D&D General Index of Dungeons and Dragons Monsters?

[khantroll]

Awesome guys! I found something elsewhere online that, combined with wikipedia will get me going.

The pathfinder thing is cool, and I'll probably wind up including them in this.

Also, as an aside. the Aarakocra may be the most published creature in all of DnD behind the vampire....

 

[Echohawk]

Also, as an aside. the Aarakocra may be the most published creature in all of DnD behind the vampire....

No chance. I'd say the aarakocra has "medium" coverage -- it has appeared in every edition, but doesn't have many variants. There are plenty of monsters with a far more extensive publication history (including the vampire). If I was to guess, I'd say that the lowly zombie is probably the most published creature. There are more than 200 different zombie variants in D&D history, so those take up a big chunk of any index by themselves.

I spent years (literally) compiling an index of D&D monsters. It was as complete as I could make it up to the end of 2008, with 34026 lines. I haven't maintained it since, so it doesn't cover half of 4th or 5th Edition. There were 5316 monsters published for 4th Edition (some of which are in that file), and a total of (only) 1845 published 5th Edition monsters so far, so updating would require adding about 5000 new lines.... maybe one day.

 

[Morrus]

Because of the restrictions of the OGL SRD, I don't think you'd be able to find a legitimate master index, as many of the monsters aren't included in the SRD and therefore can't be reprinted (or re-indexed) elsewhere. There will definitely be homemade indexes, as it would be an amazing resource, but I have a feeling they'd be in the shadow of WotC and in a potential grey area.

There’s nothing stopping people creating a list or index. You don’t need the OGL to do that.

 

[ssvegeta555]

A great resource for D&D 3.5 is the d20 SRD (again, doesn't include the non-SRD monsters like beholders or mind flayers, etc.):

Monster Index :: d20srd.org

Better yet, here's WotC's monster index for 3.5. I think it includes all monsters published for 3.5.

 

[khantroll]

No chance. I'd say the aarakocra has "medium" coverage -- it has appeared in every edition, but doesn't have many variants. There are plenty of monsters with a far more extensive publication history (including the vampire). If I was to guess, I'd say that the lowly zombie is probably the most published creature. There are more than 200 different zombie variants in D&D history, so those take up a big chunk of any index by themselves.

I spent years (literally) compiling an index of D&D monsters. It was as complete as I could make it up to the end of 2008, with 34026 lines. I haven't maintained it since, so it doesn't cover half of 4th or 5th Edition. There were 5316 monsters published for 4th Edition (some of which are in that file), and a total of (only) 1845 published 5th Edition monsters so far, so updating would require adding about 5000 new lines.... maybe one day.

I stand corrected. Yours was one of the ones I was cross-referencing when I made that comment. It seemed like it was one of the ones that came up in every edition in multiple variants.

 

[Echohawk]

I stand corrected. Yours was one of the ones I was cross-referencing when I made that comment. It seemed like it was one of the ones that came up in every edition in multiple variants.

Heh. Of course, now I'm obliged to correct my own correction, because I've realised there was never a BECMI version of the aarakocra

 

[the Jester]

I've seen indices of 2e and 3e monsters, but never a complete one. That would be a very tall order, especially if you include all the monsters from adventures, Dragon and Dungeon magazine, etc. Also, at a certain point, you have to decide how 'complete' you really want to be- do you, for instance, want to include things like a half-fiend vampiric gelatinous gibbering mouther as a separate monster if it appeared in one obscure adventure?

EDIT: Also, do you count the 4e versions of various monsters? E.g. is a "goblin cutter" a goblin, or a separate monster? In some cases, they really are significantly different; while it's easy to argue that a goblin cutter is just a goblin, what about, for example, the weird 4e variants of basilisks or umber hulks with different types of gaze attack?

 

[Voadam]

Heh. Of course, now I'm obliged to correct my own correction, because I've realised there was never a BECMI version of the aarakocra

Were they ever in Original Edition D&D either? I don't know if they were in an OE article in White Dwarf before the 1e Fiend Folio.

 

[Voadam]

A big question is if you want OGL and DMs Guild stuff too, that expands it a lot.

 

[Morrus]

A big question is if you want OGL and DMs Guild stuff too, that expands it a lot.

That would make it pretty much impossible — the stuff comes out faster than you could list them!