Would a Wild Shaped Elven Druid be affected by a Ghoul's Claw attack paralysis effect?
Here's what I've got so far: Wild Shape allows the Druid to retain, among other things, "racial features", if the new form is physically able to use them. While Wild Shaped, the Druid assumes the stat block of the creature, which includes its type (i.e. Beast), and so is no longer a Humanoid (and therefore not an Elf). The Ghoul's attack specifies that if the target "is a creature other than an elf or undead", it is subject to the paralysis effect. So a strict reading, I think, would say the Wild Shaped Elven Druid is subject to the effect, since it "is a creature other than an elf or undead" (because it's a Beast, not an elf, and not an undead), and no racial feature protects it (the "other than an elf" is not an Elven racial feature, but rather a targeting limitation of the effect).
On the other hand, traditionally, Elves are immune to the Ghoul's paralysis for "magical" reasons (positive energy, yadda yadda), and it would make sense that they retain said protection while Wild Shaped.
So, I think: RAW = "Wild Shaped Elven Druids are subject to Ghoul's paralysis", RAI = "Wild Shaped Elven Druids are immune to Ghoul's paralysis"?
Related: are Wild Shaped Druids (of any race) subject to Dominate Beast?
All that is replaced by Wild Shape is "statistics." While it's tempting to just say that everything on a character sheet is a statistic, this actually a term defined in the rules as "A monster's statistics, sometimes referred to as its stat block, provide the essential information that you need to run the monster."
A stat block includes creature "Type" (humanoid, beast, dragon, etc.). However, type is not race. The "beast" type includes no mention of races, and while the "humanoid" and "elemental" types discusses races within, it ascribes no particular rule significance to race as a concept at that time. "Tags" may be added to types, and the example provided is "Humanoid (Orc)"... but the description of tags provides explicitly that "the tags have no rules of their own, but something in the game, such as a magic item, might refer to them." On the other hand, "Race" receives separate attention in its own section that applies only to player characters. Nothing about the Race section implies that monsters that share a name or type/tag with the Race are members of the race, and we can actually point at clear examples that prove that that isn't the case (PC centaurs are fey, monster centaurs are monstrosities, and the two have very little in common). A player's race is not "Humanoid (elf)", it is Elf, and I would argue that those are not two ways of writing the same thing!
The wording of wild shape further supports that whatever form you take which may hand out a new creature type, your race remains unchanged. "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." The Wild shape entry is a little long to quote in its entirety, but nowhere does it ever even remotely imply that you change race (quite the opposite). I think that when an Elf wild shapes into a bear, they become an Elf with the Beast type instead of Humanoid type, not some undefined "Bear" race that does not appear anywhere in print. What would be the racial traits of a "Bear"? The very fact that you'd have to start homebrewing to answer that question is a great clue that "Bear" isn't a race... and nothing in the rules suggests that a player character can be raceless, so what have they become if they're no longer an Elf?
If there was an elven racial trait that said "you are immune to a Ghoul's paralysis," this would be an open and shut case. Nothing about the Ghoul's claw entry suggests that this immunity has anything to do with elven physiology, as opposed to the nature of their souls or magic or whatever else hand waving you want to do. If a dragonborn's breath weapon isn't tied to physiology (https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/909077662932418566?lang=en), then it's a safe bet that an elf's ghoul-resistance isn't either!
The only complication is... this immunity isn't really an elf feature, it's a ghoul feature. I think it's still pretty clear that this is a "benefit of [a] feature from... [an] other source" and still applies, but there's probably some convoluted dickish trail of half logic that a bastard DM or Jeremy Crawford could torture out to deny you the benefit of your elfness if you dared them to.
Would a Wild Shaped Elven Druid be affected by a Ghoul's Claw attack paralysis effect?
Here's what I've got so far: Wild Shape allows the Druid to retain, among other things, "racial features", if the new form is physically able to use them. While Wild Shaped, the Druid assumes the stat block of the creature, which includes its type (i.e. Beast), and so is no longer a Humanoid (and therefore not an Elf). The Ghoul's attack specifies that if the target "is a creature other than an elf or undead", it is subject to the paralysis effect. So a strict reading, I think, would say the Wild Shaped Elven Druid is subject to the effect, since it "is a creature other than an elf or undead" (because it's a Beast, not an elf, and not an undead), and no racial feature protects it (the "other than an elf" is not an Elven racial feature, but rather a targeting limitation of the effect).
On the other hand, traditionally, Elves are immune to the Ghoul's paralysis for "magical" reasons (positive energy, yadda yadda), and it would make sense that they retain said protection while Wild Shaped.
So, I think: RAW = "Wild Shaped Elven Druids are subject to Ghoul's paralysis", RAI = "Wild Shaped Elven Druids are immune to Ghoul's paralysis"?
Related: are Wild Shaped Druids (of any race) subject to Dominate Beast?
Druids' wild shape is extremely underexplained (is that a word?). DM discretion.
All that is replaced by Wild Shape is "statistics." While it's tempting to just say that everything on a character sheet is a statistic, this actually a term defined in the rules as "A monster's statistics, sometimes referred to as its stat block, provide the essential information that you need to run the monster."
A stat block includes creature "Type" (humanoid, beast, dragon, etc.). However, type is not race. The "beast" type includes no mention of races, and while the "humanoid" and "elemental" types discusses races within, it ascribes no particular rule significance to race as a concept at that time. "Tags" may be added to types, and the example provided is "Humanoid (Orc)"... but the description of tags provides explicitly that "the tags have no rules of their own, but something in the game, such as a magic item, might refer to them." On the other hand, "Race" receives separate attention in its own section that applies only to player characters. Nothing about the Race section implies that monsters that share a name or type/tag with the Race are members of the race, and we can actually point at clear examples that prove that that isn't the case (PC centaurs are fey, monster centaurs are monstrosities, and the two have very little in common). A player's race is not "Humanoid (elf)", it is Elf, and I would argue that those are not two ways of writing the same thing!
The wording of wild shape further supports that whatever form you take which may hand out a new creature type, your race remains unchanged. "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." The Wild shape entry is a little long to quote in its entirety, but nowhere does it ever even remotely imply that you change race (quite the opposite). I think that when an Elf wild shapes into a bear, they become an Elf with the Beast type instead of Humanoid type, not some undefined "Bear" race that does not appear anywhere in print. What would be the racial traits of a "Bear"? The very fact that you'd have to start homebrewing to answer that question is a great clue that "Bear" isn't a race... and nothing in the rules suggests that a player character can be raceless, so what have they become if they're no longer an Elf?
If there was an elven racial trait that said "you are immune to a Ghoul's paralysis," this would be an open and shut case. Nothing about the Ghoul's claw entry suggests that this immunity has anything to do with elven physiology, as opposed to the nature of their souls or magic or whatever else hand waving you want to do. If a dragonborn's breath weapon isn't tied to physiology (https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/909077662932418566?lang=en), then it's a safe bet that an elf's ghoul-resistance isn't either!
The only complication is... this immunity isn't really an elf feature, it's a ghoul feature. I think it's still pretty clear that this is a "benefit of [a] feature from... [an] other source" and still applies, but there's probably some convoluted dickish trail of half logic that a bastard DM or Jeremy Crawford could torture out to deny you the benefit of your elfness if you dared them to.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Wow, excellent argument, Chicken_Champ. Consider me convinced. Thanks!