368 replies to this topic

[Orthodoxia]

Here you go. I like white one better but that's just me As for the Elemental, I like what you did with the eyes but for me the first version was the best so...

[Deathsangel]

Well, I used the first version as the base, adding to it from the other version to her head, arms and slightly to the hip. Hope you don't mind. You really did a wonderful job. The drawing shall still be on your name

I reckon I need to ask about the Daeceo, because I am in dubio. White hair makes the eyes stand out better and give a good contrast, where as the icy hair clearly gives a clear distinct icy and magical feel.

Thanks a million. Whenever you feel like anything else I will be more than glad to jump to the occasion!
If you still enjoyed the excerise/working with me.

[Jazhara7]

Would you make a light blue version, so that I can see if that is indeed better? I am beginning to doubt due to the fact the eyes are more scary/present this way.


Furthermore I edited my post above with the rework of your Eldritch Elementals

I think you should really think about using this combination or not, since it's been used so often already...think about it this way: Someone might come along saying the Daeco looks like Lord Voldemort.

(I think he looks more awesome than Voldemort, but it's bound to get compared with that colour combination, I'm afraid. )





-

Edited by Jazhara7, 20 September 2008 - 07:46 AM.

[Orthodoxia]

That depends whether you want it to look more magical or more evil. With blue hair it looks more magical but not all that evil, with white hair on the other hand... I have a feeling he might use someone for some gruesome experiment or something. I like white better but I'm biased. And sure, you can do what you want with the image of Elemental, but I'm keeping the first Biased, I know.

If I spot something else, and I probably will, I let you know.

And Jaz, that combination has been used so much because it's so damn effective

[Jazhara7]

And Jaz, that combination has been used so much because it's so damn effective

I know, I know. In fact, even one of our bunnies uses it, though in her case it's not creepy (the fact that she has *huge* ears, but "refuses to be be a lop" as my sister put it, making her look incredibly cute might be partly to blame for that. ). But I'm afraid that there'll always be someone who will not think about that, so I thought I'd better point it out beforehand.

But like I said, he looks more awesome, and also has a NOSE. (Though my personal favourite was the blonde version. )




-

[Deathsangel]

Would you make a light blue version, so that I can see if that is indeed better? I am beginning to doubt due to the fact the eyes are more scary/present this way.

Furthermore I edited my post above with the rework of your Eldritch Elementals

I think you should really think about using this combination or not, since it's been used so often already...think about it this way: Someone might come along saying the Daeco looks like Lord Voldemort.

(I think he looks more awesome than Voldemort, but it's bound to get compared with that colour combination, I'm afraid. )

-

That depends whether you want it to look more magical or more evil. With blue hair it looks more magical but not all that evil, with white hair on the other hand... I have a feeling he might use someone for some gruesome experiment or something. I like white better but I'm biased. And sure, you can do what you want with the image of Elemental, but I'm keeping the first Biased, I know.

Okay, I am not a Harry Potter fan ~ shown from the fact that only seconds before hitting 'quote' I realised what you mean. Still, in the movies as far as I have seen trailers I thought Voldemort to be bold. He has blue hair?
Hm... your descripition of the white hair is what they are about, but they are also magic... argh.

Of course, you may keep your first Orthodoxia. After all, the second one has been contaminated by me. And from the the three, the first I like the best as well, if but for a few modifications

Edited by Deathsangel, 20 September 2008 - 10:32 AM.

[Jazhara7]

Okay, I am not a Harry Potter fan ~ shown from the fact that only seconds before hitting 'quote' I realised what you mean. Still, in the movies as far as I have seen trailers I thought Voldemort to be bold. He has blue hair?
Hm... your descripition of the white hair is what they are about, but they are also magic... argh.

Of course, you may keep your first Orthodoxia. After all, the second one has been contaminated by me. And from the the three, the first I like the best as well, if but for a few modifications

Nope, he doesn't have blue hair, he's bald (it's "bald", not "bold". "bold" means "fearless" or "brash". ), but he's rather gaunt too. Still, the likeness is there, specifically when the hair is white too. The blue hair is alright, though - it removes some of the likeness effectively.


-

Edited by Jazhara7, 20 September 2008 - 12:37 PM.

[Deathsangel]

I see thanks... and actually I should be aware of the bald - bold thing... I used it as a joke in the Kido mod. Anyway thanks, another person also likes the icy hair better. Seem it is going to be the icy hair probably.

[Orthodoxia]

Nope, he doesn't have blue hair, he's bald (it's "bald", not "bold". "bold" means "fearless" or "brash". ), but he's rather gaunt too. Still, the likeness is there, specifically when the hair is white too. The blue hair is alright, though - it removes some of the likeness effectively.


-

Jazhara the Editor strikes again

On a side note I want those 2 birdies, male and female, ranger and druid right? If you have any specifics speak now or wait until I mangle them

[Galsic]

On a side note I want those 2 birdies, male and female, ranger and druid right? If you have any specifics speak now or wait until I mangle them

Aww, I was considering those, too . Ah well, it's not like I'll be able to get back into this for quite a while anyway (and you'll likely do a better job, too).

[Deathsangel]

Aww, I was considering those, too . Ah well, it's not like I'll be able to get back into this for quite a while anyway (and you'll likely do a better job, too).

I like your drawings just as well Galsic. Don't worry! And I have actually a third birdie if one likes, due to a sub-race thingie.
Here are the descriptions:

Physical Description: Faëlicae are only a few inches higher then Elves, ranging from under 5 feet to 5 ½ feet. Males and females tend to be of the same height. Almost all have black hair and dark eyes and their eyes and ears are slightly pointed as Gnome or Half-elf. However, the most prominent feature of a Faëlica is of course her brown-feathered wings, which originate about a small inch aside from their spine and have a span-width of nearly 10 feet. These wings have enough muscle to carry their bodies, which have relatively light bones, making them weigh between 80 and 100 pounds. They also don?t have feet, but claws; this makes them more dangerous when attacking from the sky.
Faëlicae are considered to be adult at about 20 and they reach the age of 150. Only a very small number becomes a bit over 200.

Physical Description: Faëyawyn (spirit / bright wings) are quite a sight to behold. Their butterfly wings are transluscent in the dark, but seem to be composed of a rainbow when the light hits them. Their hair color ranges from a soft greenish to bright purple and fiery red hues. The same goes for their eye color. They stand on average half a feet shorter than regular Faëlicae, weighing a mere 70 to 80 pounds.

The later ones are more bard and sorcerer like, the first more wild druid and ranger like indeed.
I would like both yes the ranger as well as the druid from the first race. If possible a female druid and a male ranger. They are proficient with footbows, which is essentially a longbow for using with their claws. I would like to see the ranger make use of it. For quivers pleace place them on the underlegs.
If you want to try a bard or sorcerer, or Galsic, you are free to try.
I am sure you have all the experience in the world with wings

Attached is a picture of what the first look a bit like, mainly because the hands are claws and because this humanoids seems to have a tail.

Attached Images

• 

Edited by Deathsangel, 22 September 2008 - 09:01 AM.

[Orthodoxia]

Aww, I was considering those, too . Ah well, it's not like I'll be able to get back into this for quite a while anyway (and you'll likely do a better job, too).

You do an excellent job with design and drawing Mine all tend to look the same in the end.

Deathsangel - They have tails? Are they proficient in any other weapon, for the druid I mean.

[Deathsangel]

Deathsangel - They have tails? Are they proficient in any other weapon, for the druid I mean.

Yeah, uhm the picture has them... which they should not. Stupid me, also significant detail indeed.

For the druid - simply the druid weapons, as well as the footbow, but no need to see it twice.
It is just that all Faëlicae are proficient with footbows, it is to them what normal bows are to Elves, Axes to Dwarves, and slings to Halflings.

You are welcome to draw an animal companion for both, if you like to do so. If you do so for the Ranger I would request a bird, not a ground animal, which is of less importance with the druid.

Edited by Deathsangel, 22 September 2008 - 09:00 AM.

[Orthodoxia]

Ok, just one more question.

Cloven feet check. Cloven hands Do they have cloven hands as well? Also footbow, you say it's for use with their claws. Eh, feet or hands?

[Deathsangel]

Foots like that of a bird of prey. So one claw backwards two or three forward. No cloven hands.
Footbow works as follows. They hold the shaft of the weapon within their claws, aiming it downwards and use their hand to pull back the string.
Like this:
This creature is a raptorian from WoTC. I dislike the fact it takes several levels to reach flight, this as to make it LA +0, but it means there commoners hardly can fly. These wings are too small, and they have placed one toe on the back but still make like a foot with five toes and where he keeps his arrows is really stupid for a flying creature.

Edited by Deathsangel, 23 September 2008 - 12:39 AM.

[Jarno Mikkola]

and where he keeps his arrows is really stupid for a flying creature.

So put the quiver beside the lower part of the leg...

[Jazhara7]

Foots like that of a bird of prey. So one claw backwards two or three forward. No cloven hands.
Footbow works as follows. They hold the shaft of the weapon within their claws, aiming it downwards and use their hand to pull back the string.
Like this:
This creature is a raptorian from WoTC. I dislike the fact it takes several levels to reach flight, this as to make it LA +0, but it means there commoners hardly can fly. These wings are too small, and they have placed one toe on the back but still make like a foot with five toes and where he keeps his arrows is really stupid for a flying creature.

I'd like to point out that whether or not keeping his arrows there is stupid depends on the quiver he uses. If he uses a quiver like the ones that can be found with Native Americans, then it could work. Those quivers cover the whole arrow, except for the nocks, so that one in the picture is not one. The Native American quivers are made in such a way that they hold the arrows tight, so they don't make noise (noise being bad if you're hunting, as it alerts your prey), protects the feathers, *and* you can tip it practically overhead, and the arrows won't fall out. So a quiver of that construction would be great for flying archers. But of course, that thing in the drawing is not one.

Also, I'd like to nitpick a bit: The guy who drew this did not do his research properly. The way that guy draws the arrow, it would drift to the right (of us). Also, there should be *some* kind of way to secure the arrow to the shaft of the bow, if he's not supporting it a bit with it's claws (it's alright if he's not holding the arrow straight down, but down at an angle, as then gravity might help to support it on the shaft. However, it can still swing along the shaft, so maybe some kind of arrow rest would be prudent). Also, he's using a weird way of drawing the arrow - it looks like something in between the three known ones: Ways of drawing your bow. And it doesn't look very effective.


Sorry, this was bothering me. I do archery, and you wouldn't believe how many errors you spot when you actually do the thing yourself. Same goes with horses, I am told: There's that one drawing by Zeorn Warlock on the Vault which features a least the lower body of a horse. One person commented that the way one of the legs bends is not actually the way real horses bend their legs. However, you'll find exactly that same pattern of movement drawn by many people. The person who commented apparently also only learned about the error through a friend who actually works a lot with horses, and had through that regular exposure to them learned very well how they move their legs. But many people who draw horses apparently are not as well acquainted with the way horses move, but only someone who does would really notice, luckily.


-

Edited by Jazhara7, 23 September 2008 - 02:20 AM.

[Deathsangel]

and where he keeps his arrows is really stupid for a flying creature.

So put the quiver beside the lower part of the leg...

As I already had requested within a previous post

I'd like to point out that whether or not keeping his arrows there is stupid depends on the quiver he uses. If he uses a quiver like the ones that can be found with Native Americans, then it could work. Those quivers cover the whole arrow, except for the nocks, so that one in the picture is not one. The Native American quivers are made in such a way that they hold the arrows tight, so they don't make noise (noise being bad if you're hunting, as it alerts your prey), protects the feathers, *and* you can tip it practically overhead, and the arrows won't fall out. So a quiver of that construction would be great for flying archers. But of course, that thing in the drawing is not one.

I requested one for the legs, as I think the body structure due to wings do not allow a quiver to be well placed on the back. The legs are more logical and easy reach when your bow is in your feet.

Also, I'd like to nitpick a bit: The guy who drew this did not do his research properly. The way that guy draws the arrow, it would drift to the right (of us). Also, there should be *some* kind of way to secure the arrow to the shaft of the bow, if he's not supporting it a bit with it's claws (it's alright if he's not holding the arrow straight down, but down at an angle, as then gravity might help to support it on the shaft. However, it can still swing along the shaft, so maybe some kind of arrow rest would be prudent). Also, he's using a weird way of drawing the arrow - it looks like something in between the three known ones: Ways of drawing your bow. And it doesn't look very effective.

The creature he is trying to shoot my be to the right (of us).
And yeah, the arrow will now easily roll over the bow making it hard to aim. I know what you mean.
Would be better even if part of the bow was made for actuall grip of the claws and the middle section for the shaft. Making a composite bow you would be able to create a better support for the claws as has no need to be so perfectly round... on the contrary actually, more in line with the claw.
--- This makes me realize a three-toed claw instead of four toed Faëlicae is better. One 'toe' backwards which can swing forward between the other two.
To mean he seems to do me to do the mongolian draw actually... think about his hand is down, so the two supporting fingers are nocked now sideways and his thumb we can't see as in the mongolion draw. For your point of view just pivit picture 3a of mongolian draw upwards and the palm of the hand away from you. It seem similiar to me.

P.s. lovely your are not mentioning anything about the arrow head. It is a splitted one, but not a backward one. The arrowhead is also rather... unique

For me the small size of the wings is odd. They can never support the guy. And he can't be a low level with just souring for he clearly is meant to hover here

Okay, that is enough to make anyone's head spin.. especially the artist.. let us leave it with this.

Edited by Deathsangel, 23 September 2008 - 04:27 AM.

[Orthodoxia]

So many helpful advices

EDIT: Inked versions.

Edited by Orthodoxia, 25 September 2008 - 12:50 AM.

[Jazhara7]

and where he keeps his arrows is really stupid for a flying creature.

So put the quiver beside the lower part of the leg...

As I already had requested within a previous post

I'd like to point out that whether or not keeping his arrows there is stupid depends on the quiver he uses. If he uses a quiver like the ones that can be found with Native Americans, then it could work. Those quivers cover the whole arrow, except for the nocks, so that one in the picture is not one. The Native American quivers are made in such a way that they hold the arrows tight, so they don't make noise (noise being bad if you're hunting, as it alerts your prey), protects the feathers, *and* you can tip it practically overhead, and the arrows won't fall out. So a quiver of that construction would be great for flying archers. But of course, that thing in the drawing is not one.

I requested one for the legs, as I think the body structure due to wings do not allow a quiver to be well placed on the back. The legs are more logical and easy reach when your bow is in your feet.

You are of course right. A back quiver is not standard, by the way. Yes, it's what *everyone* thinks of when you say "Quiver". It is proven that in times of Robin Hood, for example, the quiver was not worn on your back, but on your *belt*. Now, I have a back quiver. It's very pretty, and covered with two shades of grey wild leather. I use it when going to medieval fairs, when I also carry my Hungarian Horse bow around with me (which is fully functional, though not entirely traditional, since instead of layers of different wood, there's fibreglass hidden beneath the traditional leather covering. But that's good thing about this leather covering, you can hide fibreglass underneath it, which still makes a strong bow, but is less expensive than a traditional wood bow would have been. I knew about it when buying it, and I was happy about it.). But when using my sport bow at our Archery club, I have a hip quiver.

Back quivers are not perfect, but no quiver probably is. Or rather, some are suited better for some purposes than others, while others are better for yet another purpose. When, for example, you'd go hunting in a forest, you probably don't want a back quiver. Not only does it tend to be noisy (though this is the case with many quivers, and there's different methods of trying to counteract that, like, for example

Also, I'd like to nitpick a bit: The guy who drew this did not do his research properly. The way that guy draws the arrow, it would drift to the right (of us). Also, there should be *some* kind of way to secure the arrow to the shaft of the bow, if he's not supporting it a bit with it's claws (it's alright if he's not holding the arrow straight down, but down at an angle, as then gravity might help to support it on the shaft. However, it can still swing along the shaft, so maybe some kind of arrow rest would be prudent). Also, he's using a weird way of drawing the arrow - it looks like something in between the three known ones: Ways of drawing your bow. And it doesn't look very effective.

The creature he is trying to shoot my be to the right (of us).
And yeah, the arrow will now easily roll over the bow making it hard to aim. I know what you mean.
Would be better even if part of the bow was made for actuall grip of the claws and the middle section for the shaft. Making a composite bow you would be able to create a better support for the claws as has no need to be so perfectly round... on the contrary actually, more in line with the claw.
--- This makes me realize a three-toed claw instead of four toed Faëlicae is better. One 'toe' backwards which can swing forward between the other two.
To mean he seems to do me to do the mongolian draw actually... think about his hand is down, so the two supporting fingers are nocked now sideways and his thumb we can't see as in the mongolion draw. For your point of view just pivit picture 3a of mongolian draw upwards and the palm of the hand away from you. It seem similiar to me.

P.s. lovely your are not mentioning anything about the arrow head. It is a splitted one, but not a backward one. The arrowhead is also rather... unique

For me the small size of the wings is odd. They can never support the guy. And he can't be a low level with just souring for he clearly is meant to hover here

Okay, that is enough to make anyone's head spin.. especially the artist.. let us leave it with this.

Well, you won't really be able to aim while in flight, unless your hovercraft is full of eels...err, I mean, unless you are flying a helicopter. Though I don't think it would be a very good idea, or at least not very effective to practice archery from a helicopter. :roll:

Anyway, what someone flying will do when shooting an arrow is intuitive archery. They will shoot the arrow in the general (well, not *that* general, of course. ) direction of the target, and if it hits it in any way, it's a success. You won't have much success using a sniper rifle while at a run either, and trying to aim precisely while moving will be as, if not even less, effective.

A friend of mine practices a variation of Japanese archery (notice how he draws the bow. In Western archery, you stand sideways, at a right angle to the target. You draw your bow by holding the arm that is holding the bow straight, and then drawing back your right arm close to your body in a straight line, following the line of your bow arm [one error that is common with beginners, and for most likely anatomical reasons especially female beginners is to lift the elbow of your draw arm up. It must be all in one line, though, because if you draw your elbow up, the arrow goes down. You should use your shoulder to draw back your arm, though still be careful not to push back your shoulders too much, or else your arrow will fly wonky and not straight, and at worst you'll get whipped by the bowstring {One of the mistakes everyone should make at least once in archery is holding their bow arm incorrectly. One stretches their arm in the most comfortable way, of course. Sideways that has the elbow pointing somewhat down. However, if you do that while holding a bow, you'll get the inside of your lower arm whipped. The right way to hold your arm is with your elbow facing out. It's an unusual position, and if you relax, your arm will jump back to the comfortable one immediately. But if you got your inner arm whipped by the string once, you are sure to remember it in the future - I speak from experience. }]. In Japanese Archery, you hold the bow away from you a bit, and draw the bow by pushing the arm *holding* the bow forward, in the same movement moving it closer to you. The arm holding the string remains nearly immobile. When I tried this, it was *very* weird, as I am used to the Western way. There is no right way to draw a bow, of course. But it takes getting used to if you've used another technique for so long. ). She also does that while riding (it's not exactly Kyuodo what her group does, it's based partly on it.). When you're riding, you won't aim, but shoot more flexibly.

Oh! Another thing about quivers. My friend's group use a special quiver, due to them also doing horseback archery. As far as I remember, it is rather flat, and has a compartment for every arrow at the bottom, so that they are held secure, as the whole thing hangs nearly parallel, and during riding it can easily dip it's opening down. The way it's constructed, it stops arrows from falling out, which would be rather incovenient on a horse.



So, knowing all that, the best way of drawing your bow is *not* the Mediterranean one (that's the three fingered one, with two fingers below, and one above the nock.), as it can already cause error due to the fact that one of your fingers might be slower at the release. What is left is the Pinch draw, or the Mongolian draw, which uses the thumb. The difference between these is that the Pinch draw is the fastest, though you can't draw out the bow as far as the other draws, unless you have *very* strong fingers (If you pinch something, you only hold it through pressure. If the force with which it tries to escape exceeds the force of that pressure, it *will* escape. It's good for fast shooting, so this is the one usually used when in battle, when accuracy is not the top priority.). The Mongolian draw is similar to the Mediterranean draw in that they both allow for the bow to be drawn out to a greater extent, as you hook your fingers around the string, and thus have a lot more control over the release than with the pinch draw. You will need some kind of protection for extended sessions, though (finger pads for Mediterranean, Thumb Ring for Mongolian Draw. I'm looking to make myself a thumb ring right now, using this set of instructions [anyone know where I might get a single billiard ball?]). Additionally, the Thumb Ring allows you to draw out smaller bows to a larger extent than the Mediterranean one - this is because the smaller the bow, the smaller the angle at which the string will be when pulling it far back. Obviously you can stick a thumb into a smaller angle than you could three fingers.



By the way, in a large battle, you won't try to aim too precisely. This all good and fine, but really, quite unrealistic when in a huge battle. Shooting upwards at an angle, so that the arrow flies in an arch is what you'll do in a large battle, since it will be more effective - of course you need many archers for that, so that it will be a rain of arrows.



One last thing. If anyone is going to draw arrows: Make them long enough! There likely won't be a problem with arrows that are drawn in action (as in, on the drawn bow, ready to be released), but more in the ones not in action. In fact, it looks like the arrows in the arm quiver in that picture you posted are in fact too short to be drawn properly in that bow (compare them to the one on the bow. They would barely reach onto the body of the bow when drawn! For most bows that get fully drawn, the arrow should be *at least* as long as your sideways extended arm, measured from the finger tips, and to about the middle of that side's clavicle. My arrows are 76 cm longs. For comparison, my legs, measured standing up to my hip are 84 cms long. Yup, arrows are long.
(Seriously, this is a huge mistake. I can't count how many times I've seen drawings of characters carrying huge, impressive longbows or recurve bows...and in their quiver, they carry arrows that look to be little more than 30 cms long. Imagining them trying to shoot those arrows with those huge draw bows is to me the equivalent of the Pistol that "shoots" a little flag saying "Pang!" The one in the example you posted is luckily just a mild example, and not immediately noticeable. Though I just also noticed the guy in the front must have grabbed another guy's arrows that morning - assuming that he usually draws the bow the way his colleague in the back does, of course. )

Oh, and I just realised, lower leg quivers might be tricky, depending how your bird people draw their bows. If they draw them like the ones in the example, it won't work most likely (heck, the shinguards of that one birdman in the front just *waits* to be caught in the bowstring alone...). Because in that case they would have to be as long as their legs...and I think you get the picture. Seeing as Doxie drew proper bird legs though, this might be solved by placing the quiver at the *back* of the lower leg. (I think she did do that, actually. I can't quite tell from the sketch yet. Doxie? I'm afraid the arrows are too short, though. )

I'm really sorry for offering all this constructive criticism (as this is what it is intended as), but archery is one thing I know about, and there's so many


Oh! And awesome drawings as always, Doxie! I love the top one, but the bottom one is great too, especially the pose.



-


P.s.: I am not an expert on arrow heads, I am afraid - we shoot with what you could best describe as "sharpened sticks" at our archery club, as anything else would destroy the targets too fast (both the plastic foam ones, and the steel-belted straw targets). I know there's different types, and know the basics, but as far as I can tell, these don't serve a specific purpose, and were only randomly decorated by the artist.

Also, I agree on the wings. That's a common error with wings. People don't realise how large wings would have to be to carry a human, at least one that has a normal human body structure. Sure, the needes size could be reduced by streamlining the body, removing all necessary fat (sorry guys, I'm afraid that means no boobs on the ladies. And no curvy buttocks either. Not many curves at all, actually. Only the necessary things. ), stronger muscles in the chest area (we would need a larger sternum too, most likely. Those muscles have to be attached to something, after all. Maybe there's be some upper chest area after all, though I'm afraid it would be on both genders. Also, no squishyness, just firm muscle. ) and saying that they have hollow bones. The final result could still look human, though it would be in an eerie, lithe kind of way. That way you could get away with slightly smaller wings, though still not too small. But no, people insist on simply sticking a pair of undersized wings on the back of a normal human, and call it a day. Heck, it's not even with winged humans. Did you see Dragonheart? Watch the trailer, and see that scene where Draco appears over the hill, with the sun in his back? Great wings, right? Well, you know what? They are too small! Yes, they look right, and in proportion. And they do, and are. They're just too small for lifting a creature of that size in the air, if that would even possible. (The developers actually admit that in the making of, though they tried to do their best. But since it's only a movie, I think they did a pretty good job). Though the wings of the birdmen in your example really are an extreme.

Edited by Jazhara7, 23 September 2008 - 02:59 PM.