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

[JEB]

I suppose you could count the balrog, if you treat the Type VI demon as something different (though that'd be highly debatable).

I admit I've been skipping the balrog, since TSR themselves removed it after the first printings of the boxed set. Though personally, I would count it as different (since IIRC the balrog was pretty much straight from Tolkien, rather than an uber-demon).

The same mechanism may have been at work for the various Martians, and the Apts, Banths, Thoats, Calots, Thoats, Orluks, Sith, Tharks, and Darseen.

Perhaps not so for the White Apes, though, for wasn't there a version in Moldvay Basic?

The Martian beasts are explicitly included under "Large insect or animal", yup (even in later printings). As for white apes, they were actually core in every version of Basic, except for Holmes! (But not in any other edition.)

EDIT: Occurs to me 3e's girallon is probably a homage to those Martian monsters.

I don't think it says that much about do it yourself attitude, but more of a simple, "we don't have the time or the space or the need to detail these, here are some rough ideas so we don't leave you high and dry."

Yeah, suppose that's just as possible. Though I'd like to think folks at the time took it more as the former! Mind, as noted, they did give us some specific sea monsters in Book III (many of which were revisited in Blackmoor).

Interesting the use of ‘templates’ rather than specifics, I do wonder how that relates to DnD becoming increasingly more prescriptive rather than the narrative approach of using a basic template and having DMs modify it on the fly to make it their own…

D&D had definitely become more prescriptive by 1977. Though FWIW the 3e era was pretty big on customizing monsters. Just generally not as loosely as these early approaches.

 

[JEB]

D&D has always been weirdly ambivalent about traditional sea monsters/sea serpents. They're mentioned in several editions, but not detailed (and no, dragon turtles aren't the same as a traditional sea serpent). It took until, I think, Fizban's, for them to get a write-up in 5E.

Nessie was a huge cultural phenomenon in the 1970s and lake monsters were being "spotted" all over the Midwest during that time. I guess Gygax wasn't one of the fans.

It is honestly strange that something as iconic as sea serpents have been almost always second-tier monsters. Besides Fizban's in 5e, the only other dedicated sea serpent writeups in the game I'm aware of were in the Basic D&D Creature Catalog(ue) and MC Annual 4 in 2e. (Though there could have well been some in adventure modules, or Dragon or Dungeon... which (while awesome) are even lower "tier" than a sourcebook.

In summary, put the sea serpent in the 2025 Monster Manual. Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk.

Would be fine by me!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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

Haven't read the original description of the gnoll eh? A GNOME/TROLL HYBRID! I'm pretty sure even contemplating a visual on how that happens would not pass muster.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

no, but a sea serpent might be a gargantuan Eel, and giant moray eels have existed in a few editions.



Interesting the use of ‘templates’ rather than specifics, I do wonder how that relates to DnD becoming increasingly more prescriptive rather than the narrative approach of using a basic template and having DMs modify it on the fly to make it their own…

Judging by the layout of the table in M&T EXACTLY 2 full pages was allotted for it, probably due to the limitations of paste up. I'd guess that compression was the name of the game here.

 

[Remathilis]

It is honestly strange that something as iconic as sea serpents have been almost always second-tier monsters. Besides Fizban's in 5e, the only other dedicated sea serpent writeups in the game I'm aware of were in the Basic D&D Creature Catalog(ue) and MC Annual 4 in 2e. (Though there could have well been some in adventure modules, or Dragon or Dungeon... which (while awesome) are even lower "tier" than a sourcebook.

Sea creatures in general get the short shift because D&D has traditionally been more interested in overland/dungeon exploration than seafaring. Without a boat (an expensive cost) and decent sailing rules (more often than not a supplement or afterthought) sea serpents aren't all that easily encountered. The vast majority of sea creatures in your Monster Manual are either creatures that can live on or near the shore or in flooded dungeons.

 

[Von Corellon]

Nessie was a huge cultural phenomenon in the 1970s and lake monsters were being "spotted" all over the Midwest during that time.

It’s true, even in Rhode Island (which isn’t an island) has a serpent - the Block Ness Monster on Block Island Island, just off coast.

 

[J.Quondam]

D&D has always been weirdly ambivalent about traditional sea monsters/sea serpents. They're mentioned in several editions, but not detailed (and no, dragon turtles aren't the same as a traditional sea serpent). It took until, I think, Fizban's, for them to get a write-up in 5E.

Nessie was a huge cultural phenomenon in the 1970s and lake monsters were being "spotted" all over the Midwest during that time. I guess Gygax wasn't one of the fans.

Honestly, sea monsters are a lot more satisfying than the sea monsters we have gotten traditionally. Everyone at the table immediately grasps what's happening with a sea serpent (or the modern less-fantastical take on it, the plesiosaur), while having to explain to first time players "so, yes, it's a giant snapping turtle -- yeah, nasty -- that also breathes out a cloud of super-heated steam. And it talks."

Heck, sea serpents have been depicted on D&D products (including third party publishers) in editions where no stats existed for them (no, a giant snake is not the same thing as a sea serpent, as has been weirdly argued at ENWorld in the past).

In summary, put the sea serpent in the 2025 Monster Manual. Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk.

There was a "Sea Serpent (Lesser)" statted in the Cook Expert Set (right beneath "Sea Dragons", in fact). No word on the "Greater" variety, though. But yeah, it wasn't any more detailed than most other monsters in B/X. By its description, it's a pretty classical sea monster: it "looks like a long 20-30ft giant snake with many fins", and enjoys lunging out of the water to bite, crushing boats in its coils, and taking long walks on the beach.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

no, but a sea serpent might be a gargantuan Eel, and giant moray eels have existed in a few editions.

In a game where every synonym for various monsters gets its own separate write-up, "just use a giant eel" is a pretty disappointing choice.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Haven't read the original description of the gnoll eh? A GNOME/TROLL HYBRID! I'm pretty sure even contemplating a visual on how that happens would not pass muster.

Lots and lots of alcohol and at least one illusion spell gone horribly awry.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Sea creatures in general get the short shift because D&D has traditionally been more interested in overland/dungeon exploration than seafaring. Without a boat (an expensive cost) and decent sailing rules (more often than not a supplement or afterthought) sea serpents aren't all that easily encountered. The vast majority of sea creatures in your Monster Manual are either creatures that can live on or near the shore or in flooded dungeons.

Older editions made room for giant pikes, which definitely seem like they should be included after a sea serpent.