D&D 5E Dinosaurs in 5E?

[Scribble]

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."

Yeah mine too- it just seems goofy to call them giant.

 

[CM]

Let me just quote myself from the blue dragon thread and simply say "Both, please."

 

[blalien]

The question you need to ask is: what would people name dinosaurs if they lived at the same time as them? Dinosaurs were named by scientists millions of years after the fact using Greek and Latin origins. But we don't call dogs canis lupus familiarus, we call them dogs because it's easier to say. If a tyrannosaurus rampaged in a backwater town, what would the peasants be calling it: a tyrannosaurus or a bigtooth? I think a good compromise would be to give the dinosaurs medieval fantasy names (and make those names not suck) and put the actual dinosaur names in parentheses.

 

[GreyICE]

If I was a villager in a village and I needed to name a T-Rex I'd name it "OH HELL RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!"

Very descriptive, in its way.

 

[13garth13]

For those who object to Latin or Greek names in their fantasy...

Do you use different names for rhinoceros, or hippopotamus, or octopus, or even for the mythological hippocampus?

There's a lot of words/animal names which are derived from Latin or Greek, so I'm genuinely curious as to why dinosaurs need to be renamed to maintain fantasy world verisimilitude, but not all the others.

Not trying to be snarky, I really am curious.

Cheers,
Colin

 

[Libramarian]

Real world names for things, even if (especially if?) they are obscure and antiquated are much more flavorful than made up fantasy names I think.

Gene Wolfe uses real-world names for everything in the Book of the New Sun. I don't recall his justification for it. Maybe he just thought it was lazy for a writer to make up words. I think he went overboard with the idea, but leaning more in that direction would be good.

So bring back Latin dinosaurs. And bring back French polearms too. I want to take on a Deinonychus with a ranseur.

I know that is a weird clash of connotative meaning, but it's a bizarre situation for many reasons. I like that. That's D&D.

 

[Warbringer]

If I was a villager in a village and I needed to name a T-Rex I'd name it "OH HELL RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!"

Very descriptive, in its way.

Or the "Run for your lives, we're being attacked by something that's been dead for 65 mm years!!!!"

Sorry, no dinos for me .... I know, party pooper

 

[Hussar]

I agree with [MENTION=41954]blalien[/MENTION]. Why not both? You could easily do what they used to do for dragons back in 1e - common name (Bugs Bunny Latin Name). I think that would make everyone happy.

 

[blalien]

Do you use different names for rhinoceros, or hippopotamus, or octopus, or even for the mythological hippocampus?

There's a lot of words/animal names which are derived from Latin or Greek, so I'm genuinely curious as to why dinosaurs need to be renamed to maintain fantasy world verisimilitude, but not all the others.

I think the difference is that rhinos, hippos, and octopi were named by people who had to interact with them on a daily basis. Dinosaurs were named by scientists out of intellectual curiosity, and there is no practical application to knowing their names. I think if we lived in a world where people actually needed to know what dinosaurs are, they would have been named differently. That's why I supported the compromise idea. The scholarly wizard can call it a triceratops while the 8 INT fighter can call it a threehorn.

 

[slobster]

I think the difference is that rhinos, hippos, and octopi were named by people who had to interact with them on a daily basis. Dinosaurs were named by scientists out of intellectual curiosity, and there is no practical application to knowing their names. I think if we lived in a world where people actually needed to know what dinosaurs are, they would have been named differently. That's why I supported the compromise idea. The scholarly wizard can call it a triceratops while the 8 INT fighter can call it a threehorn.

Agreed (except that it's octopuses ).

Threehorn or trihorn isn't even that bad, as names go. We still call them unicorns, after all.

 

[pemerton]

Do you use different names for rhinoceros, or hippopotamus, or octopus, or even for the mythological hippocampus?

There's a lot of words/animal names which are derived from Latin or Greek, so I'm genuinely curious as to why dinosaurs need to be renamed to maintain fantasy world verisimilitude, but not all the others.

For the same reason as [MENTION=41954]blalien[/MENTION] gives - its the contrast between "living", "use" names and abstract, merely scientific names.

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.

Count me out on this idea! I really don't want my MM to be full of fantasy names like this. A handful is tolerable, especially for creatures that are radically fantastic or alien (eg illithid or aboleth), but when the creature is meant to be recognisable as, or in relation to, a real-world creature, I prefer a name that reflects and communicates that.

For this reason, I'm not the biggest fan of the creature naming conventions in Dark Sun.

 

[delericho]

If dinosaurs are included, they should be called "dinosaurs" (not behemoths*), and use the real-world names for these creatures.

Three reasons:

- WotC seem entirely incapable of coming up with good names.

- The most likely in-setting name for these creatures is dragon. When you're running in fear of your life, you don't stop to check the fine details!

- In a world where PCs can fly, throw balls of fire around, and otherwise perform all these wonderful feats, a creature of animal intelligence with no ranged attacks is, frankly, rather a poor challenge. The only real reason for the DM to use a dinosaur is for the players to say "cool! We're fighting dinosaurs!" But if you rename them, you lose that... and are left with rather lame, bland monsters.

* Of course, I have no objection to WotC providing the behemoth names as optional alternatives. But it is the behemoth names that should be the option; the real-world names should be the defaults.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

That's why I supported the compromise idea. The scholarly wizard can call it a triceratops while the 8 INT fighter can call it a threehorn.

Works for me.

 

[13garth13]

For the same reason as [MENTION=41954]blalien[/MENTION] gives - its the contrast between "living", "use" names and abstract, merely scientific names.
.

Well, to each their own, right? It just strikes me as a purely nonsensical division....I mean, pteradactyl means "wing fingers" or something similar (it's been awhile since I've studied taxonomic Greek/Latin) and octopus means "eight legs/feet". In both cases they were named abstractly and scientifically as you put it, due to their salient morphological characteristics. Ditto rhinocerous aka "nose horn".

Taxonomy is so incredibly arbitrary, and historically was based on some pretty flimsy morphological grounds.....only with the most modern genetic technology are we getting closer to a more accurate way of classifying creatures {how many people studying biology a couple of decades or so ago were taught that the dog is Canis familiaris whereas we now know dogs are more or less identical to wolves and are now a subcategory of Lupus?}, but the naming is still pretty much done by physical traits and/or the whim of the naming scientist.

The fact that one is dead and one isn't just doesn't seem a particularly compelling reason to give one a rough ride when included in a D&D bestiary. In both cases the names were assigned simply on the basis of what morphological traits/features seemed the most prominent and whether one is extinct or not is somewhat moot, i.e. I fail to see what makes a dinosaur's appellation more abstract than a water-horse's (hippopotamous....sp?!?!)

*shrug* YMMV and all that.

I still appreciate the explanation, even if it has absolutely zero traction in my little Canuck head

Cheers,
Colin

 

[13garth13]

Agreed (except that it's octopuses ).

Actually, at the risk of being a biology pedant, if I'm not mistaken, both "octopi" and "octopuses" are incorrect, and "Octopodes" is correct. It's all because octopus is based on Greek, not Latin, so you don't have to turn the "us" into an "i" when pluralizing. Octopuses isn't technically correct but wormed it's way into common usage/dictionaries just like (*shudder*) "irregardless" and other not really correct words.

But truthfully, for common usage, I doubt most people care on whit at all which one is correct, and I'm sure not going to lose any sleep over it

Cheers,
Colin

 

[slobster]

Actually, at the risk of being a biology pedant, if I'm not mistaken, both "octopi" and "octopuses" are incorrect, and "Octopodes" is correct. It's all because octopus is based on Greek, not Latin, so you don't have to turn the "us" into an "i" when pluralizing. Octopuses isn't technically correct but wormed it's way into common usage/dictionaries just like (*shudder*) "irregardless" and other not really correct words.

But truthfully, for common usage, I doubt most people care on whit at all which one is correct, and I'm sure not going to lose any sleep over it

Cheers,
Colin

I was always raised with octopuses one-true-wayism, but after a little searching around there seems to be a delightful little spat between linguists about which is correct, and why. I have declared allegiance to the camp claiming that "octopi" comes from a mistaken belief that "octopus" is Latin, and is improperly pluralized for the declension in any case. "Octopodes" wouldn't be correct even if we were pluralizing a greek word, which of course we aren't, as the word is an english word derived from greek roots (and modern greek for octopus is khtapodi, plural khtapodia).

As always, pluralize how you like!

EDIT: But irregardless is not a proper word, regardless of circumstances.

 

[pemerton]

In a world where PCs can fly, throw balls of fire around, and otherwise perform all these wonderful feats, a creature of animal intelligence with no ranged attacks is, frankly, rather a poor challenge.

I found a behemoth with hobgoblin riders a pretty good challenge for 11th level PCs. It levelled quite a few houses in the village before they were able to stop it (the ranger shot its handler and than took over the reins himself!).