D&D General The abandoned core monsters of D&D
But D&D is serious business!
Ah, good catch. Corrected the earlier listing, manscorpions had been core in the 2e Monstrous Manual.
It's certainly true that many of those 89 overlap with AD&D options - most notably the half-dozen or so where Basic and Advanced literally did different takes on the same idea. Though those raise more of a question in my mind - were the Basic designers even paying attention to developments in the AD&D line? Or were they well aware and very deliberately trying to be different?
Also, there are a number of truly novel ideas in the RC lineup - standouts IMHO include the horde, nuckalavee, plasm, and wereshark - and they didn't get picked up for later core lineups, either. In fact, I'd say many of those Basic core monsters left behind outshine the ones we did get in 3e, the athach and nightshade.
Interesting idea, but you'd think that if Arneson was already getting royalties for the D&D line and not AD&D, they would have invested more energy into new ideas for AD&D monsters, and just coasted on Arneson-era ideas for Basic. Instead, it looks like the opposite happened...
EDIT: Didn't initially understand the question, sorry.
For the purposes of my spreadsheet, I did assume that the Basic spitting cobra is the AD&D spitting snake. I see what you're getting at with the HD and size differences... but since the 2e source doesn't say it's "giant" and cited the "African spitting cobra" as an example, I took it to all be talking about the same creature, with the differences just down to different editions' interpretations. (IIRC there's a similar vagueness with poisonous toads - and I similarly lumped them together.)
Last edited:
ilgatto
How inconvenient
MCC1 = Monstrous Manual, as per the Acaeum TSR Stock List.
I see. It is a complicated issue. Made even more complicated by the fact that there isn't a real-world African spiting cobra, but that there is a real-world giant spitting cobra. Wherefore we could argue that "African" is meant to be "from Africa rather than from Asia", and that MCC1 actually refers to a "spitting cobra" under the heading Snake, Giant - Spitting.
However, I'd argue that the BD&D spitting cobra is a (non-giant) spitting cobra;
that the AD&D MM1 "giant spitting cobras" are giant snakes;
that the AD&D MM2 (non-giant) poisonous snakes have nowhere near 4+2 HD;
and that therefore the AD&D MCC1 African spitting cobra is a giant snake as well (especially since the real-world giant spitting cobra is typically around 5'4" long).
Which would make that there's no "core" (non-giant) spitting cobra in AD&D?
Paul Farquhar
Legend
ilgatto
How inconvenient
Some more BD&D monsters I don't think are in AD&D - dunno about later editions, by the way.
Killer Bee: Although described as "giant bees" in B/X, I don't think they are the same as the AD&D EX2/MM2 Giant Honeybee.*
Driver Ants: Mentioned and statted out in MTA2/MTA4 as Giant Driver Ants, they're called Driver Ants in B/X, and then never happen in AD&D, although I suppose they could fall under Giant Ant. However, real-world driver ants have a semi-nomadic lifestyle, which would distinguish them from how I suppose the AD&D giant ants are treated? I'd venture that masses of migrating ants would be a thing to mention and there's no word of this in MM1 and later AD&D.
And then there's the BD&D Shadow.
* EDIT: Mille excuses. Keep forgetting you don't think of MM2 as "core". Anyway, the AD&D giant bees are also in MCC1.
Killer Bee: Although described as "giant bees" in B/X, I don't think they are the same as the AD&D EX2/MM2 Giant Honeybee.*
Driver Ants: Mentioned and statted out in MTA2/MTA4 as Giant Driver Ants, they're called Driver Ants in B/X, and then never happen in AD&D, although I suppose they could fall under Giant Ant. However, real-world driver ants have a semi-nomadic lifestyle, which would distinguish them from how I suppose the AD&D giant ants are treated? I'd venture that masses of migrating ants would be a thing to mention and there's no word of this in MM1 and later AD&D.
And then there's the BD&D Shadow.
Also see Tom Moldvay, Out of the Shadows, in: Dragon 162 (TSR, 1990)
* EDIT: Mille excuses. Keep forgetting you don't think of MM2 as "core". Anyway, the AD&D giant bees are also in MCC1.
Last edited:
Paul Farquhar
Legend
There are always two versions of real world animals, the real, scientific version, and the mythical version that exists within stories and imagination. The wolf is a prime example, the wolf of myth is so different from the wolf of reality that they became two completely different creatures in fantasy.
When it comes to bugs, this is further complicated by the introduction of the "swarm" concept, I think in 3rd edition. So, your somewhat realistic version of killer bee becomes "swarm of poisonous insects, flying" in 3 - 5e. But 5e also has a "cute" giant bumble bee, reflecting the idea that bumble bees are often much loved by humans. I think this creature actually first appeared in 1st edition, in Gygax's Wonderland adaptations.
If you wanted a giant killer bee in 5e, you would use the stat block for a giant wasp. The D&D ruleset is not detailed enough to make the distinction between these two imaginary creatures meaningful.
Last edited:
Paul Farquhar
Legend
Neither Africa nor Asia exist in most D&D settings, therefore the name has no meaning.
Similar Threads
D&D General
The core monster lineup across all editions
