How do you decide possible Wild Shape forms?

[Dimwhit]

I know Masters of the Wild discusses this a bit, but it came up in our campaign recently, and I was wondering what you all thought. The question: what animals can a Druid turn into? Does he have to have personally seen/fought/studied the animal? Will a successful knowledge: nature roll allow him to turn into a more obscure animal?

One of our DMs decided that in his campaign, a Druid has to pick his native terrain. He can then turn into any animal that can live in such a terrain. For other animals, in requires a combat or day of study to be able to turn into them. Anyone else do something similar? Any other ideas out there? How much knowledge of animals in the world is a Druid assumed to have before adventuring?

We had a heated debate when our Druid wanted to turn into a Desmudo Guard Bat (from MMII). The DM nixed it, saying the Druid would have no knowledge of such an animal. I tend to agree with that ruling, but I'm wondering if anyone has a set standard in their campaign that is easy to follow and that everyone agrees with.

 

[AuraSeer]

I let a druid turn into any animal he wants. Animals are supposed to be real, historical creatures, without magical abilities, so they're not overpowering.

However, I reserve the right to change a monster's if I feel it's too powerful. If some book published an Animal with 1000' blindsight, or with a ranged sonic attack, or something else unbalancing, I'd just reclassify the monster as a Beast or a Magical Beast.

I've never had to do that, but then I haven't bought the MM2 yet. What's so powerful about that bat you mentioned?

 

[Pielorinho]

I'm with the "terrain" rule, although I can imagine that a druid would have done a bit of traveling in his apprenticeship and learned other animals.

Definitely it's up to the DM to adjudicate animals the druid has seen before the game began. Once the game begins, the druid should know what animals are allowed.

Of course, if a druid has some down time, he could do worse than changing into an eagle and flying to other regions to learn about other animals; and druids at groves may teach one another new and useful forms. I imagine that the tiger, the bear, and the shark forms get passed around a lot at groves, considering how useful they are (although you might rule that a druid can't properly demonstrate the fun of being a shark absent a suitable body of salt water: flopping around on land might not be enough of a visual aid!)

This latter idea -- of druids exchanging forms -- is not completely within the rules: the DM should decide whether a rookie druid can achieve "familiarity" with an animal form by seeing a veteran druid take it on. I personally think that would be okay, but it might make for a more fun, less minmax campaign if the druid must encounter the animal personally before taking on the form.

Even then, travelling druids might be popular guests at groves if they have exotic companions.

Daniel

 

[Dimwhit]

I've never had to do that, but then I haven't bought the MM2 yet. What's so powerful about that bat you mentioned?

Nothing in particular. Blindsight to 120', and they're medium-sized. That's about it. It was mostly a roleplaying issue than a power issue.

 

[Shin Okada]

I have been thinking that because of "Nature Sense" ability, a Druid knows virtually any animals in his world and thus he can turn into any animal within the Wild Shape power's limitation.

 

[Dimwhit]

That's how we played at first. It says a Druid can identify species and species traits. But an argument can be made that while they can identify an animal, they aren't familiar enough with it to change into one. At least for the obscure ones. I'm not sure. Masters of the Wild certainly implies that there are limits. It does seem contradictory.

 

[Pielorinho]

I have been thinking that because of "Nature Sense" ability, a Druid knows virtually any animals in his world and thus he can turn into any animal within the Wild Shape power's limitation.

Given the explicit statement in MoTW that you've gotta be familiar with the animal, we've ruled that Nature Sense is a supernatural ability that kicks in on viewing an animal. Before you see an emu, you'll have no idea that they exist. But as soon as one glowers at you, you'll know that they're called emus, that they're a large flightless bird, and that they're almost insanely grouchy.

It decreases the druid's power significantly (no turning into polar bears until you've traveled up north!), but it makes them more interesting to play, I think, and removes some of the urge to minmax, and it makes more sense from a story-perspective, I think.

Daniel

 

[hammymchamham]

This is what my PHB says (well, I'm pretty sure it is, but its from the SRD so...)

Nature Sense: A druid can identify plants and animals (their species and special traits) with perfect accuracy. The druid can determine whether water is safe to drink or dangerous.


What is perfect accuracy? I always thought that in DnD an 'Animal' is a specific type of animal, and if a Druid can accuratly identify them, he knows about them.

But as always, these splat books are optional rules, and the DM can always use Rule 0, and use the rules presented in these optional books, even if they 'contradict' the rules in the PHB

 

[Dimwhit]

True, but if you go with just the Player's Handbook description of the Druid, then when wildshaped, you don't get any EX abilities of those forms. No blindsight, rake, improved grab, etc.

You're right, though, it can all be ruled by the DM however he wants. I just wanted to see how other people handled this. Apparently, there is quite a bit of variance, which is what I suspected.

 

[hammymchamham]

True, I agree with you 100%. Just saying 'the PHB outweighs MotW' unless the DM says so. In the case presented in post 1, the DM said so.