DRAGON #360 Art Gallery: Dryad

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.

BASHMAN · 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

Wierd that D&D would follow them so closely.

Aaron

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.