Dryad Race

Mike Ventrella

Mike Ventrella

Duke
Those of you at the National Symposium met the "dryads" who were freed...

Well, we're announcing one new rule from the new upcoming book now. The dryads will be a new race you can play.

The reason we are announcing this now is so you can create a new character in the database and start building it up before the new book. You cannot play this race until all the new rules go into effect.

I will give more details soon, but I'm too exhausted right now. :D
 
Does this imply that the 'No Monster Races' rules are also going to be softening in the new edition?
 
They will be a PC race.

Not a monster race.
 
The National Event was chosen to debut the race and give players an idea of what they would be like. They were never intended to be a monster race. So no you will still not see monster races allowed as PCs.
 
This does not mean that there can't be NPC "monster" elder dryads in game, but they can't be played by PCs.

I'll post more details when I get home from work, unless an ARC member wants to post them before then.
 
Dryad (The Children of Autumn)

Max Armor for each class reduced by -6
Resist Binding (4 Build per) No max
1/2 cost for herbal lore
Can only use the following weapon types:1h blunt, 2h blunt, staff, thrown weapon, bow (No crossbows)
The race has an aversion to metals (which is why they don't use certain weapons or want to wear metal armor and should be Roleplayed accordingly).

Dryads are NOT plant scavengers just as Sarr are not cat scavengers they're a unique race in the different realms of Fortannis who's finally making their debut and mark on the world.
 
¿are there any make-up, prosthetic, or costume requirements?
 
Fearless Leader said:
Mobius said:
¿are there any make-up, prosthetic, or costume requirements?
Click to expand...

Plant-like; leaves in the hair, greenish designs on the face, that sort of thing. I'll upload pictures from the event soon.
Click to expand...


Doh... (smacks head for forgetting makeup requirement) :oops:
 
Just a quick note. "reduced by -6" can be seen by math people as a double negative. It whould be "reduced by 6", thus making it -6 to all armor, not plus 6. :D
 
Sigh, I really don't want to be the one to do this, I really don't, but it bugs me enough to overcome that. What is up with the -6 max armor restriction if they're already restricted to non-metal armor. It is possible, using only heavy weight leather, to rep 18pts with a possible +6 bonus points, which would in fact be -6 from max fighter stats but is way over any other classes but scout's max already. Just glancing at that popped several questions in my head without even taking the time to TRY and come up with problems with this:

Does this mean a scholar with cool costuming could max out their armor at 6 without actually wearing anything armor-like, or by wearing 1pt bracers?
Does this mean that they are restricted from learning Wear Extra Armor since they have a racial feature that keeps them from using armor like normal people (I'm guessing no, but It'll confuse people I guarantee)?
If they can use wooden thrown weapons and arrows, why not a wooden spear, and hence be able to take one handed edge but restrict themselves through RP?
Does this class max limit apply to Arcane Armor? There's no metal in that, so why would it?

I know you guys just went through a huge hassle to do a symposeum on stuff like this, and I really appreciate that and don't wanna seem like jumping on you guys for the very first new thing that gets put out there, but that's a big ol' headache that I wanna point out in case you guys didn't see it in the big huge pile of other stuff I'm sure you were worried about. Please take that into account when you read this and don't take it as an attack!
 
It's because we didn't want to keep someone from wearing leather armor that might have metal rivits in it or something, so instead of a blanket "no metal" rule, we decided on this.

And it doesn't apply to Arcane Armor.
 
Still seems like a whole lot less confusing to simply put in something stating "while some simple fastenings and basic tools of metal are used by the Dryad folk, they refuse to adorn themselves with forged metals or use weapons crafted from it that are easily (and commonly) turned to use destroying forest life". Just by the simplified statement that was put on I automatically assumed no rings or studs would be allowable, but now you're saying that is okay? Serious cross-messages, and yes I know there would be much more in the rulebook that would further clarify all that, but unless there were serious changes made to the armor rating system as well, it's unnecessary to restrict both materials and max values. Plus, this runs very much counter to many of the arguments that have been put forth against revamping the armor to make it broader because we want more people to wear better armor to make the game look better. Well, now we have an entire race that's best bet to overcome their biggest limitation is get Arcane Armor and not wear phys repped armor at all! Restating: not meaning to crap all over the people working hard on these rules, I just care very much about getting this stuff right before it gets into hard print.
 
Hey, come on. Please give us a break here. You think this little announcement is all there is? You don't think we're working on the Rule Book wording and the race packets which will have all that?
 
No Mike, I don't think that, but what I do figure is that that brief blurb that was put out as a teaser to those of us who weren't at the national event is the boiled down essence, like the stuff that's in the chart in the races section that only gives the bare stats of each race, and what I see as a fatal flaw is a raw math statistic not an interpretation of some broad wording. Think of it like seeing that you guys were changing Hobling racial dodge to 5bp per and unlimited purchases, I'm not worried about nuance I'm worried about how the math of the thing would impact game, that's all.
 
heh. c'mon mike, you should be used to this by now. i was excited to see you post this info mike, but suprised you did considering how some people react to such news. it's never "ooh neat how exciting!" it's "oh c'mon, this is broke, and how will i get to level 80 with 56 rits on my 30 point suit if you don't allow this this and this!" :D

i'm excited. and patiently waiting the new rule book.
 
Robb Graves said:
heh. c'mon mike, you should be used to this by now. i was excited to see you post this info mike, but suprised you did considering how some people react to such news. it's never "ooh neat how exciting!" it's "oh c'mon, this is broke, and how will i get to level 80 with 56 rits on my 30 point suit if you don't allow this this and this!" :D
Click to expand...


It certainly does not help that any time someone expresses a concern about something new the inevitable response is 'Oh, you're just powergaming.' as well.

I think this race does look interesting, although I do wonder, like maxondearth, why from a game balance standpoint one would need to both ban metals via rp -and- make a -6 armor adjustment that does not effect Arcane Armor. Then again I am rather heavily biased against Arcane in general because I feel the proliferation of it does not help to improve the state of costuming the way real armor does.
 
if the concern were... how hard will it be to role play this, or, will it be possible to be a brown dryad instread of a green one? then maybe it would be less likely to be confused as such. besides that, you can be offended or not, I was just pointing out a pattern I notice on these boards. I would rather be excited and wait for the book, and trust the many owners and the symposiums rather than assume a defeatist attitude and critisise any new idea i wasn't a part of making. that's just me.
 
Thanks Robb.

I hope everyone here realizes that just about every argument that can be made for or against any specific rule has probably already been made when the ARC first reviews the proposal and when the Owners debate it. And sometimes the rules are the result of compromise because that's the only way to get them passed. No one will ever agree with every single rule in the book (even I don't agree with every single rule).
 
Robb Graves said:
if the concern were... how hard will it be to role play this, or, will it be possible to be a brown dryad instread of a green one? then maybe it would be less likely to be confused as such. besides that, you can be offended or not, I was just pointing out a pattern I notice on these boards. I would rather be excited and wait for the book, and trust the many owners and the symposiums rather than assume a defeatist attitude and critisise any new idea i wasn't a part of making. that's just me.
Click to expand...


What about if the concern is: I, as a marshall and some time representative to new players, am going to have to explain to people how a rule subset works with the rest of the existing rules, or how these kinds of things affect their characters, but I can't because they don't make fundamental sense to me either? Is that valid or sour grapes because I didn't get the secret memo before it became public so I'm bitter about it? Hmmmmm....

Here's a hint, it's the first. Having done every possible position in an Alliance campaign, in multiple chapters, short of ownership (and I was offered that position at one time and had to decline for life considerations) I like to point out what I perceive as future problems for those brave souls who are still doing those jobs in the spirit of building a better game that we can all enjoy more. I was at the last symposium before 9th edition came out, and I know how big a pain it is sometimes to get people to put through something that needs to go through but everyone wants their own little touches put on it. I have no idea who's ideas these were, or who voted which way on them, I don't need to know that. If it does go in the book that way, I'll 100% run it that way and I'll present it to anyone who asks about it with the same enthusiasm I'd put in selling them on playing a hobling or gypsie, personal opinions aside. But I also won't sit quietly by and let something I feel is a mistake go in without at least having pointed it out so that we can at least be sure that six months down the road no one is saying "well why didn't someone bring it up before we paid the publisher?!"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top