Why CompoundWord Monsters Don't Bother Me

[Aegeri]

I seem to have missed so much, people complaining about the DMG2 being useless "DM advice" and now people complaining about monsters being named like this. I honestly haven't seen this been an issue before, except for certain player character options. Shardmind and Battlemind, as two examples, were routinely mocked before PHB3s release (now that I *do* remember). I haven't seen this relating to monsters so much though.

 

[Fifth Element]

Any counting system that eliminates swordwings from the get-go is sort of missing the point of the "problem" I think. Also, 4e's (and later 3e's) love affair with portmanteau naming goes well beyond just monsters - Frostfell, Feywild, Shadowfell, etc. ad nauseam.

Point is, previous editions were littered with things like owlbears and thunderherders and dustdiggers and webbirds and stunjellies. That's not a 4E thing.

Calling something a Grimdark Thunderherder (to differentiate it from a Frostclaw Thunderherder), on the other hand, is considered a 4E naming convention.

 

[Fifth Element]

I wasn't aware that this was a problem.

You must not read the same threads I do. It's been touted as an issue by a vocal minority since 2008.

 

[Fifth Element]

Owlbear isn't a silly name. Given the nature of the monster, that's the only thing it could be called.

I'm fond of strigursus myself.

What does bother me (slightly) is bad names - and there have been a fair few of those from WotC. But, hey, it's not that big a deal.

Bad names can be bothersome. Then again, catoblepas would be considered a silly name if someone (recent) just made it up.


Fifth "Have to Remember to Multi-Quote" Element

 

[billd91]

I went through the three 4E Monster Manuals and counted up all the monsters that would likely be deemed to fall into this naming convention. Note that this applies only to the descriptive term added to a monster's name to diferentiaate it from others of the same "species", so to speak. A swordwing, for instance, does not count because that's just the name of the monster, and we've had planty of goofy-named monsters in the past (webbird, I'm looking at you). I also didn't count compound words that are actually used as part of the language, like say bloodhound. Here are the results.

Monster Manual 1: 83 of 488 monsters are CompoundWord, or 17%.
Monster Manual 2: 54 of 324 monsters are CompoundWord, or 17%.
Monster Manual 3: 27 of 307 monsters are CompoundWord, or 9%.

Altogether that's 164 of 1,119 monsters, or 15%, that are CompoundWord. (This was just me adding them up, by the way, so there's bound to be an error or two.)

It's true, all editions of D&D have had compound words just like English has plenty like blacksmith and wolfhound.

But if your methodology is to count the number of modifiers applied to critters to distinguish them from others of the same type (like the warthorn battlebriar and the earthrage battlebriar) but not the type itself (battlebriar), then all of those compound words you are counting are in excess of the number you'd typically see in an edition like 1st ed AD&D where these modifiers aren't in use in any significant way. About 1 in 6, as of 4e Monster Manual 1 (and 2), has a compound word when in 1e/2e and early 3e, they probably wouldn't have had one at all (I'll give you late 3e, things were already moving in this direction with late 3e MMs, I'd say).

So no wonder 4e is being called the compoundword monster edition. You've shown me it is.

 

[billd91]

I wasn't aware that this was a problem.

It's less a problem than it is an object of derision.
Does it really need to be a feygrove choker or feymire crocodile? Why not just fey choker or fey crocodile? How much do we need to gild the lily here? Is fey not enough to indicate that these are magical versions of the creatures that we have to embellish further with -grove and -mire?

How about the godforged colossus? There was only one in the MM1. Did it need to be distinguished from something else? And then compound words + compound words and you get things like the warthorn battlebriar which starts to get just plain cumbersome.

It's not a problem, but it does start to look kind of silly after a while. It's not like there weren't people already teasing D&D players over cumbersome, -beard, -axe, and -hammer heavy compound dwarven names (or even Clanggedin Silverbeard) for years. To then see 4e step right into that pit in broad daylight? Amusing, perhaps even priceless.

 

[kaomera]

It's less a problem than it is an object of derision.
Does it really need to be a feygrove choker or feymire crocodile? Why not just fey choker or fey crocodile? How much do we need to gild the lily here? Is fey not enough to indicate that these are magical versions of the creatures that we have to embellish further with -grove and -mire?

Yeah, but "feygrove" and "feymire" just sound cooler and more evocative. I hear "fey crocodile" and I think little, adorable things with butterfly wings and a literally wicked grin. Feymire indicates that they live in the mires of the fey.

Also: Owlbears.

OWLBEARS.

OOOOOOOOOOOOOWWWLLLBBBEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRSSSSSSSSSSSSS

 

[billd91]

Yeah, but "feygrove" and "feymire" just sound cooler and more evocative. I hear "fey crocodile" and I think little, adorable things with butterfly wings and a literally wicked grin. Feymire indicates that they live in the mires of the fey.

Also: Owlbears.

OWLBEARS.

OOOOOOOOOOOOOWWWLLLBBBEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRSSSSSSSSSSSSS

Would calling it a strongclaw owlbear make it sound cooler or more evocative?

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

I'd vote for Facemuncher Owlbear. Maybe it even needs another title to distinguish it from all the other face-munching owlbears. How about a Facemuncher Owlbear Miscreant? Maybe a minion version - the Facemuncher Owlbear Beaksnapper.

 

[chitzk0i]

Wow! A blast from the past! Is it 2008?

I keed, I keed