A s I'm writing this article, I'm taking a few minutes and bouncing over to read the comments on the celestials/angels/deva article that went live during this writing. There are some really great responses! I've already taken the idea of deva anatomy and weapons tying back to their deity over to James Wyatt, and we've started talking about some of the possibilities in that concept. I know that you'll keep coming up with some great ideas, and I'll keep checking them out.

Today, though, I want to talk about that multiheaded monstrosity called the hydra. As of this writing, James hadn't yet tackled the hydra in his Wandering Monsters articles, and I was intrigued by the checkmark on the concepting list for this creature. It got me wondering why R&D might want to take a look at this infamous critter.

So I spun around in my chair and asked.

After chatting with the guys for a few minutes, I picked up some interesting ideas to discuss here. First, though, let me ask you this: Are you a fan of the hydra? For my part, I used to hate the hydra. So many heads, so many attacks, and—depending upon the edition—regeneration!?! I've come to enjoy the hydra now, though. For DMs, they offer a great "Oh &*#@!" factor when opening doors or dropping into pits. For players, they offer a great tactical challenge. Isn't it fun how our ideas and ideals change as we age?

Anyway. Let's dig in.

The Hydra

I really enjoy the hydra from Greek mythology. They were multiheaded beasts (usually nine heads) that had poisonous breath and blood. In fact, they were such toxic beasts that even their tracks were deadly! This makes jokes about stinky feet pale by comparison. And if that wasn't enough, if you cut off one head—two would grow back. But wait, it gets worse: The center head was immortal! Can you imagine coming up against that little beastie? Even the heroic Heracles couldn't best the hydra on his own, and he needed help from his nephew Iolaus, plus a nifty golden sword given to him by Athena. Now that's an epic fight with an epic beast.

When we start to look at the hydra in D&D, we see that the creature design has changed slightly, but it's still a pretty epic critter. Through the ages, there have been several changing visions of what the hydra looked like, though, and today you get to chime in with some of your ideas on the future vision of the hydra.

Legs

The concept of legs on a hydra takes us into an interesting conversation. In original Greek mythology, the hydra was described as a "chthonic water beast." Through time, folks have played with those seemingly opposed concepts. Chthonic loosely means "in, under or beneath the earth," and water beast implies that it comes from the water. Because of that, you can find hydras depicted in many different ways. The two most common are with four legs (resembling a dragon), or no legs (resembling a great wyrm). I don't think either vision is decidedly wrong. I tend to think of the hydra with legs. That might be due to the influence of the AD&D Monstrous Manual on my impressionable mind in high school. No matter the reason, that is my preference. How about you? How do you envision the great hydra? Legs or no legs?

Body

As with the legs, the body of the hydra has been depicted in many ways. The two most common are a more draconic body and a serpent style body. Again, I'm influenced by my high school experiences, but that doesn't need to constrain us. You might say that legs go with a draconic type body, and no legs go with a serpentine type body, but I'm not going to assume such simple statements. Perhaps you want to get more specific or be really distinct with your vision. Perhaps you believe that a hydra has legs, but has a long and thin body that has an almost serpentine feel to it. Maybe you have a completely different sense of what they look like—something very divergent from any example I've provided here. If you do, share it with me. If the words fail you, upload an image and share that with me.

Heads

Often the heads of the hydra are treated in a very draconic manner. Is the hydra just an offshoot of the dragon family? Are they distant relatives, or do they just happen to stem from an "all you reptiles look the same" mentality? I lump the hydra into the reptile school mentality. It matches mythology and D&D lore. So should the head look more reptilian than draconic? Are there a lot of physical differences between reptiles and dragons (at least in the world of myth and mythology)? Is there something in the head that clearly distinguishes a hydra from a dragon? These are the types of questions that keep me up at night.

Skin

Here is the one place I feel that we can help differentiate the hydra from its visual cousin the dragon. Rather than scales and plates, we could give the hydra skin that is more similar to a lizard—perhaps like a skink in its texture. This would work well with the legends and lore, right?

What do you think? What guiding principles should we hold on to when we kick off the visual development for this critter? Is there a specific D&D interpretation that you preferred, or is there something out there in the world that really struck gold for you? Maybe you just want to grab pencil and paper and scribble down some ideas and share them with me. Whichever way you want to voice your opinion—now is your chance.

D&D A-Series Art Contest

Have you entered the D&D A-Series Art Contest? There's still time! Whether you fancy yourself a professional artist or amateur doodler, we want to hear from you. Contest ends on February 10th, so hurry up and get sketching.

Previous Poll Results

Advanced D&D

Advanced D&D: Marketing
1—It fails	132	7.1%
2	233	12.5%
3—No opinion	312	16.7%
4	525	28.1%
5—It succeeds	664	35.6%
Total	1866	100.0%

Advanced D&D: Shelf Presence
1—It fails	89	4.9%
2	223	12.2%
3—No opinion	354	19.3%
4	535	29.2%
5—It succeeds	633	34.5%
Total	1834	100.0%

Advanced D&D: Narrative
1—It fails	47	2.6%
2	64	3.5%
3—No opinion	201	11.0%
4	493	26.9%
5—It succeeds	1027	56.1%
Total	1832	100.0%

Advanced D&D: Perceived Value
1—It fails	122	6.7%
2	290	16.0%
3—No opinion	551	30.4%
4	408	22.5%
5—It succeeds	439	24.3%
Total	1810	100.0%

Advanced D&D: Essence
1—It fails	42	2.2%
2	70	3.7%
3—No opinion	200	10.4%
4	460	24.0%
5—It succeeds	1145	59.7%
Total	1917	100.0%

---

2nd Edition

2nd Edition: Marketing
1—It fails	81	4.6%
2	194	11.0%
3—No opinion	335	19.1%
4	682	38.8%
5—It succeeds	466	26.5%
Total	1758	100.0%

2nd Edition: Shelf Presence
1—It fails	61	3.5%
2	192	11.0%
3—No opinion	434	24.9%
4	603	34.6%
5—It succeeds	452	25.9%
Total	1742	100.0%

2nd Edition: Narrative
1—It fails	125	7.2%
2	297	17.0%
3—No opinion	403	23.1%
4	558	32.0%
5—It succeeds	361	20.7%
Total	1744	100.0%

2nd Edition: Perceived Value
1—It fails	68	3.9%
2	181	10.4%
3—No opinion	582	33.6%
4	576	33.2%
5—It succeeds	327	18.9%
Total	1734	100.0%

2nd Edition: Essence
1—It fails	146	8.1%
2	289	16.0%
3—No opinion	411	22.8%
4	532	29.5%
5—It succeeds	426	23.6%
Total	1804	100.0%

---

3rd Edition

3rd Edition: Marketing
1—It fails	223	12.3%
2	252	14.0%
3—No opinion	346	19.2%
4	455	25.2%
5—It succeeds	530	29.3%
Total	1806	100.0%

3rd Edition: Shelf Presence
1—It fails	152	8.5%
2	172	9.6%
3—No opinion	261	14.5%
4	492	27.4%
5—It succeeds	719	40.0%
Total	1796	100.0%

3rd Edition: Narrative
1—It fails	594	33.2%
2	409	22.9%
3—No opinion	327	18.3%
4	226	12.6%
5—It succeeds	231	12.9%
Total	1787	100.0%

3rd Edition: Perceived Value
1—It fails	161	9.0%
2	150	8.4%
3—No opinion	406	22.8%
4	542	30.4%
5—It succeeds	524	29.4%
Total	1783	100.0%

3rd Edition: Essence
1—It fails	326	17.7%
2	302	16.4%
3—No opinion	398	21.7%
4	411	22.4%
5—It succeeds	401	21.8%
Total	1838	100.0%

---

4th Edition

4th Edition: Marketing
1—It fails	216	11.9%
2	196	10.8%
3—No opinion	331	18.3%
4	607	33.6%
5—It succeeds	459	25.4%
Total	1809	100.0%

4th Edition: Shelf Presence
1—It fails	184	10.3%
2	193	10.8%
3—No opinion	356	19.9%
4	583	32.6%
5—It succeeds	474	26.5%
Total	1790	100.0%

4th Edition: Narrative
1—It fails	245	13.7%
2	244	13.7%
3—No opinion	360	20.1%
4	567	31.7%
5—It succeeds	371	20.8%
Total	1787	100.0%

4th Edition: Perceived Value
1—It fails	242	13.6%
2	239	13.4%
3—No opinion	526	29.5%
4	490	27.5%
5—It succeeds	286	16.0%
Total	1783	100.0%

4th Edition: Essence
1—It fails	341	18.4%
2	270	14.6%
3—No opinion	371	20.0%
4	527	28.4%
5—It succeeds	346	18.7%
Total	1855	100.0%