DRAGON #360 Art Gallery: Dryad

[D.Shaffer]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Imaro]

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]

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

Vegetarians?

 

[Epic Meepo]

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]

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.