Ruling: Speaking while Polymorphing

[Boddynock]

I mean if I had to err one way I would probably say:
- Restrictions and limitations breed interaction and thus RP, from my perspective.
- D&D rules are plenty lax and open to interpretation, and I like it when they are interpreted to set up things to be RPed over.
- The times I have had to RP with shapechangers who have RPed not being able to speak common have been far more fun to me than the times they have just carried on chatting like using such magic is merely cosmetic.

But opinions are subjective and like I say, its not a big issue for me, personally.

So, based on your perspective, tell me what this ruling adds to the RP experience of the druids that don't want to play this way. I play with a druid that chooses not to speak when shapechanged too, and he has fun with it, and I have fun with it when I am running with that toon. But that should be his choice. The players that already do that, IE the ones that wanted to RP that way, are totally unaffected by this, the only thing this ruling achieves is forcing a new playstyle on people that didn't want it. If anything this addition is much like the boat on the Coast South of Candlekeep... Why do I have to click it a half dozen times to catch a ride? What does that change add to the experience other than more clicks and annoyance? There is no risk added, no immersion in it. Same thing with this speech thing, it just detracts from the experience of some people while totally unaffecting others. It doesn't even average out to be a positive change, its just either you don't like it, or it doesn't really affect you (and when I say doesn't affect you, I mean CAN"T affect you, because if you wanted to play this way before, nothing was stopping you).

Was this considered when this ruling was made, what exactly it added to the experience of the players? This is a non-value added ruling that, so far, has served to only aggravate some people, the strongest argument in support of it was capped off with "its not a big issue for me, personally." So, once again, could the DM team revisit this issue with all this in mind? And perhaps consider the ruling: "The DM team sees no reason to issue a rule on this, players my RP their toons as they see fit until such time as it causes issues." It's perfectly ok to say "we see no need to make a rule for this" even if people ask for a ruling, or to make a ruling just for that specific scenario.

[kleomenes]

So, based on your perspective, tell me what this ruling adds to the RP experience of the druids that don't want to play this way. I play with a druid that chooses not to speak when shapechanged too, and he has fun with it, and I have fun with it when I am running with that toon. But that should be his choice. The players that already do that, IE the ones that wanted to RP that way, are totally unaffected by this, the only thing this ruling achieves is forcing a new playstyle on people that didn't want it. If anything this addition is much like the boat on the Coast South of Candlekeep... Why do I have to click it a half dozen times to catch a ride? What does that change add to the experience other than more clicks and annoyance? There is no risk added, no immersion in it. Same thing with this speech thing, it just detracts from the experience of some people while totally unaffecting others. It doesn't even average out to be a positive change, its just either you don't like it, or it doesn't really affect you (and when I say doesn't affect you, I mean CAN"T affect you, because if you wanted to play this way before, nothing was stopping you).

I guess my counterpoint would be that sometimes people seem to rarely want to apply limitations to their characters so "anything goes" tends to just mean RP can become bland and every character can end up doing everything. Whereas limitations mean that specialised characters have a role in RP, and interaction ensues, interaction being the root of RP. This is good for all - including the one upon whom limitations have been placed.

I see this a lot with the RP of heal skill and the RP of characters without it, although that is obviously a highly personalised example.

On the current topic, its actually an RP event to interact with a character whose language my character cannot understand, and its a lot of fun. It can give value to other characters who have learned elemental languages to act as translator. Its not of no worth even if, as I say, its not a burning issue for me.

I'm with you on the boat south of Candlekeep though!

Anyway I've given my opinion, its just one of many. Carry on

[arakes99]

More often than not, rules are in place for the community at large and not for the betterment of the individuals following them.

For instance, if you are driving it would be better for you personally to be allowed to do whatever speed you can safely drive at as you could reach your destination more quickly. The speed limit isn't there for you the individual, it's there to keep the community at large safe and is inconvenient in many cases.

I believe the ruling is for those players who will be with druids that are polymorphed and lose immersion when a bear says "What's up brah" or an elemental starts chatting them up about the weather.
If you don't care, you don't care and this rule does not harm you. But for the many that do lose immersion when it happens, its a small sacrifice for those players of a very powerful, very interesting class that has more flavor than most others available in the DnD lore.

As a druid, you may dislike the restriction, but its not for your convenience. It's for the community.

[Boddynock]

For instance, if you are driving it would be better for you personally to be allowed to do whatever speed you can safely drive at as you could reach your destination more quickly.

The Autobahn, you're talking about the autobahn. (On which, speed limits are introduced only in the presence of extenuating circumstances, and not present if those circumstances are absent.)

And how does restricting communication encourage RP, especially when speaking normally is just a click of "revert to normal form" away?

And instead of thinking "I am doing this right and the other guy is just an idiot" maybe we just encourage people not to have a knee-jerk "that guy is an idiot" reaction? Maybe his PC can do something yours can't, what's wrong with that?

[arakes99]

I don't play druids and I am only vaguely on the "They shouldn't talk while in form" side of this argument anyways. And the autobahn is one, and as far as I am aware one of the very few exceptions to a rule that is prevalent in almost all of the modern rule, the speed limit. I made my point because you are making the argument that freedom is better than restriction, I think that is very often not true.

"I got fat loots" is communication yet we limit the means and methods in which people use that sort of talk. How is this any different? If any percentage of the populace dislikes it, it affects far more people to allow it than the handful of druids who won't like the limitation. It's about the good of the many, not the good of the few.

How dare we limit the freedom's of an individual? Look at the laws and rules in your own city, state, province, nation, school, work place, office building, after school program, club, gym, etc and see that limitations are common and a good thing. Why people on BGTSCC feel like it is the end of the world at times is what baffles me.

EDIT:
I don't even know if I think anyone is an idiot on this issue, it's a simple difference of opinion. I think it just immersion breaking for many people to see an animate block of stone, pool of water, or vortex of air making noises that require a complex vocal system. Maybe we are wrong for feeling that way, but the lore seems to support that point of view. I fail to see why asking people to be a bit more creative with emotes and other forms of communication is a bad thing. If a complex conversation is required you should probably shift out anyways. The fact that you can change shapes is what makes you such and interesting and powerful class in the first place.....

[metaquad4]

Personally, the elemental one is not the one that bothered me. I did post my PnP source as an argument on why elementals might not be able to speak common (And I found it interesting that none of the staff were able to, when, it would have been able to be cleared up with it imo). And indeed, I never really did speak common in my elemental form.

However, I'd really like to see this treant one backed up. That is the one I find silly. Treants, as specifically stated, can speak common (in addition to Sylvan/Treant). They can also speak enough of other languages to at least say "get away from my trees". This is stated in source material. So, what is the reason for both inhibiting RP AND going against source material seemingly nonsensically?

A personal point, from my perspective. Its a small thorn, but it might still pierce some thin skins. Don't read it, if you can't handle flak. No shame in not being able to do so, most people can't:

Stalling to try to obtain proof from your players is not cool. You made the rule, we are discussing it here in the thread you set up to do just that. Like Boddy said. In any reasonable society (and indeed, in some unreasonable ones with a-bit corrupt variate of this) the burden of proof lies in the person making the claim. The DM team is making this claim, and it is being disputed now. It is your job to state why the team made the claim, otherwise, conversation imo cannot be conducted fairly. A scientist has to back up his findings after making a claim. A prosecutor has to do the same. If this is to be a fair discussion, you have to do the same. Just presenting refusal after refusal without addressing the "why" doesn't seem like a very pleasant way to conduct a healthy relationship.

That would be really nice, and it would go miles in helping see this conversation through. Present WHY the ruling was made. Then, we can discuss it with the staff on the same page as the players. It seems like a far more efficient policy to me.

Anyway! Point is (for me):
Elemental Ruling seems fine, I can quote the evidence I gave in support of it (from the source!).

The treant ruling is source-less and silly. I'd like to see why the staff thought it was a good idea and what proof there is in support of it.

@arakes99

Its not the end of the world. I don't think any of us see it that way, its actually a relatively nice server (with a few wrong things in it).

Personally, right now, I see a cancer. Its really tiny, but, I still wouldn't mind seeing it cut out before it grows. Arbitrary rulings are a severe cancer, at that. Now, if this ruling (for me, the treant part of it) had a good reason, then maybe that cancer is actually infinite growing cake. Then, I'd be ok with it. But, not until them.

[Boddynock]

...the lore seems to support that point of view.

Can anyone cite this lore? Because the sourcebooks actually support the opposite view, and this HAS been presented by both myself and Metaquad, at least.

[metaquad4]

A druid loses her ability to speak while in animal form because she is limited to the sounds that a normal, untrained animal can make, but she can communicate normally with other animals of the same general grouping as her new form. (The normal sound a wild parrot makes is a squawk, so changing to this form does not permit speech.)

A druid becomes able to use wild shape to change into a plant creature with the same size restrictions as for animal forms.

In addition to the normal effects of wild shape, the druid gains all the elemental’s extraordinary, supernatural, and spell-like abilities. She also gains the elemental’s feats for as long as she maintains the wild shape, but she retains her own creature type.

Treants speak their own language, plus Common and Sylvan. Most also can manage a smattering of just about all other humanoid tongues—at least enough to say "Get away from my trees!"

X elementals speak Auran/Terran/Aquan/Ignan, though they rarely choose to do so.

So, this leaves us with the fact that wildshaped creatures can vocalize what they would naturally know. Treants, naturally know common (not to mention that smattering of nearly all over humanoid tounges). The other rulings, seem to be in line with PnP. So, why isn't the treant one?

Shambling mounds don't speak any languages, and don't have the right int to learn any more (7 int).

Though, that is a curious thought. If it did have enough int, it would start learning languages by D&D and even this server's rules (the rules we have all agreed to play with). We have enough int...so, how does that factor in? Just a thought, to needlessly complicate this further

Another note. The plant wildshape just says "size" restrictions. It doesn't mention speaking. So, maybe I was wrong in assuming that ruling is in line with PnP. It doesn't seem to be.

[Maecius]

Met, the current draft ruling that Ditto posted does allow treants to speak common:

"Treants speak the Treant language, not "Ent" (since BGTSCC is not set in Middle-Earth), and in the Forgotten Realms they are able to speak Common as well."

[metaquad4]

Ah. Well, that is cake then! Wonderful! What about shambling mounds? Will y'all be going homebrew for that one, or, will it be speech-worthy? Other than that last lingering query, it seems 'all is well' (in my version of this world).

[DM Echo]

If your intent is to come in and claim that we are ignorant of how the game works, I would ask a more level headed dm enter the conversation.

I won't really be commenting any further on this as I can see it is getting nowhere. I will say though, that the above is a misunderstanding.

Currently though all arguments made for either side are arguments from ignorance.

I am saying neither side has proof, thus we are ignorant, both sides, of the actual intent by WotC here. Argument from ignorance is an informal fallacy which says that because you can't prove me wrong, I must be right. It can be used to try to shift the burden of proof onto the other side of an argument.

[Selande]

Snipped OP quote.

Didn't you quit or something?

If you just want to stir up arguments, can't you find somewhere else?

[Syracuse]

Currently though all arguments made for either side are arguments from ignorance.

I am saying neither side has proof, thus we are ignorant, both sides, of the actual intent by WotC here. Argument from ignorance is an informal fallacy which says that because you can't prove me wrong, I must be right. It can be used to try to shift the burden of proof onto the other side of an argument.

I'm sorry for misunderstanding you. And for calling you uneven.

Look, when you say that both sides of the argument are held in ignorance, that comes off, at least to me, as casually dismissing the evidence presented. I don't understand how this ruling, at all, holds any water when placed under critical inspection. That's all I mean.

I don't mind sensible limitations placed on characters. And my number one rp love was paladins since the beginning of my time with D&D.

That said, this ruling just doesn't... resonate with me at all. It changes not just elementals, but also what elemental languages are.

If others support this decision, feel ultimately free to state such. It's the point of the thread, discussing the ruling. I still don't see how it's a fair ruling.

Snipped OP quote.

Didn't you quit or something?

If you just want to stir up arguments, can't you find somewhere else?

I came into this thread to facilitate debate and discussion. What are you here for? Just a thought.

[Selande]

So you do just want to stir up argument then?

Okay.

Just checking.

Next time you drama-quit you should commit to it.

[DM Wafflehouse]

Ok before this topic derails further and gets locked I would urge everyone to focus on the topic up for debate not who or how they are arguing. Personally i am reading this topic with great interest in peoples views and reasoning.

So please get back to the topic and behave.