Hmm never knew that Great Elk speaking was Sage Advice.. interesting, but don't think I agree with it for my tables. Thanks for adding that tidbit that it was even ever brought up somewhere
I get the sense (from your posts all over this forum) that you think official means something different than it does. Official means in a printed product or errata. Possibly, SAC might be considered official by some, but not tweets and podcasts.
But that being said, you absolutely can't make the claim that a rule isn't vague if you need clarification from the Devs on how it works. My opinion expressed above was popular enough: if the trait is due to some physicality of the form, then losing that form loses that physicality, rendering you physically incapable of using the trait.
I'm not going to discuss your comment on giant elk any further because we seem to be at a disagreement whether a creature that is incapapble of speaking common (but understands it) per its statblock becomes capable of speaking it when a druid who knows that language shapeshifts into that form even though wild shape gives nothing that changes a creature's ability to speak.
Sage Advice is official ruling by WoTC own admission. The tweet and podcast in return are simply the Devs intentions or opinions. Regarding this specific question, they specified what was intended.
I don't think Sage device is official.. it's the dev's opinions on something. Everything on Sage Advice does NOT get into the Errata's.. it's Rules as Intended by the designers not official or RAW... BUT it's a good place to start by means of interpreting the rules (Not sure of your last comment, Wolf was at me or Plague).
Plaguescarred, thank you for your contributions. They're certainly illuminating and something to consider.
The concern with the great rlk comes from the wording of what languages it has:
"LanguagesGiant Elk, understands Common, Elvish, and Sylvan but can't speak them."
As such, knowledge isn't the issue. I'd say that it is implied that it cannot speak the three other languages due to not having an appropriate mouth/musculature or something other unovercomable impediment.
As such, I'd say that a Moon Druid in Great Elk form certainly can understand any language he already knows, and would in any beast form assuming that it has the apparatus to do so (if he transforms into a blind creature, obviously he can't read anything.
The case of an elk is an example because it us a case where an animal certainly has the mental capacity to understand language but seems physically incapable of communicating with it. As such, what does "physically capable" mean in the description? Does just having a mouth qualifying as being capable? Or does the fact this particular mouth setup is incapable of producing [humanoid] language mean that this form is not physically capable of communicating through humanoid language?
It's not cut and dry. I know they don't want to get into minutiae, but I do wish they'd do edge case examples like this, just so we can see how far their rules are meant to go. WotC tend not to be very clear at the best of times.
An alternative example is the Giant Eagle. Eagle's beaks make it physically impossible to speak English and most humanoid languages due to the lack of lips. Can they speak in Common if they're a Wildshaped Druid? How? Is their beak not a real beak and is actually malleable and flexible enough to be able to help form clear words? Does magic form the words for the Druid? Or are we not intended to think that much into it and any ability to make a sound is enough? It can also overcome statblock limitations as well?
The clause "if physically capable of doing so" is not a trivial one, nor one that is easily resolved.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to play D&D? Try the following resources first (each section withing vertical bars is a clickable link to find the resource).
I don't think Sage device is official.. it's the dev's opinions on something. Everything on Sage Advice does NOT get into the Errata's.. it's Rules as Intended by the designers not official or RAW... BUT it's a good place to start by means of interpreting the rules (Not sure of your last comment, Wolf was at me or Plague).
1st page of Sage Advice Compendium says it's official ruling.
I provided my interpretation of the rules as written and said other DM can rule otherwise. I thought it was pertinent to bring Sage Advice and Dragon Talk Podcast with the Devs actually discussing this very subject to share how they intended it to work.
Official Rulings: Official rulings on how to interpret rules are made here in the Sage Advice Compendium.
Plague.. I’m not sure where you are copying that from…
but here’s a direct tweet from Jeremy Crawford in the link below… perhaps the role of JC has changed over time… but it’s how I still view sage advice (even though I do think I mix up the terms RAW and RAI when I discuss in this forum)
Plaguescarred, thank you for your contributions. They're certainly illuminating and something to consider.
The concern with the great rlk comes from the wording of what languages it has:
"LanguagesGiant Elk, understands Common, Elvish, and Sylvan but can't speak them."
As such, knowledge isn't the issue. I'd say that it is implied that it cannot speak the three other languages due to not having an appropriate mouth/musculature or something other unovercomable impediment.
You're welcome! I brought the notion of knowledge because it's what the official ruling in Sage Advice refers to.
Also Language is a Racial trait so if a dwarf druid can retain it while wild shaped into a form that can speak a language, then i believe it could able to use it. There's an official ruling on language for being wild shaped into elementals, which don't speak or even understand commun, still being able to do so. Are elementals capable of speaking common? WoTC says they do since they can speak.
So it will depend how the DM interpret it for creature that specifically mention they understand a language but can't specifically speak it as opposed to those that speak some languages but not common.
Plague.. I’m not sure where you are copying that from…
but here’s a direct tweet from Jeremy Crawford in the link below… perhaps the role of JC has changed over time… but it’s how I still view sage advice (even though I do think I mix up the terms RAW and RAI when I discuss in this forum)
Oh.. that document is Officialize yes, as it is technically the Errata from my understanding and lists the conversations that have been agreed upon by the team. When most people (at least myself) refer to Sage advice, they generally look towards the Twitter responses posted on Sage Advice or 3rd party groups that include JC and team. Sorry if that was confusing
Oh.. that document is Officialize yes, as it is technically the Errata from my understanding and lists the conversations that have been agreed upon by the team. When most people (at least myself) refer to Sage advice, they generally look towards the Twitter responses posted on Sage Advice or 3rd party groups that include JC and team. Sorry if that was confusing
Hmm never knew that Great Elk speaking was Sage Advice.. interesting, but don't think I agree with it for my tables. Thanks for adding that tidbit that it was even ever brought up somewhere
I get the sense (from your posts all over this forum) that you think official means something different than it does. Official means in a printed product or errata. Possibly, SAC might be considered official by some, but not tweets and podcasts.
But that being said, you absolutely can't make the claim that a rule isn't vague if you need clarification from the Devs on how it works. My opinion expressed above was popular enough: if the trait is due to some physicality of the form, then losing that form loses that physicality, rendering you physically incapable of using the trait.
I'm not going to discuss your comment on giant elk any further because we seem to be at a disagreement whether a creature that is incapapble of speaking common (but understands it) per its statblock becomes capable of speaking it when a druid who knows that language shapeshifts into that form even though wild shape gives nothing that changes a creature's ability to speak.
Sage Advice is official ruling by WoTC own admission. The tweet and podcast in return are simply the Devs intentions or opinions. Regarding this specific question, they specified what was intended.
I don't think Sage device is official.. it's the dev's opinions on something. Everything on Sage Advice does NOT get into the Errata's.. it's Rules as Intended by the designers not official or RAW... BUT it's a good place to start by means of interpreting the rules (Not sure of your last comment, Wolf was at me or Plague).
Plaguescarred, thank you for your contributions. They're certainly illuminating and something to consider.
The concern with the great rlk comes from the wording of what languages it has:
"Languages Giant Elk, understands Common, Elvish, and Sylvan but can't speak them."
As such, knowledge isn't the issue. I'd say that it is implied that it cannot speak the three other languages due to not having an appropriate mouth/musculature or something other unovercomable impediment.
As such, I'd say that a Moon Druid in Great Elk form certainly can understand any language he already knows, and would in any beast form assuming that it has the apparatus to do so (if he transforms into a blind creature, obviously he can't read anything.
The case of an elk is an example because it us a case where an animal certainly has the mental capacity to understand language but seems physically incapable of communicating with it. As such, what does "physically capable" mean in the description? Does just having a mouth qualifying as being capable? Or does the fact this particular mouth setup is incapable of producing [humanoid] language mean that this form is not physically capable of communicating through humanoid language?
It's not cut and dry. I know they don't want to get into minutiae, but I do wish they'd do edge case examples like this, just so we can see how far their rules are meant to go. WotC tend not to be very clear at the best of times.
Want to play D&D? Try the following resources first (each section withing vertical bars is a clickable link to find the resource).
|The free Basic Rules.|
|Some free short adventures| and |some more here too.| |Here is a series of encounters, some of which link together form a mini-adventure|.
You've played a few games and now want to buy materials? |Here's my guide on what to buy next|.
The answer to this question on stackexchange discusses my point:
https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/145111/if-i-wild-shape-into-a-giant-elk-can-i-speak-any-language-i-know
An alternative example is the Giant Eagle. Eagle's beaks make it physically impossible to speak English and most humanoid languages due to the lack of lips. Can they speak in Common if they're a Wildshaped Druid? How? Is their beak not a real beak and is actually malleable and flexible enough to be able to help form clear words? Does magic form the words for the Druid? Or are we not intended to think that much into it and any ability to make a sound is enough? It can also overcome statblock limitations as well?
The clause "if physically capable of doing so" is not a trivial one, nor one that is easily resolved.
Want to play D&D? Try the following resources first (each section withing vertical bars is a clickable link to find the resource).
|The free Basic Rules.|
|Some free short adventures| and |some more here too.| |Here is a series of encounters, some of which link together form a mini-adventure|.
You've played a few games and now want to buy materials? |Here's my guide on what to buy next|.
1st page of Sage Advice Compendium says it's official ruling.
I provided my interpretation of the rules as written and said other DM can rule otherwise. I thought it was pertinent to bring Sage Advice and Dragon Talk Podcast with the Devs actually discussing this very subject to share how they intended it to work.
Plague.. I’m not sure where you are copying that from…
but here’s a direct tweet from Jeremy Crawford in the link below… perhaps the role of JC has changed over time… but it’s how I still view sage advice (even though I do think I mix up the terms RAW and RAI when I discuss in this forum)
https://mobile.twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/1205393277513433088
You're welcome! I brought the notion of knowledge because it's what the official ruling in Sage Advice refers to.
Also Language is a Racial trait so if a dwarf druid can retain it while wild shaped into a form that can speak a language, then i believe it could able to use it. There's an official ruling on language for being wild shaped into elementals, which don't speak or even understand commun, still being able to do so. Are elementals capable of speaking common? WoTC says they do since they can speak.
So it will depend how the DM interpret it for creature that specifically mention they understand a language but can't specifically speak it as opposed to those that speak some languages but not common.
Its from Sage Advice Compendium Sage Advice Compendium | Dungeons & Dragons (wizards.com)
Oh.. that document is Officialize yes, as it is technically the Errata from my understanding and lists the conversations that have been agreed upon by the team. When most people (at least myself) refer to Sage advice, they generally look towards the Twitter responses posted on Sage Advice or 3rd party groups that include JC and team.
Sorry if that was confusing
Oh i see no the Sage Advice website D&D Sage Advice · Questions on Dungeons & Dragons answered by game designers % compile the Devs tweets. But its not the same thing as WoTC's column.
Errata are different documents PH-Errata.pdf (wizards.com)