If a druid in Wild Shape swallows a creature whole, then turns back to her normal form, what happens?What...
Why might Google Analytics report a sudden, but persistent, drop in bounce rate (70% to 12%)
Could quantum mechanics be necessary to analyze some biology scenarios?
Sometimes a banana is just a banana
Do my Windows system binaries contain sensitive information?
How can I handle a player who pre-plans arguments about my rulings on RAW?
How to approximate rolls for potions of healing using only d6's?
Does music exist in Panem? And if so, what kinds of music?
Is there a frame of reference in which I was born before I was conceived?
How to visualize a Cayley graph in this style?
How would we write a misogynistic character without offending people?
Do commercial flights continue with an engine out?
What's the purpose of these copper coils with resistors inside them in A Yamaha RX-V396RDS amplifier?
You'll find me clean when something is full
Where was Karl Mordo in Infinity War?
What do the pedals on grand pianos do?
"Murder!" The knight said
It took me a lot of time to make this, pls like. (YouTube Comments #1)
What is this waxed root vegetable?
If a druid in Wild Shape swallows a creature whole, then turns back to her normal form, what happens?
Must a tritone substitution use a dominant seventh chord?
What are these green text/line displays shown during the livestream of Crew Dragon's approach to dock with the ISS?
Called into a meeting and told we are being made redundant (laid off) and "not to share outside". Can I tell my partner?
How to add multiple differently colored borders around a node?
Why is this code uniquely decodable?
If a druid in Wild Shape swallows a creature whole, then turns back to her normal form, what happens?
What happens when a creature that has swallowed another creature is polymorphed?What would happen if somebody ate a wild-shaped Druid, and then the Druid changed back inside them?Can a Druid use Conjure Animals to conjure a new creature and then Wild Shape into it?If a druid in wild shape is over healed, does it carry over to normal form?What would happen if somebody ate a wild-shaped Druid, and then the Druid changed back inside them?Do removed parts of a Druid's Wild Shape form persist after said Druid exits Wild Shape?Can a were-creature druid Wild Shape when in hybrid form?Can Wild Shape provide Darkvision to a human Druid?Druid Wild Shape to Wild ShapeDruid Wild Shape and physical statsCan a wild-shaped druid turn back to normal form and immediately attack?Can a druid use Wild Shape in order to escape her restraints?
$begingroup$
Our goblin druid posed a question today which made our DM bluescreen:
"If I turned into a giant toad, swallowed a Medium-sized creature whole, and then turned back, what happens?"
The goblin druid is a Small creature, and the giant toad is a Large creature. The creature being swallowed is Medium-sized.
This is essentially the inverse of this question, though not quite a duplicate because it's the eating creature doing the shapeshifting rather than the eaten one. Closely related to this question, with the primary difference being wildshape by a willing druid vs polymorph of an unwilling monster.
dnd-5e rules-as-written druid wild-shape
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Our goblin druid posed a question today which made our DM bluescreen:
"If I turned into a giant toad, swallowed a Medium-sized creature whole, and then turned back, what happens?"
The goblin druid is a Small creature, and the giant toad is a Large creature. The creature being swallowed is Medium-sized.
This is essentially the inverse of this question, though not quite a duplicate because it's the eating creature doing the shapeshifting rather than the eaten one. Closely related to this question, with the primary difference being wildshape by a willing druid vs polymorph of an unwilling monster.
dnd-5e rules-as-written druid wild-shape
$endgroup$
4
$begingroup$
Given the [rules-as-written] tag, are you looking for a strict literalist interpretation of the rules, even when it leads to absurd interpretations? Or is it just meant as a regular rules question?
$endgroup$
– V2Blast
20 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
We are most interested in whether there is any rule around this, since neither linked question cites strict rules. Absurd is fine (the situation is somewhat absurd to begin with :) ).
$endgroup$
– thatgirldm
20 hours ago
$begingroup$
Linky: twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/981248594836520960
$endgroup$
– Joshua
48 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Our goblin druid posed a question today which made our DM bluescreen:
"If I turned into a giant toad, swallowed a Medium-sized creature whole, and then turned back, what happens?"
The goblin druid is a Small creature, and the giant toad is a Large creature. The creature being swallowed is Medium-sized.
This is essentially the inverse of this question, though not quite a duplicate because it's the eating creature doing the shapeshifting rather than the eaten one. Closely related to this question, with the primary difference being wildshape by a willing druid vs polymorph of an unwilling monster.
dnd-5e rules-as-written druid wild-shape
$endgroup$
Our goblin druid posed a question today which made our DM bluescreen:
"If I turned into a giant toad, swallowed a Medium-sized creature whole, and then turned back, what happens?"
The goblin druid is a Small creature, and the giant toad is a Large creature. The creature being swallowed is Medium-sized.
This is essentially the inverse of this question, though not quite a duplicate because it's the eating creature doing the shapeshifting rather than the eaten one. Closely related to this question, with the primary difference being wildshape by a willing druid vs polymorph of an unwilling monster.
dnd-5e rules-as-written druid wild-shape
dnd-5e rules-as-written druid wild-shape
edited 20 hours ago
V2Blast
23.4k375147
23.4k375147
asked 20 hours ago
thatgirldmthatgirldm
15.3k25671
15.3k25671
4
$begingroup$
Given the [rules-as-written] tag, are you looking for a strict literalist interpretation of the rules, even when it leads to absurd interpretations? Or is it just meant as a regular rules question?
$endgroup$
– V2Blast
20 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
We are most interested in whether there is any rule around this, since neither linked question cites strict rules. Absurd is fine (the situation is somewhat absurd to begin with :) ).
$endgroup$
– thatgirldm
20 hours ago
$begingroup$
Linky: twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/981248594836520960
$endgroup$
– Joshua
48 mins ago
add a comment |
4
$begingroup$
Given the [rules-as-written] tag, are you looking for a strict literalist interpretation of the rules, even when it leads to absurd interpretations? Or is it just meant as a regular rules question?
$endgroup$
– V2Blast
20 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
We are most interested in whether there is any rule around this, since neither linked question cites strict rules. Absurd is fine (the situation is somewhat absurd to begin with :) ).
$endgroup$
– thatgirldm
20 hours ago
$begingroup$
Linky: twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/981248594836520960
$endgroup$
– Joshua
48 mins ago
4
4
$begingroup$
Given the [rules-as-written] tag, are you looking for a strict literalist interpretation of the rules, even when it leads to absurd interpretations? Or is it just meant as a regular rules question?
$endgroup$
– V2Blast
20 hours ago
$begingroup$
Given the [rules-as-written] tag, are you looking for a strict literalist interpretation of the rules, even when it leads to absurd interpretations? Or is it just meant as a regular rules question?
$endgroup$
– V2Blast
20 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
We are most interested in whether there is any rule around this, since neither linked question cites strict rules. Absurd is fine (the situation is somewhat absurd to begin with :) ).
$endgroup$
– thatgirldm
20 hours ago
$begingroup$
We are most interested in whether there is any rule around this, since neither linked question cites strict rules. Absurd is fine (the situation is somewhat absurd to begin with :) ).
$endgroup$
– thatgirldm
20 hours ago
$begingroup$
Linky: twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/981248594836520960
$endgroup$
– Joshua
48 mins ago
$begingroup$
Linky: twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/981248594836520960
$endgroup$
– Joshua
48 mins ago
add a comment |
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
When a target of an effect ceases to be a valid target it is no longer affected
A giant toad can swallow a creature, your druid cannot - as per the effect, I mean. Obviously, the druid can swallow things that a goblin could swallow - things I don't want to think about.
As the druid transforms from giant toad to goblin the swallowing ends. Feel free to describe how this happens in as much nauseating detail as you like.
$endgroup$
Some of the information contained in this post requires additional references. Please edit to add citations to reliable sources that support the assertions made here. Unsourced material may be disputed or deleted.
7
$begingroup$
The target is still valid. It's just the source that's no longer present, and doesn't always lead to effects ending.
$endgroup$
– the dark wanderer
12 hours ago
5
$begingroup$
Citing valid target rules would help improve this.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
4 hours ago
4
$begingroup$
To add to this, citing literally any rule would improve this. Right now it is completely unsupported. This is important because the points in here are both contentious and non-obvious, but by not citing anything you make it seem like it is completely supported by the rules. Please add some support for this answer. -1 from me until that is added.
$endgroup$
– Rubiksmoose
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Rubiksmoose: All answers are speculating. Dale M either got what's probably the best play answer by reasoning it out or guessing. c.f. Bash's #4 already.
$endgroup$
– Joshua
52 mins ago
$begingroup$
@Joshua the difference between Bash's answer and this one is that this one implies that the rules agree with it but then never cites the rules they are talking about. When you claim something is fact you have to back it up. We even have guidelines on how to do that. The fact that this answer isn't meeting them is born out by the little message below it.
$endgroup$
– Rubiksmoose
49 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Lack of specific rules means DM has to decide.
But let's help him by considering options, shall we?
If the creature is harmed, but the druid is not:
Whether you inflict massive damage, or just decide the creature disappears to nothingness - this means the Giant Frog becomes a killing machine. A level 4 moon druid probably does not need that kind of help.If the druid is harmed, but the creature is not:
Then swallowing a creature becomes very risky. It removes the Giant Frog's main ability, and encourages the druid to stick to other combat forms. Bears and wolves. Yawn.If both the druid, and the the creature are harmed (such as suggested here):
Then swallowing a creature becomes a valid, sacrificial move - that may have its narrative interest. However, the DM should ensure it can't be exploited too easily: killing a BBEG with that method only to have the druid back on his feet with a healing kit should feel like cheating.If neither the druid, nor the the creature is harmed:
Game continues as usual, with many messy descriptions but few mechanical impacts.
Obviously #4 seems the most safe and sensible option to me - but #3 may lead to interesting situations if handled properly. This is only opinion though.
On a side note: in-game attempts to swallow bigger and bigger preys could be a semi-safe, fun way to find out the answer, if the DM is reluctant on giving mechanical details right away - and the druid has off-time to experiment.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
I really like your assessment of the potential outcomes to help determine how to adjudicate at the table.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
4 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
RAW - the only interpretation can be taken from the equipment section of the Wildshape description (emphasis mine):
You choose whether your Equipment falls to the ground in your space, merges into your new form, or is worn by it. Worn Equipment functions as normal, but the DM decides whether it is practical for the new form to wear a piece of Equipment, based on the creature's shape and size. Your Equipment doesn't change size or shape to match the new form, and any Equipment that the new form can't wear must either fall to the ground or merge with it. Equipment that merges with the form has no effect until you leave the form.
Albeit, this is referencing equipment that is worn by the druid when shifting into a beast form. So for example, your gnome druid would not be able to keep wearing its leather armour - the toad form is too big to wear it. So it must either be dropped, or merge with the transformation.
This could work the same way in reverse. Upon transforming back into the gnome, the medium creature would either be merged with your PC, or dropped (i.e., regurgitated).
Again, this will probably have to be ruled by your DM.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
I like this answer because it gives choice. That's always a good feature to have in a game.
$endgroup$
– Tom
12 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
What happens is called flatus or indigestion
The character ate a large meal without allowing time to digest it as a giant frog. Had they stayed in that form longer, the normal frog digestion would render this problem moot.
But since they switched back to humanoid form too quickly, they are not just "full" but "really full" along the lines of eating three pizzas. Expect a passage of wind anon.
RAW there isn't an answer for this.
I thus recommend the above ruling to fill in the gap that RAW failed to foresee, which was "eating something bigger than your head."
At a time like this, rely on RAF rather than RAW.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I remember this question (or a similar one) popping up in a campaign I was in. I believe our DM said that though it's a DM call, he basically sees it as a logical question.
First, note that a toad swallows its food whole. That said, until it's digested, the meal is still in one huge piece. Also, how long took place between eating and transforming? Third, what kind of medium monster was it?
All in all he viewed that as what would actually happen, given everything in consideration, if your giant toad swallowed a deer, then transformed back to a goblin right away, chances are, his head would explode, but if the toad ate the deer and turned back an hour later, then he'd be more lenient to say it's digesting fine.
What's interesting is if your goblin turned into something able to eat a giant toad, then turned back, he'd have the transformation go off as you barf out the toad, resulting in your goblin looking like living toad poop.
New contributor
Victor B is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["\$", "\$"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "122"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f142368%2fif-a-druid-in-wild-shape-swallows-a-creature-whole-then-turns-back-to-her-norma%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
When a target of an effect ceases to be a valid target it is no longer affected
A giant toad can swallow a creature, your druid cannot - as per the effect, I mean. Obviously, the druid can swallow things that a goblin could swallow - things I don't want to think about.
As the druid transforms from giant toad to goblin the swallowing ends. Feel free to describe how this happens in as much nauseating detail as you like.
$endgroup$
Some of the information contained in this post requires additional references. Please edit to add citations to reliable sources that support the assertions made here. Unsourced material may be disputed or deleted.
7
$begingroup$
The target is still valid. It's just the source that's no longer present, and doesn't always lead to effects ending.
$endgroup$
– the dark wanderer
12 hours ago
5
$begingroup$
Citing valid target rules would help improve this.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
4 hours ago
4
$begingroup$
To add to this, citing literally any rule would improve this. Right now it is completely unsupported. This is important because the points in here are both contentious and non-obvious, but by not citing anything you make it seem like it is completely supported by the rules. Please add some support for this answer. -1 from me until that is added.
$endgroup$
– Rubiksmoose
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Rubiksmoose: All answers are speculating. Dale M either got what's probably the best play answer by reasoning it out or guessing. c.f. Bash's #4 already.
$endgroup$
– Joshua
52 mins ago
$begingroup$
@Joshua the difference between Bash's answer and this one is that this one implies that the rules agree with it but then never cites the rules they are talking about. When you claim something is fact you have to back it up. We even have guidelines on how to do that. The fact that this answer isn't meeting them is born out by the little message below it.
$endgroup$
– Rubiksmoose
49 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
When a target of an effect ceases to be a valid target it is no longer affected
A giant toad can swallow a creature, your druid cannot - as per the effect, I mean. Obviously, the druid can swallow things that a goblin could swallow - things I don't want to think about.
As the druid transforms from giant toad to goblin the swallowing ends. Feel free to describe how this happens in as much nauseating detail as you like.
$endgroup$
Some of the information contained in this post requires additional references. Please edit to add citations to reliable sources that support the assertions made here. Unsourced material may be disputed or deleted.
7
$begingroup$
The target is still valid. It's just the source that's no longer present, and doesn't always lead to effects ending.
$endgroup$
– the dark wanderer
12 hours ago
5
$begingroup$
Citing valid target rules would help improve this.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
4 hours ago
4
$begingroup$
To add to this, citing literally any rule would improve this. Right now it is completely unsupported. This is important because the points in here are both contentious and non-obvious, but by not citing anything you make it seem like it is completely supported by the rules. Please add some support for this answer. -1 from me until that is added.
$endgroup$
– Rubiksmoose
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Rubiksmoose: All answers are speculating. Dale M either got what's probably the best play answer by reasoning it out or guessing. c.f. Bash's #4 already.
$endgroup$
– Joshua
52 mins ago
$begingroup$
@Joshua the difference between Bash's answer and this one is that this one implies that the rules agree with it but then never cites the rules they are talking about. When you claim something is fact you have to back it up. We even have guidelines on how to do that. The fact that this answer isn't meeting them is born out by the little message below it.
$endgroup$
– Rubiksmoose
49 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
When a target of an effect ceases to be a valid target it is no longer affected
A giant toad can swallow a creature, your druid cannot - as per the effect, I mean. Obviously, the druid can swallow things that a goblin could swallow - things I don't want to think about.
As the druid transforms from giant toad to goblin the swallowing ends. Feel free to describe how this happens in as much nauseating detail as you like.
$endgroup$
When a target of an effect ceases to be a valid target it is no longer affected
A giant toad can swallow a creature, your druid cannot - as per the effect, I mean. Obviously, the druid can swallow things that a goblin could swallow - things I don't want to think about.
As the druid transforms from giant toad to goblin the swallowing ends. Feel free to describe how this happens in as much nauseating detail as you like.
answered 19 hours ago
Dale MDale M
108k21278479
108k21278479
Some of the information contained in this post requires additional references. Please edit to add citations to reliable sources that support the assertions made here. Unsourced material may be disputed or deleted.
Some of the information contained in this post requires additional references. Please edit to add citations to reliable sources that support the assertions made here. Unsourced material may be disputed or deleted.
7
$begingroup$
The target is still valid. It's just the source that's no longer present, and doesn't always lead to effects ending.
$endgroup$
– the dark wanderer
12 hours ago
5
$begingroup$
Citing valid target rules would help improve this.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
4 hours ago
4
$begingroup$
To add to this, citing literally any rule would improve this. Right now it is completely unsupported. This is important because the points in here are both contentious and non-obvious, but by not citing anything you make it seem like it is completely supported by the rules. Please add some support for this answer. -1 from me until that is added.
$endgroup$
– Rubiksmoose
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Rubiksmoose: All answers are speculating. Dale M either got what's probably the best play answer by reasoning it out or guessing. c.f. Bash's #4 already.
$endgroup$
– Joshua
52 mins ago
$begingroup$
@Joshua the difference between Bash's answer and this one is that this one implies that the rules agree with it but then never cites the rules they are talking about. When you claim something is fact you have to back it up. We even have guidelines on how to do that. The fact that this answer isn't meeting them is born out by the little message below it.
$endgroup$
– Rubiksmoose
49 mins ago
add a comment |
7
$begingroup$
The target is still valid. It's just the source that's no longer present, and doesn't always lead to effects ending.
$endgroup$
– the dark wanderer
12 hours ago
5
$begingroup$
Citing valid target rules would help improve this.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
4 hours ago
4
$begingroup$
To add to this, citing literally any rule would improve this. Right now it is completely unsupported. This is important because the points in here are both contentious and non-obvious, but by not citing anything you make it seem like it is completely supported by the rules. Please add some support for this answer. -1 from me until that is added.
$endgroup$
– Rubiksmoose
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Rubiksmoose: All answers are speculating. Dale M either got what's probably the best play answer by reasoning it out or guessing. c.f. Bash's #4 already.
$endgroup$
– Joshua
52 mins ago
$begingroup$
@Joshua the difference between Bash's answer and this one is that this one implies that the rules agree with it but then never cites the rules they are talking about. When you claim something is fact you have to back it up. We even have guidelines on how to do that. The fact that this answer isn't meeting them is born out by the little message below it.
$endgroup$
– Rubiksmoose
49 mins ago
7
7
$begingroup$
The target is still valid. It's just the source that's no longer present, and doesn't always lead to effects ending.
$endgroup$
– the dark wanderer
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
The target is still valid. It's just the source that's no longer present, and doesn't always lead to effects ending.
$endgroup$
– the dark wanderer
12 hours ago
5
5
$begingroup$
Citing valid target rules would help improve this.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
Citing valid target rules would help improve this.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
4 hours ago
4
4
$begingroup$
To add to this, citing literally any rule would improve this. Right now it is completely unsupported. This is important because the points in here are both contentious and non-obvious, but by not citing anything you make it seem like it is completely supported by the rules. Please add some support for this answer. -1 from me until that is added.
$endgroup$
– Rubiksmoose
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
To add to this, citing literally any rule would improve this. Right now it is completely unsupported. This is important because the points in here are both contentious and non-obvious, but by not citing anything you make it seem like it is completely supported by the rules. Please add some support for this answer. -1 from me until that is added.
$endgroup$
– Rubiksmoose
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Rubiksmoose: All answers are speculating. Dale M either got what's probably the best play answer by reasoning it out or guessing. c.f. Bash's #4 already.
$endgroup$
– Joshua
52 mins ago
$begingroup$
@Rubiksmoose: All answers are speculating. Dale M either got what's probably the best play answer by reasoning it out or guessing. c.f. Bash's #4 already.
$endgroup$
– Joshua
52 mins ago
$begingroup$
@Joshua the difference between Bash's answer and this one is that this one implies that the rules agree with it but then never cites the rules they are talking about. When you claim something is fact you have to back it up. We even have guidelines on how to do that. The fact that this answer isn't meeting them is born out by the little message below it.
$endgroup$
– Rubiksmoose
49 mins ago
$begingroup$
@Joshua the difference between Bash's answer and this one is that this one implies that the rules agree with it but then never cites the rules they are talking about. When you claim something is fact you have to back it up. We even have guidelines on how to do that. The fact that this answer isn't meeting them is born out by the little message below it.
$endgroup$
– Rubiksmoose
49 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Lack of specific rules means DM has to decide.
But let's help him by considering options, shall we?
If the creature is harmed, but the druid is not:
Whether you inflict massive damage, or just decide the creature disappears to nothingness - this means the Giant Frog becomes a killing machine. A level 4 moon druid probably does not need that kind of help.If the druid is harmed, but the creature is not:
Then swallowing a creature becomes very risky. It removes the Giant Frog's main ability, and encourages the druid to stick to other combat forms. Bears and wolves. Yawn.If both the druid, and the the creature are harmed (such as suggested here):
Then swallowing a creature becomes a valid, sacrificial move - that may have its narrative interest. However, the DM should ensure it can't be exploited too easily: killing a BBEG with that method only to have the druid back on his feet with a healing kit should feel like cheating.If neither the druid, nor the the creature is harmed:
Game continues as usual, with many messy descriptions but few mechanical impacts.
Obviously #4 seems the most safe and sensible option to me - but #3 may lead to interesting situations if handled properly. This is only opinion though.
On a side note: in-game attempts to swallow bigger and bigger preys could be a semi-safe, fun way to find out the answer, if the DM is reluctant on giving mechanical details right away - and the druid has off-time to experiment.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
I really like your assessment of the potential outcomes to help determine how to adjudicate at the table.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
4 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Lack of specific rules means DM has to decide.
But let's help him by considering options, shall we?
If the creature is harmed, but the druid is not:
Whether you inflict massive damage, or just decide the creature disappears to nothingness - this means the Giant Frog becomes a killing machine. A level 4 moon druid probably does not need that kind of help.If the druid is harmed, but the creature is not:
Then swallowing a creature becomes very risky. It removes the Giant Frog's main ability, and encourages the druid to stick to other combat forms. Bears and wolves. Yawn.If both the druid, and the the creature are harmed (such as suggested here):
Then swallowing a creature becomes a valid, sacrificial move - that may have its narrative interest. However, the DM should ensure it can't be exploited too easily: killing a BBEG with that method only to have the druid back on his feet with a healing kit should feel like cheating.If neither the druid, nor the the creature is harmed:
Game continues as usual, with many messy descriptions but few mechanical impacts.
Obviously #4 seems the most safe and sensible option to me - but #3 may lead to interesting situations if handled properly. This is only opinion though.
On a side note: in-game attempts to swallow bigger and bigger preys could be a semi-safe, fun way to find out the answer, if the DM is reluctant on giving mechanical details right away - and the druid has off-time to experiment.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
I really like your assessment of the potential outcomes to help determine how to adjudicate at the table.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
4 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Lack of specific rules means DM has to decide.
But let's help him by considering options, shall we?
If the creature is harmed, but the druid is not:
Whether you inflict massive damage, or just decide the creature disappears to nothingness - this means the Giant Frog becomes a killing machine. A level 4 moon druid probably does not need that kind of help.If the druid is harmed, but the creature is not:
Then swallowing a creature becomes very risky. It removes the Giant Frog's main ability, and encourages the druid to stick to other combat forms. Bears and wolves. Yawn.If both the druid, and the the creature are harmed (such as suggested here):
Then swallowing a creature becomes a valid, sacrificial move - that may have its narrative interest. However, the DM should ensure it can't be exploited too easily: killing a BBEG with that method only to have the druid back on his feet with a healing kit should feel like cheating.If neither the druid, nor the the creature is harmed:
Game continues as usual, with many messy descriptions but few mechanical impacts.
Obviously #4 seems the most safe and sensible option to me - but #3 may lead to interesting situations if handled properly. This is only opinion though.
On a side note: in-game attempts to swallow bigger and bigger preys could be a semi-safe, fun way to find out the answer, if the DM is reluctant on giving mechanical details right away - and the druid has off-time to experiment.
$endgroup$
Lack of specific rules means DM has to decide.
But let's help him by considering options, shall we?
If the creature is harmed, but the druid is not:
Whether you inflict massive damage, or just decide the creature disappears to nothingness - this means the Giant Frog becomes a killing machine. A level 4 moon druid probably does not need that kind of help.If the druid is harmed, but the creature is not:
Then swallowing a creature becomes very risky. It removes the Giant Frog's main ability, and encourages the druid to stick to other combat forms. Bears and wolves. Yawn.If both the druid, and the the creature are harmed (such as suggested here):
Then swallowing a creature becomes a valid, sacrificial move - that may have its narrative interest. However, the DM should ensure it can't be exploited too easily: killing a BBEG with that method only to have the druid back on his feet with a healing kit should feel like cheating.If neither the druid, nor the the creature is harmed:
Game continues as usual, with many messy descriptions but few mechanical impacts.
Obviously #4 seems the most safe and sensible option to me - but #3 may lead to interesting situations if handled properly. This is only opinion though.
On a side note: in-game attempts to swallow bigger and bigger preys could be a semi-safe, fun way to find out the answer, if the DM is reluctant on giving mechanical details right away - and the druid has off-time to experiment.
edited 4 hours ago
V2Blast
23.4k375147
23.4k375147
answered 4 hours ago
BashBash
1,104117
1,104117
1
$begingroup$
I really like your assessment of the potential outcomes to help determine how to adjudicate at the table.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
4 hours ago
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
I really like your assessment of the potential outcomes to help determine how to adjudicate at the table.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
4 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
I really like your assessment of the potential outcomes to help determine how to adjudicate at the table.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
I really like your assessment of the potential outcomes to help determine how to adjudicate at the table.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
4 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
RAW - the only interpretation can be taken from the equipment section of the Wildshape description (emphasis mine):
You choose whether your Equipment falls to the ground in your space, merges into your new form, or is worn by it. Worn Equipment functions as normal, but the DM decides whether it is practical for the new form to wear a piece of Equipment, based on the creature's shape and size. Your Equipment doesn't change size or shape to match the new form, and any Equipment that the new form can't wear must either fall to the ground or merge with it. Equipment that merges with the form has no effect until you leave the form.
Albeit, this is referencing equipment that is worn by the druid when shifting into a beast form. So for example, your gnome druid would not be able to keep wearing its leather armour - the toad form is too big to wear it. So it must either be dropped, or merge with the transformation.
This could work the same way in reverse. Upon transforming back into the gnome, the medium creature would either be merged with your PC, or dropped (i.e., regurgitated).
Again, this will probably have to be ruled by your DM.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
I like this answer because it gives choice. That's always a good feature to have in a game.
$endgroup$
– Tom
12 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
RAW - the only interpretation can be taken from the equipment section of the Wildshape description (emphasis mine):
You choose whether your Equipment falls to the ground in your space, merges into your new form, or is worn by it. Worn Equipment functions as normal, but the DM decides whether it is practical for the new form to wear a piece of Equipment, based on the creature's shape and size. Your Equipment doesn't change size or shape to match the new form, and any Equipment that the new form can't wear must either fall to the ground or merge with it. Equipment that merges with the form has no effect until you leave the form.
Albeit, this is referencing equipment that is worn by the druid when shifting into a beast form. So for example, your gnome druid would not be able to keep wearing its leather armour - the toad form is too big to wear it. So it must either be dropped, or merge with the transformation.
This could work the same way in reverse. Upon transforming back into the gnome, the medium creature would either be merged with your PC, or dropped (i.e., regurgitated).
Again, this will probably have to be ruled by your DM.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
I like this answer because it gives choice. That's always a good feature to have in a game.
$endgroup$
– Tom
12 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
RAW - the only interpretation can be taken from the equipment section of the Wildshape description (emphasis mine):
You choose whether your Equipment falls to the ground in your space, merges into your new form, or is worn by it. Worn Equipment functions as normal, but the DM decides whether it is practical for the new form to wear a piece of Equipment, based on the creature's shape and size. Your Equipment doesn't change size or shape to match the new form, and any Equipment that the new form can't wear must either fall to the ground or merge with it. Equipment that merges with the form has no effect until you leave the form.
Albeit, this is referencing equipment that is worn by the druid when shifting into a beast form. So for example, your gnome druid would not be able to keep wearing its leather armour - the toad form is too big to wear it. So it must either be dropped, or merge with the transformation.
This could work the same way in reverse. Upon transforming back into the gnome, the medium creature would either be merged with your PC, or dropped (i.e., regurgitated).
Again, this will probably have to be ruled by your DM.
$endgroup$
RAW - the only interpretation can be taken from the equipment section of the Wildshape description (emphasis mine):
You choose whether your Equipment falls to the ground in your space, merges into your new form, or is worn by it. Worn Equipment functions as normal, but the DM decides whether it is practical for the new form to wear a piece of Equipment, based on the creature's shape and size. Your Equipment doesn't change size or shape to match the new form, and any Equipment that the new form can't wear must either fall to the ground or merge with it. Equipment that merges with the form has no effect until you leave the form.
Albeit, this is referencing equipment that is worn by the druid when shifting into a beast form. So for example, your gnome druid would not be able to keep wearing its leather armour - the toad form is too big to wear it. So it must either be dropped, or merge with the transformation.
This could work the same way in reverse. Upon transforming back into the gnome, the medium creature would either be merged with your PC, or dropped (i.e., regurgitated).
Again, this will probably have to be ruled by your DM.
answered 19 hours ago
BenBen
10.8k1566134
10.8k1566134
1
$begingroup$
I like this answer because it gives choice. That's always a good feature to have in a game.
$endgroup$
– Tom
12 hours ago
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
I like this answer because it gives choice. That's always a good feature to have in a game.
$endgroup$
– Tom
12 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
I like this answer because it gives choice. That's always a good feature to have in a game.
$endgroup$
– Tom
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
I like this answer because it gives choice. That's always a good feature to have in a game.
$endgroup$
– Tom
12 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
What happens is called flatus or indigestion
The character ate a large meal without allowing time to digest it as a giant frog. Had they stayed in that form longer, the normal frog digestion would render this problem moot.
But since they switched back to humanoid form too quickly, they are not just "full" but "really full" along the lines of eating three pizzas. Expect a passage of wind anon.
RAW there isn't an answer for this.
I thus recommend the above ruling to fill in the gap that RAW failed to foresee, which was "eating something bigger than your head."
At a time like this, rely on RAF rather than RAW.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
What happens is called flatus or indigestion
The character ate a large meal without allowing time to digest it as a giant frog. Had they stayed in that form longer, the normal frog digestion would render this problem moot.
But since they switched back to humanoid form too quickly, they are not just "full" but "really full" along the lines of eating three pizzas. Expect a passage of wind anon.
RAW there isn't an answer for this.
I thus recommend the above ruling to fill in the gap that RAW failed to foresee, which was "eating something bigger than your head."
At a time like this, rely on RAF rather than RAW.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
What happens is called flatus or indigestion
The character ate a large meal without allowing time to digest it as a giant frog. Had they stayed in that form longer, the normal frog digestion would render this problem moot.
But since they switched back to humanoid form too quickly, they are not just "full" but "really full" along the lines of eating three pizzas. Expect a passage of wind anon.
RAW there isn't an answer for this.
I thus recommend the above ruling to fill in the gap that RAW failed to foresee, which was "eating something bigger than your head."
At a time like this, rely on RAF rather than RAW.
$endgroup$
What happens is called flatus or indigestion
The character ate a large meal without allowing time to digest it as a giant frog. Had they stayed in that form longer, the normal frog digestion would render this problem moot.
But since they switched back to humanoid form too quickly, they are not just "full" but "really full" along the lines of eating three pizzas. Expect a passage of wind anon.
RAW there isn't an answer for this.
I thus recommend the above ruling to fill in the gap that RAW failed to foresee, which was "eating something bigger than your head."
At a time like this, rely on RAF rather than RAW.
edited 4 hours ago
answered 19 hours ago
KorvinStarmastKorvinStarmast
80.7k19252435
80.7k19252435
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I remember this question (or a similar one) popping up in a campaign I was in. I believe our DM said that though it's a DM call, he basically sees it as a logical question.
First, note that a toad swallows its food whole. That said, until it's digested, the meal is still in one huge piece. Also, how long took place between eating and transforming? Third, what kind of medium monster was it?
All in all he viewed that as what would actually happen, given everything in consideration, if your giant toad swallowed a deer, then transformed back to a goblin right away, chances are, his head would explode, but if the toad ate the deer and turned back an hour later, then he'd be more lenient to say it's digesting fine.
What's interesting is if your goblin turned into something able to eat a giant toad, then turned back, he'd have the transformation go off as you barf out the toad, resulting in your goblin looking like living toad poop.
New contributor
Victor B is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I remember this question (or a similar one) popping up in a campaign I was in. I believe our DM said that though it's a DM call, he basically sees it as a logical question.
First, note that a toad swallows its food whole. That said, until it's digested, the meal is still in one huge piece. Also, how long took place between eating and transforming? Third, what kind of medium monster was it?
All in all he viewed that as what would actually happen, given everything in consideration, if your giant toad swallowed a deer, then transformed back to a goblin right away, chances are, his head would explode, but if the toad ate the deer and turned back an hour later, then he'd be more lenient to say it's digesting fine.
What's interesting is if your goblin turned into something able to eat a giant toad, then turned back, he'd have the transformation go off as you barf out the toad, resulting in your goblin looking like living toad poop.
New contributor
Victor B is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I remember this question (or a similar one) popping up in a campaign I was in. I believe our DM said that though it's a DM call, he basically sees it as a logical question.
First, note that a toad swallows its food whole. That said, until it's digested, the meal is still in one huge piece. Also, how long took place between eating and transforming? Third, what kind of medium monster was it?
All in all he viewed that as what would actually happen, given everything in consideration, if your giant toad swallowed a deer, then transformed back to a goblin right away, chances are, his head would explode, but if the toad ate the deer and turned back an hour later, then he'd be more lenient to say it's digesting fine.
What's interesting is if your goblin turned into something able to eat a giant toad, then turned back, he'd have the transformation go off as you barf out the toad, resulting in your goblin looking like living toad poop.
New contributor
Victor B is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
I remember this question (or a similar one) popping up in a campaign I was in. I believe our DM said that though it's a DM call, he basically sees it as a logical question.
First, note that a toad swallows its food whole. That said, until it's digested, the meal is still in one huge piece. Also, how long took place between eating and transforming? Third, what kind of medium monster was it?
All in all he viewed that as what would actually happen, given everything in consideration, if your giant toad swallowed a deer, then transformed back to a goblin right away, chances are, his head would explode, but if the toad ate the deer and turned back an hour later, then he'd be more lenient to say it's digesting fine.
What's interesting is if your goblin turned into something able to eat a giant toad, then turned back, he'd have the transformation go off as you barf out the toad, resulting in your goblin looking like living toad poop.
New contributor
Victor B is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Victor B is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 12 hours ago
Victor BVictor B
1909
1909
New contributor
Victor B is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Victor B is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Victor B is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Role-playing Games Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f142368%2fif-a-druid-in-wild-shape-swallows-a-creature-whole-then-turns-back-to-her-norma%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
4
$begingroup$
Given the [rules-as-written] tag, are you looking for a strict literalist interpretation of the rules, even when it leads to absurd interpretations? Or is it just meant as a regular rules question?
$endgroup$
– V2Blast
20 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
We are most interested in whether there is any rule around this, since neither linked question cites strict rules. Absurd is fine (the situation is somewhat absurd to begin with :) ).
$endgroup$
– thatgirldm
20 hours ago
$begingroup$
Linky: twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/981248594836520960
$endgroup$
– Joshua
48 mins ago