gideon_thorne wrote:
Because, making the critter a druid isn't the point. Then the goblin has a whole host of abilities I didn't want. Instead, I just tack on ONE ability that's unusual. I didn't use a rule for it, I didn't make up any rational explanation a character could also use, I just tacked on an ability, no explanation or rationale. ^_~`
Indeed. And there'd nothing wrong with that, of course.
To me, (and remember earlier I said it probably comes down to playstyle), I would rather have a rationale when I dream up a goblin that has a shapechanging ability. Don't get me wrong, I do exactly the things you suggest when I need to. But sometimes I feel that there should be a reason for such things. To me, even in a fantasy world, sometimes for reasons of verisimilitude, I like to be able to have explanation for such things. If not, why can't anyone be able to shapechange? Why can't the rogue in my group say, "Hey, Mr. CK, I'd like to have an ability like that goblin does. I can even mesh it into my backstory!" Then I have to say, no with no good reason other than "because I said so," or "because I'm the CK!" I'd much rather say, "well, Mr. Rogue...he was a druid." But that stems from the fact that I like to have an answer when my players say, "Hey, that goblin shapechanged...was he a druid or something?" Now of course, they may not necessarily be able to discern such info, but if they can and do, I'd like to be able to have a decent reason why.
And, having rules for such things would not hamper you and the way you do things, Peter. You could ignore it if you liked (like you do the associated primes for the classes ).
_________________
LD's C&C creations - the witch, a half-ogre, skill and 0-level rules
Troll Lord wrote:
Lord D: you understand where I"m coming from.
