PDA

View Full Version : Why is a Mooncalf a "Magcial Beast"?



MegasquidMan
2007-07-04, 10:14 PM
I dunno, I see them, their stats (über powerful), abilities (Telepathy, affinity to magic, and the ability to get "Harbinger Feats"), and intentions (witnessing natural disasters, or making them). And Magcial Beast is kinda stretching it for me.

Mooncalves, to me, seem more like Aberrations than Magical Beasts. But, this is just me talking.

What do some of you say?

Cauchy
2007-07-04, 10:26 PM
Well, the Tarrasque is also a "magical beast," so it's not a question of creature power. Here's what Wizards has to say about Magical Beasts vs. Aberrations

An aberration has a bizarre anatomy, strange abilities, an alien mindset, or any combination of the three.

Features: An aberration has the following features.


d8 Hit Dice.
Base attack bonus equal to 3/4 total Hit Dice (as cleric).
Good Will saves.
Skill points equal to (2 + Int modifier, minimum 1) per Hit Die, with quadruple skill points for the first Hit Die.

v.s.

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.

From a design standpoint, it makes more sense to have your many tentacled non-spellcasting front-line monster into the fighter-like Magical Beast rather than the caster-like Aberration. And honestly, just looking at the descriptions, it could fit in either category.

MandibleBones
2007-07-04, 11:03 PM
I agree wholeheartedly. Anything that has tentacles, is squamous and generally evokes Cthulhu is, to me, an aberration.

Diggorian
2007-07-04, 11:35 PM
When I first read this I thought, "Mooncalf, baby cow with special powers. Calf with a bluish tint and some 'moo' sonic attack, sure. Why an abberation?"

Then I saw the MM2 entry ... W -- T -- hells? Who names this a "mooncalf"? This thing is like Cthullu's nephew. Seems like they made it a magical beast to be assured of it's badassity. It's got TPK written all over.

Saph
2007-07-05, 06:50 AM
I thought about sending one of these against my level 6 party in the campaign we just finished. Took a closer look at the 'Reach' and 'Number of Attacks' entries and decided against it. Just as well, really.

I'd say anything with that many tentacles has to be an aberration.

- Saph

lukelightning
2007-07-05, 07:00 AM
I agree wholeheartedly. Anything that has tentacles, is squamous and generally evokes Cthulhu is, to me, an aberration.

A lizard is squamous (squamous just means scaley).

Heck, a mind flayer could just be considered a monstrous humanoid... but it is just so alien. And, as someone on the boards once pointed out to me, the platypus was basically considered an aberration when it was first discovered.

But really, "mooncalf" just sounds like a hippie chick name. "I'm Mooncalf Lovechild, man."

Bassetking
2007-07-05, 07:55 AM
A lizard is squamous (squamous just means scaley).

Heck, a mind flayer could just be considered a monstrous humanoid... but it is just so alien. And, as someone on the boards once pointed out to me, the platypus was basically considered an aberration when it was first discovered.

But really, "mooncalf" just sounds like a hippie chick name. "I'm Mooncalf Lovechild, man."

More like "Mooncalf Lovecraft".

Selv
2007-07-05, 08:41 AM
"Yep. It's a cow fetus. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mooncalf)"