Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Banshee16" data-source="post: 3972307" data-attributes="member: 7883">How is that statement any different than "I want to use dryads with a treantish combat form in my game - and I think everyone else should have to use it also - if they don't want it, they can take the time to create a new version that is not like that"?In a perfect world, they'd have both, or heck, five different types, or maybe 200 different types.  But the dryad is one creature, and they're not going to focus that much attention on one creature...particularly a "minor" one (nor should they).  But as a consumer looking at it, and facing making a buying decision, it's yet one more item in the camp of "don't like it".  Get enough of those, and as a consumer, I'll have to make the decision of whether or not I'm interested in spending any more money on the game, if I'm going to have to spend time changing so much of it.Up-thread it was mentioned that the new dryad might be a better fit within the context of the D&D game, and that could be a completely valid statement.  It doesn't mean it's *better* than the alternate.....the game doesn't *have* to be just about trading beatings with monsters.  I'd have preferred a spellcaster/spirit alternative.  There are enough monsters in the game to administer beatings already.  I don't want the dryad as hammer.....I want the dryad as scalpel.  That doesn't really have a root in traditional fantasy either....but I'd argue that it's at least *closer* to the original stories than a mini-treant is.  And I ask "if they're so intent on siloing monsters and character abilities to reduce overlap, why do we now have 3 variants on an Ent-type creature?  ie. Treant, Shambling Mound, and Dryad.  How many fighting plant creatures do we need"?Banshee</blockquote>

Verification