The LA-assignment thread V: Escape from LA

[GreatWyrmGold]

Thought weight was a factor of 4 not 8.

You're thinking of surface area. There are absolutely some things with masses that increase by the square of their length, but as far as I know, WotC hasn't released very many hollow monsters. (Of constant thickness when scaled, of course.)

[javcs]

Is it even listed as a choice as an animal companion? I don't think it is but might be wrong...

Effective Druid level -9.

Paladin level -4, IIRC.

[Zaq]

Boring -0 sack of meat is boring, but that art! What is going on with that limb on the right-hand side of the image (the critter’s left, our right). Not the spoon/spatula/Loch Ness Monster head, but more the random blob of flesh below the, um, shoulder(?). That does not look healthy.

[Thurbane]

Just as an aside, I don't get why the Sea Cat is a Magical Beast, while the Sea Tiger is an Animal?

[javcs]

Just as an aside, I don't get why the Sea Cat is a Magical Beast, while the Sea Tiger is an Animal?

Haven't the foggiest.

Don't remember the details on the Sea Cat offhand, but, I think the general guideline is something along the lines of "if it's a real life critter, or plausibly could have been a real life creature, it's an Animal, everything else is a Magical Beast".
It's not terrible as a distinction between the two, though I think the Sea Tiger probably should have been a Magical Beast under that guideline.


Magical Beast is kind of a catchall type, same as Aberration and Monstrous Humanoid.

[Inevitability]

Haven't the foggiest.

Don't remember the details on the Sea Cat offhand, but, I think the general guideline is something along the lines of "if it's a real life critter, or plausibly could have been a real life creature, it's an Animal, everything else is a Magical Beast".
It's not terrible as a distinction between the two, though I think the Sea Tiger probably should have been a Magical Beast under that guideline.


Magical Beast is kind of a catchall type, same as Aberration and Monstrous Humanoid.

Honestly, the whole distinction between animal and magical beast is nonsensical, and seems to come down to 'real-life critters are animals, magical things are magical beasts, nonmagical yet unreal creatures could be either, see if we care'.

[unseenmage]

You're thinking of surface area. There are absolutely some things with masses that increase by the square of their length, but as far as I know, WotC hasn't released very many hollow monsters. (Of constant thickness when scaled, of course.)

And even if they did a hollow creature and a solid one would still both occupy the same space if the same size, squeeze down to the same dimensions, and their hollowness or lack thereof wouldnt affect their ability to swim.

As amused as I was to find that a 1 oz, 1 in diameter blob of Quintessence weighs less than water I was more amused that a Minor Servitor of it could swim.

Which is minor compared to Iron Golems treading water.

So yeah, solidity of a given creature doesnt seem to do much

[Celestia]

Haven't the foggiest.

Don't remember the details on the Sea Cat offhand, but, I think the general guideline is something along the lines of "if it's a real life critter, or plausibly could have been a real life creature, it's an Animal, everything else is a Magical Beast".
It's not terrible as a distinction between the two, though I think the Sea Tiger probably should have been a Magical Beast under that guideline.


Magical Beast is kind of a catchall type, same as Aberration and Monstrous Humanoid.

A more consistent distinction between them would be that all animal-esque creatures with an intelligence score less than 3 are animals, and the rest are magical beasts. It would, honestly, still be arbitrary, but at least it would make sense.

[javcs]

A more consistent distinction between them is that all animal-esque creatures with an intelligence score less than 3 are animals, and the rest are magical beasts. It would, honestly, still be arbitrary, but at least it would make sense.

That's a type distinction. That's something inherent in the rules.

Part of being of type Animal is having an Int of 1 or 2 - and it can't be raised above 2 under regular circumstances (ie, gaining HD). 3 or higher automatically bumps you from being an Animal, either into whatever type your source of Int increase specifies or to Magical Beast if it doesn't specify.
Although, a Magical Beast could have an Int or 1 or 2, such a creature could freely increase its Int as it gained HD.

[Thurbane]

Just for giggles, both Sea Cat and Sea Tiger have 2 Int. Neither have any magical abilities or qualities.

Roc is another one that strikes me as odd for being Animal, rather than Magical Beast.

[javcs]

Just for giggles, both Sea Cat and Sea Tiger have 2 Int. Neither have any magical abilities or qualities.

Roc is another one that strikes me as odd for being Animal, rather than Magical Beast.

Seriously? I haven't realized that. Yeah. Rocs are mythological creatures, definitely should have been Magical Beast.
Major fail, WotC.



My opinion is that Sea Tigers fail the real life plausibility test, and so should have been Magical Beast, not Animal.
Don't remember enough about the Sea Cat and am AFB, but ... going to guess that they probably fail the real life plausibility test too.

[Luccan]

Honestly, the whole distinction between animal and magical beast is nonsensical, and seems to come down to 'real-life critters are animals, magical things are magical beasts, nonmagical yet unreal creatures could be either, see if we care'.

Which is probably why they dropped "Beast" moving to 3.5, because that was even more confusing. Real life animals were Animal type, conceivably real creatures that never existed got Beast. Of course, if I recall, dinosaurs got the Beast type in the original 3.0 monster manual, which seems like an oversight given the creature type definition.

[Celestia]

Which is probably why they dropped "Beast" moving to 3.5, because that was even more confusing. Real life animals were Animal type, conceivably real creatures that never existed got Beast. Of course, if I recall, dinosaurs got the Beast type in the original 3.0 monster manual, which seems like an oversight given the creature type definition.

Well, if we want to be pedantic, the version of dinosaurs that appeared in the game were fabrications that merely approximated real dinosaurs.

[Thurbane]

Which is probably why they dropped "Beast" moving to 3.5, because that was even more confusing. Real life animals were Animal type, conceivably real creatures that never existed got Beast. Of course, if I recall, dinosaurs got the Beast type in the original 3.0 monster manual, which seems like an oversight given the creature type definition.

True that:

Beast: A beast is a nonhistorical, vertebrate creature with a reasonably normal anatomy and no magical or unusual abilities. Beasts have Intelligence scores of 1 or 2. Unless noted otherwise, beasts have low-light vision and darkvision with a range of 60 feet.

[Inevitability]

Well, if we want to be pedantic, the version of dinosaurs that appeared in the game were fabrications that merely approximated real dinosaurs.

To be even more pedantic (title of my autobiography), so are the versions of modern-day animals. In real life, dropping a clydesdale horse from 30 ft. up is going to seriously injure, if not kill it, and its injuries may last for life. In D&D, most of the time it'll be back to perfect health if you just leave it alone in a pasture for a week or so.

[Celestia]

To be even more pedantic (title of my autobiography), so are the versions of modern-day animals. In real life, dropping a clydesdale horse from 30 ft. up is going to seriously injure, if not kill it, and its injuries may last for life. In D&D, most of the time it'll be back to perfect health if you just leave it alone in a pasture for a week or so.

No, that's more a result of D&D's casual relationship with physics.

[Inevitability]

No, that's more a result of D&D's casual relationship with physics.

How about, say, D&D octopi having the ability to jet 200 ft. out of the water, then?

[Celestia]

How about, say, D&D octopi having the ability to jet 200 ft. out of the water, then?

That's D&D's casual relationship with logic.

[lord_khaine]

Huh.. D&D does kinda sleep around a bit..

Logic.. Physics.. anyone else.. ?

[javcs]

Huh.. D&D does kinda sleep around a bit..

Logic.. Physics.. anyone else.. ?

Biology.
Chemistry.
Economics.
Math.

Pretty much any science field.

If you dig into the material on how various governments, civilizations, and societies supposedly work and interact with each other, there's probably all kinds of funny stuff going on there, too.

[Lapak]

Which is probably why they dropped "Beast" moving to 3.5, because that was even more confusing. Real life animals were Animal type, conceivably real creatures that never existed got Beast. Of course, if I recall, dinosaurs got the Beast type in the original 3.0 monster manual, which seems like an oversight given the creature type definition.

True that:

The definition Thurbane quoted specified 'nonhistorical' creatures. To be really even more pedantic, dinosaurs are EXTREMELY prehistoric and so they do qualify as nonhistoric creatures.

[ViperMagnum357]

LA -0 on the slab of crappy RHD-nothing more to be said.

[Mike Miller]

-0

Also, it is weird not seeing Inevitability's avatar. What happened?

[Celestia]

-0

Also, it is weird not seeing Inevitability's avatar. What happened?

It's probably linking to a site that doesn't allow third party hosting, like photobucket or imgur.

[danielxcutter]

I think they should just have done "if it has mystical powers and/or 3 or higher Int it's a magical beast". Of course, WotC didn't do that, so here we are.

[javcs]

I think they should just have done "if it has mystical powers and/or 3 or higher Int it's a magical beast". Of course, WotC didn't do that, so here we are.

If either of those is true, it's a Magical Beast, not an Animal.
Unless it's some other type, and then it's usually an Aberration or Outsider.


The issue is the dividing line between an Animal and a mundane Magical Beast.
Usually, if it's a real life or plausibly real life creature, it's an Snimal, otherwise it's a Magical Beast. Sometimes, though, creatures that fall the real life plausibility test are Animals, not the Magical Beasts they should be.
However, I don't think there are any instances of a real life or plausibly real life creatures that are Magical Beasts, not Animals.

[Zaq]

Somewhere post-MM1 they seem to have loosened the restrictions on making non-historical but non-magical animal-like things into Animal instead of Magical Beast. (The commentary on the excision of the 3.0 Beast type is spot-on, to my knowledge.) The MM1 roc is a weird exception, but it’s almost the exception that proves the rule.

[Inevitability]

-0

Also, it is weird not seeing Inevitability's avatar. What happened?

It's probably linking to a site that doesn't allow third party hosting, like photobucket or imgur.

It's on imgur, yes. I'm going to re-upload it somewhere else in a bit, for now will remove the avatar.

[OgresAreCute]

If you dig into the material on how various governments, civilizations, and societies supposedly work and interact with each other, there's probably all kinds of funny stuff going on there, too.

cough Drow cough

[Inevitability]

cough Drow cough

Drow get a pass because their society is specifically and explicitly only kept going because of continuous meddling from their goddess. I recall that in some of the D&D novels (War of the Spider Queen) she goes silent for a while and things immediately go south for the drow.