D&D 5E Wandering Monsters: Big Beasts

[Tonguez]

Dinosaurs always struck me as very setting specific. I don't thing that every setting needs them, even if isolated in some "lost world". I think if you're going to use dinosaurs and other pre-historical animals, you need some kind of setting dedicated to a "jurassic theme park".

The Conan story Red Nails includes a dinosaur like creature and it is presented in a very natural way (albeit that Hyboria is all lost world). Anyway I think its possible to have Threehorns and Daggerfoots in anachronistic settings without them being lost world. Indeed feathered velociraptors are a common predator imc, considered birds they are used by some societies as hunting hounds.

 

[Will Doyle]

I think this same topic of dinosaurs came up this board a little while back...

I like dinosaurs, and I'd like to see them in the MM. However, I prefer the made-up names (well, some of them). Certain real-world dinosaur names sound terrible in a fantasy setting. For example, I'd like to use an Argentinosaurus. It's the biggest sauropod ever discovered, but its name hardly fits the game.

I'd prefer to see the latin name in brackets: e.g. Titan Drake (Argentinosaurus). Fang Titan (Tyrannosaurus rex). Feathered Horror (Yutyrannus huali).

 

[Ratskinner]

Where was the option for "flavorful names, but 'word-word behemoth" doesn't count as flavorful?

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'm OK with flavorful names, but the AdjectiveNoun CoolWord naming convention needs to die in a fire. Or even a Burnflesh Scorcher.

Titan, behemoth, drake, tyrant...okay. We can work with that.

 

[MarkB]

I like dinosaurs, and I'd like to see them in the MM. However, I prefer the made-up names (well, some of them). Certain real-world dinosaur names sound terrible in a fantasy setting. For example, I'd like to use an Argentinosaurus. It's the biggest sauropod ever discovered, but its name hardly fits the game.

"Monster-lizard from the Lands of Silver" - rather an evocative name, worthy of any campaign world.

I've always felt that dinosaurs owe their special fascination to being one of the few "mythical" concepts we're introduced to as children that remain "true" as we grow up. We initially read and hear about them right alongside tales of elves and dragons and magic, but as those other concepts are discarded as fiction in the course of our childhood, dinosaurs remain true. I think that's why their scientific names have stuck in popular culture - as kids, we look to those scientific details and big, factual books as reassurance that they're not just made up.

Using more 'common' names in the Monster Manuals may make them more suited to campaign worlds, but it's never going to convey that thrill that a kid will get when he pages through a D&D book for the first time and sees a Tyrannosaurus and a Velociraptor.

So my own vote would be to use the scientific names primarily, but feel free to add 'common' names for them for in-character usage.

 

[pemerton]

Of all the Wandering Monster columns, I think I had the most positive reaction to this one. I liked his take on dinosaurs/behemoths; I liked his take on giant eagles and owls; I agree with him about dropping "dire" animals and going back to giant rats, carnivorous apes etc in AD&D style.

 

[Mon]

This article covers two of my pet peeves from 3e and 4e (I'm edition agnostic, all versions of D&D can grind my gears and make me dance).

These two peeves are: 3e's Dire-Hippo spikey nonsense and 4e's cringe worthy Webvenom Meanspider silliness.

(althouth 3e did technically start it with late-era monster manuals and Ebberon dinos, 4e made it something... special... and not in a good way).

Both Dire-Hippos and Webvenom Meanspiders need to go the way of THACO and descending AC IMO. I'm pleased that there will be Spotted Lions, Sabre-Toothed Tigers, and Cave Bears. Oh My!

In the case of the dinos, I am all for flavourful names ... but the thing is that Wyatt's Ebberon/4e dino names are in no way flavourful (or at least, not flavoured like anything I'd put in my mouth). They should not have been presented as such in the wording of the survey questions because it loads the questions with a certain bias.

As an aside, the latin/scientific names are also the common English names. The idea that D&D shouldn't use those names because there's no latin or science in the Magical Land of Zog is no more right or wrong than expecting the inhabitants of said Magical Land to use words like "Goblin" or "Coatl" or "Tarrasque" or "Samurai".

My preference, which was in no way allowed for in the survey, is for flavourful dino names without the portmanteau overload, plus the English/scientific names in parentheses.

Also, dinos should be included in the core MM because... DINOSAURS!

(all IMO of course, YMMV)

 

[Plaguescarred]

I like dinosaur and would keep the genus names as i think they have a place in the game. I am good with giant eagles and giant owl having ties with elves. I prefer giant rats, cave bear, worg and carnivorous apes to the dire moniker. I also like deep bear for the underground spiece and all the other Pleistocene Mammals such as saber-tooth tiger, spotted lion, Hyaenadon etc...

 

[DEFCON 1]

The main reason I prefer 'dire' animals is mainly due to the organization of entries in the MM. I am very much in favor of "animals" and "dire animals" to be all together in one section of the MM. So if we're talking alphabetical order (which pretty much all MMs are)... then the entry is "Animals" and then all the animals-as-monsters appear within it. By the same token, the entry is "Dire Animals" and then lists all the dire animals-as-monsters appear in it.

I've never been a fan of having Ape, Carnivorous as it's own entry, then Ant, Giant listed then Bee, Giant then Bear, Cave then Eagle, Giant etc. etc. all split up throughout the MM. I always found that to be a pain.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

So, I have to ask. Am I the only one who misread the title of this thread as "Wandering Monsters: Big Breasts"?