Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 5972122" data-attributes="member: 6696971">We've canvassed a lot of issues that we speculate may be problematic for giants (they should probably be exceedingly short lived if nothing else as they would likely suffer hip dysplasia issues or other such complications after a short period...giant sauropods were expected to live a considerable percentage of their lives in water to mitigate the absurd load bearing requirements of their hips), but I find the main issue with DnD logic concerning monster is (I've already covered dragons flight) to be the exoskeleton.&nbsp; We've established quite well that the upper bounds of exoskeleton size limitations creates a bottleneck of arthropods right about the size of the creatures that we see today on our present earth.&nbsp; The fact that monstrous spiders and other arthropods in DnD exceed this inherent size limitation by orders of magnitude tells you that something funny is going on with biophysics or the physical in the world in DnD...or it tells you to do your best to be more forgiving of these physical anomalies.&nbsp; I suspect that lack of care for, or ignorance of, the impact of trim characterstics or exoskeletal limitations while being relatively familiar with the human body (to say the least <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue&nbsp; &nbsp; :p"&nbsp; data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" />) plays a role here.&nbsp; But if one is familiar with these issues and they cannot get beyond it, is it reasonable for them to request that giants and dragons and arthropods either explain themselves or that they be relegated in the core to aquatic subtype (or very short lived), ground locomotion and small size only with modules for earth subtype, flight and medium size or better?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Manbearcat, post: 5972122, member: 6696971"] We've canvassed a lot of issues that we speculate may be problematic for giants (they should probably be exceedingly short lived if nothing else as they would likely suffer hip dysplasia issues or other such complications after a short period...giant sauropods were expected to live a considerable percentage of their lives in water to mitigate the absurd load bearing requirements of their hips), but I find the main issue with DnD logic concerning monster is (I've already covered dragons flight) to be the exoskeleton. We've established quite well that the upper bounds of exoskeleton size limitations creates a bottleneck of arthropods right about the size of the creatures that we see today on our present earth. The fact that monstrous spiders and other arthropods in DnD exceed this inherent size limitation by orders of magnitude tells you that something funny is going on with biophysics or the physical in the world in DnD...or it tells you to do your best to be more forgiving of these physical anomalies. I suspect that lack of care for, or ignorance of, the impact of trim characterstics or exoskeletal limitations while being relatively familiar with the human body (to say the least :p) plays a role here. But if one is familiar with these issues and they cannot get beyond it, is it reasonable for them to request that giants and dragons and arthropods either explain themselves or that they be relegated in the core to aquatic subtype (or very short lived), ground locomotion and small size only with modules for earth subtype, flight and medium size or better? [/QUOTE]

Verification