Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 8814269" data-attributes="member: 6801228">Considering my entire point is how those limbs can possibly move, I would say that would be a silly thing for you to do. You also seem to still think that comparing a neckless head to an arm made any sense what so ever.So I judged the design.... by the design.... and that wasn't smart? Weird, since literally the only thing you said that changed anything was the fact that it has TWO head's without necks, something that the artwork doesn't convey. Which... does seem like it should be relatively important, don't you think? You'd imagine that showing the creature in a profile that allowed for that knowledge to exist visually would be an important thing.Ah, I see. Here is artwork of a Nemean Lion[ATTACH=full]265219[/ATTACH]It has immunity to physical damage, resistance to magic, at-will spellcasting, a divine roar, destroys non-magical armor and is a CR 30 creature. Its design is far better, is that because of all the magical abilities I can't see? No. This thing just... looks like a lion. But if this thing was coming towards me, I'd be scared. Meanwhile if the "ravager" came towards me I'd either be laughing or wondering if someone drugged me. And I know, I know, you are going to claim that I mentioned the Beholder's eye beams, so clearly I must be taking monster abilities into account, so I should take the Ravager's regeneration into account. But, you seem to have forgotten exactly WHY I took the beholder's eye beams into account. [ATTACH=full]265220[/ATTACH]Their eye beams ARE DEPICTED IN THE ARTWORK.So, first of all, yes it does look stupider than a chimera. The majority of chimera ever depicted as threats have a body plan that can work. Multiple heads on long necks on the body isn't a that hard to concieve of as being useful or dangerous. Secondly, if you were just going to say "no, the real reason is because you haven't been exposed to it enough to get used to it" then why even bother asking me why I thought it was a bad design? You clearly don't care what I think, because you haven't actually responded to an actual thing I brought up, except to look at the statblock and say "the design doesn't convey that it regenerates and it does deal damage" like that is some sort of checkmate.I have, you just haven't been listening. I mean, you do realize that saying "it's a magical creature" doesn't resolve any of the problems with its design, right? The point of the art is to convey information. If it had no ligaments and its joints had 360 degrees of movement, then they shouldn't look exactly like lion legs, with prominent ligaments clearly visible, and legs only capable of bending in one direction.Okay, are you just offended that I used the word symmetry? I've clearly explained why I used the phrasing I did. Twice. Are you actually going to address the fact that 99% of all creatures have only two eyes, making a prominently one-eyed creature which additionally has multiple eye tendrils, bizzarre and unnatural to conventional biology? Or do you want to just keep "well, actually" ing my use of a term to score cheap grammar points while ignoring the substance of my point? Because at this point I have made three posts responding to your question, you have addressed essentially none of my points or even acknowledged the majority of them, and instead have taken to just telling me what I believe. And frankly, it feels like this is queing up to be a "see how bellligerent and argumentative he is" style ending where you just act disgusted with me for not rolling over and agreeing with you. When, again, you asked for my reasonings, and I gave them.</blockquote>

Verification