| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So my Druid PC asked today if he could give his proposed Animal Companion a command while in a wild shape battle form.
I responded that he could not. An animal companion has the "minion trait", which is commanded/invoked using the "command an animal" action which has the "auditory" trait.
You cannot speak while in a battle form, ergo, you can't do it. This is the generally accepted reasoning to the above question.
[Note: Please appreciate that while I am the GM, I am also a lawyer IRL.]
The player then persuades me that the above interpretation is wrong.
Player says his proposed battle form is that of a wolf. His companion will also be a wolf. Wolves communicate effectively enough as a pack to battle all the time IRL, while not "speaking".
Player also notes that while "command an animal" has the auditory trait, it does not have the linguistic trait.. It requires only noise, not language.
When we look to the auditory trait, we see:
Auditory
Source Core Rulebook pg. 629 2.0
Auditory actions and effects rely on sound. An action with the auditory trait can be successfully performed only if the creature using the action can speak or ***otherwise produce the required sounds***.Making a noise is a very different act than "speaking".
Linguistic
Source Core Rulebook pg. 633 2.0
An effect with this trait depends on language comprehension. A linguistic effect that targets a creature works only if the target ***understands the language*** you are using.Druid player says "Command an Animal" doesn't require linguistic recognition. Druid need only be able to growl or bark to effectively coordinate with simple commands while in wolf battle form to his wolf companion. Druid can't speak, but he doesn't need to be able to in order to invoke "command a companion". A growl or bark will be enough. Auditory trait is not language trait. Growling isn't speaking.
Honestly? I think the player's interpretation, per RAW, is correct. He has found the loophole....
I researched this as well when my druid player took the order explorer feat and considering this is a very easy combination for the class it makes sense to work.
Also the very first thing a Druid gets as a feature is Wild Empathy which is a means to communicate w/ animals on a rudimentary basis to make simple requests.I wouldn't even require the Druid to be in a similar form as their Animal Companion.
As Schreckstoff said, Wild Empathy is ingrained.
And I dislike the word 'loophole' in this instance because the rule seems both clear and it makes the iconic trope functional.
I don't think it's a question of allow, but simply the way it is. And that includes for anybody with an animal companion, even w/o Wild Empathy.
That said, more complex commands would be harder to justify and some forms like an ooze might be beyond reasonable, i.e. "No, really, I used bloops and burbles to train my AC."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly? I think the player's interpretation, per RAW, is correct. He has found the loophole.
This sounds like the system working exactly as intended to me.
Doesn't even strike me as a loophole.
As Schreckstoff said, Wild Empathy is ingrained.
And I dislike the word 'loophole' in this instance because the rule seems both clear and it makes the iconic trope functional.
I don't think it's a question of allow, but simply the way it is. And that includes for anybody with an animal companion, even w/o Wild Empathy.That said, more complex commands would be harder to justify and some forms like an ooze might be beyond reasonable, i.e. "No, really, I used bloops and burbles to train my AC."
Yes it makes sense in the rules. It is also very clear that real world animals react to verbal commands while also not understanding language.
I am constantly amazed at how dumb my dog is, but she responds very well to a few verbal commands. Whats more if I begin doing something that will involve her, she is on to it like a shot. She knows the routines of everyone in the house.
As Schreckstoff said, Wild Empathy is ingrained.
And I dislike the word 'loophole' in this instance because the rule seems both clear and it makes the iconic trope functional.
I don't think it's a question of allow, but simply the way it is. And that includes for anybody with an animal companion, even w/o Wild Empathy.That said, more complex commands would be harder to justify and some forms like an ooze might be beyond reasonable, i.e. "No, really, I used bloops and burbles to train my AC."
Yes it makes sense in the rules. It is also very clear that real world animals react to verbal commands while also not understanding language.
I am constantly amazed at how dumb my dog is, but she responds very well to a few verbal commands. Whats more if I begin doing something that will involve her, she is on to it like a shot. She knows the routines of everyone in the house.
My cat is a wizard, he's unable to climb the simplest things but is smarter than any human i've seen when it comes to figuring out where he could plop down that would be the most annoying to everyone in the house...
I was thinking about this the other day and now have a theory - the devs have cornered themselves with the lingo they have in the book. Some things seem like they should work with battle forms, like sneak attack damage, rage damage, property runes, and skill attack actions such as grapple and trip. But others like weapon specialization probably shouldn't, as it seems they're already baked into the attacks the forms grant. Since a lot of those things are damage bonuses, even though some shouldn't apply, they can't come out and say additional damage straight up works with battle forms, because that would mess with the math.