Talk:Advancing Beast (3.5e Spell)

From Dungeons and Dragons Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search


RatedDislike.png Eiji-kun dislikes this article and rated it 1 of 4.
The idea behind it is noble, but the execution is a mess. Not only is it too long, this seems more variant rule than spell.

Original Comments[edit]

rituals aren't a basic part of dnd3.5, so i have to wonder... WHERE THE HELL DID I SEE THIS!?
so, not a ritual but still available to any druid = level 1 spell...
huge charts make this too bulky. (mostly fixed)
needs an smaller/easier way to get the time/cost calculations usable...--Snafusam (talk) 05:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

For the "where did I see this" question, were you thinking of Publication:Unearthed Arcana/Incantations? - Tarkisflux Talk 05:52, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
as potential as a source as it may be. it doesn't look like what i remember.--Snafusam (talk) 06:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


Interdasting. Surprised it doesn't let you radically change forms, because magic. You know, Wolfchu is evolving! Wolfchu had evolved into Direbearus! And so forth. -- Eiji-kun (talk) 05:49, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

As the "Wolfchu and Direbearus" go, I'd say Yay for the Pokemon d20 using this...
the base purpose was to "advance" monsters (as on their monster stats) so that a druids "wolf" would be able to stay with the druid from level 1 to level 20 (assuming it lives that long) without replacing it for a dire or legendary counterpart...--Snafusam (talk) 06:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Also i didn't want this to be a cheap perminant polymorph.--Snafusam (talk) 23:06, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Column Complications[edit]

I still love the idea behind this and still want to make it work... Hey Eiji-kun, is it possible for dndwiki to have a 3-column table? I haven't found any to use or i would have condensed the charts already... I agree it does sound a lot like a variant rule (something else to ponder about). The length of this is horrifying I agree, making it smaller has been a challenge sense the start. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snafusam (talkcontribs) at

It's possible to do tables within tables. Basically, you have your formatted zebra d20 tables in a style-less table that's invisible and three cells wide. I could probably find an example somewhere, since I know I've had to do it before in a few places. --Ganteka Future (talk) 08:09, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
I think I've seen the tables within tables before here now that you mention it... but where... also, thanks for pointing out my lacking signature.Snafusam (talk) 05:26, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Alright, I found where I had used nested tables before, on the do wand. Right now it's got just a pair of side-by-side tables that are aligned to their tops. Copying the basic formatting to get more than two should be easy (it's just another column). --Ganteka Future (talk) 20:51, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
YES! THANK YOU Ganteka Future!! that is exactly what was needed! It looks much better now.... --Snafusam (talk) 07:55, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


-I'm concerned with how the characters are expected to pay for this and still manage to get expected items, the "Table:5-1 character wealth by level chart" in the puts the cost 2-7 levels above their expected earnings forcing them to keep their companions several levels below them, which oddly works sense they aren't supposed to be equal level to their masters, however I dislike making gold the limiter sense it also cripple's it's usage... if i reduce the price it is dangerous because then we would constantly have characters waiting x-time for their familiars to upgrade, and then they'd be going into dungeons with a familiar that's -1cr their level
-The time becomes so immense that it's practically an NPC-only spell/service. Unless they're willing to camp for X-time.. Waiting for the druid to finish.
-Considering making the limit the masters level/4CR, because CR is "similar" to character level x4 (assuming character's level is equal/party) would reduce cost/potential time waiting...--Snafusam (talk) 07:55, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

If I reduce/remove the time, then it becomes more usable by players, but also makes another danger of it being used mid-dungeon as soon as they get x-gold inconveniencing story-line, because of the other requirements. While doubling the complications of using it every time they level to keep their companions as strong as they are(or stronger)...
Even more complications. A friend pointed out that I haven't accounted for the druid companions bonus HD, which this could actually cause creature's HD to become less... or I'd have to exclude the familiar/companion bonuses while being buffed. or would this change/stack/overlap the bonuses. "For the purpose of effects related to number of hit dice use the master's or the familiar's normal HD total, whichever is higher." -PH.52 . oh what a mess...--Snafusam (talk) 04:27, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Variant Rule[edit]

If this was to be turned into a variant rule, similar to the level buy-off of being a non-standard creature from the Unearthed Arcana. The concept of time-cost would be removed. the cost of xp/gold would be inter-changeable. and it wouldn't require the druids/ritual, making it a standard available to anybody evolution of an animal companion/familiar... considering the price, i would definatly have it stack with the standard companion/familiar benefits. still leaves the concerns of the level/cr balance...
ok, it's been decided... now... just to impliment the change and get things swapped around...Snafusam (talk) 00:24, 11 February 2016 (UTC)