| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I want to make it clear this is not a criticism of the artists skill—they are clearly very skilled—but more to do with the fact that is looks significantly less accurate to what these animals would have looked like according to our modern understanding compared to the absolute stellar Deinonychus art in the first Bestiary. I also should mention Dromaeosaur is the family all of the "raptors" are in
For reference:
My screenshot of the Player Core Dromaeosaur
Prehistoric Planet's Velociraptor Reconstruction
Emily Willoughby's Deinonychus Reconstruction
This is important to me because I believe representing these animals as animals is important, the new player core design more so fits in the designing them as monsters trope. It is barely feather, has pronated wrists(something impossible for any dinosaur to do), has a skull more akin to a carnosaur than a dromaeosaur and it's arm feathers don't look like proper quills like we know they had. Dromaeosaurs are one of the closest relatives to the avian dinosaurs(birds). The other closest is the troodontids which looks incredibly similar to dromaeosaurs. I know it is well past the point of any art being changed ofc, I would just hope that the artists referenced paleo art when rendering these animals in the future
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Related: T.rex art with pronated wrists always make me cry...
Related: T.rex art with pronated wrists always make me cry...
Yeah, a similar issue shows up with non-Ixalan Magic: The Gathering cards that feature dinosaurs. A notable example was Galta who in the set she is from had her hands parallel, but in the March of the Machine card where she is paired with this vampire character in both arts her hands are pronated. I will say however Wrathful Raptors looks damn-near like paleo art and I'm pretty happy about that
|
Related: T.rex art with pronated wrists always make me cry...
What makes me sad is humans have pronated wrists in Pathfinder but can't figure out how to hold a buckler in their hand properly and instead strap them to their forearms. Now if you want to argue, if the thumb-extended position on the grip was never used or not that's up for debate.
Related: T.rex art with pronated wrists always make me cry...What makes me sad is humans have pronated wrists in Pathfinder but can't figure out how to hold a buckler in their hand properly and instead strap them to their arms. Now if you want to argue, if the thumb-extended position on the grip was never used or not that's up for debate.
The ruling in the remaster that says you don't drop your shield because it's strapped to your arm is odd for me. Clearly in game play this helps a ton, but in real life most shields were center grip such as your buckler example, but also in real life people didn't use big shields with plate armor because the armor is the shield, at most a buckler was used, but in a game like this stacking a big shield with heavy armor is incentivized. Oddity of fantasy as a cultural phenomena ig
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I want to make it clear this is not a criticism of the artists skill—they are clearly very skilled—but more to do with the fact that is looks significantly less accurate to what these animals would have looked like according to our modern understanding compared to the absolute stellar Deinonychus art in the first Bestiary.
As pathfinder is a fantasy game where it's painfully clear that the natural laws aren't followed [like Square-Cube law], i see no reason there can't be different versions of animals without any regard for what irl examples are. People are here for the rpg and not for hyper-realistic and 100% historical examples of items/creatures in the game. I see pronated wrists and go 'cool, some dinos have those in pathfinder'. So for myself, I'm happy with a nice/cool picture and wouldn't want the artists spending time checking the latest papers for the current accepted body builds for each animal/item they make.
For myself, I look at the images for the hand repeating crossbows and go 'WTH, there is NO way that is functional...' but I'll just find a usable image if I need one and let it go: I'm sure someone out there thinks it's cool and will use it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's the problem with shields there are so many types of them no one rule will accurately work for all of them. I do think the reduction in action tax for rearming yourself and standing up is a good thing. Fantasy is never going to be historically accurate, if it was I'd be linking to historical text showing the proper use of shields against dragons.
My take on the new art for the Dromaeosaurs is it's in addition to the art in the bestiary just different heritages. The ones with fewer feathers likely evolved living near fire-breathing dragons and developed pronated wrists to hold shields, to protect themselves from breath weapons, which is why they managed to survive with any feather left at all.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I want to make it clear this is not a criticism of the artists skill—they are clearly very skilled—but more to do with the fact that is looks significantly less accurate to what these animals would have looked like according to our modern understanding compared to the absolute stellar Deinonychus art in the first Bestiary.As pathfinder is a fantasy game where it's painfully clear that the natural laws aren't followed [like Square-Cube law], i see no reason there can't be different versions of animals without any regard for what irl examples are. People are here for the rpg and not for hyper-realistic and 100% historical examples of items/creatures in the game. I see pronated wrists and go 'cool, some dinos have those in pathfinder'. So for myself, I'm happy with a nice/cool picture and wouldn't want the artists spending time checking the latest papers for the current accepted body builds for each animal/item they make.
For myself, I look at the images for the hand repeating crossbows and go 'WTH, there is NO way that is functional...' but I'll just find a usable image if I need one and let it go: I'm sure someone out there thinks it's cool and will use it.
This is a very niche issue ofc, and dromaeosaurs specifically are a pet interest of mine, but I wanna be a squeaky wheel here. I love good renditions of these animals because they're awesome beautiful animals. To argue the point though... deinonychus is not a fictional or fantastical animal, no dromaeosaur is. Made-up-asaurus, the magical purple dinosaur with tentacles instead of legs wouldn't be the topic of this conversation. The Dromaeosaur in PC1 is much like if we had a creature in one of the books called a dog, no magical abilities or anything unique or special, but it had a cat's head, was plantigrade instead of digitigrade and only had fur on it's head, the end of it's tail, back of it's arms and between the shoulders. It would raise questions, it would be weird and "it's a fantasy setting" is not a particularly satisfactory reason to be given. We want things as they are in our world in fantasy along side the fantastical, my pet issue is just these animals and they've already had an artist render one exceptionally well, so it seems fairly reasonable to ask for more of that instead of what we got here going forward, if possible
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The ruling in the remaster that says you don't drop your shield because it's strapped to your arm is odd for me. Clearly in game play this helps a ton, but in real life most shields were center grip such as your buckler example
They are? As far as I am aware many if not most combat shields were strapped, sure you had a grip but the strap is what allowed any decently sized shield to be effectively used.
Targes (including norse), roman tower shields, kite shields, heater shields, bouche shields, various Byzantine shields.
Pavise sometimes forwent straps but they were usually used as mobile cover. But given that they were used as more deployable cover, even they usually had straps.
Japanese shields often had center grips without straps, but again served a very different purpose.
Chinese rattan shields had straps / loops.
Zulu shields didn't nor did many germanic dueling shields, but they weren't taken into battle so much.
IMO shields granting +2 AC should be the ones using the forearm while those granting +1 AC not.
|
|
IMO shields granting +2 AC should be the ones using the forearm while those granting +1 AC not.
Roman shields were some of the largest and most protective and were just held in the hand. A buckler-size shield strapped to your forearm is fairly limited in what it can block. With a buckler in your hand you can punch block with it basically attacking the opponent's weapon, making it much more effective, than a buckler-like shield strapped to your arm. Because bucklers are much smaller than other shields they can be made very strong out of all metal and easily last as long as a bigger shield, but Game Balance says bucklers cost less so can't last as long.
The problem with making weapons and armor work like they do in real life in a game built around game balance is no one builds weapons or armor in real life thinking about how it will work with the game balance to make things fare. Every new generation of weapons is built to break that balance as much as possible.
To argue the point though... deinonychus is not a fictional or fantastical animal, no dromaeosaur is.
You missed my point then: the pathfinder deinonychus is a fictional creature in a fictional game that doesn't purport to giving us 100% correct to irl world depiction of earth. As such, that pathfinder deinonychus could have pink polka dot, a unicorn horn and a monkey tail and it'd be the correct image for the setting.
The Dromaeosaur in PC1 is much like if we had a creature in one of the books called a dog, no magical abilities or anything unique or special, but it had a cat's head, was plantigrade instead of digitigrade and only had fur on it's head, the end of it's tail, back of it's arms and between the shoulders.
Nothing wrong with that: a pathfinder dog isn't obligated to earth standards. Nothing says evolution went the same on a planet with magic, aliens and multi-dimensional energies floating about. If they made that dog and it bothered you, you're perfectly able to describe it differently and find your own images for it.
It would raise questions, it would be weird and "it's a fantasy setting" is not a particularly satisfactory reason to be given.
Would it though? Do you spiral out of control when you're shown a prairie dog and it doesn't look like a dog? If not, you should be perfectly able to look at a pathfinder dog that doesn't look like an earth one.
We want things as they are in our world in fantasy along side the fantastical, my pet issue is just these animals and they've already had an artist render one exceptionally well, so it seems fairly reasonable to ask for more of that instead of what we got here going forward, if possible
It seems like a quibble that isn't a reasonable one to expect action on. As with my dislike of the repeating crossbow images, I wouldn't expect them to alter or replace images in place and/or expect them to reject new ones with a similar look as it's unreasonable when compares to the number of people that actually care enough to be bothered by it.
So I don't expect a few die hard dino enthusiasts worry that an image is only 90% historically accurate to change anything. You made the thread, so it's not impossible someone sees it and runs off to change all the images but, IMO, you shouldn't be waiting with bated breath for it to happen.
The ruling in the remaster that says you don't drop your shield because it's strapped to your arm is odd for me. Clearly in game play this helps a ton, but in real life most shields were center grip such as your buckler exampleThey are? As far as I am aware many if not most combat shields were strapped, sure you had a grip but the strap is what allowed any decently sized shield to be effectively used.
Targes (including norse), roman tower shields, kite shields, heater shields, bouche shields, various Byzantine shields.
Pavise sometimes forwent straps but they were usually used as mobile cover. But given that they were used as more deployable cover, even they usually had straps.
Japanese shields often had center grips without straps, but again served a very different purpose.
Chinese rattan shields had straps / loops.
Zulu shields didn't nor did many germanic dueling shields, but they weren't taken into battle so much.
I think your list of examples supports my point, and what I have seen from people who's job it is to know these things they say center grip is the norm, because it is more mobile, because it is more flexible and versatile etc. A strapped shield can be a liability even
I think your list of examples supports my point, and what I have seen from people who's job it is to know these things they say center grip is the norm, because it is more mobile, because it is more flexible and versatile etc. A strapped shield can be a liability even
A list of commonly used shields that generally have strapping/fixed supports historically, supports your point of most shields not using strapping/supports historically? (BTW centergrip is slightly different. While it did allow for better control without strapping and for formations like shield walls they also often had straps as well so they could swap when necessary)
I am confused at the statement that it wasn't the standard historically, when that isn't the case when we are talking about the shields most people envision.
|
|
Historically there isn't one standard, but there are some types of shields that were predominantly one way or the other, others were mixed, or had both. Many shields had and extra longer straps only used to carry the shield around but not for fighting. Some shields had neither center grips nor straps for fighting such as some jousting shields were just tied right to the armor, or shields crossbowmen used that had a support arm or leg to prop up the shield on the ground completely hands-free.
I think your list of examples supports my point, and what I have seen from people who's job it is to know these things they say center grip is the norm, because it is more mobile, because it is more flexible and versatile etc. A strapped shield can be a liability evenA list of commonly used shields that generally have strapping/fixed supports historically, supports your point of most shields not using strapping/supports historically? (BTW centergrip is slightly different. While it did allow for better control without strapping and for formations like shield walls they also often had straps as well so they could swap when necessary)
I am confused at the statement that it wasn't the standard historically, when that isn't the case when we are talking about the shields most people envision.
I haven't done a deep dive but by far it seems like most soldiers on foot used center grip shields. Cavalry (including Knights) and the Greeks used strapped shields. In single combat, a strapped shield is vastly less useful than a center grip shield.
I think the art in player core is kind of cool, tbh.
I think the art in player core is kind of cool, tbh.
I know right? If it's not stick figures, it's better than I could do.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The thing I do like about the art is the color choice. I'm partial to red, especially paired with gray. But I do find the Bestiary deinonychus much much better looking, the new one in PC1 I think is goofy looking (I apologize to the artist if they ever see this, I fully believe they could do a render of a more accurate dromaeosaurid and it looks just as good)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is important to me because I believe representing these animals as animals is important, the new player core design more so fits in the designing them as monsters trope. It is barely feather, has pronated wrists(something impossible for any dinosaur to do), has a skull more akin to a carnosaur than a dromaeosaur and it's arm feathers don't look like proper quills like we know they had. Dromaeosaurs are one of the closest relatives to the avian dinosaurs(birds). The other closest is the troodontids which looks incredibly similar to dromaeosaurs. I know it is well past the point of any art being changed ofc, I would just hope that the artists referenced paleo art when rendering these animals in the future
Yeah...this is a straight downgrade in art. The second edition bestiaries all had pretty good looking and accurate dinosaur art.
It's not just not being accurate, it's also that this weird "throw some feathers randomly onto a scaled dinosaur" just straight up looks worse than either the old scientifically inaccurate dromaeosaur or the updated scientifically accurate view.
This is important to me because I believe representing these animals as animals is important, the new player core design more so fits in the designing them as monsters trope. It is barely feather, has pronated wrists(something impossible for any dinosaur to do), has a skull more akin to a carnosaur than a dromaeosaur and it's arm feathers don't look like proper quills like we know they had. Dromaeosaurs are one of the closest relatives to the avian dinosaurs(birds). The other closest is the troodontids which looks incredibly similar to dromaeosaurs. I know it is well past the point of any art being changed ofc, I would just hope that the artists referenced paleo art when rendering these animals in the futureYeah...this is a straight downgrade in art. The second edition bestiaries all had pretty good looking and accurate dinosaur art.
It's not just not being accurate, it's also that this weird "throw some feathers randomly onto a scaled dinosaur" just straight up looks worse than either the old scientifically inaccurate dromaeosaur or the updated scientifically accurate view.
Someone clearly cared, and it is definitely possible to have artists render these animal correctly. I assume that the time constraint on this project was the limiting factor. No one had time to look into this, make sure this request was fulfilled etc. I hope Monster Core 1 just reuses the Deinonychus art, I absolutely love it, even if it has small inaccuracies like no tail fan and the teeth poking out of the mouth, when it almost assuredly had lips, but these are nitpicks for something done by someone who isn't a paleo artist, it's incredibly accurate to the real animal and I am genuinely impressed. It's hard to tell but I think the triceratops has accurate feet instead of the elephant feet it was reconstructed with before we found fossils of the feet. The tyrannosaurus has a lot of issues, like having crocodilian-like osteoderms, but it's accurate it wasn't likely to be feathered. We have scale impressions of tyrannosaurus so at least some of the body was not feathered or covered in dinofuzz, and likely none of it was feathered/fuzzy
There is also a pretty sizeable contingent of people who believe vehemently that Dinosaurs should be as they have always been portrayed, as giant scaly lizards essentially, and reject the idea of feathered dinosaurs. As it is a rather niche issue, people who believe this can proliferate all areas of society, including the art world. It's possible one of Paizo's artists felt this way when drawing the art, and there simply wasn't any time to care enough to get a new piece done from this artists.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is also a pretty sizeable contingent of people who believe vehemently that Dinosaurs should be as they have always been portrayed, as giant scaly lizards essentially, and reject the idea of feathered dinosaurs. As it is a rather niche issue, people who believe this can proliferate all areas of society, including the art world. It's possible one of Paizo's artists felt this way when drawing the art, and there simply wasn't any time to care enough to get a new piece done from this artists.
That is tantamount to a deliberate dissemination of misinformation tbh. Imagine if we still reconstructed iquanadon like the original reconstruction.
Also for fun here is a cool gif on the changes to the reconstruction of iguanadon over the years courtesy of Your Dinosaurs are Wrong:
iguanadon
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is also a pretty sizeable contingent of people who believe vehemently that Dinosaurs should be as they have always been portrayed, as giant scaly lizards essentially, and reject the idea of feathered dinosaurs. As it is a rather niche issue, people who believe this can proliferate all areas of society, including the art world. It's possible one of Paizo's artists felt this way when drawing the art, and there simply wasn't any time to care enough to get a new piece done from this artists.That is tantamount to a deliberate dissemination of misinformation tbh. Imagine if we still reconstructed iquanadon like the original reconstruction.
Also for fun here is a cool gif on the changes to the reconstruction of iguanadon over the years courtesy of Your Dinosaurs are Wrong:
iguanadon
I don't want that art as Iguanadon, but I do want that art as a fantasy beast in the game. That wrong construction of an Iguanadon is absolutely adorable in an ugly dog kind of way.
|
|
There is also a pretty sizeable contingent of people who believe vehemently that Dinosaurs should be as they have always been portrayed
My earliest memory of a Dinosaur which might be my earliest memory of anything was of an all white plastic Brontosaurus I had when I was 4sih. So I find Dinosaurs having any color at all shocking let alone scales or feathers. Actually, there was one other color of Dinosaur I remember, solid green from Sinclair signs.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That is tantamount to a deliberate dissemination of misinformation tbh.
How can an animal from a different reality be wrong? However it's presented is correct as it'a a piece of fiction. If there is a setting that has pink furred dinosaurs, it's correct for that setting. Nothing in pathfinder purports to 100% mimic prehistoric age fauna.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't want that art as Iguanadon, but I do want that art as a fantasy beast in the game. That wrong construction of an Iguanadon is absolutely adorable in an ugly dog kind of way.There is also a pretty sizeable contingent of people who believe vehemently that Dinosaurs should be as they have always been portrayed, as giant scaly lizards essentially, and reject the idea of feathered dinosaurs. As it is a rather niche issue, people who believe this can proliferate all areas of society, including the art world. It's possible one of Paizo's artists felt this way when drawing the art, and there simply wasn't any time to care enough to get a new piece done from this artists.That is tantamount to a deliberate dissemination of misinformation tbh. Imagine if we still reconstructed iquanadon like the original reconstruction.
Also for fun here is a cool gif on the changes to the reconstruction of iguanadon over the years courtesy of Your Dinosaurs are Wrong:
iguanadon
I would agree with this sentiment. Real iguanadon is a beautiful animal, this old reconstruction is a silly guy
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is also a pretty sizeable contingent of people who believe vehemently that Dinosaurs should be as they have always been portrayed, as giant scaly lizards essentially, and reject the idea of feathered dinosaurs. As it is a rather niche issue, people who believe this can proliferate all areas of society, including the art world. It's possible one of Paizo's artists felt this way when drawing the art, and there simply wasn't any time to care enough to get a new piece done from this artists.That is tantamount to a deliberate dissemination of misinformation tbh. Imagine if we still reconstructed iquanadon like the original reconstruction.
Also for fun here is a cool gif on the changes to the reconstruction of iguanadon over the years courtesy of Your Dinosaurs are Wrong:
iguanadon
I demand this absolute chonk be statted up
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That is tantamount to a deliberate dissemination of misinformation tbh.How can an animal from a different reality be wrong? However it's presented is correct as it'a a piece of fiction. If there is a setting that has pink furred dinosaurs, it's correct for that setting. Nothing in pathfinder purports to 100% mimic prehistoric age fauna.
There is no in universe explanation of this, this is your post-hoc rationalization. All animals are represented as they are in Pathfinder and even still here is an excerpt from the dinosaur section of the first Bestiary:
DINOSAURS IN FANTASY
At first glance, the inclusion of dinosaurs in a fantasy setting might seem strange, but dinosaurs
are an excellent creature to use in a game that bridges the gap between familiar real-world
animals and legendary monsters. If having dinosaurs mix freely with lions, manticores, and dragons still seems strange to you, consider having them dwell in remote, primeval lands, as suggested in the sidebars on pages 99–100. On Golarion, dinosaurs do exist in The wilder regions of the world, particularly on the continent of Garund, though they are common enough that PCs might find some on display in a menagerie in a northern city, in use as guardian creatures, or even kept by druids as loyal animal companions.
There is no "pathfinder has different evolution" explanation in the game, there is no "these are different animals with the same names" and in fact there is a direct acknowledgement that these are our world's animals. Just like all the representations in the books of our modern day animals. Cats are cats, birds are birds, elk are elk in Golarion. They are the same animals. Dinosaurs only show up as not being like their real world counter parts because of issues not relating to lore. Perhaps time constraints, lack of knowledge etc. It's already the case that dromaeosaurs are presented more or less accurately in the fiction in the Bestiary. The inconsistency here is not due to any lore reason. It is due to the constraints and realities of the production process and people's knowledge on the subject matter
Here is another quote from the velociraptor section of the Bestiary entry:
A smaller cousin of the deinonychus, the velociraptor is a swift, cunning pack hunter. It has no fear of larger creatures, and a group of these dinosaurs won’t hesitate to attack creatures the size of a horse. Velociraptors are social animals, and tend to live in groups of up to a dozen other velociraptors. They have manes of feathery plumage that extend down their backs and along the sides of their arms, legs, and tail, while their underbellies and flanks are scaly. These feathers allow them to blend into their natural terrains with ease, but when excited, attempting to intimidate, or seeking a mate, a velociraptor can puff and frill this plumage to expose much brighter colors normally covered by the longer feathers. A typical velociraptor is 1-1/2 feet tall, 7 feet long, and weighs 35 pounds.
We can see that even with your argument it is clear dromaeosaurids have their real world feather coverings in fiction
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is no in universe explanation of this
There doesn't have to be. In fact we KNOW things work differently in pathfinder because dinos never went extinct there. NOTHING in DINOSAURS IN FANTASY mentions that pathfinder dinos are 100% exact replicas of earth dinos.
There is no "pathfinder has different evolution" explanation in the game
There doesn't have to be an explanation for anything: You have as much proof on your side as I do, hence the pictures standing on their own as we can't prove either way. What i can prove however is that it's a fantasy game where things played out differently than earth and that has many factors, like magic and alternate dimensions affecting it, that we don't have irl. 'But irl' isn't a convincing argument for much IMO.
We can see that even with your argument it is clear dromaeosaurids have their real world feather coverings in fiction
First, it's specifically talking about velociraptors, so it isn't proof that pathfinder dromaeosaurids as a whole have feathers.
Secondly, the picture you showed from player core that you don't like in fact HAS feathers on "their backs and along the sides of their arms, legs, and tail" so it's not contradicting anything. It never states complete coverage with plumage. Or instance, if I say "she had freckles extending down her arm", that doesn't mean they are completely 100% covered in them.
bestiary
Deinonychus
"Although some of these dinosaurs have scaly skin, most have thatches of vibrantly colored feathers as well."
Dinosaur Abilities
While the real world fossil records hold a wealth of inspiration for the reconstruction of dinosaurs in an RPG, you can also look to living creatures for ideas. Giving a dinosaur a poisonous bite or an unusual attack routine like Clobbering Charge ensures that dinosaurs are as interesting in combat as they are in appearance. [ie, they aren't just following the real world]
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
bestiary
Deinonychus
"Although some of these dinosaurs have scaly skin, most have thatches of vibrantly colored feathers as well."Dinosaur Abilities
While the real world fossil records hold a wealth of inspiration for the reconstruction of dinosaurs in an RPG, you can also look to living creatures for ideas. Giving a dinosaur a poisonous bite or an unusual attack routine like Clobbering Charge ensures that dinosaurs are as interesting in combat as they are in appearance. [ie, they aren't just following the real world]
I mean, they are. Speculation is part of all reconstructions of animals from the fossil record and that is accounted for here and using it for gameplay purposes
I mean, they are. Speculation is part of all reconstructions of animals from the fossil record and that is accounted for here and using it for gameplay purposesbestiary
Deinonychus
"Although some of these dinosaurs have scaly skin, most have thatches of vibrantly colored feathers as well."Dinosaur Abilities
While the real world fossil records hold a wealth of inspiration for the reconstruction of dinosaurs in an RPG, you can also look to living creatures for ideas. Giving a dinosaur a poisonous bite or an unusual attack routine like Clobbering Charge ensures that dinosaurs are as interesting in combat as they are in appearance. [ie, they aren't just following the real world]
So then the image from the player core is perfectly acceptable then? Because that picture has "scaly skin" and thatches of feathers: which colors they are would be pure conjecture and up to the artist.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That is tantamount to a deliberate dissemination of misinformation tbh.
That seems like an extreme take for someone making a creature in a fantasy TTRPG look differently than you'd like.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So then the image from the player core is perfectly acceptable then? Because that picture has "scaly skin" and thatches of feathers: which colors they are would be pure conjecture and up to the artist.I mean, they are. Speculation is part of all reconstructions of animals from the fossil record and that is accounted for here and using it for gameplay purposesbestiary
Deinonychus
"Although some of these dinosaurs have scaly skin, most have thatches of vibrantly colored feathers as well."Dinosaur Abilities
While the real world fossil records hold a wealth of inspiration for the reconstruction of dinosaurs in an RPG, you can also look to living creatures for ideas. Giving a dinosaur a poisonous bite or an unusual attack routine like Clobbering Charge ensures that dinosaurs are as interesting in combat as they are in appearance. [ie, they aren't just following the real world]
That isn't speculation though, that is simply incorrect. Dinosaurs can't pronate, dromaeosaurs had more feathers etc. Those we know, other stuff is speculative
That is tantamount to a deliberate dissemination of misinformation tbh.That seems like an extreme take for someone making a creature in a fantasy TTRPG look differently than you'd like.
Comment isn't about this game
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That isn't speculation though, that is simply incorrect. Dinosaurs can't pronate, dromaeosaurs had more feathers etc. Those we know, other stuff is speculative
Where in the quotes you provided did it say pathfinder dromaeosaurs can or can't pronate their forelimbs? And I provided a direct quote that not every pathfinder dromaeosaurs has feathers let alone "more feathers" than the picture you have a personal dislike of.
So... we're back to you insisting pathfinder be exactly like irl... except magic... and dino existing alongside people... or aliens... oh, and elemental creatures... and demons and devils walking around... and bucklers that strap to your arm... And people can be immortal... oh, and alchemy...
Yeah, dino images really have to be museum accuracy or it's a crime against nature and intentional misinformation about a fantasy land! Stop the presses! Seriously though, we all have images we don't like and a RPG game isn't the place to expect museum quality 100% exact recreations of things: for instance we could spend our lifetimes debating on the correct terms for weapons/armor or usage like bucklers and arming swords. I think most are happy to enjoy the well-done images and stats in the game and don't worry about irl accuracy.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dromaeosaurs gaining pronation and losing some feathers is a clear sign of the evolutionary step towards Dinosaurs evolving into Dragons. Breathing fire and feathers don't mix well, and having pronated hands helps with sorting and counting treasure. When bestiary 1 says: "dinosaurs
are an excellent creature to use in a game that bridges the gap between familiar real-world"
I just assume some have crossed the bridge more than others.
The garbage the History Channel shows is certainly a problem, but Pathfinder doesn't try to sell itself as a source of history.
Neil deGrasse Tyson had a great response when asked about what he thought about the movie Guardians of the Galaxy (I'm paraphrasing here) "If I've already accepted a talking raccoon that shoots large shoulder-fired weapons, I can deal with explosions making sounds in space."
For me, if I can accept studded leather being a thing, I can accept Dinosaurs with pronated wrists. Would I like a more historically accurate game, sure but it's never been advertised as such so I'm not expecting it to happen.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It just has to look neat and the artist made it look neat. I don't need accuracy in my fantasy
PS (I preferred the first one but this is in no way a big deal)