-
Re: MitD VI: The Undiscovered Creature (Please Read the First Post)
anybody considered umber hulk? they do have a confusing gaze which could explain some things...
Im probably really stupid by posting this but o well
-
Re: MitD VI: The Undiscovered Creature (Please Read the First Post)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
inuyasha
anybody considered umber hulk? they do have a confusing gaze which could explain some things...
Im probably really stupid by posting this but o well
See section 4d (under Truly Horrid Umber Hulk).
------------
Thread refresh
Done:
Added page 2 discussion on nature of the Gate to section 4c
Added weight to physical characteristics, with references to our medieval carpentry 3 page long discussion
Added a note on length MitD spent in the circus to the age entry
Added a general guideline of time of publication to the FBS definition
Creatures Added:
Umbral Blot
Phasm
Hephaestus
Astral dragon
Lethus Dragon
Klurichir
Aurumach Rilmani
Notes
Crusher continues his one-man crusade to demonstrate that we are nowhere near having found every creature that almost fits.
-
Re: MitD VI: The Undiscovered Creature (Please Read the First Post)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Grey_Wolf_c
See section 4d (under Truly Horrid Umber Hulk).
------------
Thread refresh
A lot of stuff to do, this may take some while.
hmmm...maybe it has class levels or possibly a template?
-
Re: MitD VI: The Undiscovered Creature (Please Read the First Post)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
inuyasha
hmmm...maybe it has class levels or possibly a template?
See section 2d for augmentation.
GW
-
Re: MitD VI: The Undiscovered Creature (Please Read the First Post)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Grey_Wolf_c
See section 2d for augmentation.
GW
hmmm, I may know a good suggestion but I must ask a question. Has MitD ever been physically hit by an object?
I think it might be a half shadow demon ToH half umber hulk MM created with either the amalgam template from ronins advanced bestiary OR the edited half fiend template from wizards web enhancement, half fiendish variety.
Thoughts?
-
Re: MitD VI: The Undiscovered Creature (Please Read the First Post)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
inuyasha
hmmm, I may know a good suggestion but I must ask a question. Has MitD ever been physically hit by an object?
I think it might be a half shadow demon ToH half umber hulk MM created with either the amalgam template from ronins advanced bestiary OR the edited half fiend template from wizards web enhancement, half fiendish variety.
Thoughts?
He has been hit by both Miko's magical katana and Belkar's magical daggers.
Please address the problems with templates in your proposal. Since you are blending with a demon, the problems exposed in section 4a are probably relevant as well.
But, in case it saves you some time, be aware that template stacks are not looked upon positively in this thread. Given a good enough knowledge of the template system I'm sure you could turn a potted plant into MitD. Any proposal that depends on the crutch of templates is going to always be a worse fit than a creature that doesn't need an unlikely parentage.
Yours,
Grey Wolf
-
Re: MitD VI: The Undiscovered Creature (Please Read the First Post)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Grey_Wolf_c
He has been hit by both Miko's magical katana and Belkar's magical daggers.
Please address the problems with templates in your proposal. Since you are blending with a demon, the problems exposed in section 4a are probably relevant as well.
But, in case it saves you some time, be aware that template stacks are not looked upon positively in this thread. Given a good enough knowledge of the template system I'm sure you could turn a potted plant into MitD. Any proposal that depends on the crutch of templates is going to always be a worse fit than a creature that doesn't need an unlikely parentage.
Yours,
Grey Wolf
well I did only apply one template.
And as for the alignment, he is not a demon himself, he is related to one however, so he could be neutral or maybe even good. Think of it this way, not all tieflings are evil, and they are related to demons, I dont know if playing a good half fiend is rules legal but if you ever do find a DM who 100% uses the rules, let me know
-
Re: MitD VI: The Undiscovered Creature (Please Read the First Post)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Grey_Wolf_c
You are missing the point. The show is not meant for PhDs in biology. It is meant for regular people. If a PhD is the only one that goes "huh, no idea what that is" while everyone else looks at it and says "that's a spider" (because they don't know and don't care that it has 12 legs) then the show would be booed out of the stage with cries of "that's a spider" much in the same way that the "bearded lady" gets booed with "it's just a female dwarf".
The evidence is that no-one recognises MitD except RC. Not the regular people, not the guy in what look like wizard robes. Thus, the idea that it is a creature similar to a known species but somehow different doesn't match the evidence we do have.
Grey Wolf
No, no. I get that. Its got to be something freaky enough to inspire that kind of reaction in the rest of the audience. This may be splitting hairs, but something that inspired that sort of reaction, while being a rare breed of a rather more common sort of beastie a wizard would be familiar with would work.
Admittedly, I'm drawing a blank on what this might entail, but I think I can come up with a decent example in a little while.
-
Re: MitD VI: The Undiscovered Creature (Please Read the First Post)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Crusher
No, no. I get that. Its got to be something freaky enough to inspire that kind of reaction in the rest of the audience. This may be splitting hairs, but something that inspired that sort of reaction, while being a rare breed of a rather more common sort of beastie a wizard would be familiar with would work.
Admittedly, I'm drawing a blank on what this might entail, but I think I can come up with a decent example in a little while.
OK, fair enough. We have had similar arguments in the past (section 4d comes to mind: I'm looking at you, Holy Knight). Attached to a good example, it could work. But sincerely, if it is weird enough that I can believe the peasants would not recognise it, I'm likely to throw in the wizard as well. He just has the most evidence-ready quote.
Grey Wolf
-
Re: MitD VI: The Undiscovered Creature (Please Read the First Post)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Grey_Wolf_c
OK, fair enough. We have had similar arguments in the past (section 4d comes to mind: I'm looking at you, Holy Knight). Attached to a good example, it could work. But sincerely, if it is weird enough that I can believe the peasants would not recognise it, I'm likely to throw in the wizard as well. He just has the most evidence-ready quote.
Grey Wolf
I'm pretty sure it's not that important anyway, if something is found that fits everything else but doesn't look unrecognisable enough then it's probably that.
Though maybe a better example would have been the giraffe: when it was first found it was thought to be the offspring of a camel and a leopard. That means whoever found it clearly saw it was a mammel, but the fact they thought it was a hybrid of two such odd creatures means it could have been billed in a circus as an 'it' and 'like nothing I'd seen before'.
The duck-billed platypus and aye-aye also did this despite being, to some extent, familiar.
As such I'd say a glowing gold humanoid (for example, I know that it couldn't induce nausea) could be an 'it' and 'like nothing I've seen before'
-
Re: MitD VI: The Undiscovered Creature (Please Read the First Post)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tryfan
I'm pretty sure it's not that important anyway, if something is found that fits everything else but doesn't look unrecognisable enough then it's probably that.
Though maybe a better example would have been the giraffe: when it was first found it was thought to be the offspring of a camel and a leopard. That means whoever found it clearly saw it was a mammel, but the fact they thought it was a hybrid of two such odd creatures means it could have been billed in a circus as an 'it' and 'like nothing I'd seen before'.
The duck-billed platypus and aye-aye also did this despite being, to some extent, familiar.
As such I'd say a glowing gold humanoid (for example, I know that it couldn't induce nausea) could be an 'it' and 'like nothing I've seen before'
No, it doesn't follow. People in OotS are used to non-human races. They are aware of dwarves, elves, trolls, etc. The picture of those guys look like rather blobby humans. There is nothing particularly unrecognisable about them. They are just another bipedal humanoid.
Grey Wolf
-
Re: MitD VI: The Undiscovered Creature (Please Read the First Post)
Furthermore, in a world with owlbears a camel/leopard cross is positively tame. We have to remember that D&D commoners live in a weird world....
-
Re: MitD VI: The Undiscovered Creature (Please Read the First Post)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Savannah
Furthermore, in a world with owlbears a camel/leopard cross is positively tame. We have to remember that D&D commoners live in a weird world....
But if something with four legs, hooves, a normal head, tail, fur etc could be viewed as an 'it' I'm pretty sure the bar is being set too high for the MitD to be described as an 'it'. One other point-draw a cross between a leopard and a camel: if the drawing looks anything like a giraffe I'll be surprised, an owlbear on the other hand looks like an owlbear. The whole point of the giraffe is that they choose those two creatures becasue they really had no handle on what a giraffe was.
Most of the creatures Grey Wolf mentioned are pretty much humans stretched in one or two dimensions and are all organic in appearence (differing degrees of leather) so are fundermentally different to a glowing, blobby gold thing.
Maybe when I look at stuff I tend to pick up on differences more than similarities compared to you guys in which case we'll have to agree to disagree.
-
Re: MitD VI: The Undiscovered Creature (Please Read the First Post)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tryfan
But if something with four legs, hooves, a normal head, tail, fur etc could be viewed as an 'it' I'm pretty sure the bar is being set too high for the MitD to be described as an 'it'. One other point-draw a cross between a leopard and a camel: if the drawing looks anything like a giraffe I'll be surprised, an owlbear on the other hand looks like an owlbear. The whole point of the giraffe is that they choose those two creatures becasue they really had no handle on what a giraffe was.
The camelopard was the name given to the creature, not because they thought it was literally half-camel half-leopard (in the say a centaur is half-human half-horse, i.e. with distinctly halves of the two creatures) but because it was described, sight unseen, as tall like a camel, spotted like a leopard. If you need to give the long-necked creature a name, camelopard is as good as any.
That said, if you have never in your life seen a giraffe, it can be an unrecognisable It. Giraffes are strikingly dissimilar to even their closest relative, looking much like someone stretched a regular antelope to ridiculous lengths. But while that might work for us, it would not work for people used to a much higher degree of weirdness like the citizens of OotS, who have to suffer living in a reality designed by committee rather than by good ol' natural selection - they will have a lot more creatures that are simply unrelated to anything else, simply because Monkey, or Thor, or whomever, thought it would be a great idea at a time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tryfan
Most of the creatures Grey Wolf mentioned are pretty much humans stretched in one or two dimensions and are all organic in appearence (differing degrees of leather) so are fundermentally different to a glowing, blobby gold thing.
"Most", but not all. The Aurumach we are discussing are more human-like than a troll. People in OotS are used to seeing trolls, being one of the common fantasy creatures. If you can't show a troll as an unrecognisable It (and I will vigorously defend that you can't) then you can't show this thing either and get away with it.
Grey Wolf
-
Re: MitD VI: The Undiscovered Creature (Please Read the First Post)
Just noticed that the Aurumach only has 3 fingers (plus a thumb) and, I think, 3 toes. Surely that's enough to induce vomiting?
-
Re: MitD VI: The Undiscovered Creature (Please Read the First Post)
Well, I'm convinced. MitD is a giraffe. :smalltongue:
-
Re: MitD VI: The Undiscovered Creature (Please Read the First Post)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Peelee
Well, I'm convinced. MitD is a giraffe. :smalltongue:
Don't you mean a Camelopard? :smallwink:
-
Re: MitD VI: The Undiscovered Creature (Please Read the First Post)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Peelee
Well, I'm convinced. MitD is a giraffe. :smalltongue:
I think it's an Evolved Mutant Dire Grotesque Gluttonous Psychic Giraffe. Possibly Half-Dragon.
But I have a more serious question. Is there a system for rarity in 3.5? Or are there at least mention of creatures that are more rare than others? I'm having trouble remembering.
-
Re: MitD VI: The Undiscovered Creature (Please Read the First Post)
Nope, no formal system of rarity. Some monsters might mention that they're uncommon or unique, but that's purely fluff.
-
Re: MitD VI: The Undiscovered Creature (Please Read the First Post)
Not that I believe the MitD is one, but I just read the list of copyrighted creatures, and it includes the line:
Quote:
Boggart (Harry Potter)
I very much doubt that J.K. Rowling has a copyright on the boggart. Aside from the fact that it has existed in folklore for centuries, Susan Cooper wrote a book called The Boggart that was released four years before the first Harry Potter book came out.
-
Re: MitD VI: The Undiscovered Creature (Please Read the First Post)
As I recall, the reason that was put there was because someone proposed a boggart from Harry Potter, not a boggart in general (i.e. JK Rowling's specific take on it, not the traditional mythology).
-
Re: MitD VI: The Undiscovered Creature (Please Read the First Post)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Psychonaut
Not that I believe the MitD is one, but I just read the list of copyrighted creatures, and it includes the line:
I very much doubt that J.K. Rowling has a copyright on the boggart. Aside from the fact that it has existed in folklore for centuries, Susan Cooper wrote a book called The Boggart that was released four years before the first Harry Potter book came out.
Please note that talk of legal matters in this forum is strictly forbidden (falls under "professional advice"). I only keep the list around because it was compiled before the mods made clear they did not want us to continue to discuss the subject.
Besides, you misunderstand: Rowling has a copyright on her style of boggart (the one that was suggested, due to its ability to turn into what the watcher fears most), not on the ancient boggart.
Grey Wolf
-
Re: MitD VI: The Undiscovered Creature (Please Read the First Post)
Worth noting (or re-noting as it may be) due to #870:
Rich has now officially commented that a creature with distinctive voice effects is not required to use them at all times. This has been inferred before, but is now Word of God.
-
Re: MitD VI: The Undiscovered Creature (Please Read the First Post)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SavageWombat
Worth noting (or re-noting as it may be) due to #870:
Rich has now officially commented that a creature with distinctive voice effects is not required to use them at all times. This has been inferred before, but is now Word of God.
Good point. I'll add a disclaimer somewhere. Although I believe that when we have tried to use it as part of an argument ("can't be a demon because demons talk funny") it has never stuck thanks to Sabine being able to hide her voice. Still, with official confirmation, I think it is a good idea to add it to physical characteristics, even if it is a purely negative characteristic ("don't try to use the voice as part of the rational; it means nothing"). Can someone with a couple of minutes pop over to the quote thread and get me the link to Rich's quote? Thanks.
Grey Wolf
-
Re: MitD VI: The Undiscovered Creature (Please Read the First Post)
-
Re: MitD VI: The Undiscovered Creature (Please Read the First Post)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
2323mike
Thanks. Added.
Man, I no longer know my own first post. I actually added a "voice" entry before realising that I already had a "speech" one with all the information I needed (save Rich's link, of course).
Grey Wolf
-
Re: MitD VI: The Undiscovered Creature (Please Read the First Post)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Grey_Wolf_c
OK, fair enough. We have had similar arguments in the past (section 4d comes to mind: I'm looking at you, Holy Knight). Attached to a good example, it could work. But sincerely, if it is weird enough that I can believe the peasants would not recognise it, I'm likely to throw in the wizard as well. He just has the most evidence-ready quote.
Grey Wolf
That is somewhat similar to a possibility I suggested before in a different context, yes. But that doesn't have much to do with the point under discussion, which is that a creature which strongly resembles something well-known to most people is for that reason almost certainly ruled out as the MiTD. Even if we took the wizard's comment as meaning something like "this must be an entirely new species of X!", it wouldn't get us anywhere, because it wouldn't change the requirement that the majority of viewers have no better description than "IT".
-
Re: MitD VI: The Undiscovered Creature (Please Read the First Post)
I have nothing constructive to add to the conversation, i just randomly found this thread and saw you updated the weight section with a link with my original post.
Thanks! =)
Seriously, i'd love to say anything meaningful, but the MitD hasn't been around for a while
-
Re: MitD VI: The Undiscovered Creature (Please Read the First Post)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gandariel
Seriously, i'd love to say anything meaningful, but the MitD hasn't been around for a while
Yeah, it got so bad that the thread actually fell off the front page, so I PM'ed a mod to inquire about resurrecting the thread. Thankfully, if the thread does go into a lull for 6 weeks, Mark Hall is willing to raise it from the dead when MitD comes back.
Grey Wolf
-
Re: MitD VI: The Undiscovered Creature (Please Read the First Post)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Grey_Wolf_c
Yeah, it got so bad that the thread actually fell off the front page, so I PM'ed a mod to inquire about resurrecting the thread. Thankfully, if the thread does go into a lull for 6 weeks, Mark Hall is willing to raise it from the dead when MitD comes back.
Grey Wolf
I was actually wondering how it would work thread-necro-wise, since it's been so long. Glad to know it won't have any trouble if it ever comes to that.