I don't like "back antlers"

[Dannyalcatraz]

No kidding- when I first saw this thread's title, I was puzzled about why a thread about the dislike of lower-back tattoos- a.k.a. "tramp stamps" and "arse antlers"- was doing in a Pathfinder forum.

I may need to take a nap.

 

[frankthedm]

Have not seen the art in the bestiary yet, though here is what I like 'dire' animals to look like.
source: Ron Spencer B&W sketches for DDM cards.

img398.imageshack.us/img398/4576/ronstigeri.jpg
img29.imageshack.us/img29/2276/ronspencerddmdirewolfco.png

Bonespurs, horn armor and bodybarbs are fine on animals in "worlds that have moved on" like Darksun but should not be the default look on dire animals

Getting back to those "back antlers," you'll note that the bear IS the only one in the book that kept that feature. We quite consciously and specifically made sure to NOT have things like that on our animal art because I agree... it's silly. I killed more than a few pieces of art in the book because they had "back antlers." The bear's illo made it through because it had the right combo of having back antlers that, comparatively, were pretty unobtrusive and minor (especially compared to the ones that originally graced some of the others, like the daeodon [dire boar]). Of course, now that he's the ONLY one in the book with the stuff, they look more obvious and blatant. I probably should have killed that art as well, but each piece of art we had to kill at that stage cost us money, so I was in a place where I was having to pick and choose my fights. We decided to let the bear illo go and fix some other problems (not necessarily dire-animal related) instead. And to be honest, the fact that the bear has bony shoulders annoys me less than the silly expression he has ("A surprise birthday party? for ME?) on his face.

Thank you, your efforts to combat bodybarbs and bonsepurs are appreciated. Sorry to hear about the money lost on those art pieces, if i understand correctly, those can eat a decent chunk of a books budget.

I have a silly question. Why does the creature labeled as a Tiger have shoulder spikes... ?

I'm pretty sure the silly "dire" thing extends back at least into 3.X.

I liked the idea of the "dire" class of animals . . . but with every illustration since of a spiky bear or spiky tiger I've really started to equate the word "dire" with "stupid-looking".

Count another vote against the bonespurs (I've never heard of anyone who liked them now that I think of it) ...

I don't care for the bonespurs in any edition. I immediately think of a rabbit with Shope Papilloma virus, or something similar.

Dunno if it got mentioned, I missed it on my read through, but the Kenku is a reprint as well.

Count me in on not liking bone spurs. Ick. I wish they'd redesign the animal somewhat instead of just adding spikes.

Count me as another vote for spiky dire animals == silly.

Dire animals as bigger, fiercer versions of their normal kin is fine. Great even. But bony spikes all over just looks silly to me.

The first thing I noticed was the lack of spikes/barbd/jabby bits poking through its skin. I am so happy I may just cry.

I noticed the lack of spikes/boney plates too. I wonder if this means Dire critters are going to look normal, again.

it's definitely cool that the "dire" versions of a creature a just bigger, and don't have the funny spikes and etc that they had in 3rd edition. I can see what the designers were trying for with those, I just didn't like the results.

 

[Desdichado]

The concept of dire animals was flawed from the get-go, in my opinion. The "dire wolf"---the real-life fossil from which that concept came, isn't a "wolf." It's a completely different animal. It's Canis dirus and the wolf is Canis lupus or Canis rufus if you mean the red wolf. That's a little bit like saying that wolf itself is a "dire coyote" or something.

 

[Starbuck_II]

This actually touches on something that has always, for some reason, bugged me about D&D monster books - why have normal animals in there at all? I mean sure you might need to know that a horse can bite a guy once in a while but does anyone need to know how much damage a badger can dish out? (let me guess - not much?).

Dire animals were, to me, marginally more useful than regular every day animals but only just. I've used a (very) few dire animals as a DM. The lone exception to this would be wolves but that is just because I love wolves. To me if I'm playing D&D and am fighting a bear some of the magic is gone.

Because Badgers, etc animals can be summoned with Nature's Ally or Summon Monster.

 

[pawsplay]

Because Badgers, etc animals can be summoned with Nature's Ally or Summon Monster.

Like in Shrek 3.

 

[Holy Bovine]

Because Badgers, etc animals can be summoned with Nature's Ally or Summon Monster.

Now we get the real reason. To clutter combat with useless creatures that make the druid or wizard take 5x longer for their turns. God I hated summoners.

 

[Banshee16]

This actually touches on something that has always, for some reason, bugged me about D&D monster books - why have normal animals in there at all? I mean sure you might need to know that a horse can bite a guy once in a while but does anyone need to know how much damage a badger can dish out? (let me guess - not much?). Dire animals were, to me, marginally more useful than regular every day animals but only just. I've used a (very) few dire animals as a DM. The lone exception to this would be wolves but that is just because I love wolves. To me if I'm playing D&D and am fighting a bear some of the magic is gone.

Animals in D&D can be pretty dangerous......generally, I have more success killing PCs in my games with ordinary wildlife than with other creatures like Tanar'ri. I've either killed, or taken to death's door, PCs with cattle, bison, bears, pythons, packs of wolves, and tigers.

I've never liked the whole spiky thing either.....I agree with the other poster that a dire wolf or dire bear could be a huge, muscled beast, rather than a spiky, armor plated horror. True to life "dire" animals were probably nasty enough on their own.....smilodons, cave bears, dire wolves, etc.

Wildlife makes the game more rooted and gritty IMO....but I guess everyone gets their own thing out of it.

Banshee

 

[Banshee16]

The concept of dire animals was flawed from the get-go, in my opinion. The "dire wolf"---the real-life fossil from which that concept came, isn't a "wolf." It's a completely different animal. It's Canis dirus and the wolf is Canis lupus or Canis rufus if you mean the red wolf. That's a little bit like saying that wolf itself is a "dire coyote" or something.

I think the important thing is that D&D basically rules that they're similar to a wolf, but bigger and stronger.....which seems to coincide with what we know of them. Were they the same? No. They had smaller brains, but they were much heavier bujilt than modern wolves....averaging 130-190 lbs vs. 85 lbs. But spiky they were not. I still don't think that it would be fun to tangle with one.

From that perspective, the way they did Dire Animals in Frostburn seemed a little more rooted in reality....instead of having a dire tiger or whatever, they used the "Dire" appelation to stat out the smilodon.

Overall, I don't know if wildlife is made dangerous enough in D&D. The speed with which animals can rip a human apart is frightening. But, I guess if you're comparing an animal's stats to those of a lvl 1 commoner with no armor, yeah, the animal is going to be dangerous.

But then, even with something like a Marine......if he doesn't have a firearm, and you put him in a room with a Siberian Tiger, I don't think he'd be walking out at the end....even if he had a knife.

Banshee

 

[pawsplay]

Well, a Siberian tiger is CR 4. I'll bet an unarmed Marine could probably go unarmed against a cougar, though, and that's a more fair CR. It's not that a human can't take a lot of animals, even without weapons, it's that we're not powerful enough to do it without risking death ourselves. As primates go, we're pretty wussy, but we are still primates. It's certainly within a human's capabilities to literally pull an arm or a jaw off a small predator.

 

[frankthedm]

Animals in D&D can be pretty dangerous......generally, I have more success killing PCs in my games with ordinary wildlife than with other creatures like Tanar'ri. I've either killed, or taken to death's door, PCs with cattle, bison, bears, pythons, packs of wolves, and tigers.

"Beat down" creatures don't get excess abilities, just damage output and HP to deal out that damage. There are lots of ways to deal with them, but underestimating them or taking a head on approach can get ugly quick.

"It's just an animal, save your spells."

Last words of the party tank.​