Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Nellisir" data-source="post: 6053400" data-attributes="member: 70">The 3.5 era dryad is a darn sight less monstrous than the 4e dryad.Here's part of the issue for me.&nbsp; Can you, without reference to text or title, identify a creature by it's picture alone?The answer should be yes, or at minimum, you should be in the same class.&nbsp; This is impossible with the 4e dryad.&nbsp; The lower part of the body is obscure, so frankly I'm not even sure it's a biped.&nbsp; Its either got no lower-half to its' face, or there's some kind of Bane mask thing going on.&nbsp; The eyes are featureless white orbs.&nbsp; It's got swirly design stuff going on, maybe glyphs or something, which makes me suspect it's some kind of construct.There comes a point when you move far enough away from the original concept of a creature as to engender a whole new one.&nbsp; The 4e one did that.The 3.5 dryad, on the other hand, is a much more successful mingling.&nbsp; The body shape is clearly humanoid and female, and the stance is neutral.&nbsp; The face is the most inhuman feature, which matches with many descriptions of faerie folk (including some of the more radical depictions of elves).&nbsp; There is a clear difference between the green of the hair (leaves), and the brownish wood tones of the skin.&nbsp; And the wood grain looks like wood grain, not mystical engravings.&nbsp; At night, or at a distance, or with a cloak, this is a figure that could easily be taken for a human or elf.&nbsp; I could see this dryad summoning up the 4e dryad as a guardian - it's the little girl with the big-ass monster protector theme.Oreads are mountain spirits.&nbsp; What civilized D&amp;D race lives in the mountains?&nbsp; Dwarves.&nbsp; Who are oreads most likely to interact with?&nbsp; Dwarves.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Nellisir, post: 6053400, member: 70"] The 3.5 era dryad is a darn sight less monstrous than the 4e dryad. Here's part of the issue for me. Can you, without reference to text or title, identify a creature by it's picture alone? The answer should be yes, or at minimum, you should be in the same class. This is impossible with the 4e dryad. The lower part of the body is obscure, so frankly I'm not even sure it's a biped. Its either got no lower-half to its' face, or there's some kind of Bane mask thing going on. The eyes are featureless white orbs. It's got swirly design stuff going on, maybe glyphs or something, which makes me suspect it's some kind of construct. There comes a point when you move far enough away from the original concept of a creature as to engender a whole new one. The 4e one did that. The 3.5 dryad, on the other hand, is a much more successful mingling. The body shape is clearly humanoid and female, and the stance is neutral. The face is the most inhuman feature, which matches with many descriptions of faerie folk (including some of the more radical depictions of elves). There is a clear difference between the green of the hair (leaves), and the brownish wood tones of the skin. And the wood grain looks like wood grain, not mystical engravings. At night, or at a distance, or with a cloak, this is a figure that could easily be taken for a human or elf. I could see this dryad summoning up the 4e dryad as a guardian - it's the little girl with the big-ass monster protector theme. Oreads are mountain spirits. What civilized D&D race lives in the mountains? Dwarves. Who are oreads most likely to interact with? Dwarves. [/QUOTE]

Verification