Druid Speaking Common while Wildshaped?

[Dr_Rictus]

It seems hard to believe this sort of thing can be left out. Surely one of the playtesters ran across this. Surely someone years ago thought of this.

The obvious conclusion is that people did run into this issue, and generally didn't considered it a big problem. That certainly describes my own experience playing a druid.

 

[zyzzyr]

Dr. Rictus -

I don't know if that's an obvious conclusion - or at least, the cause is not well established if that conclusion is true.

Most people likely play druids as simply wildshapers during combat situations, or scout situations, etc.. When they're done, they change back. Before Natural Spell, you *had* to change back if you were to cast spells (excluding house rules, AFAIK). This was a significant barrier.

Now the only reason to change into humanoid form is to converse (if you have the Natural Spell feat). It's a smaller barrier than casting spells while wildshaped, so it's natural to seek a way around it. By burning a feat or magical item on it, you have broadened the range of characters available to play.

It's a whole new ball game.

 

[Tempuswolf]

Animal Pigdin?

If the druid is spending most of the time in a specific animal form, his humanoid companions could spend a skill point or two to learn how to make sense of what "common" sounds like coming out of bear's, cat's, or pig's mouth. Just a point for something like "Hulkspeech".

 

[Dr_Rictus]

Then there's the fact that the druid, and every non-barbarian in the party, is literate, and many forms are perfectly capable of scratching out simple messages. I've certainly been down that road as a player.

 

[zyzzyr]

Hi all,

The question I was really posing was "is there a way in a published ruleset to allow a druid to speak the languages he or she knows while wildshaped".

I realize that there are umpteen ways of getting around this: mimeing, scratching out messages on the ground, etc. etc.

But I think the answer is pretty much "No, there is no rule or mechanic that allows you to do this easily."

The next question is "Does this make any sense?" and the answer can only be a "no". If you can take a feat that will let you cast spells while wildshaped, well, actually speaking while wildshaped is probably a lot less difficult (and far less powerful), and so a feat, or mechanic should probably exist.

At that point, it's really a house rule, then.

Now, if you disagree with this in any way ("I don't see why you need to talk while wildshaped", "Druids who are recluses shouldn't speak much anyhow", "There are many ways around it, so why bother"), that's fine, that's your prerogative. An argument of "animals can't talk!" would be a very tough one to make, considering awakened animals CAN clearly talk, and feats exist to let animal forms cast SPELLS for goodness' sake (if you allow those feats IYC).

To me, it doesn't make sense to have spells but not language, so I hope they at least introduce a feat. Sure, I can house rule it, but as has been mentioned before, it's much easier to convince a GM to go with a published source as opposed to "something I made up".

So, thanks for the input!

zyzzyr

 

[Skaros]

I'm baffled as to why you wouldn't allow it. There are plenty more powerful features a player could ask for. It seems reasonable.

For me its flavor. Talking bears just seems more comical than anything, and I find the separation between animal form and human form adds mystique to the class ability.

There are many many possible things you could change in the rules that would arguable be small changes that don't add a lot of power, but generally I prefer the rules as layed down if they make sense and suit our campaign.

I guess there could also be some questions thrown into the mix by allowing wildshaped druids to speak common in animal form as well...you'd have to put little clauses in there to handle questions like "If I can speak common, can't I cast spells in animal form that only have vocal components without the wildshape casting feat?".

I'm understand your clarification of what you desire, but still don't really see the compelling reason to allow it.

The awaken animal example doesn't really strike me as terribly compelling either. In that case the animal isn't a simple animal anymore, and has no alternate shapes, so its only means of communicating effectively is common speech. Further, an awakened animal is just a different effect than a wildshaped druid, so the paralells only go so far

In my mind the druid is gaining great benefit from changing into something that is precisely an animal, where awake grants a normal animal changes that make it no longer qualify as an animal, but as a magical beast.
-Skaros

 

[Destil]

If you're taking 1 level of anything and have an 11+ Cha take psion (telepath) for missive and lesser mindlink. Tallons is also a good option for your other tallent, and this also opens you up for inertial armor which could help the low AC many of your wild shaped forms will have.

 

[Dr_Rictus]

The next question is "Does this make any sense?" and the answer can only be a "no".

The answer most certainly can not "only" be no. I, for example, would answer "yes." Your opinion (or mine) and indisputible fact are two different things.

 

[zyzzyr]

The answer most certainly can not "only" be no. I, for example, would answer "yes." Your opinion (or mine) and indisputible fact are two different things.

Hi,

Sorry if I offended you. I did not mean to imply that you must run your campaign according to my opinion.

I suppose I could have worded it as:

I cannot see a consistent explanation for:

1) Druids can cast spells while wildshaped, but not talk.
2) Awakened animals can talk in animal form, but druids cannot.

without resorting to "magic doesn't work that way, end of story", as that's not really a reason.

I can't see any other answer then "this doesn't make sense". It seems to be inconsistent. If magic works one way for this, it stands to reason that it should work one way for that as well (without resorting to wild magic). Also, the statement "it's not necessary" is not acceptable - it doesn't attempt to explain it. It's like parents saying "because I said so. I don't have to give a reason."

If you say "yes, it makes sense", can you please give me an example of an explanation that is consistent?

I do not wish to discuss "the nature of magic" - that is essentially "whatever is within the world", and can be anything you want at all.

I am only trying to discuss a consistent "rule set".

Skaros: Talking bears seem comical to you, but spellcasting bears do not?
The wildshaped druid is not an animal; it is a humanoid in the shape of an animal. (He doesn't gain animal type). In addition, the Int is at least 1 point higher than any animal (max Int 2).

I am actually thinking of something like

Speaking Wildshape: Druid can speak any languages he or she knows while in wildshape. Can cast spells with only a verbal component.

which would be a prereq for Natural Spell.

But, that's a house rule then, and has no place on this board

Like I said, if you don't allow Natural Spell, then sure I can easily see not allowing speaking languages while wildshaped. I just can't see any reason to allow the clearly more powerful one without the other.

 

[Spatula]

I cannot see a consistent explanation for:

1) Druids can cast spells while wildshaped, but not talk.
2) Awakened animals can talk in animal form, but druids cannot.

What other form do awakened animals have available to them? Awakened animals aren't wildshaped druids.