NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Cadfan" data-source="post: 3908989" data-attributes="member: 40961">While I generally agree that D&D should be as all encompassing as possible, I do not think that means that the default assumptions of D&D should be flavorless.  There is a HUGE gap between "has default flavor" and "doesn't encompass certain myths, legends, and story-types."  Take the aforementioned changes to dryads, for example.  How does this mess up my ability to tell a story involving a beautiful dryad?  I look at the monster manual, the game's dryad doesn't match what I want, so I almost reflexively fix the problem.  1) Hmm, over here is a nymph that does exactly what I want except it lives in the water.  Ok, BAM!  Now it lives in a tree.2) Hmm, ok, now the dryad is just the same except pretty.3) What I really want is a magical girl who lives in a tree and is hot.  Why do I even need to stat that up?  She's noncombat, but has a plot relevant special ability, so I'll do what I do with barkeeps and other npcs- wing it if she gets in a fight.I'm usually the first person leading the charge to make D&D more encompassing of hero archetypes not historically found in D&D.  And I'd be the first to lead the charge to make D&D more encompassing of monster archetypes not historically found in D&D, if it came up.  But that doesn't mean that I resent the inclusion of [adjective][monster], because that really doesn't get in my way.In short,IF the default flavor got in my way,THEN I would resent it.BUT its never got in my way before,AND I can't see any reason why it would in the future,NOR has anyone given an actual reason why it might,SO bring on the default flavor,BECAUSE more inspiration is better than less.</blockquote>

Verification