D&D General The core monster lineup across all editions

[TerraDave]

There were no animals (as monsters) in 0D&D? I pretty sure there would have been some in expert. Lots in the first MM.

 

[delericho]

Though as all of these were in the original boxed set and '77 Basic, but not included in '81 or '83 Basic , that still suggests the designers saw them as less essential.

Possibly. Although in the cases of the 81 and 83 Basic sets the designers knew that there was an Expert set coming to expand the roster. That being the case, they would* have cut down on the number of high-level monsters in the Basic set to those they felt they just couldn't live without.

(I suppose it should be "should have cut down..." - with TSR things were sufficiently random that you can never be certain a good decision wasn't an accident. )

 

[JEB]

There were no animals (as monsters) in 0D&D? I pretty sure there would have been some in expert. Lots in the first MM.

With the exception of horses, Monsters & Treasure just has broad guidelines for "insects or small animals" and "large insects or animals", leaving the details to the referee. 1e, as you note, changed that significantly.

(And even on horses, the subtypes changed multiple times between 0e and 5e, so there's no consistent throughline.)

 

[Tonguez]

If I include the '81 and '83 Expert Rules ('77 was standalone and had no Expert counterpart), that adds 10 more:

• Basilisk
• Fire giant
• Hill giant
• Hydra
• Manticore
• Mummy
• Purple worm
• Troll
• Vampire
• Wraith

Though as all of these were in the original boxed set and '77 Basic, but not included in '81 or '83 Basic , that still suggests the designers saw them as less essential.

Ah, that gives more context to Medusa in the first list, she sits along the classical monsters here (Hydra, Basilisk, Manticore), plus we get the addition of Giants and more undead 'movie monsters' and a worm!

Still no Green dragon

 

[J-H]

Ah, that gives more context to Medusa in the first list, she sits along the classical monsters here (Hydra, Basilisk, Manticore), plus we get the addition of Giants and more undead 'movie monsters' and a worm!

Still no Green dragon

Which is a bit funny considering even Tolkein had a Green Dragon.
It was a pub...but still, the idea was out there.

 

[Guest 7030100]

The list has dragons, and stuff that lurks in dungeons.
Sounds like the perfect core bestiary for a game called "Dragons & Dungeons" or something like that.

 

[RangerWickett]

A friend of mine postulated that most monsters are just 'chupacabras' - meaning that they are simply things that leap out at you and try to kill you, and have no more 'story' to them than would an angry wolf.

Like, most every demon just wants to tear you apart. They just have different powers. A bulette isn't going to have a complex narrative related to its motives. A chimera, or a golem, or a skeleton, or a purple worm, or a troll. They're all just physical threats.

Monsters only really get interesting, in my view, if they create a story that affects the characters. If you could swap the monster for a golem and the story would run the same, I'd prefer something else. I usually find people more compelling foes than chupacabras. Something you can talk to, someone that has motivations. Or monsters like mind flayers and medusas that create a unique type of tension, something elevated beyond, "Will it manage to rip me apart."

That said, even a chupacabra can be good when the monster has an interesting ecology, and you can notice its presence and maybe do something to avoid a conflict, that's at least a fun mental challenge, so long as it's not rote. The first time a player learns about what a troll is, and sees it refusing to die, that's exciting. But once you know, "Oh yeah, just burn them," it's not nearly as fun.

That's why you need trolls to only attack during thunderstorms.

 

[Stalker0]

The only thing on that list that surprises me is the ochre jelly. While ooze concepts have existed in literature before I would argue they aren't a staple fantasy monster by the time dnd came out. Dnd pushed the ooze to a more forefront position.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

• Red dragon
• White dragon
• Gargoyle
• Gnoll
• Goblin
• Hobgoblin
• Kobold
• Medusa
• Ochre jelly
• Ogre
• Orc
• Skeleton
• Werewolf
• Zombie

So the question is, why? What makes these 15 monsters essential, and not others?

You've got dragons (because it's the brand), humanoids to fight, iconic low level horror monsters, a mythological monster, a dungeon slime and a vaguely medieval monster to stick on Gothic buildings.

Since monsters couldn't level up for about half of D&D's existence, there are more types of humanoids than we really need (and I'd cut the white dragon if I were streamlining for a core book), but it's a pretty good list.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

The only thing on that list that surprises me is the ochre jelly. While ooze concepts have existed in literature before I would argue they aren't a staple fantasy monster by the time dnd came out. Dnd pushed the ooze to a more forefront position.

The creators of D&D grew up watching the Blob and similar films that are no longer a big part of pop culture consciousness.