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

[JEB]

Not the only case of overlap. There's a goatman entry in the Savage Coast MC, but a different type of goatfolk in 3e's MMIII though that involves 2 different editions. Or as I mentioned already in one of these threads how the Miniatures Handbook added catfolk when D&D already had tabaxi and rakastas. There's a lot of overlaps and similarities over the years and it's a bit frustrating that the designers didn't just convert something that already existed instead of whipping up a new monster that's similar to an existing one.

In fairness, later designers probably just forgot about the older versions. (Though that does seem hard to believe with the tabaxi, which had been core just an edition ago, or the rakasta, which featured pretty prominently in Basic D&D.) Agreed it would have been nice had they done the research, though!

 

[JEB]

Moving forward, let's start into 2e...

Monstrous Compendium Vols. 1 and 2
Only one monster appeared here as core, and never again: the ant swarm. Which is kind of a random omission, and it's extra surprising that it never returned. My guess as to why? The Monstrous Manual had "insect swarm, velvet ant", which they probably thought was more interesting.

There were also many introduced as core monsters here, which returned for the Monstrous Manual, but weren't core again after that:

• Banderlog
• Cave fisher
• Guardian daemon (yugoloth)
• Haunt
• Heucuva (huecuva)
• Jermlaine
• Kelpie
• Killmoulis
• Korred
• Mongrelfolk (mongrelman)
• Muckdweller
• Mudman
• Nereid
• Oliphant
• Osquip
• Sandling
• Seawolf
• Selkie
• Swanmay
• Tasloi
• Vegepygmy (mold man)
• Wolfwere
• Swan
• Crystal ooze
• Fire toad
• Forest trapper
• Ju-ju zombie
• Killer mimic (or maybe the common variety was cut, if you assume the killer became the default)
• Land lamprey
• Russet mold
• Talking owl
• Basilisk, greater
• Lammasu, greater
• Medusa, greater
• Pegasus, greater
• Rakshasa, greater
• Lamia noble
• Dracolisk (basilisk)
• Flind (gnoll)
• Gorgimera (chimera)
• Margoyle (gargoyle)
• Pyrolisk (cockatrice)
• Vodyanoi (umber hulk)
• Urchins: Black, green, red, silver, yellow, and land.
• Giant-kin: Cyclopskin (cyclops in MC2), firbolg, and verbeeg.
• Puddings: Brown, dun, and white.
• Trolls: Marine scrag and two-headed troll.
• Leeches: Leech swarm and throat leech.
• Insects: Giant ant lion and giant hornet.
• Worms: Bookworm, tenebrous worm, and tunnel worm.
• Spiders: Giant marine spider and steeder.
• Plants: Choke creeper, giant sundew, hangman tree, mantrap, and tri-flower frond.
• Fungi: Ascomoid and phycomid.
• Fish: Catfish (giant), dragonfish, marine eel, and piranha (normal and giant).
• Whales: Giant whale and leviathan.
• Mammals: Beaver, brush rat, chipmunk, ermine, ferret, fox, gopher, hedgehog, huge bat (mobat), mink, mole, mouse, muskrat, opossum, otter (normal and sea), pig (normal and wild), porcupine (black and brown), rabbit, raccoon, sheep, skunk, squirrel (normal, flying, and giant black), and woodchuck. Plus minimal.
• Humans: farmer/herder, mercenary, merchant sailor/fisherman, middle class, peasant/serf, police/constabulary, sailor, slaver, soldier, and tradesfolk/craftspeople.

EDIT: After the 3.0 update, add the obliviax and the sprite to the above list.

Once again, the why of their inclusion is easy: MC Vols. 1 and 2 were compiling together the best of the Fiend Folio and MM II alongside the 1e classics (with some notable exceptions, such as dinosaurs and fiends). There are some genuinely new monsters in this set (like the urd, which did eventually make a core comeback), but it's far fewer than the returns.

A good chunk of these are variations on monsters that were in the 1e core, which probably made them appealing includes here, just to offer DMs some immediate variety. (Similar to the 4e MM.) But this could have made them easy cuts in 3e, which encouraged monster customization through monster advancement and templates. (Why have a mere greater basilisk when you can have an abyssal greater basilisk?)

The humans that didn't make it forward are harder to figure, though it might just be down to different philosophies in each edition about how human NPCs should be treated. (And some might have been consolidated into categories like commoner.)

The mammals could be a similar problem to dinosaurs - there were too many - but you'd think their value as familiars should have earned them some cred.

That doesn't explain the others, though! I suppose some might have just been too weird (looking at you, seawolf), but some seem quite archetypal (mudman) or interesting (heucuva).

Anyway, what's everyone else think? Any favorites you think deserved better? Any that got exactly what they deserved?

(Sidenote, some of my personal favorites in this set, quality or not: heucuva, tasloi, wolfwere, pyrolisk, vodyanoi, and cyclopskin.)

 

[Orius]

The humans that didn't make it forward are harder to figure, though it might just be down to different philosophies in each edition about how human NPCs should be treated. (And some might have been consolidated into categories like commoner.)

I think 3e was just using the NPC classes to represent them, and the DM was supposed to customize them as needed. There are some generic NPC types in 5e, but a lot of the humans that didn't make it forward weren't really that critical anyway. Who really needs extensive stats for regular farmers and the like?

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Neither did the Wind Walker.

You had to get the fourth set of 1e Monster cards to get an illustration.

But it was worth it for Erol Otus art.

View attachment 352781

They were a real also-ran monster -- as evinced by being part of this thread -- but this illustration makes me want to use them again.

 

[the Jester]

They were a real also-ran monster -- as evinced by being part of this thread -- but this illustration makes me want to use them again.

I used them a couple of years ago when one of my groups took an airship on a trip into the Plane of Air!

 

[JEB]

I think 3e was just using the NPC classes to represent them, and the DM was supposed to customize them as needed.

Yeah, that makes sense. Though it's interesting that non-humans didn't get similar treatment - use generic NPC stats and customize - until 5e. (And 4e reversed course and put humans right back in the Monster Manual and Vault as monsters!)

 

[Larnievc]

So, taking a look at the Basic D&D rulebooks...

Basic 1977
No monsters appeared as core here and nowhere else. (Basic '77 was kind of an odd duck anyway, more of an intermediate step between 0e and 1e.)

Basic 1981
Just one that didn't go onward at all - the medium, which was just a low-level NPC wizard. One presumes it was folded into the more general wizard NPCs in later editions, to include the 5e mage. (Though if you want an actual novice wizard in 5e, you have to go for the apprentice wizard in Volo's Guide to Monsters.) That said, its Basic D&D counterparts - the veteran (fighter) and acolyte (cleric) - made it into the current edition's core, so make of that what you will.

There were also many introduced here that stuck around through Basic '83 and the Rules Cyclopedia, but never moved onto the AD&D core:

• Living statues (in crystal, iron, and rock flavors)
• The legendary thoul
• White ape
• Rock baboon
• Robber fly
• Cave locust, later known as giant locust
• Basic's version of the giant bat (which was a bit different from the contemporary AD&D version, in that they had a vampire angle)
• Giant ferret and giant shrew
• Two types of giant beetle: oil and tiger
• Four types of giant lizard: draco, gecko, horned chameleon, and tuatara
• Three types of giant spider: black widow, crab, and tarantella
• Four types of snake: pit viper, giant rattler, rock python, and (normal-sized) sea snake

Some of the above did make non-core comebacks in the AD&D line, most notably in the 2e Mystara MC Appendix. Living statues have been the most popular to revive, having appeared in that plus 3e and 5e sources.

I'm not sure what these unique core choices say about the Basic D&D ethos. Maybe they were trying harder to make the low-level dungeon crawling experience interesting? They certainly felt empowered by 1981 to forge their own path of what should be in the core, in any case, such as going with "living statues" rather than golems. (Although Basic did later introduce its own distinctive golems.)

As for why any of these didn't carry forward, not sure. Much weirder things have gone the distance. Even the 3e Monster Manuals, which were clearly trying to draw on Basic D&D for ideas, skipped these older creatures in favor of Rules Cyclopedia options.

Basic 1983
Not much here that wasn't in Basic '81, but one exception was the giant racer snake. It did carry forward into the Rules Cyclopedia, but made no other appearances. Here's its '83 description:



Why did it get added to the other snakes? No idea. Maybe someone thought racer snakes were cool?

My guess as to why it didn't make it into other editions? It probably wasn't distinctive enough compared to other snakes.

Haven’t thought about the Thoul in ages.

 

[Tonguez]

Yeah, that makes sense. Though it's interesting that non-humans didn't get similar treatment - use generic NPC stats and customize - until 5e. (And 4e reversed course and put humans right back in the Monster Manual and Vault as monsters!)

In 3e monsters could have class levels too, so NPC classes applied to all humanoids..

There were also many introduced as core monsters here, which returned for the Monstrous Manual, but weren't core again after that:

• Banderlog
• Cave fisher
• Guardian daemon (yugoloth)
• Haunt
• Heucuva (huecuva)
• Jermlaine
• Kelpie
• Killmoulis
• Korred
• Mongrelfolk (mongrelman)
• Muckdweller
• Mudman
• Nereid
• Oliphant
• Osquip
• Sandling
• Seawolf
• Selkie
• Swanmay
• Tasloi
• Vegepygmy (mold man)
• Wolfwere
• Swan
• Crystal ooze
• Fire toad
• Forest trapper
• Ju-ju zombie
• Killer mimic (or maybe the common variety was cut, if you assume the killer became the default)
• Land lamprey
• Russet mold
• Talking owl
• Basilisk, greater
• Lammasu, greater
• Medusa, greater
• Pegasus, greater
• Rakshasa, greater
• Lamia noble
• Dracolisk (basilisk)
• Flind (gnoll)
• Urchins: Black, green, red, silver, yellow, and land.
• Giant-kin: Cyclopskin (cyclops in MC2), firbolg, and verbeeg.
• Puddings: Brown, dun, and white.
• Trolls: Marine scrag and two-headed troll.
• Leeches: Leech swarm and throat leech.
• Insects: Giant ant lion and giant hornet.
• Worms: Bookworm, tenebrous worm, and tunnel worm.
• Spiders: Giant marine spider and steeder.
• Plants: Choke creeper, giant sundew, hangman tree, mantrap, and tri-flower frond.
• Fungi: Ascomoid and phycomid.
• Fish: Catfish (giant), dragonfish, marine eel, and piranha (normal and giant).
• Whales: Giant whale and leviathan.

I think I've used everyone of these, except maybe sandling, or at least variants of them. So they're core-ish to me. Didn't realize there were so many Urchins though

 

[pawsplay]

The scorpionfolk in 3e's MM II actually has an interesting pedigree: it originated in the third-party Creature Collection, as the "sandmasker". Along with another CC monster, the "iron tusker" (rebranded as the "razor boar"), it was ported via the OGL to make an appearance in MM II. The only time I'm aware of that Wizards took advantage of the OGL in the other direction.

But in short, no, not related to the D&D manscorpion/stinger/tlincalli.

They didn't actually use the OGL then, either. They acquired the use of those two monsters under a private license, then released them under the OGL. That always seemed petty to me.

 

[JEB]

In 3e monsters could have class levels too, so NPC classes applied to all humanoids..

Right, but my point is that humans weren't in the 3e Monster Manuals, whereas all the other PC races were. Rather than just omitting all PC races from the monster listing, as 5e did, and expect you to just build NPCs and apply racial traits.

They didn't actually use the OGL then, either. They acquired the use of those two monsters under a private license, then released them under the OGL. That always seemed petty to me.

They didn't? checks Weird. Wonder why? It wasn't to avoid referencing the Creature Collection, since it's mentioned on page 220 as the source.

Still, that's the only acknowledgment I can recall in an official D&D book ever that the OGL was a cool thing.