Shouldn't dinosaurs be animals instead of beasts?

[SpikeyFreak]

Oh, and I think that they shouldn't be animals.

They are something that is totally different than anything that was around during the time period closest to what D&D tries to emulate.

Plus they just seem fantastic. I think that making them animals would take away some of the feel of what they are. I don't want druids having control over them in the same way they have control over "animals." I want them to be mysterious and frightening. They wouldn't be either of those if the cleric or druid in the party could use their animal spells or abilities on them.

All this dino talk coupled with the previews for Dinotopia has me wanting to do a Jurasic Park adventure.

And on the "dinosaurs are more bird than reptile" thing, what I have seen on the subject is that some are related to birds, but not all.

They really are their own distinct class (as in kingdom, phylum, class, not like cleric, fighter, rogue class).

--Lurking Spikey

 

[Wolfspider]

Plus they just seem fantastic. I think that making
don't want druids having control over them in the same way they have control over "animals." I want them to be mysterious and frightening. They wouldn't be either of those if the cleric or druid in the party could use their animal spells or abilities on them.

Yet other magic can control and manipulate even more fantastic and mysterious creatures.

But I do understand your point about wanting dinosaurs to be mysterious and awe inspiring. I understand this completely.

It's just that I wish the writers of the Monster Manual had described their rationale a bit and not just used hokey and illogical classifications that they don't even bother applying in all cases (putting the invertebrate octopus in a group of vertebrates, for example).