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

[Voadam]

Were winter-wights ever alive (Return to the Tomb of Horrors and later in the 3e ELH)?

Return to the Tomb of Horrors:
"Acererak creates winter-wights from lower forms of undead in a special process. This process involves the immersion of the undead in a bath of amplified radiation from the Negative Energy Plane, in conjunction with powerful rites of binding and animation."

But also from RttToH:

Create Winter-wight
(Necromancy) (Reversible)
Level 9 Range 10 yds. Components V, S, M
Duration: Permanent Casting Time: 1 round
Area of Effect: 1 body Saving Throw: None
This spell turns a properly prepared body into a winter-wight. Preparation of the body requires many days, though the spell itself can be cast on the prepared body in only a single round. Create winter-wight can only be cast in conjunction with unique devices (such as the Dim Forge) capable of focusing and concentrating Negative Energy into a skeleton as part of the preparation step. Even with the use of this spell with the proper Negative Energy focusing devices, the spell is only effective 1% to 10% (1d10) of the time. Failures range between mere dust to warped, fragmented undead of little mobility and wit.
Once properly animated, the winter-wight obeys the commands of its creator. The personality of the created creature may vary widely but is certain to combine calculating intelligence with cold cruelty, unless animal bones are used in the process (in which case little intelligence can be found in the final deadly undead construct).
Once animated, the winter-wight remains active until physically destroyed. Destruction is also possible if the undead creature is subject to the reverse of this spell, destroy winter-wight, that utterly annihilates any single winter-wight that fails its saving throw vs. death magic.

 

[Voadam]

RttToH also had its vestige, an Undead Dream.

The Vestige is a creature born from the nightmares of every citizen of the city of Moil as they died in cursed sleep.
With the advent of Orcus’s curse of sleep, the strengthened dream consciousness of the city’s citizenry survived beyond the death of their corporeal bodies; thus was born the Vestige.
Predictably, Orcus was wroth. In horrible but unlooked-for vengeance, the entity cast what initially seemed a mild curse over Moil: its inhabitants fell into an enchanted sleep that could only be broken by the dawning of the sun. Orcus then physically removed the city from its natural site and transformed it into a nightmarish, lightless demiplane of its own, assuring that the sun would never shine upon its tall towers. Having completed this deed, Orcus dubbed the demiplane anew as The City That Waits.
Over time, the slumbering Moilians all perished in their dark sleep, leaving the place strewn with unquiet dead and dangerous dreams.

 

[Voadam]

This is one of the reasons I wish that TSR/WotC had figured out how undead and the afterlife work in a single unified way. As decades of Planescape products have shown, once those sorts of structures are even roughly sketched out (like in the multiverse appendix of the 1E Players Handbook), that provides the basis for lots of gameable material for years.

In this case, it would give us an idea of how these never-living "undead" work and would likely tie into the mechanics of resurrection, reincarnation, planar travel and more.

I am glad they eventually ironed the positive energy aspect of mummies out of the cannon so they are now negative/necrotic energy powered like other undead.

I feel detailing too much of things like the afterlife and soul things can be detrimental. I did not care for the in-depth analysis of soul parts in the 4e Open Grave Undead sourcebook, for example, while I love 4e's general shadowfell to mystery cosmology for souls upon death instead of the prior great wheel death to astral to outer planar petitioner afterlife cosmology soul model.

I would have appreciated some explanation of what devourers and nightshades actually were in 3e though.

 

[Tonguez]

In this case, it would give us an idea of how these never-living "undead" work and would likely tie into the mechanics of resurrection, reincarnation, planar travel and more.

During 3e I did a campaign were The Nightwing was a major BBEG and assumed that Nightshades, Shades, Shadows, Devourers etc were essentially Elementals of negative/ shadow/necrotic/death energy,
Formerly living undead were powered by the negative elemental energy whereas shadow-things were direct manifestations of the Elemental essence

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

During 3e I did a campaign were The Nightwing was a major BBEG and assumed that Nightshades, Shades, Shadows, Devourers etc were essentially Elementals of negative/ shadow/necrotic/death energy,
Formerly living undead were powered by the negative elemental energy whereas shadow-things were direct manifestations of the Elemental essence

That's a great use of existing inner planar structure and lore. I wish WotC could just connect those dots.

 

[JEB]

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.

Indeed. Size is among several things (lore, alignments, creature types, etc.) that most often tend to be inconsistent between editions/interpretations of a given monster. Partly because the scale changes between editions, partially because they just don't always care to be consistent. I fully admit that makes some of these combinations/splits a matter of opinion, but all you can do is try to be objective.

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.

Fair point on the intelligence, I hadn't considered that! But I'd still chalk it up to different edition interpretations. Still, like with the spitting snake/cobra, I can certainly understand the differing opinion!

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]

Heh, I'd certainly agree they're thematic cousins... but locusts and crickets aren't the same thing in real life either, so that's probably enough for me to split the difference. (Unless at some point they said you could use cave crickets to represent cave locusts, or vice versa...)

 

[JEB]

Grab grass is in 4e as a Trap/Hazard. Dunno if that counts.

Oh, so it is. Neat! Doesn't get it onto my spreadsheet, but I will amend the earlier post...

 

[JEB]

OK, moving on from Basic D&D, let's look at 1e! More specifically, the original Monster Manual.

There are 43 monsters listed from the 1e MM that have never been core again - honestly a lot more than I expected.

• Cerebral parasite
• Floating eye
• Larva
• Masher
• Wind walker
• Hippopotamus
• Giant turtle: sea and snapping
• Giant beaver, giant ram, giant stag, giant Portuguese man-o-war
• Baluchitherium, Irish deer, woolly rhinoceros, titanothere
• Tiamat and Bahamut
• Demon lords: Demogorgon, Juiblex, Yeenoghu
• Archdevils: Asmodeus, Baalzebul, Dispater, Geryon
• A bunch of dinosaurs: anatosaurus (trachodon), apatosaurus (brontosaurus), archelon (ischyras), brachiosaurus, camarasaurus, ceratosaurus, cetiosaurus, dinichtys, gorgosaurus, iguanodon, megalosaurus, monoclonius, mosasaurus, paleoscincus (paleocinthus), pentaceratops, plateosaurus, styracosaurus, and teratosaurus.

Why were these included? The likely reason for most is boring: because they were already in 0e, whether from supplements or The Strategic Review/Dragon. But there are some that were completely new, like the Archdevils and many of the dinosaurs. The former were presumably there to contrast with the Demon Lords... but the dinosaurs, who knows? (Maybe Gygax just liked dinosaurs; he also put a bunch in MM II.)

Why didn't these return to the core? That's a better question, particularly for 2e. Certainly I could see them making cuts from the 1e core in MC Vol. 1 and 2, to make room for Fiend Folio and MM II highlights. But why these? And why didn't the Monstrous Manual bring them back? (Many did finally return in 2e's MC Annual 2, FWIW; some of the dinosaurs even earlier, in the Forgotten Realms MC Appendix.)

Throwing a few guesses out there:

• Floating eye, masher, etc.: Bias against aquatic monsters, as suggested by @Remathilis
• Unique monsters: Just a philosophical decision that they don't belong in the general monster listing (2e, 3e, and 5e agreed on this, but 4e was the exception)
• Dinosaurs: Just too many of them! (Contrast this also with Basic using generic templates for their core dinosaurs.)

Curious to hear everyone else's thoughts! Or just wax rhapsodic about your favorites of this set. (I have a soft spot for the floating eye, myself.)

 

[Tonguez]

wow I dont even remember these creatures and always thought the floating eye was the product of some LSD inspired art from an album cover.

Yeah I can understand them cutting down on the devils and putting them in a dedicated book for fiends. And while Dinosaurs are cool beasts there are far too many to be dealt with generically-also were they there as a response to Isle of Dread?
I also seem to recall Windwalkers were a specifically Al-Qadim monster too?

 

[ilgatto]

OK, moving on from Basic D&D, let's look at 1e! More specifically, the original Monster Manual.

There are 43 monsters listed from the 1e MM that have never been core again - honestly a lot more than I expected.

• Cerebral parasite
• Floating eye
• Larva
• Masher
• Wind walker
• Hippopotamus
• Giant turtle: sea and snapping
• Giant beaver,

[This was probably cut from later publications because it's from The Chronicles of Narnia]

• giant ram, giant stag,

Well, technically speaking, the giant stag is in MCC1.

Giant Mammals: Giant mammals are double-sized breeds of otherwise normal animals. They have the same physical and behavioral traits of their full-sized relatives. These giants generally have double the number of Hit Dice, a corresponding rise in THACO, a -2 AC bonus, and a + 2 Morale bonus. The damage caused by the attacks of a giant mammal is twice that of sized relative.

That is, unless one takes this section to mean that there is a Giant Wild Stag, which would then have AC 5, 6 HD, D 2d3/2d3/4d4, and ML 7-9 (which isn't really a thing) - and be a unique entry.

Of course, this would open up a wholly different and rather massive can of worms.
Giant rams?
Giant porcupines?
Giant badgers? Giant skunks? Giant weasels? Giant wolverines?
Giant boars? Giant hyenas?

Not to mention giant bhaergalas, giant cooshees, giant debbis and, of course, giant and minimal monkey spiders.

• giant Portuguese man-o-war

Heh, makes you wonder what DMs were to make of the MCC1 Locathah entry.

• Baluchitherium, Irish deer, woolly rhinoceros, titanothere
• Tiamat and Bahamut
• Demon lords: Demogorgon, Juiblex, Yeenoghu
• Archdevils: Asmodeus, Baalzebul, Dispater, Geryon
• A bunch of dinosaurs: anatosaurus (trachodon), apatosaurus (brontosaurus), archelon (ischyras), brachiosaurus, camarasaurus, ceratosaurus, cetiosaurus, dinichtys, gorgosaurus, iguanodon, megalosaurus, monoclonius, mosasaurus, paleoscincus (paleocinthus), pentaceratops, plateosaurus, styracosaurus, and teratosaurus.

Why were these included? The likely reason for most is boring: because they were already in 0e, whether from supplements or The Strategic Review/Dragon. But there are some that were completely new, like the Archdevils and many of the dinosaurs. The former were presumably there to contrast with the Demon Lords... but the dinosaurs, who knows? (Maybe Gygax just liked dinosaurs; he also put a bunch in MM II.)

Why didn't these return to the core? That's a better question, particularly for 2e. Certainly I could see them making cuts from the 1e core in MC Vol. 1 and 2, to make room for Fiend Folio and MM II highlights. But why these? And why didn't the Monstrous Manual bring them back? (Many did finally return in 2e's MC Annual 2, FWIW; some of the dinosaurs even earlier, in the Forgotten Realms MC Appendix.)

Throwing a few guesses out there:

• Floating eye, masher, etc.: Bias against aquatic monsters, as suggested by @Remathilis
• Unique monsters: Just a philosophical decision that they don't belong in the general monster listing (2e, 3e, and 5e agreed on this, but 4e was the exception)
• Dinosaurs: Just too many of them! (Contrast this also with Basic using generic templates for their core dinosaurs.)

Curious to hear everyone else's thoughts! Or just wax rhapsodic about your favorites of this set. (I have a soft spot for the floating eye, myself.)