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

[Banshee16]

That's a bit of a misunderstanding of the system though Jawsh. There is no such thing as a basic kobold in 4e. It just doesn't exist. Pretty much all the humanoids are built that way, and even most of the monsters have a few versions, none of which are actually a "base" version.

It's a heavy nod back to older versions of D&D where you had 14 different "humans" and the like. To be fair though, I think it was largely only humans that got this treatment.

I gotta go with the critics on this one though. There are some seriously stupid names in D&D. Granted, that's always been true, but, not really a defense when you're doing something new. Just because we had C.I.F.A.L. thirty years ago does not excuse doing it now.

The fact that all those "special" versions of kobolds (or any other race) existed in 4E was something that really turned me off. To be fair, they started doing this towards the end of 3E, particularly in the MMIV and MMV. To balance that off, at least I could get stats for a basic kobold. It just felt like bloat.

I also didn't like the trend in 4E to have "special" races. I liked 3E's approach whereby races or monsters existed, and then something predictable and measurable, such as a character class or template was added to give it any additional powers a GM could want.

Banshee

 

[Hussar]

Oh hey, I agree Banshee16. In 3e, you could do the same thing by whacking on levels/templates. The problem, I think, was workload for the DM. Sure, tacking on a single level of something onto a kobold was pretty straightforward. But, once you start getting into mid levels or (shudder) high level play, it got exponentially more difficult.

I mean, heck, look at Paizo's Dungeon magazine. There are stat blocks there that are well over a page long on some of the bigger stuff. IIRC the record was three pages, small type, three column for a single dragon.

That's a bit excessive, and, let's be honest, no DM in his right mind is going to do that by hand. (Ok, OK, you in the back, sit down. I know YOU did it. I was going for a bit of flourish in the writing... sigh)

So, they built it right into the game. A kobold with a sword and a kobold with a sling was mechanically distinct from each other. For those used to looking at monster manuals as a sort of National Geographic Guide to Fantasy Monsters, I think this was very jarring.

 

[Stormonu]

I like the term "behemoth" for big dinosaurs, but not the names they've been giving them. I blame Land Before Time and their use of sharptooth (teeth?) for starting this mess.

Sadly, many of the more modern real-world dinosaurs have pretty awful names. Gone are the days of Ankylosaurus and Triceratops, now things get named like Albertosaurus and Zhongyaunsaurus.

There's not a real good solution either. Either you give them English descriptive/translated names (which end up sounding dumb), you come up with completely new names (that'd be a disaster) or you translate them into another language (and in that case, why not use latin?).

In the end, I'd like to see descriptive names, but not bad portmanteaus. I can handle something like a Soarwing for a pteradon, Deathclaw for a raptor or a Clubtail for an Anklyosaurus but a Battletitan for a T. Rex sounds dumb [ T. Rexes don't engage in warfare, they hunt - something like "Hunting Doom" would sound more appropriate].

 

[Dannager]

It IS a critical issue.

Why? If they call a creature a "Macetail Behemoth" and the name displeases you, call it something else instead. Problem solved.

Are all of your critical issues so easily addressed by the one making the complaint?

 

[Banshee16]

Oh hey, I agree Banshee16. In 3e, you could do the same thing by whacking on levels/templates. The problem, I think, was workload for the DM. Sure, tacking on a single level of something onto a kobold was pretty straightforward. But, once you start getting into mid levels or (shudder) high level play, it got exponentially more difficult.

I mean, heck, look at Paizo's Dungeon magazine. There are stat blocks there that are well over a page long on some of the bigger stuff. IIRC the record was three pages, small type, three column for a single dragon.

That's a bit excessive, and, let's be honest, no DM in his right mind is going to do that by hand. (Ok, OK, you in the back, sit down. I know YOU did it. I was going for a bit of flourish in the writing... sigh)

So, they built it right into the game. A kobold with a sword and a kobold with a sling was mechanically distinct from each other. For those used to looking at monster manuals as a sort of National Geographic Guide to Fantasy Monsters, I think this was very jarring.

I don't mind them doing it.....to a degree. But to me, that's almost something more for inclusion in online support materials....not in printed books. When I'm paying $40 for a MM, I do not want page after page of "beefed up" basic monsters. That stuff should be in a web enhancement or whatever. I know in 3E, I voted with my wallet and didn't buy MMIV or MMV because both seemed crowded with this kind of content, and I didn't feel I was getting my money's worth.

Again...I'm not saying they don't have value. I think to all the times I've wanted to use human opponents, and what I ended up doing was creating basic stats for city guards, city watch, thugs, etc. So that I could throw them into a game easily.

Banshee

 

[kitsune9]

Yeah, but fighting a thunderstomper drake sounds a lot more cooler than fighting a aklosau.. bezoryxosau....something saurus.

 

[Piratecat]

Yeah, but fighting a thunderstomper drake sounds a lot more cooler than fighting a aklosau.. bezoryxosau....something saurus.

Says you! If I can't be swallowed whole by a Tyrannosaurus Rex with his teeny little forearms, I don't want to be swallowed whole at all.

Unless it's a behir. That'd be okay.

 

[Hassassin]

Yeah, but fighting a thunderstomper drake sounds a lot more cooler than fighting a aklosau.. bezoryxosau....something saurus.

Drakes are related to dragons, aren't they?

 

[kitsune9]

Says you! If I can't be swallowed whole by a Tyrannosaurus Rex with his teeny little forearms, I don't want to be swallowed whole at all.

Unless it's a behir. That'd be okay.

Well, we have to make an exception to the Rex. Just that name alone gives me chills.

And the behir too.

 

[Fhalyassa]

Yeah, brontosaurus is the proper name and apatosaurus is the wrong one. Even the spell check agrees with me.

The following is incorrect.
Yeah, brontosaurus is the proper name and apatosaurus is the wrong one. Even the spell check agrees with me.

Brontosaurus and apatosaurus are the same dinosaur with apatosaurus being the new name of the dinosaur while brontosaurus is the old name of the dinosaur.

Aklosaur is incorrect. I think you meant ankylosaur.

Some people think Tyrannosaurus rex used its arms for tickling.

While we are on the subject Cryptoclidus and Elasmosaur are plesiosaurs and not a dinosaur at all while Quetzalcoatlus is pterosaur which means it is not a dinosaur.

From the Creature Catalog the following creatures are not dinosaurs even thought they listed in the Creature Catalog as dinosaurs. Dimetrodon belongs to a group traditionally called mammal-like reptiles. Dimetrodon is a Pelycosaurs from the Permian peroid. Temnodontosaurus is an extinct genus of ichthyosaur and not a dinosaur. Nothosaurus was a genus of nothosaur, which was a family, of marine reptiles and not a dinosaur. Kronosaurus is an extinct genus of short-necked pliosaur (short neck plesiosaur). Euparkeria, extinct genus of reptile very closely related to the ancestral archosaurs (a group containing present-day crocodiles and birds and ancestral dinosaurs and pterosaurs). So that means Euparkeria is not a dinosaur. Dinichthys is an extinct, giant, marine arthrodire placoderm (armored fish) from the Late Devonian period.