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

[Will Doyle]

I prefer the new names too.

Also, some of the newer fossil finds have names that wouldn't work at all well for D&D. The largest identified titanosaur, for example, is called an Argentinosaurus. I'd love to see one in a game (perhaps with a howdah on its back), but I'd probably call it a Goliath Drake, or something.

 

[Storminator]

Far more important than what they call them is how they sort them, and if 5e has a database, how they're tagged (does the compendium use tags?).

There is currently no search criteria you can use in the compendium to pull up all the dinosaurs if you're making a lost world adventure. This is ludicrous.

PS

 

[Stoat]

I don't care for using the scientific names in D&D because I think it raises too many nit-picky issues about how real dinosaurs actually lived versus how iconic "lost world" dinosaurs lived:

"There's no such thing as a brontosaurus!"

"Apatosaurus didn't live in swamps!"

"Velociraptors had feathers!"

"Dinosaur X and Dinosaur Y lived millions of years apart from each other. They would never fight!"

Non-science names help emphasize the fantasy aspect of including dinos in the game, which I like.

That said, a lot of WotC's dino names also suck.

 

[Ashtagon]

Latin names break immersion.

4e style names just sound silly.

How about plain old English names?

Brontosaurus thunder drake

Tyrannosaurus king drake

pterodactyl wing-finger

Triceratops three-horned drake (lizard)

Allosaurus lesser king drake (literally: other lizard)


Much more readily understandable, without hurting anyone's brains.

Although I quite like the idea of calling them all "drakes" instead of the more-technically-correct translation of "lizard".

 

[delericho]

The only reason to use a dinosaur in your game is because of the name. Fighting a Tyrannosaurus Rex is cool.

Call it a Swordtooth Titan instead (or whatever 4e chose to name it), and all you're left with is a creature of animal intelligence with no ranged attack, no magical or special abilities, and no intelligence to speak of. It's nothing but a bag of hit points, which even a fairly low-level party should be able to handle with relative ease.

 

[Mark CMG]

Exactly. It is unneeded to rename animals we already have names for.

They are only needed if you are trying to graft IP onto something in the public domain.

 

[Sunseeker]

Personally I find fantastical "common names" to be far more endearing than latin names. Especially psuedo-latin names. I HATE it when they try and make up latin-sounding names by combining what is essentially gibberish but to the lay-person looks believable!

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

Personally, I've never liked having Dinosaurs in the monster manual at all. I'd much prefer a separate book dedicated to them and other real-world megafauna.

That said, I want a module for giving them feathers.

 

[Steely_Dan]

I like the non-Latin, non-scientific behemoth names.

It seems at this point if 4th Ed took a wee in a martini glass, you would take no umbrage, is there anything you do not adore about 4th Ed?

There has to be some objectivity...

 

[pemerton]

I cannot just look up stegosaurus or tricerotops stats in my Monster Manual or monster builder software when I want one in-game

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.

Far more important than what they call them is how they sort them, and if 5e has a database, how they're tagged (does the compendium use tags?).

There is currently no search criteria you can use in the compendium to pull up all the dinosaurs if you're making a lost world adventure. This is ludicrous.

These are good points that I haven't though of before, because I've never built a lost world scenario, or tried to include a dinosaur based on its real-world identity.

It's interesting to see 4e, on this occasion, going the wrong way not because it's too metagame-y, but rather isn't meta-gamey enough (ie doesn't present the monsters in a way that supports one important use GMs want to make of them).

Double-coding/double-indexing would be one obvious compromise.