Shouldn't dinosaurs be animals instead of beasts?

[reapersaurus]

good one, laszlo.

 

[Voneth]

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!

And which Dragon mag # was this?

This thread has me wanting to play in a Lost World game now.

Now I am guilty, I remember in Dragon magazine # 289 the Dungeoncraft features a Lost World called Janda's Valley. The guards patrol the outer reaches with dino "dogs."

Druids are already pretty powerful. I'm not saying it'd be out of line to allow a druid to have a dinosaur animal companion, but I can certainly see why the designers decided to exclude them as the default rule.

Then by default they made DR demons that can summon whole armies of other demons. Animal Companions seem weak on that score

 

[DM_Matt]

This has come up before...

The official line is that since dinosaurs in the present are anachronisms, they are beasts, but they would be animals in their own time. Inconsistant? Yes. But one of the game designers said it.

I'd say that they are definately animals though.

BTW, does anyone else think that there is an obvious evolutionary link between T-Rex's and dragons?

 

[Wolfspider]

BTW, does anyone else think that there is an obvious evolutionary link between T-Rex's and dragons?

But which way does the chain go?

And which Dragon mag # was this?

The 25th anniversary issue, Dragon #284.

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

It occurs to me that dinosaur's have D10 instead of D8 because they are considered beasts.

As I've said before, it's shouldn't be unbalancing to allow beast as animal companions as long as you add a modifer to their HD for purpose of determining how many companion a druid can have.

 

[Wolfspider]

It occurs to me that dinosaur's have D10 instead of D8 because they are considered beasts.

A good point.

However, it would be an easy enough change to make if they were reclassified as animals.

 

[Numion]

Re: This has come up before...

The official line is that since dinosaurs in the present are anachronisms, they are beasts, but they would be animals in their own time. Inconsistant? Yes. But one of the game designers said it.

Considering that the game was written with medieval times in mind, there hardly is any inconsistency. Anyone who said that dinos would be animals in their own time is wrong. (Would lions then be beasts if they coexisted in dinosaurs time?)

They're beasts because they are 'different enough' from all creatures that are dubbed as animals in MM.

Next some aspiring munchkin will want dragon as 'animal' companion since they're clearly related to dinosaurs, which in turn are clearly animals.

 

[Wolfspider]

Next some aspiring munchkin will want dragon as 'animal' companion since they're clearly related to dinosaurs, which in turn are clearly animals.

Hmmm...do you think it's munchkiny to want a dinosaur for an animal companion as well? Since the rules don't allow my lizardfolk druid to have a dino animal companion, I guess I'll just have to train one with animal handling and get one that way--a method that is not at all limited by hit dice or any other rule-based check. Which way is more munchkiny? Which way is open to more abuse?

You're comment about dragons doesn't make much sense to me. Although dinosaurs are clearly animals because they are historical creatures that lived on Earth (wording in the MM that is open to various interpretation). A dragon is clearly not a real-world, historical creature. (And we're all very lucky they're not.)

 

[SpikeyFreak]

Well, dinos may be powerful, but some of the creatures in MotW are REALLY powerful.

The legendary tiger has a 23AC, 299hp and 2 claws (+29/2d6+11) and bite (+242d8+5) as well as improved grab, pounce and rake.

It may not do that much damage with each individual attack, but a 32 Str, combined with pounce and improved grab makes for a really scarey monster. Add to that a decent to good AC and 299hp, and I think it could take a tyranosaurus on.

Lets see, if it surprises an opponent (or just gets initiative), it can pounce and make 5 attacks at +29/+29/+29/+29/+24/ for a total of 6d6+2d8+26 which is 56 damage average on the first round, and 4d6+2d8+16 after that for 29 a round. Not too shabby. It would take 171-56=115, so it would take about 5 rounds if the tiger doesn't miss much.

Lets see, T-Rex will average 35 a round. 299/35 = 8 and some change, so 9 rounds, 7 if it gets AoO for the tiger moving in its reach, and that's assuming no misses, which are more likely since it has to hit AC 23 (vs it's own AC14).

Looks like that tiger will win most of the time. Seems to me like the tiger would be WAY better as a companion due to it's toughness. But then again, it has 8 more HD.

--Analytical Spikey

 

[Voneth]

The 25th anniversary issue, Dragon #284.

Ahhh, that's part of the series I was talking about. The older version of those articles are on line. But the designer was actualy focusing on Dino worshiping Clerics, not Druids. But how much of a tweak would one need to go to the next step.

[
It occurs to me that dinosaur's have D10 instead of D8 because they are considered beasts.

A downgrade in my HD seems fair enough for my purposes. I'm really asking for theme to my "dire" animals here.

[
Next some aspiring munchkin will want dragon as 'animal' companion since they're clearly related to dinosaurs, which in turn are clearly animals.

Sure if one wants to go to d8 hit points and take away their intellegence, spells and fire breath. Really, though if we stopped doing something just so that we could curtail aspiring muchckins, there wouldn't be much left to do other than play a d4 hit point theif.