Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="the Jester" data-source="post: 6054165" data-attributes="member: 1210">Personally, I strongly prefer calling them &quot;dinosaurs&quot; (behemoth is taken by a hippo-like creature in 1e). I also strongly prefer listing them by their dinosaur names; the compound names are silly and contrived, IMHO.However, I have no problem with listing them under both their classic names and their compound name (or perhaps a better version of them); an ankylosaurus might indeed be called a &quot;macetail&quot; by the people in its territory.One thing I would absolutely HATE is putting them in a campaign specific monster supplement. I HATE it when awesome classic monsters are suddenly pushed into one campaign's book (and it seems to happen a lot: the peryton, gibberling, revenant and others were shoved into the 3e FR monster book, the death knight moved from generic monster to DragonLance in 2e, etc).The thing is, I don't want to have a book with a bunch of campaign-specific monsters in it. Generally, those are a waste of space for a homebrewer like me. While I'm happy to use stuff that fits well into my campaign, a setting-specific book inevitably has stuff that is just flat-out unusable from my perspective (even if a particularly good one- the 3e MoF, the 4e Dark Sun book, etc- has a lot of useful stuff in it). Why not just make it all actual campaign-specific stuff for the FR or DS or whatever players and leave my aaracokra and firenewts and death knights and so on in the MM and subsequent monster books?Dinosaurs should NOT be relegated to an Eberron book. I'm fine with a generic &quot;Monsters of the Lost World&quot; book, though- one that would include a plethora of dire animals, dinosaurs, therapsids, etc, as well as primordial and ancestral versions of oozes, dragons, elementals, demons, etc. (Also, lots of apes and savages. Including intelligent apes.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="the Jester, post: 6054165, member: 1210"] Personally, I strongly prefer calling them "dinosaurs" (behemoth is taken by a hippo-like creature in 1e). I also strongly prefer listing them by their dinosaur names; the compound names are silly and contrived, IMHO. However, I have no problem with listing them under both their classic names and their compound name (or perhaps a better version of them); an ankylosaurus might indeed be called a "macetail" by the people in its territory. One thing I would absolutely HATE is putting them in a campaign specific monster supplement. I HATE it when awesome classic monsters are suddenly pushed into one campaign's book (and it seems to happen a lot: the peryton, gibberling, revenant and others were shoved into the 3e FR monster book, the death knight moved from generic monster to DragonLance in 2e, etc). The thing is, I don't want to have a book with a bunch of campaign-specific monsters in it. Generally, those are a waste of space for a homebrewer like me. While I'm happy to use stuff that fits well into my campaign, a setting-specific book inevitably has stuff that is just flat-out unusable from my perspective (even if a particularly good one- the 3e MoF, the 4e Dark Sun book, etc- has a lot of useful stuff in it). Why not just make it all actual campaign-specific stuff for the FR or DS or whatever players and leave my aaracokra and firenewts and death knights and so on in the MM and subsequent monster books? Dinosaurs should NOT be relegated to an Eberron book. I'm fine with a generic "Monsters of the Lost World" book, though- one that would include a plethora of dire animals, dinosaurs, therapsids, etc, as well as primordial and ancestral versions of oozes, dragons, elementals, demons, etc. (Also, lots of apes and savages. Including intelligent apes.) [/QUOTE]

Verification