"Lose a Foot or Leg. Your speed on foot is halved, and you must use a cane or crutch to move unless you have a peg leg or other prosthesis. You fall prone after using the Dash action. You have disadvantage on Dexterity checks made to balance. Magic such as the regenerate spell can restore the lost appendage."
That's based on only having 2 legs to begin with, it doesn't automatically mean that the same would be true for a 4 legged creature. The DM could infer that it equates to a 25% reduction but again that is the DM's decision and as I said earlier, there are no official rules to cover the situation.
It still holds for a four-legged creature, as nature doesn't leave much room for redundancies, particularly in the relevant size categories. There's a reason they typically put a horse down if one of its legs is seriously busted.
Not actually true. A three-legged horse can still get around, they were historically put down because after a serious leg injury they couldn't be worked anymore and people didn't want to pay the expense of keeping a horse that was no longer useful.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
"Lose a Foot or Leg. Your speed on foot is halved, and you must use a cane or crutch to move unless you have a peg leg or other prosthesis. You fall prone after using the Dash action. You have disadvantage on Dexterity checks made to balance. Magic such as the regenerate spell can restore the lost appendage."
That's based on only having 2 legs to begin with, it doesn't automatically mean that the same would be true for a 4 legged creature. The DM could infer that it equates to a 25% reduction but again that is the DM's decision and as I said earlier, there are no official rules to cover the situation.
It still holds for a four-legged creature, as nature doesn't leave much room for redundancies, particularly in the relevant size categories. There's a reason they typically put a horse down if one of its legs is seriously busted.
Not actually true. A three-legged horse can still get around, they were historically put down because after a serious leg injury they couldn't be worked anymore and people didn't want to pay the expense of keeping a horse that was no longer useful.
Which is why I included the part about treating it as though it always a crutch in my original post, which doesn't appear here for some reason. A three legged horse is still going to have its ability to move and function seriously impaired, even if it's a little more able to balance on its own. The underlying mechanics of the condition are still mostly applicable, one can simply rule that one of the conditional aspects is met.
"Lose a Foot or Leg. Your speed on foot is halved, and you must use a cane or crutch to move unless you have a peg leg or other prosthesis. You fall prone after using the Dash action. You have disadvantage on Dexterity checks made to balance. Magic such as the regenerate spell can restore the lost appendage."
That's based on only having 2 legs to begin with, it doesn't automatically mean that the same would be true for a 4 legged creature. The DM could infer that it equates to a 25% reduction but again that is the DM's decision and as I said earlier, there are no official rules to cover the situation.
I showed a rule, you're saying there's no rule... man idk what you want.
"Lose a Foot or Leg. Your speed on foot is halved, and you must use a cane or crutch to move unless you have a peg leg or other prosthesis. You fall prone after using the Dash action. You have disadvantage on Dexterity checks made to balance. Magic such as the regenerate spell can restore the lost appendage."
That's based on only having 2 legs to begin with, it doesn't automatically mean that the same would be true for a 4 legged creature. The DM could infer that it equates to a 25% reduction but again that is the DM's decision and as I said earlier, there are no official rules to cover the situation.
It still holds for a four-legged creature, as nature doesn't leave much room for redundancies, particularly in the relevant size categories. There's a reason they typically put a horse down if one of its legs is seriously busted.
Not actually true. A three-legged horse can still get around, they were historically put down because after a serious leg injury they couldn't be worked anymore and people didn't want to pay the expense of keeping a horse that was no longer useful.
Which is why I included the part about treating it as though it always a crutch in my original post, which doesn't appear here for some reason.
I edited it out because I was talking about the whys and hows of the way horses were treated in real life, so the game rules weren't relevant.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Wildshape says: "Starting at 2nd level, you can use your action to magically assume the shape of a beast that you have seen before..."
Presuming that the "beast that you have seen" had all its limbs... that's the form you'd naturally turn into. Even if the beast had a limb missing on one side, I'd still imagine that you might easily be able to fill in the blanks.
"Lose a Foot or Leg. Your speed on foot is halved, and you must use a cane or crutch to move unless you have a peg leg or other prosthesis. You fall prone after using the Dash action. You have disadvantage on Dexterity checks made to balance. Magic such as the regenerate spell can restore the lost appendage."
That's based on only having 2 legs to begin with, it doesn't automatically mean that the same would be true for a 4 legged creature. The DM could infer that it equates to a 25% reduction but again that is the DM's decision and as I said earlier, there are no official rules to cover the situation.
I showed a rule, you're saying there's no rule... man idk what you want.
It’s a rule that applies to 2 legged humans’ and not 4 legged bears which is what the op actually asked for. It doesn’t apply to bears does it as bears don’t make and use peg legs in the wild. So yes you showed a rule, the wrong rule but technically still ‘a’ rule.
. It’s a rule that applies to 2 legged humans’ and not 4 legged bears which is what the op actually asked for. It doesn’t apply to bears does it as bears don’t make and use peg legs in the wild. So yes you showed a rule, the wrong rule but technically still ‘a’ rule.
It is a rule that does not say anywhere that it is limited to humans, and it sh9uld certainly apply to any bipedal humanoid. RAW it applies to all creatures but it it quite within 5he DMs rights to change the impact for centaurs, bears, spiders and anything else.
IRL there is quite a variety between animals. A horse would hardly be able to move with a leg missing (it can not use a cane or crutch), where I have seen 3 legged dogs move almost as fast as one with 4 legs.
. It’s a rule that applies to 2 legged humans’ and not 4 legged bears which is what the op actually asked for. It doesn’t apply to bears does it as bears don’t make and use peg legs in the wild. So yes you showed a rule, the wrong rule but technically still ‘a’ rule.
but it it quite within 5he DMs rights to change the impact for centaurs, bears, spiders and anything else.
which is exactly what I said earlier, as have many others….. it’s the DM’s prerogative.
Wildshape says: "Starting at 2nd level, you can use your action to magically assume the shape of a beast that you have seen before..."
Presuming that the "beast that you have seen" had all its limbs... that's the form you'd naturally turn into. Even if the beast had a limb missing on one side, I'd still imagine that you might easily be able to fill in the blanks.
Its not so much as filling in the blanks but changing the parts you already have into beast form. How would you change a limb you no longer had? You wouldn't, you would have to form one out of something else.
But as I have said before just use a bit of magic to restore the missing limb. Or take your idea of an amputee for flavor to the limit. No leg in human form no leg in beast form.
"Lose a Foot or Leg. Your speed on foot is halved, and you must use a cane or crutch to move unless you have a peg leg or other prosthesis. You fall prone after using the Dash action. You have disadvantage on Dexterity checks made to balance. Magic such as the regenerate spell can restore the lost appendage."
That's based on only having 2 legs to begin with, it doesn't automatically mean that the same would be true for a 4 legged creature. The DM could infer that it equates to a 25% reduction but again that is the DM's decision and as I said earlier, there are no official rules to cover the situation.
I showed a rule, you're saying there's no rule... man idk what you want.
It’s a rule that applies to 2 legged humans’ and not 4 legged bears which is what the op actually asked for. It doesn’t apply to bears does it as bears don’t make and use peg legs in the wild. So yes you showed a rule, the wrong rule but technically still ‘a’ rule.
Isn't the original question about losing an appendage in your humanoid form and then wild shaping into an animal? So the fact you don't think this rule applies to "4 legged bears" is beside the point (and not what they actually asked for). There are rules for PCs potentially losing limbs meaning you could have an amputee druid, thus the question about what happens when they wild shape is still valid.
And I agree with what other posters have pointed out; if a druid can wild shape from a human with two arms and two legs into an octopus with eight tentacles, a scorpion with six legs, or a bird with two legs and two wings, it stands to reason that the number of limbs the druid has has no bearing on how many limbs their wild shape will have.
Wildshape says: "Starting at 2nd level, you can use your action to magically assume the shape of a beast that you have seen before..."
Presuming that the "beast that you have seen" had all its limbs... that's the form you'd naturally turn into. Even if the beast had a limb missing on one side, I'd still imagine that you might easily be able to fill in the blanks.
Its not so much as filling in the blanks but changing the parts you already have into beast form. How would you change a limb you no longer had? You wouldn't, you would have to form one out of something else.
I'd just say that it was formed "magically". A moon druid (regardless of original size) can, at 8th level, wildshape into a brontosaurus and, at 10th level, into an air elemental. Where did that extra (or lack) of matter come from? Whose to say that the druid even knows. How does my laptop works. Whether or not I know (I don't) it still does.
More modestly, druid can turn into a slug, an octopus, a pincer-fronted crab or a winged giant wasp with no requirement regarding the current structure of the druid.
But as I have said before just use a bit of magic to restore the missing limb. Or take your idea of an amputee for flavor to the limit. No leg in human form no leg in beast form.
Flavour can certainly work. Commonly, a druid with a streak of white hair might say that a wildshape form adopted also had a streak of white hair but, as long as the DM agrees, this type of thing could certainly add flavour. As long as the DM is on board, anything that fits with things like flavour would work fine.
"Lose a Foot or Leg. Your speed on foot is halved, and you must use a cane or crutch to move unless you have a peg leg or other prosthesis. You fall prone after using the Dash action. You have disadvantage on Dexterity checks made to balance. Magic such as the regenerate spell can restore the lost appendage."
That's based on only having 2 legs to begin with, it doesn't automatically mean that the same would be true for a 4 legged creature. The DM could infer that it equates to a 25% reduction but again that is the DM's decision and as I said earlier, there are no official rules to cover the situation.
I showed a rule, you're saying there's no rule... man idk what you want.
It’s a rule that applies to 2 legged humans’ and not 4 legged bears which is what the op actually asked for. It doesn’t apply to bears does it as bears don’t make and use peg legs in the wild. So yes you showed a rule, the wrong rule but technically still ‘a’ rule.
Isn't the original question about losing an appendage in your humanoid form and then wild shaping into an animal? So the fact you don't think this rule applies to "4 legged bears" is beside the point (and not what they actually asked for). There are rules for PCs potentially losing limbs meaning you could have an amputee druid, thus the question about what happens when they wild shape is still valid.
And I agree with what other posters have pointed out; if a druid can wild shape from a human with two arms and two legs into an octopus with eight tentacles, a scorpion with six legs, or a bird with two legs and two wings, it stands to reason that the number of limbs the druid has has no bearing on how many limbs their wild shape will have.
This is the original question, copied directly from the op;
“Was just curious if a character without a leg could wild shape into a beast or animal with all limbs”
To me that is asking, if a druid with one leg uses wildshape would they still be missing a leg in the beasts form? There’s no request for information on the mechanics of that druid only having one leg. No question about what the new move speed would be or anything else. So the quoted rule has literally no bearing - excuse the pun. If the op had asked what happens to someone that loses a leg then yes, the quoted rule would be relevant. Unless I am completely misinterpreting the question, this is a dm question, we can all give our interpretations of course (my interpretation would be that it is perfectly fine for a one legged druid to wildshape and have all of the expected limbs etc of the new form), but it would come down to the dm of that game ultimately.
"Lose a Foot or Leg. Your speed on foot is halved, and you must use a cane or crutch to move unless you have a peg leg or other prosthesis. You fall prone after using the Dash action. You have disadvantage on Dexterity checks made to balance. Magic such as the regenerate spell can restore the lost appendage."
That's based on only having 2 legs to begin with, it doesn't automatically mean that the same would be true for a 4 legged creature. The DM could infer that it equates to a 25% reduction but again that is the DM's decision and as I said earlier, there are no official rules to cover the situation.
I showed a rule, you're saying there's no rule... man idk what you want.
It’s a rule that applies to 2 legged humans’ and not 4 legged bears which is what the op actually asked for. It doesn’t apply to bears does it as bears don’t make and use peg legs in the wild. So yes you showed a rule, the wrong rule but technically still ‘a’ rule.
Isn't the original question about losing an appendage in your humanoid form and then wild shaping into an animal? So the fact you don't think this rule applies to "4 legged bears" is beside the point (and not what they actually asked for). There are rules for PCs potentially losing limbs meaning you could have an amputee druid, thus the question about what happens when they wild shape is still valid.
And I agree with what other posters have pointed out; if a druid can wild shape from a human with two arms and two legs into an octopus with eight tentacles, a scorpion with six legs, or a bird with two legs and two wings, it stands to reason that the number of limbs the druid has has no bearing on how many limbs their wild shape will have.
This is the original question, copied directly from the op;
“Was just curious if a character without a leg could wild shape into a beast or animal with all limbs”
To me that is asking, if a druid with one leg uses wildshape would they still be missing a leg in the beasts form? There’s no request for information on the mechanics of that druid only having one leg. No question about what the new move speed would be or anything else. So the quoted rule has literally no bearing - excuse the pun. If the op had asked what happens to someone that loses a leg then yes, the quoted rule would be relevant. Unless I am completely misinterpreting the question, this is a dm question, we can all give our interpretations of course (my interpretation would be that it is perfectly fine for a one legged druid to wildshape and have all of the expected limbs etc of the new form), but it would come down to the dm of that game ultimately.
But you were the person who, apros pro to nothing, stated:
There are no rules for permanent injury in dnd 5e including loss of a limb so just by playing such a character you are in homebrew / dm prerogative. [snipped]
It was pointed out this wasn't accurate and there were indeed rules for losing limbs, clarifying the OPs question does not lie exclusively within the realm of homebrew.
But rules on losing limbs are irrelevant as that is not what the op asked. So what I said originally and have maintained throughout the discussion is that the rules do not cover the question that was asked and it is at the dm’s discretion.
Hi (I am the original question asker) never in my life did I think a simple question would get so many responses and opinions, thank you all for trying to get to the bottom of this question, i would love to hear character ideas or thoughts on playing a unique character or a unique role play experience. I'm very new to DND beyond and this sort of interactive community is just mind blowing to me.
Thanks again for all the help and advice, can't wait to hear any or all ideas no matter how odd, wacky, weird or fun
Not actually true. A three-legged horse can still get around, they were historically put down because after a serious leg injury they couldn't be worked anymore and people didn't want to pay the expense of keeping a horse that was no longer useful.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Which is why I included the part about treating it as though it always a crutch in my original post, which doesn't appear here for some reason. A three legged horse is still going to have its ability to move and function seriously impaired, even if it's a little more able to balance on its own. The underlying mechanics of the condition are still mostly applicable, one can simply rule that one of the conditional aspects is met.
I showed a rule, you're saying there's no rule... man idk what you want.
I edited it out because I was talking about the whys and hows of the way horses were treated in real life, so the game rules weren't relevant.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Yes.
Anzio Faro. Protector Aasimar light cleric. Lvl 18.
Viktor Gavriil. White dragonborn grave cleric. Lvl 20.
Ikram Sahir ibn-Malik al-Sayyid Ra'ad. Brass dragonborn draconic sorcerer Lvl 9. Fire elemental devil.
Wrangler of cats.
Wildshape says: "Starting at 2nd level, you can use your action to magically assume the shape of a beast that you have seen before..."
Presuming that the "beast that you have seen" had all its limbs... that's the form you'd naturally turn into. Even if the beast had a limb missing on one side, I'd still imagine that you might easily be able to fill in the blanks.
It’s a rule that applies to 2 legged humans’ and not 4 legged bears which is what the op actually asked for. It doesn’t apply to bears does it as bears don’t make and use peg legs in the wild. So yes you showed a rule, the wrong rule but technically still ‘a’ rule.
It is a rule that does not say anywhere that it is limited to humans, and it sh9uld certainly apply to any bipedal humanoid. RAW it applies to all creatures but it it quite within 5he DMs rights to change the impact for centaurs, bears, spiders and anything else.
IRL there is quite a variety between animals. A horse would hardly be able to move with a leg missing (it can not use a cane or crutch), where I have seen 3 legged dogs move almost as fast as one with 4 legs.
which is exactly what I said earlier, as have many others….. it’s the DM’s prerogative.
Isn't the original question about losing an appendage in your humanoid form and then wild shaping into an animal? So the fact you don't think this rule applies to "4 legged bears" is beside the point (and not what they actually asked for). There are rules for PCs potentially losing limbs meaning you could have an amputee druid, thus the question about what happens when they wild shape is still valid.
And I agree with what other posters have pointed out; if a druid can wild shape from a human with two arms and two legs into an octopus with eight tentacles, a scorpion with six legs, or a bird with two legs and two wings, it stands to reason that the number of limbs the druid has has no bearing on how many limbs their wild shape will have.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
I'd just say that it was formed "magically". A moon druid (regardless of original size) can, at 8th level, wildshape into a brontosaurus and, at 10th level, into an air elemental. Where did that extra (or lack) of matter come from? Whose to say that the druid even knows. How does my laptop works. Whether or not I know (I don't) it still does.
More modestly, druid can turn into a slug, an octopus, a pincer-fronted crab or a winged giant wasp with no requirement regarding the current structure of the druid.
Flavour can certainly work. Commonly, a druid with a streak of white hair might say that a wildshape form adopted also had a streak of white hair but, as long as the DM agrees, this type of thing could certainly add flavour. As long as the DM is on board, anything that fits with things like flavour would work fine.
This is the original question, copied directly from the op;
“Was just curious if a character without a leg could wild shape into a beast or animal with all limbs”
To me that is asking, if a druid with one leg uses wildshape would they still be missing a leg in the beasts form? There’s no request for information on the mechanics of that druid only having one leg. No question about what the new move speed would be or anything else. So the quoted rule has literally no bearing - excuse the pun. If the op had asked what happens to someone that loses a leg then yes, the quoted rule would be relevant. Unless I am completely misinterpreting the question, this is a dm question, we can all give our interpretations of course (my interpretation would be that it is perfectly fine for a one legged druid to wildshape and have all of the expected limbs etc of the new form), but it would come down to the dm of that game ultimately.
But you were the person who, apros pro to nothing, stated:
It was pointed out this wasn't accurate and there were indeed rules for losing limbs, clarifying the OPs question does not lie exclusively within the realm of homebrew.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
But rules on losing limbs are irrelevant as that is not what the op asked. So what I said originally and have maintained throughout the discussion is that the rules do not cover the question that was asked and it is at the dm’s discretion.
Hi (I am the original question asker) never in my life did I think a simple question would get so many responses and opinions, thank you all for trying to get to the bottom of this question, i would love to hear character ideas or thoughts on playing a unique character or a unique role play experience. I'm very new to DND beyond and this sort of interactive community is just mind blowing to me.
Thanks again for all the help and advice, can't wait to hear any or all ideas no matter how odd, wacky, weird or fun
It would depend on what the animal was