D&D 5E Wandering Monsters: Big Beasts

[Nymrohd]

Btw don't hate me for saying this, but what Warcraft has done with dinos, at least in imagery, is awesome. The massive armored T-rex (devilsaur), triceratops (direhorn), and pteranodon (terrorwings) just look cool and reinforce the idea that dinos are cool for the new generation of gamers (ofc the horrid, horrid names don't help . . .)

Btw, how do you guys feel about Eberron-like horrid animals? For those who don't know, Eberron has its own class of dire beasts, the horrid beasts that were engineered by druids as war machines.

 

[TerraDave]

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".

....

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

(all IMO of course, YMMV)

I agree with all of this post, but especially this part. And the latin names, being latin, would actually seem more appropriate for a fantasy game. In any case, presumably everything is translated into English from whatever the fantasy language is, and so should be in actual english.

 

[Jester David]

I like the term "behemoth" for dinosaurs and the flavourful names but it NEEDS (!!) the actual real world name associated with that creature. 4e established the creatures nicely but guessing what behemoth was what dino was a pain in the butt. Just tuck the name in parentheses in a smaller font, but make sure it's included.

Dinos are neat and handy for some people's fun (Isle of Dread, Eberron, etc) but these could be free DDI monsters that get incorporated into the second MM. They don't need to be content pushed out the door ASAP.

As for everything else... I like using the term "dire" for larger than normal animals. I always made sense.

 

[Hussar]

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.

That's a point.

I wonder though, if they couldn't organize the MM by creature type instead of straight up alphabetical. Would possibly make the book a bit more useful. Alphabetical is fine, but, then again, that's easily replaced by having decent indexes in the book.

Of course, asking for a decent index in an RPG book is a pipe dream too, so maybe we should keep it alphabetical.

 

[Stormonu]

Yeah, I want dinosaur because of this:



I'd rather "intrepreted" names than the scienctific names (put the scientific names in parentheses, though), especially when you get into some of the more modern names (especially the chinese ones). I don't, however really like the portmanteaus 4E fell into. However, grouping them into behemoths or drakes was fine by me.

I'd also like to keep the dire monicker as it makes the big beasties easier to find, but they need to lose the stupid bone spikes. I'd also like to see BECMI's White Apes show back up in the game as the intelligent and man-eating carnivorous version of dire apes. And why we don't have a king kong sized ape capable of taking on the tarrasque in the MM I'll never understand.

Finally, on the giant eagles and giant owls, I don't give a hoot. I don't think the designers need to go out of their way to tie these birds to elves - and I kind of rather they didn't. Maybe I'd like to have night-flying bugbears on giant horned owls silently swoop in to carry off farmers to sell them into slavery. Or orcs riding giant eagles while elves prefer griffons. Tying them to elves makes this sort of stuff difficult to get away with.

 

[Orius]

Of course, "Threehorn" sounds inherently dumb. It's like calling a dog a Fangtooth Howlbeast, or a cat a Stealthclaw Yowler.

Or a donkeyhorse.

I agree that Threehorn sounds kind of dumb, but that won't be the case with all dinos. There's no way for Tyrant King to sound lame.

 

[Sunseeker]

I wanted to point out that I like "creative" names for dinosaurs, but I dislike the StrangeWord CoolName naming convention(ie: Firebreath Deathbringer), but I also dislike the CoolName from StrangePlace naming convention. Keep it simple, remember Land Before Time? T-rexes were "Sharptooth(singular)-teeth(plural)". It's a good, simple, yet evocative name for a 3-story tall lizard with teeth the size of my hand! We don't need "Sharptooh Bladefang" or "Sharptooth of the Raging Forests" as the normative name for these creatures. That might be a good specific name for a specific beast in a specific setting and game, but not for every game ever.

Give us stuff like "Sharptooth", simple, evocative and slightly generic. Then provide some suggestions for naming variants. Got a t-rex from a volcano? "Flamescale Daggermouth" Got a Bronto from a swamp? "Muckfoot Behemoth" Otherwise just simple names are better.

As for providing the scientific names? I don't really care much about that. If we're specifically saying this mythological, quasi-prehistoric giant lizard is supposed to be a take on the real-world ancient beast, well okay. But if we're just saying this is a mythological, quasi-prehistoric giant lizard is loosely based on real-world concepts of dinosaurs, it's not necessary. I feel that the in-game dinosaurs should take artistic license with real-world dinosaurs, playing upon misconceptions, fears and "ooo that sounds cool!" ideas. I don't think a specific dinosaur will make all but a few people happy. But a unique and creative dinosaur-themed monster, that can go a long way!

 

[MarkB]

Btw, how do you guys feel about Eberron-like horrid animals? For those who don't know, Eberron has its own class of dire beasts, the horrid beasts that were engineered by druids as war machines.

I like them in their place, as rare beasts engineered for a specific purpose (and in some cases abandoned to fend for themselves). I wouldn't want them to become a common part of D&D's 'ecosystem' alongside regular Dire animals.

 

[MortalPlague]

...I'd also like to see BECMI's White Apes show back up in the game as the intelligent and man-eating carnivorous version of dire apes. And why we don't have a king kong sized ape capable of taking on the tarrasque in the MM I'll never understand.

I agree! I would love to see a huge ape in the MM. Can you picture him now, climbing to the top of the tallest tower, princess in hand while gryphon riders fly around, launching crossbow bolts at him?

 

[I'm A Banana]

Give us stuff like "Sharptooth", simple, evocative and slightly generic.

I pretty much entirely disagree that "sharptooth" is a good name for anything.

Well, it's a good name for a kid's movie targeted at 8-year-olds that adopts naming conventions like an 8-year-old might use. It sounds childish. It sounds simplistic. It sounds goofy. Like calling an axe "sharpblade" or a club "thudstick."

"Sharptooth" and "Three horn" are pretty much "CoolName."

Give me something better. Heck, for T-rexes and their kin, "Tyrant" works pretty well. I'm fond of "Behemoth" for sauropods. Others might be a little harder, but I'm sure we can do better than "Well, it probably has a long tail, so lets call it a Longtail."