# DRAGON #360 Art Gallery: Dryad



## Aeolius (Nov 16, 2007)

That thing from Design & Development: Cosmology (9/26) is supposed to be a dryad?!?





   Ummm...no. Mind you, it says "Concept: Dryad", so perhaps there is still time for them to get it right.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Nov 16, 2007)

Well, there is already a mini that looks like that too, so I guess they are sticking with it...


----------



## Guild Goodknife (Nov 16, 2007)

This needed it's own thread because... there are just not enough!!
my hat of  D4.0 dryads no no limit


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Nov 16, 2007)

I like the new dryad.  Tree-like = Better.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Nov 16, 2007)

Well, you know...it was the classic problem all over again. I mean, they just *couldn't* call them _Entwives_, could they? And _Treantwives_ is awkward to pronounce. And since there were enough comments about slutty-looking fey in the MM1, they probably went with the path of least resistance...you can call this dryad a lot, but slutty it ain't.


----------



## Cadfan (Nov 16, 2007)

Frankly, a monster the players can stab is more useful to me than a monster they can't.

This looks a lot more stabbable than the "hot chick with nonviolent powers" dryad type.


----------



## Aaron2 (Nov 16, 2007)

This is how Games-Workshop does their dryads as well

http://us.games-workshop.com/games/warhammer/woodelves/painting/dryads/1.htm

Wierd that D&D would follow them so closely.


Aaron


----------



## Aeolius (Nov 16, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Frankly, a monster the players can stab is more useful to me than a monster they can't. This looks a lot more stabbable than the "hot chick with nonviolent powers" dryad type.




there's a joke there... but I'm not going to be the first... 

Me, I prefer the "hot chick with nonviolent powers" dryad. D&D is NOT solely about combat. Having a fey that charms her opponents, occasionally keeping the ones she fancies, is infinitely more interesting than that topiary abomination.


----------



## Drkfathr1 (Nov 16, 2007)

Aren't they calling this the "Blackwoods Dryad"? So maybe its an evil or feral version, not the classic type we're used to? 

Personally, I prefer the slutty type, but it will be nice to have a version that's meant to be fought.


----------



## Wormwood (Nov 16, 2007)

I'd like to see its stats (preferably in context with the rest of 4e) before I pass final judgment on the design.


----------



## Aeolius (Nov 16, 2007)

Drkfathr1 said:
			
		

> Aren't they calling this the "Blackwoods Dryad"? So maybe its an evil or feral version, not the classic type we're used to? Personally, I prefer the slutty type, but it will be nice to have a version that's meant to be fought.




Fair enough... and, I agree. In my games, I accomplished this with the introduction of the woodhag, daughter of a night hag and sylvan elf, and their daughters the harridans. I even devised a more evil dryad, the driftwood nymph, made from dryads who start by inhabiting mangrove trees and eventually end up adrift on the open seas.


----------



## Wepwawet (Nov 16, 2007)

I prefer the "hot chic" type...
But maybe Dryads have two forms, tree- and hot-chic-form, and this is how they look while shapeshifting 

Yeah, it's sad if they change every monster so that they're jsut supposed to fight and die... D&D has always been more than just combat.


----------



## Larrin (Nov 16, 2007)

Wepwawet said:
			
		

> But maybe Dryads have two forms, tree- and hot-chic-form....




I agree, if dryads have any hope of being taken seriously they need to be able to look serious when the need arrises for defending their home.  The wrath of nature does not look like a half naked woman making and angry face     it looks alot more like that tree thing...


----------



## Aeolius (Nov 16, 2007)

Wepwawet said:
			
		

> But maybe Dryads have two forms, tree- and hot-chic-form, and this is how they look while shapeshifting...




Her bark is worse than her bite?


----------



## Beregar (Nov 16, 2007)

Aeolius said:
			
		

> there's a joke there... but I'm not going to be the first...
> 
> Me, I prefer the "hot chick with nonviolent powers" dryad. D&D is NOT solely about combat. Having a fey that charms her opponents, occasionally keeping the ones she fancies, is infinitely more interesting than that topiary abomination.




Eh, I'm not sure what prevents that tree dryad charming its opponents and keeping the ones it fancies? What has human shape to do with it? The keyword there is "charm", it's a compulsion, an echantment...

Furthermore, I'm not sure why that 4E tree dryad can't be used in noncombat encounter. I find it slightly humorous that all that is said here basically implies that "unless it is a hot chick, it must be killed!".


----------



## an_idol_mind (Nov 16, 2007)

I'd like it if the tree-thing was the dryad's true form in the feywild, and the hot chick was a shape taken in the material plane. That could also play up the foreign nature of the planes, while keeping the dryad as the beautiful witch in the woods that she currently is.


----------



## Remathilis (Nov 16, 2007)

Aeolius said:
			
		

> there's a joke there... but I'm not going to be the first...
> 
> Me, I prefer the "hot chick with nonviolent powers" dryad. D&D is NOT solely about combat. Having a fey that charms her opponents, occasionally keeping the ones she fancies, is infinitely more interesting than that topiary abomination.




Problem is, we've got two monsters fighting for that role: the dryad  and the  nymph which fill almost the exact same role of hawt nekkid elflike babe with foresty powers. I'd rather the dryad become otherworldly and plant-like and the nymph retain her human-eye beauty. It will give some more room between the two monsters other than CR.


----------



## Aeolius (Nov 16, 2007)

an_idol_mind said:
			
		

> I'd like it if the tree-thing was the dryad's true form in the feywild, and the hot chick was a shape taken in the material plane. That could also play up the foreign nature of the planes, while keeping the dryad as the beautiful witch in the woods that she currently is.




Works for me. My hags get by quite well with Polymorph (self) and Disguise Self, to find male companions to sire their offspring.


----------



## Knight Otu (Nov 16, 2007)

Wepwawet said:
			
		

> But maybe Dryads have two forms, tree- and hot-chic-form, and this is how they look while shapeshifting




Considering that this is essentially what is said here, even if mirrored with the plant form being the natural form...


----------



## Wepwawet (Nov 16, 2007)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> I'd rather the dryad become otherworldly and plant-like and the nymph retain her human-eye beauty.



Not human-eye beauty, rather viewer-eye beauty 
She could look like a sexy elf, sexy dwarf, or even sexy orc or kobold (  )


----------



## Aeolius (Nov 16, 2007)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> Problem is, we've got two monsters fighting for that role: the dryad and the nymph which fill almost the exact same role of hawt nekkid elflike babe with foresty powers.




Perhaps 4e could establish a nymph category, much as 3e did with the sprite category and its "subspecies" of grig, nixie, and pixie. So we could have water nymphs (nymph)  tree nymphs (dryads), and air nymphs (sylphs).  (avoiding a joke about homonymphs, antinymphs, synonymphs, here) 



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> Considering that this is essentially what is said here, even if mirrored with the plant form being the natural form...




"This fey of the woods appears here in what we're thinking of as her natural form. Sure, she might be able to appear as dryads have in the past, as nymph-like forest dwellers, but if you get one angry, watch out! "

Works for me!


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 16, 2007)

Beregar said:
			
		

> Furthermore, I'm not sure why that 4E tree dryad can't be used in noncombat encounter. I find it slightly humorous that all that is said here basically implies that "unless it is a hot chick, it must be killed!".



I though the same.  I guess nobody really wanted to imply that, but maybe it should give pause for thought? Just because something does not look like a hot chick (or just humanoid) doesn't mean it can't be used in a non-combat encounter.


----------



## Masquerade (Nov 16, 2007)

Aeolius said:
			
		

> Ummm...no.



Yes, please! Call it change for change's sake, but I love the idea of redesigning monsters to better establish the feel of the new edition. (Especially when _this_  is what's being improved upon. Uggh.) The new look is uniquely D&D, and I like it.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Nov 16, 2007)

Wepwawet said:
			
		

> Not human-eye beauty, rather viewer-eye beauty
> She could look like a sexy elf, sexy dwarf, or even sexy orc or kobold (  )




I'm sure kobolds know what a sexy kobold looks like.


----------



## Simplicity (Nov 16, 2007)

The new dryad is stupid.  I'm fine if they want a new sort of dryad, just don't replace what a classical dryad is.


----------



## Zamkaizer (Nov 16, 2007)

Keep in mind this is artwork for the Desert of Desolation miniatures set - as was much of the artwork featured in Design & Development articles - and not 4E proper.


----------



## epochrpg (Nov 16, 2007)

Aaron2 said:
			
		

> This is how Games-Workshop does their dryads as well
> 
> http://us.games-workshop.com/games/warhammer/woodelves/painting/dryads/1.htm
> 
> ...




Maybe its not to late to get them to sue WotC/  That might stop this horrible idea from being put into production.


----------



## Novander (Nov 16, 2007)

Wepwawet said:
			
		

> Not human-eye beauty, rather viewer-eye beauty
> She could look like a sexy elf, sexy dwarf, or even sexy orc or kobold (  )



Actually, with them being fey, I'd prefer if in the material they always looked eladrin-eye sexy. I imagine it would piss them off more if they were trapped in this one form instead of having some glamour that just made them appear different to different viewers.


----------



## RPG_Tweaker (Nov 16, 2007)

Aeolius said:
			
		

> there's a joke there... but I'm not going to be the first...
> 
> Me, I prefer the "hot chick with nonviolent powers" dryad. D&D is NOT solely about combat. Having a fey that charms her opponents, occasionally keeping the ones she fancies, is infinitely more interesting than that topiary abomination.





QFT... on both counts.


----------



## WayneLigon (Nov 16, 2007)

Simplicity said:
			
		

> The new dryad is stupid.  I'm fine if they want a new sort of dryad, just don't replace what a classical dryad is.




Since we don't know if that's The dryad or simply a variant type that's born in evil woodlands (as the name certainly seems to suggest) or something, all the raised hackles about this are useless. Well, it's useless anyway since the look and feel of something is totally under your control anyway.


----------



## Lord Fyre (Nov 16, 2007)

an_idol_mind said:
			
		

> I'd like it if the tree-thing was the dryad's true form in the feywild, and the hot chick was a shape taken in the material plane. That could also play up the foreign nature of the planes, while keeping the dryad as the beautiful witch in the woods that she currently is.




I like this new take on the dryad.  Do we need a creature to be "the beautiful witch in the woods"?   :\ 

Why not just use "a beautiful witch in the woods" (a female druid or sorceress type)?


----------



## Umbran (Nov 16, 2007)

Aeolius said:
			
		

> Having a fey that charms her opponents, occasionally keeping the ones she fancies, is infinitely more interesting than that topiary abomination.




Topiary Abomination sounds like.. a band.  So, if she's the lead singer, maybe she'd be more interesting?



			
				wepwawet said:
			
		

> ...or even sexy orc...




Dude, the reason why orcs are so angry all the time is that there is no such thing as a sexy orc, of either gender.


----------



## Wolfspider (Nov 16, 2007)

So I guess they'll be getting rid of the treant in 4.0 because they've said they don't want to have two different creatures filling the same roles.

Unless treants are now what myconids used to be....


----------



## Masquerade (Nov 16, 2007)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> So I guess they'll be getting rid of the treant in 4.0 because they've said they don't want to have two different creatures filling the same roles.



Treants are much larger than dryads, and they will probably differ very greatly in their abilities. Plus, we already know that dryads at least one power that plays off of the presence of treants (Monsters podcast).


----------



## Lord Fyre (Nov 16, 2007)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Dude, the reason why orcs are so angry all the time is that there is no such thing as a sexy orc, of either gender.




Really?  I don't know about that.  

The idea that Orcs would not see their own females as "beautiful" seems to be a hold-over from the Tolkienian idea that they are warped-elves rather then their own race.


----------



## Wolfspider (Nov 16, 2007)

Masquerade said:
			
		

> Treants are much larger than dryads, and they will probably differ very greatly in their abilities. Plus, we already know that dryads at least one power that plays off of the presence of treants (Monsters podcast).




Well, that's good to know.  I love treants.

I guess two breeds of tree-dwelling tree folk is ok, but two breeds of demonic winged women isn't.

Hmm.


----------



## Merlin the Tuna (Nov 16, 2007)

I'm a fan of the design itself, and of the fact that the nature-loving tree creature looks less like a mannequin and more like a tree.


----------



## megamania (Nov 16, 2007)

Drkfathr1 said:
			
		

> Aren't they calling this the "Blackwoods Dryad"? So maybe its an evil or feral version, not the classic type we're used to?
> 
> Personally, I prefer the slutty type, but it will be nice to have a version that's meant to be fought.





One of the Eberron novels has a black wood nymph that are evil or at least mean.  I had assumed this was that...not a typical nymph.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 16, 2007)

Lord Fyre said:
			
		

> The idea that Orcs would not see their own females as "beautiful" seems to be a hold-over from the Tolkienian idea that they are warped-elves rather then their own race.




Nah.  It's a simple example of the idea that while beauty is only skin deep, ugly goes down to the bone 

Though, thinking about it more seriously - it actually does make an interesting twist on orcs.  Especially if the race's origins are not Tolkien-esque.  A race that hates because they don't think of themselves as beautiful.


----------



## Aeolius (Nov 16, 2007)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Topiary Abomination sounds like.. a band.




   I hear the word "topiary" and I still think of Putt Putt Saves the Zoo. Then I hear THIS


----------



## Lord Fyre (Nov 16, 2007)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Though, thinking about it more seriously - it actually does make an interesting twist on orcs.  Especially if the race's origins are not Tolkien-esque.  A race that hates because they don't think of themselves as beautiful.




Is that not often the root of irrational hate?


----------



## The Merciful (Nov 16, 2007)

Not perhaps excatly to my tastes, but looks like Wizards have solid art direction going on, which is good thing. A mouth would be nice, though.


----------



## Epic Meepo (Nov 16, 2007)

I don't know. I don't really like the idea that a creature has to have a monster form to be a fierce defender of the woodlands. I mean, an ordinary female ranger that reaches a high-enough level can single-handedly take down a dragon. Does that mean that she has to turn into a tree during combat?


----------



## Nifft (Nov 16, 2007)

Umbran said:
			
		

> A race that hates because they don't think of themselves as beautiful.



 That certainly justifies their Charisma penalty. Low self-esteem -> anger -> +4 bonus to Strength and Constitution.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Gundark (Nov 16, 2007)

Aaron2 said:
			
		

> This is how Games-Workshop does their dryads as well
> 
> http://us.games-workshop.com/games/warhammer/woodelves/painting/dryads/1.htm
> 
> ...




In addition GW dryads only turn into this "walking tree" form during times of war. All the other time they are elf like in appearence.

Wonder if WotC will follow this model too.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Nov 16, 2007)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> Problem is, we've got two monsters fighting for that role: the dryad  and the  nymph which fill almost the exact same role of hawt nekkid elflike babe with foresty powers. I'd rather the dryad become otherworldly and plant-like and the nymph retain her human-eye beauty. It will give some more room between the two monsters other than CR.



Of course, the root of the similarity between nymphs and dryads is that in classical Greek mythology, dryads were just a sub-category of nymph (along with nereids and countless others). Dryads resemble nymphs because every dryad _is_ a nymph.

If you stat out nymphs _and_ every sub-category of nymph as a seperate kind of creature, then you get a _lot_ of redundant creatures. If you ask me, they shouldn't, and should just list Dryads as being one name for Nymphs, or maybe a name for a kind of templated nymph.

That being said, I don't mind there being a female tree creature. But if they want to use the name Dryad for it, I would prefer it to look at least a little more human-like...


----------



## lukelightning (Nov 16, 2007)

Why must a dryad look like a beautiful human? Why not a comely troglodyte or alluring dwarf?


----------



## Banshee16 (Nov 16, 2007)

The Merciful said:
			
		

> Not perhaps excatly to my tastes, but looks like Wizards have solid art direction going on, which is good thing. A mouth would be nice, though.




Would it need a mouth?  It's a walking tree.  If it wants to eat, it just digs its feet into the ground.

Mark me up for intensely disliking this idea, and getting rather frustrated that 4E seems to be going further in the direction of oversimplification, and measuring everything based on its role in combat, instead of all the other interesting things it can do.

Banshee


----------



## Nifft (Nov 16, 2007)

lukelightning said:
			
		

> Why must a dryad look like a beautiful human? Why not a comely troglodyte or alluring dwarf?



 Trogs don't buy RPGs.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Beckett (Nov 16, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> Trogs don't buy RPGs.
> 
> Cheers, -- N




Considering some of the gamers I've seen, I must heartily disagree.


----------



## Sir Brennen (Nov 16, 2007)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> Mark me up for intensely disliking this idea, and getting rather frustrated that 4E seems to be going further in the direction of oversimplification, and measuring everything based on its role in combat, instead of all the other interesting things it can do.



You deduced all of this from a drawing?  Why is it "oversimplified" and how do you know that all non-combat abilities have been dumped?


----------



## lukelightning (Nov 16, 2007)

Heh, maybe the dryad's beauty is a magically projected mental image that only affects a single target.

"Dude, why are you making out with that thicket?"


----------



## Aeolius (Nov 16, 2007)

lukelightning said:
			
		

> "Dude, why are you making out with that thicket?"




Because he was....errrr... thorny?


----------



## Epic Meepo (Nov 16, 2007)

lukelightning said:
			
		

> Why must a dryad look like a beautiful human?



Well, I guess there's no reason that a D&D dryad _must_ look like a beautiful human.

Then again, I'd prefer that a dryad look like the dryad described in mythology, just as I'd prefer that a minotaur look like the minotaur described in mythology. There's no reason that a D&D minotaur _must_ look like a biped with a bull's head, but I'd kinda prefer that it did.

(And for the record, I don't think the D&D harpy should be a bird-lady, either.)


----------



## Wolfspider (Nov 16, 2007)

A plant with boobs is just WRONG.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Nov 16, 2007)

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> That being said, I don't mind there being a female tree creature. But if they want to use the name Dryad for it, I would prefer it to look at least a little more human-like...



Well, why? I mean, if you want the classical dryad, use a nymph (as the Greek). And for the name... it's not like D&D never randomly took names and used them for all kinds of stuff.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Commonblade (Nov 16, 2007)

Based on this:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/mi/20071102a

I would say, I think this represents what a Dryads natural form looks like. 



Edit: Just noticed I was scooped on Page 1, Sorry Knight Otu


----------



## Lord Fyre (Nov 16, 2007)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> A plant with boobs is just WRONG.




Well, they are often call "Peaches" or "Melons."


----------



## I'm A Banana (Nov 17, 2007)

I think the dryads should be sexy tree women, by default.

That's what they were in myth. Oak nymphs. That should be reflected in the game. Tree nymphs.

They should be magical and fey and secretive, hiding lore and generally being icons of that ol' Greek misogynistic "retreating beautiful woman of the wilds" image. They should care for children lost in the forest (like the Meliai cared for baby Zeus), they should befriend rangers (as they are Artemis's friend), they should die if their tree dies (like the hemadryads), they should be chased by amorous creatures (like Daphne fleeing from Apollo), they should be sacred to the nature gods, spirits of unseen power you must propiate or be struck down by.

Of course, a creature that hides most of the time, might occasionally help the party, and only fights them if they offend it (and even then probably in a sort of backhanded curs-ey sort of way) doesn't make for the most interesting *combat*. But D&D monsters should be about more than an interesting combat.

That said, they certainly *could* be interesting...teleporting between trees, using branches to scratch and spear, whirling plants around, even spontaneously growing things, or chucking seeds with magical effects, they could be wonderful little Controllers.

Now, if you want to take a raging shrubbery and call it some sort of "dryad" I really won't object. The mythopoetics are probably flexible enough for that. But you probably shouldn't call it simply "dryad." It can be a mutant, it can be a misnomer, it can be an ally, it can be a product, but it shouldn't be the creature.


----------



## Garnfellow (Nov 17, 2007)

I thought one of the new design paradigms was to try to get monsters back to their "real" mythological roots? I seem to remember a couple of monster redesigns where familiar in-game abilities were being jettisoned in order to bring the monster more in line with their "traditional" depictions.

So, if these things are true, maybe someone could explain just how a barky plant elemental things more closely resembles the dryad of classical myth than, say, the 3e dryad?

(Now, personally, I have grave doubts about the wisdom of trying to go back to "more mythological" roots. Given the weird and wonderful farrago that is D&D, what's the point? It sounds more like a designer pet peeve than a serious problem that needs addressing. Bring on the plant elemental dryads, say I. I'd rather see interesting changes than uninteresting revisions just so that a monster better fits a description given by Bulfinch.)


----------



## Imp (Nov 17, 2007)

Eh, if that's a dryad, I won't use it.

There are quite enough humanoid plant concepts to fill all my needs.  If I need a feral plant spirit to jump the PCs, it's not gonna look like a humanoid.  And if I need what I think of as a dryad, it won't look like that.

I am not a fan of dryad-class fey even _having_ a "true form", to be honest.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Nov 17, 2007)

> Bring on the plant elemental dryads, say I. I'd rather see interesting changes than uninteresting revisions just so that a monster better fits a description given by Bulfinch.




For me, it's double-fisted.

On the one fist, we've got the heady stout of tradition speaking. Dryads have a real historical presence as "sexy tree girls," from one of the earliest written languages to today. If I can't see a god running after one in a fury of addled lust, it weakens how useful that history is in the game. With the 3e dryads, more or less, I can do that. "Sexy tree girls" is more than just appearance, too. Mythographically speaking, it represents a certain icon of the "virgin wilderness," a notion of civilization as progress and masculine and aggressive, of the wilderness as natural and feminine and shy. It's a whole yin/yang thing, and the Dryad is a "yin" in this ages-old Western iconography. Trees are feminine, they grow from the earth directly, they bear fruit, they have curves, their flowers and leaves flow like hair. To affront a tree is to violate nature, is to take this shy and retreating creature and mistreat it, filling you with kind of an allegorical forceful taking of innocence, of destructive change, and of loosing something when you conquer the wilderness. You've got that mythography, and you've got the classic stories that D&D is, in part, a vehicle of re-imagining.

On the other fist, we've got the pale ale of game play. Dryads as a monster in D&D need to be able to *do* something, and something unique, to justify their position. Like any monster, they should fill at least three roles: ally, adversary, and anybody. As an Ally, a dryad should provide a boon to certain types of characters (namely, those nature-focused characters like rangers), befriending them, giving them succor, allowing them to do their cool thing even better (a dryad's leaf cover providing ample opportunity to snipe, for instance). As an Adversary, a dryad should want to actually fight certain types of characters (namely, those characters who disrespect her trees), engaging in a multifaceted and interesting combat. Here, things like the idea to use Dryads as a kind of controller surface: a dryad manipulates the environment around her enemies, calling the plants and the earth itself to her side, weaving the trees like they were silk, sprouting plants as if the fullness of spring arrived in an instant, striking with the solidity of an oak branch. There's a lot of combat possibilities for that. As an Anybody, a dryad needs to have a function in the world beyond the PC's. Clearly, they are spirits of trees: they exist as the avatara of the woodlands, and wherever the sylvan wood grows strong enough, these Dryads exist, knowing all that passes beneath the branches.

In neither of these fists do I think we need to abandon the "sexy tree nymph" image. Sexy tree nymphs evoke the classic imagery and the themes of Western storytelling from time immemorial, and they can be interesting and challenging encounters in a variety of ways, as well as having an existence beyond the encounter.

Now, that problem is ENTIRELY avoided with a simple descriptor or flavor text nudge to show clearly that this "dryad" is NOT meant to be the dryad we all know from our storytelling heritage. It's supposed to be something else: attack shrubbery or treant side-kick saplings or something. Not a proper dryad (though perhaps people take to calling it some sort of dryad).

If they DON'T do that simple nudge, and imply that this twisted thing is somehow THE DRYAD, like scientists pointing out that manatees are not mermaids, they'll have removed all the magic from the thing. Why they would feel the need to do that when I, at least, can clearly see the design space for a solid sexy monster dryad, I wouldn't likely begin to comprehend. 

I've got no problem with that picture being some dryad-like monster thing that's fun to kill. Treant minions, whatever. I'll be disappointed if they just stick with calling that thing The Dryad, though. Because clearly (IMO), there should be dryads in the game, and clearly (again IMO) there's no reason they need to be removed from their mythological place to be put there.


----------



## Epic Meepo (Nov 17, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> For me, it's double-fisted... [etc.]



Well said.


----------



## Aeolius (Nov 17, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Dryads as a monster in D&D need to be able to *do* something, and something unique, to justify their position.



   Keeping satyrs happy?   Okay, okay... how about giving them lignifying poison like the barkburr? They could transform enemies into trees, forest animals, or humanoid druids.


----------



## Wolfspider (Nov 17, 2007)

Commonblade said:
			
		

> Based on this:
> 
> http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/mi/20071102a
> 
> I would say, I think this represents what a Dryads natural form looks like.




To quote the description of the dryad from that article:



> Black Woods Dryad
> 
> Here's another creature that's bringing a different look into the new edition. This fey of the woods appears here in what we're thinking of as her natural form. Sure, she might be able to appear as dryads have in the past, as nymph-like forest dwellers, but if you get one angry, watch out! She'll just as likely plant a tree in your head. The concept of the dryad has moved away from being only a woodland faerie whose tree is always in danger. The new dryads are fierce protectors of the forest in which they live, likely some dark or mysterious wood, or perhaps even in the lands of the Feywild.




Looks like the author here has addressed a number of our concerns.


----------



## WayneLigon (Nov 17, 2007)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> Looks like the author here has addressed a number of our concerns.




Vastly more like how I use them now: avenging spirit protectors of the woodlands such that even Druids fear their wrath.


----------



## Nifft (Nov 17, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> For me, it's double-fisted.



 Mostly agree. Odd word choice though. 

IMHO a Dryad should be a critter you don't fight directly -- once you have a knife to her throat, the fight should be over. She should be a Controller (and nothing else) -- powerless against a wide variety of threats, but dangerous if you don't know her location, and deadly in combination with other critters.

As an ally, a Controller / Diviner allows the PCs to shine. She gives them information and support, denying the enemies certain tactical options, but not able to kill them directly herself -- thus the PCs get to do what players so enjoy, the actual killin' part.

As an anybody, the Controller / Diviner role allows her to *need help* since she can only slow down the troll-loggers, not destroy them herself. I like it when the sexy tree babe needs help. Makes for a good hook.

As an enemy, she's not that deadly -- she can be caught and reasoned with (or killed) if she has no direct attack powers, but it should be a reasonably "fun" encounter anyway. If she has allies, she'll spice up the combat.

Anyway, point is: I like sexy tree babes. IMHO there's easily room for them in the rules.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## I'm A Banana (Nov 17, 2007)

> Odd word choice though.




Friday night is for beers. 



> IMHO a Dryad should be a critter you don't fight directly -- once you have a knife to her throat, the fight should be over. She should be a Controller (and nothing else) -- powerless against a wide variety of threats, but dangerous if you don't know her location, and deadly in combination with other critters.




I'd live with this comfortably, but I prefer it when the monster can be a good combat challenge as well as all the rest. I guess I just see it as part of the "translation" to D&D: pretty much everything has combat potential. 

I could see the dryad's combat potential being mostly through helping other critters, though. Sort of a controller/leader role, where she manipulates terrain and empowers others.



> As an anybody, the Controller / Diviner role allows her to need help since she can only slow down the troll-loggers, not destroy them herself. I like it when the sexy tree babe needs help. Makes for a good hook.




For me, this can easily be solved by tweaking either her or the troll. If the troll isn't already a higher level than the dryad, advance 'em 'till they are, and then they're a challenge the PC's need to solve. Or have the troll-loggers use unusual tactics. Or have it be a "young" dryad (whom you won't really even need to stat out). 

It's not too dissonant for me to have a dryad who can beat down the occasional goblin or orc or logger, but who could still succumb to a more powerful or concentrated threat, and thus have a dryad who is basically a low-level Adversary only.



> As an enemy, she's not that deadly -- she can be caught and reasoned with (or killed) if she has no direct attack powers, but it should be a reasonably "fun" encounter anyway. If she has allies, she'll spice up the combat.
> 
> Anyway, point is: I like sexy tree babes. IMHO there's easily room for them in the rules.




Though I like 'em deadly, too, we're in accord.

What I don't want to see is what a lot of the new monsters in 3e suffered from. They lack staying power because they lacked a life outside of the battle. The Ythrak? The Phantom Fungus? The Digester? They might have made great Adversaries, but they didn't have a whole lot of life as an Anybody or as an Ally unless you kind of forced them into the role by giving them more to do than fight PC's and die. If that little tree-spirit represents THE DRYAD, I'm affraid the dryad's life might be reduced to include simply "fight PC's and die," too, and that'd be a heck of a loss of potential.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Nov 17, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> For me, it's double-fisted...



I think you said it perfectly.


----------



## Nifft (Nov 17, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Friday night is for beers.



 That would be the least problematic context. Cheers! 



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I'd live with this comfortably, but I prefer it when the monster can be a good combat challenge as well as all the rest. I guess I just see it as part of the "translation" to D&D: pretty much everything has combat potential.
> 
> I could see the dryad's combat potential being mostly through helping other critters, though. Sort of a controller/leader role, where she manipulates terrain and empowers others.



 As a leader ("diviner") / controller, who can manipulate natural hazards and also aid her plant & animal allies, I could see her being an interesting foe who fights indirectly.

Nymphs, with their blinding beauty and charming wiles, might go into the Controller role completely differently...

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Banshee16 (Nov 17, 2007)

Sir Brennen said:
			
		

> You deduced all of this from a drawing?  Why is it "oversimplified" and how do you know that all non-combat abilities have been dumped?




I didn't deduce this from a drawing.  I've seen several comments about this over the last few months.  About them trying to break things down to their core roles, and focus them on such.  Mike Mearls monster design column, etc.

This design seems to indicate reorienting the dryad to become more of a combat encounter.

Thus the basis for my concern.

I was always kind of annoyed by the "back to the dungeon" theme of 3E.....and it's almost sounding like 4E will focus on combat etc. even more.

Banshee


----------



## Banshee16 (Nov 17, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> Trogs don't buy RPGs.
> 
> Cheers, -- N




Can troglodytes even read?

Banshee


----------



## Wolfspider (Nov 17, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> As an Ally, a dryad should provide a boon to certain types of characters (namely, those nature-focused characters like rangers), befriending them, giving them succor




So THAT is what they're calling it these days....


----------



## ImperialParadox (Nov 17, 2007)

I'm growing weary of all the 'story' changes they seem to be making for 4th edition. I don't really see the point. If they needed a plant creature as an adversary, they would have been better off making up a new monster, or heck, even using and expanding on an existing one like the twig blights from Sunless Citadel. Changing what the dryad actually is seems a bit foolhardy and totally disregards its traditional role in D&D and ignores its actual basis in classical mythology. This seems to be another change for the sake of change, and frankly I find it troubling that they seem to feel they have a need to make every creature nothing more than sword-fodder for the PC's.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Nov 17, 2007)

IP said:
			
		

> I'm growing weary of all the 'story' changes they seem to be making for 4th edition. I don't really see the point. If they needed a plant creature as an adversary, they would have been better off making up a new monster, or heck, even using and expanding on an existing one like the twig blights from Sunless Citadel. Changing what the dryad actually is seems a bit foolhardy and totally disregards its traditional role in D&D and ignores its actual basis in classical mythology. This seems to be another change for the sake of change, and frankly I find it troubling that they seem to feel they have a need to make every creature nothing more than sword-fodder for the PC's.




Welcome to the boards!

It should be noted, though, that there's no *confirmation* that they're replacing the normal dryad with this thing. Most of the designers seem to be talking as if it's not the "real" dryad, but some variant. Which would be the wise way to go, I think. 

Though I agree with the concern that monsters may be reduced to being too narrowly focused on the combat encounter, it's always best to give them the chance to show me that I've got the wrong impression. 

And in the spirit of double-fisting:

For your right:





For your left:



...now THAT'S good gamin'!


----------



## ImperialParadox (Nov 17, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Welcome to the boards!
> 
> ...
> 
> ...




Cheers mate!


----------



## Drammattex (Nov 17, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Frankly, a monster the players can stab is more useful to me than a monster they can't.
> 
> This looks a lot more stabbable than the "hot chick with nonviolent powers" dryad type.




Well said! 
Also, it looks cool and scary, at least to me.


----------



## Nifft (Nov 17, 2007)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> I was always kind of annoyed by the "back to the dungeon" theme of 3E.....and it's almost sounding like 4E will focus on combat etc. even more.



 Wasn't there a big deal made about some new social encounter mechanics in 4e? I seem to recall that there was.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## frankthedm (Nov 17, 2007)

Aaron2 said:
			
		

> This is how Games-Workshop does their dryads as well
> 
> Wierd that D&D would follow them so closely.



Considering some of the other direct translations...

_MM3 
Goatfolk = Beastmen
Poison Dusk lizardfolk = Skinks
Blackscale lizardfolk = kroxigors

Mini handbook
Krithic = Tyranid gaunts

MM5
Blackfeather = Carrion

4E
Dryad_

I'd say it is not weird at all.


And if i might enter _Creepy Gamer_ mode...


			
				Cadfan said:
			
		

> Frankly, a monster the players can stab is more useful to me than a monster they can't.
> 
> This looks a lot more stabbable than the "hot chick with nonviolent powers" dryad type.



The blade will stab a lot easier into the hot chick rathar than this Entwife. Heck, I'd bet you could get the hot fey chick into four or five _peices_ with the effort it takes to just _kill_ this new dryad.


----------



## Clavis (Nov 17, 2007)

So much of 4th edition strikes me as game designers trying to justify their jobs to Hasbro, that I'm not surprised at yet another completely unnecessary and boneheaded butchering of the game.

Of course, the redesign creates marketable intellectual property, taking the D&D dryad completely out of the realm of a mythological (and thus public-domain) figure.

Notice the ditching of public-domain figures like Gnomes in favor of WOTC intellectual property like Tieflings and Eladrins? At this point I wouldn't be surprised if characters could no longer wield plain old public-domain swords, but instead only used some new weapon with a lot of weird pointy bits on the blade.


----------



## LoneWolf23 (Nov 17, 2007)

Larrin said:
			
		

> I agree, if dryads have any hope of being taken seriously they need to be able to look serious when the need arrises for defending their home.  The wrath of nature does not look like a half naked woman making and angry face     it looks alot more like that tree thing...




Poison Ivy would disagree with your comment...


----------



## Monkey Boy (Nov 18, 2007)

Never mind


----------



## Nifft (Nov 18, 2007)

Clavis said:
			
		

> So much of 4th edition strikes me as game designers trying to justify their jobs to Hasbro, that I'm not surprised at yet another completely unnecessary and boneheaded butchering of the game.
> 
> Of course, the redesign creates marketable intellectual property, taking the D&D dryad completely out of the realm of a mythological (and thus public-domain) figure.
> 
> Notice the ditching of public-domain figures like Gnomes in favor of WOTC intellectual property like Tieflings and Eladrins? At this point I wouldn't be surprised if characters could no longer wield plain old public-domain swords, but instead only used some new weapon with a lot of weird pointy bits on the blade.



 WotC clearly hates the OGL. Ever since they bought D&D, they've ... wait.

"My common sense is tingling!", -- N


----------



## Clavis (Nov 18, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> WotC clearly hates the OGL. Ever since they bought D&D, they've ... wait.
> 
> "My common sense is tingling!", -- N




Of course, the question may not be whether or not the current leadership of WOTC hates the OGL, as much as whether or not Hasbro dislikes it. Ultimately, 4th edition is Hasbro's game, so let's see what happens...


----------



## Nifft (Nov 18, 2007)

Clavis said:
			
		

> Of course, the question may not be whether or not the current leadership of WOTC hates the OGL, as much as whether or not Hasbro dislikes it. Ultimately, 4th edition is Hasbro's game, so let's see what happens...



 If your suspicions were correct, they (WotC, Hasbro) could have simply not put 4th edition under the OGL.

They've announced that they're going to do the opposite. If you're right, why would they bother?

 -- N


----------



## Clavis (Nov 18, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> If your suspicions were correct, they (WotC, Hasbro) could have simply not put 4th edition under the OGL.
> 
> They've announced that they're going to do the opposite. If you're right, why would they bother?
> 
> -- N




True. Although let's remember that the OGL and SRD explicitly remove things from the public domain by defining terms, asserting ownership, and then granting a mechanism for use under the intellectual property owner's conditions.


----------



## Nifft (Nov 18, 2007)

Clavis said:
			
		

> True. Although let's remember that the OGL and SRD explicitly remove things from the public domain by defining terms, asserting ownership, and then granting a mechanism for use under the intellectual property owner's conditions.



 What has been removed from the public domain?

 -- N


----------



## grimslade (Nov 18, 2007)

Clavis said:
			
		

> True. Although let's remember that the OGL and SRD explicitly remove things from the public domain by defining terms, asserting ownership, and then granting a mechanism for use under the intellectual property owner's conditions.




Are you asserting that 3E is public domain and WotC is using the OGL/SRD to grab a hold of it? I think I may have an aneurism from the jagged edges of that twisted logic.

What is being removed from public domain that is not WotC IP, which they purchased when they bought TSR or developed themselves?


----------



## Clavis (Nov 18, 2007)

grimslade said:
			
		

> Are you asserting that 3E is public domain and WotC is using the OGL/SRD to grab a hold of it? I think I may have an aneurism from the jagged edges of that twisted logic.




Not what I intended at all. In fact, as I understand it the OGL and SRD remove anything in 3rd edition from the public domain. My original point was that changing something like a dryad away from its generally understood form creates a new intellectual property that can't be challenged, unlike a creature that is a simple translation of shared mythology.

D&D did not begin with 3rd edition, and previous editions drew more heavily on world mythology, or IP that neither TSR or WOTC owned. Hence, changing halflings into pint-sized gypsies distanced them from the IP of the Tolkien estate. Making D&D Gnomes into slender bards who don't wear pointy hats effectively distanced them from Wil Huygen's portrayal of Gnomes.



			
				grimslade said:
			
		

> What is being removed from public domain that is not WotC IP, which they purchased when they bought TSR or developed themselves?




Well, they didn't invent dryads, dragons, elves, gnomes, orcs, goblins, etc. Therefore it makes sense from a business point of view for them to change those things into forms different from their classic ones, so those distinctive forms can copyrighted.

The resulting tree-babe still looks stupid.


----------



## grimslade (Nov 18, 2007)

Clavis said:
			
		

> Not what I intended at all. In fact, as I understand it the OGL and SRD remove anything in 3rd edition from the public domain. My original point was that changing something like a dryad away from its generally understood form creates a new intellectual property that can't be challenged, unlike a creature that is a simple translation of shared mythology.
> 
> D&D did not begin with 3rd edition, and previous editions drew more heavily on world mythology, or IP that neither TSR or WOTC owned. Hence, changing halflings into pint-sized gypsies distanced them from the IP of the Tolkien estate. Making D&D Gnomes into slender bards who don't wear pointy hats effectively distanced them from Wil Huygen's portrayal of Gnomes.
> 
> ...




Ok. You have no argument. All your examples are freely available to develop and use with  or without the OGL/SRD. If you want to create d20 product using 3E mechanics and fluff, use the OGL. If you want to create an random RPG product with hobbitty halflings and fox- riding pointy hatted gnomes go ahead, WotC only cares about their mechanics and fluff, let others defend their own IP, i.e Tolkein's estate and Wil Huygen. There is no conflict here. The only conflict is if you try to create a 3.5e slender gnome bard named Gimble and claim it as your own IP. It would be wrong with or without the OGL.

Let's break it down:
   Art of Barky 4E dryad= Copyrighted material contact the artist to use it

   Millenia old myths, name dryad, concept of feminine wilderness nymph tied to a tree= 100% Public domain. Do what you will.

   Mechanics for running a dryad in D&D, fluff about feywild, the name: Black Woods dryad= WotC IP, mechanics will make it into SRD, like all the other examples you listed above did for 3E. The names and fluff wil be stripped off; they are WotC IP. Add the mythic fluff and name back to them if you want.

Even if the 4E Dryad perfectly matched the dryad of myth and legend, WotC would still own the mechanics of how the dryad works in D&D and how the mythic creature fits into its fluffy world. Why? Because they created the mechanics and world fluff; therefore they own it.


----------



## Clavis (Nov 18, 2007)

grimslade said:
			
		

> Ok. You have no argument. All your examples are freely available to develop and use with  or without the OGL/SRD. If you want to create d20 product using 3E mechanics and fluff, use the OGL. If you want to create an random RPG product with hobbitty halflings and fox- riding pointy hatted gnomes go ahead, WotC only cares about their mechanics and fluff, let others defend their own IP, i.e Tolkein's estate and Wil Huygen. There is no conflict here. The only conflict is if you try to create a 3.5e slender gnome bard named Gimble and claim it as your own IP. It would be wrong with or without the OGL.
> 
> Let's break it down:
> Art of Barky 4E dryad= Copyrighted material contact the artist to use it
> ...




I think we're arguing different points. I don't disagree with anything you just outlined above. I simply made an observation that perhaps many design decisions relevant to 4th edition (and even 3rd edition) make more sense if you view them as legal strategies. I certainly wasn't questioning WOTC's legal right to make those decisions, or to profit from their IP.

I fear we may have reached a point where the lawyers are designing our games. Welcome to America, 2007.

And that new Dryad looks really, really stupid.


----------



## Phasics (Nov 19, 2007)

If thats the Dryad whats the Nymph gonna look like.

Ah just figured it out Nymphs are now cursed with permanent invisibility which true seeing cannot penetrate.


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 19, 2007)

Clavis said:
			
		

> I fear we may have reached a point where the lawyers are designing our games. Welcome to America, 2007.



Who among the designers are lawyers? Mearls? Heinsoo?

That's a rather melodramatic overstatement, if you ask me. Considering how much stuff was released as open content in the previous edition, I find it hard to believe that they are now designing monsters based on the ability to protect them as IP.

Perhaps they just think the blackwoods version of the dryad is cool? They like that word 'cool', right?


----------



## Aeolius (Nov 19, 2007)

kinda freaky... but kinda topical...

Tree man 'who grew roots' may be cured


----------



## Bagpuss (Nov 19, 2007)

Personally I like it it looks a lot  like the dyrads of Ultima Online. I'd prefer more of the fey like creatures to be more dangerous looking, they are only a small step away from the dryad in the 3.5 MM.

Be great if they aren't CG in the 4th edition as well.


----------



## Sir Sebastian Hardin (Nov 19, 2007)

Maybe they are still the sexy Dryads we're used to, but they can morph into this combat oriented creature.


----------



## D.Shaffer (Nov 19, 2007)

It's been mentioned in a Wizards article, and said article has been referenced, that this is a Dryad's combat form.  It's also been stated it can look like the old (read Sexy tree creature) dryad if it wants to, so I'm failing to see the entire problem here.  



			
				Clavis said:
			
		

> Notice the ditching of public-domain figures like Gnomes in favor of WOTC intellectual property like Tieflings and Eladrins? At this point I wouldn't be surprised if characters could no longer wield plain old public-domain swords, but instead only used some new weapon with a lot of weird pointy bits on the blade.



These are the same gnomes that are showing up in the MM, right?  And what about Elves, and Dwarves?  How does this fit into this 'Removal from the public domain' theory of yours?


----------



## Aeolius (Nov 19, 2007)

D.Shaffer said:
			
		

> ...this is a Dryad's combat form. It's also been stated it can look like the old (read Sexy tree creature) dryad if it wants to...




   And thus how the oldest satyr in the woods gained the nickname "Splinters".


----------



## grimslade (Nov 19, 2007)

Dryads become a whole lot creepier if the 4E look is their 'natural' form and the hawt elf chick is just an illusion. Kind of like sailors seeing manatees and thinking they were mermaids.


----------



## Clavis (Nov 19, 2007)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> Who among the designers are lawyers? Mearls? Heinsoo?
> 
> That's a rather melodramatic overstatement, if you ask me. Considering how much stuff was released as open content in the previous edition, I find it hard to believe that they are now designing monsters based on the ability to protect them as IP.
> 
> Perhaps they just think the blackwoods version of the dryad is cool? They like that word 'cool', right?




OK, I admit I can be a little melodramatic sometimes. Hence my attraction to a hobby that involves pretending to be an evil wizard who can shoot lightning bolts.

But the new Dryad remains stupid.


----------



## Clavis (Nov 19, 2007)

D.Shaffer said:
			
		

> These are the same gnomes that are showing up in the MM, right?  And what about Elves, and Dwarves?  How does this fit into this 'Removal from the public domain' theory of yours?




Can't wait to see what they do to the Gnomes this time. Maybe now they all run around in thong underwear and shoot laser beams out of their eyes.

As far as I can tell, both the elves and Dwarves of 4th edition will be as far away from Tolkien's conception of either race as they could be made. For one thing, wise magical elves are no apparently longer even going to be called "elves", but are now "eladrin"! For another, the Dwarven concept art shows Dwarven wizards and rogues, and un-bearded females. Personally I don't care, because the elves in my campaign were never Tolkien-like, and I personally dislike Dwarves and only use them as comic-relief political satire.

Incidentally, the new Dryad concept is still stupid.


----------



## Epic Meepo (Nov 19, 2007)

D.Shaffer said:
			
		

> It's been mentioned in a Wizards article, and said article has been referenced, that this is a Dryad's combat form.



No, the author of said article, Stephen Schubert, says, "This fey of the woods appears here in what we are thinking of as her _natural_ form" (emphasis mine). That's not her combat form. That's what she actually looks like unless she is in disguise.



> It's also been stated it can look like the old (read Sexy tree creature) dryad if it wants to, so I'm failing to see the entire problem here.



From the same article: "The concept of the dryad has moved away from being only a woodland faerie whose tree is always in danger. The new dryads are fierce protectors of the forest..."

I can't speak for anyone else, but here's one problem I'm having here: take a look at what the designers did to turn the dryad into a fierce protector of the forest; they turned her into a monster. Apparently, part of the 4e design philosophy is that women cannot be convincing protectors unless they can change into something other than women at the first sign of combat.

In fact, of the sixty DoD minis, only five appear to be female. Of these, the dryad and the drider are both monstrous women instead of ordinary women. Where, I ask, is the creature that looks like an ordinary woman, and yet still fills the 'fierce protector' role? The general lack of such creatures is, in my mind, a fairly big problem; especially considering WotC's stated goal of actively trying to appeal to female gamers.


----------



## Bagpuss (Nov 20, 2007)

Sir Sebastian Hardin said:
			
		

> Maybe they are still the sexy Dryads we're used to, but they can morph into this combat oriented creature.




Or maybe that's an illusion, or how people remember them, and that's their true form. After all dryads have suggestion and charm person.


----------



## Victim (Nov 20, 2007)

We're not talking about mortal creatures here, we're dealing with fey.  The whole idea of a 'true form' might be a strictly mortal consideration.  A person who grows angry might scowl, shout, and turn red in the face.  Is that his true form?  Is the paler, smiling person a trick?  A creature that's magical in nature would reasonably be capable of even greater alteration.

You know, if fey creatures typically express their moods via their forms or through the environment, that'd be pretty cool.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 20, 2007)

Epic Meepo said:
			
		

> No, the author of said article, Stephen Schubert, says, "This fey of the woods appears here in what we are thinking of as her _natural_ form" (emphasis mine). That's not her combat form. That's what she actually looks like unless she is in disguise.
> 
> From the same article: "The concept of the dryad has moved away from being only a woodland faerie whose tree is always in danger. The new dryads are fierce protectors of the forest..."
> 
> ...



Because it's silly. Neither an "ordinary man" nor an "ordinary woman" can count as a fierce protector. It must be a strongly muscled, a greats spellcaster, or heavily armored (or all togehter). Ordinary people are just that - ordinary. If they can do something spectacular, they are effectively protected by an illusion.

And I like the idea of feys using illusions to conceal their true appearance. It makes the creepier. And anything non-human should usually be that. The book where these creatures appear is called "Monster Manual", not "Creatures of the World". 
And maybe, behind the illusion concealing a non-humanoid, plant-like, slightly freaky looking creature, there might be yet a caring and loving creature that just wants to protect its home and its family. 

I mean, if a Nymph or a Dryad is just a hot chick with some powers, it might as well just be a Druidess. If there is more behind it, the creature becomes very distinct.


----------



## Testament (Nov 20, 2007)

Clavis said:
			
		

> For another, the Dwarven concept art shows Dwarven wizards and rogues, and un-bearded females.




Like 3rd Ed?


----------



## D.Shaffer (Nov 20, 2007)

With all the talk about moving the Fey closer to there mythological/folklore based roots, (Ha! Dryad! Roots! Get it? You see...oh never mind) the various fey not appearing as what they first seem to be appeals to me a lot.  Many of the stories of the fey have to deal with glamor and illusion.  If they want to enhance that aspect, more power to them.  In any case, if the 'Big hulking tree' form IS there natural form...it's not going to be THAT hard to chance the flavor text to make a more pleasing humanoid form the normal one.




			
				Clavis said:
			
		

> As far as I can tell, both the elves and Dwarves of 4th edition will be as far away from Tolkien's conception of either race as they could be made.



So, first you claim that they've got some wierd conspiracy going on to remove 'public domain' creatures from the books.  Then, when it's pointed out that they havent, you then change your complaint to 'it's not longer Tolkien'?   

Nevermind that this is DND, NOT Tolkien.  Also nevermind that you then go on to say you never liked the Tolkien version of those races anyways.


----------



## an_idol_mind (Nov 20, 2007)

While the dryad supposedly will have the ability to appear as the gentle tree spirit of the past, the fact that they can transform into big ol' tree monsters changes them dramatically. The dryad of before is a creature who needs to rely on enchantments and trickery. The dryad of 4th edition is someone who can walk into a fight and start kicking ass. Some people consider that a good thing, others consider it a bad thing, but either way it is a dramatic change for the creature.


----------



## wayne62682 (Nov 20, 2007)

_Where are teh bewbiez?!?_

Seriously, I like the idea of the Dryad looking like the Games Workshop version in the Feywild or whatever their home area is, and taking the shape of a "hawt nekkid elf babe" in the Material plane.


----------



## frankthedm (Nov 20, 2007)

Epic Meepo said:
			
		

> Where, I ask, is the creature that looks like an ordinary woman, and yet still fills the 'fierce protector' role?.



Female human paladin. Was a chaimail fig. http://www.wayaadisi.com/chainmail/graphics/thalos/paladin1.jpg . Was remade as the Sword of heroneous once DDM came out.

Cosidering most of the minis of the set have no way to determine gender, your claim of only 5 of 60 is far less than provable.

Blade Spider: No gender discernable
Capricious Copper Dragon No gender discernable
Bar-Lgura: No gender discernable
Boneshard Skeleton: No gender discernable
Visejaw Crocodile: No gender discernable
Demonweb Swarm: No gender discernable
Ettercap Webspinner: No gender discernable
Gelatinous Cube: No gender discernable
Large Fire Elemental: No gender discernable
Flame Snake: No gender discernable
Macetail Behemoth : No gender discernable
Nightmare : No gender discernable
Rage Drake : No gender discernable
Rot Scarab Swarm : No gender discernable
Shadow Mastiff : No gender discernable
Spined Devil : No gender discernable
Warhorse : No gender discernable
Umber Hulk Delver : No gender discernable

And another chunk are being lumped in with 'male' becasue they lack apparant mammary glands;


----------



## Clavis (Nov 20, 2007)

Testament said:
			
		

> Like 3rd Ed?




Which was bad enough...


----------



## Clavis (Nov 20, 2007)

D.Shaffer said:
			
		

> > Originally Posted by Clavis
> > As far as I can tell, both the elves and Dwarves of 4th edition will be as far away from Tolkien's conception of either race as they could be made.
> 
> 
> ...




Just to make myself clear. My complaint is that the new Dryad is stupid, and an unnecessary (from my point of view) change. I then proposed a _possible_ reason why _some_ game elements, such as the Dryad, _might_ be changed - to create Intellectual Property that will be the sole possession of WOTC. In a corperate environment, it's not out of the question for the legal and promotional departments to have input into the development of any new product. That isn't a "weird conspiracy"; it's just business. 

Hasbro's investors aren't in the stock market to care about our game, or the future of our hobby; they just want a return on their investment. That means that the employees of Hasbo subsidiaries like WOTC need to show that they are engaged in activities that will create revenue for the parent company, and thus the shareholders. Redesigning the entire D&D game will create revenue because even people who already own previous editions of the game will purchase the new books. Completely changing game elements, even those that did not need to be changed, creates a justification (to the consumers) for a new edition of the game. Changing game elements that were based on other people's IP so that they are the unquestioned IP of WOTC can create potential future revenue streams (through licensing and the like), and thus makes good business sense.

There's nothing nefarious or weird about the process, it's how business works. Like it or not, our hobby is someone else's business, and they are going to make decisions about our hobby based on their business needs. That's just the awful truth about how the sausage is made. Almost everything made by corporations (and that means almost everything we use in life) comes about through a torturous process that involves countless company meetings, and includes input from parts of the company that might not seem at first to have any relevance to the product being created.


----------



## Epic Meepo (Nov 20, 2007)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> I mean, if a Nymph or a Dryad is just a hot chick with some powers, it might as well just be a Druidess.



And if a dwarf and an eladrin and an elf and a half-elf and a tiefling are just dudes with slightly different selections of available powers, they might as well just be humans with the ability to choose from different power lists, right?


----------



## Imaro (Nov 20, 2007)

Clavis said:
			
		

> Just to make myself clear. My complaint is that the new Dryad is stupid, and an unnecessary (from my point of view) change. I then proposed a _possible_ reason why _some_ game elements, such as the Dryad, _might_ be changed - to create Intellectual Property that will be the sole possession of WOTC. In a corperate environment, it's not out of the question for the legal and promotional departments to have input into the development of any new product. That isn't a "weird conspiracy"; it's just business.
> 
> Hasbro's investors aren't in the stock market to care about our game, or the future of our hobby; they just want a return on their investment. That means that the employees of Hasbo subsidiaries like WOTC need to show that they are engaged in activities that will create revenue for the parent company, and thus the shareholders. Redesigning the entire D&D game will create revenue because even people who already own previous editions of the game will purchase the new books. Completely changing game elements, even those that did not need to be changed, creates a justification (to the consumers) for a new edition of the game. Changing game elements that were based on other people's IP so that they are the unquestioned IP of WOTC can create potential future revenue streams (through licensing and the like), and thus makes good business sense.
> 
> There's nothing nefarious or weird about the process, it's how business works. Like it or not, our hobby is someone else's business, and they are going to make decisions about our hobby based on their business needs. That's just the awful truth about how the sausage is made. Almost everything made by corporations (and that means almost everything we use in life) comes about through a torturous process that involves countless company meetings, and includes input from parts of the company that might not seem at first to have any relevance to the product being created.




I think I get what you're saying...and to a point I agree.  This is probably most pertinent when it comes to the minis and 3rd party products.  We've already seen WotC choose which monsters were allowed in the SRD and which weren't (those considered their IP).  This worries me even with the numerous claims of posters that if it's considered core it will probably be in the SRD. This way WotC can actually, if they so choose, keep even more creatures out of the hands of 3rd parties. 

By redesigning & renaming the monsters they make old figures obsolete while also making it harder for other companies (like Reaper) to produce miniatures that are representative of the D&D model and set it up so that they can easily pick and choose what monsters are allowed to be used by 3rd party publishers.


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 20, 2007)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> Problem is, we've got two monsters fighting for that role: the dryad  and the  nymph which fill almost the exact same role of hawt nekkid elflike babe with foresty powers.



How is that a problem exactly?  If I can't masturbate to my Monster Manual anymore, I'll have to go and get real porn or something.


----------



## Epic Meepo (Nov 20, 2007)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> Cosidering most of the minis of the set have no way to determine gender, your claim of only 5 of 60 is far less than provable.



Be fair. My claim was that only five minis in the set appear female, and that is very provable. None of the other minis _appear_ female at all. A creature with an indeterminate gender does not appear female. It doesn't appear male, either, but that is irrelevant to my claim.

So, to be thorough, let's compare the two groups of minis whose gender _is_ determinate:

FEMALE:
black woods dryad
drider
drow spider priestess
eternal blade
militia archer

I'm being generous and calling the dryad female, despite the fact that it is a plant, and its gender might thus be unrelated to human sex characteristics. And if you want to argue it, I'll even grant you that the halfling rogue and the snaketongue cultist might each be heavily cloaked females. And the teifling cleric might be a heavily-armored, short-haired female. So, giving the benefit of the doubt, we have at most 8 clearly female minis.

MALE:
blood of vol fanatic
bruenor battlehammer
cliffwalk archer
cyclops
drow blademaster
dwarf brawler
dwarf maulfighter
elf conjuror
farmer
feral troll
halfling enchanter
human cleric of bahamut
mercenary general
merchant guard
ogre brute
shadar-kai assassin
shrieking harpy
teifling rogue

Nothing can be said to convince me that any of the above minis is anything other than male, and in light of the minis' appearances, I don't think that's an unreasonable position to take. That gives us at least 18 clearly male minis.

So I say again that there appears to be a gender bias in this set: at most 8 clearly female minis compared to at least 18 clearly male minis. More than twice as many obvious males.

To say nothing of my earlier point about designers seeming to think that a female monster of human appearance cannot possibly be a convincing "fierce defender of the woodlands." To me, that is an even more convincing argument that an unintended gender bias might be afoot.


----------



## Lord Fyre (Nov 20, 2007)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> I mean, if a Nymph or a Dryad is just a hot chick with some powers, it might as well just be a Druidess. If there is more behind it, the creature becomes very distinct.




Counterwise, why shouldn't a "Hot Chick with some powers" be used for what a Dryad or Nymph is used for in most adventures/stories right now.   :\   (I suggested as much earlier in the thread.)


----------



## TarionzCousin (Nov 21, 2007)

Epic Meepo said:
			
		

> MALE:
> shrieking harpy



My ex-wife is now male?!?


----------



## Nifft (Nov 21, 2007)

TarionzCousin said:
			
		

> My ex-wife is now male?!?



 I'll bet this explains a lot...

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Kintara (Nov 21, 2007)

Epic Meepo said:
			
		

> To say nothing of my earlier point about designers seeming to think that a female monster of human appearance cannot possibly be a convincing "fierce defender of the woodlands." To me, that is an even more convincing argument that an unintended gender bias might be afoot.



Well, this is fantasy, where appearances match the metaphor. (Also, I like the idea of darker, more elemental, more alien fey. Ever see Pan's Labyrinth? )

I'll give you that there are too many male figures, though. I had to see it for myself. Some of those minis could easily be women.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Nov 21, 2007)

> Dryads become a whole lot creepier if the 4E look is their 'natural' form and the hawt elf chick is just an illusion. Kind of like sailors seeing manatees and thinking they were mermaids.




Yeah, and that's the problem for me.

It removes a lot of the MAGIC from a mermaid to say that it's some ugly sea cow. What was once an alluring allegory of temptation and danger, vivid mythopoetics of virgin wilderness, and beautiful unknown to boot, becomes simple. Ugly. Fragile. Capable of getting bonked on the head by motorboats.

This is friggin' D&D, mang. When a sailor sees a mermaid, it's a FRIGGIN' MERMAID, not some beached dewgong. When you see a beautiful woman amidst the autumn trees, that is what it is, and there's no reason it couldn't be able to kick your butt and mess with your mind and give you a two-by-four enema if you look at it funny.

I don't see a reason why this would need to be the "natural form" of the true dryad when the other one still works just fine, and contains all the richness of the mythic history to boot. Why change it, when you loose something in the change, and gain nothing by it?



> Well, this is fantasy, where appearances match the metaphor. (Also, I like the idea of darker, more elemental, more alien fey. Ever see Pan's Labyrinth? )




I don't mind or begrudge the existence of this particular twig-beast as a fey. What I've got a problem grokking is, if it is The True Druid, what part of the imagination failed over there at WotC that they couldn't imagine a sexy arse-beating (or mind-bending) tree-nymph, like the original myths imply?

Again, if I have a problem concieving of a deity lustily chasing one through the forest, I'm loosing something from the game in that change.


----------



## Kintara (Nov 21, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Yeah, and that's the problem for me.
> 
> It removes a lot of the MAGIC from a mermaid to say that it's some ugly sea cow.



That doesn't have anything to do with magic, as far as I'm concerned. That doesn't make your preference less valid, but I don't see the magic thing in the least. Again, I go straight to Pan's Labyrinth (rent it if you haven't seen it, a great movie). I could see a female "fierce forest protector" dryad with some of the demeanor of the Faun. The fact that such a role might seem more fitting for a woman makes it all the better, in my opinion.


----------



## Testament (Nov 21, 2007)

Clavis said:
			
		

> Which was bad enough...




Ah, I get it.  Every race must fit into the stereotypical roles or the world will stop spinning and we'll be flung into space.

I really don't see the issue.  D&D has pretty much become its own genre, why is there some ingrained need for it to cleave to external prior traditions?   Nor am I seeing any boilerplate on the images warning about the WotC Gestapo kicking your door down if you dare deviate from their published material.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 21, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Yeah, and that's the problem for me.
> 
> It removes a lot of the MAGIC from a mermaid to say that it's some ugly sea cow. What was once an alluring allegory of temptation and danger, vivid mythopoetics of virgin wilderness, and beautiful unknown to boot, becomes simple. Ugly. Fragile. Capable of getting bonked on the head by motorboats.
> 
> ...



The Sirens tempt the sailors of Oddyseus ship. They look and sound beautiful, but in truth, they lead you in a deadly trap. 

Nymphs, Dryads, Sirens, Mermaids and Succubi, they follow one theme - they are a temptation man has to resist. If they are just hot-looking women with some powers, there is no real reason to resist their temptation, at least no more reason then to resist the average bar maid or village's beauty. Every forest dweller can happily fall in love and marry his favorite Dryad or Nymph, and sailors might have one mermaid per ocean they travel, in addition to one maid in every port.
If they don't have an inherent danger, they don't suit their mythological backgrounds. 
And D&D might not always care much about the mythological background, but usually, it does (with bending and breaking a few things, for sure).


----------



## Hunter In Darkness (Nov 21, 2007)

its not that a dryads can beat u to a pulp u fear... its the fact shes something not human ..to her u are a plaything,a toy something to amuse herself with..to be used and enjoyed and then left to wonder lost in the woods alone and confused missing weeks ,months or even years of time.. lost to something far more alien then most mortals would ever dream.you do not keep a dryad as a pet ...she keeps u as one for as long as she wants..you a helpless mortal  vs.. something far older then you. that sees u as but a fletting day to its unknown sesons, that my friends is why u fear the dryad


----------



## Reynard (Nov 21, 2007)

Hunter In Darkness said:
			
		

> its not that a dryads can beat u to a pulp u fear... its the fact shes something not human ..to her u are a plaything,a toy something to amuse herself with..to be used and enjoyed and then left to wonder lost in the woods alone and confused missing weeks ,months or even years of time.. lost to something far more alien then most mortals would ever dream.you do not keep a dryad as a pet ...she keeps u as one for as long as she wants..you a helpless mortal  vs.. something far older then you. that sees u as but a fletting day to its unknown sesons, that my friends is why u fear the dryad




Some grammar, some spelling and this could easily be the flavor text in the MM on the dryad and it'd be perfect.

Fey don't have to be "combat scary" any more than undead do -- they are scary because they are alien and powerful and care not what mortals want or need.  "What do I care of mortal hearts?  they are soft and [something] like porridge.  Faerie hearts beat strong."


----------



## grimslade (Nov 21, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Yeah, and that's the problem for me.
> 
> It removes a lot of the MAGIC from a mermaid to say that it's some ugly sea cow. What was once an alluring allegory of temptation and danger, vivid mythopoetics of virgin wilderness, and beautiful unknown to boot, becomes simple. Ugly. Fragile. Capable of getting bonked on the head by motorboats.
> 
> ...





I have no problem with the beautiful maiden in the forest who beguiles mortals. The fact that the dryad in 4E really looks like her tree but projects an image of an elf-like beauty does not negate this to me. As for having trouble seeing a god lusting after a barkskinned dryad, Zeus with his loving menagerie prove that the gods are into far more kink than mortals can divine. ;P


----------



## Aeolius (Nov 21, 2007)

grimslade said:
			
		

> ...Zeus with his loving menagerie prove that the gods are into far more kink than mortals can divine.




   And the fact that night hags breed with humans to beget greenhags, who then provide annis daughters to ogre and/or hill giant fathers, has provided the cornerstone to my campaigns for over a decade.


----------



## D.Shaffer (Nov 21, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> Fey don't have to be "combat scary" any more than undead do -- they are scary because they are alien and powerful and care not what mortals want or need.  "What do I care of mortal hearts?  they are soft and [something] like porridge.  Faerie hearts beat strong."



Which doesnt rule out that they can have a more combat oriented form if one of their past toys decides they want to take an axe to them, does it?  

They can still have the traditional guile, enchantment, and other fey tricks.  It's just that now they have more built in muscle if they need it.  It doesnt necessarily mean they use it at the drop of the hat.  They dont even particularly have to LIKE using it, it's just an option.


----------



## Clavis (Nov 21, 2007)

Testament said:
			
		

> Ah, I get it.  Every race must fit into the stereotypical roles or the world will stop spinning and we'll be flung into space.
> 
> I really don't see the issue.  D&D has pretty much become its own genre, why is there some ingrained need for it to cleave to external prior traditions?   Nor am I seeing any boilerplate on the images warning about the WotC Gestapo kicking your door down if you dare deviate from their published material.




Not stereotypical, but archetypal. That's the real problem with WOTC's design philosophy with regard to D&D: they seem not to understand that the game was about assuming archetypal roles and engaging in archetypal activities. The great advantage of using archetypes is that they aid game role-playing, and speed up character creation. If everyone already knows how a Dwarf is supposed to behave, and what a thief can do (for example), then new players can start adventuring in minutes, rather than hours. A player doesn't have to read the official WOTC material in order to know how to role-play their elf, if elves are anything like elves in fairy and fantasy tales.

The dilution of the archetypal nature of the classes and races in the recent editions of D&D is one of the reasons why D&D's creator has essentially disowned the 3.x edition game.

Perhaps you only play with longstanding players who already know all the rules. I frequently introduce new players to roleplaying.  The ability to call upon shared cultural experience to explain game elements (Rangers are like Aragorn in LOTR, etc.) means new players can "get" the game more easily. The more proprietary game elements are, the more esoteric the game will remain. I know some people want it that way. I don't, and WOTC claims they don't either.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 21, 2007)

D.Shaffer said:
			
		

> Which doesnt rule out that they can have a more combat oriented form if one of their past toys decides they want to take an axe to them, does it?
> 
> They can still have the traditional guile, enchantment, and other fey tricks.  *It's just that now they have more built in muscle if they need it.*  It doesnt necessarily mean they use it at the drop of the hat.  They dont even particularly have to LIKE using it, it's just an option.




Emphasis mine...

You realize this has nothing to do with how they look.  In fact I think it's creepier and more fey-like to have the Dryad's original form and then spring the whole "she can rip your arms from your sockets with a flick of her wrists".  Though in all honesty, when I think Fey...I think deceptive, and this form of Dryad screams anything but deceptive.  It screams bruiser to me.  YMMV of course.


----------



## Aeolius (Nov 21, 2007)

Clavis said:
			
		

> The dilution of the archetypal nature of the classes and races in the recent editions of D&D is one of the reasons why D&D's creator has essentially disowned the 3.x edition game.




   Sacrilege though it may be, I prefer 3e/3.5e to 1e. It's a lot easier to create and play non-standard/monster races in the newer edition. To me, that is paramount to enjoying the game. Granted, I skipped from 1e to 3e; many of the monsters I use still have that 1e "feel" to them.


----------



## Clavis (Nov 21, 2007)

Aeolius said:
			
		

> Sacrilege though it may be, I prefer 3e/3.5e to 1e. It's a lot easier to create and play non-standard/monster races in the newer edition. To me, that is paramount to enjoying the game. Granted, I skipped from 1e to 3e; many of the monsters I use still have that 1e "feel" to them.




HERETIC!

I can respect skipping 2nd edition though.

Actually, I believe 1st edition had some real problems, and I think that d20 was a great idea. A great idea whose implementation has been lousy, but a great idea. If they had simply cleaned up and streamlined the rules, it would have been great. As it stands, I'm now playing C&C because it feels like what 3rd edition promised to be, but never was.


----------



## Aeolius (Nov 21, 2007)

Clavis said:
			
		

> I can respect skipping 2nd edition though.




4e has a 2e sorta feel to it, IMO. 

To be fair, 2e had some great supplements; The Sea Devils, Of Ships & the Sea, and Sea of Fallen Stars comes to mind. Skip William's "The Sea Devils" remains one of the best works of monster ecology thus far.


----------



## Clavis (Nov 21, 2007)

Aeolius said:
			
		

> 4e has a 2e sorta feel to it, IMO.
> 
> To be fair, 2e had some great supplements; The Sea Devils, Of Ships & the Sea, and Sea of Fallen Stars comes to mind. Skip William's "The Sea Devils" remains one of the best works of monster ecology thus far.




I think you've hit the nail on its head. Something about 4th edition feels like its going to be 2nd edition all over again. Complete with a large percentage of players who won't leave the previous edition, and the loss of other players in favor of some other, "cooler" game. For 2nd edition it was Vampire. I wonder what 4th edition's rival game is going to be...


----------



## Amphimir Míriel (Nov 21, 2007)

Clavis said:
			
		

> I think you've hit the nail on its head. Something about 4th edition feels like its going to be 2nd edition all over again. Complete with a large percentage of players who won't leave the previous edition, and the loss of other players in favor of some other, "cooler" game. For 2nd edition it was Vampire. I wonder what 4th edition's rival game is going to be...




C'mon, get real! The only reason players deserted 2nd edition for Vampire: The Masquerade was because by the time V:TM came out, 2nd edition D&D was *old and clunky*.

No matter what the grognards say, 10 years between editions is *not* ideal.


----------



## Reynard (Nov 21, 2007)

Amphimir Míriel said:
			
		

> C'mon, get real! The only reason players deserted 2nd edition for Vampire: The Masquerade was because by the time V:TM came out, 2nd edition D&D was *old and clunky*.
> 
> No matter what the grognards say, 10 years between editions is *not* ideal.




AD&D 2nd Edition: 1989
Vampire: the Masquerade: 1991


----------



## Clavis (Nov 21, 2007)

Amphimir Míriel said:
			
		

> C'mon, get real! The only reason players deserted 2nd edition for Vampire: The Masquerade was because by the time V:TM came out, 2nd edition D&D was *old and clunky*.




I remember it had a lot to do with the fact you could actually get laid playing Vampire. 

And with freaky goth girls that liked doing REALLY NASTY THINGS!


----------



## Lord Fyre (Nov 21, 2007)

Amphimir Míriel said:
			
		

> C'mon, get real! The only reason players deserted 2nd edition for Vampire: The Masquerade was because by the time V:TM came out, 2nd edition D&D was *old and clunky*.
> 
> No matter what the grognards say, 10 years between editions is *not* ideal.




I thought that it was because of the hot goth chicks?


----------



## Clavis (Nov 21, 2007)

Lord Fyre said:
			
		

> I thought that it was because of the hot goth chicks?




I'm told the hot goth chicks have been re-designed to look like trees with breasts...


----------



## D.Shaffer (Nov 21, 2007)

Imaro said:
			
		

> You realize this has nothing to do with how they look.  In fact I think it's creepier and more fey-like to have the Dryad's original form and then spring the whole "she can rip your arms from your sockets with a flick of her wrists".  Though in all honesty, when I think Fey...I think deceptive, and this form of Dryad screams anything but deceptive.  It screams bruiser to me.  YMMV of course.



A somewhat hideous creature, using glamour to hide its true appearance is more along the lines of what I think when I hear 'fey'.  Illusion upon layer of enchantment upon illusion.  A monstrous fey that uses glamor to look beautiful, for me, works better then a creature that just is beautiful all the time.


----------



## Epic Meepo (Nov 21, 2007)

Remember the scene in Men in Black where the MiB recruiter takes Will Smith to the shooting range? A bunch of big, scary-looking monsters pop up, but the only target Will Smith shoots is a little girl. His explanation for his choice of target: there's something really wrong about someone that small and innocent-looking calmly walking through a bad neighborhood in the middle of the night, surrounded by monsters and not looking the least bit concerned about it.

That's what I think of when I think of fey: the much-too-confident little girl wandering alone in the middle of the dangerous woods. And like a vampire, if push comes to shove, that fragile little fey girl can probably toss you around like a rag doll without having to change her appearance in the slightest. That's much creepier than some stupid-looking tree monster.


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 22, 2007)

Clavis said:
			
		

> Not stereotypical, but archetypal. That's the real problem with WOTC's design philosophy with regard to D&D: they seem not to understand that the game was about assuming archetypal roles and engaging in archetypal activities. The great advantage of using archetypes is that they aid game role-playing, and speed up character creation.



Four words: Controller, Defender, Leader, Striker. The designers don't understand the game is about assuming archetypal roles? One of the bigs complaints to date about 4E is that they're explicitly discussing archetypes and roles, instead of keeping it behind the veil.


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 22, 2007)

Epic Meepo said:
			
		

> That's much creepier than some stupid-looking tree monster.



So use a nymph then. How many hot chick monsters do we really need?


----------



## Reynard (Nov 22, 2007)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> Four words: Controller, Defender, Leader, Striker. The designers don't understand the game is about assuming archetypal roles? One of the bigs complaints to date about 4E is that they're explicitly discussing archetypes and roles, instead of keeping it behind the veil.




Those aren't archetypes -- they are combat positions, like members of a football team.


----------



## Angel Tarragon (Nov 22, 2007)

I'll stick with the 3rd Edition image, thank you very uch.


----------



## Imaro (Nov 22, 2007)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> So use a nymph then. How many hot chick monsters do we really need?




And who, exactly, was clamoring for another half-vegetation looking monster?


----------



## Reynard (Nov 22, 2007)

Imaro said:
			
		

> And who, exactly, was clamoring for another half-vegetation looking monster?




Vegetarians?


----------



## Epic Meepo (Nov 22, 2007)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> So use a nymph then.



Maybe I want an encounter with a waif-like girl who charms and entangles people instead of a waif-like girl who blinds and stuns people. Those are two very different encounters, similar appearance of the monsters notwithstanding.



> How many hot chick monsters do we really need?



One for each ugly gargoyle monster. No more, no less.


----------



## grimslade (Nov 22, 2007)

Imaro said:
			
		

> And who, exactly, was clamoring for another half-vegetation looking monster?



Vegisexuals. Like Bill the Cat.

The dryad is not a problem for me. I envision a PC making his will save while in the arms of a dryad. 

I am much more upset with the reimagined ettercap as a fat formian.


----------



## Agamon (Nov 22, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> This looks a lot more stabbable than the "hot chick with nonviolent powers" dryad type.




But...I thought they were trying to get younger players into the game.  I still remember checking out the succubus in the 1E MM when I was 10.


----------



## Testament (Nov 22, 2007)

Clavis said:
			
		

> Not stereotypical, but archetypal. That's the real problem with WOTC's design philosophy with regard to D&D: they seem not to understand that the game was about assuming archetypal roles and engaging in archetypal activities. The great advantage of using archetypes is that they aid game role-playing, and speed up character creation. If everyone already knows how a Dwarf is supposed to behave, and what a thief can do (for example), then new players can start adventuring in minutes, rather than hours. A player doesn't have to read the official WOTC material in order to know how to role-play their elf, if elves are anything like elves in fairy and fantasy tales.
> 
> The dilution of the archetypal nature of the classes and races in the recent editions of D&D is one of the reasons why D&D's creator has essentially disowned the 3.x edition game.
> 
> Perhaps you only play with longstanding players who already know all the rules. I frequently introduce new players to roleplaying.  The ability to call upon shared cultural experience to explain game elements (Rangers are like Aragorn in LOTR, etc.) means new players can "get" the game more easily. The more proprietary game elements are, the more esoteric the game will remain. I know some people want it that way. I don't, and WOTC claims they don't either.




I see this argment crop up all the time, and it still makes no sense to me.  Nowhere do I see dilution of the class archetypes at all.  If you disagree, enligten me, I'm genuinely curious.

In terms of races, archetype doesn't _have _ to be diluted.  Class/race interaction has no place here for my money, 'no dwarven wizards' is stereotype, not archetype IMO.  If your group prefers very Tolkienesque elves, then do so.  Hell, its the first thing that comes to many people's minds when they hear elf.  Personlly, I dislike Archetype anyway, it too easily becomes stereotype, which I hold in similar contempt to telemarketers, racists, Emo music and cockroaches.

At any rate however, I do think archetypes are changing.  The younger generation's fantasy influences are coming from the LotR films sure, but also from anime/manga, WoW, shows like Avatar, video games.  Their influences I do think point to the sort of thing described in the BO9S preface, 'culture-blind' fantasy.  And I like it.  Do What Thou Wilt!


----------



## I'm A Banana (Nov 22, 2007)

Kintara said:
			
		

> That doesn't have anything to do with magic, as far as I'm concerned. That doesn't make your preference less valid, but I don't see the magic thing in the least. Again, I go straight to Pan's Labyrinth (rent it if you haven't seen it, a great movie). I could see a female "fierce forest protector" dryad with some of the demeanor of the Faun. The fact that such a role might seem more fitting for a woman makes it all the better, in my opinion.




That's a bit too literal.  I was using magic in the more general sense, in that it really is more "magical" for a mermaid to exist than for a manatee to be mistaken for a mermaid. In the same way, it's more "magical" for a beautiful tree spirit to exist then for some malformed twig to be mistaken for a beautiful tree spirit.

I mean, dryads aren't typically illusion-using tricksy fey. They're more representative of nature than the spirit world.



			
				Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> The Sirens tempt the sailors of Oddyseus ship. They look and sound beautiful, but in truth, they lead you in a deadly trap.
> 
> Nymphs, Dryads, Sirens, Mermaids and Succubi, they follow one theme - they are a temptation man has to resist.




Actually, all those are very different.

Dyads and Nymphs (which dryads are just kind of a class of, in myth) usually represent the true beauty of nature. They're not there to lead people astray, they're there because it's pretty and they're pretty and pretty things go together and are attracted to each other. They represent the fragility of nature, being protected, chased...as well as the sexuality of nature, and the parallels between the untamed world and the young person. Specifically, because they're Greek, they've got more than a little dash of that ol' time misogyny, to boot.

Sirens are specific monsters that lure people into danger with songs. Sirens have more in common with Will O' Wisps and Kelpies than dryads and nymphs. They represent the dangerous side of unknown space along with it's attractive side, how we are tempted to cause our own destruction by our interest in this hypnotic effect. They don't really embody any natural forces or natural things, they're just supernatural beasts like anything else, not avatars. 

Mermaids aren't so much a dangerous temptation as they are a living thing. They're not avatars like the dryads and nymphs, they're not exactly terrorizing monsters like the sirens, they're more just an entry in the catalog of species, an interesting insight into the world of natural history, something exotic and bizarre, like the Bearded Lady, but not something unnatural.

Succubi are dangerous, but they're not natural monsters like the sirens, they're otherworldly temptations. They don't use tricks of song or light to lure their prey, and they don't live on some forlorn rocky outcrop, they live right next door and you've known her all your life and she will use you, throw you aside, and damn your soul while she's at it. 

The roles they fill as Anybodies are quite distinct, and the roles they could fill as Adversaries and Allies should be similarly varied. Though nymphs and dryads could be rolled together and I wouldn't begrudge it much, I think the powers of a dryad could be different enough from (say) and oread to warrant the division in the game.



> If they are just hot-looking women with some powers, there is no real reason to resist their temptation, at least no more reason then to resist the average bar maid or village's beauty. Every forest dweller can happily fall in love and marry his favorite Dryad or Nymph, and sailors might have one mermaid per ocean they travel, in addition to one maid in every port.




Actually, the fact that they are hot-looking women out in the middle of the wilderness where goblins and orcs and snakes and spiders and all sorts of other unpleasant things lurk is THE reason to resist their temptation.

Though, again, the dryads and nymphs would have no reason to be trying to tempt themselves. They *are* attractive. They don't try to lure people in, they just happen to do so by virtue of what they are. They'd prefer to be left alone, and they need protection from the aggressive threats out there who don't want to leave them alone.

That's the same story told about the wild areas. They are replete with useful things that lure people in just by the virtue of being wild, these wild areas will loose what they have if they are not protected from the aggressive threats out there who want to take what they have.

Loving a beautiful fey creature (and even having children with them) is a well-represented theme in myth. If you loved a dryad, you would take care of her tree. If you loved a nymph, you would defend her field. And if you have a child with one or the other, you might have a hero on your hands (or a villain). There really shouldn't be a problem with that potentially occurring for the PC's.



> If they don't have an inherent danger, they don't suit their mythological backgrounds.
> And D&D might not always care much about the mythological background, but usually, it does (with bending and breaking a few things, for sure).




See, this is disappointing. D&D characters should, in part, behave like superstitious weirdos because most of the superstitions from our world are REAL in D&D. In such a case, someone meeting a pretty girl out in the middle of nowhere should be VERY suspicious, because the most likely options are that she's going to kill you, she's going to drive you mad, or she's going to drive you mad and then have your children kill you.

Dryads are something of exceptions to the usual rule. And if the core rules aren't going to support that, but are still going to insist on calling it "The Dryad," I'm going to be disappointed at WotC's failure of imagination. 

If dryads or nymphs aren't particularly dangerous, I can deal, though I'd prefer them to be dangerous AND attractive.

You don't need to look like some sort of tree-monster to be dangerous. You can look like a beautiful young woman and kick butt WELL out of proportion to your appearances, and, in fact, probably do. I mean, if a dryad can survive out where orcs and goblins and spiders and serpents lurk, she's definitely tougher than anyone back in the village who isn't an adventurer.



			
				Testament said:
			
		

> At any rate however, I do think archetypes are changing. The younger generation's fantasy influences are coming from the LotR films sure, but also from anime/manga, WoW, shows like Avatar, video games. Their influences I do think point to the sort of thing described in the BO9S preface, 'culture-blind' fantasy. And I like it. Do What Thou Wilt!




It should be noted that I do agree with this sentiment 100%. But I also think that it's important to reflect the origins of these influences. Rangers did COME FROM Aragorn. Aragorn CAME FROM old-school European legendary kingship. D&D should be able to reflect old-school European legendary kingship, and someone who is one of those should be able to travel across the wilderness like Aragorn and be a Ranger.

Of course, Drizzit has about as much influence as Aragorn at this point, so they should also wield two weapons in a blinding flurry of steel and skill.

Don't just use archetypes. Use what those archetypes *mean*. 

Dryad doesn't mean "scary woodland tree-monster." Dryad means "natural untamed beauty that is, perhaps, under special protection."  Unless 4e is compatible with that idea, it should represent that idea.

And if 4e IS incompatible with that idea, I've not only got fears about WotC's imagination-level, I've now got fears that I might need to learn a different game in order to recapture that mythic feel that D&D has been able to capture for me since I realized it could be present in a game.


----------



## Banshee16 (Nov 22, 2007)

I'm not sure why they really have to be turned into combat hack-monsters.  Is it wrong to think that some encounters don't involve chopping something up into hamburger?  Particularly Fey.

I've always thought that Fey should be more dangerous....but not as in "I'm an ogre crossed with a tree, and I'll smash you flat", but more like out of Raymond Feist's novel "Faerie Tale".  The Fey in that book are beautiful, and in many cases humanoid in appearance (they can choose their form), but they're dangerous.  Human minds get all messed up just from being around them.  They play havoc with emotions and it's almost like they are surrounded by a charm or fear aura (depending on which court they belong to).  After humans meet them, they are often affected by Confusion.

This makes them more dangerous from a mystical/otherworldly perspective, but some of that danger comes from what they are....not that they're necessarily trying to cause harm.  They see mortals as playthings, and don't always understand that doing XYZ to a mortal will permanently kill him.

Both Castle Falkenstein and 7th Sea had Fey who were very much like this.  That's what I'd prefer to see, rather than a walking tree stump who's also supposed to be a beautiful tree spirit.

Of course, maybe the Dryad's "boys" are the ones who are trees.  She's a tree spirit afterall.  She probably likes trees and mortals.  Maybe she charms a mortal she likes, and does whatever she will....but over time, *he* turns into the tree monster, who in turn becomes a defender of hers.  Sort of like Will Turner's father in Pirates of the Caribbean.  The dryad in turn, doesn't see anything wrong with her boyfriend growing roots and leaves....after all, she loves trees.  And she's probably still best friends with him, but any mortal who knew that would happen to him if he hooked up with the tree spirit would probably become uninterested really quickly.  And maybe *that's* why the dryad, while not evil, and still pretty to look at, is actually very dangerous to be around.

Banshee


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 22, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> Those aren't archetypes -- they are combat positions, like members of a football team.



And positions on a football team aren't archetypal? Assuming you mean American football, if I say "linebacker" does not a specific set of characteristics come to mind? The same applies for "lineman", "wide receiver", "kicker", and on and on.

Just as defenders have certain characteristics that make them defenders, the same for controllers, strikers, etc.

I guess I just don't understand what you mean by "archetype".


----------



## Banshee16 (Nov 22, 2007)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> And positions on a football team aren't archetypal? Assuming you mean American football, if I say "linebacker" does not a specific set of characteristics come to mind? The same applies for "lineman", "wide receiver", "kicker", and on and on.
> 
> Just as defenders have certain characteristics that make them defenders, the same for controllers, strikers, etc.
> 
> I guess I just don't understand what you mean by "archetype".




I guess "not football" archetypes, as opposed to "football" archetypes.

Personally, I don't follow american or canadian football, so those archetypes mean nothing to me.

I suspect he's talking more about Jungian-type archetypes.  Or maybe not.

Banshee


----------



## Clavis (Nov 23, 2007)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> And positions on a football team aren't archetypal? Assuming you mean American football, if I say "linebacker" does not a specific set of characteristics come to mind? The same applies for "lineman", "wide receiver", "kicker", and on and on.
> 
> Just as defenders have certain characteristics that make them defenders, the same for controllers, strikers, etc.
> 
> I guess I just don't understand what you mean by "archetype".




When I use the term "archetypal" with regard to D&D, I am referring to something similar to, but not identical with, Jung's archetypes. I wouldn't necessarily want to see the classes reduced to "Wise Old Man", "Warrior Hero", "Trickster" and "Artist-scientist". Although it might make a good game, the classes would be too abstract, and not respectful enough of D&D's origins and history to be appropriate. But I 100% support the idea that the character classes should represent the stock characters of myth and legend, which are reflective of the archetypes.

Stock characters are re-used over and over because they connect with the deep aspirations and foibles of human beings.  A simple, straight-forward stock character is nothing but a cliche, of course, so there should be some degree of customization possible. But the designers of D&D should not dilute the archetypes too much.

What dilutes the archetypes? Changing classic monsters until they are unrecognizable, but still keeping the classic name. Skill and Feat rules that seem like they create well-balanced, individual characters at first, but really ensure that all high-level characters have essentially the same abilities. Reducing the class system to absurdity by introducing classes that are simply collections of kewl powerz, rather than representations of classic characters from fiction and myth.

Archetypes are not combat positions. If I tell a new player your character is a "controller", they're going to think I'm saying their character has a control-freak personality. They won't think he's a thief! The name of a character class should tell someone with a decent education 90% of what they need to know about playing it. If it doesn't, the class is not archetypal enough. And yes, that means I think the "monk" should be dropped, or re-named the "martial artist". 

I don't believe previous editions of D&D were perfect by any means. I think WOTC has done a poor job of developing the game. I think they've bungled the implementation of their own great idea (d20), and created a new game (3.x edition D&D) that is barely D&D anymore. 4th edition D&D, which they have already said is _not compatible with any previous edition_, will probably no longer be D&D at all. No matter what they call it.

Damn, I can really ramble when I've had too much turkey.


----------



## Testament (Nov 24, 2007)

Clavis said:
			
		

> What dilutes the archetypes? Changing classic monsters until they are unrecognizable, but still keeping the classic name. Skill and Feat rules that seem like they create well-balanced, individual characters at first, but really ensure that all high-level characters have essentially the same abilities. Reducing the class system to absurdity by introducing classes that are simply collections of kewl powerz, rather than representations of classic characters from fiction and myth.




OK, now I'm really confused.  People choosing X and Y feat/skill combos is more an issue with the players than the classes.  And how the heck the class system was EVER able to represent classic characters from fiction and myth is completely beyond me.  You say you wouldn't want to classes reduced to pure Jung, but everything else you say suggests to me that you do.

Did you ever consider that maybe they've contnued to create new base classes because the first ones were well recieved?  Nomenclature is another matter altogether, but I don't think its just for mechanical reasons that lots of people, myself included, replaced the normal fighter with Warblade and called it the Warrior or something similar from there on in.



> I think they've bungled the implementation of their own great idea (d20), and created a new game (3.x edition D&D) that is barely D&D anymore. 4th edition D&D, which they have already said is not compatible with any previous edition, will probably no longer be D&D at all. No matter what they call it.




This has always struck me as ridiculous, I'm sorry, but thats how I see it.  What D&D is is such a nebulous and subjective notion that calls of "its not D&D anymore" just come across as the bitter tears of jaded grognards who've been left behind by ever-changing notions of fantasy and game development.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've said it before and I'll say it again, because it bears repeating in these sorts of discussions: I started on 3rd Edition.  I'm 24 years old and have no table-time experience with any edition from before.  I look at the books for older editions and see mechanical atrocities of design and most of the art makes me laugh more than anything else, especially 1st edition. I have no sentimental attachment of any kind to the previous editions.  I've never read Leiber or Moorcock, have found their books almost nowhere, and hadn't even heard of either until I started visiting sites like this.  I thought the LotR films were infinitely superior entertainment to the books, I play WoW (FOR THE HORDE!   ), watch Anime and read comics and Manga.  Fact is, I'm 99.9% sure that I'm the audience for late 3.X and 4th edition, not Grognards.  The history of D&D and its so-called traditions are just so much dead wood to me.  ANYTHING I say in a debate like this should be viewed in light of that fact.


----------

