PDA

View Full Version : What's so Special about Magical Beasts?



Primal Fury
2009-10-29, 10:14 AM
What is it that makes creatures with the Magical Beast type so special? I can't think of any defining traits the all of them possess... aside from the whole "Intelligence above 2" thing.

Sinfire Titan
2009-10-29, 10:18 AM
Polymorph effects. When you count as the same species as a Displacer Beast, the Girallon, and even Big T himself, you've got something going for you.



The d10 HD, two good saves, and Full BAB helps (but familiars don't get that). Really, just take a look at the Totemist and you shall learn.

Zeta Kai
2009-10-29, 10:23 AM
It's to make a distinction between a unicorn/pegasus & horse. Otherwise, those creatures would have to be considered Animals or Abberations, neither one of which is very fitting.

Optimystik
2009-10-29, 10:27 AM
What is it that makes creatures with the Magical Beast type so special?

The word "magical?" :smalltongue:

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-10-29, 10:31 AM
What is it that makes creatures with the Magical Beast type so special? I can't think of any defining traits the all of them possess... aside from the whole "Intelligence above 2" thing.

Nothing that I've found. I've basically removed magical beasts from my games, mostly because of the whole polymorph thing; unicorns -> fey, girallon -> animal, displacer beast -> aberration, tarrasque -> dragon, etc. and adjust stats accordingly.

Tiki Snakes
2009-10-29, 10:33 AM
Nothing that I've found. I've basically removed magical beasts from my games, basically because of the whole polymorph thing; unicorns -> fey, girallon -> animal, displacer beast -> aberration, tarrasque -> dragon, etc. and adjust stats accordingly.

The Tarrasque almost makes sense as some kind of demonic or abberant dragon, actually.

Mystic Muse
2009-10-29, 10:34 AM
isn't the Tarrasque just a giant Turtle?

alternatively Godzilla.:smalltongue:

hamishspence
2009-10-29, 10:34 AM
generally, they tend to have different things from normal creatures.

More limbs than the usual 4.
Magical powers
Unusually high intelligence.

Some combination of the above.

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-10-29, 10:35 AM
The Tarrasque almost makes sense as some kind of demonic or abberant dragon, actually.

My theory was that dragons are essentially lizards + awesome, so whether that awesome is "I have better spellcasting than you'll ever get" or "I'm really freaking impossible to kill" both work as dragons. :smallwink:

Vizzerdrix
2009-10-29, 10:36 AM
I miss 3.0s beasts category of monsters.

hamishspence
2009-10-29, 10:39 AM
I think they split it partly because a lot of creatures being classed as Beasts were actually real animals (dinosaurs).

Telonius
2009-10-29, 10:58 AM
I always thought the Tarrasque was a horrendously wizarded-up cat familiar.

Consider:

- Spends most of its life asleep.
- Consumes everything when awakened.
- Normally moves slowly, but can occasionally move at great speed.
- It's abundantly clear that, whatever this thing is, a Wizard did it.

Optimystik
2009-10-29, 11:33 AM
More limbs than the usual 4.
Magical powers
Unusually high intelligence.

Some combination of the above.

I'm starting to see the OP's confusion; all of those generally apply to aberrations as well.

Random832
2009-10-29, 11:37 AM
An aberration is _supposed_ to be something from beyond the universe that would drive you insane to look at it, if not for the fact that it's just a person with an octopus for a head.

A magical beast is supposed to be a relatively normal-ish variation on a normal animal.

In practice there's not much real difference, except that there's somewhat inconsistently-applied fluff for aberrations that doesn't fit the creatures assigned the magical beast type

Primal Fury
2009-10-29, 12:01 PM
I'm starting to see the OP's confusion; all of those generally apply to aberrations as well.

Exactly my point. So why have the Magical Beast type at all? Just for the fluff?

jindra34
2009-10-29, 12:15 PM
Exactly my point. So why have the Magical Beast type at all? Just for the fluff?

Generally most magical beasts also can be seen as starting with an animal as a base and then doing some improving. Aberrations tend not to have a single recognizable base.

Aldizog
2009-10-29, 12:22 PM
Generally most magical beasts also can be seen as starting with an animal as a base and then doing some improving. Aberrations tend not to have a single recognizable base.
Improving? Sometimes. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0322.html)

Yucca
2009-10-29, 12:33 PM
Exactly my point. So why have the Magical Beast type at all? Just for the fluff?

You can't make (non-epic) handle animal checks against magical beasts. You can have a unicorn ally, but not a unicorn pet. Same goes for wild empathy. If all (or most) magical beasts were animals, wild empathy would get a massive power boost.

Inhuman Bot
2009-10-29, 01:46 PM
isn't the Tarrasque just a giant Turtle?

alternatively Godzilla.:smalltongue:

I thought the Tarrasque was like... An elemental-hybred-thingy that a wizard made?

Foryn Gilnith
2009-10-29, 01:51 PM
You can't make (non-epic) handle animal checks against magical beasts. You can have a unicorn ally, but not a unicorn pet. Same goes for wild empathy. If all (or most) magical beasts were animals, wild empathy would get a massive power boost.



You can use this skill on a creature with an Intelligence score of 1 or 2 that is not an animal, but the DC of any such check increases by 5. Such creatures have the same limit on tricks known as animals do.

Unicorns are too smart for that, but there are magical beasts with Int 1 or Int 2. Giving them the magical beast type, in relation to Wild Empathy, is only a -5 penalty. It would get an effectively +5 boost if they were animals, but eh. Those chokers of empathy work just as well without class investment.

Volos
2009-10-29, 02:03 PM
Animal - Wolf, a nice furry critter with teeth and good hunting skills.

Magic Beast - Winter Wolf, a bigger nastier version of a wolf with ice breath that could kill you about five times as fast.

Questions?

Yucca
2009-10-29, 02:56 PM
Unicorns are too smart for that.

True as it is now, but I there isn't a INT restriction for which animals wild empathy can work on. (obviously this is because normally animals can't have an int of >3). So just changing the monster type would allow wild empathy to work on unicorns.

Which is the problem with all house rules. When you change one thing, you affect a score of other things that also need to be changed.

Sinfire Titan
2009-10-29, 03:02 PM
Unicorns are too smart for that, but there are magical beasts with Int 1 or Int 2. Giving them the magical beast type, in relation to Wild Empathy, is only a -5 penalty. It would get an effectively +5 boost if they were animals, but eh. Those chokers of empathy work just as well without class investment.

In addition, a Totemist with the appropriate soulmeld bound to his Totem chakra ignores this and can use Wild Empathy on Magical Beasts fairly easily.

Moriato
2009-10-29, 03:39 PM
The "Magical beast" category probably exists so that magic, items, and class features that specifically effect only animals don't work on them.

Also, though, keep in mind that an int of 3 or more means that the creature understands at least one language (common if not otherwise specified), so one difference is that you can speak to a magical beast without magical assistance.

GolemsVoice
2009-10-29, 03:48 PM
I think that Magical Beast also means an understanding and intelligence that is greater than what normal animals posess, such as the ability to do good or evil, and know that they are doing so. That's where the whole Int over 3 thing comes from.

Blackfang108
2009-10-29, 03:58 PM
Animal - Wolf, a nice furry critter with teeth and good hunting skills.

Magic Beast - Winter Wolf, a bigger nastier version of a wolf with ice breath that could kill you about five times as fast.

Questions?

Don't forget, the Winter Wolf can "naturally" talk, also.,

Fhaolan
2009-10-29, 04:12 PM
isn't the Tarrasque just a giant Turtle?

alternatively Godzilla.:smalltongue:

Gamera, actually. Except that the Tarrasque doesn't fly.

Which it should. :smallsmile:

Flayerman
2009-10-29, 04:13 PM
Nor is it friend to all the children.

Toliudar
2009-10-29, 04:18 PM
I can see "Magical Beast" as a kind of middle stop on the continuum between animals (more or less familiar and normal creatures) and aberrations (which range from things that look like mutant lobsters to the frankly cthulhu-esque). And yes, I find it a useful thing to have that middle ground.

Whereas "Magical Beasts" can be seen as the result of "a wizard did it", aberrations are much more likely to be "an insane god did it, then ran screaming from his own creation."

Zaydos
2009-10-29, 04:31 PM
Animal: natural creature, possibly a more primal version of one. Example: wolf, dire wolf.

Magical Beast: Animal with magic or supernatural features, usually (but not always) greater intelligence. While they have magical powers, they are pretty much what you'd expect from animals in a magical world. Some are hybrids. Also tougher per hit die than animals in melee and out. Example: Unicorn, griffon, worg.

Aberration: Unnatural being with strange powers and an alien mind. They are twisted and mad. Cthulian inspiration for a large part. Good will saves, typically less melee oriented than animals, with same HD and BAB, not as physically tough but with magic to make up. Example: Illithid, chuul, umber hulk.

In short the magical beast is a magical animal, where an aberration, even the most animalistic of them, is a being of nightmare and horror. Magical beasts are mostly natural with some supernatural abilities and improved intelligence. Aberrations on the other hand are mostly unnatural and little if any animal base.

Aberrations aren't actually very close to magical beasts, dragons are close to the more reptilian ones which tread the line closely between lesser (non-True) dragons and magical beasts.

Blackfang108
2009-10-29, 04:32 PM
Whereas "Magical Beasts" can be seen as the result of "a wizard did it", aberrations are much more likely to be "an insane god did it, then ran screaming from his own creation."

Except the Chuuls. A Wizard Did It, but he did it stupidly and made them insane and nigh-immortal.

EDIT: things to remember: Elan are Abberations.
Also: Synad.

Also: Will-O-the-Wisp.

AslanCross
2009-10-29, 06:51 PM
I'm starting to see the OP's confusion; all of those generally apply to aberrations as well.

Aberrations always have tentacles or tentacle-like structures somewhere.

...ok granted, the Displacer Beast has tentacles.

Primal Fury
2009-10-29, 06:56 PM
See?! The displacer beast is a perfect example. It's got tentacles, 2 extra forelimbs, is terrifyingly gaunt, and has a malign(sp?) intelligence. Sounds like an abberation to me.

Solaris
2009-10-29, 06:59 PM
Nor is it friend to all the children.

Nonsense. The tarrasque awakens whenever a child is unjustly sent to bed without supper. It then proceeds to eat this child's mean parents and anyone else over the age of twelve within a hundred mile radius, then goes back to sleep.
The moral of the story is: Don't breed. You'll wake up the Tarrasque.

Boci
2009-10-29, 07:01 PM
See?! The displacer beast is a perfect example. It's got tentacles, 2 extra forelimbs, is terrifyingly gaunt, and has a malign(sp?) intelligence. Sounds like an abberation to me.

But it doesn't have the wierd abilities to make up for 3/4 BAB it would have as an aberration.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-10-29, 07:05 PM
Aberrations always have tentacles or tentacle-like structures somewhere.

So, what about elans? Do they just have intestinal tentacles rather than intestinal cilia?

Sinfire Titan
2009-10-29, 07:06 PM
But it doesn't have the wierd abilities to make up for 3/4 BAB it would have as an aberration.

This is the key difference between Aberration and Magical Beast. Magical Beast is a step down from Outsider or Dragon in power, and Aberration is the best of its breed (a step up from Monstrous Humanoid or Giant). The abilities an Aberration have make up for their medium BAB and moderate HD, but the abilities Magical Beasts have usually augment their BAB and stats.


So, what about elans? Do they just have intestinal tentacles rather than intestinal cilia?

No need. (http://http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/VaginaDentata)

ShneekeyTheLost
2009-10-29, 07:15 PM
An 'Animal' actually exists in real life. Horses, dogs, wolves... that kind of thing. Sure, they stretch things out a bit for 'Dire' verisons, but hey, it's effectively the same thing writ bigger. It could happen.

A 'Magical Beast' could never exist without magic. Magic is infused into them and has become a part of their existance. The Wolf vs Winter Wolf is a good example. A wolf cannot breathe a cone of cold and speak Common. Winter Wolves can.

Most Magical Beasts are sentient, thus dealing with them is more along the lines of Diplomacy than Handle Animal.

taltamir
2009-10-29, 08:33 PM
well...
A magical beast is an animal that is magic.

1. it is a nice name for certain creatures (aka, you don't want to call a unicorn an aberration)
2. it helps limit some spells (aka, only works on animals or humanoids. thus magic beasts are excluded)

Magnor Criol
2009-10-29, 08:37 PM
Aberrations always have tentacles or tentacle-like structures somewhere.

...ok granted, the Displacer Beast has tentacles.

Athachs don't have tentacles. Three arms, yes, but no tentacles.

Then again, I don't really think they should be aberrations to begin with.

AstralFire
2009-10-29, 08:43 PM
What's so special about dragons?

Seems to me they should be part of the Magical Beast type.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-10-29, 08:47 PM
They don't want to have to pump Dragon wisdom to give them better Will saves. They don't want to have to pump Dragon intelligence to give them more skill points. They figured that they might as well make magical sleep and paralysis immunity part of the whole dragon group. Then, since they were making a new type anyway, they threw on d12 hit dice.

AslanCross
2009-10-29, 08:49 PM
Athachs don't have tentacles. Three arms, yes, but no tentacles.

Then again, I don't really think they should be aberrations to begin with.

I agree that Athachs shouldn't be aberrations. Why would a giant with three arms be more aberrant than a giant with TWO HEADS? @_@


What's so special about dragons?

Seems to me they should be part of the Magical Beast type.

Well, that's exactly what they did in 4E. They're natural magical beasts.

They were given their own type in 3.5 to make them more awesome per HD than most monsters.

Master_Rahl22
2009-10-29, 08:51 PM
Off topic: Am I the only one who completely misread this topic and came in here preparing to defend heterosexual men everywhere? :smallbiggrin:

AstralFire
2009-10-29, 08:53 PM
They don't want to have to pump Dragon wisdom to give them better Will saves. They don't want to have to pump Dragon intelligence to give them more skill points. They figured that they might as well make magical sleep and paralysis immunity part of the whole dragon group. Then, since they were making a new type anyway, they threw on d12 hit dice.

One thing that I've always assumed was an uncontroversial improvement of 4E's - but I've never actually checked - was the switch towards Monster Keywords instead of types with defined traits. Type 'classes' seemed largely pointless, with the large number of exceptions that it had - the only type with very few exceptions was Dragon, because it's overly specific for a type to begin with.

taltamir
2009-10-29, 08:53 PM
Off topic: Am I the only one who completely misread this topic and came in here preparing to defend heterosexual men everywhere? :smallbiggrin:

there are plenty of others who also love breasts.

Serpentine
2009-10-29, 09:02 PM
If anything, the Tarrasque should be a dragon. It's a French dragon, with the head of a lion, body of a serpent and the shell of a turtle. And it's in The Enchanted World series' Dragon book. So ner :smalltongue:

Animals are natural - even if they don't actually exist, they could exist through normal evolution.
Magical beasts are magically natural - they could only evolve in a universe with magic. Many are creatures that at one time or another were believed to have really existed, but actually didn't.
Aberrations are alien - they could not evolve in this universe, with or without magic, and/or they go against all the natural order and normality of this universe. Although, with this sort of definition and keeping in mind some of the actual aberrations, certain species of parasitic wasp would probably be aberrations... Basically, they've just got an extremely alien psyche and/or physiology and/or reproductive cycle.

taltamir
2009-10-29, 09:04 PM
dragons should actually be "magical beasts" if you think about it.
Why do they warrant their own class but unicorns do not?

Inhuman Bot
2009-10-29, 09:10 PM
dragons should actually be "magical beasts" if you think about it.
Why do they warrant their own class but unicorns do not?

It's not called Dungeons and Unicorns?

AstralFire
2009-10-29, 09:18 PM
It's not called Dungeons and Unicorns?

I hate when people bring this point up. Simple fact is that as the RPG market has expanded and the franchise has picked up a bajillion campaign settings, D&D has evolved to take the role of 'generic fantasy RPG', and dragons are not endemic to all forms of fantasy. Privileging only one type isn't logical, especially not for 3.x which was supposed to be the most modular of the editions.

Insert Shakespeare's Rose here.

sonofzeal
2009-10-29, 09:24 PM
generally, they tend to have different things from normal creatures.

More limbs than the usual 4.
Magical powers
Unusually high intelligence.

Some combination of the above.

Owlbear fails at all three of those.

Thurbane
2009-10-29, 09:33 PM
The delineation between Aberration and Magical beast is often quite arbitrary. Here's my 2 cents on that subject:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5331636&postcount=58

taltamir
2009-10-29, 09:54 PM
The delineation between Aberration and Magical beast is often quite arbitrary. Here's my 2 cents on that subject:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5331636&postcount=58

its not arbitrary at all:
If it is cute, cuddly, or just an animal with magic it is a magical beast.
If it is a horror and an abomination it is an aberration.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-10-29, 09:57 PM
You call a darkmantle cuddly? You call a remorhaz an animal with magic? You call an Yrthak cute?

You call will-o-wisps abominations?

Serpentine
2009-10-29, 10:00 PM
dragons should actually be "magical beasts" if you think about it.
Why do they warrant their own class but unicorns do not?I don't think you're necessarily wrong about dragons being magical beasts, but the unicorn is a terrible example. In answer to your question, because dragons and dragon-like creatures can be found on every continent of the world and span every extreme of size, intelligence, bestiality, sophistication, danger, limbs, abilities, environment, and so on. Just a few examples: wyverns, wyrms, the Tarrasque and the typical dragon of Europe, the serpent that tried to devour the boat of Ra in Egypt, monstrous crocodiles in Africa, wowie and Rainbow Serpent in Australia, the similar-looking but extremely differently-behaved dragons of Korea, China, Japan and the rest of Asia, Quetzalcoatl and giant serpents of South America, monstrous flying reptiles and reptilian birds of North America, and sea serpents all over the world.
The unicorn has: The ugly original that was probably a rhinoceros, the pretty white horse of Europe, and the Asian Kirin that was more like a dragon. It has as much in common with griffins and winter wolves as different dragons have with each other.

AstralFire
2009-10-29, 10:06 PM
I love how anything with scales is a dragon. And that the Qilin/Kirin is 'more like a dragon'. (It's not. It's not at all.)

And that you stuck really closely to 'things with one horn' instead of the natural progression of 'magical horses', which provides a very large increase, and yet is still nowhere near as broad as "anything that has scales ever".

EDIT: I come off really confrontational and jerky in this post. Sorry. Latent frustrations on this subject.

Zaydos
2009-10-29, 10:10 PM
Personally I can see true dragons as their own type, they always have a strange progression, and such (honestly the D&D dragon isn't the mythical dragon at all anymore it's a horse of a different color entirely). Everything else though... a dragon turtle could just be a magical beast, same with a wyvern.

taltamir
2009-10-29, 10:10 PM
I don't think you're necessarily wrong about dragons being magical beasts, but the unicorn is a terrible example. In answer to your question, because dragons and dragon-like creatures can be found on every continent of the world and span every extreme of size, intelligence, bestiality, sophistication, danger, limbs, abilities, environment, and so on. Just a few examples: wyverns, wyrms, the Tarrasque and the typical dragon of Europe, the serpent that tried to devour the boat of Ra in Egypt, monstrous crocodiles in Africa, wowie and Rainbow Serpent in Australia, the similar-looking but extremely differently-behaved dragons of Korea, China, Japan and the rest of Asia, Quetzalcoatl and giant serpents of South America, monstrous flying reptiles and reptilian birds of North America, and sea serpents all over the world.
The unicorn has: The ugly original that was probably a rhinoceros, the pretty white horse of Europe, and the Asian Kirin that was more like a dragon. It has as much in common with griffins and winter wolves as different dragons have with each other.

all them are essentially a magical flying lizard. And the terrasque is a turtle not a dragon. And the wyvern is not a dragonoid either (in DnD or IRL mythology).

In DnD, dragons don't come in the vast variety of styles they do IRL. they are all basically "europe dragons" with in a variety of colors (and color coded ability and alignment), and a variety of dragon born creatures (since they cross breed with anything)

Dragonmuncher
2009-10-29, 10:14 PM
I thought there was an "r" in that title.

I need to get some sleep...

sonofzeal
2009-10-29, 10:16 PM
I thought there was an "r" in that title.

I need to get some sleep...

Now those would be special....

infinitypanda
2009-10-29, 10:20 PM
No need. (http://http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/VaginaDentata)

No, just no. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NoJustNo) This is wrong on so many levels. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ThisIsWrongOnSoManyLevels)

Zaydos
2009-10-29, 10:29 PM
all them are essentially a magical flying lizard. And the terrasque is a turtle not a dragon. And the wyvern is not a dragonoid either (in DnD or IRL mythology).

I have to disagree on this one the wyvern is mentioned in several real world myths as a dragon. Specifically a wyvern is a type of dragon which does not have front legs, just like linnorm (or land worm) is a dragon without wings or hind legs, and the dragon Fafnir was wingless (winged dragons come later in Norse mythology, only one I know of and that is suspected to be a later edition as the style is changed for it and the older versions just have the creature be a troll). Even with European dragons the wings were optional, often included in art but not in the story itself. That said D&D dragons are the stereotypical fantasy dragon, because the winged dragons had the most impact in art and on readers and later gamers. [/rant]

That said I'd say that dragons are traditionally placed higher than normal magical beasts in most fantasy novels, games, etc, and in baseline D&D. Which might explain it. That said half the "dragons" in D&D shouldn't be dragons. Also most mythical types of dragons weren't dragons in the D&D since at all.

Sorry I'm a bit of a dracophile and a mythphile...

taltamir
2009-10-29, 10:39 PM
you are right. I made a mistake about the wyverns.

BTW. Anything in DnD that flys with wings and isn't a real world animal has to be flying using magic. They fail physics forever and can't grasp the concept of weight to wingspan ratio.

Dimers
2009-10-29, 10:46 PM
In DnD, dragons don't come in the vast variety of styles they do IRL. they are all basically "europe dragons" ...

The Oriental Adventures book details eight more dragon types, though they're all 'lung' dragons rather than having examples from a wider variety of cultures. I imagine it's not the only sourcebook with other such critters in it. Also note that some other creature categories override the 'dragon' type -- for example, a dracolich is undead, not a dragon, also restricting the group a bit.

Zaydos
2009-10-29, 10:46 PM
you are right. I made a mistake about the wyverns.

BTW. Anything in DnD that flys with wings and isn't a real world animal has to be flying using magic. They fail physics forever and can't grasp the concept of weight to wingspan ratio.

This I agree whole-heartedly with. Especially dragons, if asked "how do dragons fly, they're too big?" my response is "They're magic." or I get started on the movie The Flight of Dragons and say, "They eat limestone and grind it up to produce hydrogen which gives them lift and then expel it, igniting it with a little electrified thing in their mouth to breathe fire."

When asked why that pegasus is hovering my response is also, "Magic." Then I say, "Hey it took a feat." I like giving things a good fly maneuverability :smallredface:

Dimers
2009-10-29, 10:49 PM
I love how anything with scales is a dragon. And that the Qilin/Kirin is 'more like a dragon'. (It's not. It's not at all.)

... but kirin have scales ...

:smallwink:

taltamir
2009-10-29, 10:49 PM
This I agree whole-heartedly with. Especially dragons, if asked "how do dragons fly, they're too big?" my response is "They're magic." or I get started on the movie The Flight of Dragons and say, "They eat limestone and grind it up to produce hydrogen which gives them lift and then expel it, igniting it with a little electrified thing in their mouth to breathe fire."

When asked why that pegasus is hovering my response is also, "Magic." Then I say, "Hey it took a feat." I like giving things a good fly maneuverability :smallredface:
lol..
it took a MAGIC feat ;p

Serpentine
2009-10-30, 02:21 AM
I love how anything with scales is a dragon.Broadly speaking, yep, pretty much. My first choice of honours thesis was on pretty much this sort of topic.

And that the Qilin/Kirin is 'more like a dragon'. (It's not. It's not at all.)What I've read about it (which, admitedly, isn't all that much), pretty much the only things it has in common with unicorns are the one horn, innate goodness, and susceptibility to maidenly charms. With dragons, it has scales, monstrous head and face, the gaze, flight, and dangerousness. I stand by my statement that it is more like a dragon than it is a unicorn in the sense of "horse with a horn".

And that you stuck really closely to 'things with one horn' instead of the natural progression of 'magical horses', which provides a very large increase, and yet is still nowhere near as broad as "anything that has scales ever".A unicorn is a horse-like creature with a single horn. The unicorn was the example given. If he had said "horse-like magical beasts", then alright, there's also the nightmare (various), pegasus, hippogriff maybe, hippocampus... Um... That's all I know of, though I don't doubt there are others. Oh, I did miss an actual unicorn, though: According to one legend, Alexander both owned a peculiar type of unicorn with a curved horn and a peacock tail, and fought unicorns with brown hides and serated horns.
The fact remains: According to the question, "Why do (dragons) warrant their own class but unicorns do not?", the answer is "dragons (at least in real-world mythology) potentially include pretty much every reptile-like monster, varieties of which can be found all over the world and which vary immensly even in the same area, whereas unicorns are limited to horsey things with a single horn".

To the person who said Tarrasques are turtles, from Dragons from The Enchanted World series: "That was the fate of a dragon named the Tarasque, the terror of a district in the South of France near the town then known as Nerluc.
Descriptions of dragons rarely are reliable... Confused as they are, though, records of the Tarasque suggest an exceptional dragon. Unlike its northern cousins, the Tarasque was hulking rather than sinuous - a small mountain of flesh clad in armor-plate scales and supported on six stout legs. It could destroy fields and dwellings by fire, which issued in streams from its mouth, or by flood, which it caused by lashing the waters of the Rhone River with its tail. During its roamings through fields and olive groves and vineyards, it devoured beasts and herdsmen alike.
The well-armored Tarasque was impervious to the sharpest weapons that smiths could forge, wielded by the stoutest champions of Nerluc."
Helluva turtle...

Some of the variety of dragons, that are generally accepted as being dragons, found in European legends:
Amphiptere
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7b/Amphiptere.jpg

Wyvern
http://murray.inmanfamily.org/pix/wyvern%204.gif

Heraldric
http://www.blackdrago.com/images/heraldic_western.gif

Lindworm
http://supertomasse.s.u.pic.centerblog.net/1ag3djnn.gif

Guivre
http://gameartsguild.com/squawk/bestiary/guivres/guivre01.gif

Optimystik
2009-10-30, 07:46 AM
I thought there was an "r" in that title.

I need to get some sleep...

After decades of exposure to typical fantasy artwork, I can confirm that magical breasts are indeed no longer special.

Zaydos
2009-10-30, 07:53 AM
After decades of exposure to typical fantasy artwork, I can confirm that magical breasts are indeed no longer special.

They still are too me!

Oh there's an 'r' in there. Well to agree or disagree with that would require someone to define what makes them magical or not and I don't think that's PG enough to actually talk about.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-10-30, 07:57 AM
They fail physics forever and can't grasp the concept of weight to wingspan ratio.

I saw a hypothesis somewhere that D&D world has "less gravity" (that's an horribly imprecise way to state it), based on falling speed, which allows the variety of bizarre creatures.

Starbuck_II
2009-10-30, 08:01 AM
I saw a hypothesis somewhere that D&D world has "less gravity" (that's an horribly imprecise way to state it), based on falling speed, which allows the variety of bizarre creatures.

But then the Monstrous Bee should have better ability.
In Earth, Bee shouldn't be able to fly so well.
In a lower gravity world, it would be immensely better.

Zaydos
2009-10-30, 08:03 AM
But then the Monstrous Bee should have better ability.
In Earth, Bee shouldn't be able to fly so well.
In a lower gravity world, it would be immensely better.

Bees are magical beasts :smallwink:

Thus giant bees were misclassified as vermin and should be changed along with their special abilities.

Or possibly their anti-gravity or whatever did not increase proportionally with size as they relied on the natural lower gravity.

Kaiyanwang
2009-10-30, 08:38 AM
Consider that different designers could have different opinions about what defines an aberration. One could think that aberrations are aberrations because are reaaly ugly, another because of the origin (so the chuul is not a giant crustacean, could or should not be born on the material world without an external support).

Of course, I consider more acceptable if the things are well established (a way to do it is show the picture to my players: if they say "oooh" is good for a magical beast, if they say "yech" is good for an aberration.

I see perfectly reasonable that dragons have they own type, not only for the name of the game (this couls be a silly reason).

In my view Dragons embody the powers of universe. The strenght of the giants, is in dragons. The magic of fey, is in dragons. The primal power of elements, is in dragons. Dragon are all of this, and more, all of this with the mystery of magic.

They deserve to be special. A drake could have a spark of this power, a wyvern could be something primal or that lost is power. Linnorm could be a corrupted form, Great Red or Gold wyrm the noblest forms.

But that power is in them, in the highest lifeform of D&D universe. Transform them in giant lizards, is defile the spirit and the mystery of a part of the game. Is making them less inspiring. IMHO, of course.

@ Serpentine: interesting the image of the Guivre. I knew a different one (wikipedia :smallconfused:?) with a winged, legged one.

Optimystik
2009-10-30, 08:50 AM
In my view Dragons embody the powers of universe. The strenght of the giants, is in dragons. The magic of fey, is in dragons. The primal power of elements, is in dragons. Dragon are all of this, and more, all of this with the mystery of magic.

Ugh. Not to derail the thread, but I had to chime in; I dislike dragon-wank every bit as much as elf-wank.

"Hi, I'm a big lizard that casts spells, eats a lot, has lethal halitosis and steals people's money. I'm interesting!"

Give me an Aberration, Outsider or Construct any day as my monstrous Big Bad/Good instead.

Kaiyanwang
2009-10-30, 09:22 AM
Ugh. Not to derail the thread, but I had to chime in; I dislike dragon-wank every bit as much as elf-wank.

"Hi, I'm a big lizard that casts spells, eats a lot, has lethal halitosis and steals people's money. I'm interesting!"

Give me an Aberration, Outsider or Construct any day as my monstrous Big Bad/Good instead.

See, my biggest campaing had outisders as "first monsters". I found them far more interesting for an epic plot.

And my favourite monsters are fey and giants (and i really, really would have loved books like draconomicon, book of bad latin and lord of madness for them).

Nevertheless, I like special dragons. And I like elves that way (even if I try to make something special for every race - "my" cobolds are not "puny cobolds" are cool, crafy beings).

Thurbane
2009-10-30, 08:38 PM
its not arbitrary at all:
If it is cute, cuddly, or just an animal with magic it is a magical beast.
If it is a horror and an abomination it is an aberration.
Really? So these guys are "cute and cuddly" animals? :smalleek:
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/MM35_gallery/MM35_PG59.jpg
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/MM35_gallery/MM35_PG214b.jpg
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/MM35_gallery/MM35_PG38b.jpg
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/MM35_gallery/MM35_PG234.jpg

Starbuck_II
2009-10-30, 08:41 PM
Dark Mantles are cute actually. I mean look at him. Don't you want to hug him. He wants hug you. :smallbiggrin:

shaddy_24
2009-10-30, 08:53 PM
But then the Monstrous Bee should have better ability.
In Earth, Bee shouldn't be able to fly so well.
In a lower gravity world, it would be immensely better.

The bolded part isn't even true. Science can prove that bees fly just fine. They opperate on the same theory as helicopters, rather than birds and airplanes.

As to get back to the topic, I generally see dragons not as big bads, but more as brute force used by said big bads. They have their own goals, and act independantly, but any planes they have are much longer term and they're willing to help others to advance their own plans. Abberations tend to act quickly, giants suddenly and violently, and the other groups tend to be various henchmen, followers, random elements, etc. A humanoid often tends to be the big bad, just because it seems weird that these alien monsters aren't doing as much damage as something so much more recognizable.

Starbuck_II
2009-10-30, 08:59 PM
The bolded part isn't even true. Science can prove that bees fly just fine. They opperate on the same theory as helicopters, rather than birds and airplanes.

As to get back to the topic, I generally see dragons not as big bads, but more as brute force used by said big bads. They have their own goals, and act independantly, but any planes they have are much longer term and they're willing to help others to advance their own plans. Abberations tend to act quickly, giants suddenly and violently, and the other groups tend to be various henchmen, followers, random elements, etc. A humanoid often tends to be the big bad, just because it seems weird that these alien monsters aren't doing as much damage as something so much more recognizable.

Yes, since 4 years ago, I see.


generally the smaller the insect the faster it flaps. This is because aerodynamic performance decreases with size, and so to compensate small animals have to flap their wings faster. Mosquitoes flap at a frequency of over 400 beats per second. Birds are more of a whump, because they beat their wings so slowly."

Being relatively large insects, bees would be expected to beat their wings rather slowly, and to sweep them across the same wide arc as other flying bugs (whose wings cover nearly half a circle). They do neither. Their wings beat over a short arc of about 90 degrees, but ridiculously fast, at around 230 beats per second. Fruit flies, in comparison, are 80 times smaller than honeybees, but flap their wings only 200 times a second.

When bees want to generate more power--for example, when they are carting around a load of nectar or pollen--they increase the arc of their wing strokes, but keep flapping at the same rate. That is also odd, Dickinson says, because "it would be much more aerodynamically efficient if they regulated not how far they flap their wings but how fast


Not exactly like a helicopter (that was just a theory). But it is new-ish that they solved bee flight.