Klaus
First Post
It's been up since yesterday.
The Fair Folk
- Thread starter Wizards of the Coast
- Start date
howandwhy99
Adventurer
I see Fey as a cultural moniker, not a genealogical one. It could potentially mean a visitor from a Fairie Realm/plane and therefore an outsider, but all their residing offspring sort of count too. And then you get into Giants and Trolls and Ogres and others which are traditionally fairie folk all of whom may be fey or demi-fey due to interbreeding with Prime Material creatures.
Also, if Spirits of the Land are monsters meant to represent creatures like Tom Bombadil, The Forestmaster, Turland, Oberon, and Titania, then I'd much rather they were Unique creatures stat'd up like Deities and demonlords.
I keep reading that the core rules are close to being "locked in" and I keep thinking more than half of the whole game is missing. RPG rules aren't about defining PC powers.
Also, if Spirits of the Land are monsters meant to represent creatures like Tom Bombadil, The Forestmaster, Turland, Oberon, and Titania, then I'd much rather they were Unique creatures stat'd up like Deities and demonlords.
Basically I take this to mean such a book contains rules for monsters beyond combat stats. Which would be awesome.article said:
I keep reading that the core rules are close to being "locked in" and I keep thinking more than half of the whole game is missing. RPG rules aren't about defining PC powers.
Oh. Thanks Klaus.
Guess I'll just have to wait patiently. <twiddles thumbs and whistles into he air>
--SD
Giltonio_Santos
Hero
An entire edition has passed and James still uses the probability of adventurers fighting a creature as a way to gauge how interesting it is... 
In his column, Wyatt says that
What entries on the fey need, then, is advice to a GM on how to design an encounter in which (for example) a PC trades something with a hag on terms that will produce the sort of ironic outcome that Wyatt describes.
Traditionally D&D Monster Manuals have not contained that sort of information; to the extent that D&D books have that sort of advice at all, it has been in the DMG.
In deciding what to put in the MM, and how to stat it up, I hope that the design team are thinking about the sorts of scenarios a given monster will be part of, and what stats are needed for action resolution of that sort of scenario (if it is not going to be combat, for example, then AC and hp aren't needed) and how those stats (and action resolution methods) relate to the point of the scenario.
If the entry on hags tells me about their love of pacts and bad bargains, but the only stats and action resolution I have are the current combat ones, I will be pretty disappointed.
An adventure where characters venture into the forest to politely ask the dryads to stop scaring away the woodcutters might work, but it makes little use of the dryad's combat abilities, which leaves us with the question of why the creature takes up space in a Monster Manual. . .
When you read about dryads and nymphs and leprechauns, you learn . . . how you might use them in adventures (not necessarily as combatants). . .
t is often possible to negotiate with a hag, and they possess great knowledge about the areas around their homes. A deal with a hag is a dangerous thing, however, since hags seem to delight in watching mortals cause their own downfall. A hag's terms almost always involve compromising one's principles or giving up something dear-particularly if the thing lost diminishes the enjoyment of the thing gained.
When you read about dryads and nymphs and leprechauns, you learn . . . how you might use them in adventures (not necessarily as combatants). . .
t is often possible to negotiate with a hag, and they possess great knowledge about the areas around their homes. A deal with a hag is a dangerous thing, however, since hags seem to delight in watching mortals cause their own downfall. A hag's terms almost always involve compromising one's principles or giving up something dear-particularly if the thing lost diminishes the enjoyment of the thing gained.
What entries on the fey need, then, is advice to a GM on how to design an encounter in which (for example) a PC trades something with a hag on terms that will produce the sort of ironic outcome that Wyatt describes.
Traditionally D&D Monster Manuals have not contained that sort of information; to the extent that D&D books have that sort of advice at all, it has been in the DMG.
In deciding what to put in the MM, and how to stat it up, I hope that the design team are thinking about the sorts of scenarios a given monster will be part of, and what stats are needed for action resolution of that sort of scenario (if it is not going to be combat, for example, then AC and hp aren't needed) and how those stats (and action resolution methods) relate to the point of the scenario.
If the entry on hags tells me about their love of pacts and bad bargains, but the only stats and action resolution I have are the current combat ones, I will be pretty disappointed.
Then you're looking at the wrong sources
With the exception of orcs (being Tolkien's invention) and gnolls (being Gygax's invention) many D&D humanoids and monstrous humanoids have their mythical roots in fey creatures: Goblins, dwarves, giants, trolls, bugbears, kobolds, ogres, etc.
In several rpg system's they've always been treated as either fey (or magical) creatures, e.g. in Ars Magica which is probably the system that is closest to the real-world myths of medieval Europe.
I'd definitely approve of widening the scope for what is considered part of the fey world in D&D. Currently, D&D's fey creatures are too strongly biased towards the pretty, the tiny, and the whimsical kinds of fey. The fey world has a darker aspect that has been historically under-represented in D&D.
Leatherhead
Possibly a Idiot.
I'm still not quite sure what a fey is.
Maybe if they narrowed it down a bit and gave a solid theme or gimmick to the ones they keep? I don't typically have this much trouble with other monster groups. I can go: "This scaly thing with bad breath is probobly related to a dragon" Or "This walking man made out of pure flame, that's an elemental." And "Devils want to take your soul, but demons just want to destroy everything" Even "That big mass of something with what looks to be tentacles is a creature from the far realm, you shouldn't be touching that."
Maybe if they narrowed it down a bit and gave a solid theme or gimmick to the ones they keep? I don't typically have this much trouble with other monster groups. I can go: "This scaly thing with bad breath is probobly related to a dragon" Or "This walking man made out of pure flame, that's an elemental." And "Devils want to take your soul, but demons just want to destroy everything" Even "That big mass of something with what looks to be tentacles is a creature from the far realm, you shouldn't be touching that."
Mattachine
Adventurer
For me, fey creatures have these characteristics:
0. Not explicitly from the Outer Planes, Elemental Planes, etc.
1. strong connection to nature or natural places
2. magical nature or magic abilities
3. abilities related to illusion, trickery, charm, or nature
4. generally humanoid in appearance, generally humanoid-level intelligence
Any creature that meets 3 or 4 of these requirements could be fey. That covers all the traditional fey creatures, plus things like hags, and some magical beasts, perhaps (like unicorns). I liked Wyatt's classification.
As far as using them as adversaries: if the PCs don't need to always kill opponents, then good PCs dealing with neutral and good fey work out just fine. The fey can retreat or surrender.
0. Not explicitly from the Outer Planes, Elemental Planes, etc.
1. strong connection to nature or natural places
2. magical nature or magic abilities
3. abilities related to illusion, trickery, charm, or nature
4. generally humanoid in appearance, generally humanoid-level intelligence
Any creature that meets 3 or 4 of these requirements could be fey. That covers all the traditional fey creatures, plus things like hags, and some magical beasts, perhaps (like unicorns). I liked Wyatt's classification.
As far as using them as adversaries: if the PCs don't need to always kill opponents, then good PCs dealing with neutral and good fey work out just fine. The fey can retreat or surrender.
Well, now that the site is back up (YAY!) I finally got a chance to get a glimpse at the article.
Coupla things...
1) Hags: I'm with [MENTION=52734]Stormonu[/MENTION] in that I kinda see it, kinda don't. But then, it occurs to me, that there is no reason they couldn't be treated as both. A la gnomes are viewed in many worlds/games...just make it the default lore for the MM. There are "fey hags" that exist on/are from the Land of Faerie...and then there are the "mortal" ones that have come over to the Prime Plane (somehow or the other) and this is where they live now, often allying themselves with/controlling giantkind, unable or unwilling to return to their plane of origin ("exiled" or "banned" by the archfey for some gross transgression, etc...). Like the way that gnomes are mused to be from the Faerie world but now exist in the Prime..or, as in my own world of Orea, Satyrs are part of the prime as well while other, more "faye", satyrs [a.k.a. "fauns"] exist in the faerie world.
2) I thought the bit about "why they'd be in the MM" was...while making sense, a bit of a "miss". Unless they have jettisoned the whole "3 pillars" design philosophy, at least one of the reasons, if not the primary reason, would not be about "defining the world", but giving the PCs creatures to INTERACT with or be the source of something to EXPLORE, as well or necessary as creatures to COMBAT. But there was no mention about that perspective. I found it...odd...and a bit disconcerting that didn't seem to be part of his reasoning.
Coupla things...
1) Hags: I'm with [MENTION=52734]Stormonu[/MENTION] in that I kinda see it, kinda don't. But then, it occurs to me, that there is no reason they couldn't be treated as both. A la gnomes are viewed in many worlds/games...just make it the default lore for the MM. There are "fey hags" that exist on/are from the Land of Faerie...and then there are the "mortal" ones that have come over to the Prime Plane (somehow or the other) and this is where they live now, often allying themselves with/controlling giantkind, unable or unwilling to return to their plane of origin ("exiled" or "banned" by the archfey for some gross transgression, etc...). Like the way that gnomes are mused to be from the Faerie world but now exist in the Prime..or, as in my own world of Orea, Satyrs are part of the prime as well while other, more "faye", satyrs [a.k.a. "fauns"] exist in the faerie world.
2) I thought the bit about "why they'd be in the MM" was...while making sense, a bit of a "miss". Unless they have jettisoned the whole "3 pillars" design philosophy, at least one of the reasons, if not the primary reason, would not be about "defining the world", but giving the PCs creatures to INTERACT with or be the source of something to EXPLORE, as well or necessary as creatures to COMBAT. But there was no mention about that perspective. I found it...odd...and a bit disconcerting that didn't seem to be part of his reasoning.
Similar Threads
Split the Hoard
Split the Hoard
Negotiate, demand, or steal the loot you desire!
A competitive card game for 2-5 players