D&D 4E WotC this is something you absolutely cannot screw up in 5E like you screwed up in 4E

[Jawsh]

So you'd hate fighting a King Tyrantlizard, then? What about a Threehornface Horror? Armored Rooflizard?

You seem to think that these Latin names are magical and special and somehow not the same stupid fused-word naming convention we use all the time for animals. I blame Harry Potter.

I don't know how that sounds to everyone else, but I would be quite happy to see "Tyrant Lizard King" in the Monster Manual. And "Three-horned Lizard" is not bad.

As long as the designers use some common sense, English-derived names can still be pretty good. The problem with WotC lately is that the compound names have been simply bad.

 

[Aeolius]

Because I like you, I'm going to pretend this never got said. LALALALALA.

Okay, okay... you can have your dinos if I have have all of the hags and sea beasties that were in the 3.5e MM. And we'll throw in the minimals, so no one notices...

 

[LightPhoenix]

The main issue here (IMO) isn't really dinosaurs themselves, but the awful compound name trend that started sometime during 3E (Wormwood mentioned Eberron). However, dancing around that issue...

The renamed dinosaurs make sense from a descriptive and historical point of view. Most creature names are derived from descriptive elements, albeit in another language. However, the images that the names evoke are, in my opinion, stronger with their traditional names versus the new ones. There are certain names that through the history of D&D have built up iconic images (through art, etc) - dragons, beholders, illithids, giants, and so forth. Dinosaurs are not part of that group. When a name evokes a strong image, I've found that immersion tends to be stronger as well. For that reason, I'd prefer to see them use the traditional dinosaur names.

 

[Klaus]

I must say, "bonecrown" sounds a lot better than "pachycephalosaurus". And then you have dinosaurs like the utahraptor (which is the actual beast named "velociraptor" by the Jurassic Park movies), argentinosaurus, etc.

Clearly, not every dinosaur wins the name lottery.

 

[TwinBahamut]

I don't know how that sounds to everyone else, but I would be quite happy to see "Tyrant Lizard King" in the Monster Manual. And "Three-horned Lizard" is not bad.

As long as the designers use some common sense, English-derived names can still be pretty good. The problem with WotC lately is that the compound names have been simply bad.

I'm not exactly fond of WotC's new names for dinosaurs either. I'm perfectly fine with using the modern scientific names, but if that is off the table then I really would much rather see the direct translation of those names, rather than made up names and terms like "Behemoth" (which, as a Final Fantasy fan, has totally different connotations for me ). Heck, the term Behemoth isn't even appropriate for smaller dinosaurs. Also, pretty much anyone will know what a Tyrant Lizard King is supposed to be, but it takes a bit to remember what its 4E name refers to.

That said, is using a latin name really so weird? The English language uses an incredibly huge amount of latin as it is (it is one of the top three sources of loan words). I mean, we don't question words like hippopotamus as being weird, even though it is just greek for "river horse". I don't see a big drive to rename many other recognizable creatures with greek and latin names, so it seems odd to do that for dinosaurs simply because their scientific and common names are the same thing.

 

[El Mahdi]

I usually prefer the most realistic version of everything. So...

Since we are talking about a fictional medieval-esque world...which would likely be centuries before any scientific naming conventions...and Latin most likely does not exist as a language in this world...and the fact that dinosaurs have never actually lived at the same time as humans...I'm thinking that if they did exist in such a world, the names that were used in 4E would probably be quite logical given the type of world and the people in it.

I don't see the problem.

 

[Keefe the Thief]

Well, the scientific community is not agreed that Tarbosaurus and Tyrannosaurus are separate genii. They may be synonymous, just the Asian and North American variants of the same beasties.

And, if you're going to be picky, it'd be Tarbosauri bataar. Italics are typical, and one should not capitalize the species name.

(This message brought to you by your local Pedant's Council.)

I... totally knew that. I did. Rex, king of Macetail Behemoths will vouch for it.

 

[Dannager]

It's a tiny change that will make some people a lot happier with the resulting game.

I really don't think it is, actually. It certainly is a tiny change, but I'm inclined to drop this into the category of game features that people like to complain about, but which have little or no impact on a person's decision to play that game. As you note, it's a very easy fix. So easy, in fact, that the DM can just do it himself with almost no expenditure in effort. I'd be honestly surprised if the name "Macetail Behemoth" actually made someone go, "Nope, 4e isn't for me." I think it far more likely that something else turned them off from the game, and creatures like the Macetail Behemoth don't really matter in the long run.

I'm not saying it's not a change that should be made. It might improve the game. But the thread title makes this sound like a critical issue.

 

[Hassassin]

You're approaching this from the wrong direction. It'a a matter of linguistic consistency, dammit! How can you have a solid setting with vermisilitude and gravitas when the naming conventions are all over the place.

The thing is: D&D must support not only a setting, but countless settings.

Naming monsters so they are appropriate for all settings is impossible.

 

[Wormwood]

Naming monsters so they are appropriate for all settings is impossible.

But most setting don't take place in post-19th century Earth.