Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 04, 2025, 09:59:59 AM

Quote from: Domina on February 03, 2025, 11:57:07 PMNo they shouldn't. The foreign words sound cooler.

They're not actually speaking English, so arbitrarily pulling words from other languages is nonsensical. If I was doing the worldbuilding, then I would have their speech rendered as Anglish to give the desired feel to readers. So no words from Romance or African languages.

Therefore, the Anglish translation would be "soul jug", "walking lich" (reanimated corpse), and "undead wizard king".

I wouldn't go as far as Anglish; a lot of the word choices there would actually be more confusing as they depart from the American English vernacular.

That said, the majority of day-to-day and even a lot of technical discussions outside of specific terms rarely employ vocabulary above about the 6th grade level and so the majority of the English used when trying to present it as basically a "localized dub" should also be about that level.

The place for particularly obvious  loan words is for genuinely foreign elements. If some merchant from another land has a big sword of a particular style then you might see that sword called something specific like a zweihander or claymore... but any big sword locally produced is just going to be called a greatsword or two-hander or similar.

One thing I do in my own world-building is decide upon a specific real language to associate with each foreign culture. For something near I'll tend to go with European languages, for very foreign I lean to transliteration of various Asian languages for words. For ancient locsl places and names I use Latin and a bit of Greek.

Quote from: Chris24601 on February 04, 2025, 10:56:35 AMI wouldn't go as far as Anglish; a lot of the word choices there would actually be more confusing as they depart from the American English vernacular.

Okay, sure. But I'm definitely changing the D&Disms. If it was invented by D&D and subsequently cargo culted into self-referential word salad, then I'm not using it.

Quote from: Chris24601 on February 04, 2025, 10:56:35 AMOne thing I do in my own world-building is decide upon a specific real language to associate with each foreign culture. For something near I'll tend to go with European languages, for very foreign I lean to transliteration of various Asian languages for words. For ancient locsl places and names I use Latin and a bit of Greek.

I use something similar for monsters taken from non-European folklore. For example, I refer to genies of different elements as Afrit (fire genies), Leriah (sky genies), Baharia (ocean and waterway genies) and Siadna (land and underground genies). These names are used in Ars Magica, but they seem to have been taken from the research book "Legend of the Fire Spirits".

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 04, 2025, 11:05:29 AM

Quote from: Chris24601 on February 04, 2025, 10:56:35 AMI wouldn't go as far as Anglish; a lot of the word choices there would actually be more confusing as they depart from the American English vernacular.

Okay, sure. But I'm definitely changing the D&Disms. If it was invented by D&D and subsequently cargo culted into self-referential word salad, then I'm not using it.

No arguments there really.

That said, some terms have achieved sufficient vernacular use that I'll use them regardless.

Ex. I'm going to use Minotaur for my race of bovine humanoids despite their having nothing to do with the singular Minotaur of Greek myth other than body shape because damnably near everyone knows what a Minotaur looks like.

Quote from: Chris24601 on February 04, 2025, 12:29:36 PMbecause damnably near everyone knows what a Minotaur looks like

Do they have cattle-like hooves or human-like feet?

Quote from: Chris24601 on February 04, 2025, 12:29:36 PMEx. I'm going to use Minotaur for my race of bovine humanoids despite their having nothing to do with the singular Minotaur of Greek myth other than body shape because damnably near everyone knows what a Minotaur looks like.

There's more to the Greek Minotaur than just appearance, and the D&D Minotaur makes several key divergences.

Quote from: HappyDaze on February 04, 2025, 01:17:43 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on February 04, 2025, 12:29:36 PMbecause damnably near everyone knows what a Minotaur looks like

Do they have cattle-like hooves or human-like feet?

Are they centaurs? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Minotaurus.gif

The conversion list in the back says that 2014 Orcs are now equivalent to a "tough"
"Bodyguards, belligerents, and laborers, toughs rely on their physical strength to intimidate foes."
The have a Pack Tactics ability where they gain advantage against a foe if they've got a buddy within 5 feet.

All the other 'goblinoids' are now fey creatures. Humanoids are now things like toughs, cultists, bandits, guards, mages, performers, etc. each with their own stats.

It's like the older Monster Manuals where dervishes, or bandits, or whatever had their own stat blocks, just that they may not be pure strain humans as Gamma World might say.

Due to a substance-abuse disorder centering around horse meat, Orcs have been persecuted for millennia.

They are not monsters. They are victims!

We listen, we do not judge.

Quote from: Theory of Games on February 04, 2025, 06:20:33 PMWe listen, we do not judge.

Your ableist post is triggering to hearing impaired halflings like myself.  Do better, Theory!   

Quote from: Tristan on January 31, 2025, 11:44:43 PMOrcs are considered a playable humanoid race, and so removed. I believe Drow and Duergar are gone as well.  Most of the former humanoid creatures are now something else (Fay, Aberrations, etc.) (and how is Aberration not a 'problematic' phrase?).
There is a generic humanoid stat block now.

Oh and liches have Spirit Jars not Phylacteries.

Elves, dwarfs, halflings have always been playable races, and yet there were entries in the monsters section/monster manual for them.

Quote from: Chris24601 on February 01, 2025, 12:11:03 AM

Quote from: Tristan on January 31, 2025, 11:44:43 PMOh and liches have Spirit Jars not Phylacteries.

To be fair on this one at least, unless it's literally two leather boxes containing parchment with Hebrew scripture and strapped to the forehead and left arm for morning prayers... Spirit Jar is probably a more accurate term given that in D&D since at least 3e the device could be practically anything and was rarely if ever actually carried by the Lich.

I think all the humanoid races should have their own entries though, just because they're playable doesn't make them universally allies. Look at how much we humans seem to love going at each other.

The word 'phylactery' is an English word derived from Greek.  It can refer to amulet or charms that provide spiritual or magical protection.  It can also refer to a case use to store Catholic relics.
The word 'tefillin' is derived from the Hebrew used in the Talmud referring to the leather box and strap you mention.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on Today at 12:20:39 AM

Quote from: Tristan on January 31, 2025, 11:44:43 PMOrcs are considered a playable humanoid race, and so removed. I believe Drow and Duergar are gone as well.  Most of the former humanoid creatures are now something else (Fay, Aberrations, etc.) (and how is Aberration not a 'problematic' phrase?).
There is a generic humanoid stat block now.

Elves, dwarfs, halflings have always been playable races, and yet there were entries in the monsters section/monster manual for them.

Not in the 5E (2014) rules, though. In the 2014 Monster Manual, there is no longer a "Dwarf" or "Elf" entry. Instead, there is Appendix B that details NPCs - and each NPC template is labeled "Medium Humanoid (any race)".

I created a separate thread to note this in more detail.

https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/npc-stat-blocks-in-dd/

Quote from: jhkim on Today at 12:52:15 AMNot in the 5E (2014) rules, though. In the 2014 Monster Manual, there is no longer a "Dwarf" or "Elf" entry. Instead, there is Appendix B that details NPCs - and each NPC template is labeled "Medium Humanoid (any race)".

Wasnt that a thing in 3 and 4e too?

Quote from: jhkim on Today at 12:52:15 AM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on Today at 12:20:39 AM

Quote from: Tristan on January 31, 2025, 11:44:43 PMOrcs are considered a playable humanoid race, and so removed. I believe Drow and Duergar are gone as well.  Most of the former humanoid creatures are now something else (Fay, Aberrations, etc.) (and how is Aberration not a 'problematic' phrase?).
There is a generic humanoid stat block now.

Elves, dwarfs, halflings have always been playable races, and yet there were entries in the monsters section/monster manual for them.

Not in the 5E (2014) rules, though. In the 2014 Monster Manual, there is no longer a "Dwarf" or "Elf" entry. Instead, there is Appendix B that details NPCs - and each NPC template is labeled "Medium Humanoid (any race)".

I created a separate thread to note this in more detail.

https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/npc-stat-blocks-in-dd/

And the difference is?

Are you postulating one CAN'T have Dwarves, Elves or Halflings as antagonists?

In my understanding "Monsters" is an all encompassing term for anything NOT the PC's, IIRC there were even humans in the Bestiary.

Now, if it was any Non-Woke publisher and created the distinction I might not think it relevant enough, unnecessary but not something to have a lengthy conversation about.

But it's WotKKK, and anyone not ideologically captured KNOWS why they are doing this.

Oops... wrong thread!

Yeah. No more "monsters". Now we must refer to them as "Our Friends, The Sophons".

I still blame Do'Urden. Everybody wanted to be a Drow Ranger or a Drow Monk. Remember that?!? You had everybody clamoring to play a RACE that was infamous for being bloodthirsty cultists.

That was the birth of "But what is a monster really?" And where is it all going?

DRAGONS as a playable character class, ladies and gentlemen. Then we can have conversations about dragons defending their dungeon-homes from the oppression of human imperialism.