D&D 5E Wild Shape - What beasts have you seen before?

[Rya.Reisender]

My druid liked the Unearthed Arcana rules so we decided to go with that. But now another question came up: UA lists "Badger". If you are familiar with a Badger, can you also transform into a Giant Badger then?

 

[Satyrn]

My druid liked the Unearthed Arcana rules so we decided to go with that. But now another question came up: UA lists "Badger". If you are familiar with a Badger, can you also transform into a Giant Badger then?

I think this is really a question for you to answer however you and your player want. I'd say "yes, sure," because I probably wouldn't even think to limit the player's choices, leaving it up to him if he wants to bother making a restrictive list.

The list to me just feels like flavor text that comes down to personal preference. So do you want "familiar with badger" to include giant badger?

 

[plisnithus8]

I would classify giant animals as different than their smaller counterparts since they have diffrent features.

 

[happyhermit]

My druid liked the Unearthed Arcana rules so we decided to go with that. But now another question came up: UA lists "Badger". If you are familiar with a Badger, can you also transform into a Giant Badger then?

I was going to suggest the UA rules as well. I think if you follow those rules then by default the PC wouldn't know "Giant X" because they know "X". Sure, you can rule either way, but I think it can be just as much fun to follow those rules, especially if the player buys in.

 

[mrpopstar]

Appendix B in the Dungeon Master's Guide provides a list of tables that organize monsters by environment and challenge rating.

I imagine that a druid would be familiar with the beasts associated with the land where he was initiated into his circle, at the very least.

 

[MechaTarrasque]

My druid liked the Unearthed Arcana rules so we decided to go with that. But now another question came up: UA lists "Badger". If you are familiar with a Badger, can you also transform into a Giant Badger then?

I admit to a great deal of inconsistency on this. I think I am often good with giant badgers, but seeing a wasp to giant wasp (or similar bug things) doesn't sit so well. I think that if the giant version of a beast is supposed to be the prehistoric ancestor of the current version, then mystical understanding of the beast includes mystical understanding of the beast's ancestors (this isn't always the case, I vaguely recall that dire critters were more mutant critters in 4e). [I know that the really big versions of most animals in general weren't actually the actual ancestors of the modern version, but RAF]. Of course, there were big prehistoric bugs too, but I tend to think of giant bugs as magically created (because of the spell and Clash of the Titans), and the druid needs to get a feel for the magic to wild shape into one.

 

[cbwjm]

My player's druid grew up in a temperate forest so it's fine for him to turn into say, bears or wolves. If he wanted to turn into a lion or a tiger, then I might step in and say no since he hasn't had the chance to see one.

I think this question is why they brought in the optional rule for druids and wildshape where they slowly grew the number of creatures they could turn into as they level or studied them.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

As far as other animals in the D&D world, see the sidebar at the bottom of page 317 of the Monster Manual.

For me personally, players knowing the entire Monster Manual would be a big problem. I don't want my players to know any monsters stats and I don't really want to go the way of modifying them either. Usually I feel the games are most fun if the players know exactly the same thing as their characters do. Because forcing them to play dumb is not very fun.

In my opinion this is the order from best to worst of the ways of handling player knowledge of monsters their characters wouldn't know:

1) Players simply don't read the material, and don't know. My preferred best case scenario for the most surprise and immersion.
2) Players who know play their characters as if they don't. Electively making an Int check for myself to see what my character knows when I'm not sure is how I handle it as a player. It's just more fun to react in character rather than to bring my out of character knowledge of D&D to every character I play. My entire group plays this way with no prompting. We just "get" that it's more enjoyable. We even have in character discussions where the characters talk about the things they do know and try to puzzle out stuff they don't.
3) Let the players give their characters knowledge they shouldn't have. This is sort of immersion breaking, so you just have to accept it and go with it.
4) Change monsters to keep players from knowing. This is a DM versus player contest here, which I'm not really a fan of. Personally, I also am not going to change my world just to adapt to players knowledge. I made the world the way I want it, and that's how it's going to stay. Players generally have creative input over world details that relate to their character backstory, and can change the world in-character in normal ways (defeating bad guys, building organizations and such). My setting is mine, and I feel annoyed by the idea of getting into a versus game where I have to sacrifice setting integrity to counter player moves.

 

[Rya.Reisender]

But the Unearthed Arcana doesn't even offer "Giant Badger" as option. The CR is 1/4 and it's of beast type, so the requirements are met. It feels to me like UA either bundled those together or wants the Druids to be completely unable to turn into "Giant" versions of any beast (except when actually found during the adventure). Of course I could just say the Druid needs to decide between Badger and Giant Badger, but that's not how I read it. Hmmm...

Edit: Actually it lists for example "Eagle" in the table and then later refers to "Giant Eagle" as an exotic creature you can only learn by watching / interacting with one in the adventure. So I guess "Giant" creatures are considered exotic and cannot be auto-learned.

 

[S'mon]

I go with a reasonable selection of creatures based on the Druid's background/home environment. So eg IMC no dinosaurs, mostly mammals including giant ones. If there are no creatures at a listed CR I'll be flexible, eg I ruled the CR 3 Owlbear counted as a beast for wildshape as it had no supernatural abilities.