Reviewing, Revising, and Finalizing Prehistoric Animals and Dinosaur Ecology

xidoraven · Nov 3, 2009

considerations for statting creatures

I apologize for not commenting on all of this so far, but there is a lot here and more every time I show up. Which means two things: you guys rock, and my ability to soak information is dwindling (probably because I am overworking myself and stressing over moving soon).

Now here's my thoughts on this whole categorizing thing... Since it's obvious that evolutionary "between" species and some groups of variants and/or similar species like or unlike those of others, this project as it stands on that timeline could potentially take as long as the original taxonomy of the original critters.

SO my idea is instead of trying to group them all at first and dissect them that way, choose a few that you are very familiar with, and give them some general outline of stats that you think would be credible (especially if something the previous unreviewed version is cool enough to inspire a flavor idea). For example, Stegosaurus - Huge - 16HD, +6 natural armor (these are BS stats, I am just making an example)... Now Dacentrurus is similar but somewhat different. Maybe I would make that Dacentrurus - Huge - 14HD, +5 natural armor, and so on.

I think that if we get a good grouping of dinosaurs (AND other prehistoric animals, mind you) that seem "iconic" that will help to establish a precendent, and we can stat out similar creatures from there. Does EVERY creature on this list needs its own list of stats and flavor text? No. BUT, they could at least get a mention in a VERY similar creature's entry claiming that they could use the same stats, or we could even feature mini-stat blocks, which simply state the specific ways in which they differ from another creature stat block. This would help, say for example, between Deinonychus and Velociraptor - similar, but just close enough to call it.

This would mean we could end up with a basic list of animals with simple stats that we could then compare and really start blocking out all the animals. I also noticed we are looking into this project taxonomically, which I think we should avoid. We should try and look at it as though we are balancing out and evaluating stats as they apply to all animals, and not just the ones on the top of our minds. It's easy to think of this project as simply delineating dinosaur species, but because there was such a long evolutionary line of creatures that all evolved, devolved, and changed in such unique ways, there is a lot of crossover and debatables. I think we should avoid that in favor of comparing the creatures for how they stand up in combat and as statistics. This will make it much easier to balance them and compare them for statistic precedence.

Dear God, I hope that made sense - it didn't work for me after re-reading. I think what I am trying to get across is that we should begin statting out how we believe they are right and wrong in the ways we have seen them represented, and start with some real basic comparisons between two or so creature stats and which other creatures might utilize similar or the same stats & flavor text.

I don't have any books or material in front of me to make educated examples, but see what I said above so you know what I mean. I am really behind on this one right now because I have to pack and move to some undecided location soon. I think that the creatures that Cleon statted up here earlier are a great start and we could use them as precedent for now until you get further into the others. Sorry I couldn't be more helpful - I am super tired and a little delerious.

-will

hamishspence · Nov 3, 2009

Statting out.

This is an interesting way of looking at it.

Though personally, given that Velociraptor is a lot lighter and shorter than Deinonychus, i'd say a better example would be:

Velociraptor- 2 HD Small creature with Improved Natural Attack- claws
Dromaeosaurus- 2 HD Small creature with Improved Natural Attack- bite

This is a more dramatic example of animals which are similar in nearly every way (height 1.6 ft at hip, length 6 ft, weight 33lb) except one- their main weapon.

Since Dromaeosaurus has a very heavily built skull and strong bite, and Velociraptor doesn't (but has quite big foot claws).

Breaking it down into the "major species" with ones that differ only slightly (in size, or weaponry) getting the mini statblock describing the modifications- is an interesting idea.

You could probably think of other examples-
Achillobator: 7 HD Large Deinonychus
Utahraptor: As Achillobator but 8 HD
Austroraptor: As Achillobator but no forearm claw attacks

And so on.

Cleon · Nov 3, 2009

hamishspence said:
Actually- that's the kind I would have done with Short Reach- with its body held nearly upright- its head can't reach very far forward.

Whereas with body held horizontally- the jaws are a long way forward of the feet.

Contrariwise, I imagine Reach as representing how far away a creature can
attack opponents from its 'rest' position. Thus, I think of a Huge pulp Tyrannosaurus as standing in a smaller area (a 10 by 10 foot Space), but when it lunges forward to bite it can lean down to be parallel to the ground, stretch out its neck and take a step forward, allowing it to attack a long distance from its Space. A more realistic 'horizontal' Tyrannosaur, by contrast, can only stretch out its neck and take a step, so wouldn't get as much distance on a strike.

hamishspence said:
Clawed carnosaurs should probably be split into Spinosaur-type and Neovenator type- with the recent work on the Neovenatorid clade- that includes Megaraptor.

I was going to suggest that too, with 'Clawed Carnosaurs' for the fast-running big clawed types such as Neovenator. I think there's enough functional differences between the two to give them different D&D stats - Spinosaurs were probably a bit slower and had teeth & jaws better suited for securing small, struggling prey than Neovenator's more allosauroid slashing/serrated teeth. We can hypothesize the latter were better adapted for chasing down fleet medium-small prey than a Spinosaurs.

Furthermore, I was toying with the idea of splitting Spinosaurs into regular (most of them) and robust varieties (basically Baryonyx, which seems significantly sturdier than an average Spiny). Maybe easier just to treat Baryonyx as an exception.

hamishspence said:
Ceratosaurus is actually somewhat atypical of ceratosaurs- most are either slim (Elaphrosaurus, Deltadromeus, Noasaurus) or chunky with miniscule arms (Carnotaurus) So it fits well with the non-gracile carnosaurs.

I think we can consider them adequately represented by Standard Carnosaurs and Abelisaurs.

We could probably do with coming up with other 'generic' names than Abelisaurs and the other categories we're still using the scientific terms for - Shortfaced Carnosaurs for Abelisaurs? Tyrant Carnosaurs for regular Tyrannosaurs and Gracile Tyrants for Albertosaurus types?

Not sure what would be a good term for Spinosaurus-types. 'Fishing Carnosaurs' is inaccurate, since they're a more generalist feeder.

Special note- depite being tyrannosauroids, the early ones, especially Dryptosaurus, had quite long arms and big claws- might fit better into "generic carnosaur" or even "clawed carnosaur" than either type of tyrannosaur.

Myself, I'd put Old Laelaps in Clawed Carnosaur, since it appears to be a swift, agile runner with an oversized hand-claw. That, and it'd be a good fit with the famous Charles Knight painting.

Cleon · Nov 3, 2009

hamishspence said:
Generic Carnosaur-
Smallest- Monolophosaurus- Large (17 ft long, 1500 pounds)
Largest- Giganotosaurus- Huge (41 ft long, more than 6.5 tons)

*SNIP*

Clawed Carnosaur-
Smallest- Fukuiraptor- Medium (14 ft long, 175 kilos)
Largest- Chilantaisaurus- Huge (36 ft long, 2.5 tonnes)

*SNIP*

Tyrannosaur-
Smallest- Raptorex (9 ft long, 150 pounds)
Largest- Tyrannosaurus (42 ft long, 7 tons)

My preference would be to go smaller than that, to allow for self-sufficient juveniles (I think it's probably that at least some theropods were highly precocious, hunting for themselves shortly after hatching). It would also allow for hypothetical undiscovered smaller species - there may be lots of species we haven't found fossils of.

Also, what about Herrerasaurs? Those primitive theropods would probably fit quite well in either Classic or Gracile Carnosaur, but they're not very big (6-20 feet).

hamishspence said:
Also- an interesting thing is, that lots of different groups each came in short and long armed forms.

Tyrannosauroids, allosauroids, ceratosaurs, and even dromaeosaurs (one group of dromaeosaurs has very short limbs- the family Unenlagiinae- of which one of the largest is the 16 ft Austroraptor.)

I think we've got those pretty well covered with the current categories, except for the Short-Armed Raptors. I'll add one in.

Speaking of raptors, the current category list could do adding 'Flapping Raptors' with well developed arm feathers. Maybe posit them as tree or cliff dwellers, with a racial bonus to Climb or an actual climb speed, with some genera (e.g. Microraptor) even capable of limited flight.

EDIT: Here's a revised theropod category list:

Standard Carnosaurs (e.g. Allosaurus) - largish, fairly fast, slashing bite, medium-sized claws. Includes other Allosauridae up to the size of Giganotosaurus. We could probably lump Ceratosaurs in here as far as their stats go.
Gracile Carnosaurs (e.g. Dilophosaurus) - slim, fast, smallish head, medium-small claws.
Clawed Carnosaurs (e.g. Megaraptor) - Carnivorous theropods with unusually large arms & claws and smallish heads with slashing teeth. Swift and gracile, may have chased down agile prey.
Crocodile Carnosaurs (e.g. Spinosaurus) Largish arms and claws. Slim jaws with pointed teeth for wriggling prey. may be piscovores.Baryonyxmay be a robust version. [not sure I like the name, but it's better than 'Fishing Carnosaurs']
Short-Faced Carnosaurs (e.g. Abelisaurus) - slow but powerful, short skull may have allowed for a pit-bull like wrestling with larger prey animals, tiny arms.
Tyrant Kings (e.g. Tyrannosaurus) - large & strong, bigger brains, powerful crushing & tearing bite, tiny claws.
Gracile Tyrants (e.g. Albertosaurus) - faster than the above, with less powerful jaws.
'Raptors' (e.g. Deinonychus) - fast & agile, well armed with claws, talons & teeth. [Maybe call them Terror Claws?]
Gracile Raptors (e.g. Troodon) - slimmer and faster than above, but not as strong.
Short-Armed Raptors (e.g. Austroraptor). Unusually small arms and slim jaws. Maybe particularly fast pursuers of small prey?
Flapping Raptors (e.g. Unenlagia, Microraptor). Very small, with wings or winglike forearms. Some may have had limited flight, maybe good climbers that lived on trees or cliffs.
Beaked Raptors (e.g. Oviraptor) - small, fast, medium claws, beaked. Maybe omnivores. [I decided to drop 'Oviraptor' since calling them 'egg thieves' would give the wrong impression of their habits]
Scythe Claws (e.g. Therizinosaurus) - bizarre barrel-bodied theropods with huge claws. Probably herbivores.
Ostrich Mimics (e.g. Ornithomimus) - fast, with long 3-clawed arms but a negligible peck. Maybe omnivores.

hamishspence · Nov 3, 2009

very nice.

I was picking the smallest adult sizes (it''s not clear if Fukuiraptor was adult or not, but there were a lot of much smaller juveniles found in the same area)

So we could certainly include smaller ones for juveniles.

What I find interesting is after a lot of digging around on the net- the notion of Giganotosaurus being longer and more heavily built than T. Rex starts to look a bit iffy.

Since the actual holotype (70% complete) was estimated as 12.2-12.5 metres long and 5 tons, and the larger specimen (a single jaw fragment) was estimated at 13.2 m long and 6.2 tons:

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Giganotosaurus

it suddenly looks rather less impressive.

I get similar results for Carcharodontosaurus iguidensis- one of the longest carcharodontosaurids.

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Carcharodontosaurushttp://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Giganotosaurus

So maybe they should have a similar number of Hit dice, space, reach, etc, to T.rex.

Apparently Pathfinder has statted out T. rex- as a Gargantuan creature with 20 ft space, 20 ft reach.

Pathfinder]Dinosaur

Seems a bit oversized.

Cleon · Nov 3, 2009

xidoraven said:
This would mean we could end up with a basic list of animals with simple stats that we could then compare and really start blocking out all the animals. I also noticed we are looking into this project taxonomically, which I think we should avoid. We should try and look at it as though we are balancing out and evaluating stats as they apply to all animals, and not just the ones on the top of our minds. It's easy to think of this project as simply delineating dinosaur species, but because there was such a long evolutionary line of creatures that all evolved, devolved, and changed in such unique ways, there is a lot of crossover and debatables. I think we should avoid that in favor of comparing the creatures for how they stand up in combat and as statistics. This will make it much easier to balance them and compare them for statistic precedence.

Erm, avoiding a taxonomy-first approach in favour of a D&D statistics-first is why I'm doing these body-type categories. A 'Clawed Chaser' could be a an advanced Neovenatorid Allosaur like Megaraptor or a primitive Tyrannosaur like Dryptosaurus, taxonomically distant but game-mechanically similar.

They'll both be Large dinosaurs about 25-30 feet long, with a high speed (probably 50 or 60 feet), biggish claws (1d8?) and a pretty heavy bite (2d6?), but won't be as powerful (slightly lower Strength and HD?) as a typical Large-sized version of the more robust Classic Carnosaurs or Tyrant Kings.

We could differentiate the two by giving them different feat selections, such as Improved Natural Attack (bite) to give the Dryptosaurus a crushing Tyrannosauroid bite, and Improved Natural Attack (claw) for the Megaraptor's foot-long hand-talons. Although I'd personally just give bump of the damage a bit, so the actual entry may look something like:

Dryptosaurus - 12HD Huge Clawed Chaser, increase bite to 2d8 damage.
Megaraptor - 12HD Huge Clawed Chaser, increase claws to 1d10 damage.

EDIT: Oh blast it, I've just noticed my Megaraptor Redux back in post #7 is missing a couple of feats. It should have 5 feats for its 12HD, but only has 3 listed. I'll add Run and Weapon Focus (bite).

hamishspence · Nov 3, 2009

Generic dinosaurs

This idea of a basic "template" on which little modifications can be added (a feat, or increased damage- to distinguish the more different specimens (Dryptosaurus and Megaraptor, for example) does seem logical.

(maybe a standard "attack routine" could be given- bite and grapple, with free rake attacks, for generic carnosaurs like Acrocanthosaurus, and something else for the Clawed Chasers)

Aside from the T-rex, Pathfinder does seem to get most of the sizes right (which is more than I can say for 3.0)-

And it lists Deinonychus as Medium, with modifications to reduced it to Small for Velociraptor, or Large for "megaraptor" by which they appear to mean giant dromaeosaurs like Achillobator and Utahraptor.

Should Daspletosaurus (the smallest robust Tyrannosaur I know of) be low-end Huge, or high-end Large?

hamishspence · Nov 3, 2009

Cleon said:
Contrariwise, I imagine Reach as representing how far away a creature can
attack opponents from its 'rest' position. Thus, I think of a Huge pulp Tyrannosaurus as standing in a smaller area (a 10 by 10 foot Space), but when it lunges forward to bite it can lean down to be parallel to the ground, stretch out its neck and take a step forward, allowing it to attack a long distance from its Space. A more realistic 'horizontal' Tyrannosaur, by contrast, can only stretch out its neck and take a step, so wouldn't get as much distance on a strike.

The point I was trying to make was- in horizontal position- with its centre of mass above the centre of its space- its jaws already end roughly 15 ft away from the edge of the "miniature base" so to speak- it doesn't need to take a step forward- because its mouth is already in the right place.

Same principle applies to a 30 ft Large theropod- it's at "stretch" posture- with its head and jaws ending 10 ft in front, and its tail ending 10 feet behind.

While the whole Short-long reach thing can be tricky- it might be possible (since some groups never get bigger than 20 ft) to reserve Long Reach (alternatively known as Normal Biped Reach) for the chunky ones.

For example:

Gracile Carnosaurs and most Raptors could be Short Reach,

Carnosaurs, Tyrannosaurs, Spinosaur-types, and the like, could be Normal Reach- since most of them have a 25-30 ft form, and/or a 40-45 ft (or almost) form:

Carnosaur- 25-30 ft (Megalosaurus, Ceratosaurus, Allosaurus)
40-45 ft- (Giganotosaurus, Epanterias, Torvosaurus)

Clawed, Fast Carnosaur- 25-30 ft (Dryptosaurus, Megaraptor, Aerosteon)
40-45 ft- (Chilantaisaurus, possibly Deltadromeus)

Massive-jawed Carnosaur- 25-30 ft (Daspletosaurus)
40-45 ft (Tarbosaurus, Tyrannosaurus)

Short-faced Carnosaur- 25-30 ft (Carnotaurus)

Long-snouted Carnosaur - 25-30ft (Irritator, Baryonyx)
40-45 ft (Suchomimus)
50-60 ft (Spinosaurus)

You get the idea- most can get away with being Long Reach (that is- same reach distance as their Space).

And- aside from Ceratosaurus- most ceratosaurs, such as Elaphrosaurus- were around 20 ft long and very slim- so can be lumped in with Gracile Carnosaurs.

Cleon · Nov 3, 2009

hamishspence said:
I was picking the smallest adult sizes (it''s not clear if Fukuiraptor was adult or not, but there were a lot of much smaller juveniles found in the same area)

So we could certainly include smaller ones for juveniles.

Yes, not to mention there are a lot of other dinosaurs best represented by subadult specimens. (e.g. Nanotyrannus)

hamishspence said:
What I find interesting is after a lot of digging around on the net- the notion of Giganotosaurus being longer and more heavily built than T. Rex starts to look a bit iffy.

*SNIP*

I get similar results for Carcharodontosaurus iguidensis- one of the longest carcharodontosaurids.

So maybe they should have a similar number of Hit dice, space, reach, etc, to T.rex.

I agree, a big (~13 metre) Carcharodontosaurid would probably weigh about the same as an average sized (9-10 metre?) Tyrannosaurus rex. The rex may be shorter, but they've got a much more robust build.

There's certainly little call to give them 24 or 30 Hit Dice, like the two examples on the wizards board.

hamishspence said:
Apparently Pathfinder has statted out T. rex- as a Gargantuan creature with 20 ft space, 20 ft reach.

Pathfinder]Dinosaur

Seems a bit oversized.

Seems that way to me too, Huge is quite enough. It's not that bad a set of stats though, I'd just drop the size and leave everything else the same, ability scores included.

I'm a lot less impressed by Pathfinder's take on Ankylosaurus.

Constitution 17 and 10 Hit Dice for a Huge 30-foot Ankylosaur? that's pathetic!

In my humble opinion a 30-foot Ankylosaurus should be so tough few predatory dinosaurs would want to take it on, this version would be killed by the Pathfinder Tyrannosaurus in a few chomps. (Average bite damage 36, average Ankylosaurus hit points 75).

Fortunately I have a solution - I've statted up my own take on the Armoured Dinosaurs, so now I'm motivated to post them.