Magical beasts that should be animals

[Mr.Kraken]

I have a really tough time accepting some creatures as magical beasts. Take the owlbear, for example. Why should such a creature be considered magical if it has no magical abilities at all? In order to be a magical beast, the creature has to be "similar to animals but can have Intelligence scores higher than 2. Magical beasts usually have supernatural or extraordinary abilities, but sometimes are merely bizarre in appearance or habits."

Having extraordinary abilities as a prerequisite is lame, since there are lots of animals that have extraordinary abilities. So, the owlbear must be considered a magical beast just because it has a bizarre appearance, right? Another lame prerequisite. There lots of bizarre-looking animals out there (check the gharial, the tenerec, the chinese water deer, and many others), should they be considered magical beasts just because their appearance is a little different?

You may want to use the argument that the owlbear and several other creatures are amalgamations of different animals into one beast. I counter that with the platypus. In a fantasy setting, most uneducated people would say that the platypus is a mix of several creatures (duck, otter, beaver). It has extraordinary abilities (poison, blind/water sense), and looks bizarre. So, is the platypus a magical beast in D&D? I guess not.

Aside from the owlbear, I could cite many other magical beasts that, in my opinion, should be animals instead: the girallon, the hippogriff, the sea cat, the purple worm (vermin?), the stirge, etc.

What do you guys think?

[atemu1234]

I'd be more in favor of making those weird animal-like things into magical beasts than vice-versa, though maybe it has something to do with how they're perceived by the local culture.

I mean, an owlbear is an arcane being everywhere, while some of these animals naturally show up and are considered normal-ish.

[Mr.Kraken]

I'd be more in favor of making those weird animal-like things into magical beasts than vice-versa, though maybe it has something to do with how they're perceived by the local culture.

I mean, an owlbear is an arcane being everywhere, while some of these animals naturally show up and are considered normal-ish.

How is the owlbear arcane? I know there's a theory that the creature was created by wizards and all, but is that confirmed? Can an owlbear be detected via Detect magic?

[Psyren]

How is the owlbear arcane? I know there's a theory that the creature was created by wizards and all, but is that confirmed? Can an owlbear be detected via Detect magic?

Can an elemental or skeleton? This is kind of a silly question. Just because something doesn't ping on detect magic doesn't mean there weren't obviously magical forces involved in its creation.

[Prime32]

Having extraordinary abilities as a prerequisite is lame, since there are lots of animals that have extraordinary abilities. So, the owlbear must be considered a magical beast just because it has a bizarre appearance, right? Another lame prerequisite. There lots of bizarre-looking animals out there (check the gharial, the tenerec, the chinese water deer, and many others), should they be considered magical beasts just because their appearance is a little different?One example I'm fond of (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vampire_squid) right here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5ZQH2Uzpew
I mean how many DMs would allow glitterdust as an (Ex) ability? It must be magical. :smalltongue:

[Pan151]

It is arcane in origin, not nature.

Animals are creatures that came to be naturally, through evolution/divine creation/whatever it is that made your setting as it is. They are what would pass as a normally occuring animal in real life.

Magical beasts are creatures that were artificially created with magic and/or are somehow infused with magic. Think genetically engineered creatures (on purpose or by accident) only instead of silly robes and silly masks, the people involved were wearing silly robes and silly hats.

It's pretty simple, really.

[Inevitability]

Then how about the Bulette? The most unusual abilities it has are tremorsense and the ability to burrow. That's not a reason to make it 'magical'.

[Mr.Kraken]

It is arcane in origin, not nature.

Animals are creatures that came to be naturally, through evolution/divine creation/whatever it is that made your setting as it is. They are what would pass as a normally occuring animal in real life.

Magical beasts are creatures that were artificially created with magic and/or are somehow infused with magic. Think genetically engineered creatures (on purpose or by accident) only instead of silly robes and silly masks, the people involved were wearing silly robes and silly hats.

It's pretty simple, really.

Purple worms, for example, are not explicitly stated to be arcane in origin, nor are most of the creatures I've stated above. How do you know these creature did not simply came to be just like animals? And there's nothing magical about them. Just like animals.

I am working on the stats of the creature Ahool, based on Indonesian folklore. The creature is a mix of bat and gorilla, having the body of a gorilla with giant-bat wings instead of arms. Its feet are lined with claws and its teeth are sharper than a standard gorilla's. I'm having a difficult time to classify the Ahool. I took the owlbear as an example, and by its standard as a mixed creature, it's supposed to be considered a magical beast. But it's not magical. In my world, it's simply a natural creature that lives in tropical forests with nothing special about it. No crazed wizard made any experiments with bats and gorillas, no god created it as a showing of his/her power. It's just a natural inhabitant of the material plane with animal-like traits. So, magical beast or animal?

[Psyren]

Purple worms, for example, are not explicitly stated to be arcane in origin, nor are most of the creatures I've stated above. How do you know these creature did not simply came to be just like animals? And there's nothing magical about them. Just like animals.

Magic is a natural force in D&D. Just because a creature came to be doesn't mean magic wasn't involved in some way. A wizard doesn't actually have to be involved.

[Heliomance]

Pretty sure "Animal" refers exclusively to real-world creatures, living or extinct. Magical Beasts are anything you won't find in the real world. It's not that hard.

[Mr.Kraken]

Pretty sure "Animal" refers exclusively to real-world creatures, living or extinct. Magical Beasts are anything you won't find in the real world. It's not that hard.

But how to differentiate that in-game?

[Zubrowka74]

Yep, it's not that hard. I can't understand where's the big problem here. In any case, if you are homebrewing a new monster you have the last word on what it is.

[Telonius]

But how to differentiate that in-game?

Druidic experimentation. Animals can be Awakened, Magical Beasts can't.

EDIT: Also ... if it's an Animal, a Druid can wildshape into it. If you're really comfortable with a Druid being able to turn into a Chimera at level 8, or a twelve-headed Cryohydra at level 15 ...

[Nicol Bolas]

But how to differentiate that in-game?

Don't?

D&D sucks at simulationism.

[Mr.Kraken]

Druidic experimentation. Animals can be Awakened, Magical Beasts can't.

Is there any in-game explanation on why you can't awaken (stupid, Int 2 or lower) magical beasts?

[Telonius]

Is there any in-game explanation on why you can't awaken (stupid, Int 2 or lower) magical beasts?

It's the same nature/magic issue. Nature is a Druid's thing. Their magic is all about natural stuff. If it can't work on a magical beast, a magical beast is by definition not completely natural. Yeah, it's a tautology; but if you're looking for a fluff distinction, it doesn't really exist in the published rules.

[Tarlek Flamehai]

Quoted from SRD



Animal Type

An animal is a living, nonhuman creature, usually a vertebrate with no magical abilities and no innate capacity for language or culture.
Features

An animal has the following features (unless otherwise noted in a creature’s entry).
•8-sided Hit Dice.
•Base attack bonus equal to ¾ total Hit Dice (as cleric).
•Good Fortitude and Reflex saves (certain animals have different good saves, for instance dire animals have good Fortitude, Reflex, and Will saves).
•Skill points equal to (2 + Int modifier, minimum 1) per Hit Die, with quadruple skill points for the first Hit Die.

Traits

An animal possesses the following traits (unless otherwise noted in a creature’s entry).
•Intelligence score of 1 or 2 (no creature with an Intelligence score of 3 or higher can be an animal).
•Low-light vision.
•Alignment: Always neutral.
•Treasure: None.
•Proficient with its natural weapons only. A noncombative herbivore uses its natural weapons as a secondary attack. Such attacks are made with a -5 penalty on the creature’s attack rolls, and the animal receives only ½ its Strength modifier as a damage adjustment.
•Proficient with no armor unless trained for war.
•Animals eat, sleep, and breathe.

Magical Beast Type

Magical beasts are similar to animals but can have Intelligence scores higher than 2. Magical beasts usually have supernatural or extraordinary abilities, but sometimes are merely bizarre in appearance or habits.
Features

A magical beast has the following features.
•10-sided Hit Dice.
•Base attack bonus equal to total Hit Dice (as fighter).
•Good Fortitude and Reflex saves.
•Skill points equal to (2 + Int modifier, minimum 1) per Hit Die, with quadruple skill points for the first Hit Die.

Traits

A magical beast possesses the following traits (unless otherwise noted in a creature’s entry).
•Darkvision out to 60 feet and low-light vision.
•Proficient with its natural weapons only.
•Proficient with no armor.
•Magical beasts eat, sleep, and breathe.


Darkvision = Magical Beast
No Darkvision= Animal

[Flickerdart]

I am working on the stats of the creature Ahool, based on Indonesian folklore. The creature is a mix of bat and gorilla, having the body of a gorilla with giant-bat wings instead of arms. Its feet are lined with claws and its teeth are sharper than a standard gorilla's. I'm having a difficult time to classify the Ahool.
Magical beast. In order to fly by the laws of physics, a gorilla would need absolutely ridiculously sized wings. Just look at regular birds with proper bird bodies - a cinereous vulture has a wingspan that's three times its length. You'll probably need a 4-5 times wingspan just to get your gorilla off the ground, given its much higher bone density and non-aerodynamic limbs.

The gorilla body in general makes no sense from an evolutionary perspective for a winged creature. Without a long neck and beak, it will have a lot of trouble doing much of anything, since it has no forelimbs to manipulate things with. Its great weight would mean it would have difficulty nesting in trees - while gorillas do climb trees, flying things of that size will have extreme difficulty navigating far enough down into the canopy that they could find branches thick enough to support their weight. Climbing down? You took away their arms, they can't do that anymore.

Definitely a magical beast.

[Mr.Kraken]

Magical beast. In order to fly by the laws of physics, a gorilla would need absolutely ridiculously sized wings. Just look at regular birds with proper bird bodies - a cinereous vulture has a wingspan that's three times its length. You'll probably need a 4-5 times wingspan just to get your gorilla off the ground, given its much higher bone density and non-aerodynamic limbs.

The gorilla body in general makes no sense from an evolutionary perspective for a winged creature. Without a long neck and beak, it will have a lot of trouble doing much of anything, since it has no forelimbs to manipulate things with. Its great weight would mean it would have difficulty nesting in trees - while gorillas do climb trees, flying things of that size will have extreme difficulty navigating far enough down into the canopy that they could find branches thick enough to support their weight. Climbing down? You took away their arms, they can't do that anymore.

Definitely a magical beast.

Thank you, this makes perfect sense. In a way, to be a magical beast, the creature must be able to do something special or to, at least, look special compared to common animals. It's all good if you look at it from the outside, but in-game-wise, I think it's a little broken with the examples I gave. I think it's a question as debatable as 'why is this creature a humanoid and not a monstrous humanoid?' (Gnoll, I'm looking at you ^^).

[Pan151]

Purple worms, for example, are not explicitly stated to be arcane in origin, nor are most of the creatures I've stated above. How do you know these creature did not simply came to be just like animals? And there's nothing magical about them. Just like animals.


They are magical beasts because they are hardier and more combat savvy than any equivalent animal could ever naturally be (ie bigger Hit Die, higher BAB per Hit Die). That alone is explicit enough.

[Flickerdart]

I think it's a question as debatable as 'why is this creature a humanoid and not a monstrous humanoid?' (Gnoll, I'm looking at you ^^).
Monstrous Humanoid generally makes sense - a humanoid is monstrous when they exhibit a prominent deviation from humanoid traits such as bipedalism.

[Mr.Kraken]

They are magical beasts. That alone is explicit enough.

Sounds too "because reasons" to me.

I guess the reason I'm being too incisive is because, subconsciously, I just wanted to use an awakened owlbear in my campaign. Can you imagine the awesomeness of that?

[Flickerdart]

Sounds too "because reasons" to me.

I guess the reason I'm being too incisive is because, subconsciously, I just wanted to use an awakened owlbear in my campaign. Can you imagine the awesomeness of that?
Why would you need to awaken an owlbear? Just cast some Int-boosting spells at it, or give it some Int-boosting templates.

[Mr.Kraken]

Monstrous Humanoid generally makes sense - a humanoid is monstrous when they exhibit a prominent deviation from humanoid traits such as bipedalism.

Exactly my point. By that line of thinking, gnolls should be monstrous humanoids. Well, they happen to be humanoids with the gnoll subtype. So, gnolls are humanoids and goliaths are monstrous humanoids. See what I mean?

[Flickerdart]

Exactly my point. By that line of thinking, gnolls should be monstrous humanoids. Well, they happen to be humanoids with the gnoll subtype. So, gnolls are humanoids and goliaths are monstrous humanoids. See what I mean?
Gnolls are just very furry and have funny faces. Goliaths are substantially differently built from humans, from their great size to stony patches on their skin.

[Rijan_Sai]

Monstrous Humanoid generally makes sense - a humanoid is monstrous when they exhibit a prominent deviation from humanoid traits such as bipedalism.


Gnolls are just very furry and have funny faces. Goliaths are substantially differently built from humans, from their great size to stony patches on their skin.
A few samples from here (http://monsterfinder.dndrunde.de/results.php?id=3949808905&skip=0):
Asabi (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/mof_gallery/MonFaePG16a.jpg); Bugbear (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/MM35_gallery/MM35_PG29.jpg); Bullywug (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/mof_gallery/MonFaePG25.jpg); Kenku (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/mmiii_gallery/83014.jpg); Lizardfolk (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/MM35_gallery/MM35_PG169.jpg); Locatha (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/MM35_gallery/MM35_PG170.jpg); Shalarin (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/mof_gallery/MonFaePG76.jpg); Troglodyte (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/MM35_gallery/MM35_PG246b.jpg);

If the Goliath is a Monstrous Humanoid for their "great size [and] stony patches on their skin," (which is apparently a "prominent deviation from humanoid traits") then please explain how any of those that I listed up there are Humanoid?:smallconfused:

[Milo v3]

In my games I gave any non-supernatural non-sapient Magical Beasts and Vermin the Animal type, though it did make them weaker since Magical Beasts have a better chassis than Animals.

[Extra Anchovies]

If you want to turn magical beasts into animals, consider instead the Beast type from 3.0, which was used for non-magical creatures that don't exist IRL. The Ankheg is a good example of a formerly Beast-type now Magical Beast-type. Oddly enough, the dinosaurs were Beasts as well in the 3.0 MM, IIRC.

[Milo v3]

If you want to turn magical beasts into animals, consider instead the Beast type from 3.0, which was used for non-magical creatures that don't exist IRL. The Ankheg is a good example of a formerly Beast-type now Magical Beast-type. Oddly enough, the dinosaurs were Beasts as well in the 3.0 MM, IIRC.

Wouldn't that cause the same problem, since it's a different type for a creature just because it doesn't exist even though it's otherwise an animal?

[Extra Anchovies]

Wouldn't that cause the same problem, since it's a different type for a creature just because it doesn't exist even though it's otherwise an animal?

Well, it makes three distinct categories:

Nonmagical, exists in real life
Nonmagical, does not exist in real life
Magical, does not fit in any of the other magical creature types

And makes a creature type for each one. I was a little disappointed that the Beast type was removed, but I guess it makes things a bit simpler. And also it makes the Ankheg more powerful, which is good because I like it.

[Venger]

Pretty sure "Animal" refers exclusively to real-world creatures, living or extinct. Magical Beasts are anything you won't find in the real world. It's not that hard.


Well, it makes three distinct categories:

Nonmagical, exists in real life
Nonmagical, does not exist in real life
Magical, does not fit in any of the other magical creature types

And makes a creature type for each one. I was a little disappointed that the Beast type was removed, but I guess it makes things a bit simpler. And also it makes the Ankheg more powerful, which is good because I like it.
well, along with shapechanger, there were only like 10 monsters in the beast type, so they figured it'd be easier to shunt them to magical beast/animal.

[Milo v3]

Well, it makes three distinct categories:

Nonmagical, exists in real life
Nonmagical, does not exist in real life
Magical, does not fit in any of the other magical creature types


Except the issue is that "nonmagical, exists in real life" and "Nonmagical, does not exist in real life" aren't the same creature type.

[Phelix-Mu]

well, along with shapechanger, there were only like 10 monsters in the beast type, so they figured it'd be easier to shunt them to magical beast/animal.

But if it really bothers the OP, bringing back the Beast type wouldn't even be that hard, and it could be made to be just like Magical Beast, but minus the magic, in order to reduce the necessary alterations to statblocks.

I think later in 3.5, they could have found more than they had in 3.0 to fill out the Beast type, but the difference was already pretty slim.

[nedz]

Assuming you're the DM: It's your world — if you want to change the type of any creature then do so. You can exclude or change any monster you want to, even add new ones you have made up.

[Phelix-Mu]

Assuming you're the DM: It's your world — if you want to change the type of any creature then do so. You can exclude or change any monster you want to, even add new ones you have made up.

Some of my more interesting concepts as DM have come from trying to come up with new creature concepts that require entirely new creature types. Not easy, considering how encompassing types like Construct and Outsider are.

[Mr.Kraken]

I like the Beast type in 4E, because it encompasses both mundane animals, dinosaurs and nonmagical creatures. Makes more sense to me.

[atemu1234]

I like the Beast type in 4E, because it encompasses both mundane animals, dinosaurs and nonmagical creatures. Makes more sense to me.

Animals and dinosaurs are lumped as of 3.5, as are most nonmagical nonhumanoids.

[Mr.Kraken]

I like the Beast type in 4E, because it encompasses both mundane animals, dinosaurs and nonmagical creatures. Makes more sense to me.

My mistake. Actually, in 4E the Beast type is used for non-intelligent non-humanoid creatures. I still don't agree with this definition, because it makes the basilisk a common beast, not a magical beast.

[Der_DWSage]

Really, this is just an issue with 3.5's unnecessary granularity-there's plenty of things that don't fit in the 'mindless vermin' section either, after all. As the GM, you could probably just call everything an Animal, and apply Magical Beast as a template to anything appropriate and/or that you want to make tougher.

(I recommend also doing this with Undead and Monstrous Humanoids, but that's just me.)

[nedz]

Some of my more interesting concepts as DM have come from trying to come up with new creature concepts that require entirely new creature types. Not easy, considering how encompassing types like Construct and Outsider are.

I'm curios. What new types have you come up with ?

[Zombimode]

Pretty sure "Animal" refers exclusively to real-world creatures, living or extinct. Magical Beasts are anything you won't find in the real world. It's not that hard.

That is not the case. You only have to look as far as the Dire Animals. None of them exist or have ever existed on earth and yet they are animals. Some of the "Dinosaurs" are also completely made up (ECS lists no real-world analogue to the Fleshraker and Battletitan). And I'm sure there are more examples.