D&D General The abandoned core monsters of D&D

@ilgatto: Decided to do some more monster research, based on the ones you raised!

Spitting snake/spitting cobra
You already laid out the differences between the Basic spitting cobra and 1e giant spitting snake (thanks for that!). I tried to see if 1e had any non-giant spitting snakes, but I don't see one - the "giant" flavor is it for that edition. Likewise, Basic has no distinct giant spitting cobra. As far as those versions of the game are concerned, the ones we have are just how you stat a spitting snake.

As noted, in 2e - despite using the 1e giant spitting snake stats - they no longer categorize the spitting snake as "giant" (the overall entry is just "snake" in both MC Vol. 1 and the Monstrous Manual). In my view, that means the 2e version is the successor of the two versions, at least as of the Monstrous Manual (which postdates the Rules Cyclopedia by two years).

I then looked further ahead, and confirmed that in 4e, the spitting cobra made a comeback, first in Dungeon and then in Monster Vault. Again, no distinction between normal and giant versions, just one spitting snake. (I'm not aware of any spitting snakes in 3e or 5e.)

So for the purposes of the spreadsheet, I'm going to continue treating it as all one monster. But I certainly don't begrudge you seeing it differently!

Killer bee/giant bee
In Basic, the 1983 "bee, giant" is statistically identical to the 1981 "killer bee". The descriptions are not 100% identical, but they're extremely similar and contain basically the same information. Furthermore, the Rules Cyclopedia outright says: Giant bees, also called "killer bees"... And again, the description is very similar. So I feel pretty confident that they're all the same.

As for the AD&D giant bees (worker honeybee, soldier honeybee), the stats are actually more similar than you'd think. The AD&D versions have more HD, but they have the same attack types and damage. In addition, they share similar lore about their royal jelly being useful for healing potions. So even more so than the spitting snake, I feel confident that these are meant to be the same creature, just interpreted differently in different lines. This is further solidified by the 3e "giant bee" still having similar stats to the AD&D version (and similar damage to both previous versions).

Having reviewed the above, though, I will make one change to my spreadsheet - I don't see any reason now not to consolidate the worker and soldier variants under a general "bee, giant" listing. OTOH, I do see the giant bumblebee as a bit different from the regular giant bee, and am happy to keep it separate.

Driver ant/giant ant
Similar to the giant bee, the 1983 Basic "ant, giant" is statistically identical to the 1981 Basic "driver ant", with nearly identical descriptions. The Rules Cyclopedia expands on the giant ant description, but it's still pretty much the same.

The 1e Monster Manual's giant ant does have different statistics, but it seems pretty clearly the same concept. (Though this is another case where you wonder why Basic didn't just clone those stats, since the "driver ant" postdates the 1e MM by four years.) And that giant ant is the one that carried on through 2e, 3e, and 4e (but not 5e, weirdly).

As for comparisons to the real-world driver ant... as @Paul Farquhar indicated, I wouldn't read too much into the name. It could just be that they thought "driver ant" sounded cooler in 1981. Now, it's possible their 1981 behavior was inspired by the siafu, but the expanded details in the Rules Cyclopedia make them sound more like generic pop-culture giant ants; so even if they started that way, they evolved away from it over the edition.

Shadow
Now, this one is really interesting. You are absolutely correct: 0e played it coy ("not 'undead' per se"), which Basic and AD&D interpreted very differently. Basic took it to mean "definitely not undead" while AD&D just figured "close enough, they must be undead". The AD&D interpretation eventually won out (and to be fair, it does have Gygax's stamp of approval).

However, things took a swerve in 4e, which made them not undead again - instead, they were humanoids with the shadow origin. (5e reverted this, of course.)

Due to this mixed history, it seems fair to just go with one shadow - especially since the rest of the details don't shift that radically between versions. The alternative is splitting it into somewhere between four to six versions...

Whizbang Dustyboots said:

When I was a kid, I heard what I thought was an audiobook of Polynesian myth that featured a wereshark, although damned if I can find any evidence that it was a legit one nowadays. (A boy with a mysterious tattoo of shark jaws on his back is forbidden from ever eating meat. When he goes out on an expedition with men from the village, without his mother around, they give him some barbecue and he devours all of them before turning into a shark and swimming away for good.)

In any case, they're super-cool monsters that don't deserve to be memory-holed.

Click to expand...

Interesting to get the mythological origin for the wereshark. And that makes it similar to the Nuckalavee, in that it is also drawing on a very culturally specific inspiration, in this case Celtic, being an Orkney Islands version of the kelpie/water horse myth. I guess what happened is that early on D&D was filching myths from wherever it could find them, but by the 80s it had developed it's own mythology, that was self-sustaining. So you only see culturally-specific myths (that had not already been assimilated by D&D) when an author is intentionally inspired by that culture, such as in Radiant Citadel.

Worth a note: The Pillars of Eternity 2 CRPG features a wereshark-like companion character, with a Polynesian-inspired cultural background.

Also compare to the Selkie, which is a sort of were-seal from Celtic mythology. I think they have appeared in D&D occasionally, but are not regulars. And the thing they have against them, is that rather than monsters, the stories often make them victims of human cruelty.

JEB said:

@ilgatto: Decided to do some more monster research, based on the ones you raised!

Spitting snake/spitting cobra
You already laid out the differences between the Basic spitting cobra and 1e giant spitting snake (thanks for that!). I tried to see if 1e had any non-giant spitting snakes, but I don't see one - the "giant" flavor is it for that edition. Likewise, Basic has no distinct giant spitting cobra. As far as those versions of the game are concerned, the ones we have are just how you stat a spitting snake.

As noted, in 2e - despite using the 1e giant spitting snake stats - they no longer categorize the spitting snake as "giant" (the overall entry is just "snake" in both MC Vol. 1 and the Monstrous Manual). In my view, that means the 2e version is the successor of the two versions, at least as of the Monstrous Manual (which postdates the Rules Cyclopedia by two years).

I then looked further ahead, and confirmed that in 4e, the spitting cobra made a comeback, first in Dungeon and then in Monster Vault. Again, no distinction between normal and giant versions, just one spitting snake. (I'm not aware of any spitting snakes in 3e or 5e.)

So for the purposes of the spreadsheet, I'm going to continue treating it as all one monster. But I certainly don't begrudge you seeing it differently!

Click to expand...

Fair enough. I suppose it’s the whole “to giant or not to giant” aspect of monsters throughout the history of OD&D/BD&D/AD&D, as well as the rules watering down as the game developed, that are to blame here.
Anyway, I suppose the spitting cobra being in 4E sort of makes the whole point moot anyway.

JEB said:

Killer bee/giant bee
In Basic, the 1983 "bee, giant" is statistically identical to the 1981 "killer bee". The descriptions are not 100% identical, but they're extremely similar and contain basically the same information. Furthermore, the Rules Cyclopedia outright says: Giant bees, also called "killer bees"...

Click to expand...

True that.

JEB said:

And again, the description is very similar. So I feel pretty confident that they're all the same.

As for the AD&D giant bees (worker honeybee, soldier honeybee), the stats are actually more similar than you'd think. The AD&D versions have more HD, but they have the same attack types and damage.

Click to expand...

Hmm… Also, the AD&D Giant Honeybee is a lot larger than the BD&D Giant (Killer) Bee, which I suppose sort of explains the difference in Hit Dice. And then there’s the difference in Intelligence, which would make the killer bee an “animal” and the giant honeybee a “monster” in line with (later) distinctions between the two – as in, badger & giant badger vs, say, eagle & giant eagle. Agreed, the giant eagle is obviously based on Tolkien, like the giant beaver and giant owl are based on their own literary sources, but still.

JEB said:

In addition, they share similar lore about their royal jelly being useful for healing potions. So even more so than the spitting snake, I feel confident that these are meant to be the same creature, just interpreted differently in different lines. This is further solidified by the 3e "giant bee" still having similar stats to the AD&D version (and similar damage to both previous versions).

Having reviewed the above, though, I will make one change to my spreadsheet - I don't see any reason now not to consolidate the worker and soldier variants under a general "bee, giant" listing. OTOH, I do see the giant bumblebee as a bit different from the regular giant bee, and am happy to keep it separate.

Driver ant/giant ant
Similar to the giant bee, the 1983 Basic "ant, giant" is statistically identical to the 1981 Basic "driver ant", with nearly identical descriptions. The Rules Cyclopedia expands on the giant ant description, but it's still pretty much the same.

The 1e Monster Manual's giant ant does have different statistics, but it seems pretty clearly the same concept. (Though this is another case where you wonder why Basic didn't just clone those stats, since the "driver ant" postdates the 1e MM by four years.) And that giant ant is the one that carried on through 2e, 3e, and 4e (but not 5e, weirdly).

Click to expand...

Not to argue, but now I also got curious. Looking at Ye Historie of Ants in D&D Up To AD&D, we get the following:

D&D2 M&T 1974
LARGE INSECTS OR ANIMALS: This category includes giant ants and prehistoric monsters. Armor Class can be anything from 8 to 2. Hit Dice should range from 2 to anywhere near 20, let us say, for a Tyrannasaurus [sic] Rex. Damage caused by hits should range between 2-4 dice (2-24 points).

D&D3 UWA 1974
Giant ants mentioned as “3rd-level” monsters.
Ants mentioned as “basic animals” for Wilderness Wandering Monsters, with animals “generally [being] of the giant variety (...)”.

D&D-GH 1975
(Giant) Ants mentioned as “2nd-level” monsters in “MONSTER LEVEL TABLES: (Change)”.

MTA2 1977
Giant Driver Ants (1-4) HP: 20 16 15 12; #AT: 1; THAC9: 7; AC: 3; ST/F 2; SA: None.
“THAC9” and hp sort of suggest 4d8-ish HD? Or even 5d6 HD?

MTA3 1978
Driver Ants (10-50) HP: 10x18 10x16 10x20 10x17 10x19; #AT: 1; THAC9: 7; AC: 3; ST/F 2; SA: None.
“THAC9” and hp sort of suggest 4d8-ish HD?
Driver Ants (10-100) HP: 10x28 10x25 10x24 10x22 10x21 10x19 10x18 10x16 10x13 10x12; #AT: 1; THAC9: 7; AC: 3; ST/F 2; SA: None.
“THAC9” and hp sort of suggest 4d8-ish HD?

MTA4 1980
So this has both versions, of course.

B/X 1981
Driver Ant (#AP 2-8 (4-24); AC 3; MV 180'; HD 4; #AT 1; D 2-12; STS F2; SZ 6' long).
Text calls them “giant black ants”; when hungry devour anything in their path.

BECMI 1983
Giant Ant = more or less as B/X driver ant.

MM1 1977
Giant Ant (#AP 1-100 or more; AC 3; MV 18"; HD 2; THAC0 16; #AT 1; D 1-6; SZ 2' long); workers, warriors, queen.

MC2 1989
Giant Ant more or less as MM1.
But this has “Swarm”, which has army ants (red or gold), which could cover driver ants?

MCC1 1993
(Insect) Giant Ant more or less as MC1 but without the MC2 blurb.

If anything, the giant ants seem to have become a lot smaller over the years.

So, on second look, there’s actually nothing in the various BD&D Driver Ant/Giant Ant write-ups that suggests that the creatures are “actual” driver ants or army ants. Indeed, BECMI calling them “giant black ants” seems to suggest quite the contrary.
But, like the giant bees, I’d say that…, um…, size matters – and therefore Hit Dice and damage. If not driver ants, then I’d call the BD&D ants “Huge Ants” rather than “Giant Ants” (e.g., also see the [non-core] Giant Black Ants and Giant Red Ants in Fiend Factory. And Some Came Riding in White Dwarf 43).
Perhaps I should also say that I tend to see a monster as a monster, mostly because many monsters trace back to the days of yore and there really wasn’t such a thing as “editions” back then.
So this is all IMHO and all that.

JEB said:

As for comparisons to the real-world driver ant... as @Paul Farquhar indicated, I wouldn't read too much into the name. It could just be that they thought "driver ant" sounded cooler in 1981. Now, it's possible their 1981 behavior was inspired by the siafu, but the expanded details in the Rules Cyclopedia make them sound more like generic pop-culture giant ants; so even if they started that way, they evolved away from it over the edition.

Click to expand...

Fair point. But…, um…, wouldn’t that sort of make the BD&D Cave Locust/Giant Locust the same monster as the AD&D (Giant) Cave Cricket? [ducks for cover]

JEB said:

Shadow
Now, this one is really interesting. You are absolutely correct: 0e played it coy ("not 'undead' per se"), which Basic and AD&D interpreted very differently. Basic took it to mean "definitely not undead" while AD&D just figured "close enough, they must be undead". The AD&D interpretation eventually won out (and to be fair, it does have Gygax's stamp of approval).

However, things took a swerve in 4e, which made them not undead again - instead, they were humanoids with the shadow origin. (5e reverted this, of course.)

Due to this mixed history, it seems fair to just go with one shadow - especially since the rest of the details don't shift that radically between versions. The alternative is splitting it into somewhere between four to six versions...

Click to expand...

. So true.

By the by, I have the nagging feeling that I read somewhere that the original shadow is actually based on some monster from pulp fantasy literature rather than from Greek mythology as Tom Moldvay suggests in Dragon 162. Drat! There goes my weekend.

ilgatto said:

By the by, I have the nagging feeling that I read somewhere that the original shadow is actually based on some monster from pulp fantasy literature rather than from Greek mythology as Tom Moldvay suggests in Dragon 162. Drat! There goes my weekend.

Click to expand...

The two tales that are the likeliest inspirations for the D&D shadow are Clark Ashton Smith's short story "The Double Shadow" and A. Merritt's novel Creep, Shadow! Merritt's novel is of course included in Appendix N, while CAS is somewhat notoriously missing from the list.

Elphilm said:

The two tales that are the likeliest inspirations for the D&D shadow are Clark Ashton Smith's short story "The Double Shadow" and A. Merritt's novel Creep, Shadow! Merritt's novel is of course included in Appendix N, while CAS is somewhat notoriously missing from the list.

Click to expand...

Brilliant! Merritt! That suddenly rings a huge bell!

steeldragons said:

In Basic D&D (Holmes, I believe) you stood no chance but to fall before the dreaded doom of the THOUL!

A troll - ghoul - and, I think, hobgoblin (was it?) . I think the lore is they were created by a typo/mistake that was just kept in.

Then you never heard from them again.

Click to expand...

Reynard said:

I came here to mention the lost thoul. A troll ghoul hybrid is a truly terrifying monstrosity.

Click to expand...

Tonguez said:

I was really disappointed when the AD&D Thoul was given official treatment and was just a variant green skinned hobgoblin (albeit with troll regeneration and ghouls paralysing claws). All the promise and horror of this part undead hybrid monster reduced to wretched hobgoblin bodyguard treated as an outcast by other hobgoblins.
With what they did with it, and the whole loss of mystery, I can understand why it was dropped with only the undefined original entry being remembered

Click to expand...

I always liked the Thoul. I was pleased that @Dyson Logos included them in his Dyson's Delve, which was a tentpole dungeon in my last campaign. I never named them out loud and my players were always a bit freaked out by them. They knew they weren't ghouls, and weren't hobgoblins, but they kind of looked like a cross between them and were nasty.

Whizbang Dustyboots said:

When I was a kid, I heard what I thought was an audiobook of Polynesian myth that featured a wereshark, although damned if I can find any evidence that it was a legit one nowadays. (A boy with a mysterious tattoo of shark jaws on his back is forbidden from ever eating meat. When he goes out on an expedition with men from the village, without his mother around, they give him some barbecue and he devours all of them before turning into a shark and swimming away for good.)

In any case, they're super-cool monsters that don't deserve to be memory-holed.

Click to expand...

I can't remember which issue, but as I recall there was a Dragon Magazine short story centered on them which was pretty good.

ilgatto said:

If anything, the giant ants seem to have become a lot smaller over the years.

Click to expand...

Lots of tiny ants is a lot creepier than one big one. And what is one ant anyway? The most distinctive feature that makes ants antlike is you have lots and lots of them. When "number appearing" disappeared from monster stat blocks a big ant became indistinguishable from a big beetle.

JEB said:

Shadow
Now, this one is really interesting. You are absolutely correct: 0e played it coy ("not 'undead' per se"), which Basic and AD&D interpreted very differently. Basic took it to mean "definitely not undead" while AD&D just figured "close enough, they must be undead". The AD&D interpretation eventually won out (and to be fair, it does have Gygax's stamp of approval).

However, things took a swerve in 4e, which made them not undead again - instead, they were humanoids with the shadow origin. (5e reverted this, of course.)

Click to expand...

Creature types worked differently in 4e (and actually had meaning). They were two part descriptors. The first- "shadow", "fey", "elemental", "natural", etc- was the origin, which told you what plane a creature was from, while "humanoid," "animate", etc were body-type descriptions. What I'm saying is a "shadow humanoid" is very likely undead.

Paul Farquhar said:

Lots of tiny ants is a lot creepier than one big one.

Click to expand...

And swarms are a giant pain in the butt to deal with, whereas a giant animal is just going to get action-economied into the ground.

the Jester said:

Creature types worked differently in 4e (and actually had meaning). They were two part descriptors. The first- "shadow", "fey", "elemental", "natural", etc- was the origin, which told you what plane a creature was from, while "humanoid," "animate", etc were body-type descriptions. What I'm saying is a "shadow humanoid" is very likely undead.

Click to expand...

It could be, but in this case is not. The creature type would be followed by "(undead)" if it were undead.

The 4E Shadow entry (MM3, p172-173) goes back to the old fluff, explicitly talking about them being commonly mistaken for undead, but not being undead, being instead a creature of shadow.