I need a list of races with animal heads.

Goatmen
catfolk
ratfolk
kobolds

I have a situation in which my players will run into a creature that may be either a raksasha or a kitsune and I am going to be very ambiguous about it. The players are likely to try and metagame which I like to counter by allowing their metagaming confuse or misslead them.

Its likely the following argument will happen.

upon meeting the creature I will describe or show a picture that shows a fox headed woman. possibly with kukri for weapons.

They will metagame and roll a perception to see if the hands or any other body part is backwards.

I will say that if they are assuming its a raksasha thats metagaming they have no reason to assume so.

they will say something like raksasha are a known danger in the world with animal heads that they would reasonably be wary of.

I will say that there are many animal headed humanoid races in the world such as goat men, kobolds, catfolk, ratfolk, and as many other animal headed races you can add to this list other than kitsune and raksasha.

any additions?

ultimately I will not confirm their guesses until they have an in game reason to make the proper knowledge checks or other information helping them pin down the creatures race.

Technically: humans.

A tiefling can have a head like any animal, potentially.
They can have backwards hands too.

Depends on whether you only want 1HD playable races or any monstrous humanoid.

Playable races:
Kenku
Kitsune
Samsaran

Monstrous Humanoids:
Gnolls
Lizardmen
Troglodytes
Degenerate yuan-ti (if you are using old DnD monsters)

And a fair selection from here: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/indexes-and-tables/monsters-by-type#type-m onstrous-humanoid

Serpentfolk.

Minotaurs
Satyrs
Were-creatures in 1/2 form.
Dopelgangers
Gnolls
Hound Archon
Yuan Ti
Anything with a shapechanging ability.

sweet guys. thanx

Does any of your players' PCs have ranks in Knowledge(the Planes)? 'cause If so, they might indeed know about Rakshasas.

Can't believe no one mentioned Grippli- the lovable frog people

All the were- creatures.

I believe there are alot of them with bird and reptile heads in the Lingnorm Kingdoms. I think they are called Oni. They are a 'usually' kinda weak outsider. I don't rmember the details.

If you want to go the 3.x route, Savage Species had a whole list of them.

The elusive Yakfolk!!

Isn't there one with bat heads? Desmoduo or something like that?
Can't remember the name exactly.

Edit: that may be a WoTC property and not in PF.

Tanuki (Raccoon dog people), Adlet (wolf people), Nagajor (spelling? Snake people), Selkies (seal people, although not sure if they have an intermediate form), Garuda (Hawk like humanoid outsiders) and Vanaras (monkey people). Also catfolk, although how humanoid you make them is up to you.

Sometimes half the fun of the game is when all the player's jump to ridiculous conclusions, and you get to laugh at them. I had a picture of a Dragon Disciple Kobold the size of a human, and since the picture had the kobold on all 4's and had wings and a tail player's thought it was a dragon. Although it did help that the picture was a good medium between kobold and dragon.

My favorite is there is a celestial that looks just like the classic goat horned satur (that may be 3.5), there was also one that looked like a humanoid lassie dog, and lion. There really are just so many to chose from. If you are trying to confuse them with Kitsunes. There are werefoxes.

3.5 had Guardinals, an entire Celestial cohort of animal-headed angels of varying varieties. Dunno if they have a PF counterpart or not.

Those would be the Agathions in Pathfinder

If you want something different and like 3rd party, look up a book called remarkable races by....alleria publishing i think? not sure. but it has a race called the animus that fits your bills perfectly, and as 3rd party you can't really metagame it

no i have enough. no need to pull in 3rd party.

I just need to explain to the characters why they would not automatically assume that just because a creature looks like a woman with a fox head does not make her a Raksasha (Which they will assume because they recently completed a crimson throne module which included a fox headed raksasha.) even if they insist (which they probably will as any attempt to dissuade them from the Raksasha conclusion will likely greater strengthen the idea in their minds.) they will likley get a whole bunch of knowledge having nothing to do with the creature they are dealing with.

unfortunately the creature is intended as an ally and they will probably metagame distrust for the NPC.

Wait ... if they've met a fox-headed rakshasa, and now they're meeting another fox-headed humanoid, what's wrong with the players (or PCs) being wary of the humanoid being a rakshasa? Wouldn't that be something most people would think?

Wait ... if they've met a fox-headed rakshasa, and now they're meeting another fox-headed humanoid, what's wrong with the players (or PCs) being wary of the humanoid being a rakshasa? Wouldn't that be something most people would think?

Different campaign, different characters, same players. At least that was the impression I got.

If it's the same bunch of PCs in the same game however, I agree they're right to be suspicious.

the characters have never met a rakshasa, they have fought Dire corbies and tengu (humanoid with raven head races) but never anything with a beautiful human body and animal head.

the players met a rakshasa in a different campaign, with different characters and a different GM.

I remember, however, that during that campeign as soon as they were shown a picture of a tiger headed person these players immediately started saying "I do a perception to see his hands" or "I knowledge planes to see if I know what race he is"

which I consider meta-gaming.

Tiefling with backwards hands and an animal-like head is the answer.

the NPC is already set. the issue is that when the players meet the NPC they will likely metagame that it is a Rakshsa and I need to make the argument that any jumping to conclusions is metagaming because there are many animal headed races and they have no reason to instantly assume its a rakshasa.

to be honest its a bit of a reverse psychology. the more I insist that they should not jump to the rakshasa conclusion the more determined they will be that it IS a rakshasa and they will act accordingly.

if they DONT metagame they will not be tricked because they will give the NPC the benefit of the doubt and the NPC will tell them flat out it is a kitsune.

Rakshasa are pretty consummate manipulators and tricksters, appearing in its true shape may not be much of a worry. If it does and you want to trick PCs into think its a Kitsune have them roll knowledge Local and tell them "Your lore lets you identify this creature as a Kitsune (insert racial lore here)" If you want a slim chance they may notice what it is, a disguise and bluff vs perception and sense motive comes into play of course given your run of the mill Rakshasa has a +20 Bluff and +24 Disguise odds are they shouldn't suspect at thing.

If Metagaming continues, throw them a real twist decide that it is an innocent Kitsune with good intentions and if they shoot him/her with a holy crossbolt bolt and kill her then they have to live with it.

Better, Kitsune paladin, and main contributor of a local orphanage.

Goatmen

catfolk
ratfolk
kobolds

I have a situation in which my players will run into a creature that may be either a raksasha or a kitsune and I am going to be very ambiguous about it. The players are likely to try and metagame which I like to counter by allowing their metagaming confuse or misslead them.

Its likely the following argument will happen.

upon meeting the creature I will describe or show a picture that shows a fox headed woman. possibly with kukri for weapons.

They will metagame and roll a perception to see if the hands or any other body part is backwards.

I will say that if they are assuming its a raksasha thats metagaming they have no reason to assume so.

they will say something like raksasha are a known danger in the world with animal heads that they would reasonably be wary of.

I will say that there are many animal headed humanoid races in the world such as goat men, kobolds, catfolk, ratfolk, and as many other animal headed races you can add to this list other than kitsune and raksasha.

any additions?

ultimately I will not confirm their guesses until they have an in game reason to make the proper knowledge checks or other information helping them pin down the creatures race.

Just to clarify-

cuz.. I mean, really. /you/ should be doing the roll before they even ask and notify anyone who passes (whatever the DC may be) of it in the initial description.

Its like
"I'm not telling yuo the lizard man has a tail and if you ask you are metagaming"
or whether an elf has pointy ears, or something.
Sure depending on the exact circumstances it may not warrant an immediate thing but quite frankly- if I was talking to someone and their /hands were facing the wrong way/ I would most likely notice.
(unless you are using spells to hide it or something).

I mean we're not talking about something thats easy to hide. their hands go in the wrong direction. it'd be especially obvious if they were holding an item at the time (rather than standing with their fingers/thumbs straight).

I mean I get where you are going on the metagaming bit- they might very well (and should) notice the hand bit but where they go from there is really the metagame issue. Its knowledge checks to determine what they know about the creature. (i.e if they recongize the backwards hands for what they are).

PC: "Do I see clawS"
DM: "You are metagaming, you can't ask that"
PC: "....."

However metagamey it might be- asking to see if htey can tell or asking for a perception check to notice a gross physical quality of anything they meet is what perception is for. To deny that is to deny them the ability of their characters to see.

DM: "You see a large winged creature land in front of you. Its as big as a good size house"
PC: "Does it have scales?"
DM: "You can't ask that. thats metagaming."
PC2: "what color is it?"
DM: "You can't ask that, thats metagaming."

sure, dragons are identified generally by being reptilian and specifically by scale color but that doesn't mean you telling them its a green dragon (or them asking about the presence or absence of scales or color) is metagaming.

-S

you guys seem to have confused the situation.

The NPC is NOT a rakshasa.
the NPC IS a Kitsune.
but i will be very ambiguous about it and wont simply say "you enter the room and see the head and shoulders of a kitsune woman who is partially ducking behind the counter."

I will say something like

"You enter the room and see some one who looks like this (show picture of a fox headed humanoid) sitting behind the counter. two sheathed kukri are on a belt hanging from her chair."

however since the Players (using different characters) faced a fox headed kukri wielding Rakshasa a few months ago in a different campeign under a different GM. when they see a fox headed kukri wielding kitsune they will assume it is a Rakshasa.

my response to this will be to punish their meta-gaming by allowing them to continue to assume its a rakshasa.

in other words when they say "i roll perception or knowlage planes to see if its hands are backwards" which they never never done on any other NPC and would not do if they were not metagaming I will say something like "seriously? isnt that a bit of metagaming? Do you run perceptions when you run across a werewolf, catfolk, kobold, or any other animal headed humanoid?"

which will make them think that it is OBVIOUSLY a raksasha and I am just trying to hide it from them.

if they stop metagaming it will be easy to determine the race of the creature but if they keep metagaming their will subconsciously keep thinking in the wrong direction.

In the long run they actually need this NPCs help to advance in the adventure but it will be fun watching them try to second guess everything the NPC does until they figure it out.

assuming they have any kind of knowledges, i really think they should be automatically used when seeing a new creature.

for instance, when you see a tiger. do you think, its a large feline with stripes, but unless i try hard to remember i wont know its a tiger?

asking questions like are its hands backwards, or the like that are serious metagaming, without them having taken a knowledge check and confirmed they know certain races have this should be punished.

take something away from them each time they do this, start with no exp for completing something where they should gain a substancial ammount. or have them slay a dragon and upon its death its horde dissapears.

metagaming to me is so painful and ruins the game.

on the flip side, changing monsters/animals enough that their weaknesses arent the same as the players might have read in monster manuals etc can be another cover.

Ie, if something is weak against cold iron, yet the characters have no knowledge of this, yet the players all of a sudden decide to get cold iron weapons out of the blue. well, make the monster heal 1d6 hitpoints each time it is struck with them.

Just screw with them each time they metagame

http://www.homestarrunner.com/answer12.html

STRONG BAD: Marzipan, look: this is Goatface. I have a goat for a face. Like, not that I have a goat's head for a face, or that my head is a goat's head — like, my face is an entire goat. So, anyways, I was calling you ups 'cause I wanted to join your Goatface Club! Since you've got quite a goat face yourself, I figured you'd be the go-to guy, or gal. It's hard to tell with that goat face of yours. Anyways, my number is {imitates a goat} eeeeeh-uhhh! So gimme a call back! We can compare goat faces, though I can't imagine... that yours... your- is- pret-... you're ugly... Marzipan. This is Strong Bad, and you're ugly.