Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ranes" data-source="post: 7656614" data-attributes="member: 4826">In my home-brew campaign setting, I reworked the MM goblin. Instead of making the goblins good riders (with racial ride skill bonuses) à la the MM, my subterranean dwelling goblins were good climbers, enabling them to move with greater alacrity up, down and along stalactites, stalagmites, the balconies and bridges of dwarven ruins and so forth. There were other differences, too, that made them suited to their subterranean domain. Every facility I gave them was matched by something I took away, so they were no more or less of a challenge than their MM-dwelling counterparts. They were simply different.Four of my five players were old hands at D&amp;D. Two of them had been playing (on and off) since 1e. I did not tell the players in advance that I'd used the various monster-building guidelines and rules in the MM and DMG to create my goblins. I just sprung them on the party (when they were first level, at that). So, is this messing with 'D&amp;D canon' (which, if indeed there were such a thing, we know just from this thread, would be subject to change with every edition)? If so, should I have forewarned the players of this deviation from official monster listings? Should I explain to players before introducing a new creature to the game how that creature works? If I don't, am I not diverging from 'canon'?What does a first level PC know about 'canon', by the way?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ranes, post: 7656614, member: 4826"] In my home-brew campaign setting, I reworked the MM goblin. Instead of making the goblins good riders (with racial ride skill bonuses) à la the MM, my subterranean dwelling goblins were good climbers, enabling them to move with greater alacrity up, down and along stalactites, stalagmites, the balconies and bridges of dwarven ruins and so forth. There were other differences, too, that made them suited to their subterranean domain. Every facility I gave them was matched by something I took away, so they were no more or less of a challenge than their MM-dwelling counterparts. They were simply different. Four of my five players were old hands at D&D. Two of them had been playing (on and off) since 1e. I did not tell the players in advance that I'd used the various monster-building guidelines and rules in the MM and DMG to create my goblins. I just sprung them on the party (when they were first level, at that). So, is this messing with 'D&D canon' (which, if indeed there were such a thing, we know just from this thread, would be subject to change with every edition)? If so, should I have forewarned the players of this deviation from official monster listings? Should I explain to players before introducing a new creature to the game how that creature works? If I don't, am I not diverging from 'canon'? What does a first level PC know about 'canon', by the way? [/QUOTE]

Verification