Wildshape says you keep your class features, and ASIs are class features. If you have, say, a +2 Strength ASI, does that increase your strength in a wildshape form (up to a max of 20, of course)?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
This topic has gotten me in trouble several times on the forums in the past, I think that a lot of the opinions of me that others hold probably come down to my previous arguments on this topic. But why not :)
The basic argument is pretty short and intuitive, it's really ways to talk your way out of it that are complicated.
An Ability Score Improvement, just like a Feat, is a class feature.
Wild Shape allows you to retain the benefit of your class features.
The benefit of an Ability Score Improvement is improving your ability score beyond what it would be without that Ability Score Improvement, up to but not exceeding 20 in that score.
There, done.
The common argument against this comes down to "but Wild Shape replaces your statistics with the Beast, and the Beast's ability scores are statistics!" Yeah, that's true. But it's not like Wild Shape tells you "don't use your retained class features to improve the statistics of your Beast"... in fact, it says the literal opposite of that.
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.
And, "but the ability score improvement is a 'past benefit', soemthing that's 'one-and-done', not an ongoing class feature providing an enduring bonus!" Oh really, says who? And back and forth the argument goes, for dozens of pages...
But... that's the old argument, with the old information. Recently, there's been a powerful new argument introduced in Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft, of all places... Lineages! The operation of applying a Lineage to a character that was already built with racial trait bonuses to its ability scores (either directly from a racial ability score increase, or from a bonus feat at character creation providing a +1 bonus), should cause those who have previously argued that Ability Score Improvements are "one-and-done" non-features to re-examine the error of their ways.
If a Mountain Dwarf who becomes a Dhampir, losing their dwarf ability score increase racial trait feature, loses their +2 Str and Con... that ability score increase was not "one-and-done" after all, was it? It was a live racial trait, that if Wildshaped, would continue to provide its benefit to a Mountain Dwarf Druid.
If a Varian Human who becomes a Dhampir, losing their Vhuman bonus feat Athletic (+1 Str), loses their +1 Str.... that ability score increase was not "one-and-done" after all, was it? It was a live racial trait, that if WIldshaped, would continue to provide its benefit to a VHuman Druid.
I'm conflating racial trait ability score increases and class-granted Ability Score Improvement, because Wildshape itself does, telling you that you retain the benefit of both. What's true of Ability Score Improvement, is true of Feats, is true of racial traits in this respect.
Is Ability Score Improvement a class feature? Yes, incontrovertibly RAW. Do you retain the benefits of your class features while Wildshaped? Yes, incontrovertibly RAW. Does Wildshape provide any specific exceptions about class features that provide increases to ability scores? No RAW ones, and I don't see any language that would even RAI suggest, so no.
The more nuanced argument against this is to argue, "fine, you keep the benefit of your class features and race traits, including ability score improvements... but if they're improvements to physical ability scores, your new form is not "physically capable" of benefiting from them." That's a hard position to argue against, because "physically capable" isn't defined in Wildshape. If you're the sort that cares about JC's advice on things, that position is incorrect, because JC considers "physically capable" to mean "has hands", "has a mouth," etc, not "literally has the same humanoid body they had before being Wildshaped." But hey, it's an argument!
Wildshape says you keep your class features, and ASIs are class features. If you have, say, a +2 Strength ASI, does that increase your strength in a wildshape form (up to a max of 20, of course)?
Honestly, the rules for keeping traits are a mess (does a tortle druid keep its ac?), I think most players and DMs assume all traits related to physical form are lost. However, this particular case is a problem with the game failing to distinguish one-time benefits from ongoing effects. For example, a class feature often says you 'gain' abilities, but you don't gain them again when you change shape -- you merely keep the benefit you already had. This means that the later effect (the attribute being replaced by the creature's attribute) overwrites the prior effect.
For the record, a Tortle that's Wildshaped into a bear probably wouldn't keep its AC under anyone's interpretation, because the AC represents a shell, and the bear doesn't have a shell (so, isn't "physically capable" of benefiting from that racial trait). I do agree that the Wildshape rules for keeping features/traits is a mess (really, the entire feature is), but Tortle isn't a good illustration of that.
I don't think it's RAI though, but that might just be my biases.
Another possible "counter" if you will, is that you can certainly retain the ASIs, but since the beasts replace your entire score, they are added "first" and then replaced. It's an order-of-operations problem
The ASI's affect your true form, not your beast form.
When you wildshape your STR, DEX, and CON become that of the beast. If you had any racial or ASI stat increase they do not apply to the beast's STR, DEX, or CON. Since you keep your INT, WIS, and CHA scores you also keep whatever changes were made to them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"A rightful place awaits you in the Realms Above, in the Land of the Great Light. Come in peace, and live beneath the sun again, where trees and flowers grow."
— The message of Eilistraee to all decent drow.
"Run thy sword across my chains, Silver Lady, that I may join your dance.”
I mean, problematically, the wild shape rules say two different things: "Your game statistics are replaced by the statistics of the beast, but you retain your alignment, personality, and Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma scores. " and "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."
If this is a question of RAW, then these are at best ambiguous. C_C cannot be "correct" because their argument relies on a specific reading of the rules that is easily countered by another vaild reading of the rules. Your game statistics are replaced. An ASI changes an ability sore that was replaced.
The best actual playing of Wildshape is the one that is least disruptive to gameplay.
But anyway, is it also the purview of the "lets rebuild monsters during gameplay for the enjoyment of the entire table" side of the argument that beasts get racial stat bonuses too? Because you bring up lineages yet reincarnate has been in the game since the PHB, so changing racial traits is nothing new.
But anyway, is it also the purview of the "lets rebuild monsters during gameplay for the enjoyment of the entire table" side of the argument that beasts get racial stat bonuses too? Because you bring up lineages yet reincarnate has been in the game since the PHB, so changing racial traits is nothing new.
Alas, poor reincarnate, so boring nowadays. Once, the spell could turn you into a badger. Or a troll. Because AD&D loved random weird stuff that might be either absurdly over the top or just hose you completely. AD&D 2e got rid of the really good forms (and, even if your new form was capable of having class levels, they were halved), though it did have a "DM's choice" on the table. In 3e they got rid of turning you into an animal.
There is no language in ASI that say "your humanoid scores are improved...". Ruling ASI to have provided a past benefit (the "one-and-done" argument) is counter-textual.
"Your" scores while a Bear are the scores you have while a bear. There is no "your true Strength" vs. "the Bear's strength", you ARE the bear. So if you still have a feature that says "your strength improves by +2".... you know what to do with it. This isn't me substituting an arguable interpretation over another, there's just literally no invitation in Wildshape or anywhere else to not consider your statistics while a bear to be your statistics, or to apply the benefits of your class features only to your "true" statistics and not your "bear" statistics.
I do concede that the RAW way that Wildshape works requires you to spend time to pre-build your wildshape forms and calculate their math, not just flip to the MM and point to creature entry. That isn't a problem with ASI alone though, that's going to happen no matter what because you're invited to retain your features (which might influence your armor class, your to hit bonus, your saving throws, etc.). Wildshape is not Polymorph.
Nah. Wildshape is pretty clear that you're replacing most things. There should not be a lot of live recalculations.
By the way, does "As normal, you can’t increase an ability score above 20 using this feature" clause still apply to ASIs in wildshape? Are you punished for choosing, say an elephant or a mammoth?
I understand the "no" answer here: it's easier to put it into practice, it's more in-line with what ASIs represent narratively, it's almost certainly what's intended. But CC is absolutely correct about there being no textual support for it. ASIs are class features. Wild Shape explicitly says you retain the benefit of class features if your new form is physically capable of them. Unless you want to try to argue that a bear is physically incapable of getting stronger, the RAW seems very clear.
I get the arguments against as well; but they're arguments based on what we feel are or should be the rules, not on what the book actually says are the rules.
Do I run my games this way? Heck no, it's a huge pain in the ass and I don't use ASIs anyway. But I've yet to encounter any rules-based argument against it.
There is no language in ASI that say "your humanoid scores are improved...". Ruling ASI to have provided a past benefit (the "one-and-done" argument) is counter-textual.
"Your" scores while a Bear are the scores you have while a bear. There is no "your true Strength" vs. "the Bear's strength", you ARE the bear. So if you still have a feature that says "your strength improves by +2".... you know what to do with it. This isn't me substituting an arguable interpretation over another, there's just literally no invitation in Wildshape or anywhere else to not consider your statistics while a bear to be your statistics, or to apply the benefits of your class features only to your "true" statistics and not your "bear" statistics.
I do concede that the RAW way that Wildshape works requires you to spend time to pre-build your wildshape forms and calculate their math, not just flip to the MM and point to creature entry. That isn't a problem with ASI alone though, that's going to happen no matter what because you're invited to retain your features (which might influence your armor class, your to hit bonus, your saving throws, etc.). Wildshape is not Polymorph.
Your game statistics replaced by the statistics of the beast, but you retain your alignment, personality, and Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma scores.
Seems pretty clear that there is a deference between Your stats and the Beast's stats in that statement.
I personally believe that all physical traits are replaced, but all mental traits and training is kept. So my Water Genasi Druid loses their water breathing but keeps their swimming speed. But it's up to the DM and players to decide how it works.
The ASI increases the character's ability score, then the character Wildshapes and has their scores replaced.
It is that simple. But as with most of these debates, if you squint at the rules long enough, everything can become realllllllllllllllly blurry
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Any argument saying there is no rules support for actually replacing your game statistics when the rules ask you to is troublesome. The rules are in conflict, and obviously the best solution is the one that makes usage at the table easiest.
Any argument saying there is no rules support for actually replacing your game statistics when the rules ask you to is troublesome. The rules are in conflict, and obviously the best solution is the one that makes usage at the table easiest.
In general, you replace your game statistics with those of the beast. But more specifically, you retain the benefit of class, race, etc. features that your new form is capable of using.
Any argument saying there is no rules support for actually replacing your game statistics when the rules ask you to is troublesome. The rules are in conflict, and obviously the best solution is the one that makes usage at the table easiest.
In general, you replace your game statistics with those of the beast. But more specifically, you retain the benefit of class, race, etc. features that your new form is capable of using.
In general, you retain the benefit of class, race, etc. features that your new form is capable of using.. But more specifically, you replace your game statistics with those of the beast.
There is no textual support that either is the more specific rule. Both statements are in the same feature, so you'd be hard pressed to tell me that one is from a more specific feature than the other.
I stand by my statement in the parent thread that the "effect" of an ASI is granted once, permanently. I disagree with CC that it being a "one and done" is an inadequate argument, even with lineages being introduced. Permanent can (and often does, even in this game) mean "intended to last indefinitely" That means that the duration is undefined, but not that it can't be changed in the future by an unforeseen event. in the game, wall of stone can become permanent (which is the actual word in the spell description), but that doesn't mean it can't be destroyed, only that it now lasts indefinitely.
To that end, with this interpretation after the ASI is applied, it no longer exists, you only have the remains, which is the Ability score. That score gets overridden (unless it is INT, WIS, or CHA) by wild shape.
Note that feats do not get this treatment, since a feat is not an ASI (you have to forgo the feature to take a feat). If a feat is useable with the creatures new body type, it would remain.
So, you would keep your ASIs in INT, WIS, or CHA when you wild shape, but only because those scores never change with that feature.
Any argument saying there is no rules support for actually replacing your game statistics when the rules ask you to is troublesome. The rules are in conflict, and obviously the best solution is the one that makes usage at the table easiest.
In general, you replace your game statistics with those of the beast. But more specifically, you retain the benefit of class, race, etc. features that your new form is capable of using.
In general, you retain the benefit of class, race, etc. features that your new form is capable of using.. But more specifically, you replace your game statistics with those of the beast.
There is no textual support that either is the more specific rule. Both statements are in the same feature, so you'd be hard pressed to tell me that one is from a more specific feature than the other.
That’s incoherent, since class features that your new form can use are specific examples of game statistics.
This is why I can’t see these “counterarguments” as anything other than working backward from an assumed conclusion. You’re forced to justify it by arguing that “all game statistics” is more specific than “these specific game statistics.”
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Wildshape says you keep your class features, and ASIs are class features. If you have, say, a +2 Strength ASI, does that increase your strength in a wildshape form (up to a max of 20, of course)?
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
This topic has gotten me in trouble several times on the forums in the past, I think that a lot of the opinions of me that others hold probably come down to my previous arguments on this topic. But why not :)
The basic argument is pretty short and intuitive, it's really ways to talk your way out of it that are complicated.
There, done.
The common argument against this comes down to "but Wild Shape replaces your statistics with the Beast, and the Beast's ability scores are statistics!" Yeah, that's true. But it's not like Wild Shape tells you "don't use your retained class features to improve the statistics of your Beast"... in fact, it says the literal opposite of that.
And, "but the ability score improvement is a 'past benefit', soemthing that's 'one-and-done', not an ongoing class feature providing an enduring bonus!" Oh really, says who? And back and forth the argument goes, for dozens of pages...
But... that's the old argument, with the old information. Recently, there's been a powerful new argument introduced in Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft, of all places... Lineages! The operation of applying a Lineage to a character that was already built with racial trait bonuses to its ability scores (either directly from a racial ability score increase, or from a bonus feat at character creation providing a +1 bonus), should cause those who have previously argued that Ability Score Improvements are "one-and-done" non-features to re-examine the error of their ways.
If a Mountain Dwarf who becomes a Dhampir, losing their dwarf ability score increase racial trait feature, loses their +2 Str and Con... that ability score increase was not "one-and-done" after all, was it? It was a live racial trait, that if Wildshaped, would continue to provide its benefit to a Mountain Dwarf Druid.
If a Varian Human who becomes a Dhampir, losing their Vhuman bonus feat Athletic (+1 Str), loses their +1 Str.... that ability score increase was not "one-and-done" after all, was it? It was a live racial trait, that if WIldshaped, would continue to provide its benefit to a VHuman Druid.
I'm conflating racial trait ability score increases and class-granted Ability Score Improvement, because Wildshape itself does, telling you that you retain the benefit of both. What's true of Ability Score Improvement, is true of Feats, is true of racial traits in this respect.
Is Ability Score Improvement a class feature? Yes, incontrovertibly RAW. Do you retain the benefits of your class features while Wildshaped? Yes, incontrovertibly RAW. Does Wildshape provide any specific exceptions about class features that provide increases to ability scores? No RAW ones, and I don't see any language that would even RAI suggest, so no.
The more nuanced argument against this is to argue, "fine, you keep the benefit of your class features and race traits, including ability score improvements... but if they're improvements to physical ability scores, your new form is not "physically capable" of benefiting from them." That's a hard position to argue against, because "physically capable" isn't defined in Wildshape. If you're the sort that cares about JC's advice on things, that position is incorrect, because JC considers "physically capable" to mean "has hands", "has a mouth," etc, not "literally has the same humanoid body they had before being Wildshaped." But hey, it's an argument!
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Honestly, the rules for keeping traits are a mess (does a tortle druid keep its ac?), I think most players and DMs assume all traits related to physical form are lost. However, this particular case is a problem with the game failing to distinguish one-time benefits from ongoing effects. For example, a class feature often says you 'gain' abilities, but you don't gain them again when you change shape -- you merely keep the benefit you already had. This means that the later effect (the attribute being replaced by the creature's attribute) overwrites the prior effect.
For the record, a Tortle that's Wildshaped into a bear probably wouldn't keep its AC under anyone's interpretation, because the AC represents a shell, and the bear doesn't have a shell (so, isn't "physically capable" of benefiting from that racial trait). I do agree that the Wildshape rules for keeping features/traits is a mess (really, the entire feature is), but Tortle isn't a good illustration of that.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
That is a really intriguing RAW argument.
I don't think it's RAI though, but that might just be my biases.
Another possible "counter" if you will, is that you can certainly retain the ASIs, but since the beasts replace your entire score, they are added "first" and then replaced. It's an order-of-operations problem
It seems simple to me.
The ASI increases the character's ability score, then the character Wildshapes and has their scores replaced.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
The ASI's affect your true form, not your beast form.
When you wildshape your STR, DEX, and CON become that of the beast. If you had any racial or ASI stat increase they do not apply to the beast's STR, DEX, or CON. Since you keep your INT, WIS, and CHA scores you also keep whatever changes were made to them.
I mean, problematically, the wild shape rules say two different things: "Your game statistics are replaced by the statistics of the beast, but you retain your alignment, personality, and Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma scores. " and "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."
If this is a question of RAW, then these are at best ambiguous. C_C cannot be "correct" because their argument relies on a specific reading of the rules that is easily countered by another vaild reading of the rules. Your game statistics are replaced. An ASI changes an ability sore that was replaced.
The best actual playing of Wildshape is the one that is least disruptive to gameplay.
But anyway, is it also the purview of the "lets rebuild monsters during gameplay for the enjoyment of the entire table" side of the argument that beasts get racial stat bonuses too? Because you bring up lineages yet reincarnate has been in the game since the PHB, so changing racial traits is nothing new.
Alas, poor reincarnate, so boring nowadays. Once, the spell could turn you into a badger. Or a troll. Because AD&D loved random weird stuff that might be either absurdly over the top or just hose you completely. AD&D 2e got rid of the really good forms (and, even if your new form was capable of having class levels, they were halved), though it did have a "DM's choice" on the table. In 3e they got rid of turning you into an animal.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Nah. Wildshape is pretty clear that you're replacing most things. There should not be a lot of live recalculations.
By the way, does "As normal, you can’t increase an ability score above 20 using this feature" clause still apply to ASIs in wildshape? Are you punished for choosing, say an elephant or a mammoth?
I understand the "no" answer here: it's easier to put it into practice, it's more in-line with what ASIs represent narratively, it's almost certainly what's intended. But CC is absolutely correct about there being no textual support for it. ASIs are class features. Wild Shape explicitly says you retain the benefit of class features if your new form is physically capable of them. Unless you want to try to argue that a bear is physically incapable of getting stronger, the RAW seems very clear.
I get the arguments against as well; but they're arguments based on what we feel are or should be the rules, not on what the book actually says are the rules.
Do I run my games this way? Heck no, it's a huge pain in the ass and I don't use ASIs anyway. But I've yet to encounter any rules-based argument against it.
Your game statistics replaced by the statistics of the beast, but you retain your alignment, personality, and Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma scores.
Seems pretty clear that there is a deference between Your stats and the Beast's stats in that statement.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I personally believe that all physical traits are replaced, but all mental traits and training is kept. So my Water Genasi Druid loses their water breathing but keeps their swimming speed. But it's up to the DM and players to decide how it works.
It is that simple. But as with most of these debates, if you squint at the rules long enough, everything can become realllllllllllllllly blurry
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Any argument saying there is no rules support for actually replacing your game statistics when the rules ask you to is troublesome. The rules are in conflict, and obviously the best solution is the one that makes usage at the table easiest.
Are the rules in conflict though? We have a mantra for this.
In general, you replace your game statistics with those of the beast. But more specifically, you retain the benefit of class, race, etc. features that your new form is capable of using.
In general, you retain the benefit of class, race, etc. features that your new form is capable of using.. But more specifically, you replace your game statistics with those of the beast.
There is no textual support that either is the more specific rule. Both statements are in the same feature, so you'd be hard pressed to tell me that one is from a more specific feature than the other.
I stand by my statement in the parent thread that the "effect" of an ASI is granted once, permanently. I disagree with CC that it being a "one and done" is an inadequate argument, even with lineages being introduced. Permanent can (and often does, even in this game) mean "intended to last indefinitely" That means that the duration is undefined, but not that it can't be changed in the future by an unforeseen event. in the game, wall of stone can become permanent (which is the actual word in the spell description), but that doesn't mean it can't be destroyed, only that it now lasts indefinitely.
To that end, with this interpretation after the ASI is applied, it no longer exists, you only have the remains, which is the Ability score. That score gets overridden (unless it is INT, WIS, or CHA) by wild shape.
Note that feats do not get this treatment, since a feat is not an ASI (you have to forgo the feature to take a feat). If a feat is useable with the creatures new body type, it would remain.
So, you would keep your ASIs in INT, WIS, or CHA when you wild shape, but only because those scores never change with that feature.
That’s incoherent, since class features that your new form can use are specific examples of game statistics.
This is why I can’t see these “counterarguments” as anything other than working backward from an assumed conclusion. You’re forced to justify it by arguing that “all game statistics” is more specific than “these specific game statistics.”