Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tuhljin" data-source="post: 6053130" data-attributes="member: 93849">They are assuredly perfectly aware of such solutions. However:&nbsp;&nbsp;Now, is the monstrous creature different from the dryad of 3.5? Sure, but the 3.5 dryad IS monstrous in its own way. Just look at the picture you provided. That's not the classical dryad that people were pushing for in the feedback - including the people here on this forum.&nbsp;&nbsp;Amen to that.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;So... if we grab some elves and have them settle around a lake, are they now lake elves? As in, a whole &quot;new&quot; race/subrace/creature, called &quot;lake elves&quot;? Shall we take some dwarves, change nothing visually about them except perhaps their clothes, and put them in a forest, so now they're a subrace called forest dwarves? Lame.&nbsp;They don't necessarily need huge visual differences, but a change of clothes or scenery shouldn't even count as a &quot;difference&quot; race/subrace-wise.&nbsp;Now, if you want to say the difference isn't in their appearance or only in where they live or what they wear, let's discuss this. Is it a change in their personality or behavior? That's never qualified for &quot;subrace&quot; status before. If it's a change in their supernatural abilities, and those abilities are innate and not learned, maybe, but it sure runs counter to how subraces have always been handled before. Something else? In any case, none of them can fit the &quot;make different types of creatures visually distinct&quot; creed we were supposedly following.&nbsp;Now that is an interesting idea. I definitely agree with the nymphs more like humans instead of elves bit and the dryads more like elves. Dwarves? Well, it's definitely worth considering.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tuhljin, post: 6053130, member: 93849"] They are assuredly [B]perfectly aware[/B] of such solutions. However: Now, is the monstrous creature different from the dryad of 3.5? Sure, but the 3.5 dryad IS monstrous in its own way. Just look at the picture you provided. That's not the classical dryad that people were pushing for in the feedback - including the people here on this forum. Amen to that. So... if we grab some elves and have them settle around a lake, are they now lake elves? As in, a whole "new" race/subrace/creature, called "lake elves"? Shall we take some dwarves, change nothing visually about them except perhaps their clothes, and put them in a forest, so now they're a subrace called forest dwarves? Lame. They don't necessarily need huge visual differences, but a change of clothes or scenery shouldn't even [I][B]count[/B][/I] as a "difference" race/subrace-wise. Now, if you want to say the difference isn't in their appearance or only in where they live or what they wear, let's discuss this. Is it a change in their personality or behavior? That's never qualified for "subrace" status before. If it's a change in their supernatural abilities, and those abilities are innate and not learned, maybe, but it sure runs counter to how subraces have always been handled before. Something else? In any case, none of them can fit the "make different types of creatures visually distinct" creed we were supposedly following. Now that is an interesting idea. I definitely agree with the nymphs more like humans instead of elves bit and the dryads more like elves. Dwarves? Well, it's definitely worth considering. [/QUOTE]

Verification