Defining its own Mythology

Elphilm said:
I don't think dryads should even have a separate creature entry from nymphs. Nymphs in mythology don't live in water alone; they live all over the place, and a dryad is simply a nymph tied to a particular tree. Just as there are no separate entries for alseids, auloniads, hesperides, leimakids, napaeaes, oreads, heleads, naiads, nereids, and oceanids, there is no need to have a separate entry for dryads either.

Unless you want to make dryads mini-treants. ;)

Oreads, naiads, and nereids have all received D&D stats in the past, IIRC.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


pawsplay said:
Oreads, naiads, and nereids have all received D&D stats in the past, IIRC.
Yeah, I guessed that some of them would have been statted up at some point - after all, there have been a billion elven subraces as well. Just as I don't see the need for valley elves and snow elves, I don't see a reason for breaking the nymph into a dozen different creature entries either. :)
 


Rechan said:
And Golden Wyvern is going to utterly ruin your like of D&D? Please.
No, but Golden Wyvern + Eladrin + Tiefling + Dragonborn + Warlord + non-compatibility with 3E + Changes in the cosmology + porte-manteaux + DDI + + + + adds up in this regards for many fans of the game. That is certain.
 

Odhanan said:
No, but Golden Wyvern + Eladrin + Tiefling + Dragonborn + Warlord + non-compatibility with 3E + Changes in the cosmology + porte-manteaux + DDI + + + + adds up in this regards for many fans of the game. That is certain.
Then good riddance.

There are many people who still play OD&D, 1e, and 2e and still like D&D. Those folks didn't like what they saw with the Next edition, and they stayed put.
 



Rechan said:
And Golden Wyvern is going to utterly ruin your like of D&D? Please.

Of course not, and thank you for the straw man. :lol:

I don't think that many (I almost typed "anyone", but the last few months have proven that false enough ;) ) would say that a single thing would turn them off from an edition change. Rather, it is the cumulative effect of changes that seem to be aimed at removing, to my mind, what is both D&D's greatest strength and its core identity.

When one says, "I like D&D" they generally mean, IMHO, that they like the core identity of D&D. And that core identity is a wonderful hodgepodge of influences put through the Gygaxian strainer.

Now, folks (such as yourself) come along and say that they only play D&D because of its branding (i.e., because it is well known, and hence easier to find players for). You'd like to change the game, removing the features that cause those who like the game to like it, under the (IMHO) mistaken impression that the name "Dungeons & Dragons" will make it easier to find players for the game you wished to play (which is clearly something else).

I, OTOH, think that the reason that the game you wished to play is not as popular as D&D is because it fails the "Gygaxian hodgepodge" test, and that changing D&D to make the core game play as you would have it do so will not ultimately make your game of choice more popular, but make 4e less popular than its predecessors.....just as there are still more people playing 1e today than 3.x.



RC
 

"just as there are still more people playing 1e today than 3.x."

I don't know numbers, but it's always worth remembering that White Christmas is still a best-selling tune.
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top