Okay, you’re incorrect. It’s true that your stats are replaced. What’s also true is this:
”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.”
So we have two questions to ask:
1) Are ASIs features from your class?
2) Is the new form physically capable of using them?
If the answer to both of those questions is yes, then you retain their benefit. If your argument doesn’t lie with a “no” answer to one of those questions then your argument is irrelevant and invalid. If you do think the answer to one of them is no, I really would like to hear it. I’m sure there are angles I haven’t considered.
Now, I am not incorrect. You seem to think that a bear that was previously a dwarf can still use the dwarf's own strength and constitution, despite the fact that the rules explicitly tell us that the dwarf's own strength and constitution has been replaced with those of the bear. This has already been explained, numerous times.
If you’re not going to read my posts, why are you bothering to reply to them?
Why so rude? I did read your post and I explained why I wasn't incorrect.
I'm sorry if I came off as cross. I was a bit annoyed because, rather than responding to what I wrote, you articulated an entirely irrelevant stance which suggested you hadn't actually read what I wrote. I'll try to explain more fully.
The general rule is that a wild shaped druid's stats are replaced by the beast form's stats. We're discussing an exception to that rule that applies to features from the druid's race, class, or other source that the beast form is physically capable of using. If you want to argue that this exception doesn't apply, you need to explain either why ASIs, which are granted by classes and appear in the class progression column labeled "features," are not class features or why the new form would be physically incapable of using them. You can't just point back at the general rule; we're talking about an exception.
No, I didn't. If you don't understand, that's on you. And again, nothing you say has any basis in the rules. ASIs increase the druid's physical stats. Those physical stats are then replaced by the wild shape's physical stats. It's not an exception to anything, you're just making a strawman, especially when you claim that I'm saying that ASIs are not class features. They can be reasonably assumed to be but they change something that is then replaced. Just like ability modifiers for race. Or, if you want to go with your simplistic and willful misunderstanding of the rules, of course a bear can't use the muscles of a dwarf druid, it no longer has those muscles.
You are also wrong about what is a general rule and what is an exception, but since that doesn't matter, I won't bother to comment.
And more specifically: nobody is claiming that a wildshaped dwarf uses their humanoid Strength, Constitution, or Dexterity. Of course they assume the Bear's physical statistics. The point is, those Bear statistics are then further modified by the character's class features, including any ASI that the character may have. Though, I was corrected, that even if that is true, ASI cannot increase the Bear's stats above 20.
Even more controversial (and probably better suited to another thread), the Dwarf's racial attribute bonuses are "racial features," meaning a Mountain Dwarf druid that's wildshaped into a Bear should also receive +2 Strength and +2 Constitution on top of the Bear's normal Strength and Constitution scores. That seems pretty clearly RAW, though I do understand that it quite possibly isn't RAI. But I think its fine... you turn into a very dwarfy stocky bear, while an eleven druid would turn into a very long-limbed graceful elfy bear! But reasonable minds differ on whether this violates the spirit of the rule.
I’ve thought of that as well, and what I’ve arrived at is that if the ability score increases are granted by virtue of being a dwarf (WLOG), then a bear (WLOG) actually isn’t physically capable of using them because a bear isn’t a dwarf. I’d be hard-pressed to identify any racial features that I think the exception would apply to, since racial features are (almost?) always predicated on actually being that race.
Now you're just cherry picking. The ASIs also apply only to the dwarf.
An interesting observation in the poll is that in the strength poll the Bard finished in 4th position ahead of fighter, druid and rogue -BUT- in the weakest poll the Bard finished 5th edging out the druid, but the fighter and rogue placed very low in the weakest poll. So overall the Bard appears to be the most controversial class for assigning a strength/weakness expectation. I'm interested in why this disparity exists.
Probably because the bard has no straight up damage spells. Whether a bard feels week or strong in combat mostly depends on the DM and the type of encounter.
Out of combat bards are "jack-of-all-trades". They have some strong skills and utilities but that is generally harder to quantify and more DM dependent than the structured nature of direct combat damage.
An interesting observation in the poll is that in the strength poll the Bard finished in 4th position ahead of fighter, druid and rogue -BUT- in the weakest poll the Bard finished 5th edging out the druid, but the fighter and rogue placed very low in the weakest poll. So overall the Bard appears to be the most controversial class for assigning a strength/weakness expectation. I'm interested in why this disparity exists.
Probably because the bard has no straight up damage spells. Whether a bard feels week or strong in combat mostly depends on the DM and the type of encounter.
Out of combat bards are "jack-of-all-trades". They have some strong skills and utilities but that is generally harder to quantify and more DM dependent than the structured nature of direct combat damage.
An interesting observation in the poll is that in the strength poll the Bard finished in 4th position ahead of fighter, druid and rogue -BUT- in the weakest poll the Bard finished 5th edging out the druid, but the fighter and rogue placed very low in the weakest poll. So overall the Bard appears to be the most controversial class for assigning a strength/weakness expectation. I'm interested in why this disparity exists.
Probably because the bard has no straight up damage spells. Whether a bard feels week or strong in combat mostly depends on the DM and the type of encounter.
Out of combat bards are "jack-of-all-trades". They have some strong skills and utilities but that is generally harder to quantify and more DM dependent than the structured nature of direct combat damage.
That's just my theory, of course. :-)
Bards have tonnes of direct damage spells but you're proabably right. Pure combat abilities are much easier to assess.
Bards have tonnes of direct damage spells but you're proabably right. Pure combat abilities are much easier to assess.
High level bards have access to every damage spell in the game, though bardic secrets, but their in-class options are not great. I suspect the perception of weakness has to do with tier 1, where compared to a cleric your AC is terrible (light armor/no shield vs medium armor/shield) and bardic inspiration is very limited use.
Bards have tonnes of direct damage spells but you're proabably right. Pure combat abilities are much easier to assess.
High level bards have access to every damage spell in the game, though bardic secrets, but their in-class options are not great. I suspect the perception of weakness has to do with tier 1, where compared to a cleric your AC is terrible (light armor/no shield vs medium armor/shield) and bardic inspiration is very limited use.
I think if we discuss the high levels, the "strongest" class is any caster with access to Wish.
It's quite difficult to beat "I say so and it happens" in terms of power... But I've never seen a campaign go beyond level 8 so it's imo not really a level range to consider for balancing.
You’ve got those 100% backward. The general rule is that all statistics are replaced. Then there are exceptions provided for mental ability scores, race/class/other features, etc. And as CC explained, neither of us has ever been talking about using the physical ability scores of the normal druid. That’s a strawman. We’re talking about ASIs, and we’ve been very clear about that.
No, you have them backwards. Which is why nothing official supports your claim besides various theorycrafting threads. Wildshape in DNDBeyond doesn't show any ASI in the stats and Sage Advice contradicts you.
The general rule is that you keep your class features (example: ASI +2 Str)
The specific rule is that your characters physical stats are replaced by the new form. So a druid (regardless of race or stats) wild shaped into a black bear uses the black bear physical stats.
The false argument is trying to say that 'Your game statistics are replaced by the statistics of the beast, but you retain your alignment, personality, and Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma scores' is somehow not a specific rule. And that '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' is MORE specific. Which sounds more general to you? The sentence that specifically talks about statistics or the one that lumps all class, race and other features together?
ASI +2 Str is not an attribute. It is a class feature. You, Sage Advice, and dndbeyond are wrong on this. It may very well be a class feature that was never intended to apply to a Wildshape... but unfortunately, they didn’t write that as an exception, nor have they taken the opportunity to publish errata, so I don’t really care what the original intent was at this point, live with the RAW you’re dealt.
ASI +2 Str is not an attribute. It is a class feature. You, Sage Advice, and dndbeyond are wrong on this. It may very well be a class feature that was never intended to apply to a Wildshape... but unfortunately, they didn’t write that as an exception, nor have they taken the opportunity to publish errata, so I don’t really care what the original intent was at this point, live with the RAW you’re dealt.
Wrong. Nothing supports the ASI bump applying after wildshape except your own theorycrafting.
As I have pointed out, you are trying to say that a very general sentence is more significant than the more specific sentence. An assumption that is contradicted by the lead designer of the game and the premier digital tool for the game.
Your assumption is neither RAW nor RAI. It is what we call Homebrew. Which is fine. Homebrew away with your bad self. You do you. I may even like to play using your Homebrew rules sometime. But Homebrew it is.
I am not touching the specific vs. general thing, because it’s not what we’re talking about here. “ASI: Strength (+2)” is not a Strength score. It is a class feature, which is listed under class features in the class progression table and on your character sheet etc. “Strength 18,” now THAT is a Strength score! Your Strength 18 gets replaced with the Bear’s strength attribute, Strength 19. Great, now we’re told to grab all our class features and add them back into the Bear... and “ASI: Strength (+2)” is one of them, taking us up to Bear Strength 20 (would be 21, but as was pointed out, ASI can’t take you over 20).
I understand why that’s hard to accept, people want to just grab a Bear statblock when they Wildshape and not have to recalculate it. It may have even been what was intended. But they had a chance to write that (indeed they did, with Polymorph!), but didn’t.
I am not touching the specific vs. general thing, because it’s not what we’re talking about here. “ASI: Strength (+2)” is not a Strength score. It is a class feature, which is listed under class features in the class progression table and on your character sheet etc. “Strength 18,” now THAT is a Strength score! Your Strength 18 gets replaced with the Bear’s strength attribute, Strength 19. Great, now we’re told to grab all our class features and add them back into the Bear... and “ASI: Strength (+2)” is one of them, taking us up to Bear Strength 20 (would be 21, but as was pointed out, ASI can’t take you over 20).
I understand why that’s hard to accept, people want to just grab a Bear statblock when they Wildshape and not have to recalculate it. It may have even been what was intended. But they had a chance to write that (indeed they did, with Polymorph!), but didn’t.
You are not touching specific vs general. You are conveniently ignoring it. An ASI is a Ability Score Increase. It is a class feature which increases an ability score. It can increase a physical score like Strength or a mental score like Wisdom.
The wild shape class feature specifically says 'Your game statistics are replaced by the statistics of the beast, but you retain your alignment, personality, and Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma scores.' Specific versus general. Perfectly clear. You can increase your Strength in whatever way you want but when you wild shape 'your game statistics are replaced by the statistics of the beast....'
It sounds a little like you are suggesting that the order of the bullet points somehow influence the way the rules are applied. You'd be incorrect if you thought that. Nothing implies that the paragraph about class features coming after the one about statistics somehow indicates the order of action. There is no step 1, step 2, etc. It's more of a check list.
"Your game statistics are replaced by the statistics of the beast..." Okay, you're a Brown Bear, and you set your character sheet aside entirely. No class levels, no race, nothing, you're just a Brown Bear.
"...but you retain your alignment, personality, and Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma scores." Okay, grab the character sheet again, you're still a Brown Bear, but we have to modify that Brown Bear statblock to be a Bear who is NG, loves practical jokes, and has an Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma of let's say 14. Cool.
"You also retain all of your skill and saving throw proficiencies...." Let's skip this and the next couple of bullet points for now, because some of them are actually kind of complicated, and not really what we're talking about. Not trying to hide anything, they just aren't relevant.
"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." Grab the character sheet again, because everything that's a "class feature," "race feature," or "other source feature" is added back on if the Bear is "physically capable" of them.
What does "physically capable" mean? Not defined. If you give stock to Jeremy Crawford's musings on Twitter, it means having the required "anatomy." "No beast has a Tortle shell," so none benefit from that Tortle race feature, but he contrasted that "[a dragonborn's breath attack] doesn't specify anatomy" and is available in Beast form. So take that for what it's worth, but "physically capable" for JC seems to mean "has that body part." If you don't ascribe to JC's interpretation, I'd ask you to provide what you think "physically capable" means, but if it's something like "dwarf features only work when you're a dwarf," then please be aware that that means that no Beast form will ever be "physically capable" of receiving any race features, rendering that language meaningless in Wild Shape.
What is a "class feature"? So glad you asked, each class entry helpfully includes a table which shows "features" at various levels... including "Ability Score Improvement" at 4, 8, 12, 16, and 19. Each class also has a narrative list titled "Class Features," which again lists.... Ability Score Improvement. The plainest and most obvious meaning of "class feature" is these features which appear on the class tables and class feature description lists, and that definition would very much appear to include Ability Score Improvement... but if you have another definition in mind, again I'd be glad to hear it?
What is a "race feature"? Slightly less clear than "class feature." Races have "traits," not "features".... are "traits" "features"? The plainest and most obvious interpretation is yes, because otherwise there is no such thing as a race feature.... and that definition would very much appear to include a racial Ability Score Increase... but if you have another definition of "race feature" in mind, let's hear it?
What is an "other source feature"? Real real unclear, probably has something to do with Backgrounds or plot-granted features? Not relevant to this conversation though, so let's leave it.
So what are we left with? We're a Brown Bear, but one whose Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma has been replaced by our humanoid Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma scores. And who benefits from all of our class and race "features." And one of our "class features" might very well be "Ability Score Increase: +2 Strength." And there's no language in Wild Shape that tells us to treat Ability Score Increase in any way different from class features in general. So RAW, we can be a Brown Bear that also benefits from "Ability Score Increase: +2 Strength", granting us a cool 20 Strength instead of 19.
There's no rules that contradict each other above, let alone anything that would hinge on identifying which rule is specific and which is general. You seem to be reading an unwritten rule that "your physical attribute scores (Strength, Constitution, and Dexterity) in Beast form cannot be modified by your class or race features," which just simply does not exist. If it was there, hey, I'd give this to you... but it just isn't there, my dude! Did the authors realize they'd left a loophole where Mountain Dwarf Druids wild shape into tougher and stronger Bears and Wood Elf Druids into more dextrous Bears? That a Druid with Athlete is a stronger bear than one without? I don't know, and I don't think JC has answered that question, and even if he did I don't know that it would matter because Wizards has had ample time and opportunity to issue an errata to accomplish that intent if it was important. They haven't, so we're left with what is written... and that's that class features (including Ability Score Increase) and race features (including Ability Score Increase) "benefit" our Beast forms.
Ok. Let's pretend for a moment that the lead game designer and the premier digital tool for DND don't exist and haven't confirmed that I am correct.
Our moon druid decides to turn into a Brown Bear. Being unfamiliar with wild shape we look over the rules.
Your game statistics are replaced by the statistics of the beast, but you retain your alignment, personality, and Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma scores. Blah, blah, blah...
Very specific wording. Seems straightforward enough. We move on.
When you transform, you assume the beast’s hit points and Hit Dice. Blah, blah, blah
Again. Fairly straightforward.
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. Blah, blah, blah...
Fairly straightforward.
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. Blah, blah, blah
Whoah, this is confusing. Let's look at it...I have the spellcasting feature but there is a specific rule concerning that. I have a ASI feature that gives me +2 Con but there are TWO very specific rules that I conflict with in this case. I have the athlete feat. This feat provides a increase to Strength and a couple other benefits. The Strength increase conflicts with the first rule so its out but the rest of the benefits might apply.
You choose whether your equipment falls to the ground in your space, merges into your new form, or is worn by it. Blah, blah, blah...
I have a amulet of health but my DM is not cool and doesn't allow it in bear form. Guess my Con is just 16.
Now that I have made sure that my wild shape form has satisfied ALL of the listed conditions my druid can now set out to terrorize the local goblins.
Chicken, at this point our debate is really just going in circles. Much like our previous discussion except where you had a leg to stand on for the monk you are simply swimming upstream on this one. No matter what you say you cannot get around this sentence - 'Your game statistics are replaced by the statistics of the beast, but you retain your alignment, personality, and Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma scores.' It is the beginning and end of the issue. Claiming that a ASI allows you to get around this sentence is futile.
What is the "very specific rules" that applying the ASI conflicts with? Spell it out for me, because I don't see a rule which says "your Beast ability scores cannot be modified by your features from your class, race, or other sources" or "you retain the benefit of your features, except for any features which provide ability score improvements." Quite the opposite in fact, Wild Shape tells us that your Beast statistics DO "benefit" from those features?
Bards have tonnes of direct damage spells but you're proabably right. Pure combat abilities are much easier to assess.
High level bards have access to every damage spell in the game, though bardic secrets, but their in-class options are not great. I suspect the perception of weakness has to do with tier 1, where compared to a cleric your AC is terrible (light armor/no shield vs medium armor/shield) and bardic inspiration is very limited use.
Bards get Thunderwave and Dissonant Whispers at level 1, Shatter, Heat Metal and Cloud of Daggers at level 2. After that it kind of slows down but that can be mitigated shortly (at least for lore bards, other bards will have to wait longer) with magical secrets. Sure, bards don't have a reliable pure damage cantrip but if we're talking pure damage spells then Tier 1 Bards are actually better than at least he first part of tier 2.
ASI +2 Str is not an attribute. It is a class feature. You, Sage Advice, and dndbeyond are wrong on this. It may very well be a class feature that was never intended to apply to a Wildshape... but unfortunately, they didn’t write that as an exception, nor have they taken the opportunity to publish errata, so I don’t really care what the original intent was at this point, live with the RAW you’re dealt.
You know you have lost the argument when you are trying to get away with "the person who designed the game is wrong!" as an argument... :D
An interesting observation in the poll is that in the strength poll the Bard finished in 4th position ahead of fighter, druid and rogue -BUT- in the weakest poll the Bard finished 5th edging out the druid, but the fighter and rogue placed very low in the weakest poll. So overall the Bard appears to be the most controversial class for assigning a strength/weakness expectation. I'm interested in why this disparity exists.
Probably because the bard has no straight up damage spells. Whether a bard feels week or strong in combat mostly depends on the DM and the type of encounter.
Out of combat bards are "jack-of-all-trades". They have some strong skills and utilities but that is generally harder to quantify and more DM dependent than the structured nature of direct combat damage.
That's just my theory, of course. :-)
their magical secrets lets them do some neat things one might suspect has a lot to do with their perceived strength, as might it have a lot to do with personal experience, if you played a bard and felt useless or you played a bard and felt like the most powerful ***** in town
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
D&D Beyond works very hard and diligently to present the rules of D&D as accurately as possible. Hopefully the words from Jeremy Crawford himself can settle this particular matter.
JC: Wild Shape. Certain class features carry over from humanoid form to beast form, but your physical ability scores are replaced. #DnD
Q: So physical attribute increases / feat stat bonuses would not carry over?
JC: That's correct.
D&D Beyond displays what the Principle Rules Designer of the game says should happen in this regard. Hopefully that clarifies some things.
Now would be a good time to return to the topic at hand and discussion of why Monk is Best Class. ;)
I have great respect for dndbeyond, and of course you have to come down on one side or the other on ambiguous rules... you can’t just Magic 8ball “answer unclear, check back later” whenever someone Wildshapes on a character sheet. Taking JCs side is understandable.... but neither his opinions nor dndbeyonds interface are suitable substitutes for rules text. It settles nothing, because JC is fallible, has often been demonstrably wrong or inconsistent in his tweets, and was in fact invited to stop claiming his tweets were official rulings (let alone rules) probably for this very reason.
That all said, the horse is beaten and dead, time to move on. Monks are, indeed, the best class :)
No, I didn't. If you don't understand, that's on you. And again, nothing you say has any basis in the rules. ASIs increase the druid's physical stats. Those physical stats are then replaced by the wild shape's physical stats. It's not an exception to anything, you're just making a strawman, especially when you claim that I'm saying that ASIs are not class features. They can be reasonably assumed to be but they change something that is then replaced. Just like ability modifiers for race. Or, if you want to go with your simplistic and willful misunderstanding of the rules, of course a bear can't use the muscles of a dwarf druid, it no longer has those muscles.
You are also wrong about what is a general rule and what is an exception, but since that doesn't matter, I won't bother to comment.
Now you're just cherry picking. The ASIs also apply only to the dwarf.
“You’re cherry picking.” Proceeds to cherry pick one class feature to deny a wild shaped Druid, without explaining why. 😂
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Probably because the bard has no straight up damage spells. Whether a bard feels week or strong in combat mostly depends on the DM and the type of encounter.
Out of combat bards are "jack-of-all-trades". They have some strong skills and utilities but that is generally harder to quantify and more DM dependent than the structured nature of direct combat damage.
That's just my theory, of course. :-)
Not really. If you had bothered to read the entire thread you would have realized the folly of that statement.
Bards have tonnes of direct damage spells but you're proabably right. Pure combat abilities are much easier to assess.
High level bards have access to every damage spell in the game, though bardic secrets, but their in-class options are not great. I suspect the perception of weakness has to do with tier 1, where compared to a cleric your AC is terrible (light armor/no shield vs medium armor/shield) and bardic inspiration is very limited use.
I think if we discuss the high levels, the "strongest" class is any caster with access to Wish.
It's quite difficult to beat "I say so and it happens" in terms of power... But I've never seen a campaign go beyond level 8 so it's imo not really a level range to consider for balancing.
No, you have them backwards. Which is why nothing official supports your claim besides various theorycrafting threads. Wildshape in DNDBeyond doesn't show any ASI in the stats and Sage Advice contradicts you.
https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/09/08/do-attribute-increases-or-feats-that-effect-physical-stats-carryover-to-druid-wildshape-as-class-feautures/
The general rule is that you keep your class features (example: ASI +2 Str)
The specific rule is that your characters physical stats are replaced by the new form. So a druid (regardless of race or stats) wild shaped into a black bear uses the black bear physical stats.
The false argument is trying to say that 'Your game statistics are replaced by the statistics of the beast, but you retain your alignment, personality, and Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma scores' is somehow not a specific rule. And that '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' is MORE specific. Which sounds more general to you? The sentence that specifically talks about statistics or the one that lumps all class, race and other features together?
Current Characters I am playing: Dr Konstantin van Wulf | Taegen Willowrun | Mad Magnar
Check out my homebrew: Items | Monsters | Spells | Subclasses | Feats
ASI +2 Str is not an attribute. It is a class feature. You, Sage Advice, and dndbeyond are wrong on this. It may very well be a class feature that was never intended to apply to a Wildshape... but unfortunately, they didn’t write that as an exception, nor have they taken the opportunity to publish errata, so I don’t really care what the original intent was at this point, live with the RAW you’re dealt.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Wrong. Nothing supports the ASI bump applying after wildshape except your own theorycrafting.
As I have pointed out, you are trying to say that a very general sentence is more significant than the more specific sentence. An assumption that is contradicted by the lead designer of the game and the premier digital tool for the game.
Your assumption is neither RAW nor RAI. It is what we call Homebrew. Which is fine. Homebrew away with your bad self. You do you. I may even like to play using your Homebrew rules sometime. But Homebrew it is.
Current Characters I am playing: Dr Konstantin van Wulf | Taegen Willowrun | Mad Magnar
Check out my homebrew: Items | Monsters | Spells | Subclasses | Feats
I am not touching the specific vs. general thing, because it’s not what we’re talking about here. “ASI: Strength (+2)” is not a Strength score. It is a class feature, which is listed under class features in the class progression table and on your character sheet etc. “Strength 18,” now THAT is a Strength score! Your Strength 18 gets replaced with the Bear’s strength attribute, Strength 19. Great, now we’re told to grab all our class features and add them back into the Bear... and “ASI: Strength (+2)” is one of them, taking us up to Bear Strength 20 (would be 21, but as was pointed out, ASI can’t take you over 20).
I understand why that’s hard to accept, people want to just grab a Bear statblock when they Wildshape and not have to recalculate it. It may have even been what was intended. But they had a chance to write that (indeed they did, with Polymorph!), but didn’t.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
You are not touching specific vs general. You are conveniently ignoring it. An ASI is a Ability Score Increase. It is a class feature which increases an ability score. It can increase a physical score like Strength or a mental score like Wisdom.
The wild shape class feature specifically says 'Your game statistics are replaced by the statistics of the beast, but you retain your alignment, personality, and Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma scores.' Specific versus general. Perfectly clear. You can increase your Strength in whatever way you want but when you wild shape 'your game statistics are replaced by the statistics of the beast....'
It sounds a little like you are suggesting that the order of the bullet points somehow influence the way the rules are applied. You'd be incorrect if you thought that. Nothing implies that the paragraph about class features coming after the one about statistics somehow indicates the order of action. There is no step 1, step 2, etc. It's more of a check list.
Current Characters I am playing: Dr Konstantin van Wulf | Taegen Willowrun | Mad Magnar
Check out my homebrew: Items | Monsters | Spells | Subclasses | Feats
So what are we left with? We're a Brown Bear, but one whose Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma has been replaced by our humanoid Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma scores. And who benefits from all of our class and race "features." And one of our "class features" might very well be "Ability Score Increase: +2 Strength." And there's no language in Wild Shape that tells us to treat Ability Score Increase in any way different from class features in general. So RAW, we can be a Brown Bear that also benefits from "Ability Score Increase: +2 Strength", granting us a cool 20 Strength instead of 19.
There's no rules that contradict each other above, let alone anything that would hinge on identifying which rule is specific and which is general. You seem to be reading an unwritten rule that "your physical attribute scores (Strength, Constitution, and Dexterity) in Beast form cannot be modified by your class or race features," which just simply does not exist. If it was there, hey, I'd give this to you... but it just isn't there, my dude! Did the authors realize they'd left a loophole where Mountain Dwarf Druids wild shape into tougher and stronger Bears and Wood Elf Druids into more dextrous Bears? That a Druid with Athlete is a stronger bear than one without? I don't know, and I don't think JC has answered that question, and even if he did I don't know that it would matter because Wizards has had ample time and opportunity to issue an errata to accomplish that intent if it was important. They haven't, so we're left with what is written... and that's that class features (including Ability Score Increase) and race features (including Ability Score Increase) "benefit" our Beast forms.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Ok. Let's pretend for a moment that the lead game designer and the premier digital tool for DND don't exist and haven't confirmed that I am correct.
Our moon druid decides to turn into a Brown Bear. Being unfamiliar with wild shape we look over the rules.
Your game statistics are replaced by the statistics of the beast, but you retain your alignment, personality, and Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma scores. Blah, blah, blah...
Very specific wording. Seems straightforward enough. We move on.
When you transform, you assume the beast’s hit points and Hit Dice. Blah, blah, blah
Again. Fairly straightforward.
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. Blah, blah, blah...
Fairly straightforward.
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. Blah, blah, blah
Whoah, this is confusing. Let's look at it...I have the spellcasting feature but there is a specific rule concerning that. I have a ASI feature that gives me +2 Con but there are TWO very specific rules that I conflict with in this case. I have the athlete feat. This feat provides a increase to Strength and a couple other benefits. The Strength increase conflicts with the first rule so its out but the rest of the benefits might apply.
You choose whether your equipment falls to the ground in your space, merges into your new form, or is worn by it. Blah, blah, blah...
I have a amulet of health but my DM is not cool and doesn't allow it in bear form. Guess my Con is just 16.
Now that I have made sure that my wild shape form has satisfied ALL of the listed conditions my druid can now set out to terrorize the local goblins.
Chicken, at this point our debate is really just going in circles. Much like our previous discussion except where you had a leg to stand on for the monk you are simply swimming upstream on this one. No matter what you say you cannot get around this sentence - 'Your game statistics are replaced by the statistics of the beast, but you retain your alignment, personality, and Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma scores.' It is the beginning and end of the issue. Claiming that a ASI allows you to get around this sentence is futile.
Current Characters I am playing: Dr Konstantin van Wulf | Taegen Willowrun | Mad Magnar
Check out my homebrew: Items | Monsters | Spells | Subclasses | Feats
What is the "very specific rules" that applying the ASI conflicts with? Spell it out for me, because I don't see a rule which says "your Beast ability scores cannot be modified by your features from your class, race, or other sources" or "you retain the benefit of your features, except for any features which provide ability score improvements." Quite the opposite in fact, Wild Shape tells us that your Beast statistics DO "benefit" from those features?
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Bards get Thunderwave and Dissonant Whispers at level 1, Shatter, Heat Metal and Cloud of Daggers at level 2. After that it kind of slows down but that can be mitigated shortly (at least for lore bards, other bards will have to wait longer) with magical secrets. Sure, bards don't have a reliable pure damage cantrip but if we're talking pure damage spells then Tier 1 Bards are actually better than at least he first part of tier 2.
You know you have lost the argument when you are trying to get away with "the person who designed the game is wrong!" as an argument... :D
their magical secrets lets them do some neat things one might suspect has a lot to do with their perceived strength, as might it have a lot to do with personal experience, if you played a bard and felt useless or you played a bard and felt like the most powerful ***** in town
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
D&D Beyond works very hard and diligently to present the rules of D&D as accurately as possible. Hopefully the words from Jeremy Crawford himself can settle this particular matter.
D&D Beyond displays what the Principle Rules Designer of the game says should happen in this regard. Hopefully that clarifies some things.
Now would be a good time to return to the topic at hand and discussion of why Monk is Best Class. ;)
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
I have great respect for dndbeyond, and of course you have to come down on one side or the other on ambiguous rules... you can’t just Magic 8ball “answer unclear, check back later” whenever someone Wildshapes on a character sheet. Taking JCs side is understandable.... but neither his opinions nor dndbeyonds interface are suitable substitutes for rules text. It settles nothing, because JC is fallible, has often been demonstrably wrong or inconsistent in his tweets, and was in fact invited to stop claiming his tweets were official rulings (let alone rules) probably for this very reason.
That all said, the horse is beaten and dead, time to move on. Monks are, indeed, the best class :)
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.