D&D 3E/3.5 [3.5] Contradication between PHB/DMG?

[Malin Genie]

The DMG (p205) states that druid animal companions are just ordinary animals, not magical beasts like familiars/paladin mounts.

I don't have my PHB with me, but I recall the section on druid animal companions for 3.5 stating they *were* magical beasts with special abilities (including share spells) previously only available to familiars or paladin mounts.

Am I remembering wrongly?

If not, what gives?

 

[Dthamilaye]

The designers couldn't make up their mind. There are several places where they are referred as animals and several other where they are magical beasts.

Pick whatever you are satisfied with, until official errata arrives?

 

[avatarolt]

The Andy Collins response is "animal". Ref: www.andycollins.com

 

[Darkness]

BTW, their bonus HD make them also advance in size just like other animals of their type, don't they?

 

[dcollins]

The Andy Collins response is "animal". Ref: www.andycollins.com

I guess that's a joke? You've linked to an Australian folk singer's website. Your humor's pretty dry.

 

[ThirdWizard]

It's http://www.andycollins.net/

dot net!! Easy mistake to make, though.

Yes, Andy said they were supposed to be animals. The PHB and DMG don't just contradict each other, either, they both state that they are animals and that they are magical beasts. But, they're supposed to be animals, apparently, and it was a bad copy job from the familiar description or something along those lines.

 

[the Jester]

Boy, for what was supposed to be a clean up, insert errata, essentially edit-job (3.5), they sure didn't do much editing, did they?

 

[mikebr99]

BTW, their bonus HD make them also advance in size just like other animals of their type, don't they?

Nope... Just the stuff that is exactly spelled out.

If you want a bigger wolf you'll have to wait till you can cast Animal Growth.


Mike

 

[reapersaurus]

Boy, for what was supposed to be a clean up, insert errata, essentially edit-job (3.5), they sure didn't do much editing, did they?

I totally agree with this.

I am SO glad I wasn't a sucker about purchasing the 3.5 books. (no offense to anyone who did - more power to ya, If you like 'em)

My mind boggles that they didn't accomplish the one major thing that everyone in the world WAS asking for in an update: clearer rules.

 

[Artoomis]

...My mind boggles that they didn't accomplish the one major thing that everyone in the world WAS asking for in an update: clearer rules.

Too true. They obviously did not get the correct editor(s) for the job and/or did not let the editor(s) do the job right. Production deadlines and/or too many last-minute changes can cause the latter.
Gerneally speaking, to get pretty much error-free technical books of this sort takes about 3 to 3-1/2 hour per page after the rules are set. That's a lot of hours.