Of course, the druid would have to have seen a "boar with aarokocran wings" before they can turn into that beast.
Or have seen a "boar with a shell" for the other example.
Nonesense. They just turn into a beast they have seen before, and also keep their racial traits. No rocket surgery required here.
Youre getting mighty hung up on the shell or wings. Most people get hung up about the ASI they should get to keep in their new beast forms, since beasts are physically capable of getting more strength/dex/con and ASI are race and class features.
Of course, the druid would have to have seen a "boar with aarokocran wings" before they can turn into that beast.
Or have seen a "boar with a shell" for the other example.
Nonesense. They just turn into a beast they have seen before, and also keep their racial traits. No rocket surgery required here.
Youre getting mighty hung up on the shell or wings. Most people get hung up about the ASI they should get to keep in their new beast forms, since beasts are physically capable of getting more strength/dex/con and ASI are race and class features.
So if they are just turning into a regular beast that doesn't have a fly speed, but then keeping their fly speed, the rules restricting what movement the beasts have don't apply. Right? That rule only applies to the beast's statistics not the PC's, those rules are listed separately.
ASIs are a more valid argument. All beast have ability scores, not all beast have turtle shells. The RAW says they can use the traits and features they have the anatomy to use. Until now, no one has made a serious argument that wildshapes should get to keep a tortle's shell AC.
So if they are just turning into a regular beast that doesn't have a fly speed, but then keeping their fly speed, the rules restricting what movement the beasts have don't apply. Right? That rule only applies to the beast's statistics not the PC's, those rules are listed separately.
You keep asking me the same question. No. No flying boars til 8th. IDK what answer you want from me but that's the answer. Can't fly form until 8th. The wildshape rules say this very clearly. You know it, I know it, that's really the answer.
ASIs are a more valid argument.
k
All beast have ability scores, not all beast have turtle shells.
Lol y not? If someone wants to do it why not: Its hilarious. We clearly play the game for different reasons.
The RAW says they can use the traits and features they have the anatomy to use.
Here you go misquoting the rules again. Wordsearch phb druid entry "anatomy" 0 result. Oh no!
If we're concerned with the rules. I know I am. But if we are, then really you gotta read what it 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."
I rule a bear is physically capable of of having Natural Armor. So they can in my games.
You rule bears cannot have Natural Armor, for some reason. That's a choice you can make if you're a DM. Congrats.
Until now, no one has made a serious argument that wildshapes should get to keep a tortle's shell AC.
I have. You're replying to such an argument. Wild.
Of course, the druid would have to have seen a "boar with aarokocran wings" before they can turn into that beast.
Or have seen a "boar with a shell" for the other example.
Nonesense. They just turn into a beast they have seen before, and also keep their racial traits. No rocket surgery required here.
Youre getting mighty hung up on the shell or wings. Most people get hung up about the ASI they should get to keep in their new beast forms, since beasts are physically capable of getting more strength/dex/con and ASI are race and class features.
They keep their physical traits "if the new form is physically capable of doing so" - so a boar is just a boar, it won't have the shell of a tortle that provides the extra abilities from the base race.
We have Owlbears so would be neat to have an Turtlebear, but I agree if you turn into a boar or bear those forms do not have shells or wings so you lose that.
Some put more emphasis on the “retaining traits” while others on “if the new form is physically capable”
And a DM can call it however they like, but I would call it as no wings or shell
I think it is up to the DM on whether or not the player would be able to keep their shell while Wild Shapes. Personally, I keep changing my opinion on whether or not I’d allow this, so honestly, IDK what I’d do of this came up in my game.
With for the wings… I also keep changing my mind LOL, but RAW, if you think the animal could of have wings and the animal isn’t too heavy to fly with them, then they should be able to keep those wings and be able to fly with them as long as they’re a level 8+ Druid.
Anyways, I keep saying this but no one responds: you can have a flying angel boar by level 3 with some types of Aasimar Druids.
Lol, be careful with races like Bugbear. You'll start getting Surprise Attack damage stacked with multiattack, extended reach, and (due to the wording), Tyrannosaurus Rex comfortably crawling through windows without hindrance.
A wildshaped Bugbear still gets Surprise Attack but they would not get the bonus to reach since it depends on the physical form of the Bugbear.
If you DM you can say this is true for your game. Other DMs could say the form keeps this ability and that is RAW correct for their game.
Of course, it is a DM call as to which specific features might rely on the physical form of the creature and which don't.
See, you already know this.
Natural AC, reach due to long appendages, darkvision, enhanced hearing or smell giving advantage on perception checks etc could all be considered aspects of the physical form that would be lost while wildshaping. (The rules call out darkvision specifically as an example of something lost while wildshaping since it is implicit to the physical form and not a skill/ability that can transfer).
These are not all the same and they are not all refered to the same in the wildshape entry. Wildshape says specifically that special senses are lost. So no darkvision.
And, one could argue that elves should lose proficiency in perception. But thats messy and no one(that I know) forces that ruling anyway.
The other stuff wildshape says you can keep. So long as your new form is physically capable of it. The DM'll decide if the new form is capable of it.
Its a little strange to me to see so many people want to make that determination for all the DMs out there, when they have no business doing so. If the book tells us a DM call decides something, we cannot will it to be otherwise and manifest an alternative answer out of thin air. A DM call is a DM call.
So if you wanna play a tortle that turns into a bear-in-a-shell just make sure you find the right DM.
Umm no?
The rules explicitly state the following:
"While you are transformed, the following rules apply:
Your game statistics are replaced by the statistics of the beast, but you retain your alignment, personality, and Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma scores. You also retain all of your skill and saving throw proficiencies, in addition to gaining those of the creature. If the creature has the same proficiency as you and the bonus in its stat block is higher than yours, use the creature’s bonus instead of yours. If the creature has any legendary or lair actions, you can’t use them.
When you transform, you assume the beast’s hit points and Hit Dice. When you revert to your normal form, you return to the number of hit points you had before you transformed. However, if you revert as a result of dropping to 0 hit points, any excess damage carries over to your normal form. For example, if you take 10 damage in animal form and have only 1 hit point left, you revert and take 9 damage. As long as the excess damage doesn’t reduce your normal form to 0 hit points, you aren’t knocked unconscious.
You can’t cast spells, and your ability to speak or take any action that requires hands is limited to the capabilities of your beast form. Transforming doesn’t break your concentration on a spell you’ve already cast, however, or prevent you from taking actions that are part of a spell, such as call lightning, that you’ve already cast.
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 choose whether your equipment falls to the ground in your space, merges into your new form, or is worn by it. Worn equipment functions as normal, but the DM decides whether it is practical for the new form to wear a piece of equipment, based on the creature’s shape and size. Your equipment doesn’t change size or shape to match the new form, and any equipment that the new form can’t wear must either fall to the ground or merge with it. Equipment that merges with the form has no effect until you leave the form."
1) Game statistics are replaced by those of the beast
2) You retain the benefit of features IF the new form is physically capable of doing so.
The druid does NOT have the option of changing into a bear with hands to manipulate things. This is NOT part of the bear form and is called out explicitly as an example of something the druid could not do.
Everything is up to the DM of course. BUT, allowing the druid to change the form of the beast to include physical capabilities of the natural form that are required for their racial features (a shell on a boar for a tortle for example, adding Aarakokra wings to boar - NOTE: although flying beasts are restricted to level 8+, by your reasoning, Aarakokra flight is a racial ability that has nothing to do with the beast that the druid transforms into - if a tortle druid can add a shell to the boar there is no reason I can see why YOU would prevent an aarakokra using their racial trait of flight? In addition, again by your reasoning, after level 8 an Aarakokra moon druid could put wings on their giant scorpion form so that they could transfer their racial ability to fly).
However, if the druid can transfer a shell or wings to the beast so that they can use racial traits that are dependent on the physical form of the creature, then why not let them transfer the eyes too?? They have racial darkvision, why shouldn't the beast get that too? Oh - because the rules specifically rule out senses and other racial features that rely on the physical form.
Finally, it says that the druids physical characteristics and stat block are replaced by those of the beast. This means to me that the druid assumes the form of the beast as listed in the monster manual, if that form lacks a swim speed, lacks the amphibian trait, lacks wings, lacks a shell, lacks darkvision then ANY racial feature of the druid allowing swimming, breathing underwater, flying, hiding in a shell or seeing in the dark - do NOT work in beast form because the beast form lacks the physical capabilities required for these features.
Anyway, you run it how you like but the rules are pretty clear that only racial/class features/traits that the new physical form of the wildshaped beast form is capable of transfer over.
I think it is up to the DM on whether or not the player would be able to keep their shell while Wild Shapes. Personally, I keep changing my opinion on whether or not I’d allow this, so honestly, IDK what I’d do of this came up in my game.
With for the wings… I also keep changing my mind LOL, but RAW, if you think the animal could of have wings and the animal isn’t too heavy to fly with them, then they should be able to keep those wings and be able to fly with them as long as they’re a level 8+ Druid.
Anyways, I keep saying this but no one responds: you can have a flying angel boar by level 3 with some types of Aasimar Druids.
Yes you can. This is because the Aasimar racial feature that allows it to fly does not depend on the physical form that the Aasimar has assumed while flight provided by wings as in the case of the Aarakokra or hiding in a shell as in a Tortle are features that are directly tied to physical aspects of the racial form of the creature and these do not transfer over when a druid assumes a new form via wildshape.
"While you are transformed, the following rules apply:
Your game statistics are replaced by the statistics of the beast, but you retain your alignment, personality, and Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma scores. You also retain all of your skill and saving throw proficiencies, in addition to gaining those of the creature. If the creature has the same proficiency as you and the bonus in its stat block is higher than yours, use the creature’s bonus instead of yours. If the creature has any legendary or lair actions, you can’t use them.
When you transform, you assume the beast’s hit points and Hit Dice. When you revert to your normal form, you return to the number of hit points you had before you transformed. However, if you revert as a result of dropping to 0 hit points, any excess damage carries over to your normal form. For example, if you take 10 damage in animal form and have only 1 hit point left, you revert and take 9 damage. As long as the excess damage doesn’t reduce your normal form to 0 hit points, you aren’t knocked unconscious.
You can’t cast spells, and your ability to speak or take any action that requires hands is limited to the capabilities of your beast form. Transforming doesn’t break your concentration on a spell you’ve already cast, however, or prevent you from taking actions that are part of a spell, such as call lightning, that you’ve already cast.
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 choose whether your equipment falls to the ground in your space, merges into your new form, or is worn by it. Worn equipment functions as normal, but the DM decides whether it is practical for the new form to wear a piece of equipment, based on the creature’s shape and size. Your equipment doesn’t change size or shape to match the new form, and any equipment that the new form can’t wear must either fall to the ground or merge with it. Equipment that merges with the form has no effect until you leave the form."
1) Game statistics are replaced by those of the beast
2) You retain the benefit of features IF the new form is physically capable of doing so.
The druid does NOT have the option of changing into a bear with hands to manipulate things. This is NOT part of the bear form and is called out explicitly as an example of something the druid could not do.
Everything is up to the DM of course. BUT, allowing the druid to change the form of the beast to include physical capabilities of the natural form that are required for their racial features (a shell on a boar for a tortle for example, adding Aarakokra wings to boar - NOTE: although flying beasts are restricted to level 8+, by your reasoning, Aarakokra flight is a racial ability that has nothing to do with the beast that the druid transforms into - if a tortle druid can add a shell to the boar there is no reason I can see why YOU would prevent an aarakokra using their racial trait of flight? In addition, again by your reasoning, after level 8 an Aarakokra moon druid could put wings on their giant scorpion form so that they could transfer their racial ability to fly).
However, if the druid can transfer a shell or wings to the beast so that they can use racial traits that are dependent on the physical form of the creature, then why not let them transfer the eyes too?? They have racial darkvision, why shouldn't the beast get that too? Oh - because the rules specifically rule out senses and other racial features that rely on the physical form.
Finally, it says that the druids physical characteristics and stat block are replaced by those of the beast. This means to me that the druid assumes the form of the beast as listed in the monster manual, if that form lacks a swim speed, lacks the amphibian trait, lacks wings, lacks a shell, lacks darkvision then ANY racial feature of the druid allowing swimming, breathing underwater, flying, hiding in a shell or seeing in the dark - do NOT work in beast form because the beast form lacks the physical capabilities required for these features.
Anyway, you run it how you like but the rules are pretty clear that only racial/class features/traits that the new physical form of the wildshaped beast form is capable of transfer over.
Logically, not keeping natural AC is what makes sense when looking at other things you don't keep. That being said, the clause saying game statistics change comes in direct conflict with the one saying you keep racial features. While I guess "game statistics" and racial "features" can be viewed as very different things, I could not find a clear distinction between the two that is explained in the PHB, meaning that any difference as clear as you seem to make it out to be. I also think it is worth noting that AC is not mentioned in any of the above examples on whether or not it is kept.
So well RAI I think you're right, RAW doesn't seem as clear.
1) Game statistics are replaced by those of the beast
2) You retain the benefit of features IF the new form is physically capable of doing so.
The druid does NOT have the option of changing into a bear with hands to manipulate things. This is NOT part of the bear form and is called out explicitly as an example of something the druid could not do.
Has someone suggested bears should have human hands to you? Did you think I suggested this?? Who are you even arguing with???
Everything is up to the DM of course. BUT, allowing the druid to change the form of the beast to include physical capabilities of the natural form that are required for their racial features (a shell on a boar for a tortle for example, adding Aarakokra wings to boar - NOTE: although flying beasts are restricted to level 8+, by your reasoning, Aarakokra flight is a racial ability that has nothing to do with the beast that the druid transforms into - if a tortle druid can add a shell to the boar there is no reason I can see why YOU would prevent an aarakokra using their racial trait of flight? In addition, again by your reasoning, after level 8 an Aarakokra moon druid could put wings on their giant scorpion form so that they could transfer their racial ability to fly).
I don't know what you're saying here exactly, it is a little hard to follow. But... Yes, it is up to the DM what racial and class features you are physically capable of retaining.
I'm firmly in the camp that "Natural Armor" is something any beast is physically capable of having.
However, if the druid can transfer a shell or wings to the beast so that they can use racial traits that are dependent on the physical form of the creature, then why not let them transfer the eyes too?? They have racial darkvision, why shouldn't the beast get that too? Oh - because the rules specifically rule out senses and other racial features that rely on the physical form.
Wildshape answers this question. Yes. It specifically and explicitly tells us not to allow special senses.
Finally, it says that the druids physical characteristics and stat block are replaced by those of the beast. This means to me that the druid assumes the form of the beast as listed in the monster manual, if that form lacks a swim speed, lacks the amphibian trait, lacks wings, lacks a shell, lacks darkvision then ANY racial feature of the druid allowing swimming, breathing underwater, flying, hiding in a shell or seeing in the dark - do NOT work in beast form because the beast form lacks the physical capabilities required for these features.
Ok. If you're DMing any call you make is the right call.
Anyway, you run it how you like but the rules are pretty clear that only racial/class features/traits that the new physical form of the wildshaped beast form is capable of transfer over.
Yes, that is clear. And, to me, it is clear that Natural Armor is such a trait that the new form is physically capable of retaining.
1) Game statistics are replaced by those of the beast
2) You retain the benefit of features IF the new form is physically capable of doing so.
The druid does NOT have the option of changing into a bear with hands to manipulate things. This is NOT part of the bear form and is called out explicitly as an example of something the druid could not do.
Has someone suggested bears should have human hands to you? Did you think I suggested this?? Who are you even arguing with???
Because you are somehow suggesting that a bear could keep the tortle's shell after the transformation!!!
(Three "!" as counterpoint to your three "?" )
Both suggestions are attempting to use the Wild Shape to turn somebody into something that isn't a natural beast.
1) Game statistics are replaced by those of the beast
2) You retain the benefit of features IF the new form is physically capable of doing so.
The druid does NOT have the option of changing into a bear with hands to manipulate things. This is NOT part of the bear form and is called out explicitly as an example of something the druid could not do.
Has someone suggested bears should have human hands to you? Did you think I suggested this?? Who are you even arguing with???
Because you are somehow suggesting that a bear could keep the tortle's shell after the transformation!!!
Where in the Natural Armor entry does it suggest they have human hands???? This feels like a total red herring. (Also a creature a druid cannot shape into until level 4+.)
You cannot keep human hands while wild shaped according to the rules of 5e, and I'm fairly sure you're unlikely to find a DM who'll say otherwise. Unless they're willing to dive well and truly off the deep end of homebrew. But you're welcome to try.
Both suggestions are attempting to use the Wild Shape to turn somebody into something that isn't a natural beast.
Bears are natural beasts IDK what you mean. Bear with Natural Armor are also natural beasts. maybe even more natural, since we added natural armor.
You do know that's why I think this whole convo is extra funny right? The whole counterarguement is that animals, beasts, can't keep the tortle's AC because [whatever]. But their entire argument fails on its face because beasts DO HAVE natural armor. Like, literally called natural armor.
eg Bears:
Armor Class 11 (natural armor)
And the tortle AC is from a feature called Natural Armor. They defacto have natural armor as a racial trait. Their natural armor trait is giving them AC17. And we KNOW with ABSOLUTE certainty bears and etc are "physically capable" of having natural armor because they're listed in their stat blocks as HAVING natural armor.
Like the whole convo is silly. Your argument when I hear it: "It is unnatural for them to keep their natural armor because naturally they only have natural armor and if they keep their natural armor they're not natural anymore"
1) Game statistics are replaced by those of the beast
2) You retain the benefit of features IF the new form is physically capable of doing so.
The druid does NOT have the option of changing into a bear with hands to manipulate things. This is NOT part of the bear form and is called out explicitly as an example of something the druid could not do.
Has someone suggested bears should have human hands to you? Did you think I suggested this?? Who are you even arguing with???
Because you are somehow suggesting that a bear could keep the tortle's shell after the transformation!!!
Where in the Natural Armor entry does it suggest they have human hands???? This feels like a total red herring. (Also a creature a druid cannot shape into until level 4+.)
You cannot keep human hands while wild shaped according to the rules of 5e, and I'm fairly sure you're unlikely to find a DM who'll say otherwise. Unless they're willing to dive well and truly off the deep end of homebrew. But you're welcome to try.
Both suggestions are attempting to use the Wild Shape to turn somebody into something that isn't a natural beast.
Bears are natural beasts IDK what you mean. Bear with Natural Armor are also natural beasts. maybe even more natural, since we added natural armor.
You do know that's why I think this whole convo is extra funny right? The whole counterarguement is that animals, beasts, can't keep the tortle's AC because [whatever]. But their entire argument fails on its face because beasts DO HAVE natural armor. Like, literally called natural armor.
eg Bears:
Armor Class 11 (natural armor)
And the tortle AC is from a feature called Natural Armor. They defacto have natural armor as a racial trait. Their natural armor trait is giving them AC17. And we KNOW with ABSOLUTE certainty bears and etc are "physically capable" of having natural armor because they're listed in their stat blocks as HAVING natural armor.
Like the whole convo is silly. Your argument when I hear it: "It is unnatural for them to keep their natural armor because naturally they only have natural armor and if they keep their natural armor they're not natural anymore"
Well, you are abstracting "natural armor" a level too far, in my, and other's opinion. A tortle does not just have natural armor, they have natural armor because of their shell. A bear has a thick hide (= AC 11) and no shell. So, they are not spontaneously growing a shell, that gives splint mail like armor.
1) Game statistics are replaced by those of the beast
2) You retain the benefit of features IF the new form is physically capable of doing so.
The druid does NOT have the option of changing into a bear with hands to manipulate things. This is NOT part of the bear form and is called out explicitly as an example of something the druid could not do.
Has someone suggested bears should have human hands to you? Did you think I suggested this?? Who are you even arguing with???
Because you are somehow suggesting that a bear could keep the tortle's shell after the transformation!!!
Where in the Natural Armor entry does it suggest they have human hands???? This feels like a total red herring. (Also a creature a druid cannot shape into until level 4+.)
You cannot keep human hands while wild shaped according to the rules of 5e, and I'm fairly sure you're unlikely to find a DM who'll say otherwise. Unless they're willing to dive well and truly off the deep end of homebrew. But you're welcome to try.
Both suggestions are attempting to use the Wild Shape to turn somebody into something that isn't a natural beast.
Bears are natural beasts IDK what you mean. Bear with Natural Armor are also natural beasts. maybe even more natural, since we added natural armor.
You do know that's why I think this whole convo is extra funny right? The whole counterarguement is that animals, beasts, can't keep the tortle's AC because [whatever]. But their entire argument fails on its face because beasts DO HAVE natural armor. Like, literally called natural armor.
eg Bears:
Armor Class 11 (natural armor)
And the tortle AC is from a feature called Natural Armor. They defacto have natural armor as a racial trait. Their natural armor trait is giving them AC17. And we KNOW with ABSOLUTE certainty bears and etc are "physically capable" of having natural armor because they're listed in their stat blocks as HAVING natural armor.
Like the whole convo is silly. Your argument when I hear it: "It is unnatural for them to keep their natural armor because naturally they only have natural armor and if they keep their natural armor they're not natural anymore"
The text for the Tortle natural armor is the following:
"Natural Armor.Due to your shell and the shape of your body, you are ill-suited to wearing armor. Your shell provides ample protection, however; it gives you a base AC of 17 (your Dexterity modifier doesn't affect this number). You gain no benefit from wearing armor, but if you are using a shield, you can apply the shield's bonus as normal."
The Natural Armor feature is EXPLICITLY stated to be due to the shell AND the shape of the body. Unless a bear in your game can also have a shell and reshape their body into something looking like a Tortle while STILL being a bear then the Natural Armor feature of a Tortle should not apply because a bear has neither the shape nor shell of a tortle.
You run it how you like, but the only way that the Tortle natural armor feature can apply when the Tortle is in the form of the bear is if the bear has both a shell and the shape of a Tortle.
"You retain the benefit of features IF the new form is physically capable of doing so."
In games I run, bears do NOT have a shell and do NOT take the shape of a Tortle and so the Tortle natural armor feature does NOT apply for a Tortle wildshaped into a bear.
If you want to abstract the natural armor feature and IGNORE the text stating why the creature has that natural armor then go for it but I would disagree.
P.S. Would you allow the tortle wildshaped into a bear to keep the following feature?
"Shell Defense. You can withdraw into your shell as an action. Until you emerge, you gain a +4 bonus to AC, and you have advantage on Strength and Constitution saving throws. While in your shell, you are prone, your speed is 0 and can't increase, you have disadvantage on Dexterity saving throws, you can't take reactions, and the only action you can take is a bonus action to emerge from your shell."
If you are allowing them to keep the natural armor due to the shell then presumably the bear in your game HAS a shell so the tortle can also use their shell defense ability while wild shaped into a bear?
P.P.S. The point about the hands was pretty simple - if you are going to let a bear have a shell so it can retain a natural armor feature then why not hands? If the druid can dictate the appendages/shell/wings of the creature they change into so that their racial features can continue to work then why not keep hands too? Or vocal chords for that matter? The POINT is that no, a druid wildshape can not have hands, nor vocal chords, nor a shell, nor wings unless the beast shape they assume already has these features. A racial feature of the druid that relies on the physical nature of their body can not be transferred to the wild shapes they assume.
P.P.P.S. IF the druid racial feature said "Natural Armor: 17 due to magic" or "Natural Armor: 17" without giving a reason THEN a DM or player could probably say yes that feature could transfer to a wildshape since no explicit dependence on the physical form of the creature is specified. It could be magic. I could be some defensive field radiated by the creature. It could be a supernatural ability to dodge things. Any of these explanations for a natural AC COULD transfer to a wild shape because they are not dependent on the physical form of the creature. However, the tortle natural armor is explicitly stated as due to the shell and shape of their body. Similarly, the entry for Lizardfolk Natural Armor is
"Natural Armor
You have tough, scaly skin. When you aren’t wearing armor, your base AC is 13 + your Dexterity modifier."
A bear does not have tough scaly skin, it has fur, so a Lizardfolk druid could NOT use their natural armor when transformed into a bear.
P.P.P.S. IF the druid racial feature said "Natural Armor: 17 due to magic" or "Natural Armor: 17" without giving a reason THEN a DM or player could probably say yes that feature could transfer to a wildshape since no explicit dependence on the physical form of the creature is specified.
I'm afraid it isn't up to you what a DM can or cannot do in his game. It really doesn't matter how much or often you insist otherwise either. It is perfectly RAW to allow a druid to keep their racial traits.
P.P.P.S. IF the druid racial feature said "Natural Armor: 17 due to magic" or "Natural Armor: 17" without giving a reason THEN a DM or player could probably say yes that feature could transfer to a wildshape since no explicit dependence on the physical form of the creature is specified.
I'm afraid it isn't up to you what a DM can or cannot do in his game. It really doesn't matter how much or often you insist otherwise either. It is perfectly RAW to allow a druid to keep their racial traits.
Everyone knows, that the DM can do whatever they want. That is, however, nothing one needs to discuss publicly. With that argument we can remove the rules forum and stop discussing about rules at all.
P.P.P.S. IF the druid racial feature said "Natural Armor: 17 due to magic" or "Natural Armor: 17" without giving a reason THEN a DM or player could probably say yes that feature could transfer to a wildshape since no explicit dependence on the physical form of the creature is specified.
I'm afraid it isn't up to you what a DM can or cannot do in his game. It really doesn't matter how much or often you insist otherwise either. It is perfectly RAW to allow a druid to keep their racial traits.
Everyone knows, that the DM can do whatever they want. That is, however, nothing one needs to discuss publicly. With that argument we can remove the rules forum and stop discussing about rules at all.
In the context of following the RAW, the DM decides if your new chosen form is physically capable of keeping a trait or not. You don't get to decide for all DMs. David42 doesn't get to decide for all DMs. It needs to be said because people keep trying to decide for all DMs.
The comment I replied to said "THEN a DM or player could probably say yes" like he gets to decide what's ok for DMs to say.
P.P.P.S. IF the druid racial feature said "Natural Armor: 17 due to magic" or "Natural Armor: 17" without giving a reason THEN a DM or player could probably say yes that feature could transfer to a wildshape since no explicit dependence on the physical form of the creature is specified.
I'm afraid it isn't up to you what a DM can or cannot do in his game. It really doesn't matter how much or often you insist otherwise either. It is perfectly RAW to allow a druid to keep their racial traits.
Everyone knows, that the DM can do whatever they want. That is, however, nothing one needs to discuss publicly. With that argument we can remove the rules forum and stop discussing about rules at all.
In the context of following the RAW, the DM decides if your new chosen form is physically capable of keeping a trait or not. You don't get to decide for all DMs. David42 doesn't get to decide for all DMs. It needs to be said because people keep trying to decide for all DMs.
The comment I replied to said "THEN a DM or player could probably say yes" like he gets to decide what's ok for DMs to say.
Hey.I stated several times that a DM is welcome to do whatever they wish to do in their own game. That is the point. The only discussion going on here is Rules As Written. Period.
The rules for wildshape say that a druid ONLY keeps racial/class etc traits which the new form is physically capable of.
The rules for Tortle natural armor state that the 17 AC is due to their shell and the shape of their body.
THOSE are the rules. Nothing more and nothing less.
Does a bear in my game have a shell and the shape of a tortle which would justify the bear being physically capable of having the natural armor racial trait while wildshaped. No. Because bears are in the monster manual. The bears stats are listed. The bears description does not contain a shell or shape of a tortle. Thus, in my opinion, a bear is not physically capable of replicating the tortle natural armor feature since it does not come with a shell, RAW.
However, in your world, you are welcome to allow the bears to have shells if the Tortle changes into a bear. Its your game, you do you. However, please don't tell me that it is RAW, that the rules state that YES a tortle can have their 17 natural armor, which is stated by the rules to be due to the shell. If bears in your world have shells then that is your world and the trait would work fine. If you just want to decide in your world that all traits of any kind, wings, shells, scaly skin whatever can be used in wildshape then that is also fine, its your game.
Nothing, I have said prevents you from doing what you want and nothing I have said prevents any other DM from doing whatever they like. I am not saying there is one way to play. I am saying that Rules as Written, the only druid traits that transfer (RAW) are the ones the form is physically capable of - that is all. That is what the rules say, not what I am saying.
Of course, the druid would have to have seen a "boar with aarokocran wings" before they can turn into that beast.
Or have seen a "boar with a shell" for the other example.
Nonesense. They just turn into a beast they have seen before, and also keep their racial traits. No rocket surgery required here.
Youre getting mighty hung up on the shell or wings. Most people get hung up about the ASI they should get to keep in their new beast forms, since beasts are physically capable of getting more strength/dex/con and ASI are race and class features.
I got quotes!
So if they are just turning into a regular beast that doesn't have a fly speed, but then keeping their fly speed, the rules restricting what movement the beasts have don't apply. Right? That rule only applies to the beast's statistics not the PC's, those rules are listed separately.
ASIs are a more valid argument. All beast have ability scores, not all beast have turtle shells. The RAW says they can use the traits and features they have the anatomy to use. Until now, no one has made a serious argument that wildshapes should get to keep a tortle's shell AC.
You keep asking me the same question. No. No flying boars til 8th. IDK what answer you want from me but that's the answer. Can't fly form until 8th. The wildshape rules say this very clearly. You know it, I know it, that's really the answer.
k
Lol y not? If someone wants to do it why not: Its hilarious. We clearly play the game for different reasons.
Here you go misquoting the rules again. Wordsearch phb druid entry "anatomy" 0 result. Oh no!
If we're concerned with the rules. I know I am. But if we are, then really you gotta read what it 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."
I rule a bear is physically capable of of having Natural Armor. So they can in my games.
You rule bears cannot have Natural Armor, for some reason. That's a choice you can make if you're a DM. Congrats.
I have. You're replying to such an argument. Wild.
I got quotes!
They keep their physical traits "if the new form is physically capable of doing so" - so a boar is just a boar, it won't have the shell of a tortle that provides the extra abilities from the base race.
We have Owlbears so would be neat to have an Turtlebear, but I agree if you turn into a boar or bear those forms do not have shells or wings so you lose that.
Some put more emphasis on the “retaining traits” while others on “if the new form is physically capable”
And a DM can call it however they like, but I would call it as no wings or shell
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
I think it is up to the DM on whether or not the player would be able to keep their shell while Wild Shapes. Personally, I keep changing my opinion on whether or not I’d allow this, so honestly, IDK what I’d do of this came up in my game.
With for the wings… I also keep changing my mind LOL, but RAW, if you think the animal could of have wings and the animal isn’t too heavy to fly with them, then they should be able to keep those wings and be able to fly with them as long as they’re a level 8+ Druid.
Anyways, I keep saying this but no one responds: you can have a flying angel boar by level 3 with some types of Aasimar Druids.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.I think no one responds because we all agree with it.
I got quotes!
Umm no?
The rules explicitly state the following:
"While you are transformed, the following rules apply:
1) Game statistics are replaced by those of the beast
2) You retain the benefit of features IF the new form is physically capable of doing so.
The druid does NOT have the option of changing into a bear with hands to manipulate things. This is NOT part of the bear form and is called out explicitly as an example of something the druid could not do.
Everything is up to the DM of course. BUT, allowing the druid to change the form of the beast to include physical capabilities of the natural form that are required for their racial features (a shell on a boar for a tortle for example, adding Aarakokra wings to boar - NOTE: although flying beasts are restricted to level 8+, by your reasoning, Aarakokra flight is a racial ability that has nothing to do with the beast that the druid transforms into - if a tortle druid can add a shell to the boar there is no reason I can see why YOU would prevent an aarakokra using their racial trait of flight? In addition, again by your reasoning, after level 8 an Aarakokra moon druid could put wings on their giant scorpion form so that they could transfer their racial ability to fly).
However, if the druid can transfer a shell or wings to the beast so that they can use racial traits that are dependent on the physical form of the creature, then why not let them transfer the eyes too?? They have racial darkvision, why shouldn't the beast get that too? Oh - because the rules specifically rule out senses and other racial features that rely on the physical form.
Finally, it says that the druids physical characteristics and stat block are replaced by those of the beast. This means to me that the druid assumes the form of the beast as listed in the monster manual, if that form lacks a swim speed, lacks the amphibian trait, lacks wings, lacks a shell, lacks darkvision then ANY racial feature of the druid allowing swimming, breathing underwater, flying, hiding in a shell or seeing in the dark - do NOT work in beast form because the beast form lacks the physical capabilities required for these features.
Anyway, you run it how you like but the rules are pretty clear that only racial/class features/traits that the new physical form of the wildshaped beast form is capable of transfer over.
Yes you can. This is because the Aasimar racial feature that allows it to fly does not depend on the physical form that the Aasimar has assumed while flight provided by wings as in the case of the Aarakokra or hiding in a shell as in a Tortle are features that are directly tied to physical aspects of the racial form of the creature and these do not transfer over when a druid assumes a new form via wildshape.
Logically, not keeping natural AC is what makes sense when looking at other things you don't keep. That being said, the clause saying game statistics change comes in direct conflict with the one saying you keep racial features. While I guess "game statistics" and racial "features" can be viewed as very different things, I could not find a clear distinction between the two that is explained in the PHB, meaning that any difference as clear as you seem to make it out to be. I also think it is worth noting that AC is not mentioned in any of the above examples on whether or not it is kept.
So well RAI I think you're right, RAW doesn't seem as clear.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.Has someone suggested bears should have human hands to you? Did you think I suggested this?? Who are you even arguing with???
I don't know what you're saying here exactly, it is a little hard to follow. But... Yes, it is up to the DM what racial and class features you are physically capable of retaining.
I'm firmly in the camp that "Natural Armor" is something any beast is physically capable of having.
Wildshape answers this question. Yes. It specifically and explicitly tells us not to allow special senses.
Ok. If you're DMing any call you make is the right call.
Yes, that is clear. And, to me, it is clear that Natural Armor is such a trait that the new form is physically capable of retaining.
I got quotes!
Because you are somehow suggesting that a bear could keep the tortle's shell after the transformation!!!
(Three "!" as counterpoint to your three "?" )
Both suggestions are attempting to use the Wild Shape to turn somebody into something that isn't a natural beast.
Where in the Natural Armor entry does it suggest they have human hands???? This feels like a total red herring. (Also a creature a druid cannot shape into until level 4+.)
You cannot keep human hands while wild shaped according to the rules of 5e, and I'm fairly sure you're unlikely to find a DM who'll say otherwise. Unless they're willing to dive well and truly off the deep end of homebrew. But you're welcome to try.
Bears are natural beasts IDK what you mean. Bear with Natural Armor are also natural beasts. maybe even more natural, since we added natural armor.
You do know that's why I think this whole convo is extra funny right? The whole counterarguement is that animals, beasts, can't keep the tortle's AC because [whatever]. But their entire argument fails on its face because beasts DO HAVE natural armor. Like, literally called natural armor.
eg Bears:
I got quotes!
Well, you are abstracting "natural armor" a level too far, in my, and other's opinion. A tortle does not just have natural armor, they have natural armor because of their shell. A bear has a thick hide (= AC 11) and no shell. So, they are not spontaneously growing a shell, that gives splint mail like armor.
The text for the Tortle natural armor is the following:
"Natural Armor. Due to your shell and the shape of your body, you are ill-suited to wearing armor. Your shell provides ample protection, however; it gives you a base AC of 17 (your Dexterity modifier doesn't affect this number). You gain no benefit from wearing armor, but if you are using a shield, you can apply the shield's bonus as normal."
The Natural Armor feature is EXPLICITLY stated to be due to the shell AND the shape of the body. Unless a bear in your game can also have a shell and reshape their body into something looking like a Tortle while STILL being a bear then the Natural Armor feature of a Tortle should not apply because a bear has neither the shape nor shell of a tortle.
You run it how you like, but the only way that the Tortle natural armor feature can apply when the Tortle is in the form of the bear is if the bear has both a shell and the shape of a Tortle.
"You retain the benefit of features IF the new form is physically capable of doing so."
In games I run, bears do NOT have a shell and do NOT take the shape of a Tortle and so the Tortle natural armor feature does NOT apply for a Tortle wildshaped into a bear.
If you want to abstract the natural armor feature and IGNORE the text stating why the creature has that natural armor then go for it but I would disagree.
P.S. Would you allow the tortle wildshaped into a bear to keep the following feature?
"Shell Defense. You can withdraw into your shell as an action. Until you emerge, you gain a +4 bonus to AC, and you have advantage on Strength and Constitution saving throws. While in your shell, you are prone, your speed is 0 and can't increase, you have disadvantage on Dexterity saving throws, you can't take reactions, and the only action you can take is a bonus action to emerge from your shell."
If you are allowing them to keep the natural armor due to the shell then presumably the bear in your game HAS a shell so the tortle can also use their shell defense ability while wild shaped into a bear?
P.P.S. The point about the hands was pretty simple - if you are going to let a bear have a shell so it can retain a natural armor feature then why not hands? If the druid can dictate the appendages/shell/wings of the creature they change into so that their racial features can continue to work then why not keep hands too? Or vocal chords for that matter? The POINT is that no, a druid wildshape can not have hands, nor vocal chords, nor a shell, nor wings unless the beast shape they assume already has these features. A racial feature of the druid that relies on the physical nature of their body can not be transferred to the wild shapes they assume.
P.P.P.S. IF the druid racial feature said "Natural Armor: 17 due to magic" or "Natural Armor: 17" without giving a reason THEN a DM or player could probably say yes that feature could transfer to a wildshape since no explicit dependence on the physical form of the creature is specified. It could be magic. I could be some defensive field radiated by the creature. It could be a supernatural ability to dodge things. Any of these explanations for a natural AC COULD transfer to a wild shape because they are not dependent on the physical form of the creature. However, the tortle natural armor is explicitly stated as due to the shell and shape of their body. Similarly, the entry for Lizardfolk Natural Armor is
"Natural Armor
You have tough, scaly skin. When you aren’t wearing armor, your base AC is 13 + your Dexterity modifier."
A bear does not have tough scaly skin, it has fur, so a Lizardfolk druid could NOT use their natural armor when transformed into a bear.
I'm afraid it isn't up to you what a DM can or cannot do in his game. It really doesn't matter how much or often you insist otherwise either. It is perfectly RAW to allow a druid to keep their racial traits.
I got quotes!
Everyone knows, that the DM can do whatever they want. That is, however, nothing one needs to discuss publicly. With that argument we can remove the rules forum and stop discussing about rules at all.
In the context of following the RAW, the DM decides if your new chosen form is physically capable of keeping a trait or not. You don't get to decide for all DMs. David42 doesn't get to decide for all DMs. It needs to be said because people keep trying to decide for all DMs.
The comment I replied to said "THEN a DM or player could probably say yes" like he gets to decide what's ok for DMs to say.
I got quotes!
Hey.I stated several times that a DM is welcome to do whatever they wish to do in their own game. That is the point. The only discussion going on here is Rules As Written. Period.
The rules for wildshape say that a druid ONLY keeps racial/class etc traits which the new form is physically capable of.
The rules for Tortle natural armor state that the 17 AC is due to their shell and the shape of their body.
THOSE are the rules. Nothing more and nothing less.
Does a bear in my game have a shell and the shape of a tortle which would justify the bear being physically capable of having the natural armor racial trait while wildshaped. No. Because bears are in the monster manual. The bears stats are listed. The bears description does not contain a shell or shape of a tortle. Thus, in my opinion, a bear is not physically capable of replicating the tortle natural armor feature since it does not come with a shell, RAW.
However, in your world, you are welcome to allow the bears to have shells if the Tortle changes into a bear. Its your game, you do you. However, please don't tell me that it is RAW, that the rules state that YES a tortle can have their 17 natural armor, which is stated by the rules to be due to the shell. If bears in your world have shells then that is your world and the trait would work fine. If you just want to decide in your world that all traits of any kind, wings, shells, scaly skin whatever can be used in wildshape then that is also fine, its your game.
Nothing, I have said prevents you from doing what you want and nothing I have said prevents any other DM from doing whatever they like. I am not saying there is one way to play. I am saying that Rules as Written, the only druid traits that transfer (RAW) are the ones the form is physically capable of - that is all. That is what the rules say, not what I am saying.