Deinonychus unbalanced?

[Moe Ronalds]

One of my players is playing a druid from the "prehistoric" continent of my campaign world (don't ask) and he wants to have a Deinonychus animal companion when he reaches fourth level. This worries me a little because A: It's a beast, not an animal (though it shouldn't be a beast because a beast is described as any non-historical non-real fauna) and B: it has slightly better stats than a 4 hd wolf. But I also think his idea is great. What should I do o mighty ENworldites?

 

[Ferret]

I see your point, I thought a Beast was a creature that doesn't exist in the modern day, but animal should include it....

 

[Zappo]

A dinosaur is technically non-historical. So it's a beast. But, anyway, I think that in an actual prehistorical campaign dinosaurs should be considered animals as a house rule.

 

[BiggusGeekus@Work]

You know, when I first looked at the thread title I thought it said "Dionysus unblanced?" and I figured this for a discussion on the power of the Greek god of wine.

i was wrong.

 

[Ravellion]

You know, when I first looked at the thread title I thought it said "Dionysus unblanced?" and I figured this for a discussion on the power of the Greek god of wine.

i was wrong.

Gives BiggusGeekus a hug. "I've been there man!" *starts sobbing*



Rav

 

[Severion]

I would house rule that Dinosaurs (or beasts if you are so inclined) are treated as 2HD higher for the porpous of this spell/ability.

PS. excuse the spelling

 

[tsadkiel]

Of course they're not unbalanced. They've got that long stiff tail to help them balance - that's what it's for!

 

[Christian Walker]

A Bit Unbalanced

The Deinonychus is an incredibly powerful raptor that combines speed, agility, and cunning into a rather potent killing machine. I think it would be a bit much for a character to have one a companion, espceially if the critter were hasted and enlarged from time to time. Yikes!

I agree with you on the animal thing. I believe Joseph Goodman, the fellow behind Broncosaurs Rex, has all the dinsoaurs in his products statted as animals.

 

[reapersaurus]

umm.. I hate to break it to some people, but dinosaurs are NOT a "non-historical" creature.

They DID exist - or are some of you unaware of a thing called 'fossils'?

Upon reading the definitions for Animal and Beast in the MM closely, it doesn't take much thinking to come to the conclusion that they SCREWED UP on dinosaurs.

Dinosaurs quite plainly did "live on the planet Earth in historical times", and they are quite clearly nonhumanoid, vertebrate creatures.

Equating them with Hipogriffs and Bulettes makes Wotc appear ignorant of the entire science of Palaeontology.

If you ARE going to include dinosaurs in a campaign, than by the definitions of 3E, they would be Animals (since they DO exist in your campaign world).

 

[tsadkiel]

umm.. I hate to break it to some people, but dinosaurs are NOT a "non-historical" creature.

Nope. They're a "pre-historical" creature, i.e. they predate recorded history by 65 million years.