Talk:Dire Petting Zoo (3.5e Sourcebook)/Dire Animal Bestiary

Inclusion requests

Could you add Dire turtles and dire goats? Both had real world equivialnts in the past, and both kicked ass. Historical dire goats were carnivours, and dire turtles used to eat dinosaurs. Also, I would not be object to the inclusion of other ancient horrors, like dire stingrays and goblin sharks.--Change=Chaos. Period. SC 19:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to edit the lists I have and add them as a red link :). Technically, dire beavers were an actual historical animal too (even though I put that one as a red link on the "fun" list). --Change=money returned when a payment exceeds the amount due. Interrobang. Aarnott 19:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Final question: what about regular animals that are scarey as fuck without being dire or legendary? Like the gaboon viper, or poison dart frogs, or the dreaded stonefish?--Change=Chaos. Period. SC 04:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe at some point in the future, but I'm more focused on actual "animal monsters". The thing is, in a rogue level game, which these monsters are balanced at, the PCs are truly heroic. As a result, regular animals aren't really something interesting for them to fight, regardless of whether said animal is deadly or not. That's why in my introduction, I talk a bit about dire animals being brushed by the supernatural. I feel it is important for a party of heroes to actually be combating things that make them heroes.

Further, in the case of vipers, poisonous frogs, nasty jellyfish, or the like, I'd probably rewrite them to be a trap. Really. Can you even imagine a person with weapons getting into a melee fight with a frog? It's a ridiculous notion, really. But, as a trap, that frog can be a much more sensible threat: it either poisons you (because you weren't careful and touched it) or it doesn't. Actually, this argument might make a decent chapter for this sourcebook :P. --Aarnott 14:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)