"Beast" not in 3.5

[jaldaen]

Not just you, my friend. Not just you.

Perhaps we should start a "Down with Animals, up with Beasts" movement? Perhaps I'll even post a poll to see what the masses think... Hmmm... I think I will...

Jaldaen

 

[Wippit Guud]

Now, everyone knows that dinosaurs never really existed, and that God planted fossils in the earth as red herrings to fool the unfaithful--

WHAT?!?

 

[Nifft]

WHAT?!?

He's talking about Shar, of course.

Vecna wouldn't plant dinosaur bones -- he'd just try to cover them up.

-- Nifft, certain that Vecna is behind the Black Helicopters

 

[Knight Otu]

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

Actually, the distiction was "historical", and Dinosaurs are prehistorical.

Personally, I am glad that they got rid of the Beast type. The distincion was artificial from the start, and the (admittedly poorly justified) errata for the MM only made it worse.

 

[KDLadage]

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?

Good point.

So let me see if I have this right... under D&D3.0:

T-Rex would be a beast
Laviathan would be an animal

A 60-ft long vegetarian lizard would be a beast
A speaking, devil-tongued serpent would be an animal

I am to assume that we can all agree that Grigori would be Giants then?



This is a joke my friends; I am a devout Lutheran and I find this a bit humorous. I am also hoping that the original post was made in jest.

 

[Crothian]

Actually, the distiction was "historical", and Dinosaurs are prehistorical.

Personally, I am glad that they got rid of the Beast type. The distincion was artificial from the start, and the (admittedly poorly justified) errata for the MM only made it worse.

I think the distincion was fine, it's just not a lot of people seemed to understand the difference between historic and prehistoric.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

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...

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

 

[Shard O'Glase]

I think the distincion was fine, it's just not a lot of people seemed to understand the difference between historic and prehistoric.

Or maybe they understood it, but saw how absurd of a term it was in a campaign world that has the historic and prehistoric animals side by side in the current day. For those camapign worlds the animals are neither historic or prehistoric, they are just animals.

 

[Knight Otu]

For those camapign worlds the animals are neither historic or prehistoric, they are just animals.

Exactly my point.

 

[Wolfspider]

Or maybe they understood it, but saw how absurd of a term it was in a campaign world that has the historic and prehistoric animals side by side in the current day. For those camapign worlds the animals are neither historic or prehistoric, they are just animals.

Exactly.