Are anthropomorphic creatures allowed at your table?

[danzibr]

I think it'd be incredibly cool to play as an anthropomorphic giant octopus, and not just for the 7 natural attacks.

Anthropomorphic baleen whale, while not as flavorful, can work well in some builds.

As a DM I'd allow them, but I wonder... have my fellow playgrounders actually played as such things? Would you allow them?

[Deophaun]

Only if they wear clothes. Otherwise, it's right back to the gene splicing lab with them.

[ComaVision]

My groups have always allowed them. Asides from the initial novelty, they don't get used much. I can't recall one being used in the last two years.

[PersonMan]

Anthropomorphic baleen whale, while not as flavorful, can work well in some builds.

They make for great villains, though, with their plots (https://books.google.de/books/about/Whales_on_Stilts.html?id=1lkvpKzePvgC&redir_esc=y) to use laser-eyed whales on stilts to take over the world.

[Flickerdart]

I've never had anyone ask. As far as I know, there are only a few that are exceptionally abusable (such as the aforementioned octopus, and also bat for druids that want the Wisdom) and plenty of others that are fine.

[Eldan]

Well, elves are quite anthropomorphic, as are dwarves... :smalltongue:

Anthro-animals? Don't think it ever came up, but I don't think I'd have a problem.

[Aegis013]

I've allowed a player in a game to play as an Anthropomorphic Baleen Whale Duskblade/Jade Phoenix Mage. There wasn't an issue with balance between party members, but one of the players thought that character was getting too much of the spotlight. The reason for this was too fold: the player's personality caused him to naturally fall into a party leader type role, and the first thing most NPCs would notice about their group was the 8ft tall whale person, rather than the more standard human, halfling, or water orc in the party.

[Necroticplague]

Why not? The RHD and LA mean the only one that's noticeably powerful is the bat.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I've never had anyone ask, but I probably wouldn't okay it. Partially out of balance concerns, because their stats are just hilariously out of whack, but mostly because they're just plain weird races that don't readily fit into the average setting. I mean, a good backstory could change my mind, but...

[Dread_Head]

Why not? The RHD and LA mean the only one that's noticeably powerful is the bat.

Agreed, the only one I probably wouldn't allow is the bat and even then it depends on the power level of the game and what class they wanted to combine it with.

[Nifft]

Halfling feet are the furriest things at my table.

[Necroticplague]

I've never had anyone ask, but I probably wouldn't okay it. Partially out of balance concerns, because their stats are just hilariously out of whack, but mostly because they're just plain weird races that don't readily fit into the average setting. I mean, a good backstory could change my mind, but...

Seems like an odd line to draw. In a world where a ton of sapient creatures have literally supernatural powers, anthropomorphic animals seem rather quaint compared to other PC options.

[ThinkMinty]

I think it'd be incredibly cool to play as an anthropomorphic giant octopus, and not just for the 7 natural attacks.

Anthropomorphic baleen whale, while not as flavorful, can work well in some builds.

As a DM I'd allow them, but I wonder... have my fellow playgrounders actually played as such things? Would you allow them?

It's fantasy. Why the hell not?
It's the genre for flights of fancy, and there's more to imagination than long hikes and the occasional home invasion. Hold the anthropomorphic creature to the same player standards you would any other character, and that'll keep it from getting any weirder than your table usually is.

Octopi would be required to wear their hats and head-gear jauntily askew, though.

...also, does anyone have the crunch on these things? I wanna see what they play like.

[Necroticplague]

...also, does anyone have the crunch on these things? I wanna see what they play like.

They have their own little section in Savage Species. Even a little section on how to make your own (though without any way to assign LA to them).

[Flickerdart]

They have their own little section in Savage Species. Even a little section on how to make your own (though without any way to assign LA to them).
Savage Species contains guidelines for estimating LAs of monsters, though they're pretty dumb (Small creatures get an LA reduction, for instance).

[Telonius]

I've got a Catfolk and a Shifter in my game right now, so I think that counts. Nothing more exotic than that, and nothing from Savage Species. Some of the races there (looking at you, bat druids and clerics) seem a bit overpowered, so I'd probably have to take a very close look if anyone ever wanted to play one.

[FocusWolf413]

I allow them, but people view them as abominations and distrust them. If you're going to play a weird race, expect weird reactions.

[Necroticplague]

I allow them, but people view them as abominations and distrust them. If you're going to play a weird race, expect weird reactions.

What's weird about anthro animals?

[Zrak]

Anthropomorphic bat druid is pretty crucial for the "bat riding a bat" character concept that is, objectively speaking, the only build suited for play in a horror campaign.

[Nifft]

What's weird about anthro animals?

The animal part.

[Necroticplague]

The animal part.

Animals aren't very weird. No real special abilities compared to a lot of other creatures in DnD.

[Uncle Pine]

Anthropomorphic bat druid is pretty crucial for the "bat riding a bat" character concept that is, objectively speaking, the only build suited for play in a horror campaign.
"Bat that summons bats while riding a bat".

My campaign has a lot of " half-animal" folks, actually: from raptorans to centaurs, to owlbears, to tibbits, to driders. I even have a city full of anthropomorphic manatees! No player specifically asked to play an anthro animal yet, but I don't think I'd say no.

[Nifft]

Animals aren't very weird. No real special abilities compared to a lot of other creatures in DnD.
If you're genuinely trying your best to see the point, and you're responding in earnest, perhaps sketch out a few more steps in your thinking, and I can try to help bridge the gap in understanding.

[Eldan]

D&D player races I've seen, include, amongst other things: sentient metal machines (warforged), people with werewolf ancestry who turn into half-animals (shifters), rat-tailed, four-eyed, clawed demonspawn (tieflings), people who are born with hair made of fire (fire genasi), the essence of law incarnated in a small metal cube (modrons), celestial beings walking the earth in disguise to help mortals (eladrin), people with letters made of light flying over their heads (illumians), small draconic lizard-people (kobolds), big lizard people (lizardfolk), tiny invisible faeries (pixies) and a dozen other weird things.

Why is a person with the head of a cat, a standard animal that farmers would see daily, so weird? Especially since, to top it off, there's shapechanging magic everywhere anyway?

[OldTrees1]

Yes, but not via Savage Species. I'll whip something appropriate(not too much RHD/LA nor too little) up.

[danzibr]

I've allowed a player in a game to play as an Anthropomorphic Baleen Whale Duskblade/Jade Phoenix Mage.
Did you treat the baleen whale bit as a template?

Halfling feet are the furriest things at my table.
lol

Admittedly my mind went places it shouldn't have.

[Necroticplague]

If you're genuinely trying your best to see the point, and you're responding in earnest, perhaps sketch out a few more steps in your thinking, and I can try to help bridge the gap in understanding.

Well, you were saying the "animal" part of "anthropomorphic animals" was wierd. AFAIK, being wierd comes from having unique traits, or a unique combination of traits. However, to the best of my knowledge, animals don't really have anything unique about them to make them wierd.

[Nifft]

Admittedly my mind went places it shouldn't have.
Okay, I guess I should add: they're not allowed to be literally on my table.

Feet on the table is also not acceptable, for totally different reasons.

But yeah, a sexy shoeless god of war would be legit cool.


Well, you were saying the "animal" part of "anthropomorphic animals" was wierd. AFAIK, being wierd comes from having unique traits, or a unique combination of traits. However, to the best of my knowledge, animals don't really have anything unique about them to make them wierd.
Animal parts on the appropriate animals are normal.

Animal parts on the wrong animals are not normal -- a chimera, for example, is weird because it is a bunch of animal parts which are not normally found together, thus making the whole creature abnormal.

Gryphons are likewise not normal, even though they're just the mixture of two normal animals.

Does this explain the thing you were missing to your satisfaction?

Do you now understand what was meant?

[Grod_The_Giant]

Well, you were saying the "animal" part of "anthropomorphic animals" was wierd. AFAIK, being wierd comes from having unique traits, or a unique combination of traits. However, to the best of my knowledge, animals don't really have anything unique about them to make them wierd.
They are a significant, physical departure from the human norm. Something like a Tiefling or Illumian is just "human plus a bit of magic." Elves and Dwarves are still basically human, but exceptionally hippy/grumpy ones. And so on. Anthropomorphic Animals... are... are what, exactly?

Which brings me nearly to the second point: support. Anthropomorphic Animals have nothing but stats, essentially. No mechanical support. No lore. No hook, no hint about why or how they should fit into your world. Sure, you could invent something, but given that there are other bestial races with much better... everything, really, why would you bother? Apart from "+6 wisdom and flight...

[dysprosium]

I've allowed them at my table.

One of my campaigns (that ended due to real life messes) was going to have a major plot line with anthropomorphic animals. One of the players had picked an anthropomorphic eagle zen archer type for his character. During the course of the campaign the party met other anthropomorphic animals and it was going to be revealed that each of them was an experiment from an epic wizard.

[Mr.Moron]

As written in that Savage Species supplement? No.
In a specific case where such things are an established part of the setting with distinct rules for them? Obviously, yes.
In a specific case where a player pitches a Birdperson in a setting where such things aren't established at all? Not 100% no, but probably not. If we do, we'll go with a custom implementation.
In a specific case where a player pitches a Wolfperson in a setting where Dogpeople and Lizardpeople are already thing, and they have a half decent idea of Wolfpeople in general that I can fit into the game as a whole? Not 100% yes, but probably. If we do, we'll go with a custom implementation.

[Aegis013]

Did you treat the baleen whale bit as a template?

No, it was the character's race, just as written from Savage Species, I figured 3 racial hit dice was enough of a balancing factor. But since it was a setting I'd been using the setting for awhile and these kinds of anthro-animals (I did have Shifters) hadn't come up before, I did have to come up with an explanation, which I made plot relevant through the Water Orc Crusader/Binder by introducing a custom vestige of a lost deity who created the anthro-animals long ago, but was cast out by the other deities and forgotten.

[Ravian]

Seems like an odd line to draw. In a world where a ton of sapient creatures have literally supernatural powers, anthropomorphic animals seem rather quaint compared to other PC options.

Eh... I generally prefer having my fantasy settings somewhat more contained than a kitchen sink approach, so I like to make sure that everything in my world has a reason for being there. If I think a race of anthropomorphic walrus people would make for an interesting culture of viking-like raiders, I'll allow people to play as walrus-people (though I might come up with something a little easier to say. Tuskmen?) That said if I'm going for something more tolkeinesque I'd likely go without some anthropomorphic capybaras.

[FocusWolf413]

My campaign world is pretty much 70% human, 29% other core races, and 1% weird stuff. Out of those 1%, only a super tiny fraction are anthropomorphic animals. People view them the same way they view aberrations.

Also, they remind me of furries, which really just creep me out.

[ThinkMinty]

Eh... I generally prefer having my fantasy settings somewhat more contained than a kitchen sink approach, so I like to make sure that everything in my world has a reason for being there. If I think a race of anthropomorphic walrus people would make for an interesting culture of viking-like raiders, I'll allow people to play as walrus-people (though I might come up with something a little easier to say. Tuskmen?) That said if I'm going for something more tolkeinesque I'd likely go without some anthropomorphic capybaras.

Rosmaran/Rosmarans if they're sci-fi walrus-people, Walro/Walroes if it's fantasy. Or just Tuskies.

I wanna see a race of hydra-people who have second and third heads where their hands would be. And those heads can shoot fire or beams or some kind of breath weapon, but are also somehow through the same cartoon logic that lets Kirby be an accomplished swordsman, WORKING HANDS.


Also, they remind me of furries, which really just creep me out.

Don't watch the following video (http://www.collegehumor.com/video/6949282/furry-superheroes-are-super-gross) while eating, then.

[Honest Tiefling]

Some people I have played with like the whole weird races thing, and I'm generally more okay with 'people with a funky hat' approach to races then a completely alien mindset. Catfolk are a common favorite (I think the BoEF gave them a spot bonus, but I forget honestly) in 3.5/Pathfinder.

If I started to ban things based on people's uh...Preferences, a good number of the races would get the dang axe. I grew up with raccoon tails in high school, shall we say, but as long as the character seems like a decent character and I don't have to ask questions and no one is made uncomfortable, fine.

My biggest requirement is that the race be appropriate to the setting, and you work with my setting. But I force that on everyone because I am a bad DM.

[Strigon]

Don't watch the following video (http://www.collegehumor.com/video/6949282/furry-superheroes-are-super-gross) while eating, then.

At first, I thought my response would be "yeah, sure; just accept that things might not always go so well for you if you do."
But now... (insert gif of character saying "nope")

[squiggit]

Generally not. If someone wants to play something like that I'll try to homebrew something appropriate, but the Savage Species anthropomorphic animals tend to either be abusable or terrible with little grey room between them. That and I generally hate RHD in general.

As for appropriateness... anthropomorphic lizards and hyenas are stock D&D races and cats and ravens are reasonably common too. One of the settings (OA?) even features rats. Nevermind all the various lycanthrope species with hybrid forms. So extending that to whales or bats or walruses or whatever doesn't seem like that much of a stretch. Especially with how weird so much other stuff in D&D is.

[Zrak]

Eh... I generally prefer having my fantasy settings somewhat more contained than a kitchen sink approach, so I like to make sure that everything in my world has a reason for being there. If I think a race of anthropomorphic walrus people would make for an interesting culture of viking-like raiders, I'll allow people to play as walrus-people (though I might come up with something a little easier to say. Tuskmen?)

brb, furiously adding this to every homebrew campaign setting I've ever made.

[martixy]

For me half of the fun of D&D is the weird **** you can pull of.

So that makes it a resounding yes on this end.

[Ravian]

brb, furiously adding this to every homebrew campaign setting I've ever made.

Really? Honestly I came up with the idea based on a vaguely remembered Dragonlance race.

A little more research and I found them. They're called Thanoi (http://dragonlancenexus.com/lexicon/index.php?title=Thanoi) and looking at them they seem more Inuit or Sami than Norse (more tribal and prefer sleds over longboats) They also seem a bit mean, sort of like orcs that happen to be walruses.

Still a better race to come out of Dragonlance than Kendar though. :smalltongue:

[Yogibear41]

No one has every played one in our group as far as I know. But based on how 90% of the non-standard races are treated by the majority of civilization, if said character ever walked into a town it would most likely end in kill it with fire very quickly.

[Solaris]

Hengeyokai are allowed in Oriental Adventures campaigns, and in high-magic 'standard' fantasy. I once had a lot of fun with a player who ran a feral dog hengeyokai barbarian (it's legal, they've been errata'ed to be humanoids with the shapechanger subtype).

Anthro-critters, aside from being really poorly done (better to tweak an existing race to fit), are only available as one-off unique entities. While I'm not keen on them, I'm not going to tell someone they can't play one unless there's some overt fetish or delusion going on - but that one's a player problem, not a character problem.

[steeldragons]

That'd be a big no, here/at my table.

Satyrs? Sure. Centaurs? Sure. Winged Humanoids (e.g. Thanagarians/Hawkmen, not "bird-people"/Aarakocra)? Sure. Felinoids (e.g. Thundercats, not so much Rakasta/Tabaxi)? Sure.

Actual Anthro-animals (particularly walking sea creatures)? Not a chance.

[Blackhawk748]

Ive had Gnolls, Lizardfolk, Hengaioki, Wer-creatures of various kinds, at least one Cat Man and i believe an Anthro-Lizard, otherwise we are fairly tame. Personally im indifferent as to what race someone wants to play as i generally just let them explain it.

[Curmudgeon]

It's never come up for me. However, I would point out to a player who asked that pre-3.5 material gets minor adjustments before it can be used in a 3.5 game, and the special characteristics they're keen on may be adjusted to be somewhat less desirable. For instance, I think an Anthropomorphic Bat Druid gets way too much of a Wisdom boost for their chosen class. All ability scores are not equal.

[atemu1234]

My world has entire lands dedicated to them. Then again, I'm weird.

[ThinkMinty]

My world has entire lands dedicated to them. Then again, I'm weird.

I figure in a world where people had access to transformation magic, there would be towns where people dedicated to manimal and/or form-fluid lifestyles would congregate. An enclave of some sort, I guess?

[Pluto!]

Savage Species isn't allowed at my table.

(Well, more it just isn't present at my table, but the omission isn't accidental.)

Its contents go from "unplayably weak" to "obviously breakable" (often within the same class/race entry) while managing to completely avoid getting to "interesting" or "fun."

[nijineko]

I think it'd be incredibly cool to play as an anthropomorphic giant octopus, and not just for the 7 natural attacks.

Anthropomorphic baleen whale, while not as flavorful, can work well in some builds.

As a DM I'd allow them, but I wonder... have my fellow playgrounders actually played as such things? Would you allow them?

yes, yes i do.

i believe that's generally referred to as TMNT. ;D



(i also have an anthropomorphic bat character in 3.x, a healer type; not to mention some of my world settings have portions of the world where such are the dominate races.)





Savage Species isn't allowed at my table.

(Well, more it just isn't present at my table, but the omission isn't accidental.)

Its contents go from "unplayably weak" to "obviously breakable" (often within the same class/race entry) while managing to completely avoid getting to "interesting" or "fun."

sounds like we might have a case of "badwrongfun".

i find the options in savage species quite usable and have never had a problem working these sorts of characters into my games, regardless of which end of the scale the player chose to pick. part of dm'ly skills is being able to provide what the players think of as fun, regardless of what they pick. for example my current group has a true-to-concept ranger which is completely unoptimized and despite being 19th level now, could probably be taken down easily by an 8th or 10th level optimized character. contrast that with the hyper-optimized monk character who dishes out something like 130 dmg on average PER HIT, with around 6 attacks per round despite losing 6 class levels or so to racial hd. she can effectively tunnel through solid rock at that damage output. despite these disparate differences, our group gets along great, has fun, and everyone gets challenged.

[Zakerst]

It largely depends on who is DMing and the expect power level of play, note that's power level not optimization. For example I am currently running a gestalt game allowing the SS monster classes as written to be gestalted with regular classes with the rule of fractional saves and BAB to prevent obvious abuses, and so far its been pretty good and playable, you just have to be prepared for it. In this same game I am also allowing anthros and am doing my best to be a "say yes" DM and allow as much as possible with the only caveat being if they use it and abuse it expect others to learn from them. It's been pretty good over all so far.

[ZamielVanWeber]

I do. Someone are extremely rare and hard to find (such as anthropomorphic toads and bats). Others, like the whales, are fairly successful, especially in coastal areas. Some of them seem like they would be more successful than their fantasy counterparts (anthropomorphic baleen whale is almost strictly better than an ogre for example) so I like to include them.

[Solaris]

My world has entire lands dedicated to them. Then again, I'm weird.

A couple of my settings do, as well. The newest one is playing on a Chinese Zodiac theme. The other one has the beastfolk living in miserably savage paleolithic conditions while the rest of the world is early Renaissance because it's a thumb in the eye of people who think "natural" automatically equates to better.



sounds like we might have a case of "badwrongfun".

i find the options in savage species quite usable and have never had a problem working these sorts of characters into my games, regardless of which end of the scale the player chose to pick. part of dm'ly skills is being able to provide what the players think of as fun, regardless of what they pick. for example my current group has a true-to-concept ranger which is completely unoptimized and despite being 19th level now, could probably be taken down easily by an 8th or 10th level optimized character. contrast that with the hyper-optimized monk character who dishes out something like 130 dmg on average PER HIT, with around 6 attacks per round despite losing 6 class levels or so to racial hd. she can effectively tunnel through solid rock at that damage output. despite these disparate differences, our group gets along great, has fun, and everyone gets challenged.

That's not badwrongfun, because he actually has a point about SS's balance, and your anecdotal example of the Oberoni Fallacy (http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Oberoni_Fallacy) in action doesn't discredit the fact that Savage Species (and WotC's monster PC rules) was really poorly done.

Just because you can compensate for the lousy design doesn't mean you should need to.

[BWR]

It depends on the game. My Mystara game allows Rakasta and lupins (they are to gnolls as elves are to orcs). And how can you dislike sabertooth tiger-riding samurai cats from the invisible moon?
L5R and anything similar is human only - no Nezumi or naga there even if they exist in the setting.

[Ashtagon]

For me, it'd depend on what I'm aiming for.

If the intent is "gonzo kitchen sink Dungeon Fantasy", then sure, throw it is if you want to play one.

If it's a detailed campaign setting, only those that have been written into the setting would be allowed, and that'd inherently make them more than just "men in rubber suits with stat modifiers".

[ThinkMinty]

For me, it'd depend on what I'm aiming for.

If the intent is "gonzo kitchen sink Dungeon Fantasy", then sure, throw it is if you want to play one.

If it's a detailed campaign setting, only those that have been written into the setting would be allowed, and that'd inherently make them more than just "men in rubber suits with stat modifiers".

In the case of the latter, they could be members of pre-existing species who voluntarily got transformed for the sake power and wackiness, kinda like the Splicers from Batman Beyond.

[Spore]

Is there a distinction for you between anthropomorphic tiger and refluffed Catfolk? If so, how?

[Ashtagon]

In the case of the latter, they could be members of pre-existing species who voluntarily got transformed for the sake power and wackiness, kinda like the Splicers from Batman Beyond.

Yes, and that would depend on whether that is a direction I want the campaign to go in. It's a way to incorporate them, certainly. But if that's not the kind of story I want to explore for that campaign, I won't include them. Conversely, if it is, I will, but the exact method of inclusion could be "splicers", some kind of Dr Moreau thing, dimensional travellers from another plane or world, natives who've always lived where the PCs are exploring to, "people" in the same way that orcs and elves are people, or something else I haven't thought of yet.

Basically, the decision of whether to include them is independent of how they are included.

Incidentally, I decide whether or not elves and orcs exist in a campaign setting I run on the same basis: "Do they help in telling the story that I want to present?"

[Yogibear41]

Savage Species isn't allowed at my table.

(Well, more it just isn't present at my table, but the omission isn't accidental.)

Its contents go from "unplayably weak" to "obviously breakable" (often within the same class/race entry) while managing to completely avoid getting to "interesting" or "fun."

Incarnate Construct Maugs Please :smallsmile:

I love the picture in the book for it (I know its suppose to be a stone golem, but I still think it looks sweet)

[Tvtyrant]

Yeah I allow them. Almost every world has a Magic Egypt or lycanthropes, so they could either be the descendants of Egyptian gods, priests or lycanthropes. Basically just shifters stuck in a single form.

[Novawurmson]

A tibbit, a catfolk, a werewolf, a gnoll, a couple merfolk, a centaur, a couple minotaurs, a goatfolk, a lizardfolk, a marshwiggle (Chronicles of Narnia; reasonably froggish-humanoids), but I don't think I've ever DM/GMed for a Savage Species anthropomorphic animal.

[Spore]

Yeah I allow them. Almost every world has a Magic Egypt or lycanthropes, so they could either be the descendants of Egyptian gods, priests or lycanthropes. Basically just shifters stuck in a single form.

And what would be more appropriate to have a Catfolk Paladin of an quasi-Egyptian god? (No sarcasm, that's one of my chars)

[Quertus]

Absolutely. We have several players - mostly ones who also DM, btw - who love to make unusual builds / play unusual races.

As to all the "it doesn't fit the campaign setting" responses... to be honest, if someone has taken the time to create a campaign setting with a rich background etc etc, I prefer to play someone not from that setting. That way, I don't have to worry about my interpretation of their setting being "wrong", but more importantly, I get to enjoy learning about that setting from an outsider's point of view - at the same time my character is learning about it. That feeling of exploration is fun in and of itself, and makes me much more invested in the setting than some half-cocked backstory that only kinda fits the character who seems to have strange lapses in his understanding of the culture.

[Ashtagon]

Absolutely. We have several players - mostly ones who also DM, btw - who love to make unusual builds / play unusual races.

As to all the "it doesn't fit the campaign setting" responses... to be honest, if someone has taken the time to create a campaign setting with a rich background etc etc, I prefer to play someone not from that setting. That way, I don't have to worry about my interpretation of their setting being "wrong", but more importantly, I get to enjoy learning about that setting from an outsider's point of view - at the same time my character is learning about it. That feeling of exploration is fun in and of itself, and makes me much more invested in the setting than some half-cocked backstory that only kinda fits the character who seems to have strange lapses in his understanding of the culture.

Okay, how about this campaign setting...

It's the near future (actually a slightly alternate history, but meh). Imagine a slightly diesel-punk 1980s for general technology levels. Of the three great powers, Nation A has a secret "genetic projects" research group, which has resulted in some human-animal hybrids. However, these are currently top-secret, and exclusive to that one nation. A decent variety of anthro people exist, all mammalian, including dolphins, bats, cats, dogs, and bears. Other mammalian species could be added to this background with minimal difficulty.

For reasons related to the campaign plot arc, it is important that the party all be nominally from nation B, and have a background that checks out enough that they have low-level security clearance within that nation's security services.

How would you play an anthropomorph in this campaign?

[MyrPsychologist]

Unless I am running a story with some restrictions on race for the purpose of the story, I really don't care what people play. You can be an animated couch for all I care.

[Tvtyrant]

And what would be more appropriate to have a Catfolk Paladin of an quasi-Egyptian god? (No sarcasm, that's one of my chars)

I would probably suggest that some of your ancestors were fanatically loyal priest guards. They were given the form of cats,.the hunters of vermin and protectors of wheat, due to their devotion. Eons later and they have now grown distinct from man, and some might not remember why they were given this gift.

Edit: You could also easily make your character similar to a Dragonborn. He was given the form of a catfolk as a reward or punishment, or even as a motivator until a goal is reached. You used to be an elf, say, and then becomes a cat person until you retire from service. Your form reveals to others in the know that you are a paladin of your god on a mission.

[Nifft]

Unless I am running a story with some restrictions on race for the purpose of the story That's most of my games: limited palette on both sides of the screen, for deliberate effect.


You can be an animated couch for all I care.
I'm totes gonna be a Couchfolk Werepotato.

[Tectorman]

Unless I am running a story with some restrictions on race for the purpose of the story, I really don't care what people play. You can be an animated couch for all I care.

What about a supremely depressed robot with a bum leg and a brain the size of a planet? Is that allowed?

[Tetraplex]

Not just allowed. They're a major player race in our homebrew setting. We sort of rolled the Tibbits, Kitsune, Vanara, etc into one extremely broad category based on the Hengeyokai from Oriental Adventures and made them a rough equivalent of the native Americans during the Age of Exploration.
They live on one of the largest landmasses in the world, largely unexplored by the other, more 'developed' nations, and have gone down completely different tracks culture and magic-wise.

We're actually preparing for a game that looks to involve conflict with them, so that's exciting.

[nijineko]

Just because you can compensate for the lousy design doesn't mean you should need to.

null sum argument. almost all games suffer from lousy design syndrome in some aspect or another.

the JOB of a DM is to compensate for all systems so that the players (and hopefully dm too) are having fun. no matter what your group, or what your system, some compensation WILL take place.

an inability to find fun or interesting is the failure of and/or possible lack of ability of the person so judging, and the subsequent labeling of weak and broken is a reprehensible shifting of the blame and responsibility. one doesn't even have to agree with or like the material in question to be able to find something fun and interesting to work with.

[Solaris]

null sum argument. almost all games suffer from lousy design syndrome in some aspect or another.

the JOB of a DM is to compensate for all systems so that the players (and hopefully dm too) are having fun. no matter what your group, or what your system, some compensation WILL take place.

At no point does this rebut my argument. Just because there are problems intrinsic to all games doesn't invalidate the fact that there is a problem with D&D 3.X's handling of monsters-as-PCs and Savage Species is based almost entirely around those problems.


an inability to find fun or interesting is the failure of and/or possible lack of ability of the person so judging, and the subsequent labeling of weak and broken is a reprehensible shifting of the blame and responsibility. one doesn't even have to agree with or like the material in question to be able to find something fun and interesting to work with.

Bull.
Stop trying to turn this into an argument about who, and instead focus on what. Veiled comments about how I'm a bad person because I dare speak ill of a book are not appreciated. The fact that there are some nuggets of good stuff in Savage Species doesn't change the fact that, on the whole, it's a poorly-written book based around a poorly-conceived subset of the rules.

[ZamielVanWeber]

The fact that there are some nuggets of good stuff in Savage Species doesn't change the fact that, on the whole, it's a poorly-written book based around a poorly-conceived subset of the rules.

With 3.0/3.5 books that is the rule, not the exception. Harvesting good stuff is a bit of an art. That being said Savage Species certainly wins no awards for being well-thought out and edited and I can entirely understand why you would disallow it.

[Telwar]

Is there a distinction for you between anthropomorphic tiger and refluffed Catfolk? If so, how?

Think Thundercats vs Thunderans.

Warning: I'm about to tell you about my character. Sorry. :)

WAYYYYY back in the day, in a steampunk Planescape game, I had an anthropmorphic tiger sword-saint (named Iskander). I'd come up with a surprisingly detailed background how he came from a world of anthropmorphic animals, and the Felid Imperium had recently discovered the portal to other planes in the bowels of Ye Olde Traumatic Superdungeon, and was exploring the planes as a result.

The tigers were the priestly caste, the lions were the rulers (was going to flip Wis to Cha for them), the panther/cougars were the warrior caste, and the cheetahs were the traders/explorers. Thus, Iskander was *technically* a priest, in the vein of Uncle Doj.

The four prime castes then were supported by the groaning backs of their catfolk workers, who filled out the armies as they fought with the elephant- and rhino-folk, gleefully using the repeating rifles in their natural tendency to skirmish to win vast tracts of grazing land from the horned rivals. There was probably going to be some form of unrest coming as the waves of technological change came through the portal and the catfolk realized they could overthrow their higher-statted but vastly less numerous anthropomorphic oppressors, but the DM was rather uninterested in exploring that.

Iskander's typical running-around clothes were a tweed suit, over a linen shirt, itself over mithral angelic chainmail, itself over a silk body stocking to prevent his fur from getting caught in the armor, and with a Highlander Greatcoat of Resistance +5.

[Quertus]

Okay, how about this campaign setting...

It's the near future (actually a slightly alternate history, but meh). Imagine a slightly diesel-punk 1980s for general technology levels. Of the three great powers, Nation A has a secret "genetic projects" research group, which has resulted in some human-animal hybrids. However, these are currently top-secret, and exclusive to that one nation. A decent variety of anthro people exist, all mammalian, including dolphins, bats, cats, dogs, and bears. Other mammalian species could be added to this background with minimal difficulty.

For reasons related to the campaign plot arc, it is important that the party all be nominally from nation B, and have a background that checks out enough that they have low-level security clearance within that nation's security services.

How would you play an anthropomorph in this campaign?

Emphasis added.

Playing an anthropomorph in that campaign plot arc would be as difficult as playing many other character concepts, from the black market arms dealer to the angsty teen to the hobo (murder or otherwise) - it wouldn't fit the story, because they can't meet the prerequisites. Although, I suppose, the anthropomorph could have a hat of disguise undergone plastic surgery, and be impersonating someone with a low-level security clearance, just like the black-market arms dealer could use their connections to do something similar. Without making their story too contrived for my liking, the teen and hobo are right out.

Could be a lot of fun for someone to play the "superhero agent" of the country A infiltrating country B. Not my cup of tea, perhaps, but I can see it making for an enjoyable character in an espionage game, or even in a different style of game set in that world, with the agent having its own espionage sub-plot.

However, there are several ways in which this example is a bit off target.

First off, when presented with a new setting, I enjoy playing the outsider - someone whose background I deeply understand, who I can enjoy their reactions to the new setting. Since I understand neither country A nor country B as well as their creator, my "outsider" would not be a native of either country. Someone from another world, another time, another reality. Or, failing that, something some mad scientist invented - an artificial being, an artificial intelligence, a blank slate. But a replicant is much less fun to play than a more emotionally realized being, so that, when the inhabitants of country B sit down to enjoy their Christmas baby, my character can recoil in horror, and run to the bathroom when offered a knife and ask if he would like to do the honors.

Also, in most D&D games, Anthropomorphs are not highly-classified state secrets. Just because the party hasn't spent game-time discussing them doesn't make them any less real. Having spent game time discussing how the gods destroyed all of them thousands of years ago with a magical plague, and how the common cold is actually that plague, kept alive by human(etc) hosts to prevent their return, on the other hand, probably does make them less real in that campaign world. Even if you make the PCs' ignorance canon, you'd probably be amazed at some of the real world things that have come as surprises in some of my groups. I shutter to imagine the world we'd live in if everyone's ignorance necessitated the removal of all their "unknowns" from reality.

Lastly, while you may not think it fits well into diesel-punk, reality / plane / world travel is a part of D&D. Playing the outsider there very much fits the setting. And most D&D worlds don't have "security clearances". In fact, most D&D games don't have people caring so much about the PCs that a hat of disguise and ranks in bluff or diplomacy couldn't let an anthropomorph get by just fine. At least until he learns about their holiday traditions.

[unseenmage]

So far as Savage Species style Anthro Animals goes I've played them for the stats when it was just me and my friend DMing back and forth for each other learning the minutia of the system and I've played them for the fun of it. I've allowed them at my table (purple anthro camel is the weirdest so far) and I've played against hordes and hordes of them with Legendary Anthro Animals as the endbosses of the various anthro animal tribes (played like Dynasty Warriors, was fun times).

Have allowed and played Lycanthropes and Entomanthropes, Tibbits and Effigy Tibbits, Awakened Bear Druids and the subsequent Awakened Zombie Bear. There's more than enough anthropomorphic animal lore to justify/refluff/back up/fill in the blanks for just about any playable animal themed character you want. Especially with a little imagination. With a lot of imagination they don't even have to be the central plot device or the villain or even the hero. They can be the hirelings and the lackeys if they're handled right.

My favorite so far was the anthro baleen whale and anthro two-headed elephant duo who lorded over a tribe of Eskimo-like goblioids. They were worshiped as totemic quasi-deities and they had delusions of conquering the whole of the cosmos with their devoted goblin followers. They were a brazen and foolish pair. That they were anthro animal characters was never so important to the plot/game as the fact that they were arrogant to the point of ignorance.



Unless I am running a story with some restrictions on race for the purpose of the story, I really don't care what people play. You can be an animated couch for all I care.
I would allow it and I'd be more than happy to play it. Animated Objects with Level Adjustments is a thing at my table.

[Ashtagon]

Emphasis added.

Playing an anthropomorph in that campaign plot arc would be as difficult as playing many other character concepts, from the black market arms dealer to the angsty teen to the hobo (murder or otherwise) - it wouldn't fit the story, because they can't meet the prerequisites. Although, I suppose, the anthropomorph could have a hat of disguise undergone plastic surgery, and be impersonating someone with a low-level security clearance, just like the black-market arms dealer could use their connections to do something similar. Without making their story too contrived for my liking, the teen and hobo are right out.

Could be a lot of fun for someone to play the "superhero agent" of the country A infiltrating country B. Not my cup of tea, perhaps, but I can see it making for an enjoyable character in an espionage game, or even in a different style of game set in that world, with the agent having its own espionage sub-plot.

While my example is from an actual campaign world I am developing (and which would be quite familiar to anyone with a basic grasp of real-world early modern and modern history), it still illustrates an important general point. To further illustrate it, a while back, a GM asked how best to prevent PCs from taking dragon-related race or class options in a setting where it was a campaign plot point that dragons were widely believed to be extinct for hundreds of years (but would show up late in the planned campaign arc).

Essentially, the question is "how do I play X where X is believed by everyone to not exist?" I choose to have the PCs in this example start from nation B because that involves the least amount of "weirdness", maximising the extent to which the players will be instantly familiar with the campaign world via a decent knowledge of real world history.

If you're from nation A, yes, you could play an athropomorph. You may be considered valuable property or an escapee, but you can. If you're from nation B, you can get proper access to all the cool and top-secret hi-tech toys. If you're from nation C and have the right security clearance, you are aware of the Psionics Institute, and may even play a trained psychic. But if you're from the wrong nation, it's implausible to have ready access to each of these, and their existence is about as credible in the popular imagination as live sightings of Elvis.


However, there are several ways in which this example is a bit off target.

First off, when presented with a new setting, I enjoy playing the outsider - someone whose background I deeply understand, who I can enjoy their reactions to the new setting. Since I understand neither country A nor country B as well as their creator, my "outsider" would not be a native of either country. Someone from another world, another time, another reality. Or, failing that, something some mad scientist invented - an artificial being, an artificial intelligence, a blank slate. But a replicant is much less fun to play than a more emotionally realized being, so that, when the inhabitants of country B sit down to enjoy their Christmas baby, my character can recoil in horror, and run to the bathroom when offered a knife and ask if he would like to do the honors.

That campaign setting I described above was designed so that a government would act as a patron for the party, assigning missions and giving rewards to them. Since the whole point of the campaign setting is to create a "superspies and special ops" setting, having a government patron kind of goes with the territory. The other major option would be to have the PCs play as a private mercenary company (c.f. Blackwater), but that changes the types of adventures possible in other ways.

I'll admit, you might not understand "nation A". But would you understand "1970s Texas where it declared independence shortly after a WW2 in which the USA did not participate"? You might find it incredible from a historical perspective, but that's plenty to get where the people living there are coming from.


Also, in most D&D games, Anthropomorphs are not highly-classified state secrets. Just because the party hasn't spent game-time discussing them doesn't make them any less real. Having spent game time discussing how the gods destroyed all of them thousands of years ago with a magical plague, and how the common cold is actually that plague, kept alive by human(etc) hosts to prevent their return, on the other hand, probably does make them less real in that campaign world. Even if you make the PCs' ignorance canon, you'd probably be amazed at some of the real world things that have come as surprises in some of my groups. I shutter to imagine the world we'd live in if everyone's ignorance necessitated the removal of all their "unknowns" from reality.

Most D&D worlds have something that is considered, if not a "state secret", then certainly hidden knowledge. When the drow were first introduced in Modules D1-3 of Greyhawk, the idea of "underground elves" was supposed to be a myth told by mothers to make small children behave. Tolkein's middle earth had certain types of elves, which very definitely existed, and just as definitely were believed by everyone to be extinct. Mystara canonically has a Hollow World, but most people don't know it exists, so it would strain credibility for a bruteman (neanderthal types long extinct on the outer world) and a hutaakan (jackal-folk) to be adventuring in Karameikos (the default "start point" for most Mystaran campaigns).

I mean, sure, in each of these examples, you can in principle play as one of these "hidden" groups, but if you do so, it changes the basic premise of the campaign. pre-Drizzt/Elistraee, if you played as a drow, it meant you were from deep underground and part of a spider-worshipping matriarchy. If you played as an Elf in middle earth, you were either quite insular (inforesar?) or an extreme outlier from our society (and quite likely an exile). Or maybe your entire party were elves. In which case your adventure to retake Smaug's Mountain would be quite different from Thorin's adventure (you'd probably be a 'special ops' team sent by the elf king). If you want to play as rakasta and tortles and lupins in Mystara, the setting should probably change from the 'Known World' region to the 'Savage Coast' region, in order to better explain why you are where you are. And so on.

[Ashtagon]

As a counterpoint to the above post, imagine a campaign setting in which *everything* (yes, even that) is an anthro-something or other. Conventional humans, demihumans and humanoids are stories of legend in the setting, used to frighten small children with their monstrous and terrifying ways ("they use *knives and forks* to eat???" "there have no fur *at all*?"). Someone wants to play an elf.

There's a number of ways the GM could take this...

"Elves" are actually anthro-something, but with the cultural trapping of stereotypical elves.

The GM could throw out their planned setting and "go gonzo" on it.

The GM could say "no", preferably with an explanation of why that would break the campaign setting. This obviously works better if "no elves" is a campaign setting plot point (e.g., Talislanta).

Elvers live over on the other continent/dimension/planet. This will require a complicated back-story for how they got here, and a reasonable explanation for why shopkeepers don't bat an eyelid when serving them, and why people with power aren't trying to interview him (or "interview" him).

Most usually, when a player wants to play (for example) an anthro-dolphin, what they really want to do is play a character that is very heavily themed with that specific animal. So instead of an anthro-dolphin, perhaps the character is a world-class swimmer who has a pet dolphin with whom he has a particular empathy. Maybe instead of being an anthro-cat, the character is a cat burglar. Maybe instead of being an anthro-dog, the character is a woodsman and hunter, skilled in tracking and animal handling. And so on.

[GungHo]

Done like Yusagi Jojimbo and taken seriously? Sure. Why not.

[nijineko]

At no point does this rebut my argument. Just because there are problems intrinsic to all games doesn't invalidate the fact that there is a problem with D&D 3.X's handling of monsters-as-PCs and Savage Species is based almost entirely around those problems.



Bull.
Stop trying to turn this into an argument about who, and instead focus on what. Veiled comments about how I'm a bad person because I dare speak ill of a book are not appreciated. The fact that there are some nuggets of good stuff in Savage Species doesn't change the fact that, on the whole, it's a poorly-written book based around a poorly-conceived subset of the rules.

thank you for proving my point.

oh, and i don't think you are a bad person. nor do i care that you don't like savage species. it has some great stuff, and it has lots of food for thought that anyone can see without even half trying. it also has some crap. in the end it's all what you can make of it that proves your skills.

if you don't like it let's just agree to disagree and move on.

sorry if i seemed to derail.

[atemu1234]

thank you for proving my point.

oh, and i don't think you are a bad person. nor do i care that you don't like savage species. it has some great stuff, and it has lots of food for thought that anyone can see without even half trying. it also has some crap. in the end it's all what you can make of it that proves your skills.

if you don't like it let's just agree to disagree and move on.

sorry if i seemed to derail.

I'll put it this way - you should be able to run a game and ignore obvious dysfunction. You shouldn't have to fix something just for it to be playable. Yes, willingness to do so is optimal. But that doesn't mean a DM should be expected to read through everything and fix all the problems. That's the game.

Savage Species is a decent example - you can run Anthropomorphic Animals out-of-the-box with little in the way of issue - but certain things are obviously bad or broken, and should be scrapped.

The all-or-nothing mentality about the book, or any book, is ridiculous.

[Solaris]

thank you for proving my point.

"There are some good things" =/= "Lots of food for thought that anyone can see without even half trying."
Especially when we're talking about the book written as a shrine to Level Adjustment and gave us the Illithid Savant.

So, no. The fact that I can dig through it and find a couple of good things does not prove your point, which was that the DM's ability to compensate for bad design excused bad design (http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Oberoni_Fallacy), and that people who pointed out problems with the book were engaging in "badwrongfun" and "... an inability to find fun or interesting is the failure of and/or possible lack of ability of the person so judging, and the subsequent labeling of weak and broken is a reprehensible shifting of the blame and responsibility. one doesn't even have to agree with or like the material in question to be able to find something fun and interesting to work with."
Which basically means game designers can apparently crap out whatever they care to, and if DMs don't want to sort through a steaming pile of dung to find the couple of magic items worth using (it'd be easier to homebrew them, and I daresay I'd have done a better job of it too) then they're bad DMs for trying to shift the blame back on the very authors responsible for said pile of excrement masquerading as a rulebook.
That's without watching you move those goalposts.

I'm sorry you felt the need to take a cheap shot, but what else could I expect? Your arguments and points thus far here have been nothing but cheap shots. This sidebar discussion is over with; you've done nothing but prove incapable of presenting a cogent argument to support your claim.

[Grek]

If anyone ever asked me if they wanted to play an anthromorphic animal in one of my games, I would let them. What I wouldn't let them do is use the Savage Species rules for it. The same applies for anything that has LA/RHD. I don't like the rules in Savage Species and I refuse to use them. If you want to play as something too powerful to be a standard PC race, I'll write up a homebrew monster class for you to multiclass/gestalt with.

[Pluto!]

oh, and i don't think you are a bad person. nor do i care that you don't like savage species. it has some great stuff, and it has lots of food for thought that anyone can see without even half trying. it also has some crap. in the end it's all what you can make of it that proves your skills.
What I'm getting from your posts is that skilled players are the ones who enjoy spending a whole lot of energy trying to use things which don't actually work in the system or have aesthetic appeal, and contorting their games to make them work.

I'm also getting that you take the very notion that somebody wouldn't want to go out, buy a terrible book, and then waste their time piecing it into their games as a personal affront or insult of some kind. That's fine.

But on the topic at hand, if you are making a house and you have a pile of bricks and a pile of actual human diarrhea, it would take more work to incorporate the actual human diarrhea into your home designs. You might congratulate yourself for doing it. You might even find some other people who also enjoy finding uses for actual human diarrhea in their home construction and who will pat you on the back for the clever way you've worked it into the kitchen countertops or the doorknobs.

But in the end, you've just spent a lot of time building a house out of ****.

Savage Species has classes that are strictly better Clerics at certain levels and just auto-lose to common SLAs at other levels. It has templates that with some interpretations are better than entire 20-level class progressions with just one or two LA, but with other, equally plausible readings, are basically pointless, again at the cost of one or two LA. It doesn't take a lot of skill or know-how to homebrew better work on the same subject matter than was printed there.

Suffice to say that I see no reason to smear my games' doors and pantries with that diarrhea. Especially when bricks are free.

[atemu1234]

What I'm getting from your posts is that skilled players are the ones who enjoy spending a whole lot of energy trying to use things which don't actually work in the system or have aesthetic appeal, and contorting their games to make them work.

I'm also getting that you take the very notion that somebody wouldn't want to go out, buy a terrible book, and then waste their time piecing it into their games as a personal affront or insult of some kind. That's fine.

But on the topic at hand, if you are making a house and you have a pile of bricks and a pile of actual human diarrhea, it would take more work to incorporate the actual human diarrhea into your home designs. You might congratulate yourself for doing it. You might even find some other people who also enjoy finding uses for actual human diarrhea in their home construction and who will pat you on the back for the clever way you've worked it into the kitchen countertops or the doorknobs.

But in the end, you've just spent a lot of time building a house out of ****.

Savage Species has classes that are strictly better Clerics at certain levels and just auto-lose to common SLAs at other levels. It has templates that with some interpretations are better than entire 20-level class progressions with just one or two LA, but with other, equally plausible readings, are basically pointless, again at the cost of one or two LA. It doesn't take a lot of skill or know-how to homebrew better work on the same subject matter than was printed there.

Suffice to say that I see no reason to smear my games' doors and pantries with that diarrhea. Especially when bricks are free.

Eh, you're making out Savage Species to be some abomination that's any worse than core; it's not. Now, I don't like some of the material - I've very seldomly used monster classes from that or any book, though I do allow it as an available option.

Also, we're acting like the origin of material is the worse for it - I can make Savage Species work in a game. It's not any different from any other building material once you've reached that point.

[unseenmage]

Savage Species is like Dragon Magazine content. If I;m going to be patching holes in the Core rules anyway (Simulacrum why do you haunt me still even after the conversion to PF WHY?!) then I might as well patch ALL the holes and allow all the content.

Picking and choosing which flawed materials to use based solely on my preferences is fine, as long as I fess up to it.

Claiming that one set of material is better than another intrinsically when it all suffers the same (or same enough when it comes to making any given sourcebook work with any other given gameworld) flaws instead of owning up to my distastes would be wrong.

[Akal Saris]

I banned it at my table when one of my PCs asked about being a squid for a grappling build. It was because I knew the player well enough that I thought it would be disruptive to the game, both in terms of balance and in terms of having a monster character run by somebody who rarely roleplayed seriously and who would be encouraged by the silly character to take the game more lightly than the other players.

In the right group and campaign, I'd allow it, especially if the PC wanted to play an anthro for the RP value rather than the stat boosts.

I've shared the soul eater cephalod dream before (what's that you say? 20 negative levels a turn? OK!), but never found a game that was off-the-rails enough to indulge in it.

[Pluto!]

Eh, you're making out Savage Species to be some abomination that's any worse than core; it's not. Now, I don't like some of the material - I've very seldomly used monster classes from that or any book, though I do allow it as an available option.
That's a stock response that can be mindlessly applied to similar claims to probably 80% of WotC material, but with Savage Species, yes, the balance actually is worse than core.

There actually are classes that are better versions of core casters (opening the highest end of the optimization spectrum), there actually are classes that are worse versions of core noncasters (dropping out the lowest end of the optimization spectrum). There are plenty of rules that are mercilessly unclear or that just don't work. The entire book is dedicated to LA, probably the single worst-designed element of the d20 system.

Arguing that Core is also bad and needs fixing doesn't make Savage Species better. If I'm on antibiotics for strep throat, I still don't want to get the clap.



Anyway, my initial post wasn't meant to disparage games that use Savage Species. I don't actually care about what sort of fun anyone has with Savage Species. But in games I play, where I do care about giving other people the best experience, I deliberately avoid bad rules (a commodity which Savage Species happens to be bloated with).

I do strongly disagree that indiscriminately piling optional rules is a mark of a more skilled player or a more fun game than just avoiding trash like Savage Species, Complete Psionics, the entire catalog of Avalanche Press, etc.

[Anlashok]

But in games I play, where I do care about giving other people the best experience, I deliberately avoid bad rules (a commodity which Savage Species happens to be bloated with).

Then why not just say "I don't like the book"? The stomping-your-feet, hate spewing vitriol that amounts to "I don't like this and that makes it objectively terrible and anyone who doesn't agree obviously stupid" is... pretty unnecessary.

[nyjastul69]

I pretty much allow anything in my games on a case by case basis. Anthropomorphic creatures aren't common in any setting I use so the character may have problems in certain areas or cities due to their race. Depending on the settlement they might be banned, have to 'register' in some way, or they may have no problems at all.

[elonin]

I've played a catfolk and an anthorpromorphic ape.

[nyjastul69]

I've played a catfolk and an anthorpromorphic ape.

Okay, I gotta ask, aren't apes anthropomorphic out of the box?

[ZamielVanWeber]

Okay, I gotta ask, aren't apes anthropomorphic out of the box?

Not quite. Their shape is similar to ours, but with a few critical differences.

[nyjastul69]

Not quite. Their shape is similar to ours, but with a few critical differences.

Seems to me every anthropomorph have critical differences as regards humans. If they didn't, they be humans.

[OldTrees1]

Then why not just say "I don't like the book"? The stomping-your-feet, hate spewing vitriol that amounts to "I don't like this and that makes it objectively terrible and anyone who doesn't agree obviously stupid" is... pretty unnecessary.

Maybe I am missing something, but didn't he start with just what you are asking for?
(paraphrasing first post by Pluto!)
"I don't use it at my table because I don't like the wide variance in the balance"
"I don't use because I don't like [objective fact]"

His first post implied nothing about other people or their tables. To which he was accused of accusing badwrongfun by nijineko. To which he defended his observation about the balance variance.

It is rather sad when saying "I don't like the book" eventually gets the response of "Then why not just say "I don't like the book"?"

[Solaris]

Maybe I am missing something, but didn't he start with just what you are asking for?
(paraphrasing first post by Pluto!)
"I don't use it at my table because I don't like the wide variance in the balance"
"I don't use because I don't like [objective fact]"

His first post implied nothing about other people or their tables. To which he was accused of accusing badwrongfun by nijineko. To which he defended his observation about the balance variance.

It is rather sad when saying "I don't like the book" eventually gets the response of "Then why not just say "I don't like the book"?"

This is Giant in the Playground, where opinion and preference must be objective fact supported by references.

[OldTrees1]

This is Giant in the Playground, where opinion and preference must be objective fact supported by references.
Sigh, I hear you. :smallfrown:

Still we can naively and foolishly hope for better, right? :smalleek:

[Anlashok]

This is Giant in the Playground, where opinion and preference must be objective fact supported by references.

If that's what you were getting from that, you completely missed the point. Seeing how I literally said that people should be stating their opinions without being needlessly vitriolic and hostile.

Because I'm sorry, but if insults and hatred are a necessary component of your opinion it might be worth reassessing in the first place.

[Nifft]

If that's what you were getting from that, you completely missed the point. Seeing how I literally said that people should be stating their opinions without being needlessly vitriolic and hostile.

Because I'm sorry, but if insults and hatred are a necessary component of your opinion it might be worth reassessing in the first place.

From what I saw, his posts seemed reasonable statements of fact, without any vitriol, and with no particular evidence of hate.

In contrast, you're trying to character-assassinate someone for disagreeing with you.

That's very not nice.

[Zanos]

I play 3.5 pretty exclusively with good friends of mine. I allow all officially licensed 3.5 material, so yeah, that includes anthropomorphic creatures.

However, if someone plays a whale man, or a cat person, or a monkey person with a quarterstaff who's name is Sun(this actually happened), I am going to mock the hell out of them between my fistfuls of cheetos.

[Ashtagon]

There seems to be two separate debates going on...

1) Is Savage Species allowed?

2) Are anthropomorphs in general allowed?

I don't know enough about SS's anthro rules to comment. But d20 has a long tradition of making anthro options without recourse to the SS rules. Lizardmen, gnolls, rakasta, lupin, are all half-men half-something else. d20 Modern had its "moreaus". Numerous other examples exist. Lycanthropes arguably fill part of this niche, as do Oriental Adventures' hengeyokai and Eberron's shifters. Restricting the second of these two debates to SS only cuts out a huge part of the issue.

[Pluto!]

Then why not just say "I don't like the book"? The stomping-your-feet, hate spewing vitriol that amounts to "I don't like this and that makes it objectively terrible and anyone who doesn't agree obviously stupid" is... pretty unnecessary.
"Hate-spewing vitriol"?

I said that I don't think anything in Savage Species is worth playing. This pertains to Anthro Animals because their rules are terrible (from unplayably strong to unplayably weak within the same table) and as such, not worth playing.

Somebody said that by disliking the book, I has personally disparaged them and their special snowflake games, and that *good* players use any and every source however much harder it makes their lives.

That's stupid, so I said so. I also wrote about poop, because as someone who was once four, I thought it was fun.

Someone else said that 3.5 has a broken core anyway, so adding more, worse rules doesn't make anything worse.

That's also stupid, so I said so. I also wrote about the clap, because as someone who was once fourteen, I thought it was fun.



If you interpret negative opinions of a product as personal attacks against people who use that product, I recommend you stay away from centers of hate-spewing vitriol like Consumer Reports or any sort of product review.

[atemu1234]

Someone else said that 3.5 has a broken core anyway, so adding more, worse rules doesn't make anything worse.

Eh, the game isn't getting any more broken by allowing Savage Species. It's not as bad as you seem to think, with a lot of rules helping people play things they wouldn't normally play. Yes, it has some variability, but so does everything else. It's not worse than core, as you seem to think, and it definitely has its place in my games at least.

[Jay R]

I think it'd be incredibly cool to play as an anthropomorphic giant octopus, and not just for the 7 natural attacks.

Don't forget that on land, some of those limbs are needed for standing.

If you would like a cardboard miniatures of a man-sized octopus, you can find four of them in Fantasy Set 7 on this page (http://www.sjgames.com/heroes/), from Steve Jackson Games.

One of them has 2 two-handed swords, plus a shield. Another has a two-handed sword, a spear, and an axe.