Beastfolk! Gnolls, kobolds, minotaurs, ratfolk, rakasta, lupins, lizardfolk - talk about any beastfolk race you want here.
What beastfolk races have you actually used in your setting?
Is there a specific kind of beastfolk - rabbitfolk or squirrelfolk, say - that you wish got more attention?
Have you ever had non-evil beastfolk in your games?
sexy bara wolfdudes
I used all of them and I think rabbitfolk are underrated. Also question, why would beastfolk worship a human god? My OC civilization is a fusion of Not!European Latino people and they're heavily cultured and religious. I've been trying a way to justify on how they can convert beastfolk.
Why does anyone worship any god? Because they believe that god has something to offer them, a promise that makes it particularly enticing.
If your beastfolk see worth in your human god, they will convert - or, at least, they will add that god to their pantheon if they are polytheistic.
Really, I need to know the core details of your "human god" and the existing religious practices of your beastfolk before I can give you solid advice on how conversions might work.
Well, the people used to live in swamps because dragons kept hunting them. They worshipped multiple gods but one truly cared for them. He was a fertility god. He wanted to help his people so he went on a journey to get stronger. After he got back, he made a woman his prophet and her cousin a divine warrior to unite the people and slay the dragons. After that, the Not!Church was established and the rest is history. I based it on rl Catholicism but it's more lax on sexual relationships and emphasizes on spreading thier culture. Most beastfolk do the usual ancestors worship and battle honor.
Hm. From what you've told me here... I'd say missionaries would focus both on the "Our Lord cares for all who will follow him" aspect, emphasizing his concern for the survival of his faithful, and on the "ours is a god of victory and strength", which appeals to the beastfolk's own beliefs in honorable battle and their hunger for victory.
Basically, to appeal to beastfolk, portray your god as "The Great Chieftain"; a mighty spiritual warband leader who guides and shepherds his tribe to victory in battle and through the trials of life.
This will work best if it goes for the sync...something approach; let them keep their ancestral faith, but meld it into the overall framework of the Church. Ancestors are still worshipped, but as servants of the Great Chief, who has won their allegiance through strength in the spirit world.
This is, after all, something irl Catholicism has done. Many of its actual trappings were stolen from other religions of the time, from costumes to religions. Voodoo literally used to use saints to disguise the fact that its worshippers were actually still praying to the Orishas of their tribes, before it broke away and was recognized as its own faith. Xmas is really the Roman festival of Saturnalia, and Easter was taken from the Germanic Eostre's Day, a celebration of their goddess of motherhood and birth.
Birds! Such huge variety both in behavior, roles, and appearance and yet they are pretty rarely used. Also, any kind of insectoids that don't immediately fall into the same old evil hivemind race shit.
Tell me about it for bugfolk. We have the thri-kreen, of course, but even then they're kind of limited - I'd love it if WoTC would bring back the Tondi and make it playable.
Oh, and Araneas! Sorcerous spiderfolk who were firmly Not Evil and just wanteds to live a peaceful life.
also Santisima Muerte is a religion that runs in parallel with the church though some of its adherents only really worship her now (black candle types). i port her into games as the Bone Mother.
In Deadlands, there's a mestizo religion called Anahuac practiced in California and South America, that's ostensibly Catholicism, but is really Aztec Shamanism wearing a Catholic skin.
Sorry, I really don't know anything about that faith, but I've given you the best advice I can for generally making religious inroads.
>The males of his beastfolk don't have nipples
Then they're just furries. This is fact.
More racist beastfolk would be cool.
Wouldn't that be fur-ist?
Well I mean most racism is just "skin-ist" at a basic level so I guess so.
>We have the thri-kreen, of course, but even then they're kind of limited
I've been reading Thri-Kreen of Athas and I think the author is mad in the classical sense.
>Thri-Kreen are never, ever, ever wizards. Ever. Their brains...cannot process magic properly. Ever.
>Thri-Kreen are never bards. That's all I'm going to say on the matter.
>Skulking about and stealing things simply do not suit the Thri-Kreen, so there are no Thri-Kreen thieves, anywhere. A Thri-Kreen would never steal in his life, because he doesn't know how.
They sorely need to be brought into 5e and rescued from these absolutely absurd restrictions. A pity they look terrible in the Monster Manual. Removing their abdomens was a rubbish idea.
I’m starting a campaign set in Kardath soon... although I am taking a lot of liberties.
According to the lore, the serpentpeople bred goat-spawn as a slave race to do their manual labor.
I am tempted to allow goat-spawn to be a playable race because I think they are pretty neat. They are big, burly folk genetically designed for labor.
How do I enrich their history or make them more complex than big dumb brutes? What would make them more interesting to play?
...
well its obvious that thri kreen cant be bards their language is based on clicks they are literaly physically incapeable of singing.
I personally dont mind thei rlook, i think they look fine.
More settings need to include them more prominently.
I recently played dragonshard again and realized that Thri kreen units pop up in that game, but only as NPCs and only in a few lizardfolk missions.
I really wish there were more raptor-like lizardmen. Heck, I'd be happy with Tyrannosaurus-and-relatives-style lizardmen.
Maybe it's just me but ape/monkey folk seem to be kinda uncommon outside of the odd comic.
So, I just remembered this idea from a long-ago gnoll thread: Psionic Gnolls. Anyone have any thoughts on this matter? That thread basically tailored off into talking about a psionic gnoll waifu.
Yeah, AD&D had a lot of flaws; race-based class & level restrictions was one of them.
Also, I really, REALLY want to play a Tondi in 5e, but I can't think of how to convert the other five kreen subraces. Doesn't help that TKoA only gives us PC stats for To'ksa and Jerals.
>well its obvious that thri kreen cant be bards their language is based on clicks they are literaly physically incapeable of singing.
They're a fictional race, there's absolutely no reason to impose this limitation on them. Real lizards can't sing either, but Lizardfolk can.
Me too, brother. I think one of the guys in charge of 5e said Kreen would eventually have to come, but it wouldn't be anytime soon.
Don't mean they can't play musical instruments, or dance, or paint, or do any of the other things that Bards are supposed to be able to do to work their magic.
Well... we could always use this thread to try and hash out some decent 5e Kreen stats for ourselves. Big issue is figuring out what each subrace has unique to itself.
I'm game if any user is.
>Is there a specific kind of beastfolk - rabbitfolk or squirrelfolk, say - that you wish got more attention?
Head of a deer, body of a man, I wana say Cervitaur?
Either way, I think they're really neat: antlers are SUPER aesthetic and I've been enjoying fluffing them as.. more or less forest-themed Minotaurs in that they're skilled hunters, rangers, bushmen, and trackers, but they use all their skills to hunt meat- especially loving to gorge themselves on the flesh of people when they can catch them, not even Elves and Fey are safe from their vicious cannibalism. Also screaming, they'll scream, they'll let out a big, disturbing, piercing, elk-flavored "ssneeeeaeeaaaa".
I'd love if they got more attention because I actually USE them and it'd make finding art for them way easier.
Use satyrs and fauns as inspiration for slave song artistry and what not.
Let me think on the matter of 5e Kreen... we know the most about the To'ksa and the Jerals, and we even have PC stats for them in Thri-Kreen of Athas. Admittedly, they're practically identical save in terms of ability penalties; To'ksa are stupider (-1 Int), Jeral are frailer (-1 Con).
The other four Kreen were mentioned in TKoA and then statted as monsters in the 2nd Dark Sun Monstrous Compendium...
lomion.de
lomion.de
J'ez: Physically distinguished by their gaping ring of fangs, J'ez are known for being intelligent, aggressive and warlike; they serve the tohr-kreen as philosphers and generals. They can have Genius (18) level Intelligence, leap 20ft straight up and 50ft forward, and dodge missiles on a roll of a 9+ on a d20.
J'hol: Are adapted to stony barrens and rocky badlands. Best builders and crafters amongst the kreen. Their Intelligence maxes out at Exceptional (16). They can leap straight up (30ft), forward (60ft) and backward (10ft). They dodge missiles on a score of 8+ on a D20.
T'keech: Adapted for jungle environments; green color is ill-suited for the desert, don't suffer the chitin-rot & respiratory diseases that humidity inflicts on other kreen. Mostly serve as laborers in the tohr-kreen nations. Dumbest of the kreen; Int maxes out at High (14). Same leaping abilities as J'hol. Dodge Missiles on a 9+ on a D20.
Tondi: Great respect for nature, often became master herbalists, are the kreen most inclined to become druids. Have a Camouflage ability, but this is unstatted. Least agile of the kreen; leap 10ft straight up or 40ft forward, Dodge Missiles on an 11+ on a D20. Exceptional (16) Intelligence.
well the point is that thri kreen cannot learn common because of their physiology so they obviousl cant sing either...
How would you feel about Alpaca people?
And, again, lizards don't have the physiology to speak human languages either, but Lizardfolk can. This limitation is ridiculous and should be completely optional. No DM worth a damn is going to suddenly mandate "You're a mime for the whole session, bitch!"
So, honest question: if you have a group mature enough to handle a visit to a brothel as part of the session, with no greater detail than "there are people here availing themselves of the facilities", is it magical realm to mention that there are non-human races there as well?
What about an encounter with an NPC who is basically Hyena Princess Njano with psionics?
Agk, don't even remind me of the Saurials and their stupid "you communicate through scents and gestures" schtick. Does that really appeal to everyone or just a handful of players?
Just say there's a variety of whores of different races.
>Hyena Princess Njano with psionics
Psychic hyena CEO of a slaver company who styles herself as the leader of the gnolls in town, and likes to take milk baths while conversing with high level clientele at the same time?
It's about as magical realm as any other race doing it, it just happens to be a nonhuman doing it this time, and any claim of magical realm is basically that specific person feeling a bit uncomfortable with a scenario they would otherwise enjoy for the possibility of titillation, even though there won't be any.
Same with the brothel. Its really not at all magical realm.
These were... surprisingly calm and laidback answers. It never ceases to amaze me how reasonable Veeky Forums can be. Especially since I thought this place had something of a hair-trigger when it came to the whole "magical realm" accusations thing.
So, any Kreen fans interested in talking about how we can make Kreen for 5e a subrace? My network's too shit to post Thri-Kreen of Athas as an attachment, but I can still link it. The Dark Sun Monstrous Compendium Appendix 2, also.
So, because of something another user said on Veeky Forums a while ago - thread about bunnyfolk - I have plans to include a "Western Settler" themed bunnyfolk race in my setting. Does it make sense if such a race includes Deadlands-style Hucksters? Professional gamblers whose pursuit of thrills leads to them gaming with fey and fiends, and thus gaining warlock pacts?
...I suppose, really, what I'm asking is: does a dapper, well-dressed bunnyfolk gambler with the warlock class make sense in D&D?
Don't most of those species have darker colored summer coats
Fun fact: Every single one of these is a canonical D&D beastfolk race. Anyone remember any of these?
Aarakocra (birds)
Aranea (spiders)
Asaatthi (snakes)
Bariaur (bighorn sheep-taurs)
Bullywugs (toads)
Catfolk
Cayma (caimans)
Centaurs
Chitines (spiders)
Draconians (dragons)
Dragonborn
Dray (dragons)
Giff (hippos)
Gnolls (hyenas)
Grippli (frogs)
Grommam (gorillas)
Gurrash (alligators)
Hadozee (chimapanzees with gliding wings)
Hengeyokai
Hsiao (talking fae scholar owls)
Hutaakans (jackals)
Kenku (crows)
Khenra (jackals)
Kitsunes
Kobolds (dragons)
Lizardfolk
Lupin (canids)
Minotaurs (cattle)
Nagaji (snakes)
Nagpa (vultures)
Phanaton (raccoon/monkey/flying squirrel hybrids)
Pooka (fae animals)
Pterafolk (pterodactyls)
Pterrans (flightless, non-evil pterafolk)
Raavasta (fiendish foxes/jackals)
Rakshasas
Ratfolk
Rougarou (wolves)
Saurials (dinosaurs)
Skaven (rats)
Serpentfolk
Sphinxes
Sutaks (horses)
Taer (ape-men)
Tengu
Tanuki
Thri-kreen (mantids)
Tortles (turtles)
Troglodyte (lizards)
Vanaras (monkeys)
Wallara (lizards)
Wemic (catfolk/lion-taur hybrids)
Xixchil (mantids)
Yuan-ti (snakes)
Bumping. Come on, surely there's something to talk about for this thread.
What do all their genitals look like?
Could be fun
>challenge each other to a duel by spitting
>live high up in the mountains
>all their clothes are made from their wool
Humanoid
>Come on, surely there's something to talk about for this thread.
The problem I have with discussion in 'Beastfolk Generals' is that I'm the sort of person who doesn't want to do anything special with animal people beyond just having them walk a thin line between animal and person and be a constant unhinged threat to society.
So, I feel if you do 'more' with beast races you're basically just ruining them. Animal people are simple savages, they don't NEED to be evil, but the moment you start complicating them the moment they could of lose their appeal as an animal person and stepping on the toes of other already well established races.
That's my opinion on the matter at least.
Why? Why do beastfolk have to be mindless monsters and all of the neo-Tolkein crew get to have complicated civilizations?
We have plenty of stories of sapient animals and animal-people being decent and rational beings in our real world mythos, from the cynocephaly to the animal spirits of Japanese and American mythologies. So what's wrong with respecting that side of their heritage as well?
Beastfolk have always been a sort of aberration to me. If you take a rabbit, make t stand on it's hind legs, and dress it in a petticoat, that;s silly but believable. That's Winnie the Pooh shit. Take that same rabbit, and give it a human body, and now it's some kind of mutant formed by foul magic. I have no good beastmen in my games, and they're all the result of a malign influence. They're not necessarily evil, but they are certainly not good and natural. This has a more mythological precedent in my minds eye as well.
The Minotaur was born from a queen bewitched by a god to fuck a bull. It ate human flesh and was trapped in a labyrinth.
Gnolls are the result of Yeenoghu's passage on a world and hyenas eating from the corpses left in his wake and mutating into these twisted beings.
Even before Gnolls there were the Cynocephali, which can be summed up with this quote from The Temptation of St Anthony by Gustave Flaubert:
The Cynocephali--"We leap from branch to branch to suck the eggs, and we pluck the little birds; then we put their nests upon our heads after the fashion of caps.
"We do not fail to snatch away the worst of the cows, and we destroy the lynxes' eyes. Tearing the flowers, crushing the fruits, agitating the springs, we are the masters--by the strength of our arms and the fierceness of our hearts.
"Be bold, comrades, and snap your jaws!"
Beastmen if not wicked, are pitiless like nature. Nature does not care. It will destroy your home, flood your fields, sicken your children, eat your livestock. Nature is not evil, it is nature.
I think it's to make the thri-keen have a more alien mindset
>Take that same rabbit, and give it a human body, and now it's some kind of mutant formed by foul magic.
And not a god? Why must it be foul magic and not a divine act like humans? This is after all a fantasy world.
And that gnoll lore is very new and rather shit.
And the minotaur was a god's creation thrown into a special containment zone and force fed human flesh. It knew nothing else but the labyrinth and the flesh of people due to the evil of its parents.
And in many myths humans are descended from certain totem animals. And then there are the animal headed gods of Egypt, India, and a saint of Christianity and yes I know it stems from a spelling error, but he has plenty of art attesting him as a cynocephali
Your take on beastmen is ignorant of a great deal of myth and legend, and ignores much of the kindly or divine nature of beastly types.
It also ignores a whole fuckton of races in older versions of D&D of civilized and good beast people, using only the most recent rules and lore.
I like them. They work well to make a fantasy setting feel more diverse and interesting.
My problem is I always have a big issue figuring out which one(s) I want to include. I feel like having too many furry races will bog the setting down, or make it feel strangely unbalanced if you have like humans, elves, dwarves, and then like 4-8 types of beast races. I'd rather choose and focus on one or two, except for monsters of course which can be many.
Oh, and I also love weird chimeric beast races, not necessarily based on one real life animal but multiple similar animals mashed together.
>Skaven
>Canon in anything but Warhammer
Actually interested to see what book they're in if it's true though
...
Noice
So, question; we've had ratfolk threads in the past (not without reason; Nezumi, Skaven, Ysoki and PF's Ratfolk all exist), and the occasional bunnyfolk thread, but what could we do with Squirrelfolk?
So, this is the best possible place to ask: if I have a race of ratfolk in my setting who scavenge, rebuild and reverse-engineer most of their gear from the more industrialized hobgoblins, does it make sense if they have a similar "aesthetic" of scavenged-looking gear to the Skaven without being actively evil?
Broo?
They're hella nasty.
>And not a god?
No, my gods are lazy. If they do make beastmen, it is the result of a curse, not a miracle. If they were intended to be humanoid, we would not have the animal. Beastmen are unnatural.
As for the gnoll lore, I prefer the new to the old. Even if they're hyena-men, hyenas have connotations of corpse-eaters and witches. Hyena's are a wicked sort of animal. Even if that's not actually true, I prefer the mythological connotations to them.
As to the actual legend of the minotaur, and the minotaur in the mind's eye. I prefer the minotaur of the mind's eye. The Minotaur is inspiration, i'm not looking to copy it's tragic tale. It''s also the result of a god's curse on his mother. It was always to be a punishment, there was no good intention in it's creation.
To be descended from totem animals is a cool idea, but they wouldn't be anthropomorphic beasts and then humans. It's more interesting to me if that link is missing. A human child born from a bear is the progenitor of a tribe.
As for egyptian gods, they're gods. They can do whatever the fuck they want. That doesn't make them beastmen. They often need to appear through a medium or conduit, be it a statue, or an animal, or whatever. Even their intercession in the world is unnatural. It's a miracle sure, but still unnatural.
That you bring up that saint is important because i'm defintiely using that idea. Gnolls, despite being side effects of a demon and consumed with hunger, can turn to faith to control it. They're more like crazy muzzled zealots chained to a sister or priest pentient, and released to do the work of their god.
As for kindly animals, they're pets. The kind beastfolk races that came throughout D&D's history? Wastes of pages.
That is a depressingly bland use for races. I suppose you probably at least do the same thing to demihuman races as well.
How is it bland? It's something that predicates conflict, and conflict is what makes games and campaigns and stories.
Demihuman races are their own bag.
What about humans in your setting? I've always seen humanity as remarkably different from all other animals, to the point where they might as well be aliens or aberrations of some kind as well.
I always liked the mythological idea of indirect descend from gods. Humans in this case, their origins are straight up ripped off from the Enûma Eliš where they're made from the clay formed from the earth and the spilt blood of a betrayer god.
While i'm at it. Dwarves are like maggots or lice to giants, and were given reason by gods.
Elves, were creations of the gods who remained neutral in the war for creation and became the Fey Folk.
Halflings are born from humans, and vice versa. You don't know if a child will be halfling or human until they grow up or not.
Because it's one-dimensional in both the conflicts it can generate and in the ways you can resolve those conflicts.
Yes, it's convenient if you just want a guilt-free splatterfest-style hack and slash session, but you can just as easily use zombies or demons for that.
Beastfolk have just as much potential and just as many interesting ideas in them as any demihuman race or stand-in human culture. Using them as exclusively nothing but generic cannon fodder is, as I said, bland.
That's pretty neat. I've always been annoyed at settings that just assume humans were always around, or give very little thought to how they came to be outside being the obligatory self-insert/relatable/god favored race destined for greatness.
You assume all conflicts are combat, they're not.
I don't think i've ever run a single guilt free splatterfest-style hack and slash session.
Just because they're unnatural creations, doesn't mean they don't have motivations of their own.
There's an entire political group of gnolls in the kingdom of the halflings who seek liberation for their dog bretheren, because halflings love to breed all sorts of dogs. This same group is led by a werewolf halfling who is using the gnolls for his own selfish reasons.
Conflict resolution there still ultimately boils down to your party coming in and killing them all, doesn't it?
Always Chaotic Evil is a dull racial trope. Reserving it for beastfolk may be your right, but it's still bland.
I would rather have beastfolk cultures in my games that people can actually interact with in ways that don't involve death and destruction.
Killing is the main reward mechanic of the game we play, so it's certainly a possibility at all times. The gnoll political group will likely get the support of the PCs because the halflings are dicks to tall people, and one of my players is super against puppy mills and animal breeding.
I do away with alignments entirely.
The way you do beastfolk cultures to me takes the teeth out of the concept. Then it becomes a silly cute novelty, which is fucking lame.
What's the line between beast folk and furfaggotry?
Okay, now I'm confused... you're saying that, despite being cursed abominations that were never meant to be, your beastfolk races are NOT Always Chaotic Evil? That they have greater cultural depth and interactivity than Warhammer's Beastmen and Skaven?
Beastfolk are just beasts with humanoid proportions. Furfaggotry is a beast with fully humanoid features and shit like human hair on top of fur.
Personally, the way I define it is this: Furfaggotry is when you mix Magical Realmism with Beastfolk. That's it.
As the saying goes, all furries are beastfolk, but not all beastfolk are furries.
It's when you try to push beastfolk in a sexual light to the point of discomforting and disgusting your fellow gamers that you are what Veeky Forums really means by "furry".
It's like how there's a difference between playing a not-hideous female dwarf and playing a shortstack dwarf. It looks about the same, the difference is whether or not you're trying to force others to erotic role-play with your character.
Ratmen are eerily civilized, despite being eaters of refuse and carriers of disease.
Warhammer Beastmen are more the result of Baphomet, who expicility creates beastmen from domestic and farm animals to bring the downfall of civilizations.
Like I said, I do away with alignment entirely.
Alright, then I owe you an apology, but it sounded like you were making beastfolk races be curseborn, unnatural things to make them into mindless rampaging horrors - ala 5e's stupid neo-zombie lore for gnolls.
But, seriously, if that's what you like for your games, then all power to you. Me? I just think that making beastfolk inherently savage, uncivilized and unnatural is doing them a disservice.
And I say this as someone who LIKES the 4e fluff for both gnolls - creatures torn between the demon and the beast - and minotaurs, whose entire culture is born of their struggle between savagery and civilization.
Actually, speaking of gnolls... anyone got the Ecology of the Flind from back in the day? I know where 4e's Ecology of the Gnoll is, and I'd upload it if I could, but I'm missing the gnoll's first date with lore-detailing.
I considered beastfolk, but I don't quite get the point, besides aesthetics. My setting is going to have naga (snakepeople with arms) because those sport a sufficiently distinct bodytype that they would make for interesting enemies to fight (or characters to play as). A species of harpy/bird-folk would be nice too, but I have yet to figure out how such a thing would evolve and what they would look like (six limbs is dumb, and manipulating things only with your beak and the same feet you stand on would be difficult; perhaps I could use bats instead, and they do all their crafting with tiny hands on their wings?).
Terrestrial mammalian beastfolk would just be furry humans though, wouldn't they? Sure, you could draw inspiration from the IRL animal and incorporate that into their culture and behaviour, but if that's the sole purpose, you could probably tweak them a little and apply them to ordinary humans.
Tiny beastfolk like would add more to a setting, but would be difficult to implement mechanically; they'd be annoying to fight, quick and tiny as they are, but they couldn't deal a lot of damage either; or they might climb up a human and pin-pointedly attack chinks in his armour, but that could be OP. Would be interesting as a player species, but not as NPCs.
>Well I mean most racism is just "skin-ist" at a basic level
Not really. It's more about descent and stereotypical traits; skin colour is pretty trivial and only referenced a lot because it's the most striking visual difference.
brownpundits.com
>Terrestrial mammalian beastfolk would just be furry humans though, wouldn't they? Sure, you could draw inspiration from the IRL animal and incorporate that into their culture and behaviour, but if that's the sole purpose, you could probably tweak them a little and apply them to ordinary humans.
If that's your opinion, you might as well just not have anything BUT humans.
Beastfolk have to offer the same thing as demihumans: visual distinction, strengthening a theme either through obvious support or subversion of cultural themes*, and mechanical differences to standard humans.
*For example, the Shin'hare are Asiatic bunnyfolk who embody the worst aspects of Imperial Japan, Communist China and North Korea, with a racial supremacy doctrine that preaches it is their right to conquer, enslave and EAT all other species and an indifference to their own lives that leads to them practicing blood magic, necromancy and "human wave" tactics as standard operating procedure.
You picked rabbits for this? How did that happen? They sound like insectoid monsters.
I didn't pick them! They're from an online CCG called "Hex: Shards of Fate".
You have to admit, it certainly subverts the stereotype of rabbitfolk as small, unimportant and meaningless, or else as shameless hedonists.
It feels nice to see HEX get mentioned every now and then. I wish more people knew about it and played it.
It is furfaggotry, but this is nu-TG, where heresy goes unchecked and widely unblammed.
thread needs more badgers
pls post your badgers Veeky Forums
4e's Ecology of the Hengeyokai had a female badger hengeyokai in hybrid form as its coverart, but I can't post that myself - network is too shit.
heres the 4th edd gnoll splat.
and i second the asking for ecology of the flind, never read it before
That's 2e for you.
For me, it’s Minotaur.
I know Wizards releases rules for them for 5e, but I don’t know if they’re legal or not.
Okay, is this readable?
If so, I'll post the rest. Having to use a crappy phone thing.
Adventure's League legal? No, sadly; Unearthed Arcana and Plane Shift don't count for that. But if you've got an actual DM, it's his call as to if you can use them.
Well, on my comp, it's barely legible. I don't know if others are having the same problem. Be better if you can get it in PDF rather than as pictures, though - like
Well, search for dragon 173, see if that turns up anything.
Eberron has traditional gnolls who gave up demon worship generations ago and now act as some of the best mercenary scouts out there.
This doesn't make a lot of sense. Like I get what he is trying to do but it just doesn't stand up to any level of thought.
I really like this, though should a moose-man have claws?
>dragon 173
I found this, if it helps anyone here?
They're more like whole finger fingernails, like mini hooves. Fairly popular among furry art for ungulates and other hooved creatures.
Think I'd rather go for just heavy fingernails, Tauren style.
I've come to a similar conclusion.
Reptiles/lizards/fish seem to have a distinct enough lifecycle and phisiology that you can do things with them that don't make sense for humans.
Eg: reptiles use teeth for fighting, gripping, and occasionally cracking things. Even herbivorous species like iguanas don't do much chewing.
They also (possibly due to their size) eat a single meal everyday or two, as opposed to building a stockpile and eating from it multiple times in a day.
Therefor, lizardfolk are unlikely to have the custom of gathering together to eat while talking, since they just swallow things and then either get on with their day or rest.
The fact that they lay eggs, don't breastfeed, and often don't raise their children means that lizardfolk need more than just love to raise children. They need either paid specialists, or for it to be presented as a religious duty or part of paying your taxes.
Females in reptile species are usually larger, etc.
Being visually distinct and having a couple of minor traits, and a different mono-culture is okay world-building, but it's not good or great world-building.
Charr are pretty cool, giant 8' tall horned cat monsters wielding fuckhuge guns.
Damn shame Guild Wars 2 is a boring as fuck "click on this enemy to auto-attack" typical MMO, god damn when the fuck will people learn that the only reason WoW used that shitty auto attack system is because it was a really old game and the combat was more of a placeholder than anything?
So, random query: anyone have any ideas on what to do with a race of horsefolk?
The closest I've ever seen is the Sutak of Scarred Lands, who were neo-Celtic horsefolk raiders who worshipped the Titan of Fire, Metal and War, seeking glory in his name through battle and who tattooed themselves with molten metal.
wrong thread friendo
>their language is based on clicks they are literaly physically incapeable of singing
>Don't mean they can't play musical instruments
Using clicks as a basis of communication would make them perceive it in far more depth than some common speech user. Wouldn't that potentially make them really skilled drummers, in a polyrhythmic math-rock kind of sense? (Assuming they're physically capable of using drums, or an analog)
>or dance
Some insects and arachnids are known to use dance to attract potential mates, it's not a far stretch to have it as a recreational activity or a source of income (especially when you're a strange insectoid in a strange land).
Perhaps even combine both into some form of tap dancing unique to their people? Not to mention the use of light/shadow, those long, flowing scarf, etc.
Historically that was done via inclusion, Your god XXX is the same god as god YYY in our pantheon, just with a different face / aspect etc.
Admittedly that is a bit more difficult in a fantasy world where the said gods in question can actually chime in with their own opinions and the two gods in question are different gods.
Only ones I really like are lizardfolk, minotaur, and gnolls. I guess depending on the setting, I'd like more attention for those than the rest of the beastfolk races.
I'm in a game right now where minotaur are generally savages and bandits, however a PC is a lawful good minotaur who is actually decently civilized.
>but I don’t know if they’re legal or not
Do they pass Harkness test?