Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="FitzTheRuke" data-source="post: 8985942" data-attributes="member: 59816">It can be, sure.I suppose. Often things are "both" (in this case, it's probable that they're trying to rework the Druid for ease of the VTT, but that can look like a great many things).I don't think that they thought that what they presented was better all around. I think they thought it was good enough to get feedback on, with the details to be worked out later. They were wrong. They should have gotten more of the details right first.Yeah, but I doubt that it's the case. I suspect that it's... messier than that. Not as cut-and-dried.You've got to recognise that you're somewhat biased. You're working on your own game, so you are looking at everything with the lens of "how can I do this better?" Which is likely to make your range of appreciation very narrow. (I know! I did the same 25 years ago when I got sick of 2e! We played my game exclusively for decades. OMG it was that long ago? Yikes!)Yeah, I mean, if you don't like your own game, you'll just keep working on it until you do. If you don't like theirs... you can complain about it here! You have the benefit of not having to share it with people who will trash it.I've never felt that druids should be shapeshifters. Shapeshifters should be shapeshifters. It could be a whole class to itself. Both it and druids would be better for it. But D&D gets hung up on "tradition". You don't have to. Lucky you!</blockquote>