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!
D&D General The abandoned core monsters of D&D
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:
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.)
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.
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.)
Last edited:
Orius
Legend
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
Gnometown Hero
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
Legend
I used them a couple of years ago when one of my groups took an airship on a trip into the Plane of Air!
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!)
Tonguez
A suffusion of yellow
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? 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.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
D&D General
The core monster lineup across all editions
D&D General
Quaint and curious monsters of forgotten core