W/O Notice, Would It Be Difficult To Differentiate B/W Lycanthropes & Anthropomorphs?

[X-Calator]

Without Notice, Would It Be Difficult To Tell The Difference Between A Lycanthrope And A Anthropomorph?

I always thought anthropomorphs look a little more refined and more natural than the rugged, transforming therianthropes of the lands. What's the official take on the subject aesthetically?

 

[Krishnath]

hmm, it's not that hard really. A lizardman for example is an anthropomorph, while a werecrocodile is a therianthrope. And if you can't spot the difference between the two, I won't help you when you get eaten by the werecrocodile

 

[X-Calator]

Yeah, I know, I'm just wondering if you could spot the difference just by looking at them. Just pondering if there are any surefire traits that I don't know about.

 

[Krishnath]

Try stabbing it with a bronze (or steel) needle, if it heals instantly it's a therianthrope, if not it's an anthromorph.

 

[The Serge]

I think there shouuld be a difference to the observant person.

Using the Lizardman/were-crocodile example, the Lizardman, while clearly not human, would still seem almost natural. Scary, yes. Dangerous and reptilian, yes. But ultimately natural.

The were-croc and any other lycanthrope should have a general "wrongness" about them, something that just bleeds offensive evil (except, I suppose, for werebears... but then, I never use them). An air of malignancy should surround them and that should be something delivered quite nicely by an inventive and descriptive DM.

 

[Krishnath]

Yeah, I guess that would work too...

 

[Tonguez]

I always though that the hunched shoulders, frenzied eyes and salivating jaws gave them away...

 

[X-Calator]

I think there shouuld be a difference to the observant person.

Using the Lizardman/were-crocodile example, the Lizardman, while clearly not human, would still seem almost natural. Scary, yes. Dangerous and reptilian, yes. But ultimately natural.

The were-croc and any other lycanthrope should have a general "wrongness" about them, something that just bleeds offensive evil (except, I suppose, for werebears... but then, I never use them). An air of malignancy should surround them and that should be something delivered quite nicely by an inventive and descriptive DM.

Yes, that's exactly what I was thinking. A werewolf should seem to be a freak of nature, whilst an anthro-wolf would seem to be born that way.

Speaking of which, I've noticed there aren't that many anthropomorphs in the D&D genre. You know, like skunks and all kinds of other animals that would be fun to play. What category do they go under? Monstrous humanoids?

 

[Krishnath]

Check out Savage Species for info on anthropomrophs, but here is a few of the top of my head (don't have savage species yet, so they are from other sources):

Minotaur (MM) - Monstrous Humanoid
Gnoll (MM) - Humanoid
Lizardfolk (MM) - Humanoid
Abeil (MM2) - Monstrous Humanoid
Yak Folk (MM2) - Monstrous Humanoid
Tengu (OA) - Monstrous Humanoid

So it can be pretty much any of the two... Add aberration if you count illithids™ as anthropomorphs...

Later,

 

[X-Calator]

Hmmm, I wonder how they deliberate which goes where. Abilities, maybe? I don't really know.

Illithids seem more like monstrous humanoids to me. I think anthropomorphs should be humanoids. If they have magical abilities or are somehow very distinguishable due to cultural doohickeys or the like is when they should cross over to monstrous humanoid. Minotaur... hmmm, I guess that works as a monstrous humanoid because when you think of a minotaur you don't really think of an anthropomorphic bull. Same with illithid. Lizardfolk you do however, so that makes sense. It's very complicated, I think.