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?