I don't like "back antlers"

[InVinoVeritas]

I for one was outraged and nearly refused to buy the bestiary when I discovered there was STILL no DIRE TREE SLOTH.

How could a DIRE TREE SLOTH not be included?

ON a side note I am glad the first pleistocene monster published was not the Irish Deer. Otherwise all of our pleistocene monsters would be called Irish wolves, and irish lions.

Irish tigers. Irish sloths.

Using the world Dire in front of any animal but wolf is a dire petpeeve of mine.

Actually, the 1e Monster Manual had a Dire Tree Sloth--the Baluchitherium. It also had Smilodons, Cave Bears, Titanotheres, and Irish Deer. It also has regular and giant badgers.

It also had a lot of Giant animals. (Why 3e couldn't just call them Giant Animals, I don't know.)

However, the big thing for me is, why should we consider an animal in a different category than any other monster? Because it exists in real life? If it's big and has nasty, sharp teeth or whatever, it's a threat, and an encounter can be built around it. That's cool.

 

[Voadam]

(Why 3e couldn't just call them Giant Animals, I don't know.)

The giant animals are intelligent and talk. See both the tolkienish giant eagles and the giant owls.

 

[Will]

Unimportant aside:
I remember years ago, as a teen, seeing a dire wolf reconstruction at a museum and being amazed.

Because, honestly? They aren't that big, or particularly terrifying-looking. They're essentially wolves, but more rugged/heavyset.

For my part, I read the title as 'black antlers' and was confused. I mean, big black antlers sound potentially cool, depending on the monster...

 

[Desdichado]

Actually, the 1e Monster Manual had a Dire Tree Sloth--the Baluchitherium.

Quick nitpick---giant sloth is Megatherium. Baluchitherium (now called either Indricotherium or Paraceratherium is a completely different animal.

 

[pawsplay]

Unimportant aside:
I remember years ago, as a teen, seeing a dire wolf reconstruction at a museum and being amazed.

Because, honestly? They aren't that big, or particularly terrifying-looking. They're essentially wolves, but more rugged/heavyset.

For my part, I read the title as 'black antlers' and was confused. I mean, big black antlers sound potentially cool, depending on the monster...

The dirty little secret of Lost World stories it that, for the most part, modern predators are likely more efficient and dangerous. However, some older mammals tended to be bigger, which is cool.

 

[InVinoVeritas]

Quick nitpick---giant sloth is Megatherium. Baluchitherium (now called either Indricotherium or Paraceratherium is a completely different animal.

Maybe in your game.

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[zen_hydra]

The dirty little secret of Lost World stories it that, for the most part, modern predators are likely more efficient and dangerous. However, some older mammals tended to be bigger, which is cool.

I don't necessarily agree with this. It seems likely the key difference is that modern predators are specialized to hunt significantly different prey than their ancient forebears.

A tiger might be smarter and stealthier, but the specialized teeth of a smilodon probably allowed it to take down the significantly larger herbivores of its day.

Also I think that mega-fauna has the added threat of significantly greater mass. You don't have to be smart when you are swinging blows backed by a couple tons of bulk.

 

[pawsplay]

I've seen some articles that suggest the teeth of a smilodon might have been too delicate for tearing in combat, but might have been used primarily to bloody the neck once a prey animal had already been downed and for feeding.

 

[zen_hydra]

I've seen some articles that suggest the teeth of a smilodon might have been too delicate for tearing in combat, but might have been used primarily to bloody the neck once a prey animal had already been downed and for feeding.

I read an article by a group of paleontologist who experimented with this idea. Their findings showed that not only were the teeth strong enough to make a kill, but they also seemed to be perfectly designed to puncture the neck muscles and crush the trachea of prey animals many times larger than the smilodon.

The experiments included several field tests using recreated teeth, a hydraulic "mouth" with the theorized bite-strength of a smilodon, and IIRC several dead caped buffalo. Imaging of the buffalo's throats during the "bite" process demonstrated how efficiently a smilodon's maxillary canines punctured the thick hide and protective layers of muscle and allowed it to crush the trachea and possibly puncture major blood vessels in the process.

 

[pawsplay]

I read an article by a group of paleontologist who experimented with this idea. Their findings showed that not only were the teeth strong enough to make a kill, but they also seemed to be perfectly designed to puncture the neck muscles and crush the trachea of prey animals many times larger than the smilodon.

The experiments included several field tests using recreated teeth, a hydraulic "mouth" with the theorized bite-strength of a smilodon, and IIRC several dead caped buffalo. Imaging of the buffalo's throats during the "bite" process demonstrated how efficiently a smilodon's maxillary canines punctured the thick hide and protective layers of muscle and allowed it to crush the trachea and possibly puncture major blood vessels in the process.

Now that's science.