Shouldn't dinosaurs be animals instead of beasts?

[Wolfspider]

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.

What would be wrong with this? A Dire Bear is CR 7, while a tyrannosaurus is CR 8, which is equal to the Dire Tiger and one less than the Dire Shark. There's not that much difference in the levels of power. I'm sure the Legendary animals are easily more powerful than the most powerful dinosaurs.

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...

I can easily imagine this. Do the rangers and druids of the Amedio Jungle (or Chult if you campaign in FR) have a hard time understanding the behaviors of these animals living and hunting among them? I don't see that a t-rex has any different mindset and physiology than a crocodile or komodo dragon. Dinosaurs are part of the natural cycle of life, not like owlbears and hippogriffs, and thus druids and rangers shouldn't have any problem understanding them.

What if the DM decides to create a "Lost World" campaign involving prehistoric people trying to survive in a world full of terrible dinosaurs? Would druids and rangers in that setting be unable to understand and manipulate the majority of the animal population surrounding them? Or would they be forced to have small rodent-like mammals as companions, since those were the most common mammals of the time?

 

[Caliban]

What would be wrong with this? A Dire Bear is CR 7, while a tyrannosaurus is CR 8, which is equal to the Dire Tiger and one less than the Dire Shark. There's not that much difference in the levels of power. I'm sure the Legendary animals are easily more powerful than the most powerful dinosaurs.

I'm not trying to justify it, I'm just telling you why I think they make the distinction.

You would need to talk to Skip Williams for the actual reasons, I can only give you guesses.

 

[Wolfspider]

I'm not trying to justify it, I'm just telling you why I think they make the distinction.

You would need to talk to Skip Williams for the actual reasons, I can only give you guesses.

Oh, I'm not blaming you. I'm just thinking through the issue in writing, letting everyone know my thoughts. I'd love to hear what everyone else thinks about this.

 

[Dr_Rictus]

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

That's really only true if when you say "that age" you are willing to overlook the few million years between the age of dinosaurs and the rise of large mammals.

Actual "dire" animals (such as the dire wolf or cave lion) are "prehistoric" from the point of view of recorded history, but that's not the definition of "history" that the creature types seem to be using. Rather, they seem to be using "human history," and humans are contemporary with large mammals such as these.

It's interesting to note, by the way, that the write-up of the Mammoth in the DUNGEON Magazine adventure that included one types them as animals. That's one of the few real-world ice-age creatures WotC has statted up for 3e. Hardly conclusive, but it does seem to further suggest that the dividing line with respect to actual Earth creatures is the dawn of humanity as a species.

And, yes, "belonging to the past" is actually a perfectly valid meaning for "historical." My point was really just that there are several possible clear definitions for the term, and that doesn't seem to be the one that was meant. It seems to be a (specific) other one.

 

[Dr_Rictus]

I don't see that a t-rex has any different mindset and physiology than a crocodile or komodo dragon.

Not that it bears on the current discussion, but current theory as I understand it is that dinosaurs were not reptiles, and were probably only about as closely related to them as they are to birds.

 

[Wolfspider]

Not that it bears on the current discussion, but current theory as I understand it is that dinosaurs were not reptiles, and were probably only about as closely related to them as they are to birds.

True, I've heard of this theory. Nonetheless, I think druids would still have no problem understanding them and controlling them.

 

[reapersaurus]

oooh! dinosaur thread! I'm THERE, duuude.

I don;t think that dinosaurs are much more powerful on a HD to HD comparison than others, are they?

It's too bad your DM is a "strictly by-the-book" DM.
It would probably make the game *gasp* more fun if you could have the dino-companion.
But what dino exactly were you thinking of?

And where is the "Amedio Jungle"? Any info about that would be cool.

Also, does anyone have Broncosaurus Rex?
It sounded like they might have some applicable stuff for ya there.

 

[Wolfspider]

Oh, I dunno. Any ol' dinosaur would do. I just think it would be really neat. Coupled with those new dinosaur-themed druid spells from Dragon and ol' Sedek could be a real prophet of the thunderlizards!

The Amedio jungle is in the southern part of the World of Greyhawk. A lot of it is unexplored or inhabited by old/lost civilizations and such. A nifty place to adventure, no doubt.

A couple more points about animal and beast classifications:

So much for animals in D&D having to be vertibrates. The boneless octopus is listed in the back under animal. If the vertebrate classification can be so easily discarded, I don't see why the "historic" aspect couldn't also be ignored.

Someone mentioned before how they thought that maybe dinosaurs were classified as beasts to reflect their superior intellects. However, none of the dinosaurs in the Monster Manual, even the vaunted velociraptor, has an Intelligence over 2. Neither do any of the animals.

Also, speaking of Intelligence, porpoises and whales are also given Intelligence scores of 2, and I would think that if any animals were to be intelligent enough to be considered Beasts, it would be these sea mammals.

So, if Intelligence isn't the reason why dinosaurs were classified as beasts instead of animals, I can only assume that they were classified such in order to prevent druids and other spellcasters from manipulating them. And I really think this is a poor reason, considering their level of power and the fun that could be had with these animals.

 

[Malin Genie]

Although this doesn't directly address the question of 'dinosaur = beast?' how about a Feat to allow druids to extend their influence to beasts (not a huge leap, really, and very useful to prehistoric druids...)

Off the top of my head

Beast Mastery

Prq: Animal Empathy 8 ranks, Handle Animal 8 ranks, Skill Focus (Animal Empathy)

For the purposes of your use of skills such as animal empathy and handle animal you no longer receive a penalty when applying them to Beasts.

In addition, any spells you cast that affect only animals (including animal friendship) now affect Beasts as well, and you may thus have a Beast Companion in place of an Animal Companion (normal HD restrictions apply.)

 

[reapersaurus]

Oh, I dunno. Any ol' dinosaur would do. I just think it would be really neat. Coupled with those new dinosaur-themed druid spells from Dragon and ol' Sedek could be a real prophet of the thunderlizards!

The Amedio jungle is in the southern part of the World of Greyhawk. A lot of it is unexplored or inhabited by old/lost civilizations and such. A nifty place to adventure, no doubt.

*whipping out the ol' World of Greyhawk map*
Ah! I see it - cool, thanks!

It's funny, that phrase you use: my PC in the In-Character Forum, Ubaar, really IS a "prophet of the thunderlizards!"
He's a cleric of the Thunderbeast tribe in FR (a manifestation of Uthgar).
I have dinosaur-specific domain rules for the Thunderbeast domain.

And if you really wanna go that way (and your DM's gonna be "following the rules" on the +4 ECL on the lizardfolk), why not use a Saurial PC?