Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Artoomis" data-source="post: 1129969" data-attributes="member: 111">Frank, are you really serious?  We are talking 3.0e here, just to be clear, since this was clarified in 3.5e.Defining it as a magical beast rather than animal pretty clearly means it had to be an "animal" in the D&D sense.Nothing really truly restricts you to only the list presented, but it ought to be obvious that any other creature should be similar to the ones presented.Tome and Blood (and, now the DMG) presented rules for how you get different familiars.  I am truly at a loss for how you could honetly think you could get any small creature under 3.0e rules.Now way - not by the core rules.  Not even by twisting the reading of the rules around can you possibly honestly come to the conclusion that you could get any small creature as your familiar.If you truly believe this, I am SO glad you are not one of our players.If, on the other hand,  you are simply trying to state that the rules technically say one thing, even if nobody would ever dream of doing it that way, then I disagree, but I can appreciate a good intellectual argument.  Even if this has not really been one yet.  But it still has potential.</blockquote>