Can a druid use Wild Shape to take the form of a specific, individual beast?

Question

The rules for the 5E druid's Wild Shape ability simply say:

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

This previous question asks if you can go beyond the exact form of a beast you've seen (like, if you want to be a dog, and you've only seen corgis, are you stuck with that?) but I think the general assumption tends to go the other way: once you've seen some example of a beast, you can become that type of beast, but only a generic form of it. For example, a comment on a question here about making up combined forms says:

you can't even wild shape into a specific kind of beast. You always become a generic, average representative of that species.

However, I don't see any wording around that. The Shapechange spell says:

You transform into an average example of that creature, one without any class levels or the Spellcasting trait.

... but I don't see anything similar for Wild Shape (and for that matter, for any of the other transformation spells and abilities in the rules).

Can a druid look exactly like the watchdogs of a particular estate? And if she can, can she also choose sometimes to just be a generic dog? Somewhat related: the Monster Manual has a mastiff, but not other types of dogs — so, if you've seen pomapoo (challenge rating presumably somewhat less than zero), can you take the form of a mastiff? What about an Irish wolfhound, as CR ½ or 1 instead of the mastiff's ⅛? What about a wolf? What about a dire wolf? Where does it stop?

Or, not to get all fixated on dogs, if you've seen a garden spider, can you become the more dangerous spider listed in the rules, with its lethal-to-many-commoners 1d4 poison bite? What about a giant spider then?

Finally, if it's not in the 5E rules, where did this idea of "average representative" come from? I know 4E had this whole thing where shapeshifting and summoning worked on a sort of platonic-ideal spirit, not real animals at all, but that doesn't seem to have carried over here. Was there something in 3.5? I remember playing it that way, but can't find a specific rule there either.

That's a lot of text, I know. Summary questions:

• Can you take the exact form of a specific, individual animal you've seen?
• Can you take the form of a "generic" animal of the same general species or name or categorization as a specific individual you've seen?
• If you can generalize, can you then vary from that generalization? What defines the platonic ideal of a given creature? What if there's no Monster Manual entry that comes close?
• If you can generalize, how far away can you go? Spider to Giant Spider? Tiny Lizard to Riding Lizard? Tapir to Elephant?
• Where did this idea of generic, average example come from, if not 5E rules?

... and I'd like to see rules references for any answers, please.

Answer 1

Rulings, Not Rules

Jeremy Crawford, the lead game designer, called the rules "intentionally silent on these corner cases":

Wild Shape can introduce wild situations. What happens when someone swallows a druid in a Tiny form? Is a druid fecund in beast form? The rules are intentionally silent on these corner cases, leaving adjudication to DMs. As always, I say go with what's best for your story.

The particular ruling (the druid can shapeshift into a specific animal) can lead to a very satisfactory in-game situation. Or it can be utterly boring and devastating, depending on the plot. It is the DM's job to make the right decision.

Aside from the combat, there will always be huge difference between classes' features, so you can't compare (or "balance") them. Some features will be much more useful than another ones in certain situations.

Following the rules-as-written as strict as possible won't help here. In the end of the day, making the game fun an engaging is not about the rules. For instance, if your game is all about picking locks and disabling traps, and you have only one rogue in the party, (s)he inevitably steals the spotlight. You, the DM, have to balance these things by your self — how exactly do class features work in order to not to spoil the fun.

You are the DM and you want to decide, how does magic (the Wild Shape, in particular) work in your world. For this job, what things should you consider in the first place — your own story, the fact if your players have fun, common sense, or nitpicking these minor semantic details in the rules (which are concise and not detailed enough)?

The Adventurer's League Guide describes the role of the DM the similar way:

As the Dungeon Master, the most important aspect of your role is facilitating the enjoyment of the game for the players. You help guide the narrative and bring the words on the pages of the adventure to life. The outcome of a fun game session often creates stories that live well beyond the play experience at the table. Always follow this golden rule when you DM for a group: Make decisions and adjudications that enhance the fun of the adventure when possible.

Wild Shape description is open-ended

PHB gives only basic restrictons of the Wild Shape:

Starting at 2nd level, you can use your action to magically assume the shape of a beast that you have seen before.

Your druid level determines the beasts you can transform into, as shown in the Beast Shapes table.

The only limitations it describes are the creature type, its CR and its flying/swimming speed — pure balancing ones, a sound base for DMs to build their own adventures. As a DM, you are free to apply all the necessary restrictions — the creature size, type, features or appearance. It would be reasonable to discuss this with the player beforehand, say, prepare a list of their wild shapes.

You don't have to though — if you are happy with the default restrictions, just say that all other things are allowed (dinosaurs included), unless it spoils the fun.

Answer 2

I am going to answer one specific question of the many you have asked: "Can a druid look exactly like the watchdogs of a particular estate?"

As you say wildshape allows you to

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

To be able to look exactly like the watchdog, you must have, pretty much by definition, seen it. So whatever the outcome is to the other questions you have asked, the answer to this one is yes, you can as it is a beast that you have seen before.

Answer 3

The new "Xanathar's Guide" book has a section named "Learning Beast Shapes", which doesn't specifically resolve this issue, but does casually mention:

The tables include all the individual beasts that are eligible for Wild Shape (up to a challenge rating of 1) or the Circle Forms feature of the Circle of the Moon (up to a challenge rating of 6).

... emphasis mine. The table does not, actually, list "Bessie, the mule from Farmer Grumwold's place up near Meadowville" as an "individual beast". It lists "mule".

This strongly supports the idea that intention behind the rules is that "a beast" means "an individual beast entry from the Monster Manual or similar", not actually a singular, individual beast.

Answer 4

The basic rule in D&D 5E is this: abilities do what they say they do. Wild Shape says you can take the form of a beast you've seen; this means that:

• Yes, you can take the form of a specific animal that you've seen, by definition.
• No, you can't generalise at all. You must take the form of an animal that you have seen. If you've not seen a brown dog, you can't be a brown dog.
• Probably 4E - people tend to assume the rules for a new edition are similar to those for ones they're familiar with - but I can't give you a good answer for this.

So that's RAW, but the other basic rule of most any RPG is that the GM can change anything they like, so ruling it any other way is also reasonable. That said, there's plenty you can do within RAW: pretty much any adventurer will have seen several examples of dogs, cats and various woodland creatures - especially a druid - so it's not something that warrants careful tracking.

Answer 5

"Can a druid look exactly like the watchdogs of a particular estate?"

The most upvoted answer (Enkryptor's) satisfies the question technically, in a matter of Rules as Intended even if not RAW, which is determined to be Jeremy Crawford's answer.

But as for that interpretation, I'd say there's a pretty straightforward way to roleplay it, and so should be played, all meta-knowledge aside.

The MM Stat Block of any creature is just a staple to go by in terms of stats, not of cosmetic or racial characteristics.

Imagine you were a Druid who has seen a mastiff but never an Irish wolfhound. For all purposes here, these are two very different species, and you couldn't fathom the other's existence and form just from knowing the first one.

That is the key of the question. It could also be argued that in a Druid's mindset, and the very nature of his magic, is not perverting nature and creating new forms, but rather imitating those you know to exist.

You're right to question the limits of this. You might be certain that brown dogs exist even if you've only ever seen black ones, just as you could imagine or even know that giant spiders exist even if you've only seen regular ones. I think you need to roleplay to what extent you could do this. Maybe the first two are fundamentally the same in a Druid's much more deep understanding of nature, while the spiders are not.

I know I'm not referencing anything other than Jeremy Crawford's ruling with

Wild Shape can introduce wild situations. What happens when someone swallows a druid in a Tiny form? Is a druid fecund in beast form? The rules are intentionally silent on these corner cases, leaving adjudication to DMs. As always, I say go with what's best for your story.

but there aren't really any other RAW to grasp at, and I believe this take on things could be pretty much universal. It doesn't solve every case, but I think it does give ground for solid rules based on roleplaying common sense, and not meta-gaming.

Answer 6

Can a druid shapechange into the form of a specific, individual beast?

Yes, it must be of a beast and of a beast that the druid has been seen before, and within the limits of the druids level allowances to shift into. It continues on for an entire half a page with details on wild shape. I highly recommend reading it through its entirity as it will clear up alot of your assumptions. PHB 66/67

Wild Shape vs Shapeshifting. Wild Shape is not Shapeshifting, if it was it would be called shapeshifting.

Can a druid look exactly like the watchdogs of a particular estate? According to the answer to the first question, yes if they have seen the watchdogs of the particular estate in question, or at least of a watchdog within reason for the GM to allow it, at the GMs's discrretion.

Spider situation. If the druid has seen a Giant Spider but not a Giant Wolf Spider, then the druid would be able to Wild Shape into the Giant Spider and not the Giant Wolf Spider as the druid has not observed a Giant Wolf Spider. Or if the druid has seen both the Giant Spider and the Giant Wolf Spider but NOT the Phase Spider, then the druid would not be able to Wild Shape into a Phase Spider but would be able to into a Giant Spider or Giant Wolf Spider. According to PHB 66/67 it entirely depends on what the druid has witnessed.

Can you take the exact form of a specific, individual animal you've seen? Yes

Can you take the form of a "generic" animal of the same general species or name or categorization as a specific individual you've seen? No, ie Giant Spider vs Giant Wolf Spider vs Phase Spider.

If you can generalize, can you then vary from that generalization? GM's discretion at this point. Work with the GM on what would be too far and what would be allowed.

What defines the platonic ideal of a given creature?

What if there's no Monster Manual entry that comes close? Check online for homebrew content in the community, there are tons out there. Check the DM's Guild for options there too.

If you can generalize, how far away can you go? Per the GMs discretion.

Spider to Giant Spider? No, beast type change would not allow that.

Tiny Lizard to Riding Lizard? Nope, type change would not allow that.

Tapir to Elephant? Way too different to allow that.

Rhino to Elephant? No. Hippo to rhino? No.

It if is a Different beast than what the druid has witnessed it cant be allowed per the rules on PHB 66/67, as it MUST be of a beast the druid has seen.

Where did this idea of generic, average example come from, if not 5E rules? This one not sure as the community did a lot of homebrew after the SRD 3.5 and SRD 5e were released. Though it may be from before that.