Dinosaur Stats

[Khisanth the Ancient]

Here's the Saltopus, a 2' long dinosaur :
Saltopus
Tiny Animal
Hit Dice: 1d8-1 (3hp)
Initiative: +3 (+3 Dex, +0 Improved Initiative)
Speed: 30ft.
AC: 18 (+2 size,+3 Dex, +3 natural), touch 15, flat-footed 15
Attacks: Bite +0 (+0 Base, -2 Str, +2 size)
Damage: Bite 1d3-2
Face/Reach: 2-1/2 ft./0
Special Attacks: -
Saves: Fort +1, Ref +5, Will -1
Abilities: Str 7, Dex 16, Con 9, Int 2, Wis 9, Cha 8
Skills: Spot +10
Feats:-
Climate/Terrain: Any warm land
Organization: Solitary or pack (2-5 plus 1 noncombatant young)
Challenge Rating: 0.5
Treasure: -
Alignment: Always neutral
Advancement: -
The Saltopus is one of the smallest of dinosaurs. They resemble tiny versions of the other meat eating dinosaurs. They are brightly colored.
COMBAT
Saltopus only attack Small or larger creatures if they intrude into the saltopus' territory. If they take damage, they usually flee.


These stats may also be used for the Compsognathus

 

[Krishnath]

Cute, But, I think you might benefit from puting a little more effort into the 'flavor' text. Also, as of Savage Species Dinosaurs are now animals.

Later,

 

[Khisanth the Ancient]

Ok, it's an animal now.

 

[DonaldRumsfeldsTofu]

Bah, I dislike the post-Savage Species take on Animal/Beast/Magical Beast.

 

[Krishnath]

Please tell me what you don't like? Perhaps that they eliminated a pointless creature type (beast), that dinosaurs are now animals (as they should have been from the beginning), or perhaps that the griffon and hydra are now magical beasts (like they're supposed to be). Please enlighten us with your wisdom.

 

[Devon]

For myself, I thought the mythical creatures should have all gone into Magical Beast, while the dinosaurs, dire creatures, and other prehistoric creatures could have been placed safely into the Beast category, leaving the more mdoern creatures to the Animal cetegory.

Putting the proven, real-world prehistoric creatures into Animal is a good compromise, however, and reduces the need for a judgment call on each individual beastie. I'm just (sniff) sad to see Beast go...

- Devon

 

[Krishnath]

How do you feel on the change for Shapechanger from a creaure type to a subtype? Personally I like it, I mean, just look a the phasm, if that is not an ooze, then the beholder isn't an aberration...

 

[Devon]

I had somehow overlooked that change, but I approve -- it allows for more refined categorization. After all, what do a doppelganger, a mimic, and certain fey shapechanging creatures REALLY have in common that they should all be the same creature type?

Does that subtype get applied to dragons, fiends and other creatures which traditionally get shapechanging abilities?

I'll go review the 3.5 updates.

- Devon

 

[Krishnath]

I only think they get the shapechanger subtype if the shapeshifting abilities are a large part of their nature or essence if you will, for example, the gold dragon would not get the subtype, as it is not such an intrecate part of it's nature. But it is certainly possible for several creatures both old and new to gain the subtype....