I was wondering if it would possible with PRPG to get dire animals to look more normal again? You know like they used to, before they became deformed parodies of the animals they are dire versions of, with inexplicable bumps, spikes, horns and tumorous growths.
|
I was wondering if it would possible with PRPG to get dire animals to look more normal again? You know like they used to, before they became deformed parodies of the animals they are dire versions of, with inexplicable bumps, spikes, horns and tumorous growths.
This is obviously a matter of flavor and choice - but I actually liked the nefarious look to the "dire" species - it gave it a more prehistoric look to them - like the Sabre-Tooth and other creatures of the Cretaceous period. They just looked more dangerous.
But that's just me - i know my opinion and $2.50 will get you a cup of coffee.
Robert
I like the current depictions of dire animals as well.
I love the current vision of dire animals. And if the picture in today's blog is any indication, that vision isn't changing.
Yeah, that's a nice picture; it'd make a good desktop background, if I ever find the time to work with it a tad.
I was wondering if it would possible with PRPG to get dire animals to look more normal again? You know like they used to, before they became deformed parodies of the animals they are dire versions of, with inexplicable bumps, spikes, horns and tumorous growths.
Your kidding right?
I'm surprised that such a large majority seems to prefer the bone studded dire animals. A few horns and spikes in strategic spots aren't so bad, but some of the bony growths look kind of goofy to me, especially on furry animals. It isn't something that affects my enjoyment of the game any though - no big deal.
Personally, I stick with the saber-tooth tiger kind of look, but I'm boring that way.
I'm surprised that such a large majority seems to prefer the bone studded dire animals. A few horns and spikes in strategic spots aren't so bad, but some of the bony growths look kind of goofy to me, especially on furry animals. It isn't something that affects my enjoyment of the game any though - no big deal.
Its not like it hard to change the look.
I dont mind a prehistoric look but the goofy spikes for no reason have to go.
|
I was wondering if it would possible with PRPG to get dire animals to look more normal again? You know like they used to, before they became deformed parodies of the animals they are dire versions of, with inexplicable bumps, spikes, horns and tumorous growths.
Agreed, my players and I laugh all the time about that. "You know it's dire, look at the boney jags of spine." If we look at animals with horns...they serve a survival related purpose, usually combat. What circumstances prompted such, seemingly, useless, if not cumbersome, horns and boney protursions?
Perhaps dire animals should get Gore attecks added to their stat blocks to account for their sharp bits.
I was wondering if it would possible with PRPG to get dire animals to look more normal again? You know like they used to, before they became deformed parodies of the animals they are dire versions of, with inexplicable bumps, spikes, horns and tumorous growths.
I'm with you and Mike on this one. The dire animals took the place of all the "gaint" ones (giant beaver, giant otter, giant porcupine, where have you gone?) and Pleistocene ones (cave bears, etc.) from 1e, but somehow got a hefty dose of some skin conditions and bone growth disorder when they moved forward in time.
I'M REALLY TIRED OF SPIKES. Seems like every monster and suit of armor in fantasy art is now festooned with them for no apparent reason.
I was wondering if it would possible with PRPG to get dire animals to look more normal again? You know like they used to, before they became deformed parodies of the animals they are dire versions of, with inexplicable bumps, spikes, horns and tumorous growths.
It looks like 4E is going that way, if the new Dire Wolf mini is any indicator.
it gave it a more prehistoric look to them - like the Sabre-Tooth and other creatures of the Cretaceous period. you do realize that saber-tooths didn't live during the cretaceous period right (mammals during the cretaceous topped out at about the size of a modern opossum)? and that they didn't have weird spikey growths all over them?
sabre-tooth cats, dire wolves, etc. were real creatures, and weird spikey bone deformations would certainly appear on the skeletal remains we have found of them in places such as the La-Brea Tar Pits if they had possesed them.
I love the current vision of dire animals. And if the picture in today's blog is any indication, that vision isn't changing.
The picture is the reason I started this thread actually.
I was always annoyed with WotC's "feral, prehistoric look" text as well. Feral -- like, they were domesticated and reverted to the wild? Is that why they're so vulnerable to weird skin diseases? "Prehistoric"? Wow, that covers a lot of ground. Do they resemble trilobites, or cyanobacteria? Dinosaurs, maybe? Or are they fossilized remains?
Scientists should NOT read flavor text. Unless it includes some description of why "dire" animals have these horrible bone spurs -- they're like big bunyons, I guess -- some sort of magical curse or disease? Maybe the discomfort of having random bony growths poking throught their hide makes them ornery, and hence more dangerous!
I agree with Icon(and it's damn good to see you on the boards again) in liking the way dire animals look currently- it's an important part of my homebrew. Other than the saber-tooth tiger, how would those who want dire animals to look more "normal" differentiate them from normal animals cosmetically?
Other than the saber-tooth tiger, how would those who want dire animals to look more "normal" differentiate them from normal animals cosmetically?
The historical dire wolf was heavier-set, with shorter legs and greater bulk proportinally, than its modern kin. So they could bite harder, and lock their teeth better, but couldn't chase stuff down over the plains in a pack for miles at a time. For non-paleo buffs, they were still Medium sized, but would still be visually distinct. Add a size category, OK, now you have a "giant wolf." But who decided to add the spikes?
The problem is that WotC grabbed onto the fact that there were dire wolves, and that some earlier Cenozoic critters were bigger than their modern counterparts (giant sloths) -- but thereafter they just threw away all that and said " 'Dire' now means bigger, more HD, and with spikes and acne." Which is like me saying " 'dinosaur' now means 'fire breathing'!"
To make matters worse, the "dire wolf" is evidently supposed to represent the historical dire wolf and the mutant WotC critter, but the "dire tiger" refers only the mutant, because the smilodon was statted up in Frostburn.
OK..... nothing personal meant here, but:
The Dire Animals in 3.5 MM are large, have bony potrusions sticking out, and have patches of mutated skin. If you do not like this, change it for your game. If you do like it (and for those who wonder, I like it very much) don't change it and just play.
I am so sick beyond comparison of hearing people say stuff like 'oh, a change should be made because [insert scientific theory] dictates that this in-game creature or effect could not work that way'.
For those who do not know this, this is DnD; therefore, it is NOT reality, it is NOT built on real-life physics 100% and it is primarily intended for fun purposes. So... again, if you hate dire animals' rabid and monstrous look because you are such a realist that you cannot see outside the box, change it for YOUR game, but don't try to change it for the rest of us, who in their escape of reality feel some things in the game are COOL, allthough they are not logical.
OK..... nothing personal meant here, but:
The Dire Animals in 3.5 MM are large, have bony potrusions sticking out, and have patches of mutated skin. If you do not like this, change it for your game. I am so sick beyond comparison of hearing people say stuff like 'oh, a change should be made because [insert scientific theory] dictates that this in-game creature or effect could not work that way'.
Nothing personal taken. If they look silly to me, that's just too bad, as you say, because evidently everything has spikes because a lot of people LIKE spikes all over their art. That's fine.
But I still have a big issue with the "hijacking" of terms that don't mean what they're used for. I'm not talking about any "scientific theory" when I say that renaming Modrons as "Algae" would irk the hell out of me. That has NOTHING to do with "physics," or any other field of study except ENGLISH. If you have an imaginary race of bony animals, give them an imaginary name. I don't introduce an imaginary race of dragons and call them "giraffes," and I'm annoyed that we choose to name a race of giant mutant spiked wolves "dire wolves." Because they're not.
actually my problem isn't really that "real animals didn't look that way (my post above asserting that the real animals did't look that way was responding to the guy who said it made them look more like prehistoric animals, which it doesn't), my main problem is that WotC changed the appearence of dire animals just to make them look "cooler", with no explanation for the changes (no it does not make them look feral and prehistoric), and IMO failing to make them look cooler, instead just making them look STUPID. YMMV.
note that in 3.0 although the picture of the dire bear has some funky brow righes, there is no mention of weird spikes and strange boney growths of any of the dire animals, it just says that they tend to have a "feral, prehistoric look" (as noted above, feral, prehistoruc animals did (or do in the case of feral) not have strange growths, bone spurs and patches of mutated skin).
|
I'm in the camp that thinks the bone protrusions look silly and tacked-on. It's like what a costume designer on a cheap sci-fi show might do. "Put some horns on that dog. We'll call him a Kolecbeast."
But as a previous poster said, it's already part of 3.5, so I'm not sweating it. Those of us who like our dire creatures to look more menacing and 'touched by Pangea' can make them so.
|
|
Other than the saber-tooth tiger, how would those who want dire animals to look more "normal" differentiate them from normal animals cosmetically?The historical dire wolf was heavier-set, with shorter legs and greater bulk proportinally, than its modern kin. So they could bite harder, and lock their teeth better, but couldn't chase stuff down over the plains in a pack for miles at a time. For non-paleo buffs, they were still Medium sized, but would still be visually distinct. Add a size category, OK, now you have a "giant wolf." But who decided to add the spikes?
The problem is that WotC grabbed onto the fact that there were dire wolves, and that some earlier Cenozoic critters were bigger than their modern counterparts (giant sloths) -- but thereafter they just threw away all that and said " 'Dire' now means bigger, more HD, and with spikes and acne." Which is like me saying " 'dinosaur' now means 'fire breathing'!"
To make matters worse, the "dire wolf" is evidently supposed to represent the historical dire wolf and the mutant WotC critter, but the "dire tiger" refers only the mutant, because the smilodon was statted up in Frostburn.
What does the historical Owlbear look like? Or the historical Bodak or Carrion Crawler? Can we at least agree that D&D is not based solely on historical accuracy?
That being said - I dont think D&D tried to emulate the exact nature of a prehistoric Dire Wolf any more than it tries to make GreyHawk like a true historical account of Mideval Times.
Robert
|
|
it gave it a more prehistoric look to them - like the Sabre-Tooth and other creatures of the Cretaceous period. you do realize that saber-tooths didn't live during the cretaceous period right
You do realize this isn't a damn history class, right?
I think my post although not 100% encyclopedically accurate still makes its point. Most people I'm sure at capable of understanding my intent of the post.
Your point, although valid, does nothing to add to the conversation; only derails; if you're not going to be part of the solution - dont be part of the problem. Instead if you feel the need to chime in, do so with the intent of assisting the debate at hand - not to my use/misuse of some esoteric scientific term.
I didnt so much mean that they have historical accurate depiction of an actual prehistoric animal - but that it makes them look more feral - like something of a prehistoric time (such as Sabre Tooth Tigers - look more feral than a modern tiger does); thus makes them look more like monsters/creatures to fear and those one would expect to encounter in a science-fiction/fantasy world of dragons and wizards.
Robert
What does the historical Owlbear look like? Or the historical Bodak or Carrion Crawler? Can we at least agree that D&D is not based solely on historical accuracy? That being said - I dont think D&D tried to emulate the exact nature of a prehistoric Dire Wolf any more than it tries to make GreyHawk like a true historical account of Mideval Times.
See above. D&D should NOT be based on historical accuracy. You make an imaginary critter, and give them imaginary names (e.g., "carrion crawler"). As you point out, it's called the "City of Greyhawk" rather than "Medieval London" for a very good reason. Do NOT stat up a carrion crawler and then name it a "Monarch Butterfly Caterpillar." Do NOT make a giant mutant spikewolf and call it a "dire wolf." There's no historical dire wolf in the game? Fine, no problem; I don't need one. Want a giant spikewolf? Cool, bring it on. But don't name it something it's not.
it makes them look more feral - like something of a prehistoric time (such as Sabre Tooth Tigers - look more feral than a modern tiger does)
Sorry - English again.
fe·ral [feer-uhl, fer-] –adjective 1. existing in a natural state, as animals or plants; not domesticated or cultivated; wild.2. having reverted to the wild state, as from domestication: a pack of feral dogs roaming the woods.
"Feral" does not mean "prehistoric." There is no such thing as a "prehistoric" look, and "having longer incisors" cannot be meaningfully described as "looking more feral." That's just misuse of English words (and not even "esoteric scientific" ones). If you want a word that means "covered in all kinds of kewl horns and stuff," then "spiked" would be the correct adjective. "Horned" works OK, too.
Sorry to be like that, but the D&D rules are written in English for the most part, so I quibble with hijacking English words and changing their definitions to something that has vaguely to do with artwork or some kind of undefinable "feel." Don't call it a "dire wolf" if it's not one. Don't use "happy" if you really mean "annoyed." Don't use "antediluvian" to mean "weird." Don't use "transdimensional" if you mean "awesome." And for the sake of your sanity, if Fakey's around, don't use "rouge" if you mean "rogue"!
Real-world dire wolves were only slightly larger than modern gray wolves, but their teeth and jaws were distinctly more massive.
The more you know! (musical sting)
Real-world dire wolves were only slightly larger than modern gray wolves, but their teeth and jaws were distinctly more massive.
Yes, I'm glad that was noted above as well.
|
|
it makes them look more feral - like something of a prehistoric time (such as Sabre Tooth Tigers - look more feral than a modern tiger does)Sorry - English again.
fe·ral [feer-uhl, fer-] –adjective 1. existing in a natural state, as animals or plants; not domesticated or cultivated; wild.
2. having reverted to the wild state, as from domestication: a pack of feral dogs roaming the woods."Feral" does not mean "prehistoric." There is no such thing as a "prehistoric" look. If you want a word that means what you seem to be describing, "spiked" would be the correct adjective. "Horned" works OK. Sorry to be like that, but the D&D rules are written in English for the most part, so I quibble with hijacking English words and changing their definitions to something that has vaguely to do with artwork or some kind of undefinable "feel." Don't call it a "dire wolf" if it's not one. Don't use "happy" if you really mean "annoyed." Don't use "antediluvian" to mean "weird." Don't use "transdimensional" if you mean "awesome."
How about anal retentive? or obsessively compulsed?
Are you suggesting that if someone says something looks prehistoric - that no one in the world would have an idea of what that might mean?
And having read your printed definitions, I have to say feral is a perfect adjective for the way a 'dire rat' looks in the MM. It certainly doesn't look domesticated, and it certainly looks like it reverted to a wild state. Thanks for the vernacular lesson, though.
Robert
Indeed, some illustrations of dire beasts remind me sometimes the yuuzhan-vong organic graftings in Star Wars... :D
However, pictures and descriptions shouldn't be restrictive. This is a game of imagination.
If as a DM you don't like the presentation of a creature, it's up to you to change it.
After all, what the characters see is what the DM describes to them ;)
How about anal retentive? or obsessively compulsed?
Obviously, I prefer "English-speaking." Still, you've got to admit that it's kind of silly to call something a "dire wolf" if it's not. That's kind of like calling a Prius a "rocket tank."
And I would suggest that while some people might have something vaguely similar in mind to what you do when they hear "prehistoric-looking," other people will have a completely different thing in mind. Why not just remove the confusion? There are plenty of words that mean whatever it is a person wants to say. In a conversation, it's fine to be vague, but for a set of rules, it just makes no sense.
|
|
There are plenty of words that mean whatever it is a person wants to say. In a conversation, it's fine to be vague, but for a set of rules, it just makes no sense.
But we arent discussing rules; this was a conversation. The art and flavor and visual appeal it creates and the sense of danger one feels when they view it is what we were talking about; not the game mechanics and rules. The words I chose to employ to associate the literary imagery is no different than saying the sky was so beautiful it is "heartbreaking blue." It not really heartbreaking - but most who read that just know inside what the author is trying to convey.
Robert
But we arent discussing rules; this was a conversation.
Well, it's a conversation about what the rules say, but OK. I see what you're getting at, and I agree 100%. The description and name given to the critter(s) in the rulebook are what I have the issue with, not with you, nor with any of your posts (which, looking at other threads, are almost universally excellent). If you explain to a player, "You kinda toss that triangle thingy and look at what's on the bottom," he'll figure out that you want him to roll a d4, and everything is cool. But if the Player's Handbook says: "How to determine ability scores: you get a bunch of those square things, and you, like, chuck 'em, and then do some math or something," we have a problem.
I hate to see a rulebook written in vague, meaningless (or blatantly incorrect) terms. A giant spikewolf should have been named something other than "dire wolf," for example. Likewise with the use of "prehistoric-looking" as descriptive text. I busted on the phrase when I was quoting you, which was careless of me, and then compounded my error by saying "you" to mean "one," and for that I apologize. It's the putting of the phrase into the printed rules that bugs me.
|
|
But we arent discussing rules; this was a conversation.Well, it's a conversation about what the rules say, but OK. I see what you're getting at, and I agree 100%. The description and name given to the critter(s) in the rulebook are what I have the issue with, not with you, nor with any of your posts (which, looking at other threads, are almost universally excellent). If you explain to a player, "You kinda toss that triangle thingy and look at what's on the bottom," he'll figure out that you want him to roll a d4, and everything is cool. But if the Player's Handbook says: "How to determine ability scores: you get a bunch of those square things, and you, like, chuck 'em, and then do some math or something," we have a problem.
I hate to see a rulebook written in vague, meaningless (or blatantly incorrect) terms. A giant spikewolf should have been named something other than "dire wolf," for example. Likewise with the use of "prehistoric-looking" as descriptive text. I busted on the phrase when I was quoting you, which was careless of me, and then compounded my error by saying "you" to mean "one," and for that I apologize. It's the putting of the phrase into the printed rules that bugs me.
Fair enough - and I might add a) thank you for complimenting on my "universally excellent" posts. That is very kind of you. b) i do fully see your issue now - in the actual "name" of the creature, and I agree how that can be misleading. c) I appreciate your apology - likewise I hope I didnt offend and d) I found your commentary on 'chucking the square thingys and do some math' to be downright hysterical.
Robert
For my personal taste, the dire bear is fine; eyebrow ridges seem like a fairly reasonable evolutionary path for an apex predator with a penchant for agression.
I can even see the shoulderblade spikes of a dire wolf; it's a great countermeasure against other males in battles of dominance, when the goal is getting ahold of the back of the neck and subduing the rival.
Dire rats work well too. The dire tigers always seemed to look fine to me. Ditto for the lions. Never saw a good illo of the weasels, but the mini was acceptable.
Dire bat's exoskeleton ribcage is a bit much for me, if the mini is to be beleived.
But the one that kills me, and makes me shudder beyond all others: the dire polar bear. WTF are those things on its forearms? Snorkles?
If I wear a suit of spiked armor, I'm going to put spikes on elbows, shoulders, back of the forearms, maybe a few on my back as well. Places that serve a purpose, for either offense or defense. I'm not putting a spike on the inside of my bicep, my inner thigh, my adam's apple, or my groin. Unless I'm (A) crazy (B) insanely paranoid or (C) practice a really bizzare fighting style.
The dire animal design paradigm should be similar. The spikes and bone plates are ok, if they serve a visible and easily discerned purpose. If the purpose is less obvious, show it in the fluff description. Simple as that.
it gave it a more prehistoric look to them - like the Sabre-Tooth and other creatures of the Cretaceous period. you do realize that saber-tooths didn't live during the cretaceous period rightYou do realize this isn't a damn history class, right?
I think my post although not 100% encyclopedically accurate still makes its point. Most people I'm sure at capable of understanding my intent of the post.
Your point, although valid, does nothing to add to the conversation; only derails; if you're not going to be part of the solution - dont be part of the problem. Instead if you feel the need to chime in, do so with the intent of assisting the debate at hand - not to my use/misuse of some esoteric scientific term.
I didnt so much mean that they have historical accurate depiction of an actual prehistoric animal - but that it makes them look more feral - like something of a prehistoric time (such as Sabre Tooth Tigers - look more feral than a modern tiger does); thus makes them look more like monsters/creatures to fear and those one would expect to encounter in a science-fiction/fantasy world of dragons and wizards.
Robert
hey if you don't know what you are talking about then don't bring it up... or if you do, don't act like a baby when somebody calls you on it... If see somebody saying something that is flat out inaccurate to support thier position, I do not see how calling them on it (possibly potentialy undermining thier position) is realy derailing the discussion, it is just the normal ebb and flow of the debate.