If a Druid sees an animal’s corpse, can they Wild Shape into that animal?





.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}







18












$begingroup$


The Druid’s Wild Shape feature says:




you can use your action to magically assume the shape of a beast that you have seen before.




However, if a Druid sees the creature’s corpse, can they turn into a living version of the creature?






dnd-5e class-feature druid wild-shape







share|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 4




    $begingroup$
    Related: Is a dead creature's body considered an “object”?
    $endgroup$
    – Sdjz
    yesterday


















18












$begingroup$


The Druid’s Wild Shape feature says:




you can use your action to magically assume the shape of a beast that you have seen before.




However, if a Druid sees the creature’s corpse, can they turn into a living version of the creature?






dnd-5e class-feature druid wild-shape







share|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 4




    $begingroup$
    Related: Is a dead creature's body considered an “object”?
    $endgroup$
    – Sdjz
    yesterday














18












18








18


1



$begingroup$


The Druid’s Wild Shape feature says:




you can use your action to magically assume the shape of a beast that you have seen before.




However, if a Druid sees the creature’s corpse, can they turn into a living version of the creature?






dnd-5e class-feature druid wild-shape







share|improve this question











$endgroup$




The Druid’s Wild Shape feature says:




you can use your action to magically assume the shape of a beast that you have seen before.




However, if a Druid sees the creature’s corpse, can they turn into a living version of the creature?






dnd-5e class-feature druid wild-shape




dnd-5e class-feature druid wild-shape






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 23 hours ago









V2Blast

26.6k591162




26.6k591162










asked yesterday









MrHiTechMrHiTech

886323




886323








  • 4




    $begingroup$
    Related: Is a dead creature's body considered an “object”?
    $endgroup$
    – Sdjz
    yesterday














  • 4




    $begingroup$
    Related: Is a dead creature's body considered an “object”?
    $endgroup$
    – Sdjz
    yesterday








4




4




$begingroup$
Related: Is a dead creature's body considered an “object”?
$endgroup$
– Sdjz
yesterday




$begingroup$
Related: Is a dead creature's body considered an “object”?
$endgroup$
– Sdjz
yesterday










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















29












$begingroup$

On a literal reading, no



Corpses are objects. Jeremy Crawford has unofficially advised as much on Twitter:




A non-undead corpse isn't considered a creature. It's effectively an object.




And see Is a dead creature's body considered an "object"? which addresses this.



A beast is a type of creature. So, having seen an animal's corpse, you haven't seen a beast.



From an in-universe point of view, you could perhaps justify this by saying the Druid needs to see how the beast moves before turning into it.



Many DMs might rule you could



My above answer is a painfully literal reading of the rules, and I personally would allow a Druid who'd seen an animal's corpse to turn into it.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$









  • 3




    $begingroup$
    A little support for the "no" RAW answer: sageadvice.eu/2015/05/14/corpse-creature-or-object
    $endgroup$
    – Blake Steel
    yesterday






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    I'd like to point out how much I smiled at the admission of how painfully literal the RAW reading is. Enjoy many a +1, good sir.
    $endgroup$
    – 3C273
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Let's try to remember that both Sage Advice and Twitter are not official rulings. They are opinions, perhaps very well informed opinions, but opinions all the same. It's not equal to the official rules saying one thing or another.
    $endgroup$
    – Aeyt
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @NathanS I've found it - it's in the Druid UA, where it's presented as an alternate rule. From my reading it's pretty clear it stands in opposition to the normal rule of "any beast you've seen before", so I don't think it supports the point particularly.
    $endgroup$
    – Vigil
    18 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Fair enough, reading this Q&A just reminded me of having read something along those lines. Still, good answer with or without that, already has my +1.
    $endgroup$
    – NathanS
    16 hours ago



















5












$begingroup$

I am not aware of any written rules to support this answer, so we'll have to go with what makes sense.



You can Wild Shape into the shape of dead animals.



It seems overly pedantic to assume that the beast is no longer similar enough to itself when it was alive that you don't gain what you need to be able to morph into it. Especially since you only need to see it in order to use the ability (rather than needing to touch a living, breathing thing).



And just to throw in the "plain English interpretation", the corpse is still the "shape of a beast" that you have seen before; you saw the "shape of a beast"(assuming that it hasn't been butchered or something similarly disfiguring).






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    I assume you mean Wild Shape rather than Shapechange?
    $endgroup$
    – Vigil
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    @Vigil fixed, thanks!
    $endgroup$
    – goodguy5
    yesterday












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
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f144972%2fif-a-druid-sees-an-animal-s-corpse-can-they-wild-shape-into-that-animal%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes








2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









29












$begingroup$

On a literal reading, no



Corpses are objects. Jeremy Crawford has unofficially advised as much on Twitter:




A non-undead corpse isn't considered a creature. It's effectively an object.




And see Is a dead creature's body considered an "object"? which addresses this.



A beast is a type of creature. So, having seen an animal's corpse, you haven't seen a beast.



From an in-universe point of view, you could perhaps justify this by saying the Druid needs to see how the beast moves before turning into it.



Many DMs might rule you could



My above answer is a painfully literal reading of the rules, and I personally would allow a Druid who'd seen an animal's corpse to turn into it.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$









  • 3




    $begingroup$
    A little support for the "no" RAW answer: sageadvice.eu/2015/05/14/corpse-creature-or-object
    $endgroup$
    – Blake Steel
    yesterday






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    I'd like to point out how much I smiled at the admission of how painfully literal the RAW reading is. Enjoy many a +1, good sir.
    $endgroup$
    – 3C273
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Let's try to remember that both Sage Advice and Twitter are not official rulings. They are opinions, perhaps very well informed opinions, but opinions all the same. It's not equal to the official rules saying one thing or another.
    $endgroup$
    – Aeyt
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @NathanS I've found it - it's in the Druid UA, where it's presented as an alternate rule. From my reading it's pretty clear it stands in opposition to the normal rule of "any beast you've seen before", so I don't think it supports the point particularly.
    $endgroup$
    – Vigil
    18 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Fair enough, reading this Q&A just reminded me of having read something along those lines. Still, good answer with or without that, already has my +1.
    $endgroup$
    – NathanS
    16 hours ago
















29












$begingroup$

On a literal reading, no



Corpses are objects. Jeremy Crawford has unofficially advised as much on Twitter:




A non-undead corpse isn't considered a creature. It's effectively an object.




And see Is a dead creature's body considered an "object"? which addresses this.



A beast is a type of creature. So, having seen an animal's corpse, you haven't seen a beast.



From an in-universe point of view, you could perhaps justify this by saying the Druid needs to see how the beast moves before turning into it.



Many DMs might rule you could



My above answer is a painfully literal reading of the rules, and I personally would allow a Druid who'd seen an animal's corpse to turn into it.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$









  • 3




    $begingroup$
    A little support for the "no" RAW answer: sageadvice.eu/2015/05/14/corpse-creature-or-object
    $endgroup$
    – Blake Steel
    yesterday






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    I'd like to point out how much I smiled at the admission of how painfully literal the RAW reading is. Enjoy many a +1, good sir.
    $endgroup$
    – 3C273
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Let's try to remember that both Sage Advice and Twitter are not official rulings. They are opinions, perhaps very well informed opinions, but opinions all the same. It's not equal to the official rules saying one thing or another.
    $endgroup$
    – Aeyt
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @NathanS I've found it - it's in the Druid UA, where it's presented as an alternate rule. From my reading it's pretty clear it stands in opposition to the normal rule of "any beast you've seen before", so I don't think it supports the point particularly.
    $endgroup$
    – Vigil
    18 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Fair enough, reading this Q&A just reminded me of having read something along those lines. Still, good answer with or without that, already has my +1.
    $endgroup$
    – NathanS
    16 hours ago














29












29








29





$begingroup$

On a literal reading, no



Corpses are objects. Jeremy Crawford has unofficially advised as much on Twitter:




A non-undead corpse isn't considered a creature. It's effectively an object.




And see Is a dead creature's body considered an "object"? which addresses this.



A beast is a type of creature. So, having seen an animal's corpse, you haven't seen a beast.



From an in-universe point of view, you could perhaps justify this by saying the Druid needs to see how the beast moves before turning into it.



Many DMs might rule you could



My above answer is a painfully literal reading of the rules, and I personally would allow a Druid who'd seen an animal's corpse to turn into it.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$



On a literal reading, no



Corpses are objects. Jeremy Crawford has unofficially advised as much on Twitter:




A non-undead corpse isn't considered a creature. It's effectively an object.




And see Is a dead creature's body considered an "object"? which addresses this.



A beast is a type of creature. So, having seen an animal's corpse, you haven't seen a beast.



From an in-universe point of view, you could perhaps justify this by saying the Druid needs to see how the beast moves before turning into it.



Many DMs might rule you could



My above answer is a painfully literal reading of the rules, and I personally would allow a Druid who'd seen an animal's corpse to turn into it.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited 23 hours ago









V2Blast

26.6k591162




26.6k591162










answered yesterday









VigilVigil

6,7503284




6,7503284








  • 3




    $begingroup$
    A little support for the "no" RAW answer: sageadvice.eu/2015/05/14/corpse-creature-or-object
    $endgroup$
    – Blake Steel
    yesterday






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    I'd like to point out how much I smiled at the admission of how painfully literal the RAW reading is. Enjoy many a +1, good sir.
    $endgroup$
    – 3C273
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Let's try to remember that both Sage Advice and Twitter are not official rulings. They are opinions, perhaps very well informed opinions, but opinions all the same. It's not equal to the official rules saying one thing or another.
    $endgroup$
    – Aeyt
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @NathanS I've found it - it's in the Druid UA, where it's presented as an alternate rule. From my reading it's pretty clear it stands in opposition to the normal rule of "any beast you've seen before", so I don't think it supports the point particularly.
    $endgroup$
    – Vigil
    18 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Fair enough, reading this Q&A just reminded me of having read something along those lines. Still, good answer with or without that, already has my +1.
    $endgroup$
    – NathanS
    16 hours ago














  • 3




    $begingroup$
    A little support for the "no" RAW answer: sageadvice.eu/2015/05/14/corpse-creature-or-object
    $endgroup$
    – Blake Steel
    yesterday






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    I'd like to point out how much I smiled at the admission of how painfully literal the RAW reading is. Enjoy many a +1, good sir.
    $endgroup$
    – 3C273
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Let's try to remember that both Sage Advice and Twitter are not official rulings. They are opinions, perhaps very well informed opinions, but opinions all the same. It's not equal to the official rules saying one thing or another.
    $endgroup$
    – Aeyt
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @NathanS I've found it - it's in the Druid UA, where it's presented as an alternate rule. From my reading it's pretty clear it stands in opposition to the normal rule of "any beast you've seen before", so I don't think it supports the point particularly.
    $endgroup$
    – Vigil
    18 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Fair enough, reading this Q&A just reminded me of having read something along those lines. Still, good answer with or without that, already has my +1.
    $endgroup$
    – NathanS
    16 hours ago








3




3




$begingroup$
A little support for the "no" RAW answer: sageadvice.eu/2015/05/14/corpse-creature-or-object
$endgroup$
– Blake Steel
yesterday




$begingroup$
A little support for the "no" RAW answer: sageadvice.eu/2015/05/14/corpse-creature-or-object
$endgroup$
– Blake Steel
yesterday




4




4




$begingroup$
I'd like to point out how much I smiled at the admission of how painfully literal the RAW reading is. Enjoy many a +1, good sir.
$endgroup$
– 3C273
yesterday




$begingroup$
I'd like to point out how much I smiled at the admission of how painfully literal the RAW reading is. Enjoy many a +1, good sir.
$endgroup$
– 3C273
yesterday




1




1




$begingroup$
Let's try to remember that both Sage Advice and Twitter are not official rulings. They are opinions, perhaps very well informed opinions, but opinions all the same. It's not equal to the official rules saying one thing or another.
$endgroup$
– Aeyt
yesterday




$begingroup$
Let's try to remember that both Sage Advice and Twitter are not official rulings. They are opinions, perhaps very well informed opinions, but opinions all the same. It's not equal to the official rules saying one thing or another.
$endgroup$
– Aeyt
yesterday




1




1




$begingroup$
@NathanS I've found it - it's in the Druid UA, where it's presented as an alternate rule. From my reading it's pretty clear it stands in opposition to the normal rule of "any beast you've seen before", so I don't think it supports the point particularly.
$endgroup$
– Vigil
18 hours ago




$begingroup$
@NathanS I've found it - it's in the Druid UA, where it's presented as an alternate rule. From my reading it's pretty clear it stands in opposition to the normal rule of "any beast you've seen before", so I don't think it supports the point particularly.
$endgroup$
– Vigil
18 hours ago




1




1




$begingroup$
Fair enough, reading this Q&A just reminded me of having read something along those lines. Still, good answer with or without that, already has my +1.
$endgroup$
– NathanS
16 hours ago




$begingroup$
Fair enough, reading this Q&A just reminded me of having read something along those lines. Still, good answer with or without that, already has my +1.
$endgroup$
– NathanS
16 hours ago













5












$begingroup$

I am not aware of any written rules to support this answer, so we'll have to go with what makes sense.



You can Wild Shape into the shape of dead animals.



It seems overly pedantic to assume that the beast is no longer similar enough to itself when it was alive that you don't gain what you need to be able to morph into it. Especially since you only need to see it in order to use the ability (rather than needing to touch a living, breathing thing).



And just to throw in the "plain English interpretation", the corpse is still the "shape of a beast" that you have seen before; you saw the "shape of a beast"(assuming that it hasn't been butchered or something similarly disfiguring).






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    I assume you mean Wild Shape rather than Shapechange?
    $endgroup$
    – Vigil
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    @Vigil fixed, thanks!
    $endgroup$
    – goodguy5
    yesterday
















5












$begingroup$

I am not aware of any written rules to support this answer, so we'll have to go with what makes sense.



You can Wild Shape into the shape of dead animals.



It seems overly pedantic to assume that the beast is no longer similar enough to itself when it was alive that you don't gain what you need to be able to morph into it. Especially since you only need to see it in order to use the ability (rather than needing to touch a living, breathing thing).



And just to throw in the "plain English interpretation", the corpse is still the "shape of a beast" that you have seen before; you saw the "shape of a beast"(assuming that it hasn't been butchered or something similarly disfiguring).






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    I assume you mean Wild Shape rather than Shapechange?
    $endgroup$
    – Vigil
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    @Vigil fixed, thanks!
    $endgroup$
    – goodguy5
    yesterday














5












5








5





$begingroup$

I am not aware of any written rules to support this answer, so we'll have to go with what makes sense.



You can Wild Shape into the shape of dead animals.



It seems overly pedantic to assume that the beast is no longer similar enough to itself when it was alive that you don't gain what you need to be able to morph into it. Especially since you only need to see it in order to use the ability (rather than needing to touch a living, breathing thing).



And just to throw in the "plain English interpretation", the corpse is still the "shape of a beast" that you have seen before; you saw the "shape of a beast"(assuming that it hasn't been butchered or something similarly disfiguring).






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$



I am not aware of any written rules to support this answer, so we'll have to go with what makes sense.



You can Wild Shape into the shape of dead animals.



It seems overly pedantic to assume that the beast is no longer similar enough to itself when it was alive that you don't gain what you need to be able to morph into it. Especially since you only need to see it in order to use the ability (rather than needing to touch a living, breathing thing).



And just to throw in the "plain English interpretation", the corpse is still the "shape of a beast" that you have seen before; you saw the "shape of a beast"(assuming that it hasn't been butchered or something similarly disfiguring).







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited 23 hours ago









V2Blast

26.6k591162




26.6k591162










answered yesterday









goodguy5goodguy5

10.1k23779




10.1k23779












  • $begingroup$
    I assume you mean Wild Shape rather than Shapechange?
    $endgroup$
    – Vigil
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    @Vigil fixed, thanks!
    $endgroup$
    – goodguy5
    yesterday


















  • $begingroup$
    I assume you mean Wild Shape rather than Shapechange?
    $endgroup$
    – Vigil
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    @Vigil fixed, thanks!
    $endgroup$
    – goodguy5
    yesterday
















$begingroup$
I assume you mean Wild Shape rather than Shapechange?
$endgroup$
– Vigil
yesterday




$begingroup$
I assume you mean Wild Shape rather than Shapechange?
$endgroup$
– Vigil
yesterday












$begingroup$
@Vigil fixed, thanks!
$endgroup$
– goodguy5
yesterday




$begingroup$
@Vigil fixed, thanks!
$endgroup$
– goodguy5
yesterday


















draft saved

draft discarded




















































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.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f144972%2fif-a-druid-sees-an-animal-s-corpse-can-they-wild-shape-into-that-animal%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

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







-

Popular posts from this blog

What other Star Trek series did the main TNG cast show up in?

Image
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0; } 4 I'm referring to Picard, Riker, Data, Worf, Geordi, Dr. Crusher, Wesley Crusher, Chief O'Brien and family, Deanna Troi, Guinan. I know Picard and Worf show up on DS9, though I haven't seen it myself. I'm curious what happened to the characters after that last episode of TNG? star-trek star-trek-tng share | improve this question edited 10 hours ago Ham Sandwich 6,051 2 25 75 ...
Read more

Berlina muro

Image
La berlina muro ĉe Bethaniendamm, 1986 La berlina muro aŭ simple la muro [1] , nomita ankaŭ "kontraŭfaŝisma remparo" en propaganda lingvo de la iama Germana Demokratia Respubliko, estis parto de la interngermana limo, kiu dividis de la 13-a de aŭgusto 1961 ĝis la 9-a de novembro 1989 okcidentan Berlinon de la orienta parto de la urbo kaj de la ĉirkaŭa tereno de la GDR. Ĝi estis unu el la plej famaj simboloj de la malvarma milito kaj de la disdivido de Germanio. Pli ol simpla muro, la berlina muro estis fakte tuta defendokonstruaĵo kun du muroj, ena malplena strio, rondirvojo, gardturoj kaj alarmsistemoj. Dum la provo transiri la severe garditan limon al okcidenta Berlino multaj homoj estis mortigitaj. La preciza nombro de viktimoj estas pridisputita kaj ne certa; la nombroj anoncataj varias inter 86 kaj 238 mortintoj. La malplifortiĝo de Sovetunio kaj la politiko de liberigo gvidita de Miĥail Gorbaĉov ebligis al la orientgermanoj faligi la 9-an de novembro 1989 l...
Read more

Berlina aerponto

Image
Flugkoridoroj dum la blokado de Berlino La Berlina aerponto estas la provizigo de okcidenta Berlino per aviadiloj fare de la aliancanoj inter la 23-a de junio 1948 kaj la 12-a de majo 1949 dum la blokado de Berlino fare de la sovetia armeo. Enhavo 1 Historio 1.1 La aerkoridoroj 1.2 Unuaj flugoj 1.3 Plibonigo de la aerponto 1.4 Fino de la aerponto 1.5 Rozinbombiloj 1.6 Bilanco 2 Flughavenoj 2.1 Berlino 2.2 Okcidenta Germanio 3 Aviadiloj de la berlina aerponto 4 15-a datreveno de la aerponto 5 Bibliografio 6 Referencoj 7 Eksteraj ligiloj Historio | General Lucius D. Clay, militguberniestro de la usona okupadzono Jam antaŭ la berlina aerponto estiĝis la malgranda aerponto . La estro de la sovetia militadministracio en Germanio, Vasili Daniloviĉ Sokolovski, ordonis la 1-an de aprilo 1948, kiel reago al la konferenco de Londono inter britoj, francoj kaj reprezentantoj de Benelukso pri aligo de Germa...
Read more