D&D 5E Starter Set Excerpt 5

[Dausuul]

The heads are okay. The ears are fine. The noses are adequate. But damn those are beefy Mooks.
Especially since the average goblin just has 8 strength. That's what 8 Str looks like to a goblin. What does a scrawny commoner goblin have for Str? 5? And what does the 11 Str boss goblin look like?! He must be a little miniature The Rock.

We're talking about creatures the height of 5-year-olds, with strength only slightly less than that of an adult human. So, yes, I'd expect them to look beefy.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

We're talking about creatures the height of 5-year-olds, with strength only slightly less than that of an adult human. So, yes, I'd expect them to look beefy.

Presumably you equally expect halflings to be built like brick sh*thouses and so on? Gnomes to rippling little bodybuilder dudes?

Otherwise that's some strange-as-heck logic. One could equally assume that their muscles were different - a chimpanzee and a human of equal strength typically have wildly different-looking levels of bulk. Hell, humans of equal measurable strength can have quite different degrees of visible bulk.

 

[Klaus]

As long as we're going to talk about Mr. Pozas work... I do like his hairless bear take on the bugbear...

This looks like a Gnoll to me, not a goblinoid. Good drawing anyway.

Thanks, y'all. But in the spirit of not derailing the thread, I'd ask that we focus on the actual 5e artwork. If anyone'd like to discuss my personal takes on these creatures, please start a new thread for that and I'd be happy to participate and show more stuff.

Cheers!

 

[Dausuul]

Presumably you equally expect halflings to be built like brick sh*thouses and so on? Gnomes to rippling little bodybuilder dudes?

Halfling and gnome Strength scores are ridiculously high given their size. That's why 4E upped halfling height to four-plus feet. And if you look at the 4E halfling art, most of them are pretty ripped. There was quite a bit of conversation around this when 4E was coming out, with the art team pointing out just how small "3 to 3.5 feet" really is. We're talking preschoolers and kindergarteners here.

I have other reasons for disliking halflings and gnomes, so I don't fuss too much about their Strength scores. If I can swallow their presence to begin with, I can choke down their Strength as well--in the end, it's just another modifier. But any time I stop to think about it, it bugs me, and has ever since 2E.

Otherwise that's some strange-as-heck logic. One could equally assume that their muscles were different - a chimpanzee and a human of equal strength typically have wildly different-looking levels of bulk. Hell, humans of equal measurable strength can have quite different degrees of visible bulk.

Chimps hide their muscles under a coat of hair, but they have a lot of muscle. Google for "hairless chimpanzee" and look at the image results. (Fair warning if you do, though: muscle isn't the only area where some chimps have a lot going on.) "Brick sh**house" is an accurate description.

Now, I grant that bulk isn't everything. You can be strong without being a hulk, and in a fantasy world, you can always fall back on "A wizard did it." But, once again, we are talking about creatures the size of 5-year-olds. There are limits to what wiry strength can do.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Halfling and gnome Strength scores are ridiculously high given their size. That's why 4E upped halfling height to four-plus feet. And if you look at the 4E halfling art, most of them are pretty ripped. There was quite a bit of conversation around this when 4E was coming out, with the art team pointing out just how small "3 to 3.5 feet" really is. We're talking preschoolers and kindergarteners here.

I have other reasons for disliking halflings and gnomes, so I don't fuss too much about their Strength scores. If I can swallow their presence to begin with, I can choke down their Strength as well--in the end, it's just another modifier. But any time I stop to think about it, it bugs me, and has ever since 2E.

Sure, but one can't really run a double-standard here.

Chimps hide their muscles under a coat of hair, but they have a lot of muscle. Google for "hairless chimpanzee" and look at the image results. (Fair warning if you do, though: muscle isn't the only area where some chimps have a lot going on.) "Brick sh**house" is an accurate description.

That's very interesting! You are quite right for the one pictured! Humans still have extremely low strength/weight ratio, though, and low strength/bulk ratio, by animal standards.

Now, I grant that bulk isn't everything. You can be strong without being a hulk, and in a fantasy world, you can always fall back on "A wizard did it." But, once again, we are talking about creatures the size of 5-year-olds. There are limits to what wiry strength can do.

I suspect skinny-but-scary-strong is within acceptable "fantasy world" limits for most D&D players (given trolls etc).

 

[Tuft]

Humans still have extremely low strength/weight ratio, though, and low strength/bulk ratio, by animal standards.

We evolved weaker muscles in order for our brains to get enough energy. Brain power proved to be more useful for survival than Brawn power...

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/05/140527-brain-muscle-metabolism-genes-apes-science/

One can imagine this as a basis for different fantasy races with different tradeoffs between STR and INT...

(As for "useful for survival" compared to chimps and gorillas, see: http://xkcd.com/1338/ )

 

[Ruin Explorer]

We evolved weaker muscles in order for our brains to get enough energy. Brain power proved to be more useful for survival than Brawn power...

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/05/140527-brain-muscle-metabolism-genes-apes-science/

One can imagine this as a basis for different fantasy races with different tradeoffs between STR and INT...

(As for "useful for survival" compared to chimps and gorillas, see: http://xkcd.com/1338/ )

Indeed, I was aware of this, but that's a really nice article on it.

 

[Wrathamon]

Well, in my initial response (which the internets ate), I was more precise.

But when I had to rewrite the whole post over again...I didn't quite go into that much detail on the subject.

Thanks for the well thought out reply!

It's interesting that the Hobgoblins stand out where as the goblins didn't. Maybe it has to do with B2

 

[Wrathamon]

Renditions of them were decidedly not reptiles (I mean other than showing scales on their skin) until 3e...and its been downhill for kobolds ever since.

I agree, but I know a lot of people love the dragon connection. I think it made them more playable as player characters ...

 

[Wrathamon]

(I've never seen any reason to think they're armadillo-like monotremes.)

I actually NOW see this for the old AD&D ones! Laying eggs ... they're from Australia!

+1 for using monotremes