Dreamsight Shifters...

[Zombulian]

Hey guys, I've been working on a character and I thought it would be fun to be a shifter. Since the character is a caster I thought the Dreamsight trait would be most appropriate, but I'm having trouble deciding what lycanthropic ancestor my shifter would have. Things like gorebrute or longtooth are fairly self explanatory, but what about Dreamsight? Anyone have any ideas?

[Urpriest]

Were-ape or cetacean if you want the scientific, "my animal is smarter than your animal" answer, were-something with particular druidic symbolism (carnivorous stag?) if you're going for something more spiritual.

[Zombulian]

Were-ape or cetacean if you want the scientific, "my animal is smarter than your animal" answer, were-something with particular druidic symbolism (carnivorous stag?) if you're going for something more spiritual.

Yeah I thought that could work too. But I should have also mentioned I plan on playing a Saurian shifter. So maybe... Troodon? I dunno. I'm having trouble with the idea of suddenly becoming more wise when I revert to a bestial form.

[Lyndworm]

My favorite explanation for Dreamsight shifters is that they come from a bloodline so effused with nature magic that they can shift into Druids.

[Urpriest]

Yeah I thought that could work too. But I should have also mentioned I plan on playing a Saurian shifter. So maybe... Troodon? I dunno. I'm having trouble with the idea of suddenly becoming more wise when I revert to a bestial form.

Oh ok, so you want a dinosaur associated with wisdom. This is actually not so hard, you just have to look at how the various dino-themed races handle it. Parasaurolophus is both staglike and musical, while the saurials appear to use stegosauri and triceratopses as casters.

[Dusk Eclipse]

For the Record Saurian Shifters (from Dragom) are different than normal Shifters (Eberron) they give different bonus and are (to a degree) distinct races.

[Zombulian]

For the Record Saurian Shifters (from Dragom) are different than normal Shifters (Eberron) they give different bonus and are (to a degree) distinct races.

...your point? It also says that the traits it lists are in addition to the ones in Eberron.

[Dusk Eclipse]

I wasn't aware that they were introduced as a variant, as far as I knew they were a distinct sub-set.

As far as becoming wiser when you regress to a bestial-ier form, you could fluff that wisdom as instinctual and pick any animal you like.

[Prime32]

As far as I can recall, shifters are descended from every kind of lycanthrope bloodline mixed together. So it would be less "who is my ancestor" and more "which ancestors do I most identify with".

[JKTrickster]

I always thought owl or bat would be great picks for a "wise" animal - although not sure how that works with Saurian.

[Urpriest]

I always thought owl or bat would be great picks for a "wise" animal - although not sure how that works with Saurian.

One of the more snub-nosed pterodactyl types, like that one that serves as a familiar, maybe? Rhampo-something?

[Zombulian]

One of the more snub-nosed pterodactyl types, like that one that serves as a familiar, maybe? Rhampo-something?

Not sure if they were supposed to be smart? I don't know much about them myself...

[Urpriest]

Not sure if they were supposed to be smart? I don't know much about them myself...

Bats aren't very smart either. It's about symbolism, not actual intelligence.

[Zombulian]

Bats aren't very smart either. It's about symbolism, not actual intelligence.

yea... anthrobat... +6 wis? Something like that? Yeaaaa... gotta get dat wisdom for eating mosquitoes.

[vasharanpaladin]

Dromaeosaurids were, supposedly, pack hunters... which would denote a bit more intelligence than your average T. rex.

In The Land Before Time (*shudder*), it would appear to be sauropods or -mimus types that would appear to be the wise types.

Water-dwellers would also work; a different point of view, that sort of thing?

[Chambers]

My favorite explanation for Dreamsight shifters is that they come from a bloodline so effused with nature magic that they can shift into Druids.

Lyndworm's got it. :smallwink:

[Lyndworm]

Dromaeosaurids were, supposedly, pack hunters... which would denote a bit more intelligence than your average T. rex.
Well, more intelligent than the tyrannosaur line, yeah... but that's sort of like being the smartest girl on 16 and Pregnant, you know? Although smart by dinosaur standards, even the smartest dromaeosaurs were probably dumber than most modern birds. Besides that, the Dreamsight shifters can speak with animals when shifted, and gain bonuses to Handle Animal and Wild Empathy. Perhaps they're better at communicating with unintelligent creatures because their forebears were actually dumb?


In The Land Before Time (*shudder*), it would appear to be sauropods or -mimus types that would appear to be the wise types.
:smallmad: The Land Before Time is awesome, and you will never, ever convince me otherwise (feel free to complain about the sequels, though).


Lyndworm's got it. :smallwink:
Did you hear that, guys? I still got it!

[Zombulian]

Dromaeosaurids were, supposedly, pack hunters... which would denote a bit more intelligence than your average T. rex.

In The Land Before Time (*shudder*), it would appear to be sauropods or -mimus types that would appear to be the wise types.

Water-dwellers would also work; a different point of view, that sort of thing?

Troödon fits in pretty well if we are going on brains alone. But they just looked like mini-raptors with big eyes. I may go with them just because, but I also like ceratopsids...

[vasharanpaladin]

:smallmad: The Land Before Time is awesome, and you will never, ever convince me otherwise (feel free to complain about the sequels, though).


I may have been unclear. I am in agreement with this statement, though I actually liked the sequels up until... eight? Seven? Whatever, it started getting old around when they went into double-digits and it didn't help that they were the only things my aunt ever got me for X-mas... :smallfurious:

[Lyndworm]

The first few sequels weren't bad, but they totally changed the tone from the original, so a bit of basing can be forgiven. I think I saw the first... five sequels? Something like that. They were cool.

[*.*.*.*]

even the smartest dromaeosaurs were probably dumber than most modern birds.
That's not saying much (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crow#Intelligence)

[Lyndworm]

Really, man? I say "most" and you pick the single most amazing example of intelligence Aves has to offer? Classy move. :smallamused:

I'm well aware of the incredible brainpower of crows (as well as keas, parrots, and a number of other impressive birds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird_intelligence)), and I feel that I must apologize for my imprecise wording earlier. Instead of "probably dumber than most modern birds," howabout we pretend I said "laughably less intelligent than the dumbest of modern birds?"

[vasharanpaladin]

To defend the originating statement, I was comparing the alleged pack hunter-ness of dromaeosaurids with other theropod dinosaurs. Apples to apples, as befits a saurian shifter, yes? :smallamused:

If you wanna get really fun, Dinotopia also supports Troodon and dromaeosaurids, particularly V. mongoliensis as the, wait for it, eggheads of the saurian world. :smalltongue:

[Answerer]

That's not saying much (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crow#Intelligence)

Really, man? I say "most" and you pick the single most amazing example of intelligence Aves has to offer? Classy move. :smallamused:

I'm well aware of the incredible brainpower of crows (as well as keas, parrots, and a number of other impressive birds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird_intelligence)), and I feel that I must apologize for my imprecise wording earlier. Instead of "probably dumber than most modern birds," howabout we pretend I said "laughably less intelligent than the dumbest of modern birds?"
The claims of corvid intelligence, specifically, and of non-primate intelligence in general, have been wildly overstated by popular media and popular science media. The peer-reviewed research is very exciting, and reveals fantastic mental abilities that Aves was not previously thought to have. It's still massively less impressive than the popular media claims. That Wikipedia article is particularly horrendous, making absurd claims and citing evidence for them infrequently.

[Lyndworm]

The claims of corvid intelligence, specifically, and of non-primate intelligence in general, have been wildly overstated by popular media and popular science media. The peer-reviewed research is very exciting, and reveals fantastic mental abilities that Aves was not previously thought to have. It's still massively less impressive than the popular media claims.
I can't really disagree with any of that, nor do I have reason to try. Birds are likely much smarter than most people seem to realize, but are probably not nearly as smart as some people (like the author(s) of the article I linked) would like to believe. Crows, especially, are quite intelligent; more than a few have been known to make simple tools (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/08/0808_020808_crow.html) and ingeniously exploit their environment. These claims are over-reported and/or exaggerated, but what exciting news isn't?


That Wikipedia article is particularly horrendous, making absurd claims and citing evidence for them infrequently.
Again, I must apologize; I didn't mean to cite Wikipedia as the best (or even a good) source for that information. Rather, I was attempting to show that I, too, could link to the notoriously awful credibility of Wikipedia.

[*.*.*.*]

Rather, I was attempting to show that I, too, could link to the notoriously awful credibility of Wikipedia. Was someone doubting you could? The general tone of your post seems spiteful, in all honesty. If you didn't mean to portray it that way, then my apologies.

[Answerer]

Again, I must apologize; I didn't mean to cite Wikipedia as the best (or even a good) source for that information. Rather, I was attempting to show that I, too, could link to the notoriously awful credibility of Wikipedia.
Somewhat to the contrary, I'd comment that Wikipedia can be an excellent source of information, and for an informal discussion like this, an entirely appropriate reference. But one has to choose the articles carefully; studies have shown that, on average, Wikipedia is no more likely to have errors than traditional encyclopedias, but Wikipedia is definitely much more variable in quality.

And, of course, no tertiary source (like any encyclopedia) belongs in a scholarly paper.


Was someone doubting you could? The general tone of your post seems spiteful, in all honesty. If you didn't mean to portray it that way, then my apologies.
Huh... I don't. I don't really see how it would be spiteful.

[Lyndworm]

Was someone doubting you could? The general tone of your post seems spiteful, in all honesty. If you didn't mean to portray it that way, then my apologies.
I'm sorry you took it that way. I'm not sure how to explain precisely what I meant, but I really meant no offense (to you or to Answerer). I'm sorry if I appeared deliberately offensive; I seem to do that sometimes, and nearly always without meaning to.


Somewhat to the contrary, I'd comment that Wikipedia can be an excellent source of information, and for an informal discussion like this, an entirely appropriate reference.
Fair enough. I didn't mean to imply that Wikipedia is always awful, though; only that it shouldn't ever be fully trusted, given its open-to-all editing format and the history of wild inaccuracy that comes with it.


But one has to choose the articles carefully; studies have shown that, on average, Wikipedia is no more likely to have errors than traditional encyclopedias, but Wikipedia is definitely much more variable in quality.
Although that sounds quite likely, I wasn't aware that anyone had actually attempted to study Wikipedia (though that sounds believable, and helpful, on its own). I'm intrigued. Do you have any kind of reference for this? I'd love to read the whos, hows, and whys of all that.


And, of course, no tertiary source (like any encyclopedia) belongs in a scholarly paper.
Well, yeah. You put scholarly findings in encyclopedias, not the other way around. :smalltongue:

[avr]

Eagles or owls for their rep of sight/wisdom. Perhaps a bear if your natural strength/con is high enough not to be embarrassed. Maybe a small cat like a lynx.

If you might later get the second shifter trait feat, that should probably influence your choice too.

[Answerer]

Fair enough. I didn't mean to imply that Wikipedia is always awful, though; only that it shouldn't ever be fully trusted, given its open-to-all editing format and the history of wild inaccuracy that comes with it.
For most articles, the sheer mass of Wikipedia editors prevents any damaging edits from lasting more than a few minutes, if even that. It's the more obscure articles that don't get as much attention that are dangerous. Or the ones where media articles that Wikipedia considers reliable are themselves biased (as with the subject of discussion).


Although that sounds quite likely, I wasn't aware that anyone had actually attempted to study Wikipedia (though that sounds believable, and helpful, on its own). I'm intrigued. Do you have any kind of reference for this? I'd love to read the whos, hows, and whys of all that.
Hah, how's this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia) for an ironic answer? But seriously, that's the kind of high-profile page on Wikipedia that gets a lot of attention and therefore the Wikipedia formula "works" – I would guess that they do a fairly good job of policing it. The only [Citation Needed] in the header is of a negative claim, which is a fairly positive sign.

But the main use of Wikipedia for research is not the pages themselves (though they certainly can be useful for learning the basics), but the References section at the end. For example, from that page I can link to this study in Nature (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.html) that finds that Wikipedia's accuracy rates are similar to Encyclopedia Britainnica, and then I can link to Britainnica's criticism (http://corporate.britannica.com/britannica_nature_response.pdf) and Nature's response (http://www.nature.com/nature/britannica/index.html), which are the second, third, and fourth references, respectively.

The Nature study is the one I was thinking of when I made the statement. It is worth noting (and I just learned this myself) that it was a kind of "special investigation," and not one of Nature's usual (read: peer-reviewed) articles. But I think it says something that I learned this by reading Wikipedia about it.

[Zombulian]

Oi! You! Yea You's Fellas. The Tangenters. We Don't Take Kindly To You Round 'ere. Go On. Git.

[Lyndworm]

*all that stuff*
That's really cool... Thanks for the links!


Oi! You! Yea You's Fellas. The Tangenters. We Don't Take Kindly To You Round 'ere. Go On. Git.
...Fair enough. :smallredface: On that note, here's something on topic:


Eagles or owls for their rep of sight/wisdom. Perhaps a bear if your natural strength/con is high enough not to be embarrassed. Maybe a small cat like a lynx.
Zombulian (the OP) already said that the character is a saurian shifter, so we're looking mainly for dinosaurs. Pterosaurs, and perhaps the various water-dwelling archosaurs, are fine, too. Mammals are right out, and birds are probably inappropriate as well.


If you might later get the second shifter trait feat, that should probably influence your choice too.
This is some pretty good advice, though. Good on you.

[Zombulian]

Hmm I am increasingly interested in the Mosasaurs as I continue my research into marine dinosaurs. But... Zueglodons are SOOOO COOOOOL. Cool enough to make me go back to regular shifter instead of Saurian? Maybe.