Your opinion of the new Lore boxes? (4e)

[Illiterate Scribe]

http://suptg.thisisnotatrueending.com/archive/1839136/images/1211983139444.jpg

Discuss.

[Attilargh]

I don't think bears work that way. Don't they have, like, lasers or something?

[MorkaisChosen]

They missed DC10: Bears tend to perform their ablutions in arboreal areas.

Google the words they don't know...

Also, what kind of world has about 75% of people not knowing what a bear is?

[Pelfaid]

I had expected them to actually contain useful information like the ones found in MM5. These make me sad.:smallfrown:

[Reel On, Love]

Also, what kind of world has about 75% of people not knowing what a bear is?

The kind where "big large hairy thing with claws that roars" describes like a bajillion things that live out in the wilderness.

[Tempest Fennac]

That made me laugh. If that was used in ral life, I would be able to hit DC 50 Knowledge (Nature) checks by rolling a 1.

[SolkaTruesilver]

That made me laugh. If that was used in ral life, I would be able to hit DC 50 Knowledge (Nature) checks by rolling a 1.

I don't think you have that much rank. You simply always take a 10!!

[Tempest Fennac]

I am basing that claim of the fact that how bear's attack is classed as advanced knowledge. What would you say the DC to identify this creature ( http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2082/1577506262_03177b0e0f.jpg ) would be? (I'm guessing that more peole know about bears compared with the number who know much about fennec foxes.)

[Illiterate Scribe]

I am basing that claim of the fact that how bear's attack is classed as advanced knowledge. What would you say the DC to identify this creature ( http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2082/1577506262_03177b0e0f.jpg ) would be? (I'm guessing that more peole know about bears compared with the number who know much about fennec foxes.)

How bears attack? I'm fairly sure that they strangle their enemies with their tentacles, no?

[Reel On, Love]

How bears attack? I'm fairly sure that they strangle their enemies with their tentacles, no?

That's Warhammer gamers, not bears.

[Telonius]

Really? I thought they tackled them to the ground.

[Dan_Hemmens]

Is that actually a *genuine* bit of 4E material, or is it just an unintended consequence of the new Lore rules?

(Of course, the Lore rules were always kinda stupid like that. I always loved the way it was based on Hit Dice: "Hmm, those tiny lizardlike creatures in the nest are Wyrmling White Dragons, but I have no idea what the identical but much larger creature standing protectively over them could be. I can't be expected to know about such powerful beings!")

[Illiterate Scribe]

Is that actually a *genuine* bit of 4E material, or is it just an unintended consequence of the new Lore rules?

(Of course, the Lore rules were always kinda stupid like that. I always loved the way it was based on Hit Dice: "Hmm, those tiny lizardlike creatures in the nest are Wyrmling White Dragons, but I have no idea what the identical but much larger creature standing protectively over them could be. I can't be expected to know about such powerful beings!")

Genuine 4e material. On another forum it's being discussed, since certain materials were obtained.

May I also introduce you to the very real possibility of a Dire Bear Cleric/Warlord:

http://suptg.thisisnotatrueending.com/archive/1839136/images/1211993915433.jpg

[kc0bbq]

Is that actually a *genuine* bit of 4E material, or is it just an unintended consequence of the new Lore rules?Yes, and it's being blown out of proportion. 15 is an "easy" DC at 1st level, meaning anyone with training in the proper knowledge skill automatically knows it.

Compare with:

Orcus Lore
A character knows the following information about Orcus
with a successful Arcana check.

DC 15: Orcus is known as the Demon Lord of Undeath,
the Demon Prince of the Undead, and the Blood Lord. He is
worshiped by undead and living creatures that do not fear
undeath.

DC 20: Orcus desires destruction like all demons, but he
has set his sights higher, aiming at the gods themselves. In
particular, Orcus hungers for the death of the Raven Queen
and to usurp her control over death and the souls of the dead.

DC 25: Orcus rules one of the many layers of the Abyss.
His realm, Thanatos, is a dark landscape of death shrouded
by gray clouds and often obscured by fog. Light filters weakly
through the clouds and mists, illuminating the realm like a
moonlit night. Dead forests filled with twisted black trees and
barren moors dominate. Bleak mountains rise feebly into the
black sky, and cities and villages in ruins crouch in hidden
places as though fearful. Strewn all over the realm are tombs,
mausoleums, gravestones, and sarcophagi. They stand on
rooftops and building eaves like gargoyles, they litter forests
like boulders left by a glacier, and they jut from moors like the
masts of sinking ships. Undead abound within the realm, and
no living thing survives long there.

DC 30: At the heart of Thanatos stands a vast obsidian
palace with embedded bones barely visible through the
semitransparent black stone. This palace, Everlost, straddles
a yawning chasm whose sheer slopes hold hundreds of tombs
and burial sites, creating a tiered necropolis below the palace.

DC 35: Orcus wields an artifact called the Wand of Orcus.
Legends say that the skull atop the wand once belonged to
a god of virtue and chivalry who dared challenge Orcus in
battle. Other legends identify it as the skull of a human hero,
but if that is true, it has been magically enlarged to its current
size. In any event, the powerful good that once resided in the
skull is warped and perverted into the most monstrous evil.

[Dan_Hemmens]

This is one of those "half empty/half full" things.

On the one hand, anybody with training in Knowledge: Nature will automatically know that bears live in the woods (and as others have pointed out, presumably do other things there as well). On the other hand, that means that anybody who *doesn't* have training *won't* know that (or at least, might not).

This winds up having the same sort of problems as That Alexandrian Article: it's not enough to look at what training you need to know where bears live, it's also a question of what *else* that training would allow you to do. Presumably being trained in Knowledge: Nature makes you the equivalent of a Druid or something, which makes "bears live in the woods" a great secret of the natural world. Not a *closely guarded* secret, but a secret never the less.

[kamikasei]

Presumably being trained in Knowledge: Nature makes you the equivalent of a Druid or something, which makes "bears live in the woods" a great secret of the natural world.

Or a woodsman, or ranger, or naturalist, or traveler...

Your general point is sound, however, applying it to DCs this low - apparently, 15 is considered an easy check that anyone can make - doesn't quite hold up.

[AKA_Bait]

In theory, I think it's a good addition to MM's. I know I always had some trouble figuring out exactly how much information a given knowledge check gave a player about what they were facing.

I haven't seen the rulebooks yet though, so as far as execution goes I have to stay mostly silent.

@Dan: It just means that a quarter of the untrained population or so would be familiar with where bears live. That may not be so out there depending upon the setting. Remember that we live in a age of easy access to 'common knowledge'. I'd bet that if you asked an african tribesman about bears 200 years ago he wouldn't have the slightest idea what you were talking about, let alone where they lived, becaue bears don't live anywhere near him and information didn't travel fast. In a world where bears would most certianly not be a top predator, and would probably be more rare as a result, it's not that insane to say most of the population wouldn't really know anything meaningful about them.

[Dan_Hemmens]

Or a woodsman, or ranger, or naturalist, or traveler...

Your general point is sound, however, applying it to DCs this low - apparently, 15 is considered an easy check that anyone can make - doesn't quite hold up.

That's the thing, I think DCs this low are *exactly* where it holds up. It's low enough that it's no problem for trained professionals but high enough that it's a problem for everybody else.

It's given something of an ironic twist by the fact that, in the real world "do bears **** in the woods?" is a common idiom meaning "yes, of course". In D&D world, however, the saying would be "Do bears **** in the woods? What, do I look like some kind of bear expert? Go ask a ranger."

[Dan_Hemmens]

@Dan: It just means that a quarter of the untrained population or so would be familiar with where bears live. That may not be so out there depending upon the setting. Remember that we live in a age of easy access to 'common knowledge'. I'd bet that if you asked an african tribesman about bears 200 years ago he wouldn't have the slightest idea what you were talking about, let alone where they lived, becaue bears don't live anywhere near him and information didn't travel fast. In a world where bears would most certianly not be a top predator, and would probably be more rare as a result, it's not that insane to say most of the population wouldn't really know anything meaningful about them.

The problem is it *doesn't* mean that. It means that any *given* untrained person has a 25% chance of knowing where bears live. A man who lives in a desert and has never seen a wood in his life never the less has a 25% chance of knowing that bears live in them, a man who lives in a wood full of bears has a 75% chance of *not* knowing.

I'm not saying it's game breakingly unrealistic, or even problematically unrealistic, just that it's silly.

[SamTheCleric]

I found this on another site...


Monster Knowledge: No action required—either you
know the answer or you don’t.
✦ DC: See the table.
✦ Success: You identify a creature as well as its type,
typical temperament, and keywords. Higher results
give you information about the creature’s powers,
resistances, and vulnerabilities.
✦ Failure: You don’t recall any pertinent information.

The DM might allow you to make a new check if
further information comes to light.
Monster Knowledge DC
Name, type, and keywords 15
Powers 20
Resistances and vulnerabilities 25
Paragon tier creature +5
Epic tier creature +10

[Illiterate Scribe]

Powers - mauling with claws. Yep, liking it.

[Zocelot]

The problem is it *doesn't* mean that. It means that any *given* untrained person has a 25% chance of knowing where bears live. A man who lives in a desert and has never seen a wood in his life never the less has a 25% chance of knowing that bears live in them, a man who lives in a wood full of bears has a 75% chance of *not* knowing.

I'm not saying it's game breakingly unrealistic, or even problematically unrealistic, just that it's silly.

Personally, I'd give a circumstance bonus. If somebody sees bears everyday, that's easily a +6 to the check, and if someone has never seen a bear in their life, it's at least a -4.

[de-trick]

Personally, I'd give a circumstance bonus. If somebody sees bears everyday, that's easily a +6 to the check, and if someone has never seen a bear in their life, it's at least a -4.

makes sense why would someone from <insert name of bearless place> have the same chance to know about bears than someone who lived in a small town with many bears near it

[Chronicled]

"Even in a world filled with monsters, bears present a threat..."

Hell yeah they do. Bears are THE GREATEST THREAT.

[Tsotha-lanti]

Personally, I'd give a circumstance bonus. If somebody sees bears everyday, that's easily a +6 to the check, and if someone has never seen a bear in their life, it's at least a -4.

If somebody sees bears every day, or has been told about bears, they don't actually need to make that roll - any more than a PC who's been told about bears needs to.

That said, making that roll seems pretty useless, since it tells the players nothing they do not already know. Most pointless lore ever.

[Tempest Fennac]

I'm sad that animals still have ridiculously low Int for some reason. :smallfrown: I agree that the old HD-based system was ridiculous in some cases, but it makes more sense then this system if the bear knowledge is any indication of what the others are like.

[Xefas]

What would you say the DC to identify this creature ( http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2082/1577506262_03177b0e0f.jpg ) would be?

Wait a second...Momos actually exist?! (http://nickelodeon.es/nick.es/images/shows/avatar/momo/189x189_momo.gif) :smalleek: Damn...

Anyway, remember that adventurers don't get a modern day education.

For instance, I've never seen a bear, nor do I live in an area where bears come even close to. If I'd never gone to school, and if I didn't have TV, and if my parents hadn't both gone to school so they could tell me about it, and if my friends hadn't gone to school so they could tell me about it, then I wouldn't know what a bear was. There would be no way for me to know.

And even if the character has grown up around a place with regular bear traffic or has actually met and/or studied a bear, then a knowledge check isn't even required.

[bosssmiley]

http://suptg.thisisnotatrueending.com/archive/1839136/images/1211983139444.jpg

Discuss.

Please tell me that's either an idiot-proofed example, or a parodic mock-up. Coz if it's anything else then the sheer mouth-breathing lameness of it is palpable. :smallmad:

[Illiterate Scribe]

It is real - a certain malevolent board got their hands on the MM, and were tearing through it.

[Roderick_BR]

Maybe common knowledge (DC 10) is not listed because it's not needed? Like, why the heck are you even rolling to know if you recognise a bear, or to know they live in florests/caves/whatever?
Now, more specializaed info may require a roll (you know where a bear lives, but do you know how he hunts? Roll arcana, DC 15).
It's like the old "roll a sports check to see if you can run" joke on GURPS...

[Reel On, Love]

It's a world that's full of big, sometimes-hairy things that have big claws and will maul your face off if you get too close.

In a context like that, why would the bear be any more familiar to people than any of the other thins that will maul your face off?

[AslanCross]

They missed DC10: Bears tend to perform their ablutions in arboreal areas.

Google the words they don't know...

Also, what kind of world has about 75% of people not knowing what a bear is?

6-INT PCs who've never left the city.

[MorkaisChosen]

It's a world that's full of big, sometimes-hairy things that have big claws and will maul your face off if you get too close.

In a context like that, why would the bear be any more familiar to people than any of the other thins that will maul your face off?

But that means that although they may not know it's a bear, specifically, they'll know it's likely to "maul prey with their claws or crush them to death with their thick, bestial arms". Big rippy thing with claws would be very familiar to them.

Also, do you think Owlbears are coming back?

[Reel On, Love]

Also, do you think Owlbears are coming back?

Owlbear, level 8 Elite Brute:
Large fey beast, XP 700
Initiative +6 Senses Perception +12; low-light vision
HP 212; Bloodied 106; see also stunning screech
AC 22; Fortitude 22, Reflex 19, Will 20
Saving Throws +2
Speed 7
Action Points 1
Claw (standard; at-will): Reach 2; +12 vs. AC; 2d6 + 5 damage.
Double Attack (standard; at-will): The owlbear makes two claw attacks. If both claws hit the same target, the target is grabbed (until escape).
Bite (standard; at-will): Grabbed target only; automatic hit; 4d8 + 5 damage.
Stunning Screech (free, when first bloodied; encounter): Close burst 1; +10 vs. Fortitude; the target is stunned (save ends).
Alignment Unaligned Languages —
Str 20 (+9) Dex 14 (+6) Wis 16 (+7)
Con 16 (+7) Int 2 (+0) Cha 10 (+4)


They're back with a vengeance.

Winterclaw Owlbear, level 14 Elite Controller:
Huge fey beast XP 2,000
Initiative +9 Senses Perception +15; low-light vision
HP 280; Bloodied 140; see also frost wail
AC 28; Fortitude 28, Refl ex 23, Will 24
Saving Throws +2
Speed 7 (ice walk)
Action Points 1
Winterclaw (standard; at-will) - Cold: Reach 3; +18 vs. AC; 1d8 + 7 damage plus 1d8 cold damage, and the target is slowed (save ends).
Double Attack (standard; at-will) - Cold: The winterclaw owlbear makes two winterclaw attacks. If both claws hit the same target, the target is immobilized (save ends).
--Aftereffect: The target is slowed (save ends).
Frost Wail (standard; recharges when first bloodied) - Cold: Close burst 3; +16 vs. Fortitude; 1d10 + 5 cold damage, and the target is immobilized (save ends).
Alignment Unaligned Languages —
Str 24 (+14) Dex 14 (+9) Wis 16 (+10)
Con 20 (+12) Int 2 (+3) Cha 12 (+8)

[MorkaisChosen]

My God, they're not ridiculous any more!

Also, fey. Better explanation than the "Crazy mad Wizard?" Possibly.

[Lucyfur]

I find it perfectly reasonable. There's no such thing as t.v. in D&D remember. That's the only reason any of us know so much about them.

[bosssmiley]

My God, they're not ridiculous any more!

Also, fey. Better explanation than the "Crazy mad Wizard?" Possibly.

In fact, between stunning screech and their double attack (rend equiv?) they're pretty scary. Owlbears - cooler. Bulettes - cooler. Giants - cooler. Despite the lore boxouts the MM at least looks like a definite. :smallcool:

[Attilargh]

Books, anyone? I can't be the only one who actually reads those things, can I?

And really, what reasonable is in requiring rather extensive study of all things natural to know that hey, a creature so badass it transcends bearhood might actually use its arms to maul a person to death before eating him? And why is there no such note for cave bears, anyway?

[Scintillatus]

Short of supernatural monsters, these lore checks should refer to more useful stuff; habitat, how not to enrage it, if it'd make a good backpack if skinned, etc.

I won't go re-writing them, but I will use them differently if I get a tracker player.

[Tsotha-lanti]

I find it perfectly reasonable. There's no such thing as t.v. in D&D remember. That's the only reason any of us know so much about them.

... are you kidding me?

If you go back just a hundred years, the average Finn (living hand-to-mouth farming out in a rural area), for instance, would have recognized birds by their cries, and most animals by their tracks. The further back you go, the more most people knew about animals and the wild, from experience and the necessities of survival.

And I think we can still assume that bears are at least marginally more common than actual monsters.

The lore box is still ridiculous, not because of any supposed absurdity of not recognizing these things, but because it's so utterly pointless. There's no benefit of any sort to making the check. "Bears live in the wood and maul you." "Oh ****, really? I had no idea."

[Jarlax]

The lore box is still ridiculous, not because of any supposed absurdity of not recognizing these things, but because it's so utterly pointless. There's no benefit of any sort to making the check. "Bears live in the wood and maul you." "Oh ****, really? I had no idea."

thats because we are using a animal as an example, they are not exactly the most complex creatures in the world and being mundane in nature, information on their habitats and the like comes off as "well dur" to us. it is perhaps absurd to include such loreboxes for real mundane creatures that actually exist.

yes most of the lore is kind of boring and i would probably run with the old fashioned DC (10+ monster level) identifies the creature. every 5 thereafter gives you one of its powers, immunities, weaknesses, etc.

that said they don't all suck. if you can pull off the DC30 lore check on a Medusa you learn how to reverse the effects of their petrifying gaze with only the blood of the slain Medusa.

[MorkaisChosen]

But there's a lot more there could be about bears- how to avoid them, what enrages them, how to cook them.

What?

[Deepblue706]

My God, they're not ridiculous any more!


What.

Animal + Another Animal is pretty ridiculous. People just occassionally accept it because you can get some badass combinations (ie Lizardfolk, the Minotaur, the Chimera). The Owlbear is about as badass as a Snail-Turtle. Or Snurtle. It's a dumb combination, plain-and-simple (if you think otherwise, you're a communist). At least, Snurtle is fun to say.

If anything, they should be combining plants with animals. Like, so you could play as a Tree-Person. Not a Treant, mind you - but a guy with like, leaves on him, and he has chlorophyll running through his veins. they'll be creatures encountered alongside minions called Chloro-Pups, their trusty dogs that "bark".

...

[Tempest Fennac]

There is a template which turns animals into plants. I can't remember what it's called, but it's on Crystal Keep (the website won't load for me at the minute sadly).

EDIT: The template is on page 52 of http://www.crystalkeep.com/d20/rules/DnD3.5Index-Templates.pdf .

[Gorbash]

Is that actually a *genuine* bit of 4E material, or is it just an unintended consequence of the new Lore rules?

(Of course, the Lore rules were always kinda stupid like that. I always loved the way it was based on Hit Dice: "Hmm, those tiny lizardlike creatures in the nest are Wyrmling White Dragons, but I have no idea what the identical but much larger creature standing protectively over them could be. I can't be expected to know about such powerful beings!")

It goes like this...

You know that wyrmling white dragons are immune to cold and vulnerable to fire, but you don't know that Wyrms have damage reduction, they can control weather, cast spells etc...

[Indon]

It's a world that's full of big, sometimes-hairy things that have big claws and will maul your face off if you get too close.

In a context like that, why would the bear be any more familiar to people than any of the other thins that will maul your face off?

Honestly, I think the familiarity part of the article makes more sense - its' determining the attacks that seem stupid.

DC 20 to determine if an animal with claws is going to attack you... with its' claws. Well, in this case, if a big animal with claws is going to attack you with its' claws and crush you with its' bigness.

[CasESenSITItiVE]

just keep in mind, we're talking about a time period where people would explore, find an elk or something, and claim they survived a monster attack. i think it's reasonable to assume that anyone who has learned about nature to know a bear, but very few your average joe

[Telonius]

Okay, a little more seriously ... let's take a look at that DC 15. It basically sounds like you know that there are a few different kinds of bears, and that each one of them is a little different. Kind of like knowing the difference between a black bear, a kodiak bear, and a grizzly bear (all separate subspecies with somewhat different behaviors and habitats). A Knowledge (Nature) check would be exactly the thing you would want, to figure out what those specific habitats and attack tactics might be. Not everybody would know that just by looking at a random bear. Some people see, "That's a bear that wants to eat me!" and leave it at that. So yeah, DC 15 sounds reasonable for that check.

[Snooder]

And really, what reasonable is in requiring rather extensive study of all things natural to know that hey, a creature so badass it transcends bearhood might actually use its arms to maul a person to death before eating him? And why is there no such note for cave bears, anyway?

Personally, I see it more as requiring minor study to be correct in knowing that a bear mauls people. Lets take for example the modern day. If you ask any regular person about a bear, they'd probably say "I hear if you get attacked by a bear you should play dead". Which is true for some bears and untrue for others. In the same way, for some really large man eating critters, you will get mauled with the arms. For others you will get eaten in the face. The benefit of getting the DC is knowing that bears are the mauling type while owlbears/lions/umber hulks or whatever are the face eating type.

[Sir_Elderberry]

The Owlbear is about as badass as a Snail-Turtle. Or Snurtle. It's a dumb combination, plain-and-simple (if you think otherwise, you're a communist). At least, Snurtle is fun to say.


Or a...squirting turtle...a...a...Hm. Can't think of what you'd call that.

[Attilargh]

Well, yes. It would. Except it actually tells us that there are bears, there are badass bears that live in caves and see in the dark and that there are vicious, man-eating superbears, and they all live in either woods or, yes, caves. Granted, the difference between a normal bear and a dire one is kinda useful information if you happen to run into one, but the rest of the box...

Also, for some reason I've got this image in my mind of someone who looks like a cross between Steve Irwin and Anime Tenchou lecturing about bears:

"...And in the deepest, darkest forests of Faerûn stalks a terrible, vicious beast: The Dire Bear! Now listen well, for what I'm about to tell you next will some day save your life. There are but few who know this, for the Dire Bear does not leave survivors.

"The Dire Bear will maul you... With its claws."

Ædit: Seriously, people. Stop posting between me and the one I'm responding to. The above post was in response to Telonius.

ÆditII: Also, Snooder, my reading comprehension is not working at the moment and I don't quite grasp what you mean with the last sentence. Could you rephrase it?

[KIDS]

While it still made marginal sense, the lore info made me laugh a lot!!! On the other hand, the bear abilities are awesome.

[Callos_DeTerran]

I don't see a problem with the new Lore box. Some of it is obvious. Cave bears live in...well caves and can see in the dark. Well it'd be rather dumb if they couldn't. The bit about dire bears actively hunting humaniods as well as game animals is something I think most parties will want to know. As for the higher DC Lore tier...don't have a problem with it either. Most players will hear it and think 'oh thats so stupid, of course the bear is gonna maul you with it's claws and crush you!' but miss the fact that it's referring to actual abilities the dire bear has related to mauling and crushing which apparently lesser bears can't do.

[ShadowSiege]

AHEM

I found this on another site...

Monster Knowledge: No action required—either you
know the answer or you don’t.
✦ DC: See the table.
✦ Success: You identify a creature as well as its type,
typical temperament, and keywords. Higher results
give you information about the creature’s powers,
resistances, and vulnerabilities.
✦ Failure: You don’t recall any pertinent information.

The DM might allow you to make a new check if
further information comes to light.
Monster Knowledge DC
Name, type, and keywords 15
Powers 20
Resistances and vulnerabilities 25
Paragon tier creature +5
Epic tier creature +10

This is the real knowledge check. It's found in the PHB. The lore in the monster manual seems to be primarily descriptive stuff.

[Illiterate Scribe]

AHEM


This is the real knowledge check. It's found in the PHB. The lore in the monster manual seems to be primarily descriptive stuff.

Which means that it is perfectly possible for you to not know that the dire bear growling in front of you is not going to attack you with its large, razor sharp, claws.

[Telonius]

It's pretty obvious that it can bite you (since, well, anything with teeth can bite you). If you can't see that its claws are razor sharp at the moment, then why would you worry about them instead of the bear trying to eat you? And if you can see the claws, then that's probably a Wisdom check.

[Illiterate Scribe]

It's pretty obvious that it can bite you (since, well, anything with teeth can bite you). If you can't see that its claws are razor sharp at the moment, then why would you worry about them instead of the bear trying to eat you? And if you can see the claws, then that's probably a Wisdom check.

Ah, but RAW, you can't access that information - unless new stuff comes to light. Stop metagaming! :smalltongue:

How do you know that it won't roll on you using its hueg like Xbox bulk, or something?

First 4e rules lawyering on this forum?

[Deepblue706]

Or a...squirting turtle...a...a...Hm. Can't think of what you'd call that.

What's a squirting? That's definitely not an animal. We're doing Animal + Animal here buddy, not Adverb + Animal. That's a totally different game.

Yes, I get the reference. No, I am not pleased by it.

[Zocelot]

How about part shellfish, part cabbage?

It would be called a crabbage, and it would be fearsome!

[LoopyZebra]

The Fearsome Dogsnake! (http://www.feartheboot.com/comic/default.aspx?c=33)

It's a real pity that that comic ended.