Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="BOZ" data-source="post: 1904680" data-attributes="member: 1241"><a href="http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=110310" target="_blank">http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=110310</a>that's not a bad idea, but does WotC own that stuff?  And if not, do you think they would print an article based on it?OK, anyone want to give some input on which fey we would be using?  <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forums/showpost.php?p=1901210&postcount=65" target="_blank">http://www.enworld.org/forums/showpost.php?p=1901210&postcount=65</a>And, now is a good as time as any to start working on these critters:<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forums/showpost.php?p=1902285&postcount=171" target="_blank">http://www.enworld.org/forums/showpost.php?p=1902285&postcount=171</a>OK, as for old skool early AD&D prehistoric monsters, we had (most of whom are in the CC):Axe beakBaluchitheriumBear, CaveBoard, wild, giant (Elothere)HyaenodonIrish DeerLion, SpottedMammothMastodon (in MM3)Rhino, WoolyTitanothereCrocodile, giantDimetrodonMegatheriumPhororhacosI'm sure some, or even most of these guys have appeared in books recently (Frostburn?  Don't have it yet unfortunately).  The idea is to whittle out anything with a very similar ecological function, appearance, and abilities.Also, a number of prehistoric beasties have been in Dragon mag.  I'm not sure which of these are dinosaurs and which are animals, but I think I have it mostly nailed down.  Some of these articles, 137 & 167 for example, are strictly mammals, which is good.  I'll need to go back and look, but I'm sure some of you megafauna experts know better than I do.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />You know, looking back over these articles, especially #137 & 167, I'm wondering if we shouldn't just narrow it down to Cenozoic animals - that is, animals that existed between the ages of dinosaurs and humans.  That would make it both more cohesive, and I think, interesting to me.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />112 - Marine chelonian, crocodilian, cynodont, dicynodont, ichthyosaur, labyrinthodont, plesiosaur, rhynchosaur 137 - Alticamelus, ambelodon, arsinotherium, astrapotherium, short-faced bear, giant bison, cattle (auroch), deinotherium, gigantopithecus, glyptodon, macrauchenia, moropus, sivatherium, ground sloth, uintatherium 167 - Agriotherium, amphycion, anancus, andrewsarchus, giant camel, dwarf elephant, eucladoceros, giant hippopotmaus, megalania, metridiochoerus, pelorovis, sarkastodon 176 - Giant opabinia, electric agnath, eurypterid, armored predatory fish, eogyrinus, eryops, cyclotosaurus, cacops, giant platyhystrix, estemennosuchus, early therapsids, giant therapsid, erythrosuchus and <a href="https://www.enworld.org/index.php?Threads" target="_blank">this thread</a> adds a whole bunch more.  The idea is to get rid of what we're not using, and see what we can use of what's left.  For this article, it would be ONLY animals that scientists believe existed - not anything completely invented.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />maybe an even better way to go about this is to determine what prehistoric animals have already been done, and then look for types that haven't been?</blockquote>

Verification