Shouldn't dinosaurs be animals instead of beasts?

[Wolfspider]

I know you guys are getting tired of me posting threads about creatures with scales, but I was just wondering what you thought about dinosaurs being animals instead of beasts.

Animals represent historical, real-world creatures, and dinosaurs are certainly that. Beasts include imaginary animals with fantastic characteristics.

Opinions?

 

[SpikeyFreak]

Animal

Animal: An animal is a nonhumanoid creature, usually a vertebrate. All animals have Intelligence scores of 1 or 2. Unless noted otherwise, animals have low-light vision.

Hit Die: d8
Attack Bonus: Total HDx3/4 (as cleric)
Good Saving Throws: Usually Fortitude and Reflex
Skill Points: 10-15
Feats: -

Beast

Beast: A beast is a nonhistorical, vertebrate creature with a reasonably normal anatomy and no magical or unusual abilities. Unless noted otherwise, beasts have low-light vision and darkvision with a range of 60 feet.

Hit Die: d10
Attack Bonus: Total HDx3/4 (as cleric)
Good Saving Throws: Fortitude and Reflex
Skill Points: +1 per extra HD
Feats: -

I guess they either wanted to give them darkvision and low-light vision or allow them to have a higher Int.

I like the feel of them being beasts, actually. They really aren't like any animals that are around today.

And in light of a lot of recent theories, I think some of them need to have a higher Int than they do.

--Pachycephalosaur Spikey

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

I guess there is also a matter of power. Dinosaurs are more powerful than most animals. But then there are dire animals...

Let me guess: Your druid lizardfolk want a dinosaur pet

IMC I'm coming around to letting the druid use beasts as animal companion, but they'll "cost" more HD.

[EDIT]man, by forgetting to add an "s" I almost said I was willing to let the druid use an X-Man as a companion![/EDIT]

Say she has a owlbear companion, I'll rate it a 7 or 8HD animal companion (instead of 5). I might also let this owlbear be stronger than normal. Let'say he his built with 25 points instead of 12 (10 everywhere). That will bump his usefulness at least another 2 HD.

And the owlbear might advance in HD to keep up with the druid.

Result in having an 8HD owlbear with a STR of 26 and CON of 24 (for example) as an animal companion for 13th level druid (meaning the owlbeast is worth 13 HD of animal companion).

You could do the same reasoning with a dinosaur.

 

[Wolfspider]

Let me guess: Your druid lizardfolk want a dinosaur pet

Am I that transparent?

Well, he IS going on an excursion into the Amedio Jungle soon, and I figured you might run into one there....

I always assumed they WERE animals.... Actually when I was looking at the abilites for humanoids and monstrous humanoids I realized otherwise.

 

[Dr_Rictus]

Animals represent historical, real-world creatures, and dinosaurs are certainly that.

Not true. "Historical" does not mean "real-world," and dinosaurs are prehistoric. The Monster Manual seems to use the most generous definition of "history" imaginable (that is, "human history," or the time that humans have existed). But by any stretch dinosaurs are definitely "nonhistorical, vertebrate creatures with a reasonably normal anatomy and no magical or unusual abilities."

Now, whether the "historical" part of the definition of "animal" is important to you is a topic you can certainly discuss, but the definition is clearly being applied correctly in this case.

The real question for me is why, given the definitions, apes are animals and not humanoids.

 

[Wolfspider]

Not true. "Historical" does not mean "real-world," and dinosaurs are prehistoric. The Monster Manual seems to use the most generous definition of "history" imaginable (that is, "human history," or the time that humans have existed). But by any stretch dinosaurs are definitely "nonhistorical, vertebrate creatures with a reasonably normal anatomy and no magical or unusual abilities."

Hmmm. That's an interesting way to interpret this. What about dire bears and other dire animals? Do those represent cave bears, sabretooth tigers, those giant crocodiles, and other prehistoric animals?

I hate to quibble over the word "historical," but I think I will anyway. One of the definitions of "historical" that dictionary.com (yeah, I'll admit, not the best dictionary around but darn convenient) gives is:

having once lived or existed or taken place in the real world as distinct from being legendary

Another definition is "belonging to the past."

I think that these two definitions would cover dinosaurs.

As you pointed out, however, it's certainly not as cut and dry as I supposed.

 

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

My understanding is that Dr Rictus is correct. Dire Animals are still animals because they are simply enhanced versions of real animals. No overt magic or prehistoric element.

Not that this system is very elegant. It is not. But that is "the reason"

 

[Wolfspider]

But that is "the reason"

Yeah, I can understand that. But it still doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

 

[Caliban]

Yeah, I can understand that. But it still doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

The real reason (in my opinion): They specifically didn't want druids trying to wildshape into dinosaurs or trying to acquire dinosaurs as animal companions.

 

[Rashak Mani]

Dire Animals are supossedly prehistoric animals or prehistoric style versions... Dinosaurs are a class of "animals" of that age.

Why separate Vermins too ? Classification is in order to help distinguish different kind of animals... not to be accurate completely.

Imagine Rangers using animal friendship on Dinosaurs ? These arent animals the way we know them... its one thing to know the general behaviour of mammallian carnivores... a T-Rex has a different mindset and physiology of contemporary predators...