[3.5] Are Anthropomorphic Legendary Animals a Thing?

[Thurbane]

So, just idle wondering: RAW, can Anthropomorphic (SS) Legendary Animals (MM2) exist?

Bearing in mind these are 3.0 sources, and also that even if this works by RAW it would never fly at my table, is it possible?


Any animal (hereafter referred to as the base creature), but not a dire animal, can be created as an anthropomorphic animal. An anthropomorphic animal has all the base creature’s characteristics except as noted here.

So, say you were allowed to take an Anthropomorphic Legendary Ape as a race: your ability mods would be Str +20, Dex +6, Con +6, Wis +6?

For the sake of sanity, let's assume Legendary animals don't count. How about things like the Roc? Str +8, Dex +6, Con +6, Wis +2?

Do dinosaurs count as "dire animals" for this template? Because if not, how about Batteltitan dinos?

Just some random musings. Like I said, I wouldn't let things like this exist at my table, but in the crazy world of TO, would this fly by RAW?

[Troacctid]

Anthropomorphic regular animals are barely a thing, tbh.

[Anthrowhale]

As far as I can tell an anthropomorphic fleshraker is a valid application of the template and in general there are many strange animals published in strange places. Figuring out a formula for LA is fairly challenging for any character applications.

[AvatarVecna]

Anthropomorphic Animal doesn't have a specific way of calculating LA within the text, it just refers to the table, which only has LA for the animals in the monster manual (and not even all of them - there is no Anthropomorphic Roc, as you point out). That means that "Anthropomorphic X" that isn't in the book has no listed LA, and is thus illegal to make on the PC side of the screen.

Even if it were legal, I doubt it'd be anything all that bad. I've yet to check the book, but I'm willing to bet that there aren't many legendary animals that are small or smaller - they're all larger-than-life imposing figures that are a serious threat, there's no Legendary Mice to be found. And that means they're getting at least 2 RHD for being medium (or 3 RHD for being Large or larger). Small or smaller gets only 1 RHD, which is subsumed by your first class level. If you're medium or bigger, then you've given up 2 caster levels at the absolute minimum.

Ooooooo +20 str from a 3HD super-ape! And all you had to do to get it was give up a spell level. But wait it also has Wis +6! Oh wait, Anthro Bat has that too, and it didn't have to lose any caster levels for it. Oops!

[Thurbane]

The only small legendary animal I know of is eagle: Str +8, Dex +18, Con +10, Wis +6, Cha +2 - if I'm calculating correctly.

[Quertus]

The only small legendary animal I know of is eagle: Str +8, Dex +18, Con +10, Wis +6, Cha +2 - if I'm calculating correctly.

IIRC, Savage Species puts LA at +1 per +16 to stats, so about +3 LA, +4 assuming legendary eagle anthropomorphs fly.

Worth?

[Beni-Kujaku]

IIRC, Savage Species puts LA at +1 per +16 to stats, so about +3 LA, +4 assuming legendary eagle anthropomorphs fly.

Worth?

Honestly, +4 seems very acceptable, even a bit weak. You're super strong, but losing 4 level of features and skills can hurt.

[ciopo]

wasn't there a chart in the 3.0 DMG, used to determine LA of ability adjustments? I vaguely remember the anthropomorphic paragraphs directly reference that chart for the purpose of determining the LA of whatever you apply the template on. The resulting tables in the SS are nominally not "esclusive", I think?

Not that I've ever seen an anthropomorphic *anything* that isn't one of those listed there, but there are rule text to assign the LA, I'm relatively sure. Even if they are fuzzy

[Metastachydium]

wasn't there a chart in the 3.0 DMG, used to determine LA of ability adjustments? I vaguely remember the anthropomorphic paragraphs directly reference that chart for the purpose of determining the LA of whatever you apply the template on. The resulting tables in the SS are nominally not "esclusive", I think?

Not that I've ever seen an anthropomorphic *anything* that isn't one of those listed there, but there are rule text to assign the LA, I'm relatively sure. Even if they are fuzzy

I tried to use that once on a homebrewn creature. The result was ludicrously high.

[Rebel7284]

IIRC, Savage Species puts LA at +1 per +16 to stats, so about +3 LA, +4 assuming legendary eagle anthropomorphs fly.

Worth?

Those are nice stat adjustments, but for +4 LA you can play a Pixie for good stat adjustments while being constantly invisible or half-fiend for good SLAs

[Particle_Man]

Not sure about legendary animals but for the roc at least lycanthropy might be a rules legal way in, assuming you meet the size requirement.

[Thurbane]

Personally, I think it's a little silly to have things like Legendary Animals, a Roc, and even Battletitan Dinosaur as the animal type - I think Magical Beast would have made more sense. But that's just a personal preference.

[Tzardok]

Personally, I think it's a little silly to have things like Legendary Animals, a Roc, and even Battletitan Dinosaur as the animal type - I think Magical Beast would have made more sense. But that's just a personal preference.

Afroakuma once explained in a post quite well why they make sense as animals. Wait, let me pull it up:


The rule of thumb for the Magical Beast categorization is given as: "Magical beasts usually have supernatural or extraordinary abilities, but sometimes are merely bizarre in appearance or habits."

A roc simply does not qualify. Yes, it's a gigantic bird, but it's still just a bird. It does nothing special, its appearance is "bird," and its behavior is "bird." The D&D universe doesn't behave according to our laws of... well, many things, really. Even mythologically, the roc was less a myth in the sense of "it could do this improbable thing" and more a myth in the sense of "I have not seen this thing locally, but I have no reason to doubt it exists because you're not telling me it bleeds candy or shoots liquid gold from its mouth or has feathers which can be used to heal wounds or has three heads."

In the D&D multiverse, rocs are animals. They act like animals, they are influenced like animals, there is nothing to distinguish them from any other really large animal. Arguably this is in fact most appropriate for the mythology of the roc, which after all even in those tales and legends was still just a really, really big bird.

Source (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=22457197&postcount=291)

[Xei_Win_Toh]

Since you're mentioning 3.0 sources, note that both the Roc and Dinosaurs had the now-defunct Beast type, rather than Animal, in 3.0, and therefore would've been ineligible for the "any animal" clause of anthropomorphic animals. That doesn't answer the question about legendary animals, though.