• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

Fomorians article on DDI


log in or register to remove this ad



Shroomy said:
I don't think that Feydark is that dorky. If I didn't regularly use Underdark I would probably think that was dorky too.

Feydark is about as dorky as Feywild. Naming stuff isn't their strong suit.
 


MorningStar said:
More geek than Greek in this case. The absurdity came from the creatures respective alignments and ecology according to the 2e Monster Compendium. The Giants were evil but the Dryads were not. Also Dryads were solitary creatures. It was a case of the D.M. trying to one-up the players with a difficult challenge.

Good thing those petty alignment restrictions (if you're beautiful, you're good) are no more. Dryads are nasty tree creatures with barkboobs now. Darn, that 2E DM for going beyond the text to create a unique challenge! I rail at him with all my geek fury.

I like the concept of the Formorian courts. I am not keen on the Feydark. It just doesn't sound right to my ears. I am trying to imagine Quicklings being effective spies in an Eladrin city with the concept art from W&M. I dig the tie in with goblins of the World as minions across planes. I am eager to see the options for Evil Eye powers and the curse tied to them.
 


Meh, Feydark is fine. The name was used for 9 years in Everquest without anyone even raising a single snarky comment.
 


hong said:
Eh. Compared to Rakshastan, this is Joycean.

True. I'm glad they are leaving the Jordanian school of naming behind. Dorky names are better than hard to pronounce dorky names. *Prepares to be shot* D&D has never been run by anyone who has good at naming stuff. Pretty much all the good names were stolen from other material. There. I said it.
 

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top