|
is Pathfinder gonna do Anthropomorphics?
I loved that section of Savage Species. Hopefully a little more realistic though than Savage Species where an anthropomorphic dog was more powerful than an anthropomorphic lion! Loved playing a Weaselman.
If so is it gonna be the Advanced Race Guide?
any heads-up would be appreciated!
Morlaf
Paizo itself hasn't done a book, but you'll definately want to check out 'Fursona—The Definitive Guide to Creating Anthropomorphic Characters', available here on Paizo. I heartily recommand it! I wish I could play in a game with those characters, but nobody in my area wants to run a game like that :(.
Paizo itself hasn't done a book, but you'll definately want to check out 'Fursona—The Definitive Guide to Creating Anthropomorphic Characters', available here on Paizo. I heartily recommand it! I wish I could play in a game with those characters, but nobody in my area wants to run a game like that :(.
Linked for you.
Paizo itself hasn't done a book, but you'll definately want to check out 'Fursona—The Definitive Guide to Creating Anthropomorphic Characters', available here on Paizo. I heartily recommand it! I wish I could play in a game with those characters, but nobody in my area wants to run a game like that :(.Linked for you.
Thanks! I knew I should have linked it but I didn't know how. Then on seeing this I remembered the 'how to format text' button.
I will add that while Fursona can be useful, I like the book myself, it occasionally delves into areas that might creep some non-fans of anthropomorphics and furries people out. And you have to be careful when using it to build characters, as it is very easy to powergame with it if you're not careful.
There's also the Anumus PDF by Alluria Publishing here on the site; and when the ARG comes out that should be helpful too. And there's The Noble Wild if you want to do sentient yet nonhuman animals as compared to or along with beast-folk.
Good luck in finding something you like!
Pathfinder already officially has apefolk (sasquatch), bearfolk (bugbear), birdfolk (dire corby, tengu), catfolk, cowfolk (minotaur), dogfolk (adlet, gnoll, pugwampi), fishfolk (ceratioidilocathah, merfolk, sahuagin, skum), frogfolk (blindheim, grippli), goatfolk (faun, satyr), horsefolk (centaur), insectfolk (thriae), lizardfolk, monkeyfolk (kech, vanara), octopusfolk (cecaelia), procupinefolk (pukwudgie), racoonfolk (tanuki), ratfolk, serpentfolk (true serpentfolk, vishkanya), and toadfolk (boggard).
I think they have their anthropomorphic bases pretty well covered already.
EDIT: Expanded the list.
|
Pathfinder already officially has birdfolk (tengu), catfolk, cowfolk (minotaur), frogfolk (grippli), lizardfolk, monkeyfolk (vanara), ratfolk, and serpentfolk (vishkanya).
I think they have the anthropomorphic races pretty well covered. I think the only thing we really need to round it out are canines and fish.
merfolk
paizo had lupinals (dog folk) in dragon compendium
Creative Director
|
Pathfinder already officially has apefolk (sasquatch), bearfolk (bugbear), birdfolk (dire corby, tengu), catfolk, cowfolk (minotaur), dogfolk (adlet, gnoll, pugwampi), fishfolk (ceratioidilocathah, merfolk, sahuagin, skum), frogfolk (blindheim, grippli), goatfolk (faun, satyr), horsefolk (centaur), insectfolk (thriae), lizardfolk, monkeyfolk (kech, vanara), octopusfolk (cecaelia), procupinefolk (pukwudgie), racoonfolk (tanuki), ratfolk, serpentfolk (true serpentfolk, vishkanya), and toadfolk (boggard).
I think they have their anthropomorphic bases pretty well covered already.
EDIT: Expanded the list.
Actually...
Bugbears have the word bear in their name, but they are NOT bearfolk. They're actually big hairy goblins that have little at all to do with bears, either appearance- or theme-wise.
And the charau-ka are a better choice for "apefolk."
And boggards are frogfolk as well, not toadfolk.
THAT SAID... yes, there's a lot of furry-friendly races in the game already—but many of them aren't appropriate for player characters due to the fact that they have racial hit dice.
I will add that while Fursona can be useful, I like the book myself, it occasionally delves into areas that might creep some non-fans of anthropomorphics and furries people out. And you have to be careful when using it to build characters, as it is very easy to powergame with it if you're not careful.
Yeah, I knew about that stuff in the book, I just didn't want to scare him off. And the potential to powergame. Even though I like the book, I do think it'd be better if they just gave each Anthro a set a skills and traits as-is, instead of being able to pick and choose any. Sigh, I'm a poor reviewer :(
Actually...
Bugbears have the word bear in their name, but they are NOT bearfolk. They're actually big hairy goblins that have little at all to do with bears, either appearance- or theme-wise.
Hey! That's right! There is no bear-like race! When are you gonna fix that, James :)?
|
Hey! That's right! There is no bear-like race! When are you gonna fix that, James :)?Actually...
Bugbears have the word bear in their name, but they are NOT bearfolk. They're actually big hairy goblins that have little at all to do with bears, either appearance- or theme-wise.
Well, there are owlbears. They count as owlfolk too!
Actually, I'm not sure owlbears count as "folk".
|
Hey! That's right! There is no bear-like race! When are you gonna fix that, James :)?Actually...
Bugbears have the word bear in their name, but they are NOT bearfolk. They're actually big hairy goblins that have little at all to do with bears, either appearance- or theme-wise.
Well, there are owlbears. They count as owlfolk too!
Actually, I'm not sure owlbears count as "folk".
Werebears would be better, as they are humanoids with a template. Owlbears have no language or culture -- and that seems to be the prerequisite for any sort of folk in the game.
|
Creative Director
|
Hey! That's right! There is no bear-like race! When are you gonna fix that, James :)?Actually...
Bugbears have the word bear in their name, but they are NOT bearfolk. They're actually big hairy goblins that have little at all to do with bears, either appearance- or theme-wise.
It's not high on my list. At all. Use wearbears for now, I guess.
Actually...
Bugbears have the word bear in their name, but they are NOT bearfolk. They're actually big hairy goblins that have little at all to do with bears, either appearance- or theme-wise.
And the charau-ka are a better choice for "apefolk."
And boggards are frogfolk as well, not toadfolk.
THAT SAID... yes, there's a lot of furry-friendly races in the game already—but many of them aren't appropriate for player characters due to the fact that they have racial hit dice.
I'm quite aware of that Mr. Jacobs, but with a little reflavoring, bugbears would make perfectly fine bearfolk. That's kind of what I was hinting at.
And how are boogards more froglike than toadlike? Look at them! They look like big toads with arms and legs. :P
It's not high on my list. At all. Use wearbears for now, I guess.Hey! That's right! There is no bear-like race! When are you gonna fix that, James :)?Actually...
Bugbears have the word bear in their name, but they are NOT bearfolk. They're actually big hairy goblins that have little at all to do with bears, either appearance- or theme-wise.
*sigh* I forgot about werebears. Anyway, I was only joking, you can't make a 'folk' race out of every animal out there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Green Ronin's Advanced Bestiary has a "Manimal" template along with many other templates.
There's also Bipedal Creature.
That's mostly meant for creatures that are already intelligent, though. If you applied it to an animal, you'd have an animal that is no more intelligent than the base creature, but stands upright.
|
Creative Director
|
Actually...
Bugbears have the word bear in their name, but they are NOT bearfolk. They're actually big hairy goblins that have little at all to do with bears, either appearance- or theme-wise.
And the charau-ka are a better choice for "apefolk."
And boggards are frogfolk as well, not toadfolk.
THAT SAID... yes, there's a lot of furry-friendly races in the game already—but many of them aren't appropriate for player characters due to the fact that they have racial hit dice.
I'm quite aware of that Mr. Jacobs, but with a little reflavoring, bugbears would make perfectly fine bearfolk. That's kind of what I was hinting at.
And how are boogards more froglike than toadlike? Look at them! They look like big toads with arms and legs. :P
Any humanoid race works as a bearfolk with a little reflavoring. That's not something special about bugbears.
And boggards are more froglike for 2 reasons:
1) They live in the same environments as frogs, not toads.
2) 'Cause I say so. :P
Any humanoid race works as a bearfolk with a little reflavoring. That's not something special about bugbears.
Yes, I suppose that's true.
And boggards are more froglike for 2 reasons:
1) They live in the same environments as frogs, not toads.
2) 'Cause I say so. :P
Then how come their art direction makes them look like big toads?
Anthropomorphic isn't limited to animals. Bipedal also isn't.There's also Bipedal Creature.That's mostly meant for creatures that are already intelligent, though. If you applied it to an animal, you'd have an animal that is no more intelligent than the base creature, but stands upright.
And you felt the need to point that out... why? I knew that. Nothing I said should have suggested that I didn't.
Stryx as well.
|
Creative Director
|
Any humanoid race works as a bearfolk with a little reflavoring. That's not something special about bugbears.Yes, I suppose that's true.
Then how come their art direction makes them look like big toads?And boggards are more froglike for 2 reasons:
1) They live in the same environments as frogs, not toads.
2) 'Cause I say so. :P
Depends on what image you're looking at. That said... what's a toad to person A is a frog to person B.
I will add that while Fursona can be useful, I like the book myself, it occasionally delves into areas that might creep some non-fans of anthropomorphics and furries people out. And you have to be careful when using it to build characters, as it is very easy to powergame with it if you're not careful.
There's also the Anumus PDF by Alluria Publishing here on the site; and when the ARG comes out that should be helpful too. And there's The Noble Wild if you want to do sentient yet nonhuman animals as compared to or along with beast-folk.
Good luck in finding something you like!
I would recommend Anumus over Fursona, I would recommend transfering over the 3.5 template over Fursona, I would recommend anything over using a Chris Field book. It is really creepy, horribly, balanced, was written by a generally unpleasant man who I don't want to get money, and has really mixed art quality.
Also waiting for the Advanced Races guide could be pretty cool.
“Anthropomorph” is an inherited template that can be added to any humanoid (hereafter referred to as the base creature). The base creature takes on the characteristics of some type of animal (referred to hereafter as the base animal) within one size category of the base creature's size.
Challenge Rating: Same as base animal or base creature (whichever is higher) +1.
Size: Same as the base animal or the base creature, whichever is larger.
AC: An anthropomorph has the natural armor bonus of the base animal +2.
Hit Dice: If the base animal has more racial Hit Dice than the base creature, the base creature gains racial Hit Dice until it has the same number of racial Hit Dice as the base animal.
Melee: An anthropomorph gains the natural attacks of the base animal.
Special Attacks: An anthropomorph retains all the special attacks, qualities, and abilities of the base creature. It gains the special attacks, qualities, and abilities of the base animal, as well as low-light vision and scent.
Ability Scores: For each ability score, an anthropomorph's score for that ability equals the base creature's score +2 or the base animal's score, whichever is higher.
Skills: For each skill, an anthropomorph treats that skill as a class skill if the base animal treats that skill as a class skill and gains any racial modifier the base animal has for that skill.
Wow, no comment about that awesome template ? Come on now...
That's a great template Meepo. However, I'd add something keep the size of the base creature... since this isn't really made for PCs.
Back on topics, the Anumus is the perfect example of a well-made animal-based race. You have a dozen of subspecies as of now, but since Alluria is slowly getting back on its feet, more will likely come this way as well.
Then why did you post that it's "mostly meant for creatures that are already intelligent"? I knew that. Nothing I said should have suggested that I didn't.And you felt the need to point that out... why? I knew that. Nothing I said should have suggested that I didn't.Anthropomorphic isn't limited to animals. Bipedal also isn't.There's also Bipedal Creature.That's mostly meant for creatures that are already intelligent, though. If you applied it to an animal, you'd have an animal that is no more intelligent than the base creature, but stands upright.
Yes you did, when you posted about a template that doesn't change intelligence score in a thread about animal people (i.e. both humanoid in form and mind). I on the other hand did not address the requirements of the template at all, merely point out that if you applied this template to a 2 int creature, that creature will still have 2 int.
Not quite the same, but Rite Publishing has In the Company of Henge - which are the anthropomorphic shapechangers of Japanese folklore. And the henge feature multiple versions (subspecies) in that single publication.
|
|
In most systems, unless you're just really aching for official rules on the matter, it's easy enough to just decide which of the available races (and there are so many in this case) that your animal person of choice is closest to, and simply reskin them.
It's been my experience that most players interested in such a character concept are really more after the cosmetic rather than mechanical benefits anyway, so they'd happily play a character that was mechanically the same as a human or an elf, as long as they got to look like a wolf or a cat person. Of course, I know that's a generalization based on my experience, so if someone really wants to play a fiendish dire tigerman monk for both thematic and mechanical purposes, you'll need to do some more work.
The Savage Species stats seemed awfully arbitrary at times, as well as requiring huge ECL modifiers for some of the choices, so it didn't strike me as particularly useful.
I'd personally avoid anything that links the idea of humanized/bipedal animals to the so-called furry fandom itself, as that makes a lot of assumptions based on one very specific interpretation of what an anthropomorphic character could be. But of course, if that's exactly what you're after, go for it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not quite the same, but Rite Publishing has In the Company of Henge - which are the anthropomorphic shapechangers of Japanese folklore. And the henge feature multiple versions (subspecies) in that single publication.
Thanks for linking to that one, I'd forgotten about it completely. It's a great PDF, and the ones they have covering kappas and tengu are also great (and kinda-sorta anthropomorphic if you're into midget turtle wrestlers and sword-wielding birdmen).
|
having played a few anthro characters myself, and many normal races, I have to agree with Brannon Brighthammer. many people who make anthro characters are looking more looking for flavor than mechanics.
my first, and persional favorite anthro was an equine named Aubert, a friend and I had just discovered savage species and we saw cool stuff in the anthro section and went for it.
Sage Tiger Monk, and Aubert Equine cleric of pelor, were a heck of a dynamic duo, and other than sage's player loved the claws and rake attack and aubert's main bonus was increased move speed and a slightly higher wisdom.
there was actually nothing sexual in the game, raiders had attacked the adventurer's home city, and made off with residents as slaves, so we went after them.
Aubert was delt an suprising background card by the DM... "you are anthro, your mother and father were not, left over magic from the great cataclysim messed you up in the womb." when I asked how he was fitting my idea into the game.
Sage's player raised his hand and quickly said "I was given to my adopted parents by a traveling spice ship"
there was no yiffy, bezzare, or furry fandom themed stuff on either of them, they were just anthro characters. though sage was often telling aubert "you really need to get laid mr. priest" when he would stress over plans and details.
though sage was often telling aubert "you really need to get laid mr. priest" when he would stress over plans and details.
Better hope there are ogre maidens or lads in need of saving, as a horse would have numerous "difficulties" getting laid with normal sized humanoids, and from the sounds of it there were no other sapient horses.
|
|
Better hope there are ogre maidens or lads in need of saving, as a horse would have numerous "difficulties" getting laid with normal sized humanoids, and from the sounds of it there were no other sapient horses.
well THAT never actually came up. Jokes were occasionally made. including comparing him to a soda bottle, and at one point he was ambushed while washing up (infitrating through sewers in 3.5 before prestiditation: Clean was at will, was a nasty affair) and beating the mugger senseless with a chunk of armor that it was later joked was his codpeice.
Aubert had better things to do than visit houses of ill-repute, he never took a vow of chastity or anything like that, he just had a world to save, orphans to rescue, evil wizards to smite, etc.
I can see some legitimate criticism regarding the editing of Chris's books, and regarding the artwork as well (though I don't hold that against him too much, as he's one person working with a small budget), but calling him "creepy" and "generally unpleasant" is crossing the line into being insulting.Please re-read the "don't be a jerk" rule.
Okay I haven't ever met the guy so maybe he's cool, and this is all just so many misconception. Unfortunately every book I have ever read by him as similarly written themes and general creepiness on how it thinks people will react to things and the general tone of the narration itself.
Unfortunately every book I have ever read by him as similarly written themes and general creepiness on how it thinks people will react to things and the general tone of the narration itself.To be fair, each of his campaign settings deals with a current or near-future setting that is, to some degree, a dystopia. He also doesn't downplay issues of sex and sexual politics, though I don't believe he plays them up, either - rather, he tries to keep them at what he thinks is a realistic level.
That's why I find his Otherverse America setting so captivating; because it takes the current political discord (which has a lot to do with sexuality) and presumes that it continues to escalate until it reaches the breaking point. It's rare to find a sci-fi setting that has that level of real-world politics given so central a role (most that I've seen tend to be too closely wedded to a few major technological advancements).
Otherverse America actually sums up most of what I dislike about his writing. You have something that is not "realistic" but absurd caricature. It's sort of like the AD&D supplement Complete Book of Elves. When it gets interesting it shows glimmers of greatness. Unfortunately it's buried under "nazi republicans bad" and "neo-pagan goddess worshipers good". It fails to be a dystopia conflict between two sides that act as equally evil foils to one another and is instead a poorly envisioned author utopia and a strawman dystopia.
Also I really don't know what you could call the Milkmaid genemod other than playing to fetishes. Their is literally not reason for it to exist that could not be done cheaper and less fetishized by simply modifying yeast genes. There are actually a lot of genemods like that, where I think "If you can do this wouldn't the technology required imply you could do it some other way more easily and cheaply".
That's a matter of opinion. As I said, I think the idea that the country could split itself along political/ideological lines to the point of a civil war doesn't seem too far-fetched in the current climate.
America dividing along political and ideological lines sure that can make sense to a degree. The American left suddenly becoming really religious neo pagans not so much. The fact that a large portion of the American left is opposed to religion in all its forms including "this isn't really religion its spiritualism" is never addressed. Additionally the idea that suddenly everyone who isn't a biblethumper becoming promiscuous as soon as STDs are cured also seems to only exist as wish fulfillment. Some people sure, even a sizable minority, but enough to base a national holiday around everyone boning; including 13 year olds, not really no.
There's a leap of logic here that I'm not following.
The majority of Complete Book of the Elves is about how "super special awesome" and "totally better than all other races" elves are, which was tedious and annoying. On the other hand the description of wood elf culture and elven revenge was amazingly metal, and is apart of my personal canon for elves of all settings.
First, I disagree with your definition of a dystopia as requiring "equally evil foils to one another." The fact that he's not playing nice and saying that the political left and right are equally bad is, to me, refreshing in its lack of political correctness. He's saying that the people who throw rocks at pregnant teenagers and blow up clinics are worse than the people who believe in allowing personal choices that they might not agree with. Personally, I agree with that.
Further, he does make sure to point out that these generalizations have individuals and groups who don't play to type. In the Coven of Bast sourcebook, for example, is a liberal terrorist group called Black Rapture. They're creating a thought-virus that will murder everyone who is a Christian, and are clearly understood to be bad guys. This isn't the only such example of characters and organizations that aren't typified by political ideology.
To be fair I have only read the core book, but I think the judging a setting by the book that is supposed to given enough to run the setting as a whole is fair. If Otherverse has some exceedingly good splats I wouldn't know and cannot judge them.
Also the setting is not a dystopia, it is a fantasy fulfillment utopia with a strawman designated villain. Thus I was arguing that the work is not truly dystopian. I would say that claiming those who kill abortion doctors truly evil is fine, but you are turning the entire section of that side of the debate into its worst radicals, while not doing it truly for the Choicers. For instance the zero human population groups and human extinction through forcible castration groups (who both really exist) are nowhere to be found in the core book.
Furthermore the parts of Choicer society that really are terrifying are rarely acknowledged as such. For instance a holiday in which everyone including 13 years olds is societally expected to engage in large amounts of sex, or a societal pressure for everyone to take drugs that make them bi or homosexual (which is just as bad as forcing someone to be heterosexual). Both of these should be things that evoke horror but are usually presented as the Choicer society being "so enlightened".
tl:dr Lifer society is done well enough to be a dystopian caricature of current right wing politics, but Choicer society is set up to be an ideal of left wing America all converting to a specific religion and that solving all of its problems.
Again, this is a matter of opinion, but considering that the technology you're discussing is based around science fiction, the author can justify it however he wants within the context of his setting. Personally, I don't see how it's cheaper to buy something that modifies the yeast genes in existing milk than in having a one-time purchase to allow a woman to produce breast milk at will.
To put it simply, I disagree with your thinking there.
Likewise, why would you want something less fetishized in a setting where the central theme is a conflict over sexual politics?
The reason its cheaper is simple, we could make yeast make breast milk now in the current day, because yeast is so simple to modify. Current day technology can copy the function of a sci-fi technology more efficiently than the sci-fi tech does. That being said as there is little demand comparatively for breast milk in the current day and the lab equipment for modifying any genes is expensive we don't do so. We usually use it currently for producing insulin in the massive amounts needed to treat America's huge population of diabetics.
Simply put I think that you and Otherverse are largely miss-stereotyping the American political left. The majority of people on the left side of the sexual political debates are not doing so because they want to have lots of promiscuous sex, but because they don't want to be told what they are allowed to do sexually period. Additionally if you are going to caricaturize the worst and most extreme aspects of the political left, do so correctly and make it horrifying; keep your NAMBA-like practices and other pedophile stuff in, but ACKNOWLEDGE THAT IT IS HORRIBLE AND MESSING UP THE KIDS WHO ARE BEING MOLESTED.