Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Roman" data-source="post: 3989458" data-attributes="member: 1845">Intentionally so! &nbsp;You know what? I like this... a lot. Those three types are progressively broader, but that fits the focus of the game on humanoids quite well. As to vermin, I don't think they would make a good type. If we wanted a fourth type, I would go along with 'Insectoids' (not just insects, of course, arachnids and the like would fall here too). Form-wise, these would be distinguished by an exoskeleton (though I am not sure this really is an aspect of shape), segmented bodies, multiple-legs. This may be different enough from what we consider beasts to qualify as a separate type. &nbsp;I agree completely. &nbsp;Interesting thoughts - replace mortal with natural though, as we know this origin will exist from the posts based on the Worlds and Monsters book. Good examples!&nbsp; <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&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Roman, post: 3989458, member: 1845"] Intentionally so! You know what? I like this... a lot. Those three types are progressively broader, but that fits the focus of the game on humanoids quite well. As to vermin, I don't think they would make a good type. If we wanted a fourth type, I would go along with 'Insectoids' (not just insects, of course, arachnids and the like would fall here too). Form-wise, these would be distinguished by an exoskeleton (though I am not sure this really is an aspect of shape), segmented bodies, multiple-legs. This may be different enough from what we consider beasts to qualify as a separate type. I agree completely. Interesting thoughts - replace mortal with natural though, as we know this origin will exist from the posts based on the Worlds and Monsters book. Good examples! :) [/QUOTE]

Verification