|
The concept of lizard/reptile/fish/any other animal people has been around for as long as humans have told stories.
It's only a breach of IP if you try to pass your product off as being by another company (to divert their sales) or use their specific names (like Lord Kroak of Mazdamundi, Tenehuini, etc).
What product are the FGU saurians in? And are they 3.5-compatible?
|
I agree that calling an animal 'dire' and covering it with bone spurs is silly. I'm glad to hear that jumbo animals may be reverting to their more prehistoric roots.
That said, I kinda' like the bone spur critters, not as natural animals, but as a result of some magical curse or taint or plague or something. It makes them boney and in constant pain, they rage, no fear of death. Maybe it's a fiendish plot or the result of necromantic experimentation gone feral. It could even be called the Dire Plague or something.
I know that some prehistoric wolves were called Dire Wolves (I live right next to the La Brea Tap Pits in LA), although they we not horse size. Were other big mammals also called 'dire,' or has the category been extended from this one example? If that is the case, maybe we stop calling all big animals 'dire' and just call them by their names, and reserve 'dire' for something cursed like I mentioned above.
Gotta have 8 in my opinion with slots #7 & #8 going to the flying & aquatic reptiles as others have suggested. My list:
1. Tyrannosaurus rex
2. Triceratops
3. Apatosaurus
4. Stegosaurus
5. Deinonychus
6. Iguanodon
7. Pteranodon
8. Elasmosaurus
Now in the future I would love to see many more and my ultimate wish list follows:
Dromaeosaurs:
Microraptor (Tiny)
Velociraptor (Small)
Deinonychus (Medium)
Troodon (Medium)
Utahraptor (Large)
Carnosaurs:
Allosaurus (Large)
Mapusaurus (Huge)
Carcharodontosaurus (Huge)
Giganotosaurus (Huge)
Tyrannosaurs:
Guanlong (Medium)
Daspletosaurus (Large)
Albertosaurus (Large)
Tyrannosaurus rex (Huge)
Spinosaurs:
Baryonyx (Large)
Spinosaurus (Huge)
Misc Theropods:
Compsognathus (Tiny)
Ornitholestes (Small)
Coelophysis (Small)
Oviraptor (Small)
Dilophosaurus (Large)
Ceratosaurus (Large)
Majungasaurus (Large)
Therizinosaurus (Huge)
Ornithomimosaurs:
Ornithomimus (Medium)
Gallimimus (Large)
Dinocheirus (Huge)
Sauropods:
Plateosaurus (Large)
Saltasaurus (Huge)
Dicraeosaurus (Huge)
Camarasaurus (Huge)
Barosaurus (Huge)
Diplodocus (Gargantuan)
Apatosaurus (Gargantuan)
Brachiosaurus (Gargantuan)
Supersaurus (Colossal)
Sauroposeidon (Colossal)
Argentinosaurus (Colossal)
Stegosaurs:
Huayangosaurus (Medium)
Stegosaurus (Large)
Ankylosaurids:
Polocanthus (Medium)
Gastonia (Large)
Edmontonia (Large)
Euoplocephalus (Large)
Ankylosaurus (Large)
Iguanodontians:
Dryosaurus (Medium)
Camptosaurus (Large)
Tenontosaurus (Large)
Muttaburrasaurus (Large)
Iguanodon (Huge)
Duckbills:
Corythosaurus (Large)
Edmontosaurus (Huge)
Lambeosaurus (Huge)
Pachycephalosaurs:
Stegoceras (Medium)
Pachycephalosaurus (Large)
Ceratopsians:
Psittacosaurus (Small)
Protoceratops (Medium)
Centrosaurus (Large)
Styracosaurus (Large)
Pentaceratops (Huge)
Torosaurus (Huge)
Triceratops (Huge)
Microraptor would make a cool familiar; Troodon was perhaps the most intelligent of all; lots to work with here and could easily add a lot of abilities (within reason) to differentiate between the species.
Let me add to you list.
Monolophosaurus - medium sized carnosaur
Dilong - small, feathered tryannosauroid
I would argue that Huayangosaurus might be on the low side of large. It massed about as much as a horse. The same may hold true for Polocanthus. Dracopelta may be a better example of a medium sized ankylosaur.
I think when dealing with creatures in general, that mass should play a factor in figuring size. This is especially true for creatures that float at the bountry of two size ranges.
James, I hope you read this. I don't post very often, but I really wanted to add my 2 cents on this one. I've carefully read everyone's responses and given this a lot of thought. I even went so far as to catalog everyone's special ability suggestions and compare them to the following list.
I think oetbeholder's ideas are close to ideal for me...
Tyrannosaurs: augmented criticals (incredible jaw strength), disease (like modern day komodo dragons), bleeding wounds (serrated teeth), frightening presence (it's a T-rex!)
Deinonychosaurs: pounce/rake (they already have these, but they're still perfect fits), improved flank or other pack hunting bonuses, camouflage (like the ranger ability... this could be terrifying).
Triceratops: impale (free grapple and continuing damage on a critical hit), shield rider (riders can get cover behind the neck frill), automatic bull rush and extra damage on charge attacks.
Pterodons: Flyby attack with improved grab, so they can carry PCs back to their clifftop nests. Bonus damage for diving charges. A line about using them as mounts, since any encounter that starts with someone on the back of a flying dinosaur is made of win.
Big sauropods: Crush/trample attacks, deafening whip-cracks with their tails, tail sweeps that hit everything in a wide swath and knock targets down on a hit. Super bonus cool points for rules on climbing up onto their backs, or for any picture that shows a dinosaur with a howdah.
Stegosaurs: Defensive stance with crazy AoO bonuses. Knockback if struck by the thagomizer (best word ever).
Ankylosaurs: Tail sweeps that stun. Free attacks when flanked. Crazy high AC and fortification, but with a soft underbelly (encouraging nimble PCs to dive underneath, or work together to try to flip it over).
The only alterations I would make are as follows:
1. Replace the tyrannosaur disease ability with pin under foot--not only because that's cooler to me, but also because I don't like the idea of the tyrannosaur being unhealthy/toxic in some way instead of a healthy/unstoppable apex predator. Also, make sure that the frightful presence isn't always active but instead happens when the T-Rex roars.
2. I would keep the sauropod crush/trample attacks, the stegosaur defensive stance with AoO bonuses, and the ankylosaur high AC/fortification, but here's what I would do with the tail attacks: All tail attacks can trip and/or knockback, but the sauropod can strike multiple targets at once, the stegosaur can get a critical piercing attack, and the ankylosaur can stun. No deafening whip-cracks. No free attacks when flanked.
By the way, oetbeholder, I mean no offense in making changes to your suggestions. I thought your ideas were amazingly good! And, yes, the word "thagomizer" rocks!
OK, now to actually answer the original questions. :)
1) How many dinosaurs is the right amount to do a good show of it?
Six. The ones listed by oetbeholder above, except for the pterosaur since it's not technically a dinosaur. HOWEVER, if space allowed, I would love to see oetbeholder's pterosaur get included along with a plesiosaur (i.e. so-called "aquatic dinosaur") for a total of eight creatures. Does anyone have special ability ideas for the plesiosaur? Oet, you wanna take a shot at that one? I thought some kind of surprise breaching attack from the depths would be cool--you know, knocking people overboard and into the water!
2) What four dinosaurs would you hope to see in the book more than any other?
Tyrannosaur and deinonychus for sure. If the pterosaur and plesiosaur did get included, I would say those two. That way you'd get the four aggressive carnivores instead of the herbivores. Otherwise, I'd have to go with triceratops and the big sauropods for the greatest possible variety of special abilities.
3) How important is it to maintain all five dinosaurs from the MM? Can we get away with just one dromaeosaurid (probably the deinonychus), with the assumption that one can make a megaraptor by simply advancing the deinonychus?
Not that important. I would say it's Paizo's version--do your own thing. Only go with the deinonychus instead of two dromaeosaurids.
4) If #3 above is true, would it better to replace the deinonychus with the velociraptor? Velociraptor is more well-known these days, and it's easy enough to say that a velociraptor advanced up one size category is a deinonychus.
Leave it as deinonychus. That's the size it needs to be in the game, even if Jurassic Park got the name wrong.
5) Dinosaurs don't have to be boring. They don't have to simply be hit points and a bite attack. Currently living animals have a wide range of biodiversity, with special attacks like poison, constriction, electricity generation, stunning attacks, ranged attacks (like tarantulas flicking poison hairs, archerfish spitting balls of water, or cobras spitting poison), and the like. Would it be too strange to give some dinosaurs a bit more flavor by giving them attacks that aren't necessarily supported by the fossil record?
The abilities listed by oetbeholder are all realistic. I would steer away from weird abilities for two reasons. One, people have a general sense of what dinosaurs are and what they could do. Two, I think they're cool enough and scary enough--especially due to their imposing size--without having to add anything to them. I love having areas of Golarion where you're entering dinosaur territory!
6) Is there anything in particular with how dinosaurs have been stattud up in the game before that rubs you the wrong way that you'd like to see changed?
Other than the abilities listed above which are slightly different from the MM (for example, I would always have a triceratops lower its horns and frill to bullrush--never raise it to trample), the only thing I would change is getting rid of the tyrannosaur's swallow whole ability. I'm with the other posters on that one!
Well, there you have it! My long-winded response. ;p Hope it helps! I welcome other people's comments. ~Svev
Allow me to put in a suggestion to keep the T-rex's Swallow Whole ability, or at least include a Swallow Whole feat. In 20+ years of gaming, we've had too many characters swallowed whole by those guys for me to turn around now and say, "Well, there's been a minor warp in the structure of the universe, and they can't do that anymore."
Taking away that iconic ability at this stage in the game would be like... well, like making succubi into devils or something. Blasphemy!
Allow me to put in a suggestion to keep the T-rex's Swallow Whole ability, or at least include a Swallow Whole feat. In 20+ years of gaming, we've had too many characters swallowed whole by those guys for me to turn around now and say, "Well, there's been a minor warp in the structure of the universe, and they can't do that anymore."
Taking away that iconic ability at this stage in the game would be like... well, like making succubi into devils or something. Blasphemy!
I don't think it is that bad, but it is a fair arugement. Besides, the T. Rex likely could not chew, so it did swallow prey whole.
Having it as some kind of feat is fine, since not all theropods (especially the smaller ones) should have that ability. I also think there is a need to redefine how that ability functions a bit.
Instead of cutting ones way out of the gizzard, perhaps a character causes enough damage to be spit out by a gag reflex from the creature. This would avoid the resealing of open wounds. The creature that just expelled the swallowed individual might even be dazed for a round if this happened.
|
Instead of cutting ones way out of the gizzard, perhaps a character causes enough damage to be spit out by a gag reflex from the creature. This would avoid the resealing of open wounds. The creature that just expelled the swallowed individual might even be dazed for a round if this happened.
It's bad enough being bitten and swallowed by a T-rex, but now you're covered in dino barf! Ewwwwwww!
Actually, this makes a lot more sense than the swallow whole RAW. Not a lot of creatures can keep fighting after something nasty and angry cuts its way out of its gut. Spitting out/up something that disagrees with you (or being eaten by you) OTOH...
Instead of cutting ones way out of the gizzard, perhaps a character causes enough damage to be spit out by a gag reflex from the creature. This would avoid the resealing of open wounds. The creature that just expelled the swallowed individual might even be dazed for a round if this happened.
I have been advocating this for a long time.
Having it as some kind of feat is fine, since not all theropods (especially the smaller ones) should have that ability. I also think there is a need to redefine how that ability functions a bit. Instead of cutting ones way out of the gizzard, perhaps a character causes enough damage to be spit out by a gag reflex from the creature. This would avoid the resealing of open wounds.
Excellent suggestions all around, Thraxus. Consider them houseruled, even if Paizo fails to implement them.
Creative Director
|
We've been working on adjusting/changing swallow whole (the "muscular action closes the hole" bit is relatively notorious around the office and is often made fun of, especially in the case of things like plants who can swallow whole...).
The gag reflex solution is actually really elegant AND more realistic. Good stuff.
Getting flashback of Creative Juices' PHB PSA #50. link
... will now have the "Swallow" ability. As opposed to the "Swallow Whole" ability. In 4.25, they will gain a brand new ability: "Spit"
|
|
Getting flashback of Creative Juices' PHB PSA #50. link
... will now have the "Swallow" ability. As opposed to the "Swallow Whole" ability. In 4.25, they will gain a brand new ability: "Spit"
Hmmm, wasn't this an Austin Powers gag? ;)
Good idea, it's much more realistic than the whole hole resealing bit, animals cough up things they ate that disagree with them all the time.
A really big theropod like a Carcharodontosaurus or Tyrannosaurus was certainly capable of swallowing a Medium sized creature whole, they had hinges in their lower jaws (and skulls, in some cases) that permitted them to gulp down huge chunks of meat. Although if such man-sized prey regularly damaged a Huge theropods' insides after being swallowed alive, I'd have thought they'd have developed a habit of giving them a few chomps with their jaws before gulping them down, just to make sure it's dead.
I remember reading about a tyrannosaurus skeleton that was found with one or two large bones in its gizzard, suggesting that it may have bit off more than it could digest and the tyrannosaurus choked to death. Combine this with them not being able to chew and sometimes you get something that does not agree with being eaten.
|
So, let us assume that there will be dinosaurs in the Pathfinder Bestiary. A relatively safe assumption, since every edition of the game's core monster book has had them since 1st edition, yes?
So, working on that assumption, I would love to hear folks answer the following questions:
1) How many dinosaurs is the right amount to do a good show of it?
2) What four dinosaurs would you hope to see in the book more than any other?
3) How important is it to maintain all five dinosaurs from the MM? Can we get away with just one dromaeosaurid (probably the deinonychus), with the assumption that one can make a megaraptor by simply advancing the deinonychus?
4) If #3 above is true, would it better to replace the deinonychus with the velociraptor? Velociraptor is more well-known these days, and it's easy enough to say that a velociraptor advanced up one size category is a deinonychus.
5) Dinosaurs don't have to be boring. They don't have to simply be hit points and a bite attack. Currently living animals have a wide range of biodiversity, with special attacks like poison, constriction, electricity generation, stunning attacks, ranged attacks (like tarantulas flicking poison hairs, archerfish spitting balls of water, or cobras spitting poison), and the like. Would it be too strange to give some dinosaurs a bit more flavor by giving them attacks that aren't necessarily supported by the fossil record?
6) Is there anything in particular with how dinosaurs have been stattud up in the game before that rubs you the wrong way that you'd like to see changed?
Four dinosaurs work, it gives you more room for other monsters. The core three I would hope for are the t-rex (I seriously don’t think that one will be left out), the triceratops (it’s another classic from my childhood) and the pterodactyl (giving some flight for a little diversity).
I would also home for something really big and stompy, but if space is an issue, I guess the triceratops is stompy enough.I was never a big raptor fan, I would rather see something more unique than “It’s a wolf, but it’s also a dino”
I personally think that the t-rex should be a bigger threat. It's a t-rex!
Gosh, it's hard to limit it to four. However, I think I agree with most people here when I say T-Rex, velociraptor, triceratops, and pteranodon.
That said, if I could have my druthers, I'd add stegasaurus to that list. I mean honestly, when you think of dinosaurs, it's one of the iconics. Also, the spiked tail and armored spine would make for an interesting encounter that none of these other creatures can match.
I second the prehistoric mammals inclusion! And stats for Raquel Welch and Barbara Bach while we're at it!
Ah yes, Raquel Welch in a leather bikini: the real reason ancient man stood erect.
Hmmm, wasn't this an Austin Powers gag? ;)Getting flashback of Creative Juices' PHB PSA #50. link
... will now have the "Swallow" ability. As opposed to the "Swallow Whole" ability. In 4.25, they will gain a brand new ability: "Spit"
Wouldn't be surprised. I don't know, I never got around to seeing all the AP movies.
|
I have another prehistoric animal to add to the quasi dire animal list: the dire snake-Titanoboa!
Actually one other thought regarding dire animals and dinosaurs: the dire animals in the MM had good will saves and possibly other differences from normal animals-could dinosaurs be given good will saves and the other changes to effectively make them dire animals as well? Just curious.
|
|
I have another prehistoric animal to add to the quasi dire animal list: the dire snake-Titanoboa!
Actually one other thought regarding dire animals and dinosaurs: the dire animals in the MM had good will saves and possibly other differences from normal animals-could dinosaurs be given good will saves and the other changes to effectively make them dire animals as well? Just curious.
Wouldn't a monstrous snake of appropriate size work for that? Or a regular Dire Snake?
|
Contributor
|
So, let us assume that there will be dinosaurs in the Pathfinder Bestiary. A relatively safe assumption, since every edition of the game's core monster book has had them since 1st edition, yes?
So, working on that assumption, I would love to hear folks answer the following questions:
Hey James,
I just want to say it's great to have you ask for this feedback. Thanks for including the crew out here. For me its also timely: as a designer, on two recent projects, I reached into the monster bucket for a good dinosaur and came back pretty disappointed.
1) How many dinosaurs is the right amount to do a good show of it?
For me a specific number isn't the thing, though off-hand 8 or so feels right. It's more about covering multiple terrains, multiple CRs, and specific situations.
So I want a flyer, a fresh water, a salt water, a fast ground predator, a stampeder, a climber, and an amphibious. One relatively harmless gentle-giant type would be enough, provided they can be tamed. Obviously, if PCs aren't going to interact with a particular species, it's color, and we don't need stats.
I want them available to me at multiple CRs. In many cases, advancement would handle that, but maybe not all. For example, no matter how far you advance a velociraptor, it still isn't a tree-toppling t-rex. Yet both are fast ground predators.
And I want to make sure they're adaptable to multiple situations. For example, I recently wanted a dinosaur that would fill the "bought an alligator, and when it got too big, dumped it down the sewer" niche. Nada. Finally went with a Tendrul and a tad of backstory, but I realy would have preferred something like a Phobosuchus/Deinosuchus or other archosaur.
Lots of ways to skin the design-needs cat, so I can't say exactly how many dinos I'd like to see.
2) What four dinosaurs would you hope to see in the book more than any other?
If I had to pick four?
a. An archosaurb. An ichthyosaur or mosasaur
c. A pelycosaur like Dimetrodon, or a Stegosaurus
d. T-Rex or Allosaurus
e. A pterosaur
Damn. That's 5. Ok. Strike the pelycosaur/Stegosarus.
3) How important is it to maintain all five dinosaurs from the MM? Can we get away with just one dromaeosaurid (probably the deinonychus), with the assumption that one can make a megaraptor by simply advancing the deinonychus?
To me, it's not important. It'd even be a downer. I'd rather have the dinosaurs in the MM, plus new ones, drastically increasing my stable. And yes to the advancing megaraptor.
4) If #3 above is true, would it better to replace the deinonychus with the velociraptor? Velociraptor is more well-known these days, and it's easy enough to say that a velociraptor advanced up one size category is a deinonychus.
Yes. Replace away, but why not make it a different beastie? Then I get both a velociraptor and a deinonychus (from the MM).
5) Dinosaurs don't have to be boring. They don't have to simply be hit points and a bite attack. Currently living animals have a wide range of biodiversity, with special attacks like poison, constriction, electricity generation, stunning attacks, ranged attacks (like tarantulas flicking poison hairs, archerfish spitting balls of water, or cobras spitting poison), and the like. Would it be too strange to give some dinosaurs a bit more flavor by giving them attacks that aren't necessarily supported by the fossil record?
For me, within limits. I think you're on the right track with the bio-diversity range of existing creatures. Chameleon abilities, giant ghecko sucking feet for climbing sheer cliffs, things like that. But I wouldn't want to drift into the magic zone, or even the truly extraordinary, as it risks ceasing to feel like a dinosaur.
In fact, I'd love to see some new dino powers added to the lexicon, so I could modify and craft me own dino-critters!
6) Is there anything in particular with how dinosaurs have been stattud up in the game before that rubs you the wrong way that you'd like to see changed?
Yes. I'd prefer to see the category of dinosaur followed by a couple of names, instead of being quite so specific. Pterodactyls are not the only pterosaur, for example.
Can't wait to see what y'all come up with! Exciting stuff.
One last thing--could we make sure the dinosaurs are balanced against the dire animals? Because as it stands right now, a dire bear is much stronger than a tyrannosaurus, and that's just not right.
|
Creative Director
|
One last thing--could we make sure the dinosaurs are balanced against the dire animals? Because as it stands right now, a dire bear is much stronger than a tyrannosaurus, and that's just not right.
Agreed. During the 3.0 playtest, I actually sort of crusaded to have that fixed. I was unsuccessful.
On that note, can we get the distinction between animals and dire animals abolished, other than naming? I recall several animal-affecting spells giving bonuses to dire animals.
|
|
T-Rex
Triceratops
Small raptors (generic)
Pterodactyl (generic flyer)
And maybe two different large generics,
quadrupeds to represent brontosaur and some large generic biped grazing types.
At least for the first Bestiary, heh.
I addition to some of the specified abilities listed by eotbeholder (good stuff there), I would like to see some default abilities akin to demons/devils 1st edition. Immunity to charms/mental control, etc. Due to their toughness maybe they can fight on after hitting negative hit points - maybe at a penalty, much like bears did in 1st ed.
Also each should have some kind of a DR value due thick hide, fat or bony covering –vary it up with each dinosaur but make it intuitive enough that it would be something the players can figure out just by observation ( bony requires blunt weapons, thick hide or fat slashing, etc).
|
Creative Director
|
On that note, can we get the distinction between animals and dire animals abolished, other than naming? I recall several animal-affecting spells giving bonuses to dire animals.
I'd like to see the concept of "dire" kind of go away, honestly, to be replaced with things like smilodons, daeodons, and arsinotheriums. An animal is an animal.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
I would agree with most of the following list posted upthread:
1. Tyrannosaurus rex
2. Triceratops
3. Apatosaurus
4. Stegosaurus
5. Deinonychus
6. replace Iguanodon with another aquatic, Icthyosaurus or Mosasaurus
7. Pteranodon
8. Elasmosaurus
Yes, they're not all technically dinos, but this is D&D not paleontology class so I don't care!
A few ideas as far as letting dinos put the whammo on people would be:
1. Give dinos with tail/slam attack Awesome Blow as a bonus feat.
2. As a special feature, let dinos with a charge attack (Triceratops and friends, I'm looking at you!) do an Awesome Blow as a charge attack.
3. To enable the stomping attack that I think a lot of us would like, give dinos the Crush attack ability that dragons possess, but rather than crushing their whole body down, it is a single-target foot-stomp vs. a creature at least 2 size categories smaller (so a T-rex can stomp a human). No roll to hit; just a Reflex save or you are pinned and crushed for 2d8(+1.5 x STR) per round.
On a separate note, I wouldn't mind predatory dinos having a roar that not just inspired fear but that deafened, stunned, or knocked prone.
For that matter, a dino-stomp attack that knocked adjacent creatures prone would be pretty appropriate as well.
I'd like to see the concept of "dire" kind of go away, honestly, to be replaced with things like smilodons, daeodons, and arsinotheriums. An animal is an animal.
The 'dire' label might be a bit sacred cow-ish, but I otherwise agree with the sentiment.
On that note, can we get the distinction between animals and dire animals abolished, other than naming? I recall several animal-affecting spells giving bonuses to dire animals.I'd like to see the concept of "dire" kind of go away, honestly, to be replaced with things like smilodons, daeodons, and arsinotheriums. An animal is an animal.
I concur with this!
I'd like to see the concept of "dire" kind of go away, honestly, to be replaced with things like smilodons, daeodons, and arsinotheriums. An animal is an animal.The 'dire' label might be a bit sacred cow-ish, but I otherwise agree with the sentiment.
Dire's a new (3rd Edition) sacred cow for everything except for wolves. Back in the day, it tended to be "giant animal". Which I think it should be reverted to for those dire animals that don't have real world equivalents (I'm looking at you, bats, rats, badgers and weasels).
Dire's a new (3rd Edition) sacred cow for everything except for wolves. Back in the day, it tended to be "giant animal". Which I think it should be reverted to for those dire animals that don't have real world equivalents (I'm looking at you, bats, rats, badgers and weasels).I'd like to see the concept of "dire" kind of go away, honestly, to be replaced with things like smilodons, daeodons, and arsinotheriums. An animal is an animal.The 'dire' label might be a bit sacred cow-ish, but I otherwise agree with the sentiment.
I didn't mind the "dire" label. It put all of the prehistoric-style megafauna in one place, easy to find for putting together thematic environments and it took a semi-developed concept from 1e/2e and made it something useful as an organizing tool. Which isn't a bad thing.
If the giant/dire/commonly-named-but-prehistoric version of the animal is grouped with its modern equivalent, then I would be fine with pretty much any label. I just want either all giant/dire animals lumped together in one group under a common linking name (like "Dire") or all giant/dire animals next to their modern versions. I don't want some mix just because smilodon doesn't sort next to tiger or because dire wolf is many letters away from wolf but wolverine and wolverine, giant sort together. The naming may work better with our out of game knowledge, but the monster book would be a less effective reference tool as a result.
Dire's a new (3rd Edition) sacred cow for everything except for wolves. Back in the day, it tended to be "giant animal". Which I think it should be reverted to for those dire animals that don't have real world equivalents (I'm looking at you, bats, rats, badgers and weasels).I'd like to see the concept of "dire" kind of go away, honestly, to be replaced with things like smilodons, daeodons, and arsinotheriums. An animal is an animal.The 'dire' label might be a bit sacred cow-ish, but I otherwise agree with the sentiment.
I dunno bats, but there are nutria and capybaras (dire rats). And a Wolverine is mighty close to being a dire badger/weasel.
One last thing--could we make sure the dinosaurs are balanced against the dire animals? Because as it stands right now, a dire bear is much stronger than a tyrannosaurus, and that's just not right.Agreed. During the 3.0 playtest, I actually sort of crusaded to have that fixed. I was unsuccessful.
Make it a dire tyranosaurus ;)
Dire weasel: Ekorus
Regarding giant/dire, I'd like to see some semblance of logic behind the stats for giant constrictors and giant crocodiles, vis-a-vis the "normal" ones and the rules for size and HD advancement.
Bill Dunn makes great points. The 1e fanboy in me wants all the variant animals listed alongside their modern kin, but that creates problems when the dire walrus comes out in a later book than the walrus, for example. Probably having a catchall "dire" category is the best way to go (and let's make "dire" imply "big and mean," rather than "spiky and diseased-looking.")
The 1e fanboy in me wants all the variant animals listed alongside their modern kin, but that creates problems when the dire walrus comes out in a later book than the walrus, for example.
Why? Make it Walrus, Dire. You're still in the habit of looking under 'W', not 'D'.
Why? Make it Walrus, Dire. You're still in the habit of looking under 'W', not 'D'.
Because, knowing JJ, Paizo might call their dire armadillo a "glyptodont." Also, it might be cool to have multiple variants in some cases: {Gorilla, Ape, Dire Ape}, which a simple "regular/dire" dichotomy doesn't really allow.
Why? Make it Walrus, Dire. You're still in the habit of looking under 'W', not 'D'.Because, knowing JJ, Paizo might call their dire armadillo a "glyptodont."
I see the fear. I suggest that the convention be: Armadillo, Giant (Glyptodont), similar to Devil, Bone (Osyluth). Sub 'dire' for 'giant' at will.
I suggest that the convention be: Armadillo, Giant (Glyptodont), similar to Devil, Bone (Osyluth). Sub 'dire' for 'giant' at will.
That could work out nicely. And if they wanted a Medium dire wolf and a Large giant wolf (as a nod to the historical reality as well as the 3e game critter), they could list them under "Wolf," "Wolf, Dire," and "Wolf, Giant."
In other words, "dire" could imply "tough and mean" and/or "prehistoric," whereas "giant" would imply "bigger than normal."
I dunno bats, but there are nutria and capybaras (dire rats). And a Wolverine is mighty close to being a dire badger/weasel.
I agree. For my own monster archive, I just have tiny, small, medium and large "Badgers". Tiny is the weasel, small is the badger, medium is wolverine and dire badger, and large is dire wolverine.
It is of course not all the same, but the difference is just fluff. The stats are so similar, that it works very well that way. Player's won't know if the wolverine has Strength 15 and the and the dire badger Strangth 16.I looked up several animals and dire manuals in the SRD, and very often the differences are just as minor as that. And you don't need seperate stat blocks in that case.
Dinosaurs are fascinting because they're a) big, b) dangerous (usually) and c) extinct. In a world filled with strange magical creatures, dinosaurs could very easily come across as large and rather boring reptiles.
In addition to the terror-inspiring behemoths who are Larger Than They Appear in land rover mirrors, I'd like to see some small, clever dinosaurs. They were evolving toward pack animals with fairly complex social behaviors, so I'm in favor of taking evolution a few steps further. Not sentient dinosaurs, of the scaly humanoid variety, but truely alien creatures that are cunning and creepy--the kind of creatures that make you wonder, with dread, how much they're capable of doing. Consider some of the more intelligent birds, such as ravens, or maybe those with imitative abilities, such as parrots. Small but vicious carnivores that can mimic the sounds of their prey could offer a great little trap for evil DMs to employ.
Me too, really good roleplaying interest, and really suits the orvian vaults in which they dwell.