Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on Today at 09:27:49 AM

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 10, 2025, 08:31:48 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on January 10, 2025, 02:43:02 PMDryad: There are a few male tree spirits in European folklore, but they're generally an Old Man of the Woods, not hot young man of the woods. The closest I can find is the Scottish Ghillie Dhu, or "dark-haired lad".

The term I've found in research for non-OGL monsters for a male tree spirit is Drus... which actually fits well with Dryad so I decided to use it.

That's fakelore. There is no "drus" in any pre-internet sources. It seems to be something someone made up and shared online.

Perhaps. I don't mind it because it's just a slight variation on the Greek Drys (δρῦς) "tree."

Quote from: Chris24601 on Today at 09:44:56 AM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on Today at 09:27:49 AM

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 10, 2025, 08:31:48 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on January 10, 2025, 02:43:02 PMDryad: There are a few male tree spirits in European folklore, but they're generally an Old Man of the Woods, not hot young man of the woods. The closest I can find is the Scottish Ghillie Dhu, or "dark-haired lad".

The term I've found in research for non-OGL monsters for a male tree spirit is Drus... which actually fits well with Dryad so I decided to use it.

That's fakelore. There is no "drus" in any pre-internet sources. It seems to be something someone made up and shared online.

Perhaps. I don't mind it because it's just a slight variation on the Greek Drys (δρῦς) "tree."

It is the Greek word for tree.

Something I dislike about loanwords for myths is that the literal meaning is often lost in the loaning, so we get nonsensical folk etymologies leading to situations like thinking a "drus" is a male dryad when it is literally a tree. Likewise, the "taur" in centaur means bull and not centauroid, the hob in hobgoblin means home or hearth and not big, etc. (If it did mean big, then where are all the larger-sized hob-kobolds, hob-gnomes, hob-sprites, etc?)

The basic problem here is that English doesn't have a masculinizing affix. Words are generally assumed to be male or neuter depending on context, with a suffix like -ess indicating a female counterpart. There is the -er used in widower, but it's identical to the agent suffix used for driver, welder, etc.

You could coin "dryader" in this instance, I guess?

Anyway, the D&D dryad is derived from the Greek hamadryad, whose life was bound to her tree. (Dryad translates to "she of the tree/oak", while hamadryad translates to "she [who is] one with tree".) There really isn't any masculine version of the (hama)dryad in folklore. There are wild men of the woods, satyrs, etc., but the closest there is to the hamadryad is the Old Man of the Forest like Leshy or Oxylus, a singular god of his forest.

But the D&D 5e dryad doesn't fit any of the dryad lore at all. In this edition, they're fey who are imprisoned by being bound to trees, not the personification of their tree. It makes little sense to call them dryads now aside from ill-fitting tradition.

Quote from: HappyDaze on January 10, 2025, 08:51:06 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 10, 2025, 08:31:48 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on January 10, 2025, 02:43:02 PMDryad: There are a few male tree spirits in European folklore, but they're generally an Old Man of the Woods, not hot young man of the woods. The closest I can find is the Scottish Ghillie Dhu, or "dark-haired lad".

The term I've found in research for non-OGL monsters for a male tree spirit is Drus... which actually fits well with Dryad so I decided to use it.

I like the Age of Sigmar/Soulbound take on Sylvaneth when referring to the overall class of wood spirits. There are lithe female dryads and hulking male treemen (quite a bit of sexual dimorphism there) as well as the revenants (tree spirits shaped by the souls of deceased wood aelves) that appear in both genders. There are more beyond these too (e.g., the Kurnoth Hunters), and most of the Sylvaneth are not strictly bound by gender.

I was going to mention Warhammer's take on succubi in this context as well, where the Daemonettes are hideous androgenous monsters, but they're supposed to possess a supernatural beauty that can fascinate anyone regardless of their personal proclivities. A lust demon that can tempt you into desires you would normally find revolting is creepier to me than one that just plays on your existing desires.

I'm researching sylvaneth, lorwyn elves and glorantha elves. I like their different takes on woodland fairies.

The D&D lore on dryads isn't consistent across editions. The pre-4e stuff generally seems to hew more towards the Greek myths and to some Celtic fairy lore like abduction. Then in 4e it abruptly turns into a pastiche of Warhammer dryads, appearing as wood creatures that could glamor themselves as fey women. Then in 5e they're created by fairy lords who imprison other fairies by binding them to trees.

I'm thinking of revising the lore...

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on Today at 10:36:05 AMBut the D&D 5e dryad doesn't fit any of the dryad lore at all. In this edition, they're fey who are imprisoned by being bound to trees, not the personification of their tree. It makes little sense to call them dryads now aside from ill-fitting tradition.

D&D doesn't have elves that fit the myths of elves or dwarves that fit the myths of dwarves. D&D has long (in modern terms) been forming own modern myths that have become the norms of pop culture. I don't worry too much if monsters that also appear in other myths have little in common with D&D creatures of the same name.

Quote from: HappyDaze on Today at 12:45:44 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on Today at 10:36:05 AMBut the D&D 5e dryad doesn't fit any of the dryad lore at all. In this edition, they're fey who are imprisoned by being bound to trees, not the personification of their tree. It makes little sense to call them dryads now aside from ill-fitting tradition.

D&D doesn't have elves that fit the myths of elves or dwarves that fit the myths of dwarves. D&D has long (in modern terms) been forming own modern myths that have become the norms of pop culture. I don't worry too much if monsters that also appear in other myths have little in common with D&D creatures of the same name.

It contradicts itself in this case and doesn't give any reason why

Quote from: Skullking on Today at 05:09:09 AM

Quote from: Mistwell on January 10, 2025, 10:11:53 PMThere is still no combat wheelchair in 5e. Just a single picture (and only a picture) of a guy in a wheelchair (looks like an ordinary one). No rules about them. No text. None of that.

I'll translate this for folks:

"Stop complaining frog, and stay in the pot until it boils."

The OP from Pundit was also about trying to dispel a misunderstanding -

Quote from: RPGPundit on January 08, 2025, 10:36:28 AMNo, WotC did not put something about anti-colonialism in the D&D DMG. That's a misunderstanding caused by some people looking at a third party product by a bunch of nobodies and intentionally generating controversy by letting people think it's the DMG.

I would say it is fine to complain, but one should be truthful and accurate about what you're complaining about. In the case of the "anti-colonialism" or the "Romancing Monsters" clips, one should be clear that they're from Sly Flourish, not from WotC.

In the case of the wheelchair, there is a picture of an NPC in a wheelchair in the 2024 PHB - namely Alanik Ray from Ravenloft. Ravenloft has had wheelchairs since 1986 when Lord Weathermay (a wheelchair-using NPC fighter) appeared in I10 Ravenloft II. However, the "combat wheelchair" was a homebrew doc for a special magic item created by Sara Thompson in 2019. That magic item has never appeared in any WotC document.


As I understand it, Pundit is calling it "fake and dumb" to show a third-party or homebrew material, and then jump to complaining about WotC for it. If one is going to complain about WotC, use their actual material, not third-party stuff.