New Dragon Article: Ecology of the Fire Archon

[JohnSnow]

I'd have preferred a spellcaster/spirit alternative. There are enough monsters in the game to administer beatings already. I don't want the dryad as hammer.....I want the dryad as scalpel. That doesn't really have a root in traditional fantasy either....but I'd argue that it's at least *closer* to the original stories than a mini-treant is.

I'd like to point out that we have no confirmation that the "blackwoods dryad" is representative of all dryads in the game. It is entirely possible that what that mini represents is a "corrupted and evil" dryad. I mention this because "black woods" sounds pretty ominous to me.

What if there's a more "traditional" dryad as well as one that's become more of a crazed forest enforcer who takes on a plantlike exterior in combat? Or do you have a specific problem with the dryad being a physically capable opponent?

That's okay if you do. I'm just trying to understand.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Assuming those who did the creating were in fact the primordials, their creations all derived from the Elemental Chaos. Which to me implies that was their home and their very nature was elemental. But hey, I'm just guessing.

It's a good guess, and is likely what they had in mind. So "elemental angels" it looks like. And I could be very fine with that. Servants of the creators, like Scribble said. In opposition to the True Gods. Full of goodness.

I am looking forward to seeing what they're doing with our ACTUAL good-aligned outsiders, though. Making good guys that are also, fluff-wise, good for the other good guys to fight (without resorting to the same "taken too far!" cliche every time) is one of the more challenging design goals that they've chosen to try and tackle for the release. And to make them interesting creatures as well (not just angelic animals or guys with swords in white).

And I have a sneaking suspicion that "created by the Primordials" will be kind of an over-played cliche origin story for a lot of monsters. Not that it's a HUGE problem, even if it does happen.

With regards to the dryad:

What if there's a more "traditional" dryad as well as one that's become more of a crazed forest enforcer who takes on a plantlike exterior in combat? Or do you have a specific problem with the dryad being a physically capable opponent?

I don't think that the dryad needs to look like a bush in order to be physically capable. The form of an attractive lady doesn't remove the ability to punch your face out the back of your head. I know several attractive ladies who could do that selfsame thing.

 

[JohnSnow]

And I have a sneaking suspicion that "created by the Primordials" will be kind of an over-played cliche origin story for a lot of monsters. Not that it's a HUGE problem, even if it does happen.

Oh, no doubt. But if the "Ecology of the Fire Archon" is any indication, some of those monster origins are going to be "former X elementals taken and turned by the god Y into their present form."

Substitute X with earth and Y with Zehir, and you have medusae.

Substitute X with water and Y with Sehanine, and supposedly you have dopplegangers.

Of course, both of those are just wild speculation, probably won't be in the monster manual, and will only get brought up if we get an "Ecology of the....." article.

I don't think that the dryad needs to look like a bush in order to be physically capable. The form of an attractive lady doesn't remove the ability to punch your face out the back of your head. I know several attractive ladies who could do that selfsame thing.

Absolutely. But I also have no problem with a tree spirit having a form that's treelike. But maybe that's just me.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Absolutely. But I also have no problem with a tree spirit having a form that's treelike. But maybe that's just me.

I just don't know why it would need to. If the existing pretty girl dryads can kick butt in a combat and be a worthy ally to the PC's and give a supernatural twinge to ancient forests, they fit all the molds I need from my monster, and if they stay pretty girls, they get to entertain the whole mythic feel.

Of course, I've got no real issues with the "black woods dryad" being a seperate cousin species or a mutation or anything like that, either. What I might have an issue with, similar to the issue I had with this before Scribble so patiently explained it too me, is that they're just tossing away the mythic origins of the creature and keeping the name for a creature that has little or nothing to do with the mythic origins.

Archons as elemental angels persuaded me. Dryads as bush-people might have a harder time.

In other news, I do adore the sidebar on how to include the forges as a battleground in different kinds of worlds. Shows that the designers are thinking with nods to DMs who won't be just chilling in the core's implied setting.

 

[Scribble]

I just don't know why it would need to. If the existing pretty girl dryads can kick butt in a combat and be a worthy ally to the PC's and give a supernatural twinge to ancient forests, they fit all the molds I need from my monster, and if they stay pretty girls, they get to entertain the whole mythic feel.

Of course, I've got no real issues with the "black woods dryad" being a seperate cousin species or a mutation or anything like that, either. What I might have an issue with, similar to the issue I had with this before Scribble so patiently explained it too me, is that they're just tossing away the mythic origins of the creature and keeping the name for a creature that has little or nothing to do with the mythic origins.

Archons as elemental angels persuaded me. Dryads as bush-people might have a harder time.

In other news, I do adore the sidebar on how to include the forges as a battleground in different kinds of worlds. Shows that the designers are thinking with nods to DMs who won't be just chilling in the core's implied setting.

I'll have to wait until I see either info about the feywild, or an ecology of the dryad... but I'm wondering if the change is because the feywild is supposed to be just that. Wild, almost like the primordial forest land... Nothing "pretty" about it aside from it's wildness.

Didn't they mention that the dryad can still take on hot chick form, but is most likely to be encountered in the crazy angry tree form in the feywild?

Perhaps in human lands, where the forest is somewhat more tame, dryads appear as always... hot chicks...

But in the feywild, their true "form" appears... an angry treelike spirit of death to any and all who seek to do the forest harm.

 

[Dormammu]

On the other hand, I think aboleths, mindflayers, beholders, slaad, githyanki, death knights, etc... are far more interesting in the context of an rpg than dryads, nymphs, satyrs, etc...

I say this as a classicist and a gamer. Sometimes the creations of game designers are more interesting than the classics.

I like most of the examples you give, but I can't help but notice they are ALL from 1st edition. It makes me wonder what is different about the newer stuff. Do I only like those examples because of nostalgia? I do think one problem with newer monsters is that I feel like they are forcing too much too fast. You can't really generate a book full of good monsters every year (well most people can't). In fact, most of the 1E Monster Manual II was pretty junky when you come down to it. And Fiend Folio mostly got by on being weird. No, I think it's a ratio thing. If 1 in 20 new monsters is good, ditching the old stuff is a bad bet.

 

[kennew142]

How is that statement any different than "I want to use dryads with a treantish combat form in my game - and I think everyone else should have to use it also - if they don't want it, they can take the time to create a new version that is not like that"?

The difference is that the one concept includes the other. You can remove one ability from the new dryad, and you have basically the old one. No one is forced to create a new creature.

In a perfect world, they'd have both, or heck, five different types, or maybe 200 different types. But the dryad is one creature, and they're not going to focus that much attention on one creature...particularly a "minor" one (nor should they). But as a consumer looking at it, and facing making a buying decision, it's yet one more item in the camp of "don't like it". Get enough of those, and as a consumer, I'll have to make the decision of whether or not I'm interested in spending any more money on the game, if I'm going to have to spend time changing so much of it.

How much time does it take to say, "I'll leave this one ability off?" It's much easier to leave something out than it is to create it out of whole cloth.

Up-thread it was mentioned that the new dryad might be a better fit within the context of the D&D game, and that could be a completely valid statement. It doesn't mean it's *better* than the alternate.....the game doesn't *have* to be just about trading beatings with monsters. I'd have preferred a spellcaster/spirit alternative. There are enough monsters in the game to administer beatings already. I don't want the dryad as hammer.....I want the dryad as scalpel. That doesn't really have a root in traditional fantasy either....but I'd argue that it's at least *closer* to the original stories than a mini-treant is. And I ask "if they're so intent on siloing monsters and character abilities to reduce overlap, why do we now have 3 variants on an Ent-type creature? ie. Treant, Shambling Mound, and Dryad. How many fighting plant creatures do we need"?

Banshee

Everything boils down to individual preference. The new look of the dryad is definitely to my preference. I'm certainly not saying that the old dryad was a bad design, but it was pretty useless in my games. I've used them as spiritual advisors for characters regarding all things woodsy and fey. I see no reason why I can't use the new version the same way - but when they get angry they can strike back.

In classical mythology, dryads are seldom mentioned as anything more than background dressing. The few we do see exist to marry kings or to dally with the gods to produce quasi-divine offspring. In mythology they neither fight nor cast spells. They epitomize the wildness of nature, which the Greeks connected with the female principals of irrationality and a lack of civilization. [Ancient Greeks were somewhat misogynistic.] The word means unmarried girl, which in the Greek mind evoked the image of someone uncontrolled, needing to be tamed.

The treatment of them in D&D is entirely arbitrary from a mythological perspective. As a classicist, it doesn't resonate in my mind with what a dryad is supposed to be anyway. If we are going to be arbitrary about their nature, I would prefer an interpretation that is more useful to me. This is the main reason that I prefer this more modern and (IMO) useful interpretation.

As an aside, I have to leave things out of monsters, spells and other elements of D&D as often as anyone else. That is the curse/blessing of homebrewing. As one example, I will have to leave all the intelligent design elements out of the racial descriptions in my game. I don't have gods in my setting. I reduced the duration of the mindflayer's psionic blast because I felt it was too long. There are many other examples.

 

[IanB]

I like most of the examples you give, but I can't help but notice they are ALL from 1st edition. It makes me wonder what is different about the newer stuff. Do I only like those examples because of nostalgia? I do think one problem with newer monsters is that I feel like they are forcing too much too fast. You can't really generate a book full of good monsters every year (well most people can't). In fact, most of the 1E Monster Manual II was pretty junky when you come down to it. And Fiend Folio mostly got by on being weird. No, I think it's a ratio thing. If 1 in 20 new monsters is good, ditching the old stuff is a bad bet.

Actually, if all you're doing is culling 20 bad monsters and replacing them with 20 new monsters, then you're likely to get a net improvement in monster quality, even if only one of the 20 new monsters is good.

And really that happens every edition. Notice the lack of ear seekers and lurkers above in 3.5!

 

[JohnSnow]

I just don't know why it would need to. If the existing pretty girl dryads can kick butt in a combat and be a worthy ally to the PC's and give a supernatural twinge to ancient forests, they fit all the molds I need from my monster, and if they stay pretty girls, they get to entertain the whole mythic feel.

Of course, I've got no real issues with the "black woods dryad" being a seperate cousin species or a mutation or anything like that, either. What I might have an issue with, similar to the issue I had with this before Scribble so patiently explained it too me, is that they're just tossing away the mythic origins of the creature and keeping the name for a creature that has little or nothing to do with the mythic origins.

Actually, here's the thing. On dryads, I agree with you - mostly. However, I can see a couple ways this can work.

Firstly, if the "black woods dryad" is a subspecies, corrupted type, or specific to a particular part of the Feywild, I have NO problem with it.

Secondly, if the dryad has the default "pretty girl" thing most of the time, but assumes the "scary tree creature" form when threatened, I have very little trouble with it. Many of the "fey" have scary forms that only get seen by those that cross them. I'm thinking the following:

Dryad (pretty girl form): "la-la-la-la...hey, you're cutting down my tree!!"
Woodsman: "So what? What're you going to do about it little girl?"
Dryad (still pretty girl form): "Don't make me angry..."
Dryad (switching to tree form): "YOU WON'T LIKE ME ANGRY!!!"
Woodsman: *pisses self*

That's a "threatening fey" vibe I can get behind.

Thirdly, for the "always pretty girl who seduces nice men in the woods," there's the nymph. And it would work for me if I could have both dryads and wood nymphs. The wood nymphs being the charming, pretty fey that can kill you with a look or charm you to do their bidding, and the dryads being the pretty fey who protect the trees that you shouldn't piss off.

 

[Scribble]

Dryad (pretty girl form): "la-la-la-la...hey, you're cutting down my tree!!"
Woodsman: "So what? What're you going to do about it little girl?"
Dryad (still pretty girl form): "Don't make me angry..."
Dryad (switching to tree form): "YOU WON'T LIKE ME ANGRY!!!"
Woodsman: *pisses self*

That's a "threatening fey" vibe I can get behind.

Yeah.. I kind of hope it's akin to that scene in Fellowship where Gandalf get's pissed off at Bilbo and goes all freaky for a second...