Dire Animals...

[Frog Dragon]

So, one day I though that Dire creatures as specific creatures are useless. Why not just template it. I was going to brew it and opened the Dire Animals pages from my Monster Manual. Then I noticed one thing.

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

WTF?

How does that make any sense?

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

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

[Eldariel]

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

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


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

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

[Shpadoinkle]

Dire animals are supposed to be prehistoric versions of modern animals or something like that. Over a few millions years some animals got smaller, and some stayed pretty muh the same size.

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

[paddyfool]

What they said.

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

[Kaiyanwang]

What they said.

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

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

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

*Throw him at PCs.

[Set]

It's relatively easy to kitbash out a Dire template if you just ignore the Dire Bat as an outlier.

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

[Zeta Kai]

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

[Eldariel]

It's relatively easy to kitbash out a Dire template if you just ignore the Dire Bat as an outlier.

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

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

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

[Yora]

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

[JeenLeen]

I recall that Dire Maggots, from Libris Mortis, are Small or Dimunitive.

[Set]

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

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

[Serpentine]

I found this exact weirdness sometime ago. Yeah... 'tis annoying

[Tequila Sunrise]

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

Because D&D doesn't concern itself with details like internal consistency. We can rationalize this stuff all we want, but the likely truth is that some monster designer rolled a d4 for every dire animal to determine how many size categories to enlarge it.

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

[Fhaolan]

A bit of history:

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

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

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

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

[Set]

rolled a d4 for every dire animal to determine how many size categories to enlarge it.

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

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

[Frosty]

A bit of history:

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

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

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

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

How do you know all this stuff?

[Spiryt]

Dire Template

Don't know if legal, if not scrub.

Du du dum.

[Fhaolan]

How do you know all this stuff?

*grin*

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

[kc0bbq]

How do you know all this stuff?

It's more detail that I could have provided.

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

Andrewsarchus mongoliensis?

[hamishspence]

Andrewsarchus. a bit too far back to be sheep though- more, early member of group that later diversified into many creatures, including sheep.

[Talya]

A ranger in my pirate campaign demanded that the hyacinth macaw i statted out for him as an animal companion be renamed a "Dire Parrot."

[RTGoodman]

If you really want a Dire template, you should take a look at Necromancer Game's "Tome of Horrors" monster book - you can get the revised PDF (for 3.5) online for relatively cheap, and it's all open gaming content, as far as I know. As a bonus, they also released the Dire Animal section (including their template) as a separate PDF, which you can find HERE.

[Talya]

If you really want a Dire template, you should take a look at Necromancer Game's "Tome of Horrors" monster book - you can get the revised PDF (for 3.5) online for relatively cheap, and it's all open gaming content, as far as I know. As a bonus, they also released the Dire Animal section (including their template) as a separate PDF, which you can find HERE.

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

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

[Set]

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

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

[Fhaolan]

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

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

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

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

[PairO'Dice Lost]

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

You'd bee surprised.

[HamsterOfTheGod]

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

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

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

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

[PairO'Dice Lost]

I can do some of these.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[chiasaur11]

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

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

Wha?

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

Either way, 5-8 is fairly inaccurate.

[kopout]

I'd say, like chimps, about 3. As for Andrewsarchus it is most closely related to the whale and dolphin family. and only more distantly related to sheep. Andrewsarchus