PDA

View Full Version : Dire Animals...



Frog Dragon
2009-06-25, 04:09 AM
So, one day I though that Dire creatures as specific creatures are useless. Why not just template it. I was going to brew it and opened the Dire Animals pages from my Monster Manual. Then I noticed one thing.

The standard badger is Small while the Dire version is Medium.
The standard bat is Diminutive while the Dire version is Large

WTF?

How does that make any sense?

Meanwhile, the brown bear --> Dire Bear does not advance in size at all (and the Illustrated Dire Bear is clearly a brown one.)
The Ape advances no size categories either when going Dire either.
The shark advances any amount from 0-2 depending on how you look at it.
The rat advances one size category

Why do some creatures advance four size categories when "going dire" and others none? Where is the logic in this?

Eldariel
2009-06-25, 04:18 AM
Because Dire creatures aren't just templated versions of the originals, they're primal, more ferocious creatures distantly related to the base creature. Flyers in particular are more like Aerodactyls than their modern counterparts, hence being Large across the board (other Dire flyers follow the suite too in Dire Hawk, Dire Eagle, Dire Vulture, etc.).

On the other hand, landbound creatures are pretty much fixed around Medium/Large, and as they haven't shrunken all that much; that seems to be the logic anyways. I don't think there are any Large > Huge transformations in Direfying.


On this basis, you'd probably best make a separate template for flyers and ground creatures, or at least treat them separately in the size modifications portion. Ground creatures simply get "Smaller than large creatures increase by one size category...", while airbound creatures could just become Large (since I think all of them are) unless they are already bigger than that. Then add a clause "If multiple size categories exist of base creature, use the largest one"; that covers the Shark.

But that's probably why Dire creatures aren't templated in the first place; what "Direfying" means apparently depends a lot on the base creature.

Shpadoinkle
2009-06-25, 04:19 AM
Dire animals are supposed to be prehistoric versions of modern animals or something like that. Over a few millions years some animals got smaller, and some stayed pretty muh the same size.

And no, I'm not just pulling this out of my ass. It says in some book (MotW I think) that dire animals are supposed to be holdovers from prehistoric times.

paddyfool
2009-06-25, 07:44 AM
What they said.

Also, it's worth noting that the hit die advancement for some dire animals, such as the dire lion and dire bear, goes all the way up to Huge (at 17 hit die in each case), but is capped at Large on the brown bear (at 12 hit die) , polar bear (at 12 hit die) , and lion (at 8 hit die), and also on the Dire Wolf (at 18 HD) and Dire Wolverine (at 15 HD). A 24 HD huge dire lion (never mind a 36 HD dire bear) would be something to see, especially if you applied the Monster of Legend template from MM2 (which just gives me the warm fuzzies for some reason). Hardly CR appropriate as an encounter, however. By my maths it comes to 5 (base) + 5 (hit die) +1 (size) + 2 (template)=13, and for a level 12+ party, even if you pick the MoL abilities specifically to counter the party's strengths, any single beasty, especially a non-flying one, is just fodder (although if it got in even one pounce, it could do a pretty scary amount of damage). Also, it would be downright impossible to justify the bonus to hide in "tall grass or heavy undergrowth".

Kaiyanwang
2009-06-25, 08:00 AM
What they said.

Also, it's worth noting that the hit die advancement for some dire animals, such as the dire lion and dire bear, goes all the way up to Huge (at 17 hit die in each case), but is capped at Large on the brown bear (at 12 hit die) , polar bear (at 12 hit die) , and lion (at 8 hit die), and also on the Dire Wolf (at 18 HD) and Dire Wolverine (at 15 HD). A 24 HD huge dire lion (never mind a 36 HD dire bear) would be something to see, especially if you applied the Monster of Legend template from MM2 (which just gives me the warm fuzzies for some reason). Hardly CR appropriate as an encounter, however. By my maths it comes to 5 (base) + 5 (hit die) +1 (size) + 2 (template)=13, and for a level 12+ party, even if you pick the MoL abilities specifically to counter the party's strengths, any single beasty, especially a non-flying one, is just fodder (although if it got in even one pounce, it could do a pretty scary amount of damage). Also, it would be downright impossible to justify the bonus to hide in "tall grass or heavy undergrowth".

Ever seen the Dire Polar Bear from frostburn? FUNNY.*

Seriously, yeah animals should be in-between encounters or for an "the whole wilderness is angered" adventure.

*Throw him at PCs.

Set
2009-06-25, 08:01 AM
It's relatively easy to kitbash out a Dire template if you just ignore the Dire Bat as an outlier.

IMO, the Dire Bat is as big as it is because advancing a bat a single size category and calling it 'dire' would be an insult to the word 'dire.' :)

Zeta Kai
2009-06-25, 08:06 AM
I would simplify the whole thing, using the existing dire creatures as only the roughest of benchmarks. It would be easier & more productive to have a single blanket template, one that increases the base creature's size by 2 categories, with corresponding stat adjustments (Str+, Con+, Int-). I'm pretty sure that it's been done on the Homebrew forum before. I'll go check...

Eldariel
2009-06-25, 08:08 AM
It's relatively easy to kitbash out a Dire template if you just ignore the Dire Bat as an outlier.

IMO, the Dire Bat is as big as it is because advancing a bat a single size category and calling it 'dire' would be an insult to the word 'dire.' :)

Out-of-core flyers all follow the suite. Standard Hawk is Tiny, Dire Hawk is Large. Standard Eagle is Small, Dire Eagle is Large. Standard Vulture is Small, Dire Vulture is Large.

Otherwise the "Smaller than Large base creature increases by one size category, if base creature comes printed in multiple size categories, use the largest one."-rule works, hence why I suggest separately handling flyers (since they obviously use different rules).

Yora
2009-06-25, 08:36 AM
I droped dire animals completely and just use regular animals with advanced HD if they are suppossed to be just really big sub-species of their kind.
And for animals that are supposed to be creatures more attuned to the primal powers of nature, I use a homebrew template similar to foo-dogs and lions.

JeenLeen
2009-06-25, 08:40 AM
I recall that Dire Maggots, from Libris Mortis, are Small or Dimunitive.

Set
2009-06-25, 09:41 AM
It would be easier & more productive to have a single blanket template, one that increases the base creature's size by 2 categories, with corresponding stat adjustments (Str+, Con+, Int-).

About the only real difference between a Dire animal and one advanced a size category is that the Dexterity doesn't go down (and sometimes the natural armor increase is better by a point or two), so yeah, that's a good metric.

Serpentine
2009-06-25, 09:46 AM
I found this exact weirdness sometime ago. Yeah... 'tis annoying :smallyuk:

Tequila Sunrise
2009-06-25, 10:13 AM
Why do some creatures advance four size categories when "going dire" and others none? Where is the logic in this?
Because D&D doesn't concern itself with details like internal consistency. We can rationalize this stuff all we want, but the likely truth is that some monster designer rolled a d4 for every dire animal to determine how many size categories to enlarge it.

If you want to write a dire template, just pick a number of size categories and stop worrying about it.

Fhaolan
2009-06-25, 10:16 AM
A bit of history:

Long, long ago, 1854, a fossil skeleton of a unknown canid species was uncovered near Evensville, Indiana. It was very similar to a Gray Wolf, but had shorter legs, longer and heavier body, and bigger teeth than average. Not *huge*, mind you, just somewhat bigger. It was actually within the normal size range for a Gray Wolf, just configured slightly different. It was named 'Canis dirus' or Dire Wolf.

Fast forward to 1971. Giant Wolves, being popular in fantasy novels, was included in the Chainmail game, the text saying 'Including Wargs and Dire Wolves'.

From them on, Dire Wolves became the term for 'Giant Wolf' in D&D. Other prehistoric creatures (some of which are categorized as megafauna, but most really aren't) were added, such as Cave Bear, Irish Deer, etc. As well as regular giant animals such as Giant Rats (sometimes called Sumatran Rats after a mention in Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Homes short story: The Adventure of the Sussex Vampire. The actual Sumatran Rat is, like the real Dire Wolf, nothing like the fictional version.), etc.

For 3rd edition, for reasons that escape me, the term Dire was used as a label for most giant animals as well as prehistoric ones, blending the two concepts inconsitantly. It gives the impression that there is a 'Dire' process or template when in fact all the creatures in there are built off of previous edition versions that had little or no connection with each other.

Set
2009-06-25, 11:15 AM
rolled a d4 for every dire animal to determine how many size categories to enlarge it.

And past Large Dire Wolves, we have Huge Really Dire Wolves, and Gargantuan Wicked Uber Dire Wolves!

"Yes, this is my Animal Companion. I advanced him a few times. His name is Fenris."

Frosty
2009-06-25, 11:17 AM
A bit of history:

Long, long ago, 1854, a fossil skeleton of a unknown canid species was uncovered near Evensville, Indiana. It was very similar to a Gray Wolf, but had shorter legs, longer and heavier body, and bigger teeth than average. Not *huge*, mind you, just somewhat bigger. It was actually within the normal size range for a Gray Wolf, just configured slightly different. It was named 'Canis dirus' or Dire Wolf.

Fast forward to 1971. Giant Wolves, being popular in fantasy novels, was included in the Chainmail game, the text saying 'Including Wargs and Dire Wolves'.

From them on, Dire Wolves became the term for 'Giant Wolf' in D&D. Other prehistoric creatures (some of which are categorized as megafauna, but most really aren't) were added, such as Cave Bear, Irish Deer, etc. As well as regular giant animals such as Giant Rats (sometimes called Sumatran Rats after a mention in Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Homes short story: The Adventure of the Sussex Vampire. The actual Sumatran Rat is, like the real Dire Wolf, nothing like the fictional version.), etc.

For 3rd edition, for reasons that escape me, the term Dire was used as a label for most giant animals as well as prehistoric ones, blending the two concepts inconsitantly. It gives the impression that there is a 'Dire' process or template when in fact all the creatures in there are built off of previous edition versions that had little or no connection with each other.

How do you know all this stuff? :smallamused:

Spiryt
2009-06-25, 11:37 AM
Dire Template (http://www.enworld.org/cc/converted/view_t.php?TemplateID=22)

Don't know if legal, if not scrub.

Du du dum.

Fhaolan
2009-06-25, 12:45 PM
How do you know all this stuff? :smallamused:

*grin*

1) I'm old. I've played every version of D&D back to Chainmail, plus many other game systems.
2) I'm a wolf fan, so I tend to collect anything that deals with wolves, werewolves, etc. such as books, game references, and such. I've got game suppliments for werewolves without actually having the core rules for those games. :smallsmile:
3) I once played in a game on this forum where all the characters were Worgs or similar thingies. So I wrote up an article comparing all the different versions of wolves, dire wolves, and worg/wargs in D&D in every edition, to make the character generation for this game easier. I did discover that the 3.5 version of Wargs are missing a few skill points according the rules...
4) I have started building out my own MMs for D&D, GURPS, etc. for natural modern and prehistoric animals and did a lot of research to support them, but never finished any of them.

kc0bbq
2009-06-25, 01:33 PM
How do you know all this stuff? :smallamused:It's more detail that I could have provided.

If you go back a few million years farther than the dire wolf, you have what you could describe as a dire sheep. It's a creature whose closest descendent is the sheep, at least. Carnivorous, with three foot jaws filled with nasty teeth. Sheep as apex predator. Trying to remember the name of the stinking thing...

Andrewsarchus mongoliensis?

hamishspence
2009-06-25, 01:35 PM
Andrewsarchus. a bit too far back to be sheep though- more, early member of group that later diversified into many creatures, including sheep.

Talya
2009-06-25, 01:38 PM
A ranger in my pirate campaign demanded that the hyacinth macaw i statted out for him as an animal companion be renamed a "Dire Parrot."

RTGoodman
2009-06-25, 01:40 PM
If you really want a Dire template, you should take a look at Necromancer Game's "Tome of Horrors" monster book - you can get the revised PDF (for 3.5) online for relatively cheap, and it's all open gaming content, as far as I know. As a bonus, they also released the Dire Animal section (including their template) as a separate PDF, which you can find HERE (http://www.necromancergames.com/pdf/ToHDire.pdf).

Talya
2009-06-25, 01:49 PM
If you really want a Dire template, you should take a look at Necromancer Game's "Tome of Horrors" monster book - you can get the revised PDF (for 3.5) online for relatively cheap, and it's all open gaming content, as far as I know. As a bonus, they also released the Dire Animal section (including their template) as a separate PDF, which you can find HERE (http://www.necromancergames.com/pdf/ToHDire.pdf).

I've used that one before, specifically to turn a Porpoise into a Bottlenose Dolphin.

(Still doesn't do it justice, a dolphin should have an intelligence score of at least 4+1d4.)

Set
2009-06-25, 02:00 PM
(Still doesn't do it justice, a dolphin should have an intelligence score of at least 4+1d4.)

Intelligence scores for animals are freaksome. Vermin can be trained (both in the real world and in D&D) and yet they gave them an Int 0? Silly. Dogs and Toads have the same Int 2? Shyeah. Roight.

Fhaolan
2009-06-25, 05:47 PM
Intelligence scores for animals are freaksome. Vermin can be trained (both in the real world and in D&D) and yet they gave them an Int 0? Silly. Dogs and Toads have the same Int 2? Shyeah. Roight.

Trained vermin? With the D&D definition of vermin, which means insects and spiders and the like?

You learn something new every day. I've never heard of anyone successfully training an insect in RL before.

EDIT: Andrewsarchus is.... okay, technically it has a lot in common with hooved ungulates like sheep, llamas, and whatnot, but it also has about the same amount in common with whales, Orcas and dolphins. I *think* it was one of the largest, if not the largest, mamallian land predator ever. It superficially resembles a giant wolf... and for that matter looks more like what people think of as a 'Dire Wolf' than the actual Dire Wolf. Huh, I hadn't thought of that before. Interesting, I'll have to make a note of that somewhere...

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-06-25, 06:33 PM
You learn something new every day. I've never heard of anyone successfully training an insect in RL before.

You'd bee surprised (http://science.howstuffworks.com/bomb-sniffing-bees.htm).

HamsterOfTheGod
2009-06-25, 07:44 PM
Trained vermin? With the D&D definition of vermin, which means insects and spiders and the like?

You learn something new every day. I've never heard of anyone successfully training an insect in RL before.

Insects can be conditioned. Fleas can be conditioned NOT to jump which is the idea behind a flea circus. But even things with simpler nervous systems like planaria can be conditioned.

But tell us oh expert of the dnd hounds why are there four different entries for medium or larger sized canids...wolf, riding dog (wolf without trip), worg (big , evil, intelligent wolf), and dire wolf (biggest wolf but not intelligent) not just two? And why do we have a shadow mastiff (big, baying, evil, intelligent wolf that can disappear into shadows) and the yeth hound (big, baying, evil, intelligent wolf that can fly)? And why can the winter wolf trip and the hell hound can't?

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-06-25, 08:55 PM
I can do some of these.


But tell us oh expert of the dnd hounds why are there four different entries for medium or larger sized canids...wolf, riding dog (wolf without trip), worg (big , evil, intelligent wolf), and dire wolf (biggest wolf but not intelligent) not just two?

The descriptions you gave are the reasons. The wolves are there for lower-leve threats while the dire wolves are there for mid-level threats; worgs, being intelligent and evil, are allies of evil races (specifically goblinoids) and not just wild beasts, allowing them to use better tactics and fight with humanoid allies. Riding dog exists for player mounts, so you can get a canine buddy but don't get an auto-tripper.


And why do we have a shadow mastiff (big, baying, evil, intelligent wolf that can disappear into shadows) and the yeth hound (big, baying, evil, intelligent wolf that can fly)?

The mastiff is the sneak-up-and-maul you type and the hound is the fly-past-and-maul-you type; they fulfill different tactical niches--though not flavor niches, as the two were originally related, if I recall my 1e/2e lore correctly. (Which I probably don't. Help, Fhaolan?)


And why can the winter wolf trip and the hell hound can't?

The winter wolf is an actual wolf. The hell hound is an outsider that happens to be shaped like a wolf.

chiasaur11
2009-06-25, 09:07 PM
I've used that one before, specifically to turn a Porpoise into a Bottlenose Dolphin.

(Still doesn't do it justice, a dolphin should have an intelligence score of at least 4+1d4.)

Wha?

I mean, either we go with Hitchiker's Dolphins, in which case we'd better give them at least 12 as a minimum average, or we're going with standard Dolphins, who are less intellegent than Chimps, who fall under animals, not sapient races, and go standard animal sub three.

Either way, 5-8 is fairly inaccurate.

kopout
2009-06-25, 09:19 PM
I'd say, like chimps, about 3. As for Andrewsarchus it is most closely related to the whale and dolphin family. and only more distantly related to sheep. Andrewsarchus (http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/wildfacts/factfiles/439.shtml)

HamsterOfTheGod
2009-06-25, 09:33 PM
I can do some of these.



The descriptions you gave are the reasons. The wolves are there for lower-leve threats while the dire wolves are there for mid-level threats; worgs, being intelligent and evil, are allies of evil races (specifically goblinoids) and not just wild beasts, allowing them to use better tactics and fight with humanoid allies. Riding dog exists for player mounts, so you can get a canine buddy but don't get an auto-tripper.



The mastiff is the sneak-up-and-maul you type and the hound is the fly-past-and-maul-you type; they fulfill different tactical niches--though not flavor niches, as the two were originally related, if I recall my 1e/2e lore correctly. (Which I probably don't. Help, Fhaolan?)



The winter wolf is an actual wolf. The hell hound is an outsider that happens to be shaped like a wolf.

Thanks. To me this is one area where 4e is better. I'n bot saying improving monsters in 3e is that much work but every little bit of time savings helps. You don't actually need 8 different entries for what are essentially variations of the wolf/big dog.

Lyndworm
2009-06-25, 09:47 PM
In the games my group and I play, the maximum Int score for Animals is 5 (not 3), though only Elephants, some primates, and some cetaceans possess a score that high. Everything else is distributed accordingly on a more or less case-by-case basis, and the majority of Vermin have an Int of 1, not -.

Riding Dogs can trip just like Wolves if they've been trained for war. Which makes sense if you look at the history of wardogs.

I think andrewsarchus' closest living relatives are the cetaceans/hippopotamids, not the bovids.

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-06-25, 10:14 PM
Thanks. To me this is one area where 4e is better. I'n bot saying improving monsters in 3e is that much work but every little bit of time savings helps.

I don't know about you, but I don't really find them all that redundant, as the only one who really overlap are the riding dog, wolf, and dire wolf.


You don't actually need 8 different entries for what are essentially variations of the wolf/big dog.

Well, isn't that what the 4e MM is? A bunch of fancily-named critters all under the same monster category, because adding HD/levels and/or classes is too boring?

Then again, if you prefer the Direcharge Foulwolf, Shadespawned Mastiff, Hellspawned Stalker, Windfang Ghostbeast, and [adjective][adjective] [noun][verb]er* over wolf, shadow mastiff, hellhound, yeth hound, and winter wolf, I suppose that's a matter of personal preference. :smallamused:

*(all made-up names, but quite close to the standard 4e naming scheme)

Talya
2009-06-25, 11:25 PM
Dolphins, who are less intellegent than Chimps, who fall under animals, not sapient races, and go standard animal sub three.


No, no, no.

Dolphins are essentially fully sentient, and show far more self-awareness than any other "animal" on the planet (other than us). While a few primates have learned a few words of sign language, dolphins appear to have a complete complex structured language system more complex than most human languages! Estimates put their intelligence equal or superior to that of an average 4-5 year old human child...but that's likely a low estimate. Our intelligence measures assume they care about the same stuff we do--the vast alien difference in priorities and thought processes makes it hard to judge.

Josh the Aspie
2009-06-25, 11:39 PM
But tell us oh expert of the dnd hounds why are there four different entries for medium or larger sized canids...wolf, riding dog (wolf without trip), worg (big , evil, intelligent wolf), and dire wolf (biggest wolf but not intelligent) not just two? And why do we have a shadow mastiff (big, baying, evil, intelligent wolf that can disappear into shadows) and the yeth hound (big, baying, evil, intelligent wolf that can fly)?

For the same reason that we have centaurs, three different kinds of sphynxes, and gryphons. D&D draws heavily off of traditional mythology, and the literature which came before, which I personally view as very very cool.

chiasaur11
2009-06-26, 12:11 AM
No, no, no.

Dolphins are essentially fully sentient, and show far more self-awareness than any other "animal" on the planet (other than us). While a few primates have learned a few words of sign language, dolphins appear to have a complete complex structured language system more complex than most human languages! Estimates put their intelligence equal or superior to that of an average 4-5 year old human child...but that's likely a low estimate. Our intelligence measures assume they care about the same stuff we do--the vast alien difference in priorities and thought processes makes it hard to judge.

Bull.

Scientists currently put them about even with elephants. Impressive, sure, but nowhere near people. Or even Orcs.

Rising Phoenix
2009-06-26, 01:00 AM
No, no, no.

Dolphins are essentially fully sentient, and show far more self-awareness than any other "animal" on the planet (other than us). While a few primates have learned a few words of sign language, dolphins appear to have a complete complex structured language system more complex than most human languages! Estimates put their intelligence equal or superior to that of an average 4-5 year old human child...but that's likely a low estimate. Our intelligence measures assume they care about the same stuff we do--the vast alien difference in priorities and thought processes makes it hard to judge.


+0.5.

Some Parrots and Corvids have been placed there abouts too... The more we study animals the more similar to us they appear (some of them anyways)

R.P.

Fhaolan
2009-06-26, 11:30 AM
Insects can be conditioned. Fleas can be conditioned NOT to jump which is the idea behind a flea circus. But even things with simpler nervous systems like planaria can be conditioned.

But tell us oh expert of the dnd hounds why are there four different entries for medium or larger sized canids...wolf, riding dog (wolf without trip), worg (big , evil, intelligent wolf), and dire wolf (biggest wolf but not intelligent) not just two? And why do we have a shadow mastiff (big, baying, evil, intelligent wolf that can disappear into shadows) and the yeth hound (big, baying, evil, intelligent wolf that can fly)? And why can the winter wolf trip and the hell hound can't?

Interesting. Flea circus had slipped my mind completely.

On to hounds:

Trip was added to the Wolf and wolf-derivative abilities in 3rd edition. Prior to that, the wolf special ability was a howl that would panic horses and other herbavores. It's an interesting idea, and consistant with how wolves and other canids actually behave, pulling down the prey through leverage on limbs rather than attacking the back of the neck or overwhelming them with impact the way felines tend towards. Not a bad addition to the skill set of the wolf, in my opinion.

Dogs were considered separate from wolves in D&D, and as mentioned by Pair'O'Dice Lost, they've always been considered to be 'equipment' purchasable by adventurers, and the writers of 3rd believed that the trip ability would increase the value of dogs too much.

Warg/Worg & Dire Wolves were the same entry in the earlier versions of D&D, even in the final version of the Basic/Expert/etc. edition. To the point that Dire Wolves had the same size and intelligence as Worgs. In AD&D, they were differenciated slightly, as Worg being a footnote to the Dire Wolf entry as being the bigger and more intelligent kind meant to be ridden by goblins (as per Tolkien). Something weird happened in 2nd edition, however, and the size and strength of the Dire Wolf and the Worg were switched. The Worg retained the intelligence, but became smaller, while the Dire Wolf increased a size category and in HD. 3rd edition, Dire Wolves got even *bigger*, and worgs changed from being 'Evil Tendencies' to 'Always Evil'. In 4th edition, the sizes and strengths of Dire wolves and Worgs switched back again, and something called a 'Guulvorg' was added. I have no idea where that came from, I'd not seen it before.

In 3rd editiond also 'Legendary Wolf' got thrown into the mix, not following any of what little pattern that existed.

As for all the of the other canid monsters, each was usually created for a specific adventure by one author and then later added to the published 'complete' catalogs/manuals/etc. There's considerable overlap between them. Ice Wolves were added in Basic/Expert/etc, which eventually became Winter Wolves, Mist Wolves, etc. The Hellhound is a classic mythology creature, and the Death Hound is Cerebus with the serial numbers filed off. If I remember correctly, the Yeth Hound was first published in MMII for AD&D 1st edition. It's another case of an actual mythological creature being converted to D&D, as the Yeth Hund (or Yell Hound with a Devon accent). The winter wolf thing is relatively unique as is Cerebus, but the rest of the 'hounds' mythologically fall under the 'Black Dog' category which could have been all combined into one entry, as far as I'm concerned.

Keld Denar
2009-06-26, 11:42 AM
Dolphins are essentially fully sentient, and show far more self-awareness than any other "animal" on the planet (other than us).

Fun fact: Dolphins are also the only other animal on the planet besides humans that mate for pleasure as well as for reproductive purposes. Guess we have more in common with the little buggers than we thought!

paddyfool
2009-06-26, 11:58 AM
How intelligent exactly are dolphins? It's an interesting question, but I'm not sure we've any hard answers yet - or at least, that's what I infer from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cetacean_intelligence).

Fhaolan
2009-06-26, 12:09 PM
Bull.

Scientists currently put them about even with elephants. Impressive, sure, but nowhere near people. Or even Orcs.

Personally, I'm not overly impressed by supposed intelligence of people, and wouldn't rate them as being as high as Orcs. :smallbiggrin:

chiasaur11
2009-06-26, 12:15 PM
Personally, I'm not overly impressed by supposed intelligence of people, and wouldn't rate them as being as high as Orcs. :smallbiggrin:

Statblock disagrees with you. -4, clear as day.

Now, we start talking Orkz, you might have something.

Myrmex
2009-06-26, 12:17 PM
Fun fact: Dolphins are also the only other animal on the planet besides humans that mate for pleasure as well as for reproductive purposes. Guess we have more in common with the little buggers than we thought!

Orangutans and bonobos also mate for pleasure, where pleasure is defined as copulation when the female is not in estrus. Both of those apes engage in a LOT more than just copulation. Orangutans enjoy anal penetration, for instance. I bet most animals find mating pleasurable.

Note that human ovulation is crytpic, so mating for pleasure is one way to circumvent a lack of female estrus.

Myrmex
2009-06-26, 12:18 PM
Statblock disagrees with you. -4, clear as day.

Now, we start talking Orkz, you might have something.

Orcs only have a -2 penalty to int.

chiasaur11
2009-06-26, 12:20 PM
Orcs only have a -2 penalty to int.

I thought that was Half-Orcs.

Ah, right. -2 Int, Wis, and Cha.
Thank you SRD.

Hawriel
2009-06-26, 01:10 PM
The rules for animal intilegents in D&D have always been generic for simplicity. And well the greators are not biologists or zoologists so not having an indepth animal is not going to happen. Besides thats what GMs are for :smallwink:.

The original dire wolf may have been moddled after the real animal. Wizards however tossed that thinking right out. They essentialy turned dire into their own 'of doom' tag for animal. Dire wolves did not have big protruding bones and spines/spikes or cranial ridges. Neather did 1-2nd eds.

As for dolphins and sentience. Personaly im convinced. As with Elephants. PBS ran a documentary about a scientest who studied dolphins for 20 years. He encountered and experimented with a group of dolphens for a few days. Essentialy forming an aquantence with them. 10+ years later he comes back to the same place. finds some dolphins of the same pod. One of thoughs dolphins runs off for a half hour or so and comes back with a dolphin that interacted with him befor. That dolphin recognized and hung out until the scientest left. There wher other insedents too. They protected the guy from a shark and he witnessed a kind of terretory (racial?) encounter with another species of dolphin. The dolphins swormed the intruder forcing it to the bottom (shallow waters about 30' deep) and swam escorted it away from their terretory. The shark was hammered with sonar and bumbed untill it left. The dolphins could have easily swam off, but stayed because of the scientist.

Make of it what you will but I see a free thinking critter.

HamsterOfTheGod
2009-06-26, 03:12 PM
Interesting. Flea circus had slipped my mind completely.

On to hounds:

Trip was added to the Wolf and wolf-derivative abilities in 3rd edition. Prior to that, the wolf special ability was a howl that would panic horses and other herbavores. It's an interesting idea, and consistant with how wolves and other canids actually behave, pulling down the prey through leverage on limbs rather than attacking the back of the neck or overwhelming them with impact the way felines tend towards. Not a bad addition to the skill set of the wolf, in my opinion.

Dogs were considered separate from wolves in D&D, and as mentioned by Pair'O'Dice Lost, they've always been considered to be 'equipment' purchasable by adventurers, and the writers of 3rd believed that the trip ability would increase the value of dogs too much.

Warg/Worg & Dire Wolves were the same entry in the earlier versions of D&D, even in the final version of the Basic/Expert/etc. edition. To the point that Dire Wolves had the same size and intelligence as Worgs. In AD&D, they were differenciated slightly, as Worg being a footnote to the Dire Wolf entry as being the bigger and more intelligent kind meant to be ridden by goblins (as per Tolkien). Something weird happened in 2nd edition, however, and the size and strength of the Dire Wolf and the Worg were switched. The Worg retained the intelligence, but became smaller, while the Dire Wolf increased a size category and in HD. 3rd edition, Dire Wolves got even *bigger*, and worgs changed from being 'Evil Tendencies' to 'Always Evil'. In 4th edition, the sizes and strengths of Dire wolves and Worgs switched back again, and something called a 'Guulvorg' was added. I have no idea where that came from, I'd not seen it before.

In 3rd editiond also 'Legendary Wolf' got thrown into the mix, not following any of what little pattern that existed.

As for all the of the other canid monsters, each was usually created for a specific adventure by one author and then later added to the published 'complete' catalogs/manuals/etc. There's considerable overlap between them. Ice Wolves were added in Basic/Expert/etc, which eventually became Winter Wolves, Mist Wolves, etc. The Hellhound is a classic mythology creature, and the Death Hound is Cerebus with the serial numbers filed off. If I remember correctly, the Yeth Hound was first published in MMII for AD&D 1st edition. It's another case of an actual mythological creature being converted to D&D, as the Yeth Hund (or Yell Hound with a Devon accent). The winter wolf thing is relatively unique as is Cerebus, but the rest of the 'hounds' mythologically fall under the 'Black Dog' category which could have been all combined into one entry, as far as I'm concerned.


Wow! That is quite a history. Thanks!

Dixieboy
2009-06-26, 03:37 PM
Fun fact: Dolphins are also the only other animal on the planet besides humans that mate for pleasure as well as for reproductive purposes. Guess we have more in common with the little buggers than we thought!

They also kill for the evulz :smallconfused:

HamsterOfTheGod
2009-06-26, 03:39 PM
Fun fact: Dolphins are also the only other animal on the planet besides humans that mate for pleasure as well as for reproductive purposes.

Bonobos...that little dog humping your leg...

This might be interesting to some http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sexuality#Sex_for_pleasure :smallconfused:

Chronos
2009-06-26, 04:07 PM
The mastiff is the sneak-up-and-maul you type and the hound is the fly-past-and-maul-you type; they fulfill different tactical niches--though not flavor niches, as the two were originally related, if I recall my 1e/2e lore correctly. (Which I probably don't. Help, Fhaolan?)And the barghest-- All three have the same mythological origin (see Sherlock Holmes' Hound of the Baskervilles, for instance).


Fun fact: Dolphins are also the only other animal on the planet besides humans that mate for pleasure as well as for reproductive purposes. Guess we have more in common with the little buggers than we thought!Humans are the only species I know of that ever mates for any purpose other than pleasure, and that only rarely. When a couple of dogs are humping, they're not thinking "puppies", they're thinking "Ooh, this feels good".


But to get back to the original topic, the whole "dire" thing can be summed up as "make the animal enough bigger and stronger that it becomes a credible threat, or if it's already a credible threat, make it one step more so". So a dire bat becomes Large and a dire rat Medium because that's what's needed to make them threatening, but a bear is already threatening, so a dire bear doesn't need to be any bigger.

Fhaolan
2009-06-26, 07:53 PM
And the barghest-- All three have the same mythological origin (see Sherlock Holmes' Hound of the Baskervilles, for instance).

Yeah, there are hundreds of slightly different 'Black Dogs' in mythology, the most recognizable being in the British Isles (and Mexico for some strange reason), but there are more isolated ones all over the world. The older myths have them being a type of shapeshifter, and the black dog form is used to herald a death, with other forms for other purposes.

Most of the time it's just called 'The Black Dog' or 'Hellhound' in whatever language/dialect is used locally. Some specific examples that you can look up in Wikipedia (remember that Wikipedia at best is a summarized version of the myths, it tends to leave out details):

The Hound of the Baskervilles (fictional version)
Black Shuck (Norfolk, Essex, Suffolk)
Barghest (Yorkshire, sometimes described as a shapeshifter goblin as well.)
Gytrash (Lankshire)
Yell Hound/Yeth Hund (Devonshire)
The Lean Dog (Hertfordshire)
Dip (Catalonia)
Buccu Dhu (Cornish, seems to be a derivative or subset of Pooka (which will send you down research paths that lead you to hobgoblins and Puck of Pooks Hill. :smallsmile:) This is where we derive Buggaboo and Bugbear)
Moddey Dhoo (Manx)
La bęte du Gévaudan (France)
Tchen Bodu/Tchian (Guernsey/Jersey)
Rongeur d'Os (Normandy)
Gwyllgi (Wales)
Shunka Warakin (America)
Waheela (Canada)
Perro Negro (Mexico)
Cadejo (Central America)
Grim (England & Scandinavia, another shapeshifter-type)

Given the variation in other myths, Chupicabra even fits in with the others, especially since all the corpses of so-called Chupicabras found so far have been coyotes, foxes and dogs with extreme forms of the mange and birth defects.

The best source I've found for 'Black Dog' myth is a book called The Mythology of Dogs: Canine Legends.

FMArthur
2009-06-26, 10:01 PM
Because Dire creatures aren't just templated versions of the originals, they're primal, more ferocious creatures distantly related to the base creature. Flyers in particular are more like Aerodactyls than their modern counterparts, hence being Large across the board (other Dire flyers follow the suite too in Dire Hawk, Dire Eagle, Dire Vulture, etc.).

Aerodactyl is a pokemon. Just thought I'd point that out (you meant pterodactyls).

Fhaolan
2009-06-27, 01:20 AM
Aerodactyl is a pokemon. Just thought I'd point that out (you meant pterodactyls).

Unless he means the Dactyls out of Greek myth. [Out of context error + Not even funny error - ignore. :smallcool: ]

Myrmex
2009-06-27, 01:28 AM
He may have meant flying pigs....



ahahaha biology joke.

Eldariel
2009-06-27, 04:34 AM
Aerodactyl is a pokemon. Just thought I'd point that out (you meant pterodactyls).

Oh? Cool, I subconsciously think of Pokemons now! Eh, yeah, Pretodactyl.

Tetsubo 57
2009-06-27, 04:43 AM
I had this on my drive:

Animal, Dire (Template)
Dire animals are feral looking beasts with a vaguely prehistoric look. They have long, sharp teeth and claws, and there is a glow of savage intelligence in their eyes.

Though they resemble the animal from which they are born, dire animals are more aggressive and generally larger than their normal counterparts.

Creating a Animal, Dire
“Dire” is a template that can be added to any animal (referred to hereafter as the “base animal”). The animal gains the subtype Dire. It uses all the base animal's statistics and abilities except as noted here.

Size:If the base animal is Small or smaller, increase its size category by one or to the largest size listed in its advancement range, whichever is greater. If the base animal is Medium-size or larger, its size increases to the largest size listed for the base animal’s advancement range. The base animal gains all the benefits and detriments that arise from increased size (see the MM).

Hit Dice: Increase by +2 HD
AC: Same as the base animal and natural armor increases by +2. This bonus stacks with the bonus gained from the increase in size
Special Attacks: A dire animal retains all the base animal's special attacks. The damage of its special attacks is adjusted upwards for the increased size and ability scores, where applicable
Special Qualities: A dire animal retains all the base animal's special qualities. These special qualities are adjusted upwards for the increased size and ability scores, where applicable
Saves: Recalculate the saves with all values high
Abilities: Dire animals gain the following ability score increases: Str +4, Dex +2, and Con +2. These bonuses stack with any bonuses gained from a size increase (see the MM)
Skills: Same as base animal, adjusted for increased ability scores, where applicable

Coidzor
2009-06-27, 06:11 AM
He may have meant flying pigs....

Speaking of which, why aren't there any winged pigs or spells to create/summon winged pigs?

Tetsubo 57
2009-06-27, 03:49 PM
Speaking of which, why aren't there any winged pigs or spells to create/summon winged pigs?

There is a Winged template, though I don't remember what book it's in. I know I used it at least once. I gave a PC wings once as well.

The game After the Bomb has a race of winged pigs.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-06-27, 06:07 PM
I had this on my drive:

Animal, Dire (Template)
Dire animals are feral looking beasts with a vaguely prehistoric look. They have long, sharp teeth and claws, and there is a glow of savage intelligence in their eyes.

Though they resemble the animal from which they are born, dire animals are more aggressive and generally larger than their normal counterparts.

Creating a Animal, Dire
“Dire” is a template that can be added to any animal (referred to hereafter as the “base animal”). The animal gains the subtype Dire. It uses all the base animal's statistics and abilities except as noted here.

Size:If the base animal is Small or smaller, increase its size category by one or to the largest size listed in its advancement range, whichever is greater. If the base animal is Medium-size or larger, its size increases to the largest size listed for the base animal’s advancement range. The base animal gains all the benefits and detriments that arise from increased size (see the MM).

Hit Dice: Increase by +2 HD
AC: Same as the base animal and natural armor increases by +2. This bonus stacks with the bonus gained from the increase in size
Special Attacks: A dire animal retains all the base animal's special attacks. The damage of its special attacks is adjusted upwards for the increased size and ability scores, where applicable
Special Qualities: A dire animal retains all the base animal's special qualities. These special qualities are adjusted upwards for the increased size and ability scores, where applicable
Saves: Recalculate the saves with all values high
Abilities: Dire animals gain the following ability score increases: Str +4, Dex +2, and Con +2. These bonuses stack with any bonuses gained from a size increase (see the MM)
Skills: Same as base animal, adjusted for increased ability scores, where applicableNice, but almost all Dire animals have increased Cha, as well as some of them gaining natural attacks.