Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Wandering Monsters- Bird People
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Argyle King" data-source="post: 6138917" data-attributes="member: 58416"><p>I think Dire Corby could still work fine as the name. What I had in mind was something akin to the Terror Bird, but with four legs, and more adapted to underground living. </p><p></p><p>It's not a very good mental image, but the best way I can try to explain what I have in mind is to take an ostrich, but give it a body style more similar to a tiger. That is, imagine a quadruped body placed on four skinny -but surprisingly strong- bird legs which each end in razor sharp talons. The body would still have feathers, but they'd be small fine feathers which now only serve the purpose of keeping the creature warm, and have no use for flight. At the back of the body is a set of tail feathers; at the front is a head which has no teeth, but makes up for that by having a beak which can easily rend through flesh.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You're right. I had thought Line of Effect would be blocked, but I double checked. In that case, 4E is further away from my style of play than I had originally thought. </p><p></p><p>I enjoy playing 4E, but I'm picking on it because that seems to be game being implied by the posts I was replying to. Also, it's a good example of a game in which I'm not opposed to the individual pieces, but the way those pieces are fit together create an experience which isn't exactly what I want. I feel the same about flight; flight by itself isn't necessarily what I have a problem with. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>If that's the way you want to play, there's nothing wrong with that. Personally, I prefer a much different style of fantasy. I'm ok with cinematic action; I prefer my fantasy to have some touches of cinematic action, but I also strongly prefer that what the game considers to be good tactics to more closely align with what actually are good tactics. While I had good times while playing 4E, I had to retrain my brain to be able to enjoy it; there are a lot of things that only made sense to me in the context of 4E. The same is true of D&D in general as well as some other games, but I use 4E because that was the experience in which is more pronounced for me. </p><p></p><p>That's not being hidebound; it's wanting a particular play experience, style, and tone to the game. I don't view flight by itself to be an obstacle to what I want, but I do view the way D&D usually handles flight in conjunction with some of the other recent choices the brand has made to be an obstacle to that. To be honest, the amount of hope I have that D&D 5th Edition will produce the style of game I want is pretty low. I'm not upset by that; it's just the way it is, and I understand that the design choices being made are far more conducive to the experience that you and Kamikaze want. In some of the early playtests, I started to think differently, but currently I'm where I am. </p><p></p><p>The point of saying that is to say that what are deemed as "fun fantasy tactics" varies quite a bit from what I (think) you want and what I want. I don't want DBZ style teleports to be common. That's not to say that is necessarily unfun; it's simply not what I want out of my baseline fantasy experience. While many people may imagine real world tactics wrongly, I'd put forward that even those wrongly imagined tactics are much closer to what I want than 4E tactics. Again, I'm not suggesting 4E was badwrongfun; just very different from my expectations. </p><p></p><p>In no way do I believe fantasy tactics should exactly mirror historical battle; that wouldn't make any sense either because people have things available to them in a fantasy world that were not historically available. Having flight and flying creatures allows aerial tactics which were not available until much later; having magic opens up all manner of things. Still, what I'd prefer is something more grounded; something more blood and guts as the baseline, and then with the fantasy impacts and changes to the world extrapolated from that. I'll again say that flight by itself isn't necessarily something I oppose, but I do oppose it when thinking about it in the contexts of D&D I'm most familiar with. It's certainly possible that 5th Edition might handle it in a way that I'd be fine with, but I'm skeptical.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Argyle King, post: 6138917, member: 58416"] I think Dire Corby could still work fine as the name. What I had in mind was something akin to the Terror Bird, but with four legs, and more adapted to underground living. It's not a very good mental image, but the best way I can try to explain what I have in mind is to take an ostrich, but give it a body style more similar to a tiger. That is, imagine a quadruped body placed on four skinny -but surprisingly strong- bird legs which each end in razor sharp talons. The body would still have feathers, but they'd be small fine feathers which now only serve the purpose of keeping the creature warm, and have no use for flight. At the back of the body is a set of tail feathers; at the front is a head which has no teeth, but makes up for that by having a beak which can easily rend through flesh. You're right. I had thought Line of Effect would be blocked, but I double checked. In that case, 4E is further away from my style of play than I had originally thought. I enjoy playing 4E, but I'm picking on it because that seems to be game being implied by the posts I was replying to. Also, it's a good example of a game in which I'm not opposed to the individual pieces, but the way those pieces are fit together create an experience which isn't exactly what I want. I feel the same about flight; flight by itself isn't necessarily what I have a problem with. If that's the way you want to play, there's nothing wrong with that. Personally, I prefer a much different style of fantasy. I'm ok with cinematic action; I prefer my fantasy to have some touches of cinematic action, but I also strongly prefer that what the game considers to be good tactics to more closely align with what actually are good tactics. While I had good times while playing 4E, I had to retrain my brain to be able to enjoy it; there are a lot of things that only made sense to me in the context of 4E. The same is true of D&D in general as well as some other games, but I use 4E because that was the experience in which is more pronounced for me. That's not being hidebound; it's wanting a particular play experience, style, and tone to the game. I don't view flight by itself to be an obstacle to what I want, but I do view the way D&D usually handles flight in conjunction with some of the other recent choices the brand has made to be an obstacle to that. To be honest, the amount of hope I have that D&D 5th Edition will produce the style of game I want is pretty low. I'm not upset by that; it's just the way it is, and I understand that the design choices being made are far more conducive to the experience that you and Kamikaze want. In some of the early playtests, I started to think differently, but currently I'm where I am. The point of saying that is to say that what are deemed as "fun fantasy tactics" varies quite a bit from what I (think) you want and what I want. I don't want DBZ style teleports to be common. That's not to say that is necessarily unfun; it's simply not what I want out of my baseline fantasy experience. While many people may imagine real world tactics wrongly, I'd put forward that even those wrongly imagined tactics are much closer to what I want than 4E tactics. Again, I'm not suggesting 4E was badwrongfun; just very different from my expectations. In no way do I believe fantasy tactics should exactly mirror historical battle; that wouldn't make any sense either because people have things available to them in a fantasy world that were not historically available. Having flight and flying creatures allows aerial tactics which were not available until much later; having magic opens up all manner of things. Still, what I'd prefer is something more grounded; something more blood and guts as the baseline, and then with the fantasy impacts and changes to the world extrapolated from that. I'll again say that flight by itself isn't necessarily something I oppose, but I do oppose it when thinking about it in the contexts of D&D I'm most familiar with. It's certainly possible that 5th Edition might handle it in a way that I'd be fine with, but I'm skeptical. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Wandering Monsters- Bird People
Top