"Beast" not in 3.5


log in or register to remove this ad



My only complaint with the change is that they should have dropped the "Animal" category and kept the "Beast" category... I kinda think that it should be broken down as beast/magical beast instead of animal/magical beast, but that is probably just me...

Jaldaen
 
Last edited:

Nightfall said:
Sure cause now they can have dinosaur animal companions. ;)

Exactly! My lizardfolk druid Sedek will finally get his wish. :)

Nyah to all of you folks who said that dinosaurs weren't "historical animals" way back when....
 

Wolfspider said:

Nyah to all of you folks who said that dinosaurs weren't "historical animals" way back when....

Well, they still aren't. Hopefully wizards removes that Historically bit from the description as it seems few people knew what they were talking about.
 

Wolfspider said:
Nyah to all of you folks who said that dinosaurs weren't "historical animals" way back when....

I believe that they said that dinosaurs weren't "hysterical animals."

Nothin funny bout the T-Rex, my friend. Nothin funny, at all...

:p
 

jaldaen said:
My only complaint with the change is that they should have dropped the "Animal" category and kept the "Beast" category... I kinda think that it should be broken down as beast/magical beast instead of animal/magical beast, but that is probably just me...
Not just you, my friend. Not just you.
 

I like this. I'd already house-ruled something similar (but it hasn't come up IMC yet).

Dinosaur Wild Shape. Yummy!

-- Nifft
 

I always thought the distinction was whether or not the creature was fictional or it actually existed.

Now, everyone knows that dinosaurs never really existed, and that God planted fossils in the earth as red herrings to fool the unfaithful-- but does that make dinosaurs fictional or not? Can something qualify as fictional if it springs from the ultimate source of Truth?
 

Remove ads

Top