[AD&D] Shapeshifted Druids and Spellcasting

[LibraryOgre]

Resolved: Druids should be able to cast while in animal form

Point the first: In neither 1e or 2e is this explicitly forbidden in the ability description in the Player's Handbook.

Evidence for casting while shapeshifted:
*Some spellcasters are not in the standard humanoid forms, or lacking certain common humanoid characteristics (e.g. speech), but can cast spells nonetheless.
*Therefore, spellcasters in unique forms can adapt spells, through research, to be castable in these unique forms.

Evidence for general knowledge of animal-castable spells:
*Druids have a long history of shapeshifting as a class ability.
*Druids have an organization through which such knowledge can be disseminated, and individuals of sufficient authority to ensure that they are
* Furthermore, spells of divine origin, such as those granted to clerics, druids, and other priestly classes, flow from deities, not individual knowledge. Ergo, in addition to the primate material organization capable of transmitting such knowledge, there is a divine conduit which would allow such spells to be disseminated.

Conclusion: Druids can cast spells while in animal form. There may be certain restrictions placed upon this (limitations in using material components/holy symbols/mistletoe), and spells may need to be memorized for specific forms (human, hog, monitor lizard), but there is little reason that druids should not have at least some spellcasting available in animal forms, throughout, at least, AD&D.

[Telok]

* Furthermore, spells of divine origin, such as those granted to clerics, druids, and other priestly classes, flow from deities, not individual knowledge. Ergo, in addition to the primate material organization capable of transmitting such knowledge, there is a divine conduit which would allow such spells to be disseminated.

I think this is the crux of the argument, both for and against. Do the divine powers want to do (and in some settings are they able to do it) whatever it is that it takes to change spells so than non-humanoid forms can cast them? However thay makes it into a purely setting based question.

Mechanically I do think it is allowed, but that the vast majority of spells available have VSM components that are impossible in most animal forms. I can argue at a druid shaped into a monkey could manage the SM components of a spell, but I can't waive the V component of having to say "abracadabra".

[LibraryOgre]

I think this is the crux of the argument, both for and against. Do the divine powers want to do (and in some settings are they able to do it) whatever it is that it takes to change spells so than non-humanoid forms can cast them? However thay makes it into a purely setting based question.

Mechanically I do think it is allowed, but that the vast majority of spells available have VSM components that are impossible in most animal forms. I can argue at a druid shaped into a monkey could manage the SM components of a spell, but I can't waive the V component of having to say "abracadabra".

Which is where we get to the eblis, from MM2 and the 2e Monstrous manual come in. In MM2, they're noted as being illusionists; in the 2e book, their language is given as chirps and squawks, and clerics.

Again, these are spells researched to allow for the abilities of a bird or wolf; they are not saying abracadabra, but instead making sounds and gestures that the animal would be capable of.

[thorr-kan]

CompDruid is silent on the topic.

WizSpellCompedium 3 is silent as well.

[JadedDM]

Which is where we get to the eblis, from MM2 and the 2e Monstrous manual come in. In MM2, they're noted as being illusionists; in the 2e book, their language is given as chirps and squawks, and clerics.

Again, these are spells researched to allow for the abilities of a bird or wolf; they are not saying abracadabra, but instead making sounds and gestures that the animal would be capable of.

Not necessarily. The MM entry states:

"In addition, spellcasting eblis have managed to learn a rudimentary version of common, allowing them to converse with those they encounter."

Note it specifies that only the spellcasting ones can speak Common. This seems to suggest they need Common for spellcasting purposes, and cannot cast spells with their chips and squawks.

Furthermore, the PHB states, "Verbal components require the caster to speak clearly." Chirping, squawking, growling, barking, etc., are not 'speaking.' To speak requires language of some kind.

[LibraryOgre]

Furthermore, the PHB states, "Verbal components require the caster to speak clearly." Chirping, squawking, growling, barking, etc., are not 'speaking.' To speak requires language of some kind.

Gnomes can speak with burrowing animals; druids can, through magic, speak with animals, both of which indicate that chirping, squawking, growling, barking, etc. do constitute language.

[cfalcon]

Gnomes can speak with burrowing animals; druids can, through magic, speak with animals, both of which indicate that chirping, squawking, growling, barking, etc. do constitute language.

Neither of these mean that animals can speak, or that various animal noises can count as verbal components. It's pretty clear that they cannot (a likely exception being a bard using song as a verbal component who has transformed himself into a bird, and a way around it being spells without verbal components or other abilities that do that). Nothing about "speak with animals" implies that the animals "speak" back in a language- the spell implies that the caster can "communicate and comprehend", and never states that the animals speak back, nor does it imply that mute animals are unable to communicate or be comprehended. Regardless, the ability to communicate with animals is clearly not meant to imply that animals are capable of verbal components.

1ed gnomes are described as communicating with burrowing animals, 2ed gnomes have the "simple common speech of burrowing mammals". The inclusion of the word "simple" seems like a totally adequate reason to assume that it cannot be used to cast spells- after all, burrowing mammals are never seen to cast spells in general.

There's more than just "speak with animals" in 2ed (and 1ed). The Priest's Spell Compendium has a rather silly THIRTEEN "Speak with" spells, with a variety of sources. Of these, only five (Speak With Ancient Dead - Elf, Speak With Dead, Speak With Dead - Shukenja, and Speak With Dragonkind, and Speak With The Drawned Dead) literally involve the priest speaking. The others either use the "comprehend and communicate" verbiage carried over from 1ed, or they get even more specific about the communication being mental or using "communicative ability" or similar. There's absolutely no reason to assume that these spells are indicative of, for instance, the dead having a special language, or being able to cast verbal components mentally simply because "Speak With Astral Traveller" allows mental communication, or that water itself has a language because there's a spell named Speak With Water that allows "Water or the spirits within it can speak to the casters of the spell".

Now what there isn't is some rule stating that being in a new form explicitly disables spellcasting. There are spell without verbal or somatic components, and there are ways around all of these anyway.

[Vahnavoi]

Gnomes can speak with burrowing animals; druids can, through magic, speak with animals, both of which indicate that chirping, squawking, growling, barking, etc. do constitute language.

Came here to say this. AD&D does not categorize all animals as being unable of speech or higher thought. Some are explicitly of human or near-human intelligence and have their own languages. Especially when it comes to birds capable of mimicry, a druid in such forms should have no problems speaking or casting spells - the knowledge and capacity for making correct noises are all present.

[gnomish dwelf]

wow, the same discussions as in dragonsfoot, and probably by the same people but with different roles... I am getting to know a new house

[LibraryOgre]

wow, the same discussions as in dragonsfoot, and probably by the same people but with different roles... I am getting to know a new house

I start the same discussions on different forums to see how they go with different groups.

If I was writing any of this down, it would be science.

[Mechalich]

In AD&D there were often different versions of the exact same spell, with many of these alternate versions being specifically devised to get around problems of Verbal, Somatic, or Material components. For example, the 2e Hebi-no-Onna knew versions of arcane spells that were verbal only, because they had snakes for arms.

Whether similar alternate versions could be produced for druids is unclear, druidic spellcasting being somewhat less codified. Hypothetically that seems reasonable, which would have the caveat of one spell:one throat (or in the case of birds one syrinx), so that if a druid prayed for a spell to be cast in a specific animal form it would only be useable in that form not in any other, including human form. So if you really wanted to choose a bunch of spells you could only cast while transformed into a bear or something, that seems like an available option.

[gnomish dwelf]

I start the same discussions on different forums to see how they go with different groups.

If I was writing any of this down, it would be science.

and that is a smart move sir, well played, well played.