“Training” is an RP concept with no real relevance here. I can get multiple +2 ASI in the span of a single week, with enough experience. I can get stronger with a library adventure centered around reading books. I can have 20 strength as a 30 lb kobold, and 8 strength as an 8 foot Minotaur. Increasing strength doesn’t increase my character weight, I don’t have to work out to maintain it, etc...
Its a game system, stop trying to make it a simulation. Your class features apply to your beast, not because it “makes sense” or because they all represent knowledge instead of physical capability... but because the rules tell you they do.
Its a game system, stop trying to make it a simulation. Your class features apply to your beast, not because it “makes sense” or because they all represent knowledge instead of physical capability... but because the rules tell you they do.
And the rules can be read in 2 different ways, one of which "makes sense" and one of which you need to fudge with "it's a game, it doesn't have to make sense".
Its a game system, stop trying to make it a simulation. Your class features apply to your beast, not because it “makes sense” or because they all represent knowledge instead of physical capability... but because the rules tell you they do.
And the rules can be read in 2 different ways, one of which "makes sense" and one of which you need to fudge with "it's a game, it doesn't have to make sense".
The training concept goes back to the early days, when you actually had to take serious down time to level up. It really is better handwaved as 'Magical World Effect' in 5e.
I see no rules which say levelling up is a Magical effect. If there were, I would have less trouble accepting
As I said, to me, it makes more sense for new features granted on levelling to be a gradual buildup which is only able to be represented in a discrete manner by the game rules. So, you have been gradually increasing in strength, or wisdom, for however long it has taken you to reach an ASI. However, at that point, it tips over to be enough to be represented in game as an actual increase.
I think of it as: It has taken 3 weeks to gain 3 levels and reach level 4, gaining you an ASI, where you increase your Str by 2, and gain an extra +1 modifier. Over that time, you have actually been gaining a +1/3 modifier per level up (1/3 per week, 1/21 per day ish), but that's rounded down and has no effect until you hit the ASI. When you reach 4th level, that has tipped over to 1, so you can actually get the benefit of it.
That's a lovely theory, none of which is supported in any way whatsoever by rule text. So using your theory to rationalize ignoring other rule text that IS written, I can't get behind that.
That's a lovely theory, none of which is supported in any way whatsoever by rule text. So using your theory to rationalize ignoring other rule text that IS written, I can't get behind that.
Nothing at all in the rules explains how characters level up (in game, not the mechanics of the process), this is the explanation I have in my head. However, there is also nothing in the rules which says it is a Magical effect or anything else which would make it logical that bigger muscles on your body translate to bigger muscles on your wild shape (especially without the rest of the score having an effect).
Again, 2 equally valid interpretations of the written rules, one of which needs "games don't have to make sense" hand waving, and one which makes sense without that and is backed by precedent from SA (regarding the Tough feat) and a tweet from JC. I know which one I'm following as the intended version of RAW.
Note that this is not to say I may not house rule differently at my table. It may be cool to have a rat which is stronger than our halfling bard...
That's a lovely theory, none of which is supported in any way whatsoever by rule text. So using your theory to rationalize ignoring other rule text that IS written, I can't get behind that.
Nothing at all in the rules explains how characters level up (in game, not the mechanics of the process), this is the explanation I have in my head. However, there is also nothing in the rules which says it is a Magical effect or anything else which would make it logical that bigger muscles on your body translate to bigger muscles on your wild shape (especially without the rest of the score having an effect).
Again, 2 equally valid interpretations of the written rules, one of which needs "games don't have to make sense" hand waving, and one which makes sense without that and is backed by precedent from SA (regarding the Tough feat) and a tweet from JC. I know which one I'm following as the intended version of RAW.
Note that this is not to say I may not house rule differently at my table. It may be cool to have a rat which is stronger than our halfling bard...
Occam's Razor was mentioned earlier and my explanation has internal consistency. Yours does not handle a warrior suddenly having a spell book or a ranger suddenly knowing thieves' cant.
And a Rat's natural str is 2, so the druid would need an unlikely amount of ASI's into strength to be as strong as your halfling bard, let alone stronger.
And it still only gets a +0 to attacks, no matter its strength...
I mean, you're inventing stuff that isn't written to read it any other way. We have guidelines on how to construct monsters, but nothing about how to deconstruct monsters, especially ones that deviate from those construction guidelines. A rat has a -4 strength mod, a 0 dex mod, a +2 proficiency bonus (noted in DDB anyway) and somehow a +0 attack mod. If you can divine how that is constructed you are probably better informed than most players, and maybe some of the devs.
Thank you for the vote of confidence, I think about 5E a lot, and I do like to think that I'm better informed than most players and maybe some of the devs! This happens to be one of the subject areas that helps demonstrate that! :)
The Actions presented in a monster's stat block are actions, which I agree, have static modifiers which don't always add up intuitively to reflect their ability score modifiers. But, these Actions also often represent Natural Weapons that the monster possesses, especially when we're looking at Beast stat blocks.
Melee and Ranged Attacks
The most common actions that a monster will take in combat are melee and ranged attacks. These can be spell attacks or weapon attacks, where the “weapon” might be a manufactured item or a natural weapon, such as a claw or tail spike. For more information on different kinds of attacks, see the Player’s Handbook.
Monsters are proficient with their natural weapons.
ARMOR, WEAPON, AND TOOL PROFICIENCIES
Assume that a creature is proficient with its armor, weapons, and tools. If you swap them out, you decide whether the creature is proficient with its new equipment.
Monsters typically use the special Actions that are available in their stat block. However, all creatures (especially when that creature is a player character) also have access to the generic Actions, including Attack.
Actions
When a monster takes its action, it can choose from the options in the Actions section of its stat block or use one of the actions available to all creatures, such as the Dash or Hide action, as described in the Player’s Handbook.
Actions in Combat
When you take your action on your turn, you can take one of the actions presented here, an action you gained from your class or a special feature, or an action that you improvise. Many monsters have action options of their own in their stat blocks.
The Attack action can be made with any weapon.
Attack
The most common action to take in combat is the Attack action, whether you are swinging a sword, firing an arrow from a bow, or brawling with your fists.
With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack. See the "Making an Attack" section for the rules that govern attacks.
Modifiers to the Roll
When a character makes an attack roll, the two most common modifiers to the roll are an ability modifier and the character's proficiency bonus. When a monster makes an attack roll, it uses whatever modifier is provided in its stat block.
Ability Modifier. The ability modifier used for a melee weapon attack is Strength, and the ability modifier used for a ranged weapon attack is Dexterity. Weapons that have the finesse or thrown property break this rule.
Put that together, and what have you got?
A rat has a special Action called Bite. Bite is made using the rat's Bite natural weapon, to make one single attack (+0, 1 damage with no modifier). Bite clearly has some sort of special math going on it, or ignores conventional attack math entirely, which allows it to be made at a +0 instead of at a -2 (strength) or a +2 (dexterity) like you might expect. A monster rat, or a Druid Wild Shaped as a rat, can choose to use Bite with an Action.
A Druid Wild Shaped as a rat can instead choose to take the Attack action, using the rat's Bite natural weapon. We don't have any reason to think that Bite has any special weapon properties like finesse, so such attacks would be made with Strength (-4 default, before any class, race, or other features which may improve that score) plus Proficiency (+2-+6, depending on the Druid's level). If the Wild Shaped Druid happens to have the Extra Attack class feature, they may be able to make two or more Bite attacks by using the Attack action, and if their proficiency bonus is +5 or higher, they may be able to make those Bite attacks with a better to-hit modifier than Bite would ordinarily allow. However, by default, melee weapon attacks do weapon damage+strength modifier... If their retained features have improved their Beast form's strength significantly, they may do 1 or 1+1 (2) damage. More likely, however, they'll be doing 1-4 (0) damage, unless they have class features otherwise enhancing damage done with the Attack action.
You are correct that the Actions presented in a Beast's stat block are static dumb numbers, not the product of usual PHB Chapter 9 math. But the Attack is always available, can be made using the natural weapons that those Beast Actions represent, and will properly account for Ability Score modifiers using PHB Chapter 9 math. That's why improved Strength can be just as useful for a Wild Shaped druid as improved Constitution and Dexterity can be.
Bonus question, since I know you also don't believe that Beast's AC has anything to do with their Dexterity:
Armor Class
A monster that wears armor or carries a shield has an Armor Class (AC) that takes its armor, shield, and Dexterity into account. Otherwise, a monster’s AC is based on its Dexterity modifier and natural armor, if any. If a monster has natural armor, wears armor, or carries a shield, this is noted in parentheses after its AC value.
A beast's AC is always their full Dex modifier, possibly +X if they have "natural armor" noted in parenthesis. No matter what Beast you're looking at, improving its Dexterity modifier by +1 will increase its AC by the exact same +1.
I mean, you're inventing stuff that isn't written to read it any other way. We have guidelines on how to construct monsters, but nothing about how to deconstruct monsters, especially ones that deviate from those construction guidelines. A rat has a -4 strength mod, a 0 dex mod, a +2 proficiency bonus (noted in DDB anyway) and somehow a +0 attack mod. If you can divine how that is constructed you are probably better informed than most players, and **maybe some of the devs.
If you spend so much time thinking about 5e, how do you get so much of it wrong? Is it because you spend so much time thinking about the words without thinking about the meanings that they’re trying to convey? Certainly, the devs have been accused of being imprecise, but often not because people can’t understand what the rules mean, they just can maybe also understand them a different, more (or in this case, less) convenient way.
For example, there is no indication in any part of wild shape that your proficiency bonus should replace the beasts. You may have evidence that you should do that, but it probably isn’t based on a direct statement, but some off reading of some obscure text that doesn’t belie the intent of the authors or the ease function of the game at the table.
You might even have some sentence somewhere that you think means that “When a monster makes an attack roll, it uses whatever modifier is provided in its stat block.” no longer applies to attacks made in wild shape, though, again, this is probably reading between the lines and not reading text of the beast or the wild shape feature.
So go on, do it wrong. Your whole philosophy of the game has continuously been wrong. Not because words aren’t on your side, but because you use words to make the game fit your warped vision of it.
I'm not going to say much more here. I don't think either side is going to convince the other.
Personally, I think that both readings of the roles, in isolation from thoughts of reality, are equally valid for various reasons. However, other factors outside the rules, like trying to imagine how it would work, sage advice and tweets from JC, lead me to the conclusion that ASIs should not be allowed.
Others may have a different view. That's fine. I'm not going to accept your arguments that yours is the One True Way to read the rules, because I still see an equally valid alternative interpretation which makes more sense to me.
I'm going to unsubscribe from this now, because it's going in circles (and is WAAAAY off topic).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
“Training” is an RP concept with no real relevance here. I can get multiple +2 ASI in the span of a single week, with enough experience. I can get stronger with a library adventure centered around reading books. I can have 20 strength as a 30 lb kobold, and 8 strength as an 8 foot Minotaur. Increasing strength doesn’t increase my character weight, I don’t have to work out to maintain it, etc...
Its a game system, stop trying to make it a simulation. Your class features apply to your beast, not because it “makes sense” or because they all represent knowledge instead of physical capability... but because the rules tell you they do.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
And the rules can be read in 2 different ways, one of which "makes sense" and one of which you need to fudge with "it's a game, it doesn't have to make sense".
I see no rules which say levelling up is a Magical effect. If there were, I would have less trouble accepting
As I said, to me, it makes more sense for new features granted on levelling to be a gradual buildup which is only able to be represented in a discrete manner by the game rules. So, you have been gradually increasing in strength, or wisdom, for however long it has taken you to reach an ASI. However, at that point, it tips over to be enough to be represented in game as an actual increase.
I think of it as: It has taken 3 weeks to gain 3 levels and reach level 4, gaining you an ASI, where you increase your Str by 2, and gain an extra +1 modifier. Over that time, you have actually been gaining a +1/3 modifier per level up (1/3 per week, 1/21 per day ish), but that's rounded down and has no effect until you hit the ASI. When you reach 4th level, that has tipped over to 1, so you can actually get the benefit of it.
That's a lovely theory, none of which is supported in any way whatsoever by rule text. So using your theory to rationalize ignoring other rule text that IS written, I can't get behind that.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Nothing at all in the rules explains how characters level up (in game, not the mechanics of the process), this is the explanation I have in my head. However, there is also nothing in the rules which says it is a Magical effect or anything else which would make it logical that bigger muscles on your body translate to bigger muscles on your wild shape (especially without the rest of the score having an effect).
Again, 2 equally valid interpretations of the written rules, one of which needs "games don't have to make sense" hand waving, and one which makes sense without that and is backed by precedent from SA (regarding the Tough feat) and a tweet from JC. I know which one I'm following as the intended version of RAW.
Note that this is not to say I may not house rule differently at my table. It may be cool to have a rat which is stronger than our halfling bard...
And it still only gets a +0 to attacks, no matter its strength...
Debatable.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I mean, you're inventing stuff that isn't written to read it any other way. We have guidelines on how to construct monsters, but nothing about how to deconstruct monsters, especially ones that deviate from those construction guidelines. A rat has a -4 strength mod, a 0 dex mod, a +2 proficiency bonus (noted in DDB anyway) and somehow a +0 attack mod. If you can divine how that is constructed you are probably better informed than most players, and maybe some of the devs.
Thank you for the vote of confidence, I think about 5E a lot, and I do like to think that I'm better informed than most players and maybe some of the devs! This happens to be one of the subject areas that helps demonstrate that! :)
The Actions presented in a monster's stat block are actions, which I agree, have static modifiers which don't always add up intuitively to reflect their ability score modifiers. But, these Actions also often represent Natural Weapons that the monster possesses, especially when we're looking at Beast stat blocks.
Monsters are proficient with their natural weapons.
Monsters typically use the special Actions that are available in their stat block. However, all creatures (especially when that creature is a player character) also have access to the generic Actions, including Attack.
The Attack action can be made with any weapon.
Put that together, and what have you got?
You are correct that the Actions presented in a Beast's stat block are static dumb numbers, not the product of usual PHB Chapter 9 math. But the Attack is always available, can be made using the natural weapons that those Beast Actions represent, and will properly account for Ability Score modifiers using PHB Chapter 9 math. That's why improved Strength can be just as useful for a Wild Shaped druid as improved Constitution and Dexterity can be.
Bonus question, since I know you also don't believe that Beast's AC has anything to do with their Dexterity:
A beast's AC is always their full Dex modifier, possibly +X if they have "natural armor" noted in parenthesis. No matter what Beast you're looking at, improving its Dexterity modifier by +1 will increase its AC by the exact same +1.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
** think you are better informed than
If you spend so much time thinking about 5e, how do you get so much of it wrong? Is it because you spend so much time thinking about the words without thinking about the meanings that they’re trying to convey? Certainly, the devs have been accused of being imprecise, but often not because people can’t understand what the rules mean, they just can maybe also understand them a different, more (or in this case, less) convenient way.
For example, there is no indication in any part of wild shape that your proficiency bonus should replace the beasts. You may have evidence that you should do that, but it probably isn’t based on a direct statement, but some off reading of some obscure text that doesn’t belie the intent of the authors or the ease function of the game at the table.
You might even have some sentence somewhere that you think means that “When a monster makes an attack roll, it uses whatever modifier is provided in its stat block.” no longer applies to attacks made in wild shape, though, again, this is probably reading between the lines and not reading text of the beast or the wild shape feature.
So go on, do it wrong. Your whole philosophy of the game has continuously been wrong. Not because words aren’t on your side, but because you use words to make the game fit your warped vision of it.
I'm not going to say much more here. I don't think either side is going to convince the other.
Personally, I think that both readings of the roles, in isolation from thoughts of reality, are equally valid for various reasons. However, other factors outside the rules, like trying to imagine how it would work, sage advice and tweets from JC, lead me to the conclusion that ASIs should not be allowed.
Others may have a different view. That's fine. I'm not going to accept your arguments that yours is the One True Way to read the rules, because I still see an equally valid alternative interpretation which makes more sense to me.
I'm going to unsubscribe from this now, because it's going in circles (and is WAAAAY off topic).