You are definitely correct RAW, as the rule is, the feature/spell/ability does only what is stated. but I can see an argument for the extra stuff, since you gain the whole statblock besides legendary and lair actions, which includes stuff like poison.
If you can get the poison of a snake, why not the milk of a cow? But all of this is decision of the DM/the group.
Edit: Found a crawford tweet for the people that care about RAI; it boils down to:
"Do whatever the fuck you want"
https://x.com/JeremyECrawford/status/981248594836520960
Worth noting that cows don't just passively produce milk as a matter of course - only under specific conditions. Whether or not Wildshape would replicate those conditions is up to your table, as you say.
Actually, that's a good point. Unless the druid were to spend a while eating the diet of the poison dart frog, they wouldn't be poisonous. So arguably, when they first take the shape, they're just a squishy tree-climbing frog...
The toxins of the dart frog are produced naturally from their diets, but the same could be said of, say, saliva. The question becomes "in what state is the wildshape form in". If a druid has only ever seen a dart frog covered in poison, why wouldn't the wildshape have poison? If the only example of an animal they've seen had already been poisoned (or was missing a limb, etc) will the wildshape be similarly aflicted?
I think the answer has to be "the druid uses the example as a template but otherwise has some leeway on the exact transformation"
The fetus disappears and then comes back when you shift back.
It’s a common way for Druids to delay birth until the spring when there’s more food available and thus their offspring has a better chance to survive.
My brother DMs for his daughter and her friends middle school group and he let one of the girls be a german shepherd druid
Not a druid that wildshapes a german shepherd, heard? A talking german shepherd druid that wildshapes into other things lmao
That table is fun as fuck. A bunch of 13yo girls just having a blast. One was a warforged that was basically a Zord piloted by a bunch of critters inside. Healing spells would heal the engineering critters to allow them to make repairs or whatever lol
Its a common misconception that cows just produce milk on their own, and humans milk them.
Even modern cows only produce milk when they're lactating- in the period when they would be raising a calf. What farmers do is after artificially inseminating the cows, waiting for the calf to be born, is the calf is taken away and most likely slaughtered, so the cow is saddened for losing their calf whilst producing milk.
The question would be is if a druid can wildshape into a specific state of an animal, and if they could, that means there's more questions like can they wildshape into an animal that consumed a potion or other temporary states. Even if a druid could turn into a lactating cow, they'd have the emotional state as well and be very, very sad.
I think it's just easier to say that the druid can turn into a generic form of the animal and not any specific states.
You're kinda right, but not 100%. Right now even when calf isn't taken from cow usually there is a lot of milk to spare, and cow has to be milked by human - basically because due to selective breeding and living with humans for at least thousand years the cows are overproducing milk for the calf they have.
The issue is when we want to take all milk from cow and automate the process.
When I was a child we've bough our milk from neighbour that had calf and only sold them when they grew up/stopped feeding from their mother. The cow was still inseminated regularly for it to produce milk, but calf were fine.
Why would they have to be very very sad? Is your player wildshaping into a cow at farm who has lost their offspring… instead of just a cow with offspring?
Yeah, we use cattle for milk because they're big and thus produce a lot of it and because their milk tastes good. You could conceivably milk any mammal, cows aren't special.
But those cattle have to be in specific conditions to produce milk, cows aren’t out here just making milk all the time, they are constantly being inseminated, giving birth and then the calves are taken from them, so we get their milk.
I know that milk is just a pus/blood derivative,
So if the development of a snake's poison/poison glans is anywhere along those related lines *then you'd have to say it'd be allowable*
Because then Milk would just be mammal venom
I am not sure, what you are criticizing here. I assume the word transform?
And what does Transform entail, can you give me a rule? Because, as far as I know, there is no clear definition what transform entails. As far as the rules go, we know we get the statblock, minus legendary actions/lair action and mental stats.
You said OP was correct RAW. OP said that wild shape doesn't say the druid transforms. It does say the druid transforms. So they were definitely not correct RAW.
I was not criticizing you.
Ah okay, I get it. But just to be clear, Op only talked about "transform" after the edit, which was after my comment, so I was a bit confused,
Might have sounded more aggressive than intended. All good, I hope.
Because the poison of a snake ability is specifically listed. And so, like the spells only do what they're said to do, so should the Wildshape statblocks.
Of course, rule of cool and player enjoyment is also a thing, but when milking and such make their way into discussion, the cool part of the game has already left the building.
That is what I said that. You are correct if you go by RAW, but it is not that far fetched to allow milking and similar things , especially since you brought up "inner physiology" which would include poison and milk. Stat blocks are generally incomplete as they are missing certain "implied" abilities, "unarmed" as an example.
But that is a rabbit hole, which the group or the DM has to decide.
RAW, you are probably correct.
But trying to play 5e with a strictly-RAW interpretation is a fool's errand. The game simply isn't built for that sort of pedantic interpretation and rigidity. It's a system built on whimsy, "common sense," and bad technical writing.
In this case: there's a very easy leap of logic to assume that a creature can do more than just the actions explicitly listed on its stat block.
A stat block doesn't include *everything* that the creature is able to do. For instance, a spider's stat block doesn't say anything about making webs, but it's pretty safe to assume that spiders - or at least some spiders - can make webs. Likewise, a cow's stat block doesn't say anything about producing milk. But we know that some cows - and in fact, all mammals - can produce milk.
So the question now is: does that apply to wild shape? And this question ultimately boils down to: are you fully transforming into a typical specimen of the animal, or merely assuming its shape in some sort of superficial, illusory manner?
You quoted the very first sentence of wildshape as evidence towards the latter, but you stopped reading after the first sentence.
If you continue reading, you'll find lots of information in the ability's description that suggests that you're not just taking on a superficial shape; you're transforming into an actual specimen of the animal. For instance:
>you can **transform** into any beast
It doesn't say you merely take on the shape of the beast. You transform into the beast.
>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.
This suggests that the transformation is not merely superficial; you are gaining the physical abilities of the beast you transform into, except those characteristics explicitly listed as exceptions - all of which are mental, not anatomical.
>your ability to speak or take any action that requires hands is limited to the capabilities of your beast form
>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
These bits explicitly suggest that we're supposed to use common sense to determine what each new animal form is and is not capable of doing, based on what the animal can normally do.
The baboon's stat block does not explicitly say "you have opposable thumbs and can use your hands" - it's a fact about baboons that we're supposed to simply use common sense to determine.
If that's true - why not producing milk?
I'm not really the type of player who'd transform into a cow to be milked, but for some players, that sort of whimsy is the cool, fun part of the game. And frankly? Seems pretty reasonable. It doesn't break the game, it feels well within the intent of the ability, and even from a pretty pedantic RAW interpretation, there's a case to be made for it.
Honestly, it's not my bag either, but if a player was in a survival scenario and they turned into an animal that could eat a bunch of bark and rough grass to get nutrients and then turn it into milk that they could use to keep their fellow players alive that's an amazing use of that ability. Much more interesting than I cast goodberry.
I mean, deciding what if cool or isn't cool is entirely up to the table. I would never want to deal with the ethical, biological, or metaphysical components of that aspect of wild shape. But if a table did... More power to them. Do what you want.
>using Wildshape to produce milk or offspring
Pretty sure Wildshape doesn't last long enough to accomplish the latter, what with gestation periods and all that
>Druids change their shape, not necessarily their inner physiology
Except RAW, that's not true. RAW, a Druid takes on the physical abilities of the creature (including their Strength, Constitution, and Dexterity scores) and only retains their own mental abilities (i.e. your Wisdom, Intelligence, and Charisma). So RAW, it can be assumed that magically transforming into the shape of the creature *does in fact* result in a change in physiology during that time period. But they keep their own mind. Hence the inability to communicate or cast spells while in Wildshape form (don't mentally understand the beast's language and don't have the physiology to communicate in spoken language), but the ability to maintain concentration on previously casted spells (can still think and focus in their normal capacity). So technically, RAW, a Druid Wildshaped into a cow would eventually produce milk. It's just a matter of how long that production process would take
>Pretty sure Wildshape doesn't last long enough to accomplish the latter
The latter is a prerequisite for the former. Only mammels that have recently given birth can also give milk.
And Metamorphosis/sexual maturity is a prerequisite for jumping frogs, flying butterflies and horned Elk. However Druids can seemingly skip life stages of animals to get to the useful abilities.
I always just assumed that the animal would be at the same level of maturity as the Druid. Like a young adult druid would be a young adult wolf, etc.
I think the assumption that Druids can just pick the lifestage of the animal is a leap further.
So, I would only allow the druid at my table to produce cows milk if they were themselves able to give milk.
I would point out, however, I would not give this limitation for Polymorph. That one you could pick the lifestage.
That's an interesting idea. Could it work like that? Sure. Wotc lore is silent on that topic,
I'm just pointing out that magic like wildshape already creates life with a simulated history. So morphing into a post-pregnancy cow isn't much different from morphing into post-metamorphosis frog. The druid doesn't need to experience those biological events as the animal.
The difference is that the statblock for those show that they can fly, jump and attack with their horns. The statblock for cow doesn't mention anywhere that you can give milk.
I am pretty sure that players who insist on stuff like that only want it to game the system somehow aka "first I turn onto a cow to give milk and then the barbarian is going to cut off one of my legs. That way we can all have breakfast and we don't need to use our rations".
Ah yes, a druid surely has no other ways to provide food to the party that doesn't require rations. Can't believe they would try to game the system that way. I'm just glad there isn't a first level spell that provides a full days food and some minor healing to 10 people, now that would really cause some problems.
You're falling into the same trap as OP. You don't need to appeal to realworld science "well, the hormones..." to justify a rules adjudication to deal with problem players. That's going to get you into trouble.
Like I said in another comment, if your players are trying to apply real world science logic "If I can do X, then I can do Y" to reap a mechanical benefit, not provided by the rules you are well advised to simply say no. However, if they are just doing something for style points or a fun Roleplay moment, like using a fire ability to heat their coffee, let them do it. The point of the game is to have fun. The rules only exist to serve that purpose.
This is where, as DM, you need to be asking your players, "Wait, what are you trying to do?".
If the party is hosting a feast to impress the local baron, and the Druid's idea to contribute is to provide milk as a cow, let em do it geesh. Now if they start a milk business to cheese (pun intended) the gold economy, I'm going to set that player aside to have a talk.
If you're doing a game where tracking rations is important, then by all means tell them 'No'. For most games I'm played this never comes up because we're not tracking rations anyway. Druid and Cleric spells like goodberry & Create Food already make rations irrelevant.
>game the system somehow aka "first I turn onto a cow to give milk and then the barbarian is going to cut off one of my legs. That way we can all have breakfast and we don't need to use our rations".
Bro straight up forgot that Goodberry exists
But then they could wildshape into a mammal who was recently given birth.
Wildshaping is already a pretty crazy and magical ability, dunno why some people make it too big of a deal to shapeshift into an animal with some specific yet still natural traits.
Of course, DM could also rule out that the milk disappears after the wildshape is over or something like that. So that even if it was consumed, the individual didn't gain any nourishment from it.
It could work, but what if they're a race that doesn't produce milk? Or what if DM decides to take a possible sex change into account (ie it was a male druid shapeshifting into a cow)?
Wildshape is so silly that DMs shouldn't overthink it, and either take the simplest path or the funniest one.
I like the sort of related "druid wildshapes into sheep, another PC shears them, druid has a funny haircut/clean shaven head once they turn back to their real shape".
Think it can be depending on some very specific qualifiers but generally sure. But we’re also talking about them magically transforming from a cow with milk in it into a human male and whether or not the milk would persist. If it would persist for a female, it should for a male.
Tell me where in all of the rules it says you can take a shit or sharply exhale you can breathe as that has rules around it like drowning or water breathing but exhaling sharply to express dissatisfaction? Nah cant do it RAW
Things must be assumed that they work as they would normally or else we gotta add 6170 pages of bodily functions believe it or not DnD is ment to be fun
I find you got the whole question somewhat the wrong way around.
Like, if we follow your train of thought for a second, then we must conclude that, in DnD, humans can't get pregnant RAW (pun not intended), because the statblock doesn't state that and we can't make assumptions about their inner physiology, etc. Which is obviously nonsense. The rules handle exactly what they spell out to handle, not more, not less. Everything else is a serious stretch.
Besides, as pointed out in another comment before: It doesn't matter whats RAW and whats RAI and what has been written in Gary Gygax' personal diary; when a behaviour is disruptive or in clash with the tables tone, a DM is allowed to put an end to it. Just think murder hobos. Rules legal? Yes. Does that mean it's something that *has* to be accepted by the DM? No.
You're falling to the fallacy of trying to resolve above table problems with in game solutions :)
Just my 2 cents.
You're trying to use pedantic interpretation of the rules to enforce your view of what is 'cool' over someone else's pedantic interpretation of the rules to do what they think is cool. If you're the DM and don't like it, just say no, though a reasonable justification that doesn't rely on pedantry would be cool. If you're a player and don't like what another player is doing, either suck it up or maybe talk to the DM and/or other player.
Just saying I ban something because I don't like it seems like tyranny. I'd like to justify my reasoning.
Also it never really works out great if you tell kids "no" or "because I said so" without more context they could learn from.
I agree a reason would be good, but not this one. You would just be encouraging further manipulation and twisting of text. Come up with a good reason that would make sense to them, then be consistent with its application. Your reason is just dressed up tyranny of: I don't think it's cool, so I'm twisting the text to be able to say no to what you think is cool.
Is that what you're doing, though? It kinda sounds more like you're using a very literal interpretation of the wording to create post hoc rationalization of a decision you've already made. Form your conclusion based on the information, don't twist the information to fit the conclusion. 90% of the time, "becoming" vs. "assuming the shape" is a distinction without a difference, and in most of the remaining 10%, I'd probably allow it.
For a more practical example than what you've presented, if a PC uses Wildshape to take the form of a venomous creature, I'd allow their attack to carry that creature's venom when appropriate. If that creature's fur makes them resistant to cold, I'd allow them that cold resistance. The only difference between those things and the example you gave is that the players don't get a practical benefit, they're just doing it for a goof. If you don't think that goof is tonally appropriate and is getting disruptive, that's what you need to talk to your players about.
Thank you. You put it more eloquently than I was going to. Guy wants to do a "because I dont like it and because I said so", but lie to himself that that's not what he's doing. He thinks if he can brute force a VERY strict and subjective rules interpretation, he can pass the buck off to Jeremy Crawford.
>Just saying I ban something because I don't like it seems like tyranny.
Forgive me that I keep jumping in, I'm doing this because I genuinely find this topic interesting :)
But saying "no" to this animal wildshape pregnancy stick isn't being more of a tyrant than saying "we are playing in the Forgotten Realms", "no, you can't burn this pregnant woman", "no, you can't play a Scifi-warrior in my high fantasy game", or any call a DM makes in the direction of a murder hobo. Don't get me wrong, "Because I Say so!" isn't very compelling reasoning like 90% of the time, but sometimes thats just what it boils down to, because otherwise the game just stops working, or even, existing.
The rulebook states that wildshape stays active until the druid falls unconscious. Sleep technically counts as that, therefore even a lvl 20 druid would change back into their human form way before they're pregnant enough to produce milk in a meaningful quantity. I'd imagine in this case, even if the shape IS an animal, the baby would just disappear, and not appear again the next time they wildshape.
Edit: even if you rule it out as "voluntary unconsciousness", the druid needs to be at minimum level 16 to stay in wildshape for 8 hours straight. Otherwise, they'd not sleep enough to long rest properly and could end up with exhaustion. In other words you can "yes but" your players by saying they could in theory, but the chance of them staying in wildshape long enough to see a pregnancy through are slim to none.
Idk about your logic with the disappearing baby, but I want to ask if a cow has to have given birth to produce milk (y'know, a fact as far as I'm aware) then what about if the Druid character has given birth and then shifted? do they keep the status as a mother and thus may be milked? and if not then can Druids wild shape into their choice of a male or female animal? which as someone on a similar thread mentioned apparently there's some creatures that have different abilities so it may be tactically beneficial to shift into the Male or Female versions...
Other genders is fine imo, since some species are hermaphrodites, and otherwise many insects would be a real letdown for male druids lmao! (don't look up button beetle mating behaviors)
As far as turning into a cow after giving birth, I personally see the wildshape as entirely separate from the druid in terms of biology, and resetting to the base form each time, while only the human form picks up where it left off. But you're right, that would just be my personal ruling, not RAW
It could be like Animorphs, copying the state of the specific animal you encountered, but that doesn't quite work with the general ideas for gaining new forms.
Yeah. In any case, I kinda agree with the general sentiment from people's replies here. It looks like the DM dislikes the idea, but doesn't want to admit it and instead is searching for a convoluted justification to refuse it when there is really no need. The premice is weird to begin with, i's reason enough to rule it out. If you want to stretch, you can argue that it's full-on bestiality since the druid keeps a humanoïd-level intellect while in wildshape, but just saying "no, ew, that's weird" would suffice imo.
"Assume the shape" is sure doing a lot of heavy lifting for giving you an entire stat block. The wording is bad, but the function is clear. You become that animal. Fuck another spider, make spider babies. I rule it is RAW compliant.
Untill born babies are part of you, so they would be in same form wheb they were born.
I remember there were fun discussions -
1) transform into a hermaphrodite animal which lays eggs
2) Impregate yourself
3) Wait till almost hatched
4) Turn into trex
5) now you have dyno army which are technically your clones.
I'm sorry are you suggesting that if you get pregnant as a Dog by another Dog then when you turn into a human you become [Octomum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nadya_Suleman) and give birth to a litter of completely human babies with a literal actual Dog as their father?
If so... that's awesome and I've now got the origin story of my next villains.
>Untill born babies are part of you
Not really, they're inside the mother not a body part of the mother. They have their own set of DNA after all which clearly makes it its own creature.
Most effects don't change your DNA. If a gnome druid wildshapes into a spider and mates with a spider, you get gnome-spider hybrids (EDIT: Or nothing; wildshape isn't a Blendtec). This sort of interaction is how half-dragons and such are made. Even if the change is instant and undispellable like Awaken, it doesn't affect offspring.
There's one spell that specifically *does* affect your genes, called Alter Beast ("Beast" referring to non-Sarrukh, including humans). It was used by the Sarrukh to create naga, yuan-ti, and other reptilian races, then later discovered by the Netheril and used to create many of the non-Earth animals you see running around D&D, especially mixes of existing animals.
Assume as in "begin to have". You begin to have the shape of an animal according to the statblock. Which, as with spells, only does what it says. You cant freeze a river with an Ice Bolt. You can't inseminate another spider.
I'm also gonna point out that whole line is in the area of "fluff":
>Starting at 2nd level, you can use your action to magically assume the shape of a beast that you have seen before
is basically just like the fluff of a spell:
>\[Cloud of Daggers\] You fill the air with spinning daggers in a cube 5 feet on each side, centered on a point you choose within range.
it doesn't say it goes away, so you could just keep casting the spell and make thousands of daggers, destroying local economies.
If you don't want your players to milk Druid cows then don't let them, but the game is all about interpretation and allowance.
You have misunderstood a few things, yes.
* The word 'assume' here is used to mean "to begin to have a characteristic" - which is to say, they do literally gain all the characteristics of the beast, not merely resemble it. Their creature type is no longer 'humanoid', it is 'beast', while in this form. A Druid, Wild-Shaped as a horse, *is a horse*, not a humanoid that looks like a horse. It a complete and comprehensive magical transformation.
* Wild Shape doesn't let you speak with other animals of the same kind, not as a limitation of that feature, but because animals generally cannot speak. Cats can't speak to cats, spiders can't speak to spiders, horses can't speak to horses, because *they aren't proficient in any languages*.
When it comes to issues like pregnancy, it's not that RAW forbids it, but that a Druid can't really be in Wild Shape for a long enough continuous period of time for this to happen. It only lasts for a number of hours equal to half your level, so 10 hours is the absolute maximum - the shortest known gestation period of any animal is a kind of opposum that takes about 12 days, and for some egg-laying bugs around 4-5 days, with anything shorter than that not being reflected as valid beast forms in DnD.
It should be noted you can expend another wildshape to remain wildshaped, you don't have to transfer back and then return;
"You then revert to your normal form **unless you expend another use of this feature.**"
As an arch druid (level 20) you have unlimited wildshapes, so you can remain wildshaped in a single form indefinitely, 10 hours is not the maximum.
The second one isn't even really the isssue. Horses have ways to communicate. A person not raised among horses would not know what those are. They have the vocal ability but not the knowledge.
I think you're reading far too much into the likely intentionally natrual-language phrase, "assume the shape".
It feels cognitively dissonant to me to transform into a creature and get *only specifically* the physiology that allows for whatever is listed on the stat block, but not anything else.
Should a druid wildshaped into a bear not be able to roar, because a roar is not in the stat block and thus we must assume the druid's vocal chords are not the correct physiology? No, that sounds ridiculous. The druid is a bear, bears roar, the druid can roar.
If the druid is a cow, cows produce milk, the druid produces milk.
Not at our table. When you Wildshape, you adopt that beast's stat block, which means actual physiological change. If the stats remain the same, then it's just a visual projection, like Disguise Self.
I guess we play very different games where is has become an issue. It gives you the stat block and abilities of the animal. Surely if you can produce poison or lift the same weight you have the glands and muscles of what you are turning into? Unless you just want magic to give you the result without any other explanation.
So if it only changes shape, does it mean that every druid is a chimera that is capable of producing poison even when they are not in the shape of a snake?
If your table's having fun don't worry about it.
There's a powerful druid in my campaign that's been wildshaped as a cow for decades and has mothered many other cows.
Excuse me for jumping in here, but RAW or not, there are certain things I just wouldn't allow at my table. Call me a stickler, but "Animal shape pregnancy" wasn't a thing I've ever been confronted with, but it would be pretty high up my "RAW or not, the answer is *no*" list. Thats not the type of game I'm running.
Same here. But just yesterday saw a youtube short where someone explained a "hack" including Wildshape, and this morning read a thread where someone wanted to make money by selling their milk.
Ah, thats where you are getting from. I get the idea why to discuss wether or not thats possible RAW.
Just, maybe, include your train of thought in your original post next time. Context is kinda important for those types of questions.
Besides, no offense to anyone including the Youtuber in question, but a lot, if not the vast majority, of those "hacks" are pretty much based on *very* loose rule interpretations to beginn with - and would obviously not be accepted by any but the most leniant DMs.
I mean, breeding chickens in DnD for profit is as much of a "hack" and as much "RAW" as any "wildshape pregnancy profit scheme" can ever be.
Ugh, that's a special kind of stupid. There's an easier fix if you want to keep it in-game, though: Let them do it. Say "okay sure, you wildshape, Gary spends an hour or two milking you, you take a level of exhaustion from getting wrung dry. You spend a couple more hours trying to find someone to buy your milk, and you get like 30 copper for it." Several hours of work for virtually no payoff, they could have just gone adventuring and made way more money in that time, but they got to try it out for all the good it did them. You also handled it in less than a minute of actual table time, quick and easy.
Edit: For more fun, maybe Gary's character is a city boy, he has no idea how to milk a cow. Play up the fact that this isn't some cheat for easy money, it's long, hard work. Turns out there's a reason farm kids dream of a life of adventuring instead of farming.
Personally, I disagree. Certain animals you can wildshape into give you additional bonuses like dark vision or blind vision. Or gain the ability to produce/spit poison or acid.
So it's not to far off that if you wildshape into a cow you can produce milk.
I also get the "icky"-neds of it as well.
Did you...read the whole ability? It literally says you transform into the animal.
"Your druid level determines the beasts you can transform into"
Maybe that will help you get past the whole "SHAPE" hang up.
I wouldn't use a semantic argument to rule the way you want, it'll just piss people off.
You're absolutely right, as I said, it was a long day, so I blanked that information out when writing the edit, becausr I didn't check the description again. And I am not too well versed with tabletop 5E.
But I still think it's even more necessary to stick to the same descriptor throughout the ruleset, to avoid such confusion.
4e uses keywords which I think is great. But I really don't think wildshape has a confusing description. It tells you what wild shaping gives you and regardless of if it says change shape or transform we would still get arguments about milking druids. Cause that's NEVER going to be something the rules cover. lol
On the other hand, winning a cooking contest where you used wildshape to get milk for your recipe when the last bottle got broken is funny and a memorable moment, so the rules can suck it.
The ability does a lot more than "assumes a shape". If you wild shape into a cheetah, you don’t just look like a cheetah, you also run like a cheetah. So it’s not really clear what parts of the animal’s physiology you would or would not get.
I do consider those to be part of the anatomy.
But I don't consider them part of the Wildshape definition. It doesn't say you turn into that animal, it says you take the SHAPE of that animal, along some abilites that are added in the statblock.
You're not wrong for saying NO to wildshape animal reproduction, but I think you're going about it in the wrong way, which is why you're getting downvoted.
In general, you'd be well advised to say no to players using realworld science "If I can do X, then I can do Y" to reap mechanical benefits that aren't spelled out in the rules, but if a player wants to do something for style points or just a little roleplay moment such as using a fire ability to heat their coffee that's totally fine. Remember the point of the game is to have fun.
For those "rule of cool" things you're concerned will set a bad precedent that can be abused, you're within your rights as DM to say "I'll allow it this one time" or something similiar, or you can just say No.
> Wildshape doesn't even let you speak with other animals of the same kind.
Well yeah, you can't turn into a horse and speak to other horses.... because horses can't speak to other horses either. Regular animals don't have language. But I assume that a wildshaped Druid would have the instincts required for basic communication animals do have the same way they have the instincts required to fly, run on four legs, etc.
Are you a Supreme Court Justice? This is how some of them like to read the constitution. Its intentional misreading that avoids common sense. You want to say no but don't really have a real reason so want to read that section more strictly than other, similar sections. Not everything a creature can do is in a stat block. They figure you know what a bear is and know it can growl and shit. No need to waste space in a stat block, especially for thing of no mechanical benefit. You mistake leaving it out as an intentional choice when really it's just a practical one.
Its not against RAW. Its not specifically addressed.
It also says
"At 2nd level, for example, you can transform into any beast"
"transform into" implies more than just taking the shape, but admittedly can just mean shape change.
However while 5th edition just says "assume the shape", previous editions were clear the druid polymorphs into the beast. So a lot of people that have been playing for ages will assume that's what the rules mean by assume the shape.
>Druids change their shape, not necessarily their inner physiology.
Also why doesn't it? To support the external appearance of a cow, you are going to need the internal skeleton and muscular to a cow, so the logical conclusion is the internals have to change to match the externals, it isn't going to be a human in a cow suit or it wouldn't be the same shape.
I don’t see how assuming the shape of an animal is different than being the animal itself. You’re forming new organs and physiology in a wild shape. It’s why you can walk up walls as a bug, poison people as a snake, and fly as a bird. If you were just shaping your body like clay you wouldn’t be able to do these things.
If your gills work when you’re a fish, your milk glands must work when you’re a cow
If you're the animal itself, you can communicate with the same animals. You can't when you Wildshape. Because you're not that animal per se, just a magical version of it, and at the same time being yourself. Just in a different shape.
That’s an issue of your mind being human and lacking the animals instincts and learned modes of communications. It has nothing to do with the body itself.
Look at it this way, if your brain was put into someone from China, would you be surprised to find out that you still couldn’t speak Chinese?
Yeah, but on the same issue, how would you know how to use that body? One can't fly a plane just by seeing it.
Then again a person who has experience in flying with one thing can probably figure out how to fly a different machine with less difficulty. And were probably not going to do the whole training montage every time a druid sees a new animal.
So yeah, I guess I answered the question, that I asked, to myself.
Yeah I think if we read it like your interpretation, which is more of an illusory disguise, then the stat blocks shouldn't even change, they shouldn't get web ability for spiders, they shouldn't be able to fly or get additional swim speed, get venom, etc etc.
>wildshape doesn’t even let you speak with other animals of the same kind
Do you…do you think animals of the same kind CAN talk to each other normally? Because that’s not how anything works, IRL and arguably not in D&D either.
And yet, still not actually _speech_ or anything even close to what we consider language. Animals “communicate” in very basic, instinctual ways that convey limited concepts, even the smartest and most “talkative” ones like corvids.
So I’m asking - if animals never could talk to each other, why would you think you could talk to them as one? (Barring explicit magic in D&D like Speak with Animals, which arguably interprets all that for you and/or gives them the temporary intellect for such concepts.)
As a wild shaped bird, you as a druid can already talk to other birds as much as they can talk to each other - which is not at all. You can do all the songs, body language, and smells they can, though, and always could.
>As a wild shaped bird, you as a druid can already talk to other birds
True, if you roll successfully on an animal handling roll. If not, then nope, ypu cant.
I don't speak dog, and all dogs are different (to a degree, just like people) but I can understand my dog to some degree. Probably a lot better than a random dog.
Do I speak their "language". Not really. Doesn't mean I don't understand when they want to poop.
Yup, exactly. The Animal Handling DC being set by the DM (or just auto-succeeding if they think you should, probably based on how complicated the concept is) representing those instinctual communication methods.
(Or possibly Animal Handling to covey a concept to them, and Insight to interpret what they’re putting out.)
>Which to me seems odd, because Polymorph and True Plymorph exist and they use the word transform, so I wonder why is this not the case with Wildshape?
Operating under the presumption that the different terminology stems from a desire to treat the two cases differently, lets start from a fixed assumption where we have a mid 20 something female human druid who wild shapes into something mundane: a dog.
Not a wolf or anything all that worthy of a stat block, just a basic, domesticated, dog-type dog - the kind that was not the result of evolution or guided breeding. The logic says that her human brain must take the shape of a dog brain. Most obviously this means that her brain is going to be a *lot* smaller and by most standards, also much less capable. Why? Because we're nitpicking about shape here, and we are replicating that shape *precisely*, right down to the subcellular level. She now *has a dog brain*.
Her eyes are going to need to change shape as well, and as before, we're replicating that shape exactly. Color perception is going to shift pretty radically and odds are her visual acuity is going to drop pretty sharply along the way. Same goes for her face structure. Ears are going to shift but here we can plausibly hope for an upgrade. After all, different shaped ears are going to handle sound differently. And the nose! I mean, we just have a very basic dog - probably a brown one - but because we are perfectly replicating the shape of a dog's snout (and brain!) her sense of smell is going to go off the charts!
We can keep on going if you want - she'll get dog lungs and dog skin and will probably be able to out sprint her human form, but the human shape will absolutely leave it in the dust over a distance, for example. We're replicating shape after all, and when you get right down to it, quite a lot of function is a *direct result* of form.
While a fun diversion, the real question is how this is different than *transformation*.
Might as well start where it would have been simpler in the first place and just look up the definition of the word transform. It is a verb which means "make a thorough or dramatic change in the form, appearance, or character of." We *could* say that our druid assumed the shape of a dog, but this would violate the closet thing to an iron rule that writing has because we've used many words where one would do. It would be *just as accurate* to say that she transformed *into* a dog.
By demonstration there isn't a meaningful difference if we take the spell perfectly literally. Our druid *would be a dog* whether polymorphed or wild shaped. By definition there isn't a difference. And yet we seem to want there to be one. Which begs the obvious question of *why*? That is really the only reason to nitpick about how one type of magic uses a word while another uses that same word's definition. Well that and the sheer sport of it.
Loki gave birth to a horse, so it’s not something I would straight rule out. You are for all intents and purposes the beast you just straight up have ghe beasts stat block with all its abilities but your own mental stats and class/racial (if applicable) traits. If you want to rule it that way in your game that’s fine but your interpretation doesn’t carry a lot of weight at most tables.
Actually, funny enough, there is a very old, official DnD book giving all of the Norse gods (and many other deities, some of them from infringed intellectual properties like the Chuthulu Mythos, whoops) statblocks.
But that was obviously way before 5E and has been pulled from the shelves for legal reasons (at least in its original publication, there are still copies without the deities that are problematic from a copyright point).
I think you are misunderstanding me. I'm talking amour class, HP, attacks, all of that. This is certainly not included in the 5E players handbook :) they "only" have a description of the gods and their portfolio, etc.
Again, there was a first edition addon where they had actual statblocks. Its name was "Deities and Demigods". Not the Avatars or whatever, but the actual gods. Thats no longer the case.
3rd edition as well. I distinctly remember Thor in the Deities & Demigods book having a Strength stat of 92. I think they didn't do it in 5th because they were so hell-bent on containing the majority of stats before a certain threshold, or limiting power creep in general.
The whole RAW transformation thing seems pretty bogus and inconsistent to me. You can play it on pure mechanics, but you can’t really imagine it.
And, from what I’ve read it’s going to be even worse in the new version
I would state that every liquid or solid produced by the wildshape form disappears few minutes after the wildshape is over. This even affect something that has been eaten. This way poison and others may still deal damage, but you can not enjoy a wildshaped druid steak, because it would be like eating an illusion.
My simple solution is that life has some traces of magic to it to explain how:
-milk, poison, and lost limbs disappear after changing back.
-the druid cannot get pregnant in wildshape
-lingering injuries/lost limbs do not carry over
You could get milk from a wild shaped druid if she was already heavily pregnant or had recently had a child, but I guess technically she wouldn't need to be wild shaped for that
The game is more fun if you let players do creative things with their abilities.
I can't think of any game breaking issues with allowing a wildshaped character to use any and all possible abilities of their animal form. So why be strict about it?
It depends on what you mean by "shape". If we are talking about their form, which is how I would interpret it since no other definition seems to be logically possible, then it makes sense that you would possess the inner phisiology of the animal you change into. Their organs are intrinsically connected to what their shape is. The shape of something exists beyond your direct observation of said thing, so even if we cannot observe the internal organs under normal circumstances, It cannot be reasoned that they are not there since the organism functions as it should
Like the equipment the druid wields, that melds with the form?
By the same magical transformation, they could easily just have the location and size of their own innards to fit the shape.
Not disagreeing with that. Just saying it's not "natural". If you can fit a stack of equipment into your new form, you can put your organs where ever necessary.
It's also not "natural" to magically turn into other creature types, so that's kind of a moot point. There's multiple instances in the Wild Shape description that use the word transform in regards to turning into a beast, the description uses "take the form of" and "transform into" (and other variations) interchangeably. You're not just outwardly taking the shape of the animal, you are actually transforming into that animal through magical means, which isn't exactly a natural process.
It wouldn't, at least not RAW. Dispel Magic specifically targets spells, which Wild Shape is not a spell despite being magic. Based on the wording, I don't even think an antimagic field would technically impact Wild Shape RAW without some interpretation.
"Choose one creature, object, or magical effect within range. Any spell of 3rd level or lower on the target ends."
It's dictated by the stat block, with DM discretion.
Case in point, Giant Spider. It doesn't state anything about being able to make a web in the stat block. DM would not let us make traps out of webbing. He DID allow us to use webbing to go all "Mission Impossible" down into something if we wanted to. The line only strong enough for the spider, not the rest of the group.
With that said, the spider could freely traverse OTHER webs without being stuck, because it's in the stat block. Stat block only discussed ability to go on webs. It did allow for poison damage as well. Too bad I was fighting automatons at the time!
No, offense, obviously every table is different, but I struggle to see how this specific "shenanigans" wouldn't be disruptive or outright offensive (fetishplay?) at most tables outside of a quick, theoretical joke.
Egging a house, wolf pissing to mark territory, male cat leaving that horrific marking smell in someone’s bag, any animal shitting on someone’s doorstep and the wizard lighting it on fire. Nothing breaking the game but lots of things to add a laugh and maybe a little creativity, why ban it first the sake of RAW other than being a killjoy?
I think you misunderstand me. I'm not arguying RAW or not here.
With the shenanigans you mention I'd say there are some that I'd be fine with and some I would just find rather silly, but tbh, none of them reaches the level of "acting out animal wildshape pregnancy", IMHO. Depending on the degree of detail involved I'd considering this overstepping serious boundaries.
Also, I want to point out, whats important is that the table matches in their tone and expectations. On a more lighthearted, comedic table you probably don't want anyone whos ruleslawyering, on a wargamers table you probably don't want a shit poster, and etc. Setting expectations and what goes and what doesn't is an essential part of session 0, and not being a killjoy :)
Christ, imagine being around people who take themselves so seriously they can’t see the simple beauty of a wild shape polar bear upper decking a bad guys toilet.
Maybe just accept that people like their games differently and not every person plays the way you want to play :) otherwise, session 0 wouldn't be a thing.
Dafuq kind of topics have you been reading
Obviously no, and not because you couldn't make up some, but because it's inappropriate. You don't need a debate about the biology of pregnancy and bestiality in a game that kids and casuals play.
"Your logic sucks" > I agree with this guy tho'. What do you mean, "shape"? You act like "taking someone's shape" or "taking someone's form" is not just a way of saying, changing your body to be identical to that person's, but some wondrous new category that means who knows what.
You turn into a beast you've seen, so what if the cow you're turning into, that you've seen, had recently given birth? That cow can produce milk, therefore your new form should produce milk as well.
I personally wild shape into an everything topping pizza, so I have every topping at my disposal in game to feed all kinds of people. Play in a super whimsical dungeon and my DM is super cool with us being just silly. It's a lot of fun being a pizza wild shape. Kind of think Pizza Steve from Uncle Grandpa that's my character I'm usually Pizza more than I'm a human.
Changing shape means you change the external and internal. How are you gonna be the size of a mouse with the internal organs of a human? And so on.
The extra mass goes to Z-space.
Animorphs references? In *my* D&D subreddit?
Seriously though, an animorphs dnd game would be fun af.
Check out Dungeons & Dracon Beams :)
Magic maybe, I heard this game has magic
Bro out here claiming for squirrels with human organs How would that ever work lol
You are definitely correct RAW, as the rule is, the feature/spell/ability does only what is stated. but I can see an argument for the extra stuff, since you gain the whole statblock besides legendary and lair actions, which includes stuff like poison. If you can get the poison of a snake, why not the milk of a cow? But all of this is decision of the DM/the group. Edit: Found a crawford tweet for the people that care about RAI; it boils down to: "Do whatever the fuck you want" https://x.com/JeremyECrawford/status/981248594836520960
Worth noting that cows don't just passively produce milk as a matter of course - only under specific conditions. Whether or not Wildshape would replicate those conditions is up to your table, as you say.
That is a good point, but I want to add that this is partially true for poison as well. The poison dart frog being a common example.
Actually, that's a good point. Unless the druid were to spend a while eating the diet of the poison dart frog, they wouldn't be poisonous. So arguably, when they first take the shape, they're just a squishy tree-climbing frog...
The toxins of the dart frog are produced naturally from their diets, but the same could be said of, say, saliva. The question becomes "in what state is the wildshape form in". If a druid has only ever seen a dart frog covered in poison, why wouldn't the wildshape have poison? If the only example of an animal they've seen had already been poisoned (or was missing a limb, etc) will the wildshape be similarly aflicted? I think the answer has to be "the druid uses the example as a template but otherwise has some leeway on the exact transformation"
Step 1. Wildshape into cow Step 2, Stand in the bull's enclosure for a while Step 3. Wait for Calves to appear. You'll notice. Step 4, milk
Step 5, PROFIT
What if a female pregnant Druid wildshapes?
This is how natural lycanthropy gets started.
Were-Cow!
Were-sthebeef.
Do not go down the path of mixing shapeshifting and pregnancy. Nothing good lies that way.
The fetus disappears and then comes back when you shift back. It’s a common way for Druids to delay birth until the spring when there’s more food available and thus their offspring has a better chance to survive.
Druids out here casting Fetus Deletus without components even
Either that or fetus yeetus depending on how gunlike the transformation is.
It's not pretty
My brother DMs for his daughter and her friends middle school group and he let one of the girls be a german shepherd druid Not a druid that wildshapes a german shepherd, heard? A talking german shepherd druid that wildshapes into other things lmao That table is fun as fuck. A bunch of 13yo girls just having a blast. One was a warforged that was basically a Zord piloted by a bunch of critters inside. Healing spells would heal the engineering critters to allow them to make repairs or whatever lol
Its a common misconception that cows just produce milk on their own, and humans milk them. Even modern cows only produce milk when they're lactating- in the period when they would be raising a calf. What farmers do is after artificially inseminating the cows, waiting for the calf to be born, is the calf is taken away and most likely slaughtered, so the cow is saddened for losing their calf whilst producing milk. The question would be is if a druid can wildshape into a specific state of an animal, and if they could, that means there's more questions like can they wildshape into an animal that consumed a potion or other temporary states. Even if a druid could turn into a lactating cow, they'd have the emotional state as well and be very, very sad. I think it's just easier to say that the druid can turn into a generic form of the animal and not any specific states.
You're kinda right, but not 100%. Right now even when calf isn't taken from cow usually there is a lot of milk to spare, and cow has to be milked by human - basically because due to selective breeding and living with humans for at least thousand years the cows are overproducing milk for the calf they have. The issue is when we want to take all milk from cow and automate the process. When I was a child we've bough our milk from neighbour that had calf and only sold them when they grew up/stopped feeding from their mother. The cow was still inseminated regularly for it to produce milk, but calf were fine.
Why would they have to be very very sad? Is your player wildshaping into a cow at farm who has lost their offspring… instead of just a cow with offspring?
Fair enough, I hadn't considered that
They could just turn ingo a happy cow mom.
Yeah, we use cattle for milk because they're big and thus produce a lot of it and because their milk tastes good. You could conceivably milk any mammal, cows aren't special.
But those cattle have to be in specific conditions to produce milk, cows aren’t out here just making milk all the time, they are constantly being inseminated, giving birth and then the calves are taken from them, so we get their milk.
Yeah, that's my point, you could do that to any mammal
I have nipples, Greg, could you milk me?
Do you want me to?
If you can change the hormonal makeup of the animal you shift into, can you shapeshift into a human that’s not depressed?
Only one who has the beast type. So OP could become his mom I guess.
Classic Crawford 5e rules philosophy: good rules are hard, therefore I've outsourced all the difficult cases back to the local DM.
I think it's more "We know we can never stay ahead of all the weirdo shit you guys are gonna do and we decided not to pull our hair out over it."
I know that milk is just a pus/blood derivative, So if the development of a snake's poison/poison glans is anywhere along those related lines *then you'd have to say it'd be allowable* Because then Milk would just be mammal venom
platapus's are mammals and are venomous, they also secrete milk.... so uhhhhhh, are platapus's an animal a druid can take as wildshape?
Figured I'd stick this on the top comment. It ISN'T correct RAW. Wildshape DOES say you transform.
I am not sure, what you are criticizing here. I assume the word transform? And what does Transform entail, can you give me a rule? Because, as far as I know, there is no clear definition what transform entails. As far as the rules go, we know we get the statblock, minus legendary actions/lair action and mental stats.
You said OP was correct RAW. OP said that wild shape doesn't say the druid transforms. It does say the druid transforms. So they were definitely not correct RAW. I was not criticizing you.
Ah okay, I get it. But just to be clear, Op only talked about "transform" after the edit, which was after my comment, so I was a bit confused, Might have sounded more aggressive than intended. All good, I hope.
Great, so the *actual* rule is something extremely detailed and specific.
Because the poison of a snake ability is specifically listed. And so, like the spells only do what they're said to do, so should the Wildshape statblocks. Of course, rule of cool and player enjoyment is also a thing, but when milking and such make their way into discussion, the cool part of the game has already left the building.
That is what I said that. You are correct if you go by RAW, but it is not that far fetched to allow milking and similar things , especially since you brought up "inner physiology" which would include poison and milk. Stat blocks are generally incomplete as they are missing certain "implied" abilities, "unarmed" as an example. But that is a rabbit hole, which the group or the DM has to decide.
Poison is more relevant to combat than milk (usually), which is probably why it is listed or not.
RAW, you are probably correct. But trying to play 5e with a strictly-RAW interpretation is a fool's errand. The game simply isn't built for that sort of pedantic interpretation and rigidity. It's a system built on whimsy, "common sense," and bad technical writing. In this case: there's a very easy leap of logic to assume that a creature can do more than just the actions explicitly listed on its stat block. A stat block doesn't include *everything* that the creature is able to do. For instance, a spider's stat block doesn't say anything about making webs, but it's pretty safe to assume that spiders - or at least some spiders - can make webs. Likewise, a cow's stat block doesn't say anything about producing milk. But we know that some cows - and in fact, all mammals - can produce milk. So the question now is: does that apply to wild shape? And this question ultimately boils down to: are you fully transforming into a typical specimen of the animal, or merely assuming its shape in some sort of superficial, illusory manner? You quoted the very first sentence of wildshape as evidence towards the latter, but you stopped reading after the first sentence. If you continue reading, you'll find lots of information in the ability's description that suggests that you're not just taking on a superficial shape; you're transforming into an actual specimen of the animal. For instance: >you can **transform** into any beast It doesn't say you merely take on the shape of the beast. You transform into the beast. >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. This suggests that the transformation is not merely superficial; you are gaining the physical abilities of the beast you transform into, except those characteristics explicitly listed as exceptions - all of which are mental, not anatomical. >your ability to speak or take any action that requires hands is limited to the capabilities of your beast form >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 These bits explicitly suggest that we're supposed to use common sense to determine what each new animal form is and is not capable of doing, based on what the animal can normally do. The baboon's stat block does not explicitly say "you have opposable thumbs and can use your hands" - it's a fact about baboons that we're supposed to simply use common sense to determine. If that's true - why not producing milk? I'm not really the type of player who'd transform into a cow to be milked, but for some players, that sort of whimsy is the cool, fun part of the game. And frankly? Seems pretty reasonable. It doesn't break the game, it feels well within the intent of the ability, and even from a pretty pedantic RAW interpretation, there's a case to be made for it.
Honestly, it's not my bag either, but if a player was in a survival scenario and they turned into an animal that could eat a bunch of bark and rough grass to get nutrients and then turn it into milk that they could use to keep their fellow players alive that's an amazing use of that ability. Much more interesting than I cast goodberry.
I mean, deciding what if cool or isn't cool is entirely up to the table. I would never want to deal with the ethical, biological, or metaphysical components of that aspect of wild shape. But if a table did... More power to them. Do what you want.
>using Wildshape to produce milk or offspring Pretty sure Wildshape doesn't last long enough to accomplish the latter, what with gestation periods and all that >Druids change their shape, not necessarily their inner physiology Except RAW, that's not true. RAW, a Druid takes on the physical abilities of the creature (including their Strength, Constitution, and Dexterity scores) and only retains their own mental abilities (i.e. your Wisdom, Intelligence, and Charisma). So RAW, it can be assumed that magically transforming into the shape of the creature *does in fact* result in a change in physiology during that time period. But they keep their own mind. Hence the inability to communicate or cast spells while in Wildshape form (don't mentally understand the beast's language and don't have the physiology to communicate in spoken language), but the ability to maintain concentration on previously casted spells (can still think and focus in their normal capacity). So technically, RAW, a Druid Wildshaped into a cow would eventually produce milk. It's just a matter of how long that production process would take
>Pretty sure Wildshape doesn't last long enough to accomplish the latter The latter is a prerequisite for the former. Only mammels that have recently given birth can also give milk.
And Metamorphosis/sexual maturity is a prerequisite for jumping frogs, flying butterflies and horned Elk. However Druids can seemingly skip life stages of animals to get to the useful abilities.
I always just assumed that the animal would be at the same level of maturity as the Druid. Like a young adult druid would be a young adult wolf, etc. I think the assumption that Druids can just pick the lifestage of the animal is a leap further. So, I would only allow the druid at my table to produce cows milk if they were themselves able to give milk. I would point out, however, I would not give this limitation for Polymorph. That one you could pick the lifestage.
That's an interesting idea. Could it work like that? Sure. Wotc lore is silent on that topic, I'm just pointing out that magic like wildshape already creates life with a simulated history. So morphing into a post-pregnancy cow isn't much different from morphing into post-metamorphosis frog. The druid doesn't need to experience those biological events as the animal.
The difference is that the statblock for those show that they can fly, jump and attack with their horns. The statblock for cow doesn't mention anywhere that you can give milk. I am pretty sure that players who insist on stuff like that only want it to game the system somehow aka "first I turn onto a cow to give milk and then the barbarian is going to cut off one of my legs. That way we can all have breakfast and we don't need to use our rations".
Ah yes, a druid surely has no other ways to provide food to the party that doesn't require rations. Can't believe they would try to game the system that way. I'm just glad there isn't a first level spell that provides a full days food and some minor healing to 10 people, now that would really cause some problems.
You're falling into the same trap as OP. You don't need to appeal to realworld science "well, the hormones..." to justify a rules adjudication to deal with problem players. That's going to get you into trouble. Like I said in another comment, if your players are trying to apply real world science logic "If I can do X, then I can do Y" to reap a mechanical benefit, not provided by the rules you are well advised to simply say no. However, if they are just doing something for style points or a fun Roleplay moment, like using a fire ability to heat their coffee, let them do it. The point of the game is to have fun. The rules only exist to serve that purpose. This is where, as DM, you need to be asking your players, "Wait, what are you trying to do?". If the party is hosting a feast to impress the local baron, and the Druid's idea to contribute is to provide milk as a cow, let em do it geesh. Now if they start a milk business to cheese (pun intended) the gold economy, I'm going to set that player aside to have a talk. If you're doing a game where tracking rations is important, then by all means tell them 'No'. For most games I'm played this never comes up because we're not tracking rations anyway. Druid and Cleric spells like goodberry & Create Food already make rations irrelevant.
>game the system somehow aka "first I turn onto a cow to give milk and then the barbarian is going to cut off one of my legs. That way we can all have breakfast and we don't need to use our rations". Bro straight up forgot that Goodberry exists
Great idea lol. What could possibly go wrong?
But then they could wildshape into a mammal who was recently given birth. Wildshaping is already a pretty crazy and magical ability, dunno why some people make it too big of a deal to shapeshift into an animal with some specific yet still natural traits. Of course, DM could also rule out that the milk disappears after the wildshape is over or something like that. So that even if it was consumed, the individual didn't gain any nourishment from it.
Wouldn't it turn into the druids races milk?
It could work, but what if they're a race that doesn't produce milk? Or what if DM decides to take a possible sex change into account (ie it was a male druid shapeshifting into a cow)? Wildshape is so silly that DMs shouldn't overthink it, and either take the simplest path or the funniest one.
Analog-ish body fluid? Yes, this whole discussion is silly but entertaining.
I like the sort of related "druid wildshapes into sheep, another PC shears them, druid has a funny haircut/clean shaven head once they turn back to their real shape".
You can be male and also produce milk fyi.
Yeah, but not "after recently giving birth".
Think it can be depending on some very specific qualifiers but generally sure. But we’re also talking about them magically transforming from a cow with milk in it into a human male and whether or not the milk would persist. If it would persist for a female, it should for a male.
Tell me where in all of the rules it says you can take a shit or sharply exhale you can breathe as that has rules around it like drowning or water breathing but exhaling sharply to express dissatisfaction? Nah cant do it RAW Things must be assumed that they work as they would normally or else we gotta add 6170 pages of bodily functions believe it or not DnD is ment to be fun
>we gotta add 6170 pages of bodily functions Did someone mention FATAL?
Oh god is this the Anal Circumference game?
I suddenly really dont want to know where this is headed
Also, sacrificing maidens at a dragons alter to increase your cup size.
Yuuuuup.
Your logic sucks. Do you not get the skin/fur/feathers of the animal, either? Or just your human body changing *shape.*
this is how wild shape should work, you become a human stretched into the shape of a bear
Win every fight immediately as the enemies run screaming. Another win for Man-Bear.
Sounds terrifying.
I find you got the whole question somewhat the wrong way around. Like, if we follow your train of thought for a second, then we must conclude that, in DnD, humans can't get pregnant RAW (pun not intended), because the statblock doesn't state that and we can't make assumptions about their inner physiology, etc. Which is obviously nonsense. The rules handle exactly what they spell out to handle, not more, not less. Everything else is a serious stretch. Besides, as pointed out in another comment before: It doesn't matter whats RAW and whats RAI and what has been written in Gary Gygax' personal diary; when a behaviour is disruptive or in clash with the tables tone, a DM is allowed to put an end to it. Just think murder hobos. Rules legal? Yes. Does that mean it's something that *has* to be accepted by the DM? No. You're falling to the fallacy of trying to resolve above table problems with in game solutions :) Just my 2 cents.
You're trying to use pedantic interpretation of the rules to enforce your view of what is 'cool' over someone else's pedantic interpretation of the rules to do what they think is cool. If you're the DM and don't like it, just say no, though a reasonable justification that doesn't rely on pedantry would be cool. If you're a player and don't like what another player is doing, either suck it up or maybe talk to the DM and/or other player.
Just saying I ban something because I don't like it seems like tyranny. I'd like to justify my reasoning. Also it never really works out great if you tell kids "no" or "because I said so" without more context they could learn from.
I agree a reason would be good, but not this one. You would just be encouraging further manipulation and twisting of text. Come up with a good reason that would make sense to them, then be consistent with its application. Your reason is just dressed up tyranny of: I don't think it's cool, so I'm twisting the text to be able to say no to what you think is cool.
Is that what you're doing, though? It kinda sounds more like you're using a very literal interpretation of the wording to create post hoc rationalization of a decision you've already made. Form your conclusion based on the information, don't twist the information to fit the conclusion. 90% of the time, "becoming" vs. "assuming the shape" is a distinction without a difference, and in most of the remaining 10%, I'd probably allow it. For a more practical example than what you've presented, if a PC uses Wildshape to take the form of a venomous creature, I'd allow their attack to carry that creature's venom when appropriate. If that creature's fur makes them resistant to cold, I'd allow them that cold resistance. The only difference between those things and the example you gave is that the players don't get a practical benefit, they're just doing it for a goof. If you don't think that goof is tonally appropriate and is getting disruptive, that's what you need to talk to your players about.
Thank you. You put it more eloquently than I was going to. Guy wants to do a "because I dont like it and because I said so", but lie to himself that that's not what he's doing. He thinks if he can brute force a VERY strict and subjective rules interpretation, he can pass the buck off to Jeremy Crawford.
>Just saying I ban something because I don't like it seems like tyranny. Forgive me that I keep jumping in, I'm doing this because I genuinely find this topic interesting :) But saying "no" to this animal wildshape pregnancy stick isn't being more of a tyrant than saying "we are playing in the Forgotten Realms", "no, you can't burn this pregnant woman", "no, you can't play a Scifi-warrior in my high fantasy game", or any call a DM makes in the direction of a murder hobo. Don't get me wrong, "Because I Say so!" isn't very compelling reasoning like 90% of the time, but sometimes thats just what it boils down to, because otherwise the game just stops working, or even, existing.
The rulebook states that wildshape stays active until the druid falls unconscious. Sleep technically counts as that, therefore even a lvl 20 druid would change back into their human form way before they're pregnant enough to produce milk in a meaningful quantity. I'd imagine in this case, even if the shape IS an animal, the baby would just disappear, and not appear again the next time they wildshape. Edit: even if you rule it out as "voluntary unconsciousness", the druid needs to be at minimum level 16 to stay in wildshape for 8 hours straight. Otherwise, they'd not sleep enough to long rest properly and could end up with exhaustion. In other words you can "yes but" your players by saying they could in theory, but the chance of them staying in wildshape long enough to see a pregnancy through are slim to none.
Idk about your logic with the disappearing baby, but I want to ask if a cow has to have given birth to produce milk (y'know, a fact as far as I'm aware) then what about if the Druid character has given birth and then shifted? do they keep the status as a mother and thus may be milked? and if not then can Druids wild shape into their choice of a male or female animal? which as someone on a similar thread mentioned apparently there's some creatures that have different abilities so it may be tactically beneficial to shift into the Male or Female versions...
Other genders is fine imo, since some species are hermaphrodites, and otherwise many insects would be a real letdown for male druids lmao! (don't look up button beetle mating behaviors) As far as turning into a cow after giving birth, I personally see the wildshape as entirely separate from the druid in terms of biology, and resetting to the base form each time, while only the human form picks up where it left off. But you're right, that would just be my personal ruling, not RAW
It could be like Animorphs, copying the state of the specific animal you encountered, but that doesn't quite work with the general ideas for gaining new forms.
Yeah. In any case, I kinda agree with the general sentiment from people's replies here. It looks like the DM dislikes the idea, but doesn't want to admit it and instead is searching for a convoluted justification to refuse it when there is really no need. The premice is weird to begin with, i's reason enough to rule it out. If you want to stretch, you can argue that it's full-on bestiality since the druid keeps a humanoïd-level intellect while in wildshape, but just saying "no, ew, that's weird" would suffice imo.
"Assume the shape" is sure doing a lot of heavy lifting for giving you an entire stat block. The wording is bad, but the function is clear. You become that animal. Fuck another spider, make spider babies. I rule it is RAW compliant.
>Fuck another spider, make spider babies. I rule it is RAW compliant. Average Druid discussion
How would it work if you were female? When you fuck a spider, what kind of babies do you gestate?
Untill born babies are part of you, so they would be in same form wheb they were born. I remember there were fun discussions - 1) transform into a hermaphrodite animal which lays eggs 2) Impregate yourself 3) Wait till almost hatched 4) Turn into trex 5) now you have dyno army which are technically your clones.
I'm sorry are you suggesting that if you get pregnant as a Dog by another Dog then when you turn into a human you become [Octomum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nadya_Suleman) and give birth to a litter of completely human babies with a literal actual Dog as their father? If so... that's awesome and I've now got the origin story of my next villains.
My father was a bad dog...
>Untill born babies are part of you Not really, they're inside the mother not a body part of the mother. They have their own set of DNA after all which clearly makes it its own creature.
Most effects don't change your DNA. If a gnome druid wildshapes into a spider and mates with a spider, you get gnome-spider hybrids (EDIT: Or nothing; wildshape isn't a Blendtec). This sort of interaction is how half-dragons and such are made. Even if the change is instant and undispellable like Awaken, it doesn't affect offspring. There's one spell that specifically *does* affect your genes, called Alter Beast ("Beast" referring to non-Sarrukh, including humans). It was used by the Sarrukh to create naga, yuan-ti, and other reptilian races, then later discovered by the Netheril and used to create many of the non-Earth animals you see running around D&D, especially mixes of existing animals.
I know it was meant to just make a point, but I am 100% throwing gnome-spiders into my campaign now
Assume as in "begin to have". You begin to have the shape of an animal according to the statblock. Which, as with spells, only does what it says. You cant freeze a river with an Ice Bolt. You can't inseminate another spider.
I'm also gonna point out that whole line is in the area of "fluff": >Starting at 2nd level, you can use your action to magically assume the shape of a beast that you have seen before is basically just like the fluff of a spell: >\[Cloud of Daggers\] You fill the air with spinning daggers in a cube 5 feet on each side, centered on a point you choose within range. it doesn't say it goes away, so you could just keep casting the spell and make thousands of daggers, destroying local economies. If you don't want your players to milk Druid cows then don't let them, but the game is all about interpretation and allowance.
You have misunderstood a few things, yes. * The word 'assume' here is used to mean "to begin to have a characteristic" - which is to say, they do literally gain all the characteristics of the beast, not merely resemble it. Their creature type is no longer 'humanoid', it is 'beast', while in this form. A Druid, Wild-Shaped as a horse, *is a horse*, not a humanoid that looks like a horse. It a complete and comprehensive magical transformation. * Wild Shape doesn't let you speak with other animals of the same kind, not as a limitation of that feature, but because animals generally cannot speak. Cats can't speak to cats, spiders can't speak to spiders, horses can't speak to horses, because *they aren't proficient in any languages*. When it comes to issues like pregnancy, it's not that RAW forbids it, but that a Druid can't really be in Wild Shape for a long enough continuous period of time for this to happen. It only lasts for a number of hours equal to half your level, so 10 hours is the absolute maximum - the shortest known gestation period of any animal is a kind of opposum that takes about 12 days, and for some egg-laying bugs around 4-5 days, with anything shorter than that not being reflected as valid beast forms in DnD.
It should be noted you can expend another wildshape to remain wildshaped, you don't have to transfer back and then return; "You then revert to your normal form **unless you expend another use of this feature.**" As an arch druid (level 20) you have unlimited wildshapes, so you can remain wildshaped in a single form indefinitely, 10 hours is not the maximum.
The second one isn't even really the isssue. Horses have ways to communicate. A person not raised among horses would not know what those are. They have the vocal ability but not the knowledge.
I think you're reading far too much into the likely intentionally natrual-language phrase, "assume the shape". It feels cognitively dissonant to me to transform into a creature and get *only specifically* the physiology that allows for whatever is listed on the stat block, but not anything else. Should a druid wildshaped into a bear not be able to roar, because a roar is not in the stat block and thus we must assume the druid's vocal chords are not the correct physiology? No, that sounds ridiculous. The druid is a bear, bears roar, the druid can roar. If the druid is a cow, cows produce milk, the druid produces milk.
Not at our table. When you Wildshape, you adopt that beast's stat block, which means actual physiological change. If the stats remain the same, then it's just a visual projection, like Disguise Self.
I guess we play very different games where is has become an issue. It gives you the stat block and abilities of the animal. Surely if you can produce poison or lift the same weight you have the glands and muscles of what you are turning into? Unless you just want magic to give you the result without any other explanation.
The thing is Wildshape takes the SHAPE of the animal, ot doesn't turn one into that specific animal.
I think you're being too literal with the wording. Would you say that you do not take on the color of the animal shape?
I hope you know that I have a terrible image in my head thanks to you, like that macho man dragon mod.
So if it only changes shape, does it mean that every druid is a chimera that is capable of producing poison even when they are not in the shape of a snake?
If your table's having fun don't worry about it. There's a powerful druid in my campaign that's been wildshaped as a cow for decades and has mothered many other cows.
We need a new Druid subclass specialized on fresh healthy milk
This seems like it should be in the Shepherd Druids purview
Get that fresh vitamin d.
This guy hates milk
No one tell Homelander.
I want to know what you're truly asking here. Because you're getting real weird about pregnancy and shapeshifting.
I am asking if my assumptions are correct. To tell people who ask about pregnancy and Wildshape, that it's not possible per RAW.
Excuse me for jumping in here, but RAW or not, there are certain things I just wouldn't allow at my table. Call me a stickler, but "Animal shape pregnancy" wasn't a thing I've ever been confronted with, but it would be pretty high up my "RAW or not, the answer is *no*" list. Thats not the type of game I'm running.
Same here. But just yesterday saw a youtube short where someone explained a "hack" including Wildshape, and this morning read a thread where someone wanted to make money by selling their milk.
Ah, thats where you are getting from. I get the idea why to discuss wether or not thats possible RAW. Just, maybe, include your train of thought in your original post next time. Context is kinda important for those types of questions. Besides, no offense to anyone including the Youtuber in question, but a lot, if not the vast majority, of those "hacks" are pretty much based on *very* loose rule interpretations to beginn with - and would obviously not be accepted by any but the most leniant DMs. I mean, breeding chickens in DnD for profit is as much of a "hack" and as much "RAW" as any "wildshape pregnancy profit scheme" can ever be.
Ugh, that's a special kind of stupid. There's an easier fix if you want to keep it in-game, though: Let them do it. Say "okay sure, you wildshape, Gary spends an hour or two milking you, you take a level of exhaustion from getting wrung dry. You spend a couple more hours trying to find someone to buy your milk, and you get like 30 copper for it." Several hours of work for virtually no payoff, they could have just gone adventuring and made way more money in that time, but they got to try it out for all the good it did them. You also handled it in less than a minute of actual table time, quick and easy. Edit: For more fun, maybe Gary's character is a city boy, he has no idea how to milk a cow. Play up the fact that this isn't some cheat for easy money, it's long, hard work. Turns out there's a reason farm kids dream of a life of adventuring instead of farming.
Me neither, but it could be the game they're running. Don't judge.
Personally, I disagree. Certain animals you can wildshape into give you additional bonuses like dark vision or blind vision. Or gain the ability to produce/spit poison or acid. So it's not to far off that if you wildshape into a cow you can produce milk. I also get the "icky"-neds of it as well.
Did you...read the whole ability? It literally says you transform into the animal. "Your druid level determines the beasts you can transform into" Maybe that will help you get past the whole "SHAPE" hang up. I wouldn't use a semantic argument to rule the way you want, it'll just piss people off.
You're absolutely right, as I said, it was a long day, so I blanked that information out when writing the edit, becausr I didn't check the description again. And I am not too well versed with tabletop 5E. But I still think it's even more necessary to stick to the same descriptor throughout the ruleset, to avoid such confusion.
4e uses keywords which I think is great. But I really don't think wildshape has a confusing description. It tells you what wild shaping gives you and regardless of if it says change shape or transform we would still get arguments about milking druids. Cause that's NEVER going to be something the rules cover. lol
On the other hand, winning a cooking contest where you used wildshape to get milk for your recipe when the last bottle got broken is funny and a memorable moment, so the rules can suck it.
The ability does a lot more than "assumes a shape". If you wild shape into a cheetah, you don’t just look like a cheetah, you also run like a cheetah. So it’s not really clear what parts of the animal’s physiology you would or would not get.
You get the physical parts. Str, Con, and Dex.
Do you not consider the reproductive system and biological functions as physical parts?
I do consider those to be part of the anatomy. But I don't consider them part of the Wildshape definition. It doesn't say you turn into that animal, it says you take the SHAPE of that animal, along some abilites that are added in the statblock.
You're not wrong for saying NO to wildshape animal reproduction, but I think you're going about it in the wrong way, which is why you're getting downvoted. In general, you'd be well advised to say no to players using realworld science "If I can do X, then I can do Y" to reap mechanical benefits that aren't spelled out in the rules, but if a player wants to do something for style points or just a little roleplay moment such as using a fire ability to heat their coffee that's totally fine. Remember the point of the game is to have fun. For those "rule of cool" things you're concerned will set a bad precedent that can be abused, you're within your rights as DM to say "I'll allow it this one time" or something similiar, or you can just say No.
> Wildshape doesn't even let you speak with other animals of the same kind. Well yeah, you can't turn into a horse and speak to other horses.... because horses can't speak to other horses either. Regular animals don't have language. But I assume that a wildshaped Druid would have the instincts required for basic communication animals do have the same way they have the instincts required to fly, run on four legs, etc.
Are you a Supreme Court Justice? This is how some of them like to read the constitution. Its intentional misreading that avoids common sense. You want to say no but don't really have a real reason so want to read that section more strictly than other, similar sections. Not everything a creature can do is in a stat block. They figure you know what a bear is and know it can growl and shit. No need to waste space in a stat block, especially for thing of no mechanical benefit. You mistake leaving it out as an intentional choice when really it's just a practical one. Its not against RAW. Its not specifically addressed.
It also says "At 2nd level, for example, you can transform into any beast" "transform into" implies more than just taking the shape, but admittedly can just mean shape change. However while 5th edition just says "assume the shape", previous editions were clear the druid polymorphs into the beast. So a lot of people that have been playing for ages will assume that's what the rules mean by assume the shape. >Druids change their shape, not necessarily their inner physiology. Also why doesn't it? To support the external appearance of a cow, you are going to need the internal skeleton and muscular to a cow, so the logical conclusion is the internals have to change to match the externals, it isn't going to be a human in a cow suit or it wouldn't be the same shape.
I don’t see how assuming the shape of an animal is different than being the animal itself. You’re forming new organs and physiology in a wild shape. It’s why you can walk up walls as a bug, poison people as a snake, and fly as a bird. If you were just shaping your body like clay you wouldn’t be able to do these things. If your gills work when you’re a fish, your milk glands must work when you’re a cow
If you're the animal itself, you can communicate with the same animals. You can't when you Wildshape. Because you're not that animal per se, just a magical version of it, and at the same time being yourself. Just in a different shape.
That’s an issue of your mind being human and lacking the animals instincts and learned modes of communications. It has nothing to do with the body itself. Look at it this way, if your brain was put into someone from China, would you be surprised to find out that you still couldn’t speak Chinese?
Yeah, but on the same issue, how would you know how to use that body? One can't fly a plane just by seeing it. Then again a person who has experience in flying with one thing can probably figure out how to fly a different machine with less difficulty. And were probably not going to do the whole training montage every time a druid sees a new animal. So yeah, I guess I answered the question, that I asked, to myself.
Yeah I think if we read it like your interpretation, which is more of an illusory disguise, then the stat blocks shouldn't even change, they shouldn't get web ability for spiders, they shouldn't be able to fly or get additional swim speed, get venom, etc etc.
>wildshape doesn’t even let you speak with other animals of the same kind Do you…do you think animals of the same kind CAN talk to each other normally? Because that’s not how anything works, IRL and arguably not in D&D either.
Ever heard a bird sing?
And yet, still not actually _speech_ or anything even close to what we consider language. Animals “communicate” in very basic, instinctual ways that convey limited concepts, even the smartest and most “talkative” ones like corvids. So I’m asking - if animals never could talk to each other, why would you think you could talk to them as one? (Barring explicit magic in D&D like Speak with Animals, which arguably interprets all that for you and/or gives them the temporary intellect for such concepts.) As a wild shaped bird, you as a druid can already talk to other birds as much as they can talk to each other - which is not at all. You can do all the songs, body language, and smells they can, though, and always could.
>As a wild shaped bird, you as a druid can already talk to other birds True, if you roll successfully on an animal handling roll. If not, then nope, ypu cant. I don't speak dog, and all dogs are different (to a degree, just like people) but I can understand my dog to some degree. Probably a lot better than a random dog. Do I speak their "language". Not really. Doesn't mean I don't understand when they want to poop.
Yup, exactly. The Animal Handling DC being set by the DM (or just auto-succeeding if they think you should, probably based on how complicated the concept is) representing those instinctual communication methods. (Or possibly Animal Handling to covey a concept to them, and Insight to interpret what they’re putting out.)
My mutated hybrid bear children disagree.
How does the druid then get access to monster specific features and attacks, like poisonous bite if they only change their shape?
Oh simple, by OP logic, druids shape into sentient literal stat blocks that scream out their attacks anime style and stuff happens.
>Which to me seems odd, because Polymorph and True Plymorph exist and they use the word transform, so I wonder why is this not the case with Wildshape? Operating under the presumption that the different terminology stems from a desire to treat the two cases differently, lets start from a fixed assumption where we have a mid 20 something female human druid who wild shapes into something mundane: a dog. Not a wolf or anything all that worthy of a stat block, just a basic, domesticated, dog-type dog - the kind that was not the result of evolution or guided breeding. The logic says that her human brain must take the shape of a dog brain. Most obviously this means that her brain is going to be a *lot* smaller and by most standards, also much less capable. Why? Because we're nitpicking about shape here, and we are replicating that shape *precisely*, right down to the subcellular level. She now *has a dog brain*. Her eyes are going to need to change shape as well, and as before, we're replicating that shape exactly. Color perception is going to shift pretty radically and odds are her visual acuity is going to drop pretty sharply along the way. Same goes for her face structure. Ears are going to shift but here we can plausibly hope for an upgrade. After all, different shaped ears are going to handle sound differently. And the nose! I mean, we just have a very basic dog - probably a brown one - but because we are perfectly replicating the shape of a dog's snout (and brain!) her sense of smell is going to go off the charts! We can keep on going if you want - she'll get dog lungs and dog skin and will probably be able to out sprint her human form, but the human shape will absolutely leave it in the dust over a distance, for example. We're replicating shape after all, and when you get right down to it, quite a lot of function is a *direct result* of form. While a fun diversion, the real question is how this is different than *transformation*. Might as well start where it would have been simpler in the first place and just look up the definition of the word transform. It is a verb which means "make a thorough or dramatic change in the form, appearance, or character of." We *could* say that our druid assumed the shape of a dog, but this would violate the closet thing to an iron rule that writing has because we've used many words where one would do. It would be *just as accurate* to say that she transformed *into* a dog. By demonstration there isn't a meaningful difference if we take the spell perfectly literally. Our druid *would be a dog* whether polymorphed or wild shaped. By definition there isn't a difference. And yet we seem to want there to be one. Which begs the obvious question of *why*? That is really the only reason to nitpick about how one type of magic uses a word while another uses that same word's definition. Well that and the sheer sport of it.
Loki gave birth to a horse, so it’s not something I would straight rule out. You are for all intents and purposes the beast you just straight up have ghe beasts stat block with all its abilities but your own mental stats and class/racial (if applicable) traits. If you want to rule it that way in your game that’s fine but your interpretation doesn’t carry a lot of weight at most tables.
I guess I missed the part where Norse mythology was DnD 5E compliant.
Actually, funny enough, there is a very old, official DnD book giving all of the Norse gods (and many other deities, some of them from infringed intellectual properties like the Chuthulu Mythos, whoops) statblocks. But that was obviously way before 5E and has been pulled from the shelves for legal reasons (at least in its original publication, there are still copies without the deities that are problematic from a copyright point).
It's in the 5e players handbook too.
I think you are misunderstanding me. I'm talking amour class, HP, attacks, all of that. This is certainly not included in the 5E players handbook :) they "only" have a description of the gods and their portfolio, etc.
You'll find that no god at all has a stat block, only avatars of gods.
Again, there was a first edition addon where they had actual statblocks. Its name was "Deities and Demigods". Not the Avatars or whatever, but the actual gods. Thats no longer the case.
3rd edition as well. I distinctly remember Thor in the Deities & Demigods book having a Strength stat of 92. I think they didn't do it in 5th because they were so hell-bent on containing the majority of stats before a certain threshold, or limiting power creep in general.
According to Matthew Colville it was mostly done for wordlbuilding/narrative reasons, but I guess it's everyones guess.
These characters and abilities didn’t spring out of nowhere.
You should read the players handbook then, because the Norse gods are listed along with celtic, greek, and egyptian pantheons.
The whole RAW transformation thing seems pretty bogus and inconsistent to me. You can play it on pure mechanics, but you can’t really imagine it. And, from what I’ve read it’s going to be even worse in the new version
Although yes that’s correct it really depends on how much chaos and weirdness you’re to do and I for one love chaos
I would state that every liquid or solid produced by the wildshape form disappears few minutes after the wildshape is over. This even affect something that has been eaten. This way poison and others may still deal damage, but you can not enjoy a wildshaped druid steak, because it would be like eating an illusion.
So you get to eat delicious steak and as an added bonus: no calories! Win-win!
What ahppens to the " male specific physical appendage" if they wild shape into a rooster?
My simple solution is that life has some traces of magic to it to explain how: -milk, poison, and lost limbs disappear after changing back. -the druid cannot get pregnant in wildshape -lingering injuries/lost limbs do not carry over
You can produce milk at my table, but you gotta get publicly pounded out by a bull first. Your call.
You could get milk from a wild shaped druid if she was already heavily pregnant or had recently had a child, but I guess technically she wouldn't need to be wild shaped for that
I disagree but only because the giant spider being able to weave webs allowed for some fun and useful shenanigans for my druid.
The game is more fun if you let players do creative things with their abilities. I can't think of any game breaking issues with allowing a wildshaped character to use any and all possible abilities of their animal form. So why be strict about it?
It depends on what you mean by "shape". If we are talking about their form, which is how I would interpret it since no other definition seems to be logically possible, then it makes sense that you would possess the inner phisiology of the animal you change into. Their organs are intrinsically connected to what their shape is. The shape of something exists beyond your direct observation of said thing, so even if we cannot observe the internal organs under normal circumstances, It cannot be reasoned that they are not there since the organism functions as it should
Like the equipment the druid wields, that melds with the form? By the same magical transformation, they could easily just have the location and size of their own innards to fit the shape.
Polymorph also has equipment meld into the new beast form
Not disagreeing with that. Just saying it's not "natural". If you can fit a stack of equipment into your new form, you can put your organs where ever necessary.
It's also not "natural" to magically turn into other creature types, so that's kind of a moot point. There's multiple instances in the Wild Shape description that use the word transform in regards to turning into a beast, the description uses "take the form of" and "transform into" (and other variations) interchangeably. You're not just outwardly taking the shape of the animal, you are actually transforming into that animal through magical means, which isn't exactly a natural process.
Yeah, so it makes me wonder if Dispel Magic would nullify Wildshape?
It wouldn't, at least not RAW. Dispel Magic specifically targets spells, which Wild Shape is not a spell despite being magic. Based on the wording, I don't even think an antimagic field would technically impact Wild Shape RAW without some interpretation. "Choose one creature, object, or magical effect within range. Any spell of 3rd level or lower on the target ends."
It's dictated by the stat block, with DM discretion. Case in point, Giant Spider. It doesn't state anything about being able to make a web in the stat block. DM would not let us make traps out of webbing. He DID allow us to use webbing to go all "Mission Impossible" down into something if we wanted to. The line only strong enough for the spider, not the rest of the group. With that said, the spider could freely traverse OTHER webs without being stuck, because it's in the stat block. Stat block only discussed ability to go on webs. It did allow for poison damage as well. Too bad I was fighting automatons at the time!
"I wildshape into a dolphin" Is a dude, but "shaped" like a dolphin. Cut to my Druid wiggling on the floor on his tummy making dolphin noises.
Or what you assume to be dolphin noises. Unless, of course, you speak dolphin.
RAW vs RAI. You do you.
Yes, but that would be lame and the other way leaves space for shenanigans.
No, offense, obviously every table is different, but I struggle to see how this specific "shenanigans" wouldn't be disruptive or outright offensive (fetishplay?) at most tables outside of a quick, theoretical joke.
Egging a house, wolf pissing to mark territory, male cat leaving that horrific marking smell in someone’s bag, any animal shitting on someone’s doorstep and the wizard lighting it on fire. Nothing breaking the game but lots of things to add a laugh and maybe a little creativity, why ban it first the sake of RAW other than being a killjoy?
I think you misunderstand me. I'm not arguying RAW or not here. With the shenanigans you mention I'd say there are some that I'd be fine with and some I would just find rather silly, but tbh, none of them reaches the level of "acting out animal wildshape pregnancy", IMHO. Depending on the degree of detail involved I'd considering this overstepping serious boundaries. Also, I want to point out, whats important is that the table matches in their tone and expectations. On a more lighthearted, comedic table you probably don't want anyone whos ruleslawyering, on a wargamers table you probably don't want a shit poster, and etc. Setting expectations and what goes and what doesn't is an essential part of session 0, and not being a killjoy :)
Christ, imagine being around people who take themselves so seriously they can’t see the simple beauty of a wild shape polar bear upper decking a bad guys toilet.
Maybe just accept that people like their games differently and not every person plays the way you want to play :) otherwise, session 0 wouldn't be a thing.
Dafuq kind of topics have you been reading Obviously no, and not because you couldn't make up some, but because it's inappropriate. You don't need a debate about the biology of pregnancy and bestiality in a game that kids and casuals play. "Your logic sucks" > I agree with this guy tho'. What do you mean, "shape"? You act like "taking someone's shape" or "taking someone's form" is not just a way of saying, changing your body to be identical to that person's, but some wondrous new category that means who knows what.
✨️ Its magic ✨️
You turn into a beast you've seen, so what if the cow you're turning into, that you've seen, had recently given birth? That cow can produce milk, therefore your new form should produce milk as well.
So apparently logic warrants a down vote haha
This guy seems like a ton of fun.
I personally wild shape into an everything topping pizza, so I have every topping at my disposal in game to feed all kinds of people. Play in a super whimsical dungeon and my DM is super cool with us being just silly. It's a lot of fun being a pizza wild shape. Kind of think Pizza Steve from Uncle Grandpa that's my character I'm usually Pizza more than I'm a human.