I do think the better question is: What dinosaurs will get stats in Bestiary 2?TOO SOON!
There'll be 4 dinosaurs in Bestiary 2, though. Well... 3 dinosaurs and one "close enough for the game" dinosaur, along the lines of a elasmosaurus. But bigger.
The liopleurodon!
The liopleurodon!I do think the better question is: What dinosaurs will get stats in Bestiary 2?TOO SOON!
There'll be 4 dinosaurs in Bestiary 2, though. Well... 3 dinosaurs and one "close enough for the game" dinosaur, along the lines of a elasmosaurus. But bigger.
No, your a liopleurodon!
Isn't it true that dinosaurs didn't die out, they just built a spaceship and moved to Venus?
Isn't it true that dinosaurs didn't die out, they just built a spaceship and moved to Venus?
They built space ships all right. But the Tiste Edur killed them all before the could get to Venus.
They built space ships all right. But the Tiste Edur killed them all before the could get to Venus.
Isn't it true that dinosaurs didn't die out, they just built a spaceship and moved to Venus?
And then the Jaghut hid the evidence under ice?
The liopleurodon!I do think the better question is: What dinosaurs will get stats in Bestiary 2?TOO SOON!
There'll be 4 dinosaurs in Bestiary 2, though. Well... 3 dinosaurs and one "close enough for the game" dinosaur, along the lines of a elasmosaurus. But bigger.
If they do that, I want playable unicorn PCs! :P
And then the Jaghut hid the evidence under ice?They built space ships all right. But the Tiste Edur killed them all before the could get to Venus.
Isn't it true that dinosaurs didn't die out, they just built a spaceship and moved to Venus?
So the descendants of Imass could feed on (un)frozen meat for the following millenia?
(sorry for off-top but I count down time to Polish release of Dust of Dreams... 9 more days seems like eternity now. :( )
Well even the guys who wrote it are positing it as a theory not fact.. so at the moment, no one really knows.
Evolution, just a theory.
Relativity, just a theory.Cell Theory, just a theory.
This is one of the greatest misunderstandings out their, and a dangerous one.
When a scientist talks about theory, they are not saying that is just an idea they plucked out of thin air. A theory is science is a description of the interaction of a series of rules(scientific) and properties in nature, which is used to describe observable phenomena. They are predictive and the are compatible with all available evidence.
To describe something as a theory is about as close as you can come in science to saying something is certain.
Evolution might be a theory, but it is also a fact that evolution occurs. The theory describes the fact.
So no, it isn't a theory that Triceratops and the Torosaur are the same species. It might be a fact(frankly it is way out of my field so i don't have the first clue if it is or isn't), but if their where a working and supported theory which explained the development of an individualual triceratops into a Torosaur, if would, to be a working theory, by neccessity also mean that all the available evidence pointed to it being a fact that Triceratops became torosaurs.
Recently it was discovered by science that what we thought was the triceratops might actually never have existed. This issue has polarized the internet. So I'm wondering, whether Paizo is anti-Triceratops or Pro-Triceratops. I notice in your bestiary that you omitted to include a picture of a triceratops so I'm pretty sure which was Paizo swings on this issue, but I'd rather hear it from the Goblin's mouth instead of just assuming...isn't it enough that scientists took Pluto?
Ha, they did pluto a favour... no longer one of the planets, pluto is free to jam with the infinately cooler dwarf planets. Who would you rather be friends with, jupitor, or Eris and Orcus...no contest...
|
Well even the guys who wrote it are positing it as a theory not fact.. so at the moment, no one really knows.
Evolution, just a theory.
Relativity, just a theory.
Cell Theory, just a theory.This is one of the greatest misunderstandings out their, and a dangerous one.
When a scientist talks about theory, they are not saying that is just an idea they plucked out of thin air. A theory is science is a description of the interaction of a series of rules(scientific) and properties in nature, which is used to describe observable phenomena. They are predictive and the are compatible with all available evidence.
To describe something as a theory is about as close as you can come in science to saying something is certain.
Evolution might be a theory, but it is also a fact that evolution occurs. The theory describes the fact.
So no, it isn't a theory that Triceratops and the Torosaur are the same species. It might be a fact(frankly it is way out of my field so i don't have the first clue if it is or isn't), but if their where a working and supported theory which explained the development of an individualual triceratops into a Torosaur, if would, to be a working theory, by neccessity also mean that all the available evidence pointed to it being a fact that Triceratops became torosaurs.
I was just about to comment on that. The post from Selgard hurt my eyes and brain when I first saw it.
stuff
I found it very interesting. Thank you very much.
|
@ Gray
A MAGIC Lepliuridon! *gronk*
Even the largest carnivorous creatures that eat carrion regularly have to hunt. Hyenas, one of the most prolific kill-stealers in Africa, hunt as much as they steal. No carnivore will ignore a big pile of ripe meat..
Carnivorous Triceratops sound AWESOME!
Eff the torosaurus. Triceratops and Tyrannisaurus are the darn reason most kids get interested in paleontology and follow their dreams into making a career of it..
The liopleurodon!I do think the better question is: What dinosaurs will get stats in Bestiary 2?TOO SOON!
There'll be 4 dinosaurs in Bestiary 2, though. Well... 3 dinosaurs and one "close enough for the game" dinosaur, along the lines of a elasmosaurus. But bigger.
Alas, it's been confirmed on the Bestiary thread that it's going to be a mosasaur. Although the stats could certainly play a liopleurodon.
I wonder if the mosasaur will be venomous. After all, venom is a shared character of that clade of lizards (iguanas, alligator lizards, monitor lizards, mosasaurs and snakes).
I was just about to comment on that. The post from Selgard hurt my eyes and brain when I first saw it.Well even the guys who wrote it are positing it as a theory not fact.. so at the moment, no one really knows.
Evolution, just a theory.
Relativity, just a theory.
Cell Theory, just a theory.This is one of the greatest misunderstandings out their, and a dangerous one.
When a scientist talks about theory, they are not saying that is just an idea they plucked out of thin air. A theory is science is a description of the interaction of a series of rules(scientific) and properties in nature, which is used to describe observable phenomena. They are predictive and the are compatible with all available evidence.
To describe something as a theory is about as close as you can come in science to saying something is certain.
Evolution might be a theory, but it is also a fact that evolution occurs. The theory describes the fact.
So no, it isn't a theory that Triceratops and the Torosaur are the same species. It might be a fact(frankly it is way out of my field so i don't have the first clue if it is or isn't), but if their where a working and supported theory which explained the development of an individualual triceratops into a Torosaur, if would, to be a working theory, by neccessity also mean that all the available evidence pointed to it being a fact that Triceratops became torosaurs.
It is one of my biggest pet hates.
I suspect that this "dinos=losers" is why he's so very keen to push the "T. rex is a scavenger" meme, which is terrible science. All predators scavenge from time to time, and the only real obligate scavengers tend to be very highly specialized. Oh, and flying or swimming. It's hard to pinpoint enough carrion to make a living on foot--especially when you weigh several tons.
I'm skeptical of the pure scavenger version myself. Still the things don't appear to be built for speed do appear to have an absolutely phenomenal, and directional, sense of smell. I'm iffy on the 'works in family packs' theory because that kind of animal still needs speed. Female Lions are still sprinters, and a lot more sneaky then a T-Rex to boot - not to mention an order of magnitude smarter.
Still being the biggest bad ass around with a great sense of smell opens a bunch of strategy's. Carrion of course but also T-Rex could probably smell another kill from quite the distance - go and steal it, your bigger then whatever made the kill. Male Lions like to do this.
Also if another dinosaur has been wounded from some other means - mating fight or what have you T-Rex could quite possibly smell that - follow them around and hope that they are hurt enough to either screw up and fall victim to you or they just flop over at some point. Finally if all else fails set up an ambush and hope to take a nice big chunk out of the victim, you don't have to outrun them or even risk fighting them after that - just follow them around using smell to keep tabs on them until shock and blood loss cause them to keel over. Its not like you have to worry about another animal vulturing your victim - if some other predator takes the creature down you chase them off once you catch up.
I suspect that this "dinos=losers" is why he's so very keen to push the "T. rex is a scavenger" meme, which is terrible science. All predators scavenge from time to time, and the only real obligate scavengers tend to be very highly specialized. Oh, and flying or swimming. It's hard to pinpoint enough carrion to make a living on foot--especially when you weigh several tons.Still being the biggest bad ass around with a great sense of smell opens a bunch of strategy's. Carrion of course but also T-Rex could probably smell another kill from quite the distance - go and steal it, your bigger then whatever made the kill. Male Lions like to do this.
Of course, T. rex also had binocular vision, which isn't useful for a carrion diet but is phenomenal for hunting. They were finely honed sensory packages overall.
Kill-theft, scavenging and targeting weakened animals makes sense as behavior for T. rex, because it's just good business for any carnivore. Prey animals are large, strong and potentially dangerous. There was a recent description of a hadrosaur fossil that had been scraped up by a Tarbosaurus, T. rex's Asian relative, that was interpreted as being specifically a scavenging event. And there's also evidence on the record for wounds caused by T. rex teeth that healed over. So, like any actual animal that isn't a fictional construct, tyrannosaurs probably engaged in a number of feeding strategies to supply themselves with calories. Which gives me a great idea for an encounter in a jungle or lost-world type setting, where a T. rex shows up shortly after the PCs finish some huge fight in order to "steal the kill".
Here's the link to scavenging Tarbosaurus.
|
I suspect that this "dinos=losers" is why he's so very keen to push the "T. rex is a scavenger" meme, which is terrible science. All predators scavenge from time to time, and the only real obligate scavengers tend to be very highly specialized. Oh, and flying or swimming. It's hard to pinpoint enough carrion to make a living on foot--especially when you weigh several tons.Still being the biggest bad ass around with a great sense of smell opens a bunch of strategy's. Carrion of course but also T-Rex could probably smell another kill from quite the distance - go and steal it, your bigger then whatever made the kill. Male Lions like to do this.
Of course, T. rex also had binocular vision, which isn't useful for a carrion diet but is phenomenal for hunting. They were finely honed sensory packages overall.
Kill-theft, scavenging and targeting weakened animals makes sense as behavior for T. rex, because it's just good business for any carnivore. Prey animals are large, strong and potentially dangerous. There was a recent description of a hadrosaur fossil that had been scraped up by a Tarbosaurus, T. rex's Asian relative, that was interpreted as being specifically a scavenging event. And there's also evidence on the record for wounds caused by T. rex teeth that healed over. So, like any actual animal that isn't a fictional construct, tyrannosaurs probably engaged in a number of feeding strategies to supply themselves with calories. Which gives me a great idea for an encounter in a jungle or lost-world type setting, where a T. rex shows up shortly after the PCs finish some huge fight in order to "steal the kill".
Here's the link to scavenging Tarbosaurus.
I've always thought it was foolish to think of them being so black and white in their feeding. They're hunters, they're scavengers... why can't they be both? Even vultures will sometimes attack sick or wounded creatures.
I'm so glad other people are making the argument about T-Rex being way too big to be an effective primary-scavenger. Funnily enough, I was having exactly that discussion with a family member on Sunday.
The things had binocular, stereoscopic vision, a massive auditory/olfactory system, a really quite decent brain-to-body-mass ratio (no, really!), and bodies built for balance and power. That's not a scavenger, that's an unstoppable tank.
Plus, even if one uses 3D models and muscle/bone reconstructions to try to eliminate the idea that they were stalk-chase-kill predators, there's the whole idea of "ambush predation" - where one (or more) of the hunters drive the prey into a waiting wall of one (or more) of their friends, who are lying in wait, jaws at the ready. These things are the progenitors of birds and all related species (scientific evidence!), they're not "big dumb lizards waiting for whatever they can find." Birds are social, inventive, and pretty damned cunning when they want to be.
And yes, as the articles on the subject clearly state - Triceratops is the one that's proposed as staying while Torosaur is on the potential outs.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to go play with the plastic dinos on my desk before they suddenly, but inevitably, betray me.
I was going to ask when we'd see some Pathfinder Dino minis, but I realized that Reaper already has a line for that. I might have to slip some velociraptors into my next shipment...
It would be nice if there were a more cost effective triceratops though.
It would be nice if there were a more cost effective triceratops though.
It looks like there will be one in the "Lords of Madness" DDM set, I might have to pick up one of those.
|
It is one of my biggest pet hates.I was just about to comment on that. The post from Selgard hurt my eyes and brain when I first saw it.Well even the guys who wrote it are positing it as a theory not fact.. so at the moment, no one really knows.
Evolution, just a theory.
Relativity, just a theory.
Cell Theory, just a theory.This is one of the greatest misunderstandings out their, and a dangerous one.
When a scientist talks about theory, they are not saying that is just an idea they plucked out of thin air. A theory is science is a description of the interaction of a series of rules(scientific) and properties in nature, which is used to describe observable phenomena. They are predictive and the are compatible with all available evidence.
To describe something as a theory is about as close as you can come in science to saying something is certain.
Evolution might be a theory, but it is also a fact that evolution occurs. The theory describes the fact.
So no, it isn't a theory that Triceratops and the Torosaur are the same species. It might be a fact(frankly it is way out of my field so i don't have the first clue if it is or isn't), but if their where a working and supported theory which explained the development of an individualual triceratops into a Torosaur, if would, to be a working theory, by neccessity also mean that all the available evidence pointed to it being a fact that Triceratops became torosaurs.
I'm a bit rusty on my science, but to the best of my understanding it would seem that a scientific theory was a possible fact not yet proven to the degree that a scientific law was (i.e., chaos theory and superstring theory as opposed to things like Newton's Laws, like the law of gravity and the law of inertia).
I also think some of the theories you've listed are now considered laws by the scientific community (those guys, always making the molecular structure of undergarments displace randomly at wild scientist parties), but don't quote me on that.
Hope this isn't too much off-topic, but any other thoughts on scientific law vs. scientific theory?
Some thoughts:
Entropy isn't what it used to be.
Friction can be a drag sometimes.
Gravity isn't easy, but it's the law.
It is one of my biggest pet hates.I was just about to comment on that. The post from Selgard hurt my eyes and brain when I first saw it.Well even the guys who wrote it are positing it as a theory not fact.. so at the moment, no one really knows.
Evolution, just a theory.
Relativity, just a theory.
Cell Theory, just a theory.This is one of the greatest misunderstandings out their, and a dangerous one.
When a scientist talks about theory, they are not saying that is just an idea they plucked out of thin air. A theory is science is a description of the interaction of a series of rules(scientific) and properties in nature, which is used to describe observable phenomena. They are predictive and the are compatible with all available evidence.
To describe something as a theory is about as close as you can come in science to saying something is certain.
Evolution might be a theory, but it is also a fact that evolution occurs. The theory describes the fact.
So no, it isn't a theory that Triceratops and the Torosaur are the same species. It might be a fact(frankly it is way out of my field so i don't have the first clue if it is or isn't), but if their where a working and supported theory which explained the development of an individualual triceratops into a Torosaur, if would, to be a working theory, by neccessity also mean that all the available evidence pointed to it being a fact that Triceratops became torosaurs.
I'm a bit rusty on my science, but to the best of my understanding it would seem that a scientific theory was a possible fact not yet proven to the degree that a scientific law was (i.e., chaos theory and superstring theory as opposed to things like Newton's Laws, like the law of gravity and the law of inertia).
I also think some of the theories you've listed are now considered laws by the scientific...
What your describing is a hyposis, such as The RNA World Hyposis, an idea, based upon observion.
Theories are never 'proven' in scientific parlance, but in the common nomencliture, it would probably have a better understanding about how certain we are about many theories if the public where taught that it was the 'facts and processes of evolution' rather than theory.
Scientific laws are not greater than theories. A theory never stops being a theory and becomes a law. Many theories, contain and explain laws.
All a law is, is one fact, such as E=MC2. A theory, describes the interaction of a series of facts, such as in the case of special relativity, the interaction of the constant speed of light, Lorentz transformations, and Mass-energy equivalence(e=mc2)
Does that make sense?
|
|
...It is one of my biggest pet hates.I was just about to comment on that. The post from Selgard hurt my eyes and brain when I first saw it.Well even the guys who wrote it are positing it as a theory not fact.. so at the moment, no one really knows.
Evolution, just a theory.
Relativity, just a theory.
Cell Theory, just a theory.This is one of the greatest misunderstandings out their, and a dangerous one.
When a scientist talks about theory, they are not saying that is just an idea they plucked out of thin air. A theory is science is a description of the interaction of a series of rules(scientific) and properties in nature, which is used to describe observable phenomena. They are predictive and the are compatible with all available evidence.
To describe something as a theory is about as close as you can come in science to saying something is certain.
Evolution might be a theory, but it is also a fact that evolution occurs. The theory describes the fact.
So no, it isn't a theory that Triceratops and the Torosaur are the same species. It might be a fact(frankly it is way out of my field so i don't have the first clue if it is or isn't), but if their where a working and supported theory which explained the development of an individualual triceratops into a Torosaur, if would, to be a working theory, by neccessity also mean that all the available evidence pointed to it being a fact that Triceratops became torosaurs.
I'm a bit rusty on my science, but to the best of my understanding it would seem that a scientific theory was a possible fact not yet proven to the degree that a scientific law was (i.e., chaos theory and superstring theory as opposed to things like Newton's Laws, like the law of gravity and the law of inertia).
I also think some of the theories you've listed are now
The missing word here, and all over the media and internet, is hypothesis.
The missing word here, and all over the media and internet, is hypothesis.
Well said.
Does it matter? I mean, Ogre's aren't real either, or Displacer Beasts!
;)
|
|
Well even the guys who wrote it are positing it as a theory not fact.. so at the moment, no one really knows.
I'm all for D&D keeping it however. There are tons of critters in the Bestiary that never actually existed.. Even if "the scientists" decide it never existed there's no reason it should be removed from fantasy..
-S
+1 zillion!
Casts raise thread (rather appropriately, under the circumstances:
So, does this mean that we'll finally see a Brontosaurus in Bestiary 5? :D
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Good grief, it's a necro from the Cretaceous era!
Casts raise thread (rather appropriately, under the circumstances:
So, does this mean that we'll finally see a Brontosaurus in Bestiary 5? :D
It's not yet really clear if this study will be accepted by the greater paleo community. I remember discussing the paper back when it first appeared, and whether you want to resurrect Brontosaurus as a name all depends on how different you think species should be, and whether or not you consider the differences between it and related taxa significant.
At any rate...Brontosaurus is so similar to Apatosaurus I don't imagine there would be any actual differences in the Pathfinder stats.
At any rate...Brontosaurus is so similar to Apatosaurus I don't imagine there would be any actual differences in the Pathfinder stats.
Has Paizo ever made any Apatosaurus PF stats?
EDIT: I guess the Diplodocus is close.
While we are at it, what about last year's discovery that Spinosaurus was the weenie-dog equivalent of a giant theropod?
Sigh... such a shame.Wait, what happened to brontosaurus?Got retconned into Apatosaurus I believe.
Rise! I command you! Rise!
I blame Kosmoceratops for this whole mess.