Sir Brennen
Legend
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?Banshee16 said:
DRAGON #360 Art Gallery: Dryad
lukelightning
First Post
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?"
"Dude, why are you making out with that thicket?"
Epic Meepo
Adventurer
Well, I guess there's no reason that a D&D dryad must look like a beautiful human.lukelightning said:
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
Explorer
A plant with boobs is just WRONG. 
WhatGravitas
Explorer
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.TwinBahamut said:
Cheers, LT.
Commonblade
First Post
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
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
Last edited:
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
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.
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
Explorer
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.)
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.)
Last edited:
