Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
The abandoned core monsters of D&D
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="JEB" data-source="post: 9292606" data-attributes="member: 10148"><p>[USER=86051]@ilgatto[/USER]: Decided to do some more monster research, based on the ones you raised!</p><p></p><p><strong>Spitting snake/spitting cobra</strong></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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).</p><p></p><p>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.)</p><p></p><p>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!</p><p></p><p><strong>Killer bee/giant bee</strong></p><p>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: <em>Giant bees, also called "killer bees"... </em>And again, the description is very similar. So I feel pretty confident that they're all the same.</p><p></p><p>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).</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p><strong>Driver ant/giant ant</strong></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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).</p><p></p><p>As for comparisons to the real-world driver ant... as [USER=6906155]@Paul Farquhar[/USER] 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.</p><p></p><p><strong>Shadow</strong></p><p>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).</p><p></p><p>However, things took a swerve in 4e, which made them <em>not</em> undead again - instead, they were humanoids with the shadow origin. (5e reverted this, of course.)</p><p></p><p>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...</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="JEB, post: 9292606, member: 10148"] [USER=86051]@ilgatto[/USER]: Decided to do some more monster research, based on the ones you raised! [B]Spitting snake/spitting cobra[/B] 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! [B]Killer bee/giant bee[/B] 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: [I]Giant bees, also called "killer bees"... [/I]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. [B]Driver ant/giant ant[/B] 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 [USER=6906155]@Paul Farquhar[/USER] 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. [B]Shadow[/B] 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 [I]not[/I] 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... [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
The abandoned core monsters of D&D
Top