D&D 5E The Taxonomy of Species in D&D Next/7e

[Kaodi]

What creature names just have to go for you? And what would you replace them with? Those are the two basic questions that I would like to address in this tread. We all know they exist. Even beyond the fact that the naming scheme of monsters in 4E was notorious, a lot of names just sounded bad in addition to be kind of silly.

I think the the primary examples of this among the 4E races are " shardmind " and " wilden " . I am not a big fan of the name " dragonborn " either, but it is somewhat less problematic, and its survival would not be the end of the world.

The name " shardmind " is just weird. Nevermind that in my opinion their entire backstory is entirely uncompelling and completely one-dimensional. Their only redeeming feature is probably their tripartite outlook, a model sort of cribbed from Eberron's changelings (the " there can be only One " angle is kind of funny at least). But the name. Really, Wizards of the Coast; Google Translate is your friend. If you are having trouble coming up with names, look for equivalent words from other languages to fuse into a beautiful whole. Use so many languages that only the ghost of John Paul II would understand all the references. Shardminds could be " crystuque " or " kristuque " or " glastrite " or " isdyr " or " kyolang " or " anrotehk " ... Okay, maybe some or those are better than others, but I am sure at least one is better than " shardmind " ( and " shard mind " in Latin turns out to be something like " testa mentis " , interestingly enough? ).

" Wilden " , which does not really have a very nice ring to it either could also be easily replaced by a name based on a scientific name for plants (scientific names in turn being based on latin themseves).

The land plants or embryophytes, more formally Embryophyta or Metaphyta, are the most familiar group of plants.

Based on this, my first instinct would be to rename the " wilden " into the " phytanians " or " metaphetans " . I know it would be their second name change, but they still need it.

Dragonborn could easily be replaced by the name of other humanoid dragons from D&D history, such as the Dray, which they themselves replaced.

 

[Incenjucar]

Wilden are not strictly defined by their status as plants, but rather by their embodiment of the flora of the Feywild.

 

[Alzrius]

I certainly don't want to see a prevalence for compound names for creatures - this was something I disliked a lot about 4E. I can deal with the occassional "mind flayer" (particularly as a moniker for a creature that has a real name, e.g. "illithid"), but having things like "orc witchbreaker" and "troll treesniper" strike me as being impossible to take seriously.

 

[Klaus]

What creature names just have to go for you? And what would you replace them with? Those are the two basic questions that I would like to address in this tread. We all know they exist. Even beyond the fact that the naming scheme of monsters in 4E was notorious, a lot of names just sounded bad in addition to be kind of silly.

I think the the primary examples of this among the 4E races are " shardmind " and " wilden " . I am not a big fan of the name " dragonborn " either, but it is somewhat less problematic, and its survival would not be the end of the world.

The name " shardmind " is just weird. Nevermind that in my opinion their entire backstory is entirely uncompelling and completely one-dimensional. Their only redeeming feature is probably their tripartite outlook, a model sort of cribbed from Eberron's changelings (the " there can be only One " angle is kind of funny at least). But the name. Really, Wizards of the Coast; Google Translate is your friend. If you are having trouble coming up with names, look for equivalent words from other languages to fuse into a beautiful whole. Use so many languages that only the ghost of John Paul II would understand all the references. Shardminds could be " crystuque " or " kristuque " or " glastrite " or " isdyr " or " kyolang " or " anrotehk " ... Okay, maybe some or those are better than others, but I am sure at least one is better than " shardmind " ( and " shard mind " in Latin turns out to be something like " testa mentis " , interestingly enough? ).

" Wilden " , which does not really have a very nice ring to it either could also be easily replaced by a name based on a scientific name for plants (scientific names in turn being based on latin themseves).

Based on this, my first instinct would be to rename the " wilden " into the " phytanians " or " metaphetans " . I know it would be their second name change, but they still need it.

Dragonborn could easily be replaced by the name of other humanoid dragons from D&D history, such as the Dray, which they themselves replaced.

Wilden aren't plants. They're fey creatures made up from composite of animal and plant elements. That's why they have cat-like claws on their feet, for instance. They *can* take on more plant-like qualities with the feats from Heroes of the Feywild.

For a plant race, my preferred name would be Cerritian (the genus for oak trees is Cerris).

Dragonborn, IMHO, is a great name. The official translation in Portuguese ("draconato") was also inspired.

 

[Kaodi]

Dragonborn, IMHO, is a great name. The official translation in Portuguese ("draconato") was also inspired.

I could live with draconato. One of the problems I have with dragonborn is that it implies too much; what ought to be an unnecessary relationship between dragonborn and dragons.

 

[Tallifer]

I disagree entirely and vehemently with any great shift from Anglo-Saxon naming to a bunch of made-up pseudo-latinate gobbledigook. I dislike names like Genasi, Eladrin, Illithid and Baatezu when there are perfectly good words like Half-elemental, High Elf, Mind Flayer and Demon.

Names like Dragonborn, Foulspawn, Boneclaw, Frost Hawk and Bloodseeker Drake make me think of the raw and heroic language of the Norse and Germanic sagas which Tolkien also loved. In such poetry the sea was the Whaleroad, a sailor was a Seafarer, a battle was Warplay, a relative was a kinsman, and great use was made of other spontaneous combound words like ashspear, spearrush and hearthband.

When I checked the Monster Manuals, it was actually harder to find such Anglo-Saxon names for monsters than the made-up names. It is true that monster blocks also have compound descriptors, but those are not names of the monsters, they are just tags added to each monster to designate their role in battle or in their society.

 

[Snapdragyn]

For a plant race, my preferred name would be Cerritian (the genus for oak trees is Cerris).

Um, the genus of oaks is Quercus. There is a species of oak in southern Europe known as Quercus cerris; perhaps that's what you were thinking of?

So - Quercian? Of course, scientific names are properly pronounced w/ Classical Latin which would require a hard 'c', whereas modern English speakers would most likely use a soft 'c' w/ that spelling. *shrug*

 

[Kaodi]

I disagree entirely and vehemently with any great shift from Anglo-Saxon naming to a bunch of made-up pseudo-latinate gobbledigook. I dislike names like Genasi, Eladrin, Illithid and Baatezu when there are perfectly good words like Half-elemental, High Elf, Mind Flayer and Demon.

Names like Dragonborn, Foulspawn, Boneclaw, Frost Hawk and Bloodseeker Drake make me think of the raw and heroic language of the Norse and Germanic sagas which Tolkien also loved. In such poetry the sea was the Whaleroad, a sailor was a Seafarer, a battle was Warplay, a relative was a kinsman, and great use was made of other spontaneous combound words like ashspear, spearrush and hearthband.

When I checked the Monster Manuals, it was actually harder to find such Anglo-Saxon names for monsters than the made-up names. It is true that monster blocks also have compound descriptors, but those are not names of the monsters, they are just tags added to each monster to designate their role in battle or in their society.

Tolkien is probably the singularly worse example you could cite when it comes to retaining the " raw and heroic language of the Norse and Germanic sagas " . The guy literally wrote the book on made up " gobbledygook " .

Mind flayer, devil and demon may be preferrable to illithid, baatezu, and tanar'ri. But that does not makes half-elemental preferable to genasi (I am not even so sure that a genasi is half-elemental by blood), and eladrin and drow make it at least feel a little less like we have four thousand varieties of elves.

And if anyone ever said to me " there was warplay between Hezbollah fighters and the IDF today " , I would think they were some kind of freak.

And finally, even though I do not call maple trees acers on a regular basis, I also do not call them pointyleaf tallplant either.

 

[Hassassin]

I second the notion that compondnames should be fewer. Winterclaw Owlbear? Seriously?

 

[am181d]

I second the notion that compondnames should be fewer. Winterclaw Owlbear? Seriously?

Once you've accepted the divine lunacy that is the owlbear, I don't see how the appellation "winterclaw" makes it any better or worse. People get rubbed wrong by the weirdest things.

The problem with Shardminds and Wildens it seems to me is less their names and more that they're really, really niche concepts.