Animals, Beasts, and 3.5, oh my!

[jaldaen]

Hey all you ENWorlders!

I have a question (and a poll) for you about the proposed changes to monster type categories, specifically about dropping the Beast category... To me it seems more intuitive to keep Beast if you are also keeping Magical Beast... kind of like Humanoids and Monstrous Humanoids...

Anyone else think that it should be the "Animal" cetgory dropped instead of Beast?

 

[Bendris Noulg]

If you drop Animal, don't you pretty much just end up with the same problems anyway?

Personally, I intend to keep them. I even gave Andy ("the Intern") Smith the reminder to get Beast approved into the SRD so that I could continue using the category on my web site without any legal hassles (not likely to be any, but I still wanted to be safe).

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

*Shrug*

"A rose, by any other name ..."

If you're going to two categories instead of three (which seems logical enough) does it really matter. I'd prefer to keep Animal, since in involved renaming/changing fewer other game mechanics (Handle Animal, Animal Empathy, Awaken, etc, etc).

 

[KDLadage]

Seems odd to have Animals and Magical Beasts, but no ordinary beasts. So, I would like to see one of three things happen here:

1. Drop Animal. What are currently animals and beasts become Beasts; Magical beasts remain Magical Beasts.
2. Drop Beast, rename Magical Beasts to Magical Animals. What are currently animals and beasts become Animals; Magical Beasts become Magical Animals.
3. Drop Beast, rename Magical Beasts to Beasts. Wnat are currently animals and beasts become Animals; Magical Beasts become Beasts.

My $0.02 worth.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

None of the above.

Change a few beasts (eg dinosaurs) to animal, and that's it.

Additionally, change legendary animals to magical beasts. A 13th-level druid with a legendary tiger companion (allegedly CR 10, more like 15) is just scary.

 

[Plane Sailing]

ummm - you do know that people can *already* train dinosaurs with the animal handling skill? It is just a slightly higher DC.

I've pointed out (long, long ago) how much superior animal handling + animal empathy is for the high-Cha ranger than the paltry animal friendship spell. With the right skills and feats a 13th level ranger could easily have some trained tyrannosaurs to fight for him. Cool!

 

[jaldaen]

ummm - you do know that people can *already* train dinosaurs with the animal handling skill? It is just a slightly higher DC.

I do realize it... it was just meant to be an exaggeration... after looking over it I should have worded the third option to more firmly to state: I want the status quo... don't change a thing...

unfortunately only moderators can change polls... otherwise I would have clarified what was meant... trying to be funny... I failed my Preformance check... ;-(

Jaldaen

 

[Steverooo]

WotC: Hire me!

BOTH Beasts and Animals should stay! Yes, keep'em both, but put Dinosaurs and Dire Animals (Duh!) in Animals.

Beasts are animal mixtures, with only residual magic, such as the Griffin, Hippogriff, and Owlbear. These may have been originally developed through magic, but no longer are. Many creatures currently listed as "Magical Beasts" are really just Beasts with INT of 3+.

Animals and Beasts should be allowed to have INTs of nine or less. Many animals (some breeds of dogs, siamese cats, chimpanzees, gorilla, dolphin, porpoises, etc.) have an IQ above 20. Even if they have an 18 INT, I'm not sure that would make them "Magical Beasts".

Magical Beasts should mean that they have some form of magical power, whether innate or a spell-like ability. A winged "Shimmercat" with INT 2 and innate Blur ability would be a Magical Beast, while a simple winged cat would be a Beast. Get it? Griffins (Eagle-Lions) would be Beasts. Shimmer-Griffins would be Magical Beasts. Eez easy, no?

Beasts get +4 on saves vs. "Animal" spells, and Animal Empathy can be used on them, with a -4 penalty. Magical Beasts are protected by their magic!

Hire ME, WotC!

 

[bwgwl]

i don't mind there only being two categories, and i don't mind particularly if there's a slight mismatch in the names (animals / magical beasts).

i think the best suggestion so far is to simply call magical beasts "beasts". the distinction of them being magical beasts really doesn't need to be made any more.

i also agree with Steverooo that some animals should have Int scores above two, specifically whales, dolphins, gorillas, and chimps. and they shouldn't have to be considered "magical" in order to have a higher Int either.

 

[jaldaen]

Re: WotC: Hire me!

BOTH Beasts and Animals should stay! Yes, keep'em both, but put Dinosaurs and Dire Animals (Duh!) in Animals.

Hire ME, WotC!

I like your spunk Steveroo! Could I hire you for...

My Two Cents,
Jaldaen