D&D 5E Dinosaurs in 5E?

[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!).