D&D 5E Dinosaurs in 5E?

[Ratinyourwalls]

I really hope we go back to the real world naming conventions that early 3.5/before used instead of the "Angrytooth Drake and Trihorn Behemoth" naming convention that took over after MM3 in 3.5 and is still in use in 4E.

What's everyone else's feelings on the naming conventions of dinosaurs in this edition?

 

[Moon_Goddess]

I'm not sure I disagree with you,

But at the same time, I'm not sure Tyrant Lizard King and Three Horn Face are actually better....

 

[B.T.]

I'm bewildered by the name "Angrytooth Drake."

 

[I'm A Banana]

Man, if they can stay the heck away from the AdjectiveNoun BuzzWorders in general, I'll be a much happier camper than I was in early 4e.

I don't think re-naming them is necessarily a horrible idea, but names like "Angrytooth" and "Trihorn" sound bad no matter the origin. It's also not a bad idea to shy away from specific species names -- Tyrannosaurus or Allosaurus? Styracosaurus or Triceratops? I am not sure we need such granularity.

I'm a little partial to behemoth over "dinosaur," but honestly it's not always appropriate. I wouldn't really mind if "dinosaur" was removed as a category, too, instead saying, hey, this "Tyrant Rex" and this "Ceratopsian" are their own critters, with their own habits and habitats and styles and they don't all need to be crammed together under "D" in the MM (or in some Lost Plateau Only region in your game).

But regardless, the next time WotC feels the need to randomly rename stuff, they need to pay close frickin' attention.

 

[Lanefan]

I really hope we go back to the real world naming conventions that early 3.5/before used instead of the "Angrytooth Drake and Trihorn Behemoth" naming convention that took over after MM3 in 3.5 and is still in use in 4E.

What's everyone else's feelings on the naming conventions of dinosaurs in this edition?

The problem we face - and I say "we" because I agree with what you're saying here - is that things like "Angrytooth Drake" can be copyrighted and trademarked, where "Tyrannosaurus Rex" is public domain.

Lan-"if I name my next character Angrytooth Drake can I claim the trademark?"-efan

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I really hope we go back to the real world naming conventions that early 3.5/before used instead of the "Angrytooth Drake and Trihorn Behemoth" naming convention that took over after MM3 in 3.5 and is still in use in 4E.

What's everyone else's feelings on the naming conventions of dinosaurs in this edition?

I don't care what they call them, so long as they are there with pirates and ninjas.

 

[Gorgoroth]

Grimlock!!

One time, I wrote a small module inspired by three things 1) T-rexes and dinosaurs on a volcanic island (on the verge of eruption, naturally), ala KingKong movie (wicked), 2) Montezuma + Aztecs as a long-dead (thus, now undead) civilization, in pyramids overgrown over by the jungle, and C), (yes I am aware of changing the numbering scheme), a Cthulhu cult that managed to activate stargate-type portals the aztecs had built to summon their Dear Leader to rip this world a new one.

It was major fun, since when they arrived on the island, it was as a shipwreck (the PCs were essentially pirates looking for the aztec treasures with a magic compass), they found instead of a pristine island, mind-flayers riding T-Rexes in full plate armor and flying on the backs Pterodactyls with headbands of domination to control their mounts. It was insane, wicked fun. Also I did research into the real mayan + aztec religions, what with Xipe Totec and the filth eaters wearing human skin. Imagine skeletons, who were religious, and made a pact with the mind-flayers to do evil unto the nations. It was goooooood.

So yes, I'd love for D&D Next to have fully stated T-Rexes, but regardless, there will be one, who is wearing Full plate, in a future adventure. I watched this show about the Mughal empire where they had entire villages making suits of battle armor for their war elephants. Reality inspires fertile soil for Imagination land.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

I think the following:

1. Dinosaurs have a place in D&D, but perhaps not in the core or the first monster manual. They seem like something that's very setting oriented.
2. They should be listed by their common name in our culture, but include their scientific name and a fantasy name.
3. Dinosaurs are cool.

 

[MatthewJHanson]

I prefer just calling the dinosaurs the same thing that we call them today. I generally assume that "common" is not the same as English so everything PCs speak if being translated.

 

[pemerton]

I like "behometh" better than "dinosaur" - it is less "scientific" and more "ye olde worlde". Like renaming sonic damage thunder damage.

I used a Spirehorn Behemoth in my 4e game and the name seemed fine. It was a behemoth with a horn resembling a spire. I mean, all the scientific dinosaur names are compounds, aren't they? So what's wrong with English compounds instead?

 

[Minigiant]

I am fine with AdjectiveNoun Behemoths.

I fact that is how I expect commoners and sages to call them.

 

[Vael]

Given Next's policy of trying to unite the editions, what I'd expect is to see both, ie, like 3.5 Eberron gave a table with scientific names for dinosaurs next to the Eberron name. So the Deinonychus is called a "Carver" in Eberron.

I'd go with the Behemoth names, and include a table with maybe the eberron common names and the scientific names. The Eberron table also included their Draconic names, a bit of neat lore I'd like to see make a comeback.

 

[slobo777]

I like the real-world names, because I was enough of a dinosaur nerd as a kid (and so are my daughters), that I get a strong visual trigger from them that gets me into the game.

However, the behemoth names are pretty much just translations from the scientific ancient greek standards anyway. I can understand why you wouldn't always want to import ancient greek and/or modern science speak so obviously into a fantasy game.

Many of the D&D dinosaurs owe more to Jurassic Park fantasy dinosaurs than known scientific facts. Which is all good.

I'd go for both names - I don't mind which is the "headline" one, but I'd use the scientific name as a quick reference and have NPCs use the newer fantasy names (unless they were showing off their knowledge of ancient Draconic).

 

[I'm A Banana]

I like "behometh" better than "dinosaur" - it is less "scientific" and more "ye olde worlde". Like renaming sonic damage thunder damage.

My issue with "behemoth" comes into play when you're doing stuff like velociraptors or compsognathus or other things that aren't exactly behemoth in size, but things you'd certainly call "dinosaurs." And if you're calling something a "behemoth," there's no obvious reason you'd lump in T-rexes and Triceratops, but not dragons or Zaratans or hippopotami or Rocs or whatever. But it'd be a solid name for, say, sauropods.

"Tyrants" (T-rexes and similar)
"Behemoths" (Apatasaurus and similar)
...maybe some others.

 

[pemerton]

My issue with "behemoth" comes into play when you're doing stuff like velociraptors or compsognathus or other things that aren't exactly behemoth in size, but things you'd certainly call "dinosaurs." And if you're calling something a "behemoth," there's no obvious reason you'd lump in T-rexes and Triceratops, but not dragons or Zaratans or hippopotami or Rocs or whatever. But it'd be a solid name for, say, sauropods.

"Tyrants" (T-rexes and similar)
"Behemoths" (Apatasaurus and similar)

That all seems sensible to me, though Dragons can be distinguished by being magical beasts, I think. And aren't 4e Rocs, at least, elemental?

But non-magical drakes would seem to overlap with velociraptors etc (what are Needlefang Drakes, after all?).

Tyrants is good for T-Rexes - is that your own coinage, or has it been used before? In the Fighting Fantasy Gamebook "Deathtrap Dungeon", the T-Rex is called a Pit Fiend (being a fiendish beast that you fight in a gladiatorial pit) - obviously that won't work for D&D!

 

[fenriswolf456]

My issue with "behemoth" comes into play when you're doing stuff like velociraptors or compsognathus or other things that aren't exactly behemoth in size, but things you'd certainly call "dinosaurs."

Things that _we_ would call dinosaurs. But the same reasoning against calling this collection of creatures 'behemoths' applies to calling them 'dinosaurs'. The issue is that the D&D behemoths are still alive and well, and generally found randomly around the D&D world, while in RL we are able to collectively call this group of creatures as dinosaurs. There's no reason for sages to link the velociraptors found in the Wild Plains with the huge Brontosaurs found in the South Jungles with a collective term, other than both being rather big reptiles.

And if you're calling something a "behemoth," there's no obvious reason you'd lump in T-rexes and Triceratops, but not dragons or Zaratans or hippopotami or Rocs or whatever. But it'd be a solid name for, say, sauropods.

"Tyrants" (T-rexes and similar)
"Behemoths" (Apatasaurus and similar)
...maybe some others.

They should be collectively gathered under one heading for the MM, if only for ease of finding them. I suppose Dinosaur works just as well as a heading, but don't particularly want them to be called that in the gameworld. Or at least, I would like more evocative common names for the creatures rather than the more scientifically derived ones we have.

 

[slobster]

My issue with "behemoth" comes into play when you're doing stuff like velociraptors or compsognathus or other things that aren't exactly behemoth in size, but things you'd certainly call "dinosaurs." And if you're calling something a "behemoth," there's no obvious reason you'd lump in T-rexes and Triceratops, but not dragons or Zaratans or hippopotami or Rocs or whatever. But it'd be a solid name for, say, sauropods.

"Tyrants" (T-rexes and similar)
"Behemoths" (Apatasaurus and similar)
...maybe some others.

Well, a lot of the grouping of things in the MM is done for the convenience of the GM, not necessarily as part of some world-building exercise implying that people in-game group creatures in the same way.

That's why, for instance, dire animals are included as a group even though biologically speaking a dire eagle doesn't have much in common with a dire bear, or a dire shark. And in-universe, why would everyone somehow recognize all these disparate creatures as belonging to some single "dire animal" category? After all, we don't call big bears dire bears, we call them kodiak and polar bears. Great white sharks aren't called dire sharks. Dire wolves existed, but that only drives home the point since they were the only animals to be so named, and in fact inspired the whole dire animal phenomenon in D&D in the first place.

Doesn't bother me though, because the MM is organized for the people who play the game, not the people who live in it.

Now despite all that, I think I could sign on to the idea of dividing dinosaurs into "Tyrants", "Behemoths", "Raptors", or similar categories. Few enough that it's still easy to reference them as a GM, but a little implicit world building baked into the MM (that is, as usual, easy to ignore or rearrange) would be welcome.

EDIT: Also, apropos of nothing, a dire T-rex or triceratops would be pretty sweet.

 

[Scribble]

Dinosaur translates to terrible lizard though... In a world that has things like Dragons, are the smaller Dinosaurs really all that terrible?

"Well at least it wasn't a dragon!"

At least Behemoth makes some sort of sense... Since they're bigger then a "normal" lizard...

Kind of like how Giant spiders really aren't that Giant, unless you look at them vrs normal spiders.

 

[Dausuul]

What about adapting the Latin names?

Tyrannosaurus Rex --> Tyrant Lizard King --> Behemoth Tyrant
Triceratops --> Three Horn Face --> Three-Horned Behemoth
Brontosaurus* --> Thunder Lizard --> Thundering Behemoth
Ankylosaurus --> Fused Lizard --> Fused Behemoth --> okay, maybe not this one

[SIZE=-2]*Yeah, yeah, I know, nowadays it's called "Apatosaurus." Stop trampling on my childhood, dangit! Next you'll be telling me Pluto isn't a planet. Anyhow, Thunder Lizard is way cooler than Deceptive Lizard.[/SIZE]

It's not all that far from 4E nomenclature, but it sounds much more natural than AdjectiveNoun.

 

[I'm A Banana]

See, this goes into my ideas on the third core book. Having a free-floating Tyrannosaurus statblock jammed under B or D or whatever isn't giving me the info that I need to use them in a game.

Meanwhile, if they'd include a Lost Plateau location with "Tyrants" along with, say, a population of native barbarians, that's some useful context! Then they can give the creatures names that reflect the Barbarians of the Lost Plateau that have nothing to do with our world or language whatsoever and just sound cool.

And then they can put the actual dinosaur names in parentheses so that someone looking for T-rex stats doesn't need to remember that they're called Ip'Bil-din.

Kind of like how Giant spiders really aren't that Giant, unless you look at them vrs normal spiders.

This has been a bit of a pet peeve of mine in D&D, so I generally replace the word "giant" with the word "Dire." "Giant" has some specific meanings in D&D aside from "Friggin' big."