A Problem with Fey

[Kaodi]

I could live with them being unified into a single creature differentiated only by their "anchor" . Supernaturally beautiful probably would mean that their appearance is slightly different for each person that views them. And if they had a "badass form" I think it would more properly be that they are able to clothe themselves with their anchor, rather than a true transformation. So a dryad could touch her tree and be covered in thick wooden tendrils and leaves, an oceanid might be covered in ice, and an oread in earth and stone. Not that I necessarily favour such abilities; they are just a suggestion.

In any case, if it has never happened before, it would probably be interesting if encounters between nymphs and beholders actually had a unique effect. Perhaps a beholder viewing a nymph with all of its eyes is slain, its powers of seeing overloaded by the supernatural appearance of the nymph.

 

[SkidAce]

spam already reported.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Wait, this is the problem with D&D depictions of fey? Not translating the dreamlike ambiguity of fairy stories into hard mechanics? Not reconciling the indifference of fey to humans with the D&D alignment system and morality? Not using the underlying folklore to inspire a game that does little better than play lip service to a rich mythology?

This is an article about pictures of dryads and nymphs? After reading the initial brief, I'm rather disappointed.

 

[CM]

Sign me up for "appearance depends on mood." They're spirits incarnate. If they're going to have formidable physical combat stats, they should look intimidating in combat, not like a pretty elf girl.

 

[Kinak]

Sign me up for "appearance depends on mood." They're spirits incarnate. If they're going to have formidable physical combat stats, they should look intimidating in combat, not like a pretty elf girl.

I dunno, a pretty elf girl with the strength of the forest's oldest oak in her hands, who can snap your fighter's limbs like the twigs he crushes underfoot? I'd cheerfully inflict that on my party.

That said, letting them draw upon their pool/tree when they're nearby (with a boost in powers and a change in physical appearance) could add an interesting tactical layer to the fight.

This is an article about pictures of dryads and nymphs? After reading the initial brief, I'm rather disappointed.

Yeah, this seems like the smallest problem with the fey.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[DEFCON 1]

Wait, this is the problem with D&D depictions of fey? Not translating the dreamlike ambiguity of fairy stories into hard mechanics? Not reconciling the indifference of fey to humans with the D&D alignment system and morality? Not using the underlying folklore to inspire a game that does little better than play lip service to a rich mythology?

This is an article about pictures of dryads and nymphs? After reading the initial brief, I'm rather disappointed.

Uh... seeing as how it's an article written by the ART DIRECTOR of D&D... yeah, it *is* about the pictures.

You want to know about the dryad's game mechanics? Wait until the Tuesday articles by James Wyatt.

 

[Stormonu]

I really liked the depiction of nymphs in MV, I thought the spring/summer/fall/winter was a great idea.

Though its not neccesarily my cup of tea, I wouldn't oppose a "war" form for certain dryads, though I wouldn't want it to be the norm for their appearance.

 

[howandwhy99]

I don't see a problem. The game is big enough for several "Really Beautiful humanoid" types. It's not like there aren't enough "Really Tough humanoid" types, but with different skin, fur, body shape and so on.

Nymphs are mythological and not necessarily from woodlands. It more has to do with natural purity like with unicorns. And Dryads are practically plants with green hair and skin with bark coloring. Lets not forget about Sylphs and Nixies and Pixies and all the other beautiful woman archetypes out there. If we simply expanded the game even further beyond Celtic fey myth, we'd find many more.

 

[Klaus]

It's not like there aren't enough "Really Tough humanoid" types, but with different skin, fur, body shape and so on.

That's the whole point of the article: finding the "different skin, fur, body shape and so on" variations for "Really Beautiful Humanoid".

 

[howandwhy99]

I'd rather not lose a number of monsters due to a shared genealogy. There has always been hints about such in the game, but each setting could take the creatures as they wished.

It's harder to balance open space with definition IMO than coming up with justifications of how every creature interrelates. I endorse some examples, but not at the expense of losing an archetype into a single monster. (Which can get a bit fuzzy around the edges, I know).