Red-Veined Meadowhawk Dragonfly
Even for the RW, that one's pretty awful.
Someone stat one of those up for 4Ed, but also make it a "Giant Feywild" critter...STAT!
Red-Veined Meadowhawk Dragonfly
"Giant"? What's that? Did you mean Bighuge?Someone stat one of those up for 4Ed, but also make it a "Giant Feywild" critter...STAT!
Conflating a comparison with an equation will lead you to all sorts of logical problems, since no analogy has a true 1:1 relationship with the things being compared. For instance, "Time flows like a river to the sea" is a common analogy (really, a simile, but that's mostly semantics, and the distinction is irrelevant for my purposes here). But time is not wet, cannot be swum, is not potable, has no "sea" destination, etc.
That's a product of them having different types of each monster, each with its own name.
Scribble said:You are essentially trying to get us to understand the importance of not ignoring silly sounding names by making us see the dangers of ignoring murder.
Someone who knows absolutely nothing about D&D would get a pretty crazy idea about the dangers silly sounding names impose by following your analogy.
Sure- both of them might happen infrequently but because that one descriptor is such a small part of what murder as a whole is it causes a faulty analogy.
No. If that were the case, such names would be much more common.No.
That's a product of CloseTheLicense ProtectTheIP GamingSpeak.
Aboslutely. Some rare things are extremely problematic, in the real world where things really matter.Thus, the OP's central point -- CompoundWord monsters are rare, and therefore, should not be a problem -- is undermined, since rare things are problems even though they are rare.
No. If that were the case, such names would be much more common.