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

[JEB]

The first thread was looking for the most essential core monsters in D&D.

The second thread was looking more broadly at how the core monster lineup has evolved. (And also an excuse to share this spreadsheet of core monsters.)

This third thread is taking the opposite tack from the first: what monsters were core in D&D just once, and never came back again as core? Why were they made core, and why didn't they stick around?

For reference, here's what is "core" for monsters for the purposes of this thread:
0e: The original boxed set
Basic: The 1977 Basic Set (Holmes), the 1981 Basic Set (Moldvay), the 1983 Basic Rules (Mentzer), and the Rules Cyclopedia
1e: Monster Manual
2e: Monstrous Compendium Vols. 1 and 2, Monstrous Manual
3e: Monster Manual (3.0 and 3.5)
4e: Monster Manual, Monster Vault
5e: Monster Manual

EDIT: Links to each block, for convenience:

• 0e, the original boxed set
• Basic 1977, 1981, 1983, and overall
• Basic, Rules Cyclopedia
• 1e Monster Manual
• 2e MC Vols. 1 and 2, and overall
• 2e Monstrous Manual
• 3e, Monster Manual 3.0 and 3.5
• 4e, Monster Manual and Monster Vault

 

[JEB]

We'll start from the beginning, with 0e and the original boxed set.

There are four monsters - of a sort - that didn't carry forward to later editions:

• Sea monster
• Small insect or animal
• Large insect or animal
• Giant fish (in Book III)

All four of these were more template than monster, really. The "referee" (not DM, yet) was expected to work out most of the details themselves.

And it's easy to guess why they didn't carry forward - because specific examples of each category appeared as soon as the next sourcebook (Greyhawk), and there were many more by the launch of Basic and 1e in 1977. (Arguably even sooner on sea monsters, as Book III of the original boxed set included some possible examples.)

What do these say about 0e? (An example of the more do-it-yourself flavor of this original boxed set, perhaps?) What does their disappearance as core mean about later editions?

 

[ilgatto]

Thanx for referring to the D&D-Greyhawk sea monster - never found it in there despite diligent efforts to the contrary.

Perhaps as an interesting aside, back when they were still allowed to publish "official" material for D&D, Judges Guild also did some fleshing out of the D&D-M&T "sea monsters" along the lines suggested. Looks like they did the same for the "giant fish".

Source: (Author unknown), Guidelines Booklet M (JG, 1977); Bob Bledsaw and Gary Adams, Modron (JG, 1977)

SEA MONSTERS: As a general rule these creatures are more for show than anything else. However, they could guard treasure. The typical Sea Monster of mythology is equal in size to a Purple Worm, and they work upwards from there to double or treble that size. The best guide is a book on prehistoric life forms, from which the referee can pick a number of suitable forms for his Sea Monster. Typically, hits from a Sea Monster would inflict 3 or 4 dice of damage.

Source: Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson, Dungeons & Dragons. Monsters & Treasure (TSR, 1974)


Also, in light of D&D-M&T mentioning purple worms, I suppose it could be argued that at least some form of non-Greyhawk sea monster made it into 1E.

Mottled Worm: The mottled worm is an aquatic variety of the purple worm. It inhabits shallow bottom muck but will surface for prey. It otherwise conforms to the characteristics of the purple variety.

Source: Gary Gygax, Monster Manual (TSR, 1977)

 

[Alzrius]

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

 

[ilgatto]

Heh. True that.

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?

EDIT: +'t'

 

[steeldragons]

In Basic D&D (Holmes, I believe) you stood no chance but to fall before the dreaded doom of the THOUL!

A troll - ghoul - and, I think, hobgoblin (was it?) . I think the lore is they were created by a typo/mistake that was just kept in.

Then you never heard from them again.

 

[LordEntrails]

What do these say about 0e? (An example of the more do-it-yourself flavor of this original boxed set, perhaps?) What does their disappearance as core mean about later editions?

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."

Or, another way to look at it, I don't think OD&D was so much about an attitude or DIY, but rather TSR was simple limited in what it could produce. It did not have the resources (money, time, page count, etc) to detail everything. Maybe they didn't see the need (I doubt that), but they certainly were a small business in a totally new endeavor that had to create everything. Even the stuff they took from other sources had to be re-worked to be D&D.

IMO, OD&D (and even most editions) have such a large DIY attitude not because TSR/WotC doesn't want to do everything and sell it to us, but because they can't. (Not reasonably.)

So "Sea Monster" was there not because they didn't want to detail out a hundred different monsters to use in a sea going adventure, but because they had not created such creatures for their own campaigns and didn't have time to detail them for the product.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

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 serpents 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 in the illustrations for 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.

 

[Reynard]

In Basic D&D (Holmes, I believe) you stood no chance but to fall before the dreaded doom of the THOUL!

A troll - ghoul - and, I think, hobgoblin (was it?) . I think the lore is they were created by a typo/mistake that was just kept in.

Then you never heard from them again.

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

 

[Tonguez]

(no, a giant snake is not the same thing as a sea serpent, as has been weirdly argued at ENWorld in the past).

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

We'll start from the beginning, with 0e and the original boxed set.

There are four monsters - of a sort - that didn't carry forward to later editions:

• Sea monster
• Small insect or animal
• Large insect or animal
• Giant fish (in Book III)

All four of these were more template than monster, really. The "referee" (not DM, yet) was expected to work out most of the details themselves.

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…