Crawford is ptetty selective about raw versus intents.

[Belier]

Hello,

As example, with this raw from wild shape

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.

Specific is sense like darkvision is not doable if the beast doesnt have the sense Pretty fine with it it is in the text.

So you assume the beast statistics except for wisdom, intel and cha and retaining all the skills if the beast is able to carry over makes it able to use unarmored defense which is considered perfectly fine as long as the beast doesnt use it's natural armor.

But no, a skill cannot makes a beast tough. It is not the intent...you have to assume the beast hp.

But being tough is more than just this, it is hp, it is a feat, the character learned to be tough, to make the most of it's body.

Why can't the target assume the beast hp then add the skill hp on top of it. Crawford you are very selective. I understand you had not this intent when you created the feat, but howerver you still created it.

Any way, may I ask you guys, is it gamebreaking if a rat gets +40 hp at level 20 when the hero is on the rank of a legend of the legend. In my opinion it isnt. It is still gonna get barbecued easily.

Why would barkskin and armor of agathis(temp hp too by the way) or unarmored defence carry over the beast but the feat hp could not carry it, representing how the person learned to endure, thus making it a feat. Even if its not the intend, it is raw and it is not game breaking.

https://mobile.twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/642088434673152000?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

This is entirely opinion based and let's start the debate.

[JoeJ]

On this point:


So you assume the beast statistics except for wisdom, intel and cha and retaining all the skills if the beast is able to carry over makes it able to use unarmored defense which is considered perfectly fine as long as the beast doesnt use it's natural armor.

How does a beast not use its natural armor? It can't just decide to make its hide thinner.

[Belier]

On this point:



How does a beast not use its natural armor? It can't just decide to make its hide thinner.

If you wear a leather armor and a hide armor, you don't have 13 you have 12.

So if you have a beast with natural armor 11 and constitution of 18 with barbarian unarmored defense, you got to choose between 11 or 14 ac.

I'll try to find the tweet

Here it is, for monk druid
https://mobile.twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/552630473533317120

[MrStabby]

That all seems fair. I don't get what the problem is.

[DivisibleByZero]

On this point:
How does a beast not use its natural armor? It can't just decide to make its hide thinner.

It's the exact same as a PC who can choose between armor and an unarmored defense of some kind. The key word there is Choose.
If you have multiple possible ways to determine your AC, you choose between them.
A Druid/Monk or a Druid/Barb Wild Shaped into a beast with natural armor chooses the beast's AC with nat armor or the beast's AC without nat armor but with unarmored defense. That's the official ruling.

[MaxWilson]

Any way, may I ask you guys, is it gamebreaking if a rat gets +40 hp at level 20 when the hero is on the rank of a legend of the legend. In my opinion it isnt. It is still gonna get barbecued easily.

Why would barkskin and armor of agathis(temp hp too by the way) or unarmored defence carry over the beast but the feat hp could not carry it, representing how the person learned to endure, thus making it a feat. Even if its not the intend, it is raw and it is not game breaking.

https://mobile.twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/642088434673152000?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

This is entirely opinion based and let's start the debate.

As a DM I would probably come down on the side of ruling that the beast's HP explicitly overwrite your own HP and that the Tough feat therefore does not apply. (But I'd double-check my rulebooks and the wording first.) As you say though it's not gamebreaking, and the text is ambiguous enough that if a player felt strongly enough about it I'd probably shrug and just let it work. It's not like 5E makes a lot of sense anyway in the arbitrary distinctions it draws--you gave some good examples and there are others.

[DivisibleByZero]

You get 2 HP per level with the Tough feat.

Q: How many levels does a bear have?
A: Zero.
Your HP maximum increases. Not the bear's.
You can go ahead and use the Tough feat, but it isn't doing you any good in Wild Shape. Does that make it easier to swallow for you?

[Belier]

You get 2 HP per level with the Tough feat.

Q: How many levels does a bear have?
A: Zero.
Your HP maximum increases. Not the bear's.
You can go ahead and use the Tough feat, but it isn't doing you any good in Wild Shape. Does that make it easier to swallow for you?

Beasts do not use levels and I could get your point. Howerver it is not the argument crawford is using. If he uswd rhis wording it could somehow makes a bit more sense. However, it is still a level 20 handling the beast. I don't expect a full fledged pilot f1 racing drive his car with the same stats as a guy like me that has 0 experience into it. He's gonna lap me many times and I will it the wall eventually. Level 20 druid is still level 20 druid with his feat. If you want to traduct this into dnd look at proficiency with vehicules. The vehicule is the same butnone fuy drives it better between lvl 1 and 20

[Simonf7]

I wouldn't allow it as it effectivly triples the hp you receive from the feat (as both of your wild shapes the additional hit points on top of you). It wouldn't break the game, but an extra 20 hp for a level 5 character it is a big boost to survivability.

[Belier]

I wouldn't allow it as it effectivly triples the hp you receive from the feat (as both of your wild shapes the additional hit points on top of you). It wouldn't break the game, but an extra 20 hp for a level 5 character it is a big boost to survivability.
What? Seriously level 3 armor of agathis will give 15 hp at level 5 and might deal as much frost damage and he can cast it 6 times per day dependingnof the short rest. You can find better. I concede at least the armor you spend an action for it but it can be cast beforehand it last an hour.

[Simonf7]

How does it not make sense? Applying it to wild shapes means that in combat you will have more hp than the feat would otherwise give you.

This is probably going to be more of a boost at lower levels when you have less ability to generate hp in other ways (although I note with your example that it has a big opportunity cost, since you then can't use those spell slots to do other things).

The decision over if the additional hp's gained affects survivability too much is then a DM one to make, and I think it would.

[Belier]

How does it not make sense? Applying it to wild shapes means that in combat you will have more hp than the feat would otherwise give you.

This is probably going to be more of a boost at lower levels when you have less ability to generate hp in other ways (although I note with your example that it has a big opportunity cost, since you then can't use those spell slots to do other things).

The decision over if the additional hp's gained affects survivability too much is then a DM one to make, and I think it would.

Even so, I understand that the hp of the beast needs to be assumed but you get to keep your skill and this one soecificly says that you get 2 more hp for each of your level.

But the real arguments here I guess is that you return to the hp you add after you reverted, meaning that you were still affected by the feat because you do really have 2 more hp per level.

But then again, when you use unarmored defense, when you revert, you still had the ac boost on your human form, meaning that you really had the skill all the time. Then why is it ok to borrow it unto animal form. This means you can benefit from the skill 2 times as well and for no more cost in action economy than tough. And you don't have to use a feat slot and sacrifice stat boost for a feat that is considerer about C rank, like very average. Why this ruling is official is beyond me. This is why I say they are picky about rulings on intends versus raw

[bid]

Why this ruling is official is beyond me. This is why I say they are picky about rulings on intends versus raw
I'm not going to be picky and say that ASI should apply too. That bear has Dex14.

[Belier]

I'm not going to be picky and say that ASI should apply too. That bear has Dex14.

I do agree with you, it is stated that the form dexterity is replacing yours.However ASI is not a skill any way.

To me it is either disallow unarmored defense on wildshape and tough or allow a skill to give it more ac and allow another skill to render it tougher. Game designers should'nt be picky over this. They allowed it per raw.

[bid]

However ASI is not a skill any way.
Neither is unarmored defense. They're both features.

[Belier]

Neither is unarmored defense. They're both features.

You got me partially there. But ADI is not a feature once it is taken as a stat augmentation it is your stats. However the feat stays a feature. Not a skill. O stand corrected sir.

Howerver this site thinks like me.

https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/71314/do-any-feats-carry-over-when-in-wild-shape/71315

They have the beast AC replace your AC. Meaning that you can't add unarmored defense. Imagine the monk feature that allows wall climbing and an elk wildshaped climbing a wall with improved unarmored movement feature.

[Malifice]

How can you use unarmored defence?

Like, thats a pretty skillful Monk that's able to use Kung fu in the form of a bear.

[Belier]

How can you use unarmored defence?

Like, thats a pretty skillful Monk that's able to use Kung fu in the form of a bear.

Didnt you see this tweet?



I'll try to find the tweet

Here it is, for monk druid
https://mobile.twitter.com/JeremyECr...30473533317120

[AHF]

So the argument is that you should get toughness +40 hp (max) bonus as character race; then another +40 hp every time you wildshape or presumably shapechange? So if you can change form 6x per day between wildshape, polymorph, etc. you get a bonus 280 hp (base race + 6 changes) instead of 40?

[Belier]

So the argument is that you should get toughness +40 hp (max) bonus as character race; then another +40 hp every time you wildshape or presumably shapechange? So if you can change form 6x per day between wildshape, polymorph, etc. you get a bonus 280 hp (base race + 6 changes) instead of 40?

This, or don't be picky and dissallow unarmored defense.

Tonme unarmored defense is a bit like fighter defense style. You know how to make the most of your armor ans gain + 1 ac. Does it work with natural armor?

[bid]

But ASI is not a feature once it is taken as a stat augmentation it is your stats. However the feat stays a feature.
Better, but tough has been applied the same way ASI has been applied. There are no active component.


They have the beast AC replace your AC. Meaning that you can't add unarmored defense. Imagine the monk feature that allows wall climbing and an elk wildshaped climbing a wall with improved unarmored movement feature.
You can never "add unarmored defense". It's an either/or.
"Your AC" is the AC14 from light leather + Dex or whatever you wear. The monk feature "unarmored defense" allows you to use 10 + Dex + Wis instead of "your AC". There are no limit to when you can make and remake that choice.

So yes, you could somehow convince people that the monk needs toes to run up wall, and needs arms to block hits with unarmored defense. If you can't, there's a monk elk running up wall with AC14.

[Belier]

So the argument is that you should get toughness +40 hp (max) bonus as character race; then another +40 hp every time you wildshape or presumably shapechange? So if you can change form 6x per day between wildshape, polymorph, etc. you get a bonus 280 hp (base race + 6 changes) instead of 40?

Oh and by the way at level 20 you can already wildshape and refresh your hp unlimited times it does not matter over the 200 hp of the Mammoth

[Pex]

Look at the numbers to see why Toughness doesn't apply to wildshape. Forget Crawford.

10th level druid has X + 20 hit points, where X = whatever and 20 is from Toughness.

First let's look at a druid without Toughness and thus only X hit points.

The druid wildshapes into a beast that has Y hit points. When the druid takes Y damage he reverts to his normal self at X hit points.

Add in Toughness.

You want the druid of X + 20 hit points to become a beast of Y + 20 hit points. The druid in wildshape form now gets to take Y + 20 damage before reverting back to his normal self, which would have X + 20 hit points. The druid is getting double Toughness. One might say the beast doesn't get 20 hit points, only 2H hit points where H = the number of HD it has, but Toughness is still giving you 20 + 2H hit points when it should only be 20.

Therefore, Toughness can't apply to wildshape. The druid of X + 20 hit points wild shapes into a beast of Y hit points, takes Y hit points of damage, then reverts back to his normal self of X + 20 hit points. The druid of X + 20 hit points has Z hit points, and when he wildshapes those hit points are replaced by the beast's hit points, which is Y. He takes Y damage and reverts back to his normal self of Z hit points.