D&D 5E Wandering Monsters: Big Beasts

[Tonguez]

So, we don't generally refer to bears by the term Ursus unless we're discussing species in a scientific context. But we do refer to a triceratops as a triceratops because we don't have another name for it.

Well there is the Italian word Orso.

But you're right and that is kind of the point. The binominal system is modern and formulaic and that grinds against my suspension of disbelief as being neither fantastic nor "natural". Admittedly Tyranosaurus Rex has the advantage of being noth iconic and cool in it's own right but that same luxury doesn't apply to Leaellynasaurus (how do you even pronounce that?) or Apatosaur.

In a world were Behemoths do coexist with humanoids they would be given common names and just as panther just means yellow beast and bear means brown beast why not Cuernotres instead of Triceratops?

 

[MarkB]

Perhaps the 'common' names for dinosaurs used in-game could simply be ease-of-use contractions of their full names, the explanation being that they were originally named in Common by scholars using fancy words from old languages, and then contracted through normal usage.

Most people know that a "teerex" is a tyrannoraurus rex (that or a glam rock band), and thanks to the Jurassic Park movies, when people hear "raptor" these days they're probably more likely to think of velociraptors than birds of prey.

Similar contractions could be used for other common dinosaurs.

 

[Mike Eagling]

Well there is the Italian word Orso.

So what?

But you're right and that is kind of the point. The binominal system is modern and formulaic and that grinds against my suspension of disbelief as being neither fantastic nor "natural".

Is lion fantastic? Is tiger fantastic? Is bear fantastic? Oh my.

Admittedly Tyranosaurus Rex has the advantage of being noth iconic and cool in it's own right but that same luxury doesn't apply to Leaellynasaurus (how do you even pronounce that?) or Apatosaur.

Now, this is a different problem and happens to be one I have a certain sympathy for. The 1e AD&D MM and MMII have pages and pages of dinosaurs, most of which are generally similar. Personally, if I were writing the books I'd limit the list to at most about a dozen species and only pick the most iconic varieties. There's a limit to the number of swamp-dwelling quadrupedal herbivores required.

In a world were Behemoths do coexist with humanoids they would be given common names and just as panther just means yellow beast and bear means brown beast why not Cuernotres instead of Triceratops?

Yes, they would be given common names and this is entirely sensible within the fiction of the campaign world but not in a rule book. Answer this: if you decide you need the stats for a panther what page would you turn to? A page near the middle, where the 'P's are located or one near the end, where the 'Y's are?*

"Cuernotres" appears to be (almost) Spanish for "three horn". In what way is that exotic or fantastic? Is it more or less exotic for Spanish speakers?








* Both are wrong. It's been arbitrarily renamed a creepdeath fangpouncer because that's much more kewlz.

 

[Cyberen]

Both are wrong. It's been arbitrarily renamed a creepdeath fangpouncer because that's much more kewlz.

I've just embarassed myself laughing out in the bus

 

[Dausuul]

Rants aside, and after some more thought, I have to come down on the side of the scientific names for one simple reason: People know what they mean.

If you tell me I'm fighting a "swordtooth titan," I have no freakin' clue what that is. If I had to guess, I'd imagine a gigantic human (you know, a titan), with big long canine teeth like a saber-toothed tiger. It's kind of a silly picture really. If you describe it to me as an enormous bipedal reptile, I'm thinking, "Oh, so it's like... a miniature tarrasque, or something?" Then you tell me it's got tiny little forearms with two claws, and I say, "Oh, it's a tyrannosaur. Why didn't you just say so?"

I don't see the point of even having dinosaurs if you're not going to call them dinosaurs. As monsters, what have they got going for them? They're big (well, some of them are big). Some have bite attacks. Some have gore attacks or tail slaps. Whoop-de-doo. How is this different from anything else in the Monster Manual? They have animal intelligence. They don't have breath weapons or magic-disrupting eye beams or a rotting touch. They don't have an interesting society. They are, in Magic parlance, "vanilla creatures." But if you call them dinosaurs, then you're bringing in all the fascination that most of us felt for these creatures as kids, and the wonder of the "lost world" where such creatures dwell. Why not use their right names, that people recognize?

And the idea that "tyrannosaur" and "triceratops" are un-fantastic but "swordtooth titan" and "trihorn behemoth" are, just boggles my mind. The former are exotic and strange. The latter are bland and formulaic.

 

[Tovec]

I've been wondering for a while. Is the problem more simplistic than that?

Don't like the term dinosaurs .. why not dinos?
Trice (pronounced however you want) instead of Triceratops.
T-Rex (or Teerex) instead of Tyrannosaurus Rex.

Isn't that more or less where you'd be if you took the Panthera Tigris and came up with Tiger?
I mean I'm seeing the argument that the name hasn't evolved but why not evolve them but keep them reasonably close to original so people can easily understand what they are. Thunderfoot Ashenscale or whatever Wizards came up with just doesn't work because I have no idea WHICH dino that would apply to.

Also, +1 to what Dausuul said, can't XP him ATM.

 

[Alzrius]

Rants aside, and after some more thought, I have to come down on the side of the scientific names for one simple reason: People know what they mean.

Yeah, I think that's a point that gets overlooked a bit too much. People know what a tyrannosaurus rex is - giving it another name out of fear that its existing name breaks immersion (which I don't particularly agree with) adds an element of confusion that I don't think it worthwhile.

 

[billd91]

And the idea that "tyrannosaur" and "triceratops" are un-fantastic but "swordtooth titan" and "trihorn behemoth" are, just boggles my mind. The former are exotic and strange. The latter are bland and formulaic.

I think this is an interesting point. The scientific names for the dinosaurs are, in many cases, following a formulaic construction that does much the same thing as the compound words in the 4e monster manuals: they describe the animal in question. They just do so in a fancy-pants manner designed to make the person using them look all the smarter for knowing an archaic language's roots. Because we all know that things sound more exotic when they aren't in our own vernacular even when they're saying much the same thing. N'est-ce pas?

Ultimately, I don't think the 4e-style compounds are doing anything wrong, per se. Rather, they just sound silly when used for creatures that we already have suitable names for.

 

[Jacob Marley]

Rants aside, and after some more thought, I have to come down on the side of the scientific names for one simple reason: People know what they mean.

This. My primary concern with the name of monsters is the ease in which it conveys information to my players. Nearly every player I know of knows the basic dinosaurs: Ankylosaurus, Pterodactyl, Stegosaurus, Triceratops, Tyrannosaurus. Using these names quickly, and accurately, informs my players of exactly what they are witnessing.

 

[Alzrius]

Nearly every player I know of knows the basic dinosaurs: Ankylosaurus, Pterodactyl, Stegosaurus, Triceratops, Tyrannosaurus. Using these names quickly, and accurately, informs my players of exactly what they are witnessing.

Exactly. When we hear "Mastodon!" "Pterodactyl!" "Triceratops!" "Sabre-Tooth Tiger!" "Tyrannosaurus!" we all know that it's morphin' time.

...wait, what were we talking about again? Aye-yai-yai-yai-yai...