I know this is probably an irrelevant question, given it has no mechanical difference. But I noticed that based on a couple of minor details, such as their gait, body-shape, and the specific wording of them being "more humanoid" rather than just "humanoid"... After a while an idea sunk into my brain.
... Is this one of those times where they're either more comfortable on four legs than two legs? Just as comfortable either way? Or are they genuinely bipedal?
Looking at the image, they don't seem entirely built to be bipedal; their hips seem to be built with quadrupedal stance in mind with the natural spine angle being more perpendicular to the leg angle, where in a more natural bipedal stance the tail would angle towards the ground.
This idea is kind of betrayed by their arms not quite being as long as their legs, but that more makes me look at them and half expect their stance to be more leaned forward into a stance resembling a Jurassic Park style raptor.
With the case presented, there's a follow up question... What would be more interesting?
We've already got a candidate for "vaguely draconic humanoid" with Kobolds, and part of me thinks that distinguishing them from kobolds by making them seem like being on two legs isn't as natural seems like a good way to differentiate them physically.
... On the other hand, treating them as being more stuck between bipedal and quadrupedal (and by extension between humanoid and dragon) despite their closer biological relation to dragons than Kobolds may actually make for something more interesting story; in the case of seeming uncanny to both other humanoids and dragons since they're diverging from what a dragon should be, yet not quite fully humanoid.
Something to think about.
In my head that are kinda like gorrilas, but maybe slightly more bipedal. They were mounts after all and most creatures that need to carry a large load use all 4 legs. Though there are exceptions like ostriches. Maybe they are like ostriches with arena and wings. That would be more like your raptor idea...
While i am certain they could move as quad, they are a bipedal race. if you want interesting, consider the wording then consider this: Perhaps this race started out as half-dragons (probably of ryphorian descent), but became diluted not on the dragon side (which could of led to sorcerers down the line) but on the humanoid side, before eventually starting to breed true.
It's an RPG. As humanoid as you want them.
It's an RPG. As humanoid as you want them.
As sensible as this is from a pragmatic sense... Its still fun to discuss.
... Also, it raises another question; who is the "you" who decides? The player? Or the GM?
Ideally both, but I imagine someone will argue the point on that.
I'd prefer something more like Dragonlance's draconians than 4e's dragonborn, if that makes sense...
In most fantasy realms, the males look like monsters and the females look like shapely women with slight monstrous features.
In most fantasy realms, the males look like monsters and the females look like shapely women with slight monstrous features.
That statements needs more information; the extent of your statement is unclear.
Most creators nowadays (outside of Japan at least) go with a sort of middle ground for both. Most would call it "Furry", if not for the males being closer to beefcakes than pretty-boys.
Honorable mention goes to "Divinity: Origional Sin 2" for having Lizard people where the females look shapely... But without using breasts to do so.
Of course, in the rare times a setting has a quadrupedal (and non-centaur like) player race, the females typically don't have breasts. Not that anybody has ever asked for anyone to try that for a serious creative entry.
All of this becomes irrelevant anyways if we also note that "most" fantasy settings also don't have races that aren't primarily human to begin with. For example, how many settings can you name where all the races available to players could be summed up as "Human, Elf, Dwarf, Gnome, Orc"?
... Now how many settings can you name where the core races have only one of those?
I'd prefer something more like Dragonlance's draconians than 4e's dragonborn, if that makes sense...
After double checking, using whatever little art I could find of Draconians... I vaguely get what you mean, but not really.
Draconians in their origin are basically corrupted dragons, and their design reflects that. To what extent appears to depend on the artist, but the most obvious difference from 4e Dragon-born seems to be their head.
... Namely that a draconian's head looks almost identical to the dragon that it descends from; while a Dragon-born apparently has "tentacle hair", which I'm fairly certain most dragons don't have.
Also apparently the draconians have less sexual-dimorphism, supposedly appearing "almost identical" save for wider hips, their behaviour, and some harder to observe at a glance quirks specific to breed.
That statements needs more information; the extent of your statement is unclear.
I'm joking, really. Mainly I was referencing the World of Warcraft convention where most females have implausibly human-like bodies.
That statements needs more information; the extent of your statement is unclear.I'm joking, really. Mainly I was referencing the World of Warcraft convention where most females have implausibly human-like bodies.
That's... Not how I'd describe the problem with their designs, but sure, lets go with that.
Can you have forelimbs that work just as well at carrying things and fine manipulation as they do at locomotion?
Can you have forelimbs that work just as well at carrying things and fine manipulation as they do at locomotion?
Realistically? No. There are always tradeoffs. Chimps and Gorillas come pretty close to having both, but they're not as good at locomotion as they could be, nor are they as good at fine manipulation as they could be. They compromise between the two to be okay at both.
In a game? Well, there is always magic. Hands that were shaped and dexterous like humans but that were also somehow strong enough for the fingers to not break while running could, in theory, work really well at both.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I viewed them a bit like bears. Lumbering around on two feet when they need to, but loping around on all fours by default. To me, it looks like they stand up when they need to manipulate tools, and then get down on all fours when they need to. Like dragons, I see them as a late adopter of technology, not because they weren't capable of it, but that they didn't need it before. So they aren't really built for a tool using civilization but are easily able to adapt to it.
Though I suspect that any of them living in the human-sized station of Absalom feel that they are constantly cramped.