Druid/shape shifting question

[DarkCrisis]

A druid while in an animal form loses his eyes? Can he shift to another animal form to get them back? Or back to his original form to get them back?

And HP? Do the wounds stay between shapes? Though the HP total may increase?

 

[kpdezend]

A druid while in an animal form loses his eyes? Can he shift to another animal form to get them back? Or back to his original form to get them back?

And HP? Do the wounds stay between shapes? Though the HP total may increase?

No books are in front of me, but.... your HP total never increases (that is the max you can have, since you carry over your current HP plus you heal (if you are damaged) the same as if you has rested for 8 hours. I would say that if is eye was poked out (lets say he was a shifter) and turned into a Beholder and had an eye-stalk chopped off, reverting back to his normal form, (or shifting into another beholder) would give him his eyes back... but if he had been blinded by a spell, he would still be blinded.

my 2 cents, hope that helps!

- Kent -

 

[DM2]

If you turn into something with a higher CON bonus than your normal one, I don't see anything in the rules that restricts your HP from increasing appropriately while in that form...and decreasing immediately if someone dispels it or you shift back.

DM2

 

[youspoonybard]

It's pretty hard to Dispel a Wild Shape...

But yes, the Sage ruled that, his interpretation of the rules at least, HP due to Con Mod change when you shape.

I don't know if I like it, but it's the only definitive ruling I have right now, and it fixes some old cheese, so I'll go with it.

 

[jgsugden]

It's pretty hard to Dispel a Wild Shape...

But yes, the Sage ruled that, his interpretation of the rules at least, HP due to Con Mod change when you shape.

I don't know if I like it, but it's the only definitive ruling I have right now, and it fixes some old cheese, so I'll go with it.

I missed this ... where was that Sage ruling (HPs change with new shapes)?

 

[DM2]

I'm not sure where he ruled it, but there isn't really anything to suggest otherwise in 3.5 rules.

Your CON changes, so your CON modifier changes, so your HP total must change (just as it does when you take CON damage or cast bear's endurance), unless something specifically contradicts it for the polymorph\wild shape line of spells\abilities.

DM2

 

[youspoonybard]

http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=104468

 

[jgsugden]

http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=104468

Man, this really pisses me off. Once again, the sage screws up.

Question: Does a druid adjust their hit points to match their new Constitution when wild shaping?
Answer: In 3.0 there was a rule that said your hit points didn't change when your Constitution changed because of assuming a new form. That rule is absent from the current polymorph text (which is the basis for wild shape), so the letter of the rule implies that your hit points do indeed change with Constitution (so be careful if you take a lot of damage while polymorphed or wild shaped).

Polymorph references Alter Self which explicitely states that HPs do not change. His 'letter of the rule implication' ignores this fact.

Man, how many rulings is he going to screw up before they replace him with somebody that bothered to read the rules?

 

[Saeviomagy]

Man, this really pisses me off. Once again, the sage screws up.

Polymorph references Alter Self which explicitely states that HPs do not change. His 'letter of the rule implication' ignores this fact.

Man, how many rulings is he going to screw up before they replace him with somebody that bothered to read the rules?

Well, technically it could be argued that alter self says your hitpoints don't change as a reminder that since your hitdice and constitution stay the same, your hitpoints shouldn't be recalculated. Since your constitution changes under polymorph, that restriction doesn't exist any more. It's not entirely off-base.

 

[jgsugden]

Well, technically it could be argued that alter self says your hitpoints don't change as a reminder that since your hitdice and constitution stay the same, your hitpoints shouldn't be recalculated. Since your constitution changes under polymorph, that restriction doesn't exist any more. It's not entirely off-base.

D&D is a game of rules. Rules are the laws of the game. Lawyers spend countless hours screwing around with laws. To keep lawyers from going too wild with their interpretations, some common sense rules have come into existence to help us determine how written rules should be interpreted. One of these rules is that you should look at the plain interpretation of the written rules for their meaning before looking elsewhere. Only if that clear meaning is absent should you begin to look for clarity through outside sources (such as supposition as to why a rule was put into place.) If the rule makers don't like how it is interpreted based upon a plain language interpretation, those rule makers can change the written rule.

Alter self makes a statement regarding hit points. It is clear and concise. Polymorph includes alter self by reference unless polymorph overrides a portion of alter self. Supposition about why the rule might have been written aside, unless there is something in polymorph that overrides that statement regarding hit points in alter self, it stands by reference in polymorph. Wildshape references polymorph in the same way. So, unless wildshape makes a special rule about hit points, the same rule applies.

Is D&D the proper setting for legal interpretation of laws? Yes and no. No, it isn't a place for rules lawyers to get uptight and argue minutia and destroy the enjoyable atmosphere of a game session. Yes, it is a proper place to use sound reasoning to figure out how you should play the game if questions arise. The problem is that those two things are very similar. The trick is knowing when to walk the slope and when to go with the flow.