# Breaking News: Kuo-Toa Not Froggy Anymore



## Kunimatyu (Feb 20, 2008)

This is a "Crazed Kuo-Toa" from the Worlds and Monsters Gallery -- it looks more like a humanoid viperfish to me:







I predict that Skum will be gone, but that Aboleth will have an out of combat ritual that allows them to turn willing humanoids into Kuo-Toa.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Feb 20, 2008)

Thing is, as far back as I can remember, kuo-toa were _written_ to be fishy, not froggy. The frogginess came specifically from the art--which often failed to match the written word.


----------



## Ebon Shar (Feb 20, 2008)

Kunimatyu said:
			
		

> This is a "Crazed Kuo-Toa" from the Worlds and Monsters Gallery -- it looks more like a humanoid viperfish to me:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Looks like a midget Rancor who just won the Biggest Loser.


----------



## Voss (Feb 20, 2008)

Looks quite a bit better than the current art, but it doesn't look like a good swimmer.  Still...


----------



## Stereofm (Feb 20, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> Looks quite a bit better than the current art, but it doesn't look like a good swimmer.  Still...




Looks even less fishy than today.

Where are the fins ?


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Feb 20, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Thing is, as far back as I can remember, kuo-toa were _written_ to be fishy, not froggy. The frogginess came specifically from the art--which often failed to match the written word.




I'm with Ari-- I don't remember kuo-toa as anything other than fishy.

But then I don't think I've even seen 3e kuo-toa art, or their MM entry...


----------



## MatrexsVigil (Feb 20, 2008)

Murloc!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 :d 

-p.c.


----------



## Nytmare (Feb 20, 2008)

I always expected them to be more "Deep One" than "Creature From the Black Lagoon."


----------



## hong (Feb 20, 2008)

The original Deep Ones were the sahuagin. Any word on what's happening to them in 4E?

That said, all of these fish-folk tend to merge into each other after some time.


----------



## Orius (Feb 20, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Thing is, as far back as I can remember, kuo-toa were _written_ to be fishy, not froggy. The frogginess came specifically from the art--which often failed to match the written word.




Same here.  Kuo-toa are fish-men (or is that fish-folk) that live underground.

And drow and mind flayers were always cooler.


----------



## Orius (Feb 20, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> That said, all of these fish-folk tend to merge into each other after some time.




Ain't that the truth.  Has anyone ever used locathah?

Kuo-toa and sahuagin are really about the only piscine races a campaign needs.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey (Feb 20, 2008)

Orius said:
			
		

> Ain't that the truth.  Has anyone ever used locathah?
> 
> Kuo-toa and sahuagin are really about the only piscine races a campaign needs.




What, not Mer-People or Sea Elves?

I thought you needed at least one race that can furnish imperilled undersea princesses.


----------



## Voss (Feb 20, 2008)

I was pretty certain that, due to their genetic superiority, even in their weird mutant sea elf form, all Sea Elves were Sahuagin at this point.


----------



## Lizard (Feb 20, 2008)

Dr. Strangemonkey said:
			
		

> What, not Mer-People or Sea Elves?
> 
> I thought you needed at least one race that can furnish imperilled undersea princesses.




WOTC sez:You don't need races that ain't fer killin'.

That said, I like the Kuo-toa art. The 3e art makes them look like grippli.

The 4e TOH better have crab people in it. You can never have enough undersea races. I never got this whole "Why do you need 'y' races when 'x' will do?" attitude. Because it's FRACKIN' D&D, *that's* why!


----------



## Nightchilde-2 (Feb 20, 2008)

MatrexsVigil said:
			
		

> Murloc!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> :d
> 
> -p.c.




My hat of murlocs know no limit.


----------



## Lizard (Feb 20, 2008)

Nightchilde-2 said:
			
		

> My hat of murlocs know no limit.




"Hat of Murlocs" would be a GREAT magic item!


----------



## Aeolius (Feb 20, 2008)

Orius said:
			
		

> Ain't that the truth.  Has anyone ever used locathah?




   Merfolk, sea elves, and locathah make up the staple of "core" races in my campaign. There's still room for tritons, nereids, and sea sprites, of course; the better to battle the sahuagin, morkoth, and ixitxachitl.


----------



## Aeolius (Feb 20, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> I was pretty certain that, due to their genetic superiority, even in their weird mutant sea elf form, all Sea Elves were Sahuagin at this point.




In the 1e MM, it hinted to a relation between sahuagin, sea elves, and drow. Granted, "The Sea Devils" (one of the few 2e supplements I both own AND recommend) changed that a bit.


----------



## Aeolius (Feb 20, 2008)

Orius said:
			
		

> Kuo-toa and sahuagin are really about the only piscine races a campaign needs.




Depends on the campaign now, doesn't it. Me, I have no use for humans, dwarves, and other drylanders; save for use as NPCs.


----------



## Aeolius (Feb 20, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> But then I don't think I've even seen 3e kuo-toa art, or their MM entry...



For comparison:


----------



## Aeolius (Feb 20, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Thing is, as far back as I can remember, kuo-toa were _written_ to be fishy, not froggy.




I would have expected a bit more lobstery... 

Blip...dool.....POOLP!!!


----------



## Daedrova (Feb 20, 2008)

Can anyone here show us the proper pronounciation for these races' names?

kua-toa
sahuagin
nereids
ixitxachitl


----------



## DaveyJones (Feb 20, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Thing is, as far back as I can remember, kuo-toa were _written_ to be fishy, not froggy. The frogginess came specifically from the art--which often failed to match the written word.



qft.

they were fishmeng


----------



## Lizard (Feb 20, 2008)

Daedrova said:
			
		

> Can anyone here show us the proper pronounciation for these races' names?
> 
> kua-toa
> sahuagin
> ...




I don't know if it's proper, but I pronounce them;

Koo-ah toe-ah
Sah-who-uh-ghin
Ner-ee-idz
We-ird-ass-man-ta-rays


----------



## Daedrova (Feb 20, 2008)

I haven’t heard of any campaign set primarily underwater in the past, save for yours Aeolius.

I hope for your sake that a majority of the monsters/races you mention show up in the 4th Ed. MM (assuming you are switching) – but that is not likely.  As others have indicated, there isn’t really a need for a large variety of these creatures, since 99% (estimated) of campaigns are primarily land based.

“Needs of the many…” and so forth.

Then again, with your experience in running such a campaign, it probably wouldn’t be difficult to assign stats/mechanics to the pre-existing races if their stats are not present.  From the look of 4th ed monster design, it may be easy enough to rob land based creature powers for your sea creatures and change those powers’ flavors.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 20, 2008)

I like it


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Feb 20, 2008)

I think it is an improvement over the 3E art, but I think it needs bigger eyes, with no eyelids.


----------



## Lizard (Feb 20, 2008)

Haffrung Helleyes said:
			
		

> I think it is an improvement over the 3E art, but I think it needs bigger eyes, with no eyelids.




If they ever have rules for Kua-toa PCs, they will have breasts.


----------



## Dragonblade (Feb 20, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> I don't know if it's proper, but I pronounce them;
> 
> Koo-ah toe-ah
> Sah-who-uh-ghin
> ...




LOL


----------



## hong (Feb 20, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> If they ever have rules for Kua-toa PCs, they will have breasts.



 There was this quote in Worlds & Monsters:

For fey, the goal was similar. Scantily clad human females set in the woods, to me, aren't nymphs or dryads -- they're scantily clad human females with a couple of extra powers. Where's the imagination? Where's the fantasy?​
Bill Slavicsek has clearly failed to understand the reason for having scantily clad human females in the woods.


----------



## Eldragon (Feb 20, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> If they ever have rules for Kua-toa PCs, they will have breasts.




At which point the Kua-toas will be renamed "Fishborn" and they have breasts, tastefully covered by kelp and sea shells.


----------



## Shadeydm (Feb 20, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> There was this quote in Worlds & Monsters:
> 
> For fey, the goal was similar. Scantily clad human females set in the woods, to me, aren't nymphs or dryads -- they're scantily clad human females with a couple of extra powers. Where's the imagination? Where's the fantasy?​
> Bill Slavicsek has clearly failed to understand the reason for having scantily clad human females in the woods.




This might be the worst news about 4E so far!


----------



## Aeolius (Feb 20, 2008)

Daedrova said:
			
		

> Can anyone here show us the proper pronounciation for these races' names?




Here's a start, from http://www.wizards.com/dnd/DnDArchives_FAQ.asp :

Sahuagin: sah-HWAH-gin
Ixitxachitl: iks-it-ZATCH-i-til or ik-zit-zah-chih-tull

dictionary.com says nereid is: neer-ee-id


----------



## Wormwood (Feb 20, 2008)

Eldragon said:
			
		

> At which point the Kua-toas will be renamed "Fishborn" and they have breasts, tastefully covered by kelp and sea shells.



I'm waiting to see a downside to this.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Feb 20, 2008)

Shadeydm said:
			
		

> hong  said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Not so bad... read properly... i helped you with bolding the most important part...

wonder what those extra powers are...


----------



## Aeolius (Feb 20, 2008)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> I'm waiting to see a downside to this.




Umm.... you'd always second-guess where your glass of milk originated?


----------



## hong (Feb 20, 2008)

UngeheuerLich said:
			
		

> Not so bad... read properly... i helped you with bolding the most important part...
> 
> wonder what those extra powers are...



 No, Shadeydm is right to worry. This is the dryad:

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/WorldsMonsters_Gallery/103573.jpg

And coincidentally, here's a sentient tree in Guild Wars:

http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Image:Sentient_Tree.jpg


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Feb 20, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> The original Deep Ones were the sahuagin. Any word on what's happening to them in 4E?
> 
> That said, all of these fish-folk tend to merge into each other after some time.



Well, I got a sahuagin in my "4E preview" Deserts of Desolation booster. I don't know if that means anything.


----------



## Kaisoku (Feb 20, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> No, Shadeydm is right to worry. This is the dryad:
> 
> http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/WorldsMonsters_Gallery/103573.jpg
> 
> ...




I think what he meant was that there's no reason to fret, because now we can kill tree looking things while saving the scantily clad human with extra powers, in the forest.


----------



## Lizard (Feb 20, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> No, Shadeydm is right to worry. This is the dryad:
> 
> http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/WorldsMonsters_Gallery/103573.jpg




Yeah, I can see the Greek gods lining up to bang one of those....

Maybe it's the age in which we live. In the late 1970s, before the Internet, we got our porn where we could, and the 1e MM (And 1e D&DG...you know the picture I mean...) was a lot better than National Geographic. Now, with that niche well and truly filled, we get THAT for Dryads.

Insert some lame pun using a double entendre of 'wood' here.


----------



## hong (Feb 20, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Yeah, I can see the Greek gods lining up to bang one of those....
> 
> Maybe it's the age in which we live. In the late 1970s, before the Internet, we got our porn where we could, and the 1e MM (And 1e D&DG...you know the picture I mean...) was a lot better than National Geographic. Now, with that niche well and truly filled, we get THAT for Dryads.
> 
> Insert some lame pun using a double entendre of 'wood' here.



 Ah, so I'm not the only one whose 1E MM had nipples on the succubus!


----------



## catsclaw227 (Feb 20, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> No, Shadeydm is right to worry. This is the dryad:
> 
> http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/WorldsMonsters_Gallery/103573.jpg



I thought this was the Blackwoods Dryad.  Not just the dryad.  I imagine that there are a few dryad types and there may still be a scantily-clad dryad to guile the silly humans.


----------



## Toben the Many (Feb 20, 2008)

Sweet! Other than Tony DiTerlizzi's interpretation of the Kuo-Toa (which made them _really_ look fishy), this is my favorite incarnation of them yet! Yes, yes, yes! 

Overall, I'm very pleased with the new look of monsters in general. I did not like the 3rd Edition version of monsters at all. I mean...AT. ALL. For me, the 3rd Edition monsters looked all Cthulhu-ed out and stuff. The displacer beast looked like it was from Venus, and the Choker looked like it walked out of the pages of CoC. 

Loving it.


----------



## hong (Feb 20, 2008)

catsclaw227 said:
			
		

> I thought this was the Blackwoods Dryad.  Not just the dryad.  I imagine that there are a few dryad types and there may still be a scantily-clad dryad to guile the silly humans.



 Well, it's captioned just "dryad" in the book. Where does the Blackwoods bit come from?


----------



## lukelightning (Feb 20, 2008)

I like my kuo-toa beeing partly froggy with a chance of eel.  But not fully froggy. They should be some sort of "is it a fish person? amphibian person? what the heck!" creature.

We already have fishy people, sahuagin. Oh, and locathahs.


----------



## Piratecat (Feb 20, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Bill Slavicsek has clearly failed to understand the reason for having scantily clad human females in the woods.



So bad guys can sacrifice them to Blibdoolpoolp?


----------



## AllisterH (Feb 20, 2008)

IIRC, the kuo-toa are being tied more heavily with aboleths. Apparently, they are some lesser devoted slave race that lives and breathes for the aboleths. Aboleths don't have to even use their mind-powers apparently since from birth, young kuo-toa are slavishly devoted to the aboleths.

Chance of kuo-toa PC? Next to zero unless you're thinking we somehow get a kuo-toa version of Drizzt (although I doubt the sex appeal will be there...  )


----------



## Wolfspider (Feb 20, 2008)

Eldragon said:
			
		

> At which point the Kua-toas will be renamed "Fishborn" and they have breasts, tastefully covered by kelp and sea shells.




HA!  HA HA HA HA HA HA!

Too true...too true....


----------



## DaveyJones (Feb 20, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Chance of kuo-toa PC? Next to zero unless you're thinking we somehow get a kuo-toa version of Drizzt (although I doubt the sex appeal will be there...  )



this is what i imagine too.

although, you could go guppy style. with brightly colorful males and fan tails vs the drab females.


----------



## Wolfspider (Feb 20, 2008)

Toben the Many said:
			
		

> Sweet! Other than Tony DiTerlizzi's interpretation of the Kuo-Toa (which made them really look fishy), this is my favorite incarnation of them yet! Yes, yes, yes!
> 
> Overall, I'm very pleased with the new look of monsters in general. I did not like the 3rd Edition version of monsters at all. I mean...AT. ALL. For me, the 3rd Edition monsters looked all Cthulhu-ed out and stuff. The displacer beast looked like it was from Venus, and the Choker looked like it walked out of the pages of CoC.
> 
> Loving it.




Odd that you praise the "new" fishy kuo-toa and then diss the 3rd edition monsters because they are too Cthulhu-ed out, considering that the piscine Deep Ones are among the monst famous of Lovecraft's monstrous creations....


----------



## Dragonbait (Feb 20, 2008)

So they flip-flopped again like a fish on land.
1E - froggy men
2E - fishy men
3E - froggy men
4E - fishy men


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 20, 2008)

> So bad guys can sacrifice them to Blibdoolpoolp?




Generally, they are there to murder you for daring to tread on their sacred territory.

But I guess 4e doesn't think scantily clad women are capable of being more than they seem....


----------



## AllisterH (Feb 20, 2008)

IIRC, the kuo-toa are being tied more heavily with aboleths. Apparently, they are some lesser devoted slave race that lives and breathes for the aboleths. Aboleths don't have to even use their mind-powers apparently since from birth, young kuo-toa are slavishly devoted to the aboleths.

Chance of kuo-toa PC? Next to zero unless you're thinking we somehow get a kuo-toa version of Drizzt (although I doubt the sex appeal will be there...  )


----------



## Altamont Ravenard (Feb 20, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Well, it's captioned just "dryad" in the book. Where does the Blackwoods bit come from?




The Blackwoods Dryad is a miniature in the Desert of Desolation series. It looks like the picture.

AR


----------



## rkanodia (Feb 20, 2008)

DaveyJones said:
			
		

> this is what i imagine too.
> 
> although, you could go guppy style. with brightly colorful males and fan tails vs the drab females.



I think that being a 'Siamese fighting fish-people' samurai would be awesome.  It's like you come with a built-in kimono.


----------



## Remathilis (Feb 20, 2008)

I, for one, welcome our new chordate overlords...


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Feb 20, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Yeah, I can see the Greek gods lining up to bang one of those....



heh, yeah, I don't mind the idea of less human seeming fey existing, dryads and nymphs have a mythic history... (maybe the dryad picture is what it looks like 'naturally' but it has an alternate form? I can hope.)


----------



## Goobermunch (Feb 20, 2008)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> I, for one, welcome our new *squamous* overlords...




FIFY

--G


----------



## moritheil (Feb 20, 2008)

Daedrova said:
			
		

> Can anyone here show us the proper pronounciation for these races' names?
> 
> kua-toa
> sahuagin
> ...




We could tell you, but we'd have to drown you.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Feb 20, 2008)

Altamont Ravenard said:
			
		

> The Blackwoods Dryad is a miniature in the Desert of Desolation series. It looks like the picture.



This.  I assumed that the mini name represented a type of Dryad, not necessarily a dryad from a specific region.

I could be wrong.  Maybe they have a shape-change ability to go super-hot when in charm-mode.


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 20, 2008)

Toben the Many said:
			
		

> Overall, I'm very pleased with the new look of monsters in general. I did not like the 3rd Edition version of monsters at all. I mean...AT. ALL. For me, the 3rd Edition monsters looked all Cthulhu-ed out and stuff. The displacer beast looked like it was from Venus, and the Choker looked like it walked out of the pages of CoC.
> 
> Loving it.



 

Yeah, contrary to popular belief amongst intarwebz users, 3e art was actually D&D's roots check.


----------



## DaveyJones (Feb 20, 2008)

rkanodia said:
			
		

> I think that being a 'Siamese fighting fish-people' samurai would be awesome.  It's like you come with a built-in kimono.



right. them too.

i always pictured the sea devils aka sahuagin as the deep ones. all spiny and devoid of color.

the kuo-toa aka fishmeng should be like spotted rockfish or groupers


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 20, 2008)

Eldragon said:
			
		

> At which point the Kua-toas will be renamed "Fishborn" and they have breasts, tastefully covered by kelp and sea shells.



Every oddball race sounds better with "born".

Starborn
Fireborn
Iceborn
Devilborn
Feyborn
Frogborn
Bloodborn
Desertborn
Hillborn
Dinoborn
Warborn
Wolfspiderborn
Unsafersexborn


----------



## Turjan (Feb 20, 2008)

I'm not sure why looking like a scaly human with a fish head is supposed to be an improvement for kuo-toa. This is not Star Trek where you have to put a mask on a human actor. I don't see this as very imaginative.

On the other hand, if kuo-toa are some humans or other humanoids that had been turned into fishy slaves by their aboleth masters, it's fitting. Let's see how this will turn out.


----------



## arscott (Feb 20, 2008)

Though there may be multiple types of dryad in the MM, it's just as likely that "Black Woods Dryad" is just a name used to differentiate the current mini from Dryads in previous sets.  That sort of thing happens all the time in DDM.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Feb 20, 2008)

I have to say, that art is a pretty vast improvement, even if they could stand to have a fin or two. Good god the 3E art for them was hideous.

As for the Star Trek comparison, that's extremely unfair. They're barely humanoid, weird warped things, not just "a guy in a mask" (unlike, say, many of D&D's monsters). Even the proportions are inhuman.


----------



## Drkfathr1 (Feb 20, 2008)

catsclaw227 said:
			
		

> This.  I assumed that the mini name represented a type of Dryad, not necessarily a dryad from a specific region.
> 
> I could be wrong.  Maybe they have a shape-change ability to go super-hot when in charm-mode.




They will in my campaign!


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Feb 20, 2008)

The new Kuo-Toa- the aquatic version of the new Troglodyte!


----------



## FickleGM (Feb 20, 2008)

I prefer the 3e version by far (heck, I never even equated it to being froggy, just fishy and grotesque).  It's not even a contest.


----------



## The Ubbergeek (Feb 20, 2008)

Grotesque and ugly is the point.


----------



## Keenath (Feb 20, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> No, Shadeydm is right to worry. This is the dryad:
> 
> http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/WorldsMonsters_Gallery/103573.jpg
> 
> ...



How about a link to a screenshot of Treebeard?  Mobile tree-people aren't anywhere close to being a Guild Wars invention.


----------



## Keenath (Feb 20, 2008)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> heh, yeah, I don't mind the idea of less human seeming fey existing, dryads and nymphs have a mythic history... (maybe the dryad picture is what it looks like 'naturally' but it has an alternate form? I can hope.)



I believe that IS correct -- I seem to recall a comment in a playtest report that didn't directly say, but implied, that dryads could "turn ugly" or some such thing.

That would fit with a lot of fae, actually -- that they look pretty until you get past the illusion and find out that they're utterly inhuman and possibly horrifically ugly.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Feb 20, 2008)

Why are there so many fishmen in D&D?


----------



## Lizard (Feb 20, 2008)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Why are there so many fishmen in D&D?




Why are there so many humanoids in D&D?
Why are there so many giants in D&D?
Why are there so many oozes in D&D?
Why are there so many killer plants in D&D?

Because it's D&D, dammit! And D&D is "the game where roughly 10,000 sentient races share the same world, and  95% of them all exist within a few miles of each other, at most."


----------



## Silverblade The Ench (Feb 20, 2008)

3.5 kuo-toa looked like a kids "stretchable" toy frog, pulled out long, then trod on repeatedly, so it is like a sort of "squashed tin can"...it does, don't it?


----------



## lukelightning (Feb 20, 2008)

I see sahuagin as more sharky and surface-going; they are the ones in the shallow waters near the surface.

Kuo-toa are deeeeeep sea fishy things. And why not froggy? There are many fish that look froggy.



			
				Aeolius said:
			
		

> Blip...dool.....POOLP!!!



I once commented to my brother that I thought it very odd that the Kuo-toa goddess had a human body. Why the heck would fish things worship something with a human body?

My brother pointed out the obvious: She's a horrible evil demon goddess, and her human body is there to inspire terror in the Kuo-toa. 

"blurble blurble our goddess has the most beautiful face, such lovely feelers, and graceful pinchers...blurble blurble... but the hideous deformed body of a...gasp...human! blurbleblurbleblurble!"


----------



## Aeolius (Feb 20, 2008)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Why are there so many fishmen in D&D?




To make me happy?  

(edit: given the typical world has more water than land, one would expect more aquatic life than terrestrial. Plus in a typical ocean setting there are amphibious races that tend to stay in the shallows, deep-dwelling races that spend their time in the depths, and numerous races in between.  2,000 posts... w00t! )


----------



## heirodule (Feb 20, 2008)

Admiral Akbar!


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Feb 20, 2008)

lukelightning said:
			
		

> I like my kuo-toa beeing partly froggy with a chance of eel.  But not fully froggy. They should be some sort of "is it a fish person? amphibian person? what the heck!" creature.
> 
> We already have fishy people, sahuagin. Oh, and locathahs.



I'd rather that they were more like the Grindylow from China Meiville's The Scar.  Those mothers are scary.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Feb 20, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Generally, they are there to murder you for daring to tread on their sacred territory.
> 
> But I guess 4e doesn't think scantily clad women are capable of being more than they seem....



There does seem to be somewhat more WYSIWYG in 4E, doesn't there?


----------



## FickleGM (Feb 20, 2008)

The Ubbergeek said:
			
		

> Grotesque and ugly is the point.



 Exactly.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Feb 20, 2008)

Keenath said:
			
		

> I believe that IS correct -- I seem to recall a comment in a playtest report that didn't directly say, but implied, that dryads could "turn ugly" or some such thing.
> 
> That would fit with a lot of fae, actually -- that they look pretty until you get past the illusion and find out that they're utterly inhuman and possibly horrifically ugly.



I always sort of liked the idea that dryads actually looked like shapely human women, and were extremely attractive to humans, up until you touched them.  Then you'd notice that they're actually made of wood, are cold as death, and you can pick up splinters or chiggers from them.  If you've ever touched an arbutus tree, you'll get the idea.  Being captured by one of these things for the purposes of procreation sounds like a good idea to a thirteen-year-old boy, but anyone who knows what they're like knows it's a fate worse than death.


----------



## Aeolius (Feb 20, 2008)

lukelightning said:
			
		

> I see sahuagin as more sharky and surface-going; they are the ones in the shallow waters near the surface.



   My sea goblins were inspired by goblin sharks, it seemed a natural fit. 








> I once commented to my brother that I thought it very odd that the Kuo-toa goddess had a human body....She's a horrible evil demon goddess, and her human body is there to inspire terror in the Kuo-toa.



   A lobster-like goddess with boobs... seems to fit 4e


----------



## fnwc (Feb 20, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Thing is, as far back as I can remember, kuo-toa were _written_ to be fishy, not froggy. The frogginess came specifically from the art--which often failed to match the written word.



Yeah, frogginess lands squarely in the realm of the bullywug. I think some people might be remembering these guys from the D&D cartoon, from so long ago...


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Feb 20, 2008)

Aeolius said:
			
		

> To make me happy?
> 
> (edit: given the typical world has more water than land, one would expect more aquatic life than terrestrial. Plus in a typical ocean setting there are amphibious races that tend to stay in the shallows, deep-dwelling races that spend their time in the depths, and numerous races in between.  2,000 posts... w00t! )



Congrats on 2000.  Also, your games look like fun!


----------



## HeinorNY (Feb 20, 2008)

Thumbs up from a Lovecraft fan.


----------



## Wolfspider (Feb 20, 2008)

Keenath said:
			
		

> How about a link to a screenshot of Treebeard?  Mobile tree-people aren't anywhere close to being a Guild Wars invention.




No, but those the tree-folk in those two pictures do share some interesting similarities.  They are much more like each other than they are like an Ent....


----------



## HeinorNY (Feb 20, 2008)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> HA!  HA HA HA HA HA HA!
> 
> Too true...too true....



If they are still inspired on Deep Ones, they should have breasts.


----------



## Wolfspider (Feb 20, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Wolfspiderborn




The horror...the horror....


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 20, 2008)

fnwc said:
			
		

> Yeah, frogginess lands squarely in the realm of the bullywug. I think some people might be remembering these guys from the D&D cartoon, from so long ago...



No, frogginess lands squarely in the source material on which the kuo-toa were based.  Lovecraft's Deep Ones were often as often described as "bactrian" and froglike as they were "ichtheous" and fishlike in _The Shadow Over Innsmouth_.

Of course, I'm making up those adjectives... I can't remember what words he literally used.  Probably a lot of eldritch and squamous in there too.


----------



## fnwc (Feb 20, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Every oddball race sounds better with "born".



Björnborn?


----------



## frankthedm (Feb 20, 2008)

ainatan said:
			
		

> Thumbs up from a Lovecraft fan.



True. Especially since the narrowing of the skull is something that escapes a LOT of depictions of deep ones/Hybrids*. ButTBW, HPL's deep one did have some frog to them as well, though that might have beed more from the trasistion from man to fish.

*Notably _Call of Cthulhu: Dark Corners of the Earth_ made their facial features seem to get wider as the taint progressed. Full Deep ones in that game were also 'quite' muscled so the look worked well enough in-game.


----------



## Keenath (Feb 20, 2008)

Kunimatyu said:
			
		

>



Whoah!

Awesome.... I never liked Kuo-toa because they looked too comical and cartoony in the 3.x monster manual.

This guy... yikes.  Yes.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 20, 2008)

People are thinking way too narrowly if they think the game only has room for one fish-person race.

Kuo-toa are the hideous dwellers in the dark deapths, creatures of madness who shun the light and revile suface-dwellers. They're clerics and psionicists and wizards and sorcers, spellcasting creatures of alien knowledge. They are deep-sea fanglyfish Lovecraftian horrors.

Shahagin are the predators in the shoals, murderers who delight in blood and get driven into a frenzy at the promise of prey. They're rangers and fighters and barbarians, warriors of tooth and fin. They are shark-people, barracuda-people, piranha-people.

Locathah are the foreigners, the "people of the sea," locals who don't trust the PC's, but who trust the sea devils even less. They just want to be left alone to be fishy in peace. They're not really combatative classes, and when they are, they're more like rangers and druids -- hunters and gatherers, not warriors and madmen.

Merfolk are the intermediaries, the "betwixt two worlds" people, who have an affection and kinship with the landbound races, but who delight in their oceanic existence all the more. They are the artisans and the muses, the romance of the sea. They're the bards and the artists, masters of pearl and waterfall and grotto. 

Nereids are the aquatic fey, inscrutable creatures who represent the mystery of the world beneath the waves. They represent the water itself, they are the spirits of lakes and rivers, creatures who will destroy you if you taint them, creatures who will amuse themselves by drowning you, creatures who want to flood the world, if they can. They're faerie spellcasters, full of elemental wrath.

Ixixachitl are the demonic bottom-dwellers, the "devil rays" who exist entirely independant of the land-dwellers, who don't care about what goes on beyond the waves of their ocean, and who demand absolute loyalty and affection inside of it. They represent the vast evil beyond the PC's grasp, an evil that doesn't even concern itself with land-bound activities except as incidentals, an evil whose goals are not going opposed by the PC's because it is unknown. They are secret and dangerous, undead, demonic, fiend-worshipping masters of dark magic.

There's plenty of room to make these guys distinct in all three major ways.

Of course, I wouldn't expect the MM1 to focus on 'em. Aquatic campaigns aren't common enough to get instant core support, I'd think. Kuo-toa are good fishy enemies, and I'd hope to see Merfolk for the mythological value, but beyond that, they can probably wait for future MMs.


----------



## Aeolius (Feb 20, 2008)

Keenath said:
			
		

> This guy... yikes.  Yes.




I hope the locathah get redesigned, then, instead of excluded. There may be a bit of a crossover:




Granted, in my games the locathahs' coloration tends to emulate that of angelfish; especially the queen, emperator, regal, and majestic.


----------



## HeinorNY (Feb 20, 2008)

Kuo Toa could kill the locathah and sahuagin and take their stuff.


----------



## frankthedm (Feb 20, 2008)

Hobo said:
			
		

> No, frogginess lands squarely in the source material on which the kuo-toa were based.  Lovecraft's Deep Ones were often as often described as "bactrian" and froglike as they were "ichtheous" and fishlike in _The Shadow Over Innsmouth_.
> 
> Of course, I'm making up those adjectives... I can't remember what words he literally used.  Probably a lot of eldritch and squamous in there too.



Neither "eldritch" nor "squamous" show up once in Shadow over Innsmouth. "Eldritch", is a word that does apply to a lot of his work, though HPL rarely used the word "Squamous". He did one time, in its proper usage to describe a scaly snakelike protrusion on something. The d20 Call of cthulhu book seems to have triggered an overuse of the word. Seriously, how is an energy blast "scaly"?



			
				H. P. Lovecraft said:
			
		

> Among these reliefs were fabulous monsters of abhorrent grotesqueness and malignity - half ichthyic and half batrachian in suggestion - which one could not dissociate from a certain haunting and uncomfortable sense of pseudomemory, as if they called up some image from deep cells and tissues whose retentive functions are wholly primal and awesomely ancestral. At times I fancied that every contour of these blasphemous fish-frogs was over-flowing with the ultimate quintessence of unknown and inhuman evil.
> 
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 
> ...


----------



## fnwc (Feb 20, 2008)

Hobo said:
			
		

> No, frogginess lands squarely in the source material on which the kuo-toa were based.



True, but _in D&D_, the frog-like humanoid crown has to go to bullywugs. From the Wikipedia entry: 

"In the Dungeons & Dragons roleplaying game, bullywugs are a violent race of frog-like humanoids."






Looks like a frog on steroids, but a frog nonetheless.


----------



## hong (Feb 20, 2008)

Hm, I wonder if Deep Ones play D&D....


----------



## mmadsen (Feb 20, 2008)

Hobo said:
			
		

> No, frogginess lands squarely in the source material on which the kuo-toa were based.  Lovecraft's Deep Ones were often as often described as "bactrian"...



So the _bactrian_ Deep Ones have two humps, right?


----------



## Aeolius (Feb 20, 2008)

mmadsen said:
			
		

> So the _bactrian_ Deep Ones have two humps, right?



Yes. As opposed to the dromedary Deep Ones. 

"Ah well, a dromedary has one hump and a camel has a refreshment car, buffet, and ticket collector."


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 21, 2008)

Curse you, mmadsen!  Batrachian!  I knew that didn't sound right when I typed it.


----------



## Kunimatyu (Feb 21, 2008)

Batrachian:

ba·tra·chi·an
adj.
Of or relating to vertebrate amphibians without tails, such as frogs and toads.
n.
A vertebrate amphibian.


----------



## small pumpkin man (Feb 21, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> People are thinking way too narrowly if they think the game only has room for one fish-person race.
> 
> Kuo-toa are the hideous dwellers in the dark deapths, creatures of madness who shun the light and revile suface-dwellers. They're clerics and psionicists and wizards and sorcers, spellcasting creatures of alien knowledge. They are deep-sea fanglyfish Lovecraftian horrors.
> 
> ...




All of those are good, except the Locathah, who don't seem to have anything interesting to do or to interact with the PCs about. I'd prefer for the Merfolk to kill them and take their stuff, that is, make them a bit more alien, a bit more "they look the same but are actually really wierd" and you're good to go.


----------



## Aeolius (Feb 21, 2008)

small pumpkin man said:
			
		

> All of those are good, except the Locathah, who don't seem to have anything interesting to do or to interact with the PCs about.




If you envision them as Creatures from the Black Lagoon, coupled with a bit of "Humanoids from the Deep", you'll know how they wish to interact with the PCs:






In my games, the offspring of locathah and humans are known as garibaldi.


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 21, 2008)

Kunimatyu said:
			
		

> Batrachian:
> 
> ba·tra·chi·an
> adj.
> ...



Uh... yes.  That's why I used that word.    

Although I accidentally left a syllable off the first time I posted it.


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 21, 2008)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Also, your games look like fun!



If I were in that game, I'd have a hard time stopping myself from singing everytime he described treasure we'd found.

"Look at this stuff
Isn't it neat?
Wouldn't you say my collection's complete?
Wouldn't you say I'm a girl... a girl who has... everything?"


----------



## Aeolius (Feb 21, 2008)

Hobo said:
			
		

> Wouldn't you say I'm a girl... a girl who has... everything?"




That's it... no banded bulbous snarfblatts for you! 

"Get your head out of the clouds and back in the water where it belongs." - Sebastian


----------



## Kunimatyu (Feb 21, 2008)

Hobo said:
			
		

> Uh... yes.  That's why I used that word.
> 
> Although I accidentally left a syllable off the first time I posted it.




::shrug:: I posted at the same time you posted your clarification.

I think Darkest of the Hillside Thickets wins the award for best use of the word, though:
http://www.lyricsmania.com/lyrics/d...s_52469/the_innsmouth_look_lyrics_547641.html


----------



## Stogoe (Feb 21, 2008)

I'm loving all the 4e art so far.  I love the new Kuo-Toa, compared to the froggy mess that was the 3e art.

Except for the quickling.  Blech.  That one is just outright horrible.


----------



## Psion (Feb 21, 2008)

Aeolius said:
			
		

> If you envision them as Creatures from the Black Lagoon, coupled with a bit of "Humanoids from the Deep", you'll know how they wish to interact with the PCs:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Garibaldi is the offspring of Locathah? That explain why he drank like a fish.


----------



## Aeolius (Feb 21, 2008)

Psion said:
			
		

> Garibaldi is the offspring of Locathah? That explain why he drank like a fish.




I KNEW someone would make that association... This is the garibaldi I used for reference:


----------



## Douane (Feb 21, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> No, Shadeydm is right to worry. This is the dryad:
> 
> http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/WorldsMonsters_Gallery/103573.jpg



Thanks for that link! Hadn't seen that one before.


First comment by my (non-gaming) girlfriend: "How typical! Even the trees have breasts in that game."


----------



## Aeolius (Feb 21, 2008)

Douane said:
			
		

> Thanks for that link! Hadn't seen that one before.
> First comment by my (non-gaming) girlfriend: "How typical! Even the trees have breasts in that game."




Do knot!


----------



## Kunimatyu (Feb 21, 2008)

Aeolius said:
			
		

> In my games, the offspring of locathah and humans are known as garibaldi.




So, if a fishmang and a human mate, you get the State Fish of California?

I'm sure there's a joke in there somewhere.


----------



## Jhulae (Feb 21, 2008)

Aeolius said:
			
		

> In my games, the offspring of locathah and humans are known as garibaldi.




So, the offspring are bald security chiefs for neutral territories?


----------



## Greylock (Feb 21, 2008)

Aeolius said:
			
		

> My sea goblins were inspired by goblin sharks, it seemed a natural fit.




All the posts you've made in this thread regarding your campaign world make me wonder if you have a site set up where folks can view the particulars in detail?

Also, should you be using something like "Aqueous" as a screen name instead of "Aeolius"? Just curious.


----------



## mmadsen (Feb 21, 2008)

Hobo said:
			
		

> Curse you, mmadsen!  Batrachian!  I knew that didn't sound right when I typed it.



Hey, it happens to the best of us.  I'll admit I didn't know _batrachian_ before this thread.  Now I must find an excuse to use it in conversation.  Appropriately.


----------



## The Human Target (Feb 21, 2008)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> I'd rather that they were more like the Grindylow from China Meiville's The Scar.  Those mothers are scary.




Yes, they were. 

I demand fish people who actually don't have legs! 

Besides crappy mermen.


----------



## Incenjucar (Feb 21, 2008)

The Human Target said:
			
		

> Yes, they were.
> 
> I demand fish people who actually don't have legs!
> 
> Besides crappy mermen.




So.

Merkuo-toa?


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Feb 21, 2008)

When it comes to mer-people I prefer mine a little more sinister, for example this one (my own drawing):







The orange-sack around the waist is the egg sack.


----------



## Orius (Feb 21, 2008)

Dr. Strangemonkey said:
			
		

> What, not Mer-People or Sea Elves?
> 
> I thought you needed at least one race that can furnish imperilled undersea princesses.




They aren't fish.  Well, ok merfolk are half-fish, but that different from being all fish.


----------



## Orius (Feb 21, 2008)

Aeolius said:
			
		

> Sahuagin: sah-HWAH-gin




Huh.  So I was pronouncing it right.



> Ixitxachitl: iks-it-ZATCH-i-til or ik-zit-zah-chih-tull




I think most players probably kill them faster than they can pronounce the name.  



> dictionary.com says nereid is: neer-ee-id




Well, it's Greek mythology, so it shouldn't be too hard to find the pronunciation for that.


----------



## Orius (Feb 21, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> IIRC, the kuo-toa are being tied more heavily with aboleths. Apparently, they are some lesser devoted slave race that lives and breathes for the aboleths. Aboleths don't have to even use their mind-powers apparently since from birth, young kuo-toa are slavishly devoted to the aboleths.




Blech.  We already have that, they're called skum.  Kuo-toa were ok the way they were, though maybe WotC felt they weren't popular enough.


----------



## Orius (Feb 21, 2008)

small pumpkin man said:
			
		

> All of those are good, except the Locathah, who don't seem to have anything interesting to do or to interact with the PCs about.




I concur.  Not enough D&D campaigns really get into undersea adventuring (often because of stuff like breathing underwater) for them to be really necessary.   Even though they're neutral (and thus will be more aggresive, especially if they feel threatened), they also tend to keep to themselves in a way that doesn't really make them interesting in a campaign.  There's no real "hook" in the concept that makes me excited about using them.  And they're often connected with merfolk, which doesn't help them distinguish themselves.


----------



## The Little Raven (Feb 21, 2008)

Orius said:
			
		

> Blech.  We already have that, they're called skum.  Kuo-toa were ok the way they were, though maybe WotC felt they weren't popular enough.




Ugh. Skum. Part of that hack fantasy writer trend of changing a C into a K and thinking they're clever... even worse than ending names with "ai" or putting a hyphen in or (God forbid) an apostrophe.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 21, 2008)

> Ugh. Skum. Part of that hack fantasy writer trend of changing a C into a K and thinking they're clever.




I basically agree. The kuo-toa can take over some of the aboleth stuff without loosing too much of their own thing, since aboleth are very much in the "cthonian monstrosity" mold, too. I like the "whips" (clerics) and the "monitors" (monks) division, and I like the theocratic model that earlier editions had for them, and aboleth certainly can fit in that religious hierarchy as "mortal god-kings" or somesuch. Perhaps the aboleth are consorts for the Deep Queen Blipdoolpoolp? That'd rock my boxers pretty okay.

Still, if 4e makes them too skum-like, or too servile, and removes some of their cool divine-spellcasting-theocratic angle, it won't be so neat.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 21, 2008)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> The horror...the horror....



Makes one wonder if such a creature could actually exist?


----------



## DaveyJones (Feb 21, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> People are thinking way too narrowly if they think the game only has room for one fish-person race.



and you also have the aquatic versions of land dwelling races. umber hulk, troll, elf, and hobgoblin come to mind


----------



## hong (Feb 21, 2008)

Actually, there's plenty of room for locathah and skum... in the Feywild and Shadowfell, if shadow giants and fomorians can be taken as a precedent.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 21, 2008)

> and you also have the aquatic versions of land dwelling races. umber hulk, troll, elf, and hobgoblin come to mind




Fair point. IMO, the "palette swaps" can be sacrificed. I'm not sure many DMs need a block of text telling them they can give a critter a swim speed and let them breathe water.


----------



## Aeolius (Feb 21, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I'm not sure many DMs need a block of text telling them they can give a critter a swim speed and let them breathe water.




That's one reason I tried to distinguish undersea variants by adding a dose of realism; my sea goblins (blinogo) resemble goblin sharks, sea kobolds (iblishi) are legless and have wing-flaps like blue-dot stingrays, sea bugbears (kolocanth) resemble the deep-dwelling coelacanth, and so on.

Some races, like the kolocanth and water dwarves (in my games they are a red-skinned race that use hydrothermal vents as their forges and have become chemosynthetic; relying upon the black smokers for survival) never venture into the shallows and thus have abilities more suited to the sunless abyss.

Others, like the sea kin (RoD) and darfellan (Stormwrack) have come to deify the surface of the sea. In my games it is known as Synsaal, the Barrier Between Worlds.


----------



## Zarithar (Feb 21, 2008)

Time for a trip in the Wayback Machine... they looked pretty fishy to me, and that's how I've always imagined them. We already have froglike humanoids anyway (bullywugs).


----------



## Aeolius (Feb 21, 2008)

So how about this, for inspirational material:




From: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/02/photogalleries/fish-pictures/index.html


----------



## Wolfspider (Feb 21, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Makes one wonder if such a creature could actually exist?




Yes, actually.






My daughter.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 21, 2008)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> Yes, actually.
> 
> My daughter.



 
I could add some inappropriate remarks regarding Dragonborn and their ... "non-reptile" features and what this should mean for Wolfspiderborn creatures, or making a remark about female spiders mistaking their lovers for prey, but... Let's not go there and instead let me congratulate you for your parenthood.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Feb 21, 2008)

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> When it comes to mer-people I prefer mine a little more sinister, for example this one (my own drawing):



I think she would look more sinister with a massive pair of breasts.

4e = old school.


----------



## Aeolius (Feb 21, 2008)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> I think she would look more sinister with a massive pair of breasts.



Here ya go...




Feejee Mermaid


----------



## JediSoth (Feb 21, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> No, Shadeydm is right to worry. This is the dryad:
> 
> http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/WorldsMonsters_Gallery/103573.jpg
> 
> ...





Why does the tree-form Dryad have breasts? Or is that just a trick of the shadow?

JediSoth


----------



## Darrin Drader (Feb 21, 2008)

This makes very little difference to me. I still have my kua-toa minis, which I'm using for the mutant frog army in my True20 Darwin's World game.


----------



## Aeolius (Feb 21, 2008)

Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> I still have my kua-toa minis, which I'm using for the mutant frog army in my True20 Darwin's World game.




Drill Sergeant: "All right you pollywogs!! How deep are we gonna bury the enemy?"

Troops: "Knee-deep!! Knee-deep!!"


----------



## Wolfspider (Feb 21, 2008)

JediSoth said:
			
		

> Why does the tree-form Dryad have breasts? Or is that just a trick of the shadow?
> 
> JediSoth




Haven't you heard?

Everything in D&D 4e has boobs....


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 21, 2008)

> Everything in D&D 4e has boobs....




It's a marketing scheme, I knew it!

D&D is becoming car commercials!

: panic :


----------



## Wolfspider (Feb 21, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> It's a marketing scheme, I knew it!
> 
> D&D is becoming car commercials!
> 
> : panic :




Cars have boobs?!?


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 21, 2008)

> Cars have boobs?!?




Pick up an auto magazine sometime.

Cars don't have boobs, but boobs and fast cars go together like beer and pretzels.


----------



## Aeolius (Feb 21, 2008)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> Cars have boobs?!?




I believe the euphemism is.... "headlights"


----------



## Wolfspider (Feb 21, 2008)

Aeolius said:
			
		

> I believe the euphemism is.... "headlights"




HA!        

I love this place.


----------



## Henrix (Feb 21, 2008)

Zarithar said:
			
		

> Time for a trip in the Wayback Machine... they looked pretty fishy to me, and that's how I've always imagined them.




Let's go *all* the way back!   (Or almost, mine is but a fourth printing.)

Clearly fishy.


----------



## HeinorNY (Feb 21, 2008)

Deep Ones were humans that were slowly transformed into deep ones. Did they keep their breasts after the transformation???





			
				Wolfspider said:
			
		

> Yes, actually.
> 
> My daughter.



[tangent]Congratulations! Beautiful daughter!
I'm sorry for you, you're gonna have trouble in the future my friend [/tangent]


----------



## HeinorNY (Feb 21, 2008)

Hendrix said:
			
		

>



Number of attacks: 1 or 2
Damage: by weapon type
Intelligence: High and up
Alignment: Neutral Evil (chaotic tendencies)

Could it be even more ambiguous?


----------



## Aeolius (Feb 21, 2008)

ainatan said:
			
		

> Could it be even more ambiguous?




And it points out a great name for an undersea supplement:

*Sea Below*


----------



## Henrix (Feb 22, 2008)

ainatan said:
			
		

> Originally Posted by *Hendrix*



You're misattributing my pic  :\


----------



## HeinorNY (Feb 22, 2008)

Aeolius said:
			
		

> And it points out a great name for an undersea supplement:
> 
> *Sea Below*



And I forgot to mention how great the old school art was before the "anime" came into D&D. 
That scene of action is so... awe ispiring... I can't even hold my breath.


----------



## Woas (Feb 22, 2008)

Most recent Monster Manual 5 Comparison






To be honest I like the frog theme since I can fathom frogs being on land for extended periods of time.


----------



## Aeolius (Feb 22, 2008)

Woas said:
			
		

> To be honest I like the frog theme since I can fathom frogs being on land for extended periods of time.




fathom... heh heh  

Perhaps one could compare them to snakeheads:




"...snakeheads... are distinguished by a long dorsal fin, small head with large head scales on top, large mouth and teeth. They have a physiological need to breathe atmospheric air..." (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channidae )


----------



## JamesP (Feb 22, 2008)

FWIW, I always really liked the 3E kuo-toa. 

For me it was an example of monstrous race that could be evil and creepy without having fangs, horns, random spikes, plated segments or glowing eyes. 

Not that there aren't any examples of this elsewhere, just saying it struck me as a particularly good one.


----------



## D.Shaffer (Feb 22, 2008)

JediSoth said:
			
		

> Why does the tree-form Dryad have breasts? Or is that just a trick of the shadow?



Because it spends most of its time looking like a actual woman and when it assumes 'tree' form, it's mostly just a covering? 

Because the Dryads still want to look female in tree form?

Because Dryads are traditionally female and the boobs automatically make us think of girls?

Because the artists had a thing for splinters?

Take your pick.


----------



## Aeolius (Feb 23, 2008)

Some forward thinking fellow posted a similar thread about the new dryads awhile back over HERE


----------



## Aeolius (Feb 23, 2008)

Speaking of gill-men....Ben Chapman


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 23, 2008)

Woas said:
			
		

> Most recent Monster Manual 5 Comparison
> 
> 
> 
> ...



But I can't fight against Kermit - he is a hero of my childhood!


----------

