DRAGON #360 Art Gallery: Dryad

[Lord Fyre]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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

 

[Banshee16]

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]

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]

Trogs don't buy RPGs.

Cheers, -- N

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