MichaelSomething
Legend
In their defense, it is something we do...Controversy attracts clicks. If there isn't one the media has to invent one.
And "pedantic geeks argue over stupid rule" plays into people's prejudices.
In their defense, it is something we do...Controversy attracts clicks. If there isn't one the media has to invent one.
And "pedantic geeks argue over stupid rule" plays into people's prejudices.
Because she appears to shift on the fly, in the way that polymorph can't.How come this isn't simply Polymorph, which Druids can use to assume the form of an Owlbear?
Because she appears to shift on the fly, in the way that polymorph can't.
Part legacy restriction, part balance issue, part verisimilitude (i.e. druids, as defenders of nature, can only turn into natural beings, which apparently includes elementals).Y'know, the more I think about it, the more I find myself wondering why druids can't change into magical beasts at higher level, rather than just bigger beasts like Tyrannosaurs? Blink dog, chimera, displacer beasts, maybe even hydras - that sort of thing. I mean, at a point they can turn into elementals, after all.
Which is why I always thought as a feature for a particular subclass, sure; but not for the class in general.I mean, at a point they can turn into elementals, after all.
This in general points out the loose definitions of "beasts" and "monstrosities" in D&D. Sure, artificial creatures (even if they're now true-breeding") typically count as monstrosities in D&D, not beasts. But . . . who defines "artificial creatures"? Humans made dogs through thousands of years of artificial selection. Do dogs and other extremely domesticated animals count as "artificial creatures" and not "creatures of nature" and therefore should be monstrosities instead of beasts. In a ton of D&D worlds, all animals and sentient races were created by one of the world's gods, typically through magical means, and are therefore "artificial" in the sense that they were made by sentient creatures. Should Orcs, Elves, Dwarves, and other god-created creatures be monstrosities instead of humanoids? And that's not even mentioning that some creatures that might be "natural" or "artificial" in one setting might be in the opposite category in a different world or edition of the setting (old Forgotten Realms lore about the evolution of dragons versus newer lore that says they were created by their gods).Which is why I always thought as a feature for a particular subclass, sure; but not for the class in general.
However, IMO it ultimately depends how the game views creatures like the owlbear or pegasus or griffon, etc. Do they bear young and raise them? Or are they just created by magic mergings or something?
If they bear young and do not have magical features, they are "creatures of nature" and should be open to druids or at least certain druid subclasses. If they don't (or do but have magical features--such as dragons, or are too intelligent maybe?), then they are not natural and a no-no for druids.