They permanently become said animal and slowly lose their will and consciousness as a consequence of indulging in that shit. Or what said. Either way, don't.
Pregnancy occurs 2 to 3 weeks after insemination. At 20th level, the Druid may stay in Wild Shape for 10 hours.
You can stay in Wildshape a number of hours equal to your level. You regain your uses of Wildshape between short rests, 1 hour. Long Rests can be interrupted (and often are, taking turns to keep watch) and elves specifically don't need to sleep.
It is very possible to stay Wildshaped indefinitely, getting easier the higher your level.
Correction: Falling unconscious (sleep) causes wild shape to break so only elves, warforged and some others can get pregnant, assuming the beast form retains not needing to sleep.
>You retain the benefit of any features from your class, race, or other source and can use them if the new form is physically capable of doing so. However, you can't use any of your special senses, such as darkvision, unless your new form also has that sense.
>assuming the beast form retains not needing to sleep
Which wouldn't be the case. >You retain the benefit of any features from your class, race, or other source and can use them if the new form is physically capable of doing so. However, you can't use any of your special senses, such as darkvision, unless your new form also has that sense.
A bear can't physically meditate to circumvent fatigue.
Would a warforged druid have the biological capability to get pregnant? I thought warforged were constructs, unless the wood is their actual body and they're more like cybernetic treants.
I don't play DnD. When a druid turns into an animal, are they changing down to their biological structure or is it like a super fancy bodyswap for a magically created replica?
Why are people using real life logic when neither druids and shapeshifting are realistic to begin with? I assume she'd keep it and the baby would also be a shapeshifter in the fantasy world
depends entirely on the vagaries of where biology and magic stop affecting each other.
is an embryo part of the druid's body, metaphysically?
does it maintain its existence in reality despite being conceived in a body made magically?
would it live as a "magic detail" of one of your forms, or would the caster have to maintain its life somehow with any form they're in?
could its life be born sans the "right equipment"?
if it gestates regardless of what the caster does that doesn't kill it, will they forced into the "right" form to birth it?
what determines the end of "life" for a transformation?
is it the same life as the caster?
does the shapeshifted body "die" or get "destroyed" at spell's end?
if not, what counts as the form: the gestalt shape of the animal? does its previous existence and its activities carry over?
if you clip a falcon's wings, what does that do to the summoner?
does it carry over, or change the nature of the injury?
can it carry over?
will the wings stay clipped when you turn back? what does that mean for life spans?
if the caster exceeds 3 years as a racoon, do they just die regardless of how young they were?
does the age transfer over, or stop when they aren't themselves?
do they have a true shape anymore, since they can change it?
the fun in ttrpgs lies in the ambiguity, but the more you specify, the more questions you have to answer
Druid cant change his/her sex, it only can change species - that's for once. It is not said it can change the sex.
Two - pregnancy doesnt happen in a matter of hours. It takes time before the sperm fertilise the egg. If the form is reverted to the humanoid forn, hormones in the female body change back to the human/elf/whatever and donors sperm is no longer able to fertilise the egg
If you want it to be possible tho, minotaurs, centaurs, feys and beastfolk are born
>Druid cant change his/her sex, it only can change species - that's for once. It is not said it can change the sex.
It isn't said that it can't, and several animal stat blocks--say, deer--have attacks and other traits that only one sex of the animal would have access to.
When a druid wildshapes they maintain their mental stats (Intelligence, Wisdom, Charisma) so if 2 druids wildshaped and had offspring would that child have the mental capacities of their parents or would they just be a dumb animal?
As with remarkably many things, roughly half the variance appears hereditary to the honest studies, though there has yet to be a study showing large ethnic differences in this. Unlike rice-farming ethnicities getting the will to refuse social pressure crushed out of them on the genetic level.
...This is LITERALLY impossible. The most basic concept of genetics necessitates this not be the case, and there is a VERY long list of examples of this in bulk dysfunctions and studies of sexual dimorphism.
[...]
[...]
He's just a lysenkoist retard. Sadly that's legally or at least institutionally mandatory around the topic of intelligence.
And just like clockwork they reveal themselves as cryptofacists.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Perhaps if you weren't a godless creep whose only way to rate an individual's value is their intelligence you wouldn't be so dead set on the mantra that it's utterly unconnected from the genetics that grow our brains in the first place.
Generally only the ones already gleefully thinking about Stupicide (Yes that looks dumb but I doublechecked the latin and it mostly works) are made uncomfortable by connecting it to genetics.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Literally all you just said was to try to veil the fact that you're racist and think some races are inferior to others.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Certain demographics posses statistically higher degrees of cognitive function by certain metrics. This is irrefutable biology. Get the fuck over it.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
And the mask comes off
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Weird projection. Being dumb doesn't make you inherently less valuable or deserving of less respect.
Acknowledging that an ethnicity is statistically lower in intellect doesn't necessarily lead you to treat them as lesser. That sounds like a you problem. Seek help.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Saying they have lesser intelligence because of their race is something that fascists, racists, and eugenicists all claim. They are the only people claiming that. So which one are you?
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
I'd kindly thank you to not put words in my mouth.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Why are you dancing around the question? You'll proudly use the same words that spilled out of the mouth of people who justify genocide but you refuse to identify which brand of vile cretin you are.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
You're the one jumping to Genocide, because being a Redditor you believe intelligence is the only measure of moral worth, and that the destruction of anything that could be proven to be replicably less intelligent is a moral good.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>y-y-youre reddit!
the cope of a man with no argument
you are blatantly repeating the words of the racists and eugenicists you worship but are too scared to admit you're one of them because you know that everyone thinks your crackpot theories are not only wrong, but evil.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>y-y-youre reddit!
the cope of a man with no argument
you are blatantly repeating the words of the racists and eugenicists you worship but are too scared to admit you're one of them because you know that everyone thinks your crackpot theories are not only wrong, but evil.
Man this thread took a weird turn.
And it started with bestiality.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Can't deny that.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
To self-(You) the important bit:
As with remarkably many things, roughly half the variance appears hereditary to the honest studies, though there has yet to be a study showing large ethnic differences in this. Unlike rice-farming ethnicities getting the will to refuse social pressure crushed out of them on the genetic level.
>though there has yet to be a study showing large ethnic differences in this
That is, the data shows that a near-majority of many cognitive factors' variance, including personality traits and cognitive ability, is predicted by INDIVIDUAL genetics, but no ethnicity so far studied has diverged to the point of innate inferior performance on this metric as a consistent average.
Saying they have lesser intelligence because of their race is something that fascists, racists, and eugenicists all claim. They are the only people claiming that. So which one are you?
Eugenics is disapproved of strictly on an Ad Homonym basis tying it to the in fact rather scarce racists, let alone the genocidal lot who would have been irrelevant were it not for very specifically the Nazis. The requirements of eugenics have yet been disproven because said requirements are solely "humans have genetics", "genetics determine anatomy", and "genetics are passed to offspring". There is no scientific basis for the brain being immune to the second, and many conditions showing otherwise from Infant Refsum's Syndrome to Down's Syndrome to some forms of schizophrenia and epilepsy to fatal familial insomnia to several of the intersex conditions, and indeed sexual dimorphism itself has an observed neurological component making it firmly disproven that men and women think EXACTLY the same.
The "Tabula Rasa" theory you insist upon is a simulacrum to maintain Christian universalized morality for midwit nihilists who cannot stand being unable to tie their beliefs to material facts. It was never taken seriously by the bulk of people working with the hard data on the matter, because that hard data has ALWAYS shown otherwise. Just let go "humans have an equivalent baseline of moral worth" be an axiom of its own instead of flailing about trying to show our material differences are circumstantial and irrelevant.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
And yeah, while there's SOME data on groupwide trends it's spoiled in enough places by some lazy shortcuts like using some samples from a literal retard asylum in france to get samples for the african country/tribe of origin for the asylees rather than testing in the country itself that it's trashed the research.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
You are missing a few key points of eugenics, such as value judgements about certain traits being more valuable than others which makes certain people more valuable than others. It is literally in the name.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
And? The premise given by
There is no difference between the brains of any people that isn't caused by access to nutritional food or access to education
is insisting that there is no such difference, pretty clearly pegging the principal to the Tabula Rasa theory.
This is an excellent demonstration of the Is/Ought paradox. Eugenics theory being scientifically sound does not, in fact, necessitate it be morally righteous to implement. That is an entirely valid conclusion, but does not change that innate disparity in performance is present in humans.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
There we go, you measurer of skulls. It wasn't that hard to admit that your pseudoscience is all about sorting people into categories with differing moral worth, now was it.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
...The second line of the post is literally "the science may say you can do this, but that doesn't mean it's right". Are you simply incapable of grasping that people can accept an equal baseline of moral worth yet also accept the data showing there is intrinsic difference in performance?
Just because somebody can be genetically predisposed to all the factors that make for "a good person" does not guarantee they will be, nor does it demand you treat them better for this material potentiality. It is entirely logically consistent to give an equal moral baseline to the naturally roid-raging downs syndrome retard and only treat them different as based in the path they actually take.
Meritocracy and equal treatment under the law were coined by people quite openly stating their belief in the natural inferiority of blacks, because the basis was their belief in God-given rights assigning moral worth by the universal quality of the soul. You can tie them to secular concepts of personhood instead or make it an axiom of its own, but relying upon there not being disparate innate capabilities to justify these things leaves you without recourse when the race realists finally bludgeon their way through your academic failings.
somehow I don't think epilepsy happens by missing out on carrots
...This is LITERALLY impossible. The most basic concept of genetics necessitates this not be the case, and there is a VERY long list of examples of this in bulk dysfunctions and studies of sexual dimorphism.
He's just a lysenkoist retard. Sadly that's legally or at least institutionally mandatory around the topic of intelligence.
Generally, the fetus would disappear during the transformation and reappear when the druid changes back, just like part of the druid's bodymass disappears when they transform into animals smaller than human. The other way is more of an open question because a druid will typically stay in wildshape only for a short time. It also raises the question of whether a druid wildshapes into a specific animal or is it effectively a different animal each time (so if a druid does get pregnant in wildshape form and changes back to a human, will she still be pregnant the next time she transforms into the same animal again?)
Given the intelligence of the "animal", I think Wild Shaped Druids and Familiars are solid candidates for the term "zoophilia" independent of bestiality.
Hard to say. On the one hand, internet has increased exposure to the idea from a young age.
On the other, it's also increased the ease of acquiring casual sex with human women.
Well wouldn't women be more likely to have sex with an animal than a man? It seems like what each sex is attracted to in the opposite sex is much more prevalent in animals/beasts for what women find attractive than for men.
The druid dies the moment the wild shape ends
I don't think about that and neither should you.
I understood that reference.
That's an old ass cut, and I respect you for it.
If you have to ask where babies come from, your druid isn't fucking enough birds and or bees.
It disappears until the Druid takes that exact wild shape again.
The druid's original form lacks the genetic coding in its DNA to provide the necessary enzymes for the embryo, which would die.
They permanently become said animal and slowly lose their will and consciousness as a consequence of indulging in that shit. Or what said. Either way, don't.
>If a Druid in wildshape gets pregnant
Can’t happen
Why are you getting fucked and creampied in animal form???
Not possible because the druid doesn't stay wildshaped long enough for implantation.
You can stay in Wildshape a number of hours equal to your level. You regain your uses of Wildshape between short rests, 1 hour. Long Rests can be interrupted (and often are, taking turns to keep watch) and elves specifically don't need to sleep.
It is very possible to stay Wildshaped indefinitely, getting easier the higher your level.
Correction: Falling unconscious (sleep) causes wild shape to break so only elves, warforged and some others can get pregnant, assuming the beast form retains not needing to sleep.
>You retain the benefit of any features from your class, race, or other source and can use them if the new form is physically capable of doing so. However, you can't use any of your special senses, such as darkvision, unless your new form also has that sense.
>assuming the beast form retains not needing to sleep
Which wouldn't be the case.
>You retain the benefit of any features from your class, race, or other source and can use them if the new form is physically capable of doing so. However, you can't use any of your special senses, such as darkvision, unless your new form also has that sense.
A bear can't physically meditate to circumvent fatigue.
Would a warforged druid have the biological capability to get pregnant? I thought warforged were constructs, unless the wood is their actual body and they're more like cybernetic treants.
Another coomer breeding thread.
Verification not required
I don't play DnD. When a druid turns into an animal, are they changing down to their biological structure or is it like a super fancy bodyswap for a magically created replica?
Pregnancy occurs 2 to 3 weeks after insemination. At 20th level, the Druid may stay in Wild Shape for 10 hours.
Why are people using real life logic when neither druids and shapeshifting are realistic to begin with? I assume she'd keep it and the baby would also be a shapeshifter in the fantasy world
sex
depends entirely on the vagaries of where biology and magic stop affecting each other.
is an embryo part of the druid's body, metaphysically?
does it maintain its existence in reality despite being conceived in a body made magically?
would it live as a "magic detail" of one of your forms, or would the caster have to maintain its life somehow with any form they're in?
could its life be born sans the "right equipment"?
if it gestates regardless of what the caster does that doesn't kill it, will they forced into the "right" form to birth it?
what determines the end of "life" for a transformation?
is it the same life as the caster?
does the shapeshifted body "die" or get "destroyed" at spell's end?
if not, what counts as the form: the gestalt shape of the animal? does its previous existence and its activities carry over?
if you clip a falcon's wings, what does that do to the summoner?
does it carry over, or change the nature of the injury?
can it carry over?
will the wings stay clipped when you turn back? what does that mean for life spans?
if the caster exceeds 3 years as a racoon, do they just die regardless of how young they were?
does the age transfer over, or stop when they aren't themselves?
do they have a true shape anymore, since they can change it?
the fun in ttrpgs lies in the ambiguity, but the more you specify, the more questions you have to answer
for indulging* that's what I get for phone posting.
why do you think werecreatures exist, anon?
Druid cant change his/her sex, it only can change species - that's for once. It is not said it can change the sex.
Two - pregnancy doesnt happen in a matter of hours. It takes time before the sperm fertilise the egg. If the form is reverted to the humanoid forn, hormones in the female body change back to the human/elf/whatever and donors sperm is no longer able to fertilise the egg
If you want it to be possible tho, minotaurs, centaurs, feys and beastfolk are born
Some species can change sex
Also not all pregnancies involve implantation. Eggs are a fucking thing.
>Druid cant change his/her sex, it only can change species - that's for once. It is not said it can change the sex.
It isn't said that it can't, and several animal stat blocks--say, deer--have attacks and other traits that only one sex of the animal would have access to.
Go ask mearls on twitter.
When a druid wildshapes they maintain their mental stats (Intelligence, Wisdom, Charisma) so if 2 druids wildshaped and had offspring would that child have the mental capacities of their parents or would they just be a dumb animal?
2e had unborn child make save vs Polymorph to continue to exist, or get re-absorbed on failure, no idea about 5th
lineage should only pass down racial modifiers not base stats
Intelligence isn't genetic.
As with remarkably many things, roughly half the variance appears hereditary to the honest studies, though there has yet to be a study showing large ethnic differences in this. Unlike rice-farming ethnicities getting the will to refuse social pressure crushed out of them on the genetic level.
There is no difference between the brains of any people that isn't caused by access to nutritional food or access to education
somehow I don't think epilepsy happens by missing out on carrots
...This is LITERALLY impossible. The most basic concept of genetics necessitates this not be the case, and there is a VERY long list of examples of this in bulk dysfunctions and studies of sexual dimorphism.
And just like clockwork they reveal themselves as cryptofacists.
Perhaps if you weren't a godless creep whose only way to rate an individual's value is their intelligence you wouldn't be so dead set on the mantra that it's utterly unconnected from the genetics that grow our brains in the first place.
Generally only the ones already gleefully thinking about Stupicide (Yes that looks dumb but I doublechecked the latin and it mostly works) are made uncomfortable by connecting it to genetics.
Literally all you just said was to try to veil the fact that you're racist and think some races are inferior to others.
Certain demographics posses statistically higher degrees of cognitive function by certain metrics. This is irrefutable biology. Get the fuck over it.
And the mask comes off
Weird projection. Being dumb doesn't make you inherently less valuable or deserving of less respect.
Acknowledging that an ethnicity is statistically lower in intellect doesn't necessarily lead you to treat them as lesser. That sounds like a you problem. Seek help.
Saying they have lesser intelligence because of their race is something that fascists, racists, and eugenicists all claim. They are the only people claiming that. So which one are you?
I'd kindly thank you to not put words in my mouth.
Why are you dancing around the question? You'll proudly use the same words that spilled out of the mouth of people who justify genocide but you refuse to identify which brand of vile cretin you are.
You're the one jumping to Genocide, because being a Redditor you believe intelligence is the only measure of moral worth, and that the destruction of anything that could be proven to be replicably less intelligent is a moral good.
>y-y-youre reddit!
the cope of a man with no argument
you are blatantly repeating the words of the racists and eugenicists you worship but are too scared to admit you're one of them because you know that everyone thinks your crackpot theories are not only wrong, but evil.
Man this thread took a weird turn.
And it started with bestiality.
Can't deny that.
To self-(You) the important bit:
>though there has yet to be a study showing large ethnic differences in this
That is, the data shows that a near-majority of many cognitive factors' variance, including personality traits and cognitive ability, is predicted by INDIVIDUAL genetics, but no ethnicity so far studied has diverged to the point of innate inferior performance on this metric as a consistent average.
Eugenics is disapproved of strictly on an Ad Homonym basis tying it to the in fact rather scarce racists, let alone the genocidal lot who would have been irrelevant were it not for very specifically the Nazis. The requirements of eugenics have yet been disproven because said requirements are solely "humans have genetics", "genetics determine anatomy", and "genetics are passed to offspring". There is no scientific basis for the brain being immune to the second, and many conditions showing otherwise from Infant Refsum's Syndrome to Down's Syndrome to some forms of schizophrenia and epilepsy to fatal familial insomnia to several of the intersex conditions, and indeed sexual dimorphism itself has an observed neurological component making it firmly disproven that men and women think EXACTLY the same.
The "Tabula Rasa" theory you insist upon is a simulacrum to maintain Christian universalized morality for midwit nihilists who cannot stand being unable to tie their beliefs to material facts. It was never taken seriously by the bulk of people working with the hard data on the matter, because that hard data has ALWAYS shown otherwise. Just let go "humans have an equivalent baseline of moral worth" be an axiom of its own instead of flailing about trying to show our material differences are circumstantial and irrelevant.
And yeah, while there's SOME data on groupwide trends it's spoiled in enough places by some lazy shortcuts like using some samples from a literal retard asylum in france to get samples for the african country/tribe of origin for the asylees rather than testing in the country itself that it's trashed the research.
You are missing a few key points of eugenics, such as value judgements about certain traits being more valuable than others which makes certain people more valuable than others. It is literally in the name.
And? The premise given by
is insisting that there is no such difference, pretty clearly pegging the principal to the Tabula Rasa theory.
This is an excellent demonstration of the Is/Ought paradox. Eugenics theory being scientifically sound does not, in fact, necessitate it be morally righteous to implement. That is an entirely valid conclusion, but does not change that innate disparity in performance is present in humans.
There we go, you measurer of skulls. It wasn't that hard to admit that your pseudoscience is all about sorting people into categories with differing moral worth, now was it.
...The second line of the post is literally "the science may say you can do this, but that doesn't mean it's right". Are you simply incapable of grasping that people can accept an equal baseline of moral worth yet also accept the data showing there is intrinsic difference in performance?
Just because somebody can be genetically predisposed to all the factors that make for "a good person" does not guarantee they will be, nor does it demand you treat them better for this material potentiality. It is entirely logically consistent to give an equal moral baseline to the naturally roid-raging downs syndrome retard and only treat them different as based in the path they actually take.
Meritocracy and equal treatment under the law were coined by people quite openly stating their belief in the natural inferiority of blacks, because the basis was their belief in God-given rights assigning moral worth by the universal quality of the soul. You can tie them to secular concepts of personhood instead or make it an axiom of its own, but relying upon there not being disparate innate capabilities to justify these things leaves you without recourse when the race realists finally bludgeon their way through your academic failings.
He's just a lysenkoist retard. Sadly that's legally or at least institutionally mandatory around the topic of intelligence.
Whatever daddy DM tells you happens is what happens.
Play an actual game.
Ever read Norse myths about Loki?
Didn't he stay shapeshifted for the whole term of pregnancy? Also he's a god, so you know... quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi.
It's impossible for a druid to get pregnant while in wild shape. Boom, easy.
Why are you nerfing wildshape?
Counter-point you are more fertile and fecund in wildshape
>I wildshape into a horse
>I immediately enter estrus
If your character haven't memorized heat cycles of every animal he can wildshape into he's not taking his druidic duties seriously enough.
Lycanthropy curse on the child?
I turn into a centipede to raise my clutch.
If a druid or shifter impregnate someone in his wildshape form would it a human baby, a hybrid or just a animal?
Feetus Deleetus is a Druid cantrip.
IT SLOPS EVERYWHERE
THE PLAYERS ARE SLOPPED
THE TABLE IS SLOPPED
THE WHOLE GAME? YOU GUESSED IT, SLOP
Some questions do not need an answer
Ranma rules.
The pregnant character stays in that shape until pregnancy ends.
Ok but happens to the baby of a pregnant woman when she wildshapes?
Generally, the fetus would disappear during the transformation and reappear when the druid changes back, just like part of the druid's bodymass disappears when they transform into animals smaller than human. The other way is more of an open question because a druid will typically stay in wildshape only for a short time. It also raises the question of whether a druid wildshapes into a specific animal or is it effectively a different animal each time (so if a druid does get pregnant in wildshape form and changes back to a human, will she still be pregnant the next time she transforms into the same animal again?)
>it dissapears and goes back
Where is the baby chilling/feeding during this period
Pocket of the Astral Plane, I assume.
Why is this relevant?
Because both BG3 and WOTR has beastility and monster sex in it and Gankeroomers want to satiate their curiosity
Given the intelligence of the "animal", I think Wild Shaped Druids and Familiars are solid candidates for the term "zoophilia" independent of bestiality.
Like how a druid using shapechange to turn into a child for fucking is still pedophilia but not child molestation then?
BG3 might have reignited the interest but /tg/'s original association with beastfuckery goes way back.
Do you think zoomers are more likely to practice zoophilia than other generations?
Hard to say. On the one hand, internet has increased exposure to the idea from a young age.
On the other, it's also increased the ease of acquiring casual sex with human women.
Well wouldn't women be more likely to have sex with an animal than a man? It seems like what each sex is attracted to in the opposite sex is much more prevalent in animals/beasts for what women find attractive than for men.
>He doesn't know about white women and dogs
You must literally be retarded. Please go back and read the post again and this time use your brain and your eyes.
I refuse.
die!
counterspell
There's no reliable statistic on this to indicate likelihoods one way or another. It's mostly just a meme.
>it's also increased the ease of acquiring casual sex with human women.
explain why most mens are virgins' and lonely than
Ganker is not representative sample of general human population