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

[Riley]

No, they are different creatures:

• The Brontosaurus is the big, long-necked swamp dweller that I learned about in grade school, which holds its head high, drags its tail on the ground (or on the bottom of the lake), and spends a lot of time mucking about in the water.
  
• The Apatosaurus is a similarly big, long-necked creature, but it is a land-based grazer which can swing its tail as a deadly bullwhip.

Given the all-inclusive design goals of the new edition, both deserve inclusion in the Monster Manual Next.

 

[herrozerro]

I liked 4e's approach, with no basic monsters. Well that's not totally true, different creatures might all have a common trait like shifty or something like that and honestly that might be the way to go. Have an entry in the monster manual with a bit of lore, a few common traits (sort of like the templates in the DMGs) and a few good example monsters maybe at different levels of play and thats it.

Everyone can be happy, some common traits common to all or most of the creatures, the freedom to create creatures without having to be bound by PC creation and yeah...

 

[S'mon]

Strongly agree ("must spread XP"). This was one of those 4e stupid design decisions that has a direct negative effect on my game, because it destroys knowledge. Because of this, I cannot just look up stegosaurus or tricerotops stats in my Monster Manual or monster builder software when I want one in-game, instead before I have to know the 4e-name of the dinosaur before I can locate it. This cripples my ability to GM on the fly. So for me it is a very big deal.

 

[S'mon]

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

To be able to locate it in play so that I can have ankylosauri stats when I need them: first I have to work out that a Macetail Behemoth is an ankylosaurus (I think). Then I have to add a note in the index under 'A' - see Macetail Behemoth page XX. Then I have to load up monster builder and create an edited version of the Macetail Behemoth with the correct name.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Oops-multipost

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Double post.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Late to the party, agreeing with S'mon...again.

 

[WhatGravitas]

Hmm, I agree that the 4E names were a bit corny and odd. On the other hand, I don't think the scientific names are the way to go, unless you start to name the wolf "canis lupus", bears "ursidae" and so on. Dinosaurs are known by their scientific names nowadays, because we didn't have any first-hand knowledge of them.

In a world where they appear and are not just fossils, they need a name in the common tongue, keeping the scientific name in parenthesis or something for the reader.

I'm quite fond of calling them "behemoths", but something like "macetail" sounds a bit daft. If I had a say, I'd try and find a fantasy author with a knack for naming things and pay them to come up with about a dozen names for poetic behemothic names for dinosaurs.

 

[Dice4Hire]

Dinosaur names. Seriously stuff like Thunderstomper Drake and Macetail Behemoth...that needs to stop. Just call them by their latin names. It's easier and looks less lame / counter intuitive.

Nope, I am fine with the new naming. The names fit in better with the other monsters.

 

[Prickly]

I preferred the 4e names.

They made the dinosaurs seem to fit in more.

Instead of wondering why dinosaurs are attacking my knights castle, I thought "Ah Drakes, fantasy monster, might be a distant relation of dragons"