Sure, rules change, people disagree, and DMs are within their rights to defenestrate any rule and/or opinion they don't want at their table, and so on. I've disagreed with the official ruling once or twice myself :p
But his "official status" isn't under question, really. If anything, rule changes in books/supplements that made previous rulings obsolete were likely overviewed by him. He is the lead rules designer of 5th edition, after all.
well then they know that wild shape is a source of a lot of question so they should address it officially in a the SAC . because they need to get together and make the ruling then put it in the book . a tweet cant be the source . not cool bro .
well then they know that wild shape is a source of a lot of question so they should address it officially in a the SAC . because they need to get together and make the ruling then put it in the book . a tweet cant be the source . not cool bro .
I actually did in my quick reading earlier miss that it says you retain class and race features as well. (Why it can't just have everything you retain in one spot, I'll never know.) And herein lies the confusion. As I understand it, you are playing a Dragonborn Druid? I think the resistances are the easy ones to explain away, as you gain those because of the dragonborn scales. (Well at least I'm assuming that is why you have resistance to the specific damage type of the dragon that you are). So it probably makes most sense that the creature you turn into is not physically capable of providing that resistance. The question then comes to whether or not the creature is physically capable of the breath weapon, which I would still say no, as it doesn't have the normal means to produce the flames like your dragonborn physic has. Presumably you must turn into the specific animal and therefore I'd argue that that animal isn't physically capable of such actions.
This is probably one of those places where 5th edition probably should have gone with you keeping none of the race and class features, rather than making it a DM interpretive issue by saying "physically capable of." There isn't any real way to put this into the game as you can't list every class feature. At best they could offer examples. The only real way to do it is to remove the ability to keep race and class features completely.
The resistances are kind of a big thing, while the breath weapon is probably not going to matter much. You can just use it before you wildshape and there shouldn't be any problem. I don't know what the best solution here is. I mean at one end you can say go with Crawford because he is the lead rules guy, or you could say go with Mearls because he is Crawford's boss and the absolute final decision maker.
I think Crawford looks at the book and goes "well there isn't a rule prohibiting this so its good" whereas Mearls has a tendancy to look at the book and go "well there isn't any way this would reasonably work, therefore it doesn't".
So for me you dont' keep the resistances because you literally changed the entire makeup of your body, so it doesn't make sense you would have them. Likewise the breath weapon requires some internal organ/mechanism that you shapechanged away, and hence why I would say you wouldn't keep it.
So I think something like the Tabaxi's feline agility would be something you could keep. (even that you could probably argue that you no longer have the muscle capabilities or agility to do that). So I would agree with you that the lack of clarification within the rules is bad and examples would be very welcomed.
I see no compelling reason to go with Crawford. It doesn't make sense that a bear still has the "physical" ability to produce a breath weapon. I mean is the bear storing acid in its somehow protected bear glands?
I mean if you or Crawford can tell me how a bear can physically produce flame, acid, lightening etc. then maybe I'll re-think it.
its not really magical . 1) nothing in the breath weapon says its magical . 2) its similar to a dragon breath . minus the recharge (really mad about that) . "and no dark vision geee" . 3) the feat elemental affinity doesnt work with the dragonbreath .
You are right, it doen't say it is magical. Regardless, it is a race feature that does not involve any particular physical aspects of the dragonborn other than breathing. Indeed from the Wild Shape:
You retain the benefit of any features from your class, race, or other source and can use them if the new form is physically capable of doing so.
Therefore, for common beasts (Wolf, Blood Hawk...) I would say that the ruling allows the breath weapon in wild shape. One can say that it does not work for acquatic beasts like Giant Shark. In that case, the beast has a different means of "breathing".
The dragonborn breath weapon is not something associate with a physical organ. It is a magical ability.
So it magically appears out of nowhere when the dragonborn used it?
Without being a magical ability it would have to logically be tied to an organ of some kind. It's not possible for a dragonborn to non magically spontaneously produce a breath of fire that comes from nowhere.
Given that Crawford has been overruled in future errata/products it would seem that his "official" status is questionable at best. So he might be in charge of sage advice, but it seems he isn't really in charge of what the rules will state in future printings or products.
As an example, the PHB now requires sleep to be part of a long rest, whereas his statement was that it wasn't required.
Until they actually release an errata to phb or to the SRD I am not going to give much credence to the requiring sleep for a long rest as it would invalidate the fact all creatures can rest (including those incapable of sleep).
As for why they didn't include prof bonus? Probably because including it would cause more confusion than not. For example if goblin said proficiency 2, and listed their attack bonus in their melee attack, many new DMs would add 2 on top of whatever was already included.
Given that Crawford has been overruled in future errata/products it would seem that his "official" status is questionable at best. So he might be in charge of sage advice, but it seems he isn't really in charge of what the rules will state in future printings or products.
As an example, the PHB now requires sleep to be part of a long rest, whereas his statement was that it wasn't required.
Until they actually release an errata to phb or to the SRD I am not going to give much credence to the requiring sleep for a long rest as it would invalidate the fact all creatures can rest (including those incapable of sleep).
As for why they didn't include prof bonus? Probably because including it would cause more confusion than not. For example if goblin said proficiency 2, and listed their attack bonus in their melee attack, many new DMs would add 2 on top of whatever was already included.
It is in the players handbook as of the most recent printing. It wasn't included in the errata apparently because according to Crawford it wasn't a substantial change. Which is even sillier considering he posted a sage advice indicating the opposite and therefore would think it was a big deal. From what I understand it is suppose to be included in the errata in a future release.
As for why they didn't include prof bonus? Probably because including it would cause more confusion than not. For example if goblin said proficiency 2, and listed their attack bonus in their melee attack, many new DMs would add 2 on top of whatever was already included.
1) what I was saing that I want the NPC sheet to be reworked for all abilities and such . for ex: next to the attack 4(str)+2(prf) . or for abilities that require saving throws . 8 + 2(str) +2(prf) . things like that would make since and works fine .
2) its not just for the druid its also important for the ranger . if a ranger have a wolf or a panther companion he need to know what abilities uses proficiency to raise it up when the time comes up .
3) dont look down on new DMs we catch up quickly mate :D
About point number two, as I mentioned in my first post, finding which trait includes proficiency is easy. Those that are mentioned have it. You'll notice that all monsters have all six ability scores, but not all mention skills and saves, right? Those that do are proficient in those skills/saves, so it's pretty easy to see at a glance. This is explained in page 8 of the Monster Manual.
At the same page there is a table with the monster's proficiency bonus per CR, to deconstruct an animal companion if you need to - you generally only need to do this scarcely, however, so I can see why it isn't on each monster's entry.
Also, since skills are always ability modifier + prof. bonus and every monster block has the ability modifiers, you only need to subtract the ability modifier to find out what the monsters proficiency bonus is. So if a skill isn't mentioned, the prof bonus is 0, when it is mentioned, you just have to subtract the ability modifier to get the prof. bonus.
DCs are 8 + ability modifier + prof, so the prof bonus = DC - 8 - ability modifier. A little math, but easy to do in the few times you need to be able to do it. The CR table might be a little more confusing since it doesn't account for "expertise". Whereas subtracting the ability modifier will always give you the monsters proficiency bonus (included its expertise in the calculation).
However, I'm not sure there is ever a need to do this, because you either use yours or the monsters, whichever is higher. I'm not really sure when you would need to break down the individual parts. You may however need to add the monsters str. to your prof. bonus and see which is higher though. But that is included in the stat block.
Whelm (Recharge 4–6). Each creature in the elemental's space must make a DC 15 Strength saving throw. ( here it uses the creature proficiency where I would use mine ) ..... If it is Large or smaller, it is also grappled (escape DC 14). (here it uses the passive check 10 + str) see it make a deffrance there are creatures who uses half there proficiency for a special attack . or another wierd calculation : ex : Mammoth has a str of 24(+7) its Trampling Charge. has a DC 18 str save throw .... that would be 8 + prof (3) + str (7) ?? Elephant has str 22(+6) its Trampling Charge. has a DC 12 str save throw .... the only one that make sense is if that would be 8 + half prof (1) + con(3) ?? Triceratops has a str of 22(+6) but its Trampling Charge. has a DC 13 str save throw .... how did that come about ?? Saber-Toothed Tiger has str 18(+4) has Bite.Melee Weapon Attack: +6 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target. Hit: 10 (1d10 + 5) piercing damage. Claw.Melee Weapon Attack: +6 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target. Hit: 12 (2d6 + 5) slashing damage. that would make sense if its : A uses half its prof to add to the damage str(4)+half prof(1) or B its "weapons" are considered +1 to damage roll only.
stuff like this is Important and its not confusing once you learn them but its confusing if you hid them . I think its really important for players (Specially rangers if there animals are proficient in special attack it would go up every time the ranger prof get up) and the DMs if they want to understand how monsters work more to create or raise or lower a monster CR for example .
maybe I am just over reacting but its something I wish WOTC to address . because the DM creating a monster sections isnt really the most helpful tool ... sorry "Shrugs".
again for example some creatures are all over the place . we can do the work sometimes but most of the time its confusing and missmatchy and inconsistent . its just a gripe and I wish it get addressed in later editions thats all .
Whelm (Recharge 4–6). Each creature in the elemental's space must make a DC 15 Strength saving throw. ( here it uses the creature proficiency where I would use mine ) ..... If it is Large or smaller, it is also grappled (escape DC 14). (here it uses the passive check 10 + str) see it make a deffrance there are creatures who uses half there proficiency for a special attack . or another wierd calculation : ex : Mammoth has a str of 24(+7) its Trampling Charge. has a DC 18 str save throw .... that would be 8 + prof (3) + str (7) ?? Elephant has str 22(+6) its Trampling Charge. has a DC 12 str save throw .... the only one that make sense is if that would be 8 + half prof (1) + con(3) ?? Triceratops has a str of 22(+6) but its Trampling Charge. has a DC 13 str save throw .... how did that come about ?? Saber-Toothed Tiger has str 18(+4) has Bite.Melee Weapon Attack: +6 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target. Hit: 10 (1d10 + 5) piercing damage. Claw.Melee Weapon Attack: +6 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target. Hit: 12 (2d6 + 5) slashing damage. that would make sense if its : A uses half its prof to add to the damage str(4)+half prof(1) or B its "weapons" are considered +1 to damage roll only.
stuff like this is Important and its not confusing once you learn them but its confusing if you hid them . I think its really important for players (Specially rangers if there animals are proficient in special attack it would go up every time the ranger prof get up) and the DMs if they want to understand how monsters work more to create or raise or lower a monster CR for example .
maybe I am just over reacting but its something I wish WOTC to address . because the DM creating a monster sections isnt really the most helpful tool ... sorry "Shrugs".
again for example some creatures are all over the place . we can do the work sometimes but most of the time its confusing and missmatchy and inconsistent . its just a gripe and I wish it get addressed in later editions thats all .
Why don't we make this easy. Post the beast/monster/elemental that is giving you trouble, and we will see if we can help you out. Also, if you could, try to explain to us why you need to know the breakdown for this particular beast/etc.
Also of note, most likely if it requires the PC to make a Strength Saving throw, that is a good indication the relevant ability is strength. Same for other DCs found in the beast stat block. This only really changes with spells, as that uses the spellcaster's casting ability.
again its about the NPC sheet format . for all player . for all DMs . instead of making the calculations hidden . make it clear and show it . what would happen ? nothing but good stuff . its more of a request to the WotC .
So basically you want them to provide the numbers that you don't really need and could easily get because you would like to see the numbers, but don't want to make a single mathematical calculation to arrive at those numbers, that you actually don't need in the first place.
Really not sure what the point in doing that would be other than to clutter up the monster stat block with stuff you don't really need.
If you still need help in figuring out how to derive the numbers, I would be glad to try to help you with any monster you want to use as the base. Otherwise, I'm not sure how beneficial it is going to be, as it isn't likely WotC is going to change the stat block this late into the game.
The dragonborn breath weapon is not something associate with a physical organ. It is a magical ability.
So it magically appears out of nowhere when the dragonborn used it?
Without being a magical ability it would have to logically be tied to an organ of some kind. It's not possible for a dragonborn to non magically spontaneously produce a breath of fire that comes from nowhere.
There's no organ responsible for any of a lycanthrope's traits. If you hit a werewolf with a mace, nothing happens; if a rock falls on it, it gets hurt.
There's also no organ responsible for an elf's immunity to ghoul paralysis; they're immune because the elf gods willed it (see the Monster Manual entry on Ghouls.)
A monk can knock a Tarrasque down using the power of ki, something that also isn't magic for rules purposes.
D&D is full of things that are supernatural and defy the laws of physics despite not being a concentrated magical effect that can be dispelled or suppressed. A dragonborn's breath weapon is tied to its true dragon ancestry, and true dragons are definitely magical. From the Monster Manual:
True dragons are winged reptiles of ancient lineage and fearsome power. They are known and feared for their predatory cunning and greed, with the oldest dragons accounted as some of the most powerful creatures in the world. Dragons are also magical creatures whose innate power fuels their dreaded breath weapons and other preternatural abilities.
Sure, rules change, people disagree, and DMs are within their rights to defenestrate any rule and/or opinion they don't want at their table, and so on. I've disagreed with the official ruling once or twice myself :p
But his "official status" isn't under question, really. If anything, rule changes in books/supplements that made previous rulings obsolete were likely overviewed by him. He is the lead rules designer of 5th edition, after all.
well then they know that wild shape is a source of a lot of question so they should address it officially in a the SAC .
because they need to get together and make the ruling then put it in the book . a tweet cant be the source . not cool bro .
Lead designer of: Druid Wild Shape Revised, Druid: Circle of Monstrosity (Homebrew class), Revised Classes : Focus on level 20.
Homebrewer of: Halwasa`s Mushrooms of fluid movement (Item), Giraffe (Beast), Displacer Panther (Beast) (heavily modified Displacer Beast that is owned by WoC), Lightning whip (2nd-level Spell), Lesser Shapechange (5th-level Spell), Investiture of Lightning (6th-level Spell), Touched by the magic (Feat).
I would suggest to follow Crawford. He is the game developer, he designed the rules. And even hie tweets explain the rules as intended.
But in the end, even if a rule is not that clear, go with your feeling, with a good trade-off between fairness and entertainment.
I see no compelling reason to go with Crawford. It doesn't make sense that a bear still has the "physical" ability to produce a breath weapon. I mean is the bear storing acid in its somehow protected bear glands?
I mean if you or Crawford can tell me how a bear can physically produce flame, acid, lightening etc. then maybe I'll re-think it.
The dragonborn breath weapon is not something associate with a physical organ. It is a magical ability.
its not really magical .
1) nothing in the breath weapon says its magical .
2) its similar to a dragon breath . minus the recharge (really mad about that) . "and no dark vision geee" .
3) the feat elemental affinity doesnt work with the dragonbreath .
Lead designer of: Druid Wild Shape Revised, Druid: Circle of Monstrosity (Homebrew class), Revised Classes : Focus on level 20.
Homebrewer of: Halwasa`s Mushrooms of fluid movement (Item), Giraffe (Beast), Displacer Panther (Beast) (heavily modified Displacer Beast that is owned by WoC), Lightning whip (2nd-level Spell), Lesser Shapechange (5th-level Spell), Investiture of Lightning (6th-level Spell), Touched by the magic (Feat).
You are right, it doen't say it is magical. Regardless, it is a race feature that does not involve any particular physical aspects of the dragonborn other than breathing. Indeed from the Wild Shape:
Therefore, for common beasts (Wolf, Blood Hawk...) I would say that the ruling allows the breath weapon in wild shape. One can say that it does not work for acquatic beasts like Giant Shark. In that case, the beast has a different means of "breathing".
It doesn't have a recharge to keep it in line with other racial features for other classes. At least it does return after a short rest.
Lead designer of: Druid Wild Shape Revised, Druid: Circle of Monstrosity (Homebrew class), Revised Classes : Focus on level 20.
Homebrewer of: Halwasa`s Mushrooms of fluid movement (Item), Giraffe (Beast), Displacer Panther (Beast) (heavily modified Displacer Beast that is owned by WoC), Lightning whip (2nd-level Spell), Lesser Shapechange (5th-level Spell), Investiture of Lightning (6th-level Spell), Touched by the magic (Feat).
About point number two, as I mentioned in my first post, finding which trait includes proficiency is easy. Those that are mentioned have it. You'll notice that all monsters have all six ability scores, but not all mention skills and saves, right? Those that do are proficient in those skills/saves, so it's pretty easy to see at a glance. This is explained in page 8 of the Monster Manual.
At the same page there is a table with the monster's proficiency bonus per CR, to deconstruct an animal companion if you need to - you generally only need to do this scarcely, however, so I can see why it isn't on each monster's entry.
Also, since skills are always ability modifier + prof. bonus and every monster block has the ability modifiers, you only need to subtract the ability modifier to find out what the monsters proficiency bonus is. So if a skill isn't mentioned, the prof bonus is 0, when it is mentioned, you just have to subtract the ability modifier to get the prof. bonus.
DCs are 8 + ability modifier + prof, so the prof bonus = DC - 8 - ability modifier. A little math, but easy to do in the few times you need to be able to do it.
The CR table might be a little more confusing since it doesn't account for "expertise". Whereas subtracting the ability modifier will always give you the monsters proficiency bonus (included its expertise in the calculation).
However, I'm not sure there is ever a need to do this, because you either use yours or the monsters, whichever is higher. I'm not really sure when you would need to break down the individual parts. You may however need to add the monsters str. to your prof. bonus and see which is higher though. But that is included in the stat block.
again for example some creatures are all over the place .
we can do the work sometimes but most of the time its confusing and missmatchy and inconsistent .
its just a gripe and I wish it get addressed in later editions thats all .
Lead designer of: Druid Wild Shape Revised, Druid: Circle of Monstrosity (Homebrew class), Revised Classes : Focus on level 20.
Homebrewer of: Halwasa`s Mushrooms of fluid movement (Item), Giraffe (Beast), Displacer Panther (Beast) (heavily modified Displacer Beast that is owned by WoC), Lightning whip (2nd-level Spell), Lesser Shapechange (5th-level Spell), Investiture of Lightning (6th-level Spell), Touched by the magic (Feat).
again its about the NPC sheet format . for all player . for all DMs .
instead of making the calculations hidden . make it clear and show it . what would happen ? nothing but good stuff .
its more of a request to the WotC .
I like my numbers :D
Lead designer of: Druid Wild Shape Revised, Druid: Circle of Monstrosity (Homebrew class), Revised Classes : Focus on level 20.
Homebrewer of: Halwasa`s Mushrooms of fluid movement (Item), Giraffe (Beast), Displacer Panther (Beast) (heavily modified Displacer Beast that is owned by WoC), Lightning whip (2nd-level Spell), Lesser Shapechange (5th-level Spell), Investiture of Lightning (6th-level Spell), Touched by the magic (Feat).
So basically you want them to provide the numbers that you don't really need and could easily get because you would like to see the numbers, but don't want to make a single mathematical calculation to arrive at those numbers, that you actually don't need in the first place.
Really not sure what the point in doing that would be other than to clutter up the monster stat block with stuff you don't really need.
If you still need help in figuring out how to derive the numbers, I would be glad to try to help you with any monster you want to use as the base. Otherwise, I'm not sure how beneficial it is going to be, as it isn't likely WotC is going to change the stat block this late into the game.