RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
I've heard/read that some (or many) monsters that have been considered a classic part of D&D across all editions aren't in the 4E MM. The only ones I've heard of specifically are the Frost Giant and Iron Golem. Has anyone else compiled a list of which others have been 'held back' or not included?
The new Monster Manual contains a pretty nice cross section of cool stuff from across the series of books. Nothing is really new--even things like the Kruthik from the Miniatures Handbook or the Astral Stalker from the MMIII are established creatures just given a more fundamental niche in the new edition.
The new spin put on all the creatures reminds me a little of what Paizo has been doing. A lot of things that were once pretty flat, have been given some wonderful new spin. A lot of evocative things that existed in the old books without much sense of where they come from or how they behave have been given a lot more distictive style and origin in the new book.
That said, the new Monster Manual has the shortest writeups by far. By short I mean 3-4 sentence blurbs. No ecology, no society. A few groups of related creatures (like giants or elementals) have a write-up by type, but that's an exception. Most of the entries are not much more than a bunch of statblocks for different flavors of each creature (for example the Fire Archon Emberguard, Blazesteel and Ash Disciple.) Quite a few of them, truth be told, really aren't all that different from each other--not even in flavor text.
yeah but 3.x didn't have the rust monster either until much later
So wrong..3.0 MM page 157 its there.
Most of the entries are not much more than a bunch of statblocks for different flavors of each creature (for example the Fire Archon Emberguard, Blazesteel and Ash Disciple.) Quite a few of them, truth be told, really aren't all that different from each other--not even in flavor text.
Well,I don't know if you didn't check the 4E MM well, but most of the monsters' roleplaying information is included in the "Lore" section. On average, the 4E entries seem to have more noncombat information than the 3.5E MM entries, and obviously much more noncombat information than the 1E MM (only the 2E Monstrous Manual wins).
Check the 4E succubus for instance. 6 lines of noncombat information don't seem much, really. But check how many lines (or should I say, words?) of noncombat information for succubus is present on your 3.5E MM or 1E MM.
The MM is missing all of the metallic dragons, which sort of bothered me. I'm sure they'll make an appearance in the upcoming book on dragons that comes out this fall.
I really like the new monster stat layout. It's genius. The fact that you can put all of Orcus' stats on a single index card is pretty awesome. Anything that simplifies my job as a DM is a godsend.
Ok, so now the list is up to:
Frost Giant
Iron Golem
Erinyes
Copper Dragon
Bronze Dragon
Brass Dragon
Silver Dragon
Gold DragonAnything else?
The Erinyes wasn't core on 2E, so I think it should't be on this list.
However, I would include:
Black pudding
Clay golem
Couatl
Dao
Dragon turtle
Djinii
Duergar
Flumph (just kidding =P)
Invisible stalker
Lammasu
Marid
Merman
Mimic
Nymph
Pixie
Pegasus
Remorhaz
Werebear
Shrieker fungus
Stone giant
Triton
Will'o'wisp
Copper Dragon
Bronze Dragon
Brass Dragon
Silver Dragon
Gold Dragon
I'm pretty sure these guys won't appear as the core 'metallic dragon' team anymore. Some of them might appear later on though
|
I'm assuming you're using the 1e/2E MM as your base to determine what is "classic" right?
As the 2E MM only had the balor and the marilith while the 2E devil (baatezu) entry only had the pit fiend and abishai (black, green and red).
Your 2e inexperience is showing. The 2e Monstrous Manual was just a compilation of the first two volumes of the Monstrous Compendiums, and those didn't have any devils or demons, thanks to the whole 2e sanitization to get the uber-fundamentalists off TSR's back.
Using the 2e MM to determine core isn't a good argument.
...Hippogriff
Hippogriff actually made the cut, check under Griffon.
I'm assuming you're using the 1e/2E MM as your base to determine what is "classic" right?
As the 2E MM only had the balor and the marilith while the 2E devil (baatezu) entry only had the pit fiend and abishai (black, green and red).
Your 2e inexperience is showing. The 2e Monstrous Manual was just a compilation of the first two volumes of the Monstrous Compendiums, and those didn't have any devils or demons, thanks to the whole 2e sanitization to get the uber-fundamentalists off TSR's back.
Using the 2e MM to determine core isn't a good argument.
Indeed. When the 2nd edition Monstrous Compendia (the loose-leaf ones) were initially released, Dwarves weren't in the first one. They came in the second installment.
Personally, I'm a bit irked at the major lack of normal animals aside from some uber bears, boars, horses, uber snakes, and wolves (I may have missed a couple of options). No lions, tigers, elephants, or sharks that I can find.
By the way, I found the hippogriff lurking among the griffons.
The Shadow is missing as well (though technically if you read the Wraith entry, it looks like they combined the wraith and shadow into one)
Clay golem is missing as well
Scott
http://www.necromancergames.com
By the way, I found the hippogriff lurking among the griffons.
Yeah, I was getting irritated at the absence of hobgoblins and bugbears -- until I looked under goblin.
The Shadow is missing as well (though technically if you read the Wraith entry, it looks like they combined the wraith and shadow into one)
Probably a good thing -- I think the game has, in its urgency to provide new monsters, created too much overlap between many of them.
I'm assuming you're using the 1e/2E MM as your base to determine what is "classic" right?
As the 2E MM only had the balor and the marilith while the 2E devil (baatezu) entry only had the pit fiend and abishai (black, green and red).
Your 2e inexperience is showing. The 2e Monstrous Manual was just a compilation of the first two volumes of the Monstrous Compendiums, and those didn't have any devils or demons, thanks to the whole 2e sanitization to get the uber-fundamentalists off TSR's back.
Using the 2e MM to determine core isn't a good argument.
Well, "satanism" apart, many gamers like me started playing D&D on 2E, so it's hard for us to consider a monster that appeared on 1E but not on 2E as a "classic" monster. I believe I played 2E for about 5 years without having any idea of what an "erinyes" was.
Quirk - There's a "Dire Wolverine Strike" power in the list of Ranger powers... but I can't find a dire wolverine in the MM.
The fact that you can put all of Orcus' stats on a single index card is pretty awesome.Unless, of course, you're Orcus.
:)
Whoa! Hold on a sec. You mean I'm not Orcus? Then where did this kewl rod come from? And why are all these undead demons following me around?
1. A good DM is Orcus when he's roleplaying Orcus.
2. Air, Earth, and Water Elementals are missing.
3. Ill have to look to see if there are any Mephits.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
Updated consolitade list:
Ankheg
Black pudding
Behir (not in 1st MM, but pretty soon after)
Blink Dog
Cloaker (not in 1st MM, but pretty soon after)
Couatl
Devil, Erinyes (it was in 1st, 2nd, and 3rd, so I'm counting it YMMV)
Dinosaurs (many, only 2 in 4E MM)
Djinii
Dragon, Copper
Dragon, Bronze
Dragon, Brass
Dragon, Silver
Dragon, Gold
Dragon turtle
Dragonne
Duergar
Elephant
Elemental, Air
Elemental, Earth
Elemental, Water
Giant, Cloud
Giant, Frost
Giant, Stone
Golen, Clay
Golem, Iron
Invisible stalker
Lammasu
Lion
Lycanthrope, Werebear
Merman/Merfolk
Mimic
Nymph
Pixie
Pegasus
Remorhaz
Shadow
Shark
Shrieker fungus
Tiger
Triton
Will'o'wisp
I took out Dao and Marid, since they weren't in the MM for 1st edition
I know this list is heavily weighted in the beginning of the alphabet, anything else not make the cut?
Probably a good thing -- I think the game has, in its urgency to provide new monsters, created too much overlap between many of them.
Oh they'll all come back eventually - overlap and all. It sells books after all.
I never bothered with the loose leaf collection since when it ws announced, I immediately realized the problem (what the hell happens when a monster gets released that's in-between two previous entries?)
Your alphabetical listing goes slightly off - it actually beats the hell out of having to figure out which book some obscure monster is in.
Personally I feel the 2nd edition MM was the best version ever released. Lots of in depth ecology and habitat as well as the stats and you had a loose leaf binder that could contain all the new monsters as they came out.
I was disappointed somewhat with the lack of detail in habitat, society and ecology in the 3.5 monsters and know I'm disappointed in the lack of these same details in the 4E monsters.
I took out Dao and Marid, since they weren't in the MM for 1st edition
interesting since you left in the Behir and the cloaker... which appered in the same 1e book (MM2)
I love monsters.
It's only reasonable that you would seek the company of your own kind. It's ok, you can admit it; my "Sadistic Souless Demon-Lords Anonymous"group says that admitance is the fist step in acceptance.
Updated consolitade list:
(...)
Well, I think we need more defined criteria there. The fact that the Erinyes isn't 2E core makes me difficult to see it as "classic", as I started playing on 2E. In fact, I never saw a 2E erinyes statblock (I know there is one on some Planescape supplement).
I think a truly "classic" monster is one who appears in the three monster manuals (1E, 2E and 3E). I know that the 2E Monstrous Manual isn't exactly core, but includes all the content from MC1 and MC2, and many, if not most 2E players used it instead of the original MCs.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
interesting since you left in the Behir and the cloaker... which appered in the same 1e book (MM2)
I took out Dao and Marid, since they weren't in the MM for 1st edition
I'm 99% sure that Behir and Cloaker were in a big monster supplement in one of the earlier classic modules (maybe Caverns of TsolaIcantspellit), and were therefore out a lot earlier than the Dao and Marid. I have noted those on the list, so you can choose to count them or not pretty easily.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
Updated consolitade list:
(...)
Well, I think we need more defined criteria there. The fact that the Erinyes isn't 2E core makes me difficult to see it as "classic", as I started playing on 2E. In fact, I never saw a 2E erinyes statblock (I know there is one on some Planescape supplement).
I think a truly "classic" monster is one who appears in the three monster manuals (1E, 2E and 3E). I know that the 2E Monstrous Manual isn't exactly core, but includes all the content from MC1 and MC2, and many, if not most 2E players used it instead of the original MCs.
I don't know about most players of 2E, but I know I had the various 3 ring binder versions (which I no longer own), so in this case, I'm using my non-perfect memory and impression that since the Erinyes was in all 3 editions and in the 1E MM and 3E MM, and it showed up sometime in 2E MC, I'm counting it. Similar to the half-orc if you want to look at it that way. It was in as a race in 1E and 3E, but not 2E, but I think most players would agree that it's "classic" for D&D.
I don't know about most players of 2E, but I know I had the various 3 ring binder versions (which I no longer own), so in this case, I'm using my non-perfect memory and impression that since the Erinyes was in all 3 editions and in the 1E MM and 3E MM, and it showed up sometime in 2E MC, I'm counting it. Similar to the half-orc if you want to look at it that way. It was in as a race in 1E and 3E, but not 2E, but I think most players would agree that it's "classic" for D&D.
The Erinyes was on the 2E Planescape MC, which I don't consider "core" by any means. It's unfair to compare all monsters published in years of 2E with only the first 4E Monster Manual.
About the Cloaker/Behir issue, if you include them on the list, I can argue that the 4E Manual of the Planes is going to be released "soon after" the release of 4E, so any creature that appears on it should be removed from the list.
The nalfeshnee demon (Type IV Demon) is not there.
Neither are bebiliths or retreivers but I dont know how classic they are.
interesting since you left in the Behir and the cloaker... which appered in the same 1e book (MM2)
I took out Dao and Marid, since they weren't in the MM for 1st edition
I think the behir, at least, has moved up to being more 'canonical' than the other elemental genies. Maybe the cloaker too though I'm less convinced.
The Erinyes was on the 2E Planescape MC, which I don't consider "core" by any means. It's unfair to compare all monsters published in years of 2E with only the first 4E Monster Manual.
Maybe, but it IS fair to compare with the 1e and 3e monster manuals...
I'm 99% sure that Behir and Cloaker were in a big monster supplement in one of the earlier classic modules (maybe Caverns of TsolaIcantspellit), and were therefore out a lot earlier than the Dao and Marid. I have noted those on the list, so you can choose to count them or not pretty easily.interesting since you left in the Behir and the cloaker... which appered in the same 1e book (MM2)
I took out Dao and Marid, since they weren't in the MM for 1st edition
Both the Dao and Marid appeared in that adventure too, at the same time as the behir. The cloaker is earlier being from the Slave Lords series.
Maybe, but it IS fair to compare with the 1e and 3e monster manuals...
The Erinyes was on the 2E Planescape MC, which I don't consider "core" by any means. It's unfair to compare all monsters published in years of 2E with only the first 4E Monster Manual.
Nope, because as I said, many people started playing D&D on 2E. On Brazil, they are probably more than 90% of the D&D players since 1E was never released here. If "classic" means "appeared in some other edition", then the Tojanida and the Rast are ultimate classics.
|
Probably a good thing -- I think the game has, in its urgency to provide new monsters, created too much overlap between many of them.
I always felt that way about the fey races; why did we need so many variations on 'little people with inherent spell-like abilities'?
So many of them were 'It's a sprite, but with a few extra hit points', 'It's a pixie, but six inches taller', or 'It's a brownie with some different spells'.
GAAAAHH!
I thought I'd seen the last of them in 3rd Edition, but they're still there! What's so difficult about a 'Fey' with class levels?
(And don't get me started on the 'Blue' - it's a goblin psion, for ****s sake, why does it need a new race, why is it blue? GGAAAAHHH!).
Nope, because as I said, many people started playing D&D on 2E. On Brazil, they are probably more than 90% of the D&D players since 1E was never released here. If "classic" means "appeared in some other edition", then the Tojanida and the Rast are ultimate classics.Maybe, but it IS fair to compare with the 1e and 3e monster manuals...
The Erinyes was on the 2E Planescape MC, which I don't consider "core" by any means. It's unfair to compare all monsters published in years of 2E with only the first 4E Monster Manual.
???
Many people started playing on 1e and 3e too. Why discount comparision with both of those monster manuals? Are you trying to lay out some claim that there should be no comparison whatsoever? Because if you are doing so you're going to be unhappy since that's what the thread's about.If something is in both the 1e and 3e MM, I think it's fair to say it's fairly "classic" even if it's not in the first Monstrous Compendium from 2e. And other monsters, if they've managed to garner quite a following, could also be considered classic, even if they've only appeared in one of the 3 previous edition's first monster books.
I always felt that way about the fey races; why did we need so many variations on 'little people with inherent spell-like abilities'?
I don't think it's a question of needing them so much as presenting D&D adaptations of different wee folk present in old legends and folklore while making each of them a bit different. Sure, they could have gone with the route of assuming that they were just different names for the same creature, but that was an artistic decision that Gygax decided not to take back when they were first made up in 1e.
|
|
If something is in both the 1e and 3e MM, I think it's fair to say it's fairly "classic" even if it's not in the first Monstrous Compendium from 2e. And other monsters, if they've managed to garner quite a following, could also be considered classic, even if they've only appeared in one of the 3 previous edition's first monster books.
Agreed. Don't forget that drow, slaad, githyanki, grell, and a host of other iconic creatures didn't appear in a hardback until 1981, in the Fiend Folio (along with hundreds of wierdo freak-beasts from the readers of White Dwarf...).
???
Many people started playing on 1e and 3e too. Why discount comparision with both of those monster manuals? Are you trying to lay out some claim that there should be no comparison whatsoever? Because if you are doing so you're going to be unhappy since that's what the thread's about.If something is in both the 1e and 3e MM, I think it's fair to say it's fairly "classic" even if it's not in the first Monstrous Compendium from 2e.
No, what I meant is that it seems pretty arbitrary to say that a monster that appeared on 1E and 3E core is a classic, but a monster that appeared on 2E and 3E core (like the marid) is not. Then, the monster is only a "classic" depending on what edition you started playing.
Now, a monster that appeared as core on the three editions is a classic in all view points. It doesn't matter what edition started playing, you know this monster.
And other monsters, if they've managed to garner quite a following, could also be considered classic, even if they've only appeared in one of the 3 previous edition's first monster books.
I don't think it's a good idea. If you say that the choice of "classic monsters" is subjective, then it's impossible to make any list, as my personal list of "classic monsters" is certainly different from yours.
Well, I'm using the 2E MM and 3E MM for my list
(good catch on the hippogriff)
Imp
Insect (this one is kind of sketchy as the 4E doesn't have a separate section for just insects, but things like Swarms and beetles are listed separately)
Invisible Stalker
Kraken
Lammasu
Locathah
Lycanthorpe (4E has werewolf and wererat only)
Merfolk
Mimic
Nymph
Ooze (Gray and Black Pudding)
Pegasus
Rust Monster
Sea Lion (wow, are Lions ever the "humans" of the monster cross breed races)
Shadow
Sphinx (only 1 version in the 4E MM)
Sprite
Triton
Will o'wisp
Imp is there under the Devils entry. Sphinx is also there (as you noted). The rest I could not find any mention of.
Clay golem is missing as well
Of all the golems to leave out, this seems like the most bizarre choice. After all, in the original mythology, the "clay golem" was the ONLY golem...
Of course I suppose if I want to make arguments about deviating from the "original mythology," I ought to start with fourth edition's angels...!
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
Updated consolidated list:
Ankheg
Black pudding
Blink Dog
Couatl
Demon, Nalfeshnee (type IV)
Devil, Erinyes (it was in 1st, 2nd, and 3rd, so I'm counting it YMMV)
Dinosaurs (many, only 2 in 4E MM)
Djinii
Dragon, Copper
Dragon, Bronze
Dragon, Brass
Dragon, Silver
Dragon, Gold
Dragon turtle
Dragonne
Duergar
Elephant
Elemental, Air
Elemental, Earth
Elemental, Water
Giant, Cloud
Giant, Frost
Giant, Stone
Golen, Clay
Golem, Iron
Grey Ooze
Invisible stalker
Kraken
Lammasu
Locathah (I admit I wouldn't really miss this one)
Lion
Lycanthrope, Werebear
Lycanthrope, Wereboar
Lycanthrope, Weretiger
Merman/Merfolk
Mimic
Nymph
Pixie
Pegasus
Remorhaz
Rust Monster
Sea Lion
Shadow
Shark
Shrieker fungus
Sphinx (3 of 4)
Sprite
Tiger
Triton
Will'o'wisp
Classic but not in 1E MM
Behir
Cloaker
Dao
Marid
Which Sphinx made the cut? Gyno or Andro?What about the Gyro-Sphinx?
The one with Skill Focus (Balance), and Whirlwind Attack?
I flipped through the books the other day in the store. As I recall it was listed as "Sphinx", no mention of a specific species. I guess it was generic. Don't recall what the picture looked like though. If I am incorrect, I'm sure someone will point it out.