone to drag people around quicker isn't likely to break things (though I'd watch for Brawny Aaracokra); though I'd be much more wary of players arguing that they should be able to grapple bigger creatures to begin with

Hmm. I'm beginning to think that the wording

"You count as one size larger when
determining your carrying capacity and the weight you
can push, drag, or lift."

Was done intentionally with something like grappling in mind. The bear totem level 6 feature is worded very differently but functions almost identically (with the exception of the advantage it provides to strength checks for push,pull,lifting and breaking):

"You gain the might of a bear. Your carrying
capacity (including maximum load and maximum lift)
is doubled...."

If they didn't want grappling accounted for, why use size categories at all and instead just use this description? The two have identical functionality otherwise.

[Provo]

If they didn't want grappling accounted for, why use size categories at all and instead just use this description? The two have identical functionality otherwise.

I would guess they worded it this way to change the imagery, not the functionality. That is, they are getting the point across that you are big, but that you don't get the full mechanical advantage of being larger.

Barbarians on the other hand don't necessarily need to be big, so there is no mention of size.

[Beelzebubba]

Chilout homeslice. You tried to give a reason pertaining to your ruling that you couldn't be bothered to a) read before referencing (this will save you a lot of trouble) or b) quote in your direct response.

You asked:

If you were a DM would you allow it?

He answered.

You got pissy.

You add nothing. Blocked.