Ear Seekers were a response to the old "listening at the door" habit that was a dungeon crawl staple back in the day. And like so many, I lament the passing of the Axe Beak.
The Axe Beak appears in 5e, although it has been nerfed compared to AD&D, e.g., it has only 1 attack compared to 3 in 1e. Actually, a few other monsters mentioned in the video, like the Titanothere and the Quasit, have reappeared in 5e, although I’m not sure how they each compare to their 1e counterparts.
Psionics were introduced in Eldritch Wizardry; Brain Moles and the other psionic monsters originated there. The Catoblepas is a mythological creature. The underwater monsters originated in the Blackmoor supplement; we really need to give Dave Arneson a break!
Dave basically invented the concept of D&D as a spinoff of the war gaming going on at the time. His notes were pretty chaotic and the 1974 version of the rules were an amalgam of his rules and what Gary’s group was doing. Dave was much younger than the others that were involved in publishing the game and was kinda cut out of a lot of the development. Ironically Gary would be cut out of is own company roughly a decade later.
I think I'm showing my age, but I think I played so much 1e, I actually used *all* of those as a DM (except maybe the Morkoth). 😂 Part of the fun of the 1e books was all the sheer creative absurdity of all the random stuff included, and how many had custom rules for them. FWIW, I like your style, and would love to hear you generate a psionic PC using the 1e PHB, just to show the randomness, and then another trying to run an unarmed combat using the 1e DMG. Not to torment you, but because I think your natural curiosity and love for the game would come thru as you spelunk thru the Byzantine rules 😉
Happy birthday buddy, well I'm a day too late though... Old school DND? Oh yes please! We salute the monsters that did not make it haha That axebeak is actually a decent looking monster! That mole lol Most of these are fine, that says something about the great quality of monsters in dnd
@@onefootgamerthe original psionics rules were in Eldritch Wizardry. The MM was more of a reference work that collected as many of the previously published monsters as possible and was a bit of a hybrid of OD&D rules, Holmes basic and AD&D. The psionics rules that came later in the PHB worked mostly the same as the previous rules but AD&D was such a mess as far as organization and patchwork rules go that it was basically a collection of different mini games masquerading as a cohesive RPG.
Axebeak is in 5e. Catoplepas is in 4e and 5e Intellect Devourer is in 5e Ixitxachtl is in 5e Kirin is in 5e Leucrotta is also in 5th Morkoth is in 5e Perytons were in 4th and 5th Piercer is in 5th Quasits are in 4th and 5th Shriekers are in 5e as a trap Slithering Tracker is in 5e Su Monster was in 3rd and 5th Trapper is in 5e
@@jasong8085 Cloakers were another kind of monster in AD&D, and trappers and lurkers were related to them. The Lurker Above was also in 3.5e (in the Underdark book).
@@onefootgamer 4e actually brought back a hefty number of fairly obscure creatures from earlier editions, but most of them got new lore to fit into the unnamed "core" setting of 4e that included the Nentir Vale. 5e has made a concerted effort to bring back even more creatures from the past. Probably to bring back lapsed players and try to legitimize WotC's ownership of the brand.
Never tealized how aqua focused the MM was! I think there were a couple Pathfinder adventure paths that got in depth aquatic. I think it might be fun to run a campaign with all those nutty "no one ever used these" monsters...players pre-roll 3 or 4 characters so when the ear booger gets you, etc you have a replacement ready to go. Start the adventure with a caveat "dont get attached to these PCs cause the campaign is a killah!"
Stephen Marsh created the Sahuagin, Ixitxachitl, & other underwater creatures. I think he made more for the OSRIC bestiary, Monsters of Myth. He also wrote the 1st Expert rulebook among other contributions. Perhaps that's the "obsession" you're trying to identify. It's odd to hear "too many underwater creatures" as a complaint. Most people complain about how many dinosaurs were in the MM.
I have a different take on this. You keep saying that a creature was in 1st & 2nd edition & then it was "gone." The D&D line ended completely with 2nd edition. It isn't surprising that some creatures aren't in "3E" because "3E" was a completely different system. It had the "D&D" name only because WotC owned the trademark. It was like putting a backgammon board in a box labelled, "chess." It's a TTRPG, but it isn't actually a version of D&D. Some of the creatures you mention and others are still in use in OSRIC, OSE, & For Gold & Glory which are actually versions of D&D. None of those creatures are "gone." The Rules Cyclopedia pulled its bestiary from BECMI and the Gazeteer line, not from AD&D. That line ceased publication BEFORE 2nd edition did, not after.
Yeah, hard to get a game of 3.0 going. I have the 3.5 rules so ingrained in my head from being an RPGA DM that I think 3.0 would make my head explode from the tiny differences.
Ear Seekers were a response to the old "listening at the door" habit that was a dungeon crawl staple back in the day. And like so many, I lament the passing of the Axe Beak.
..should have kept listening before I commented. My bad.
The Axe Beak appears in 5e, although it has been nerfed compared to AD&D, e.g., it has only 1 attack compared to 3 in 1e. Actually, a few other monsters mentioned in the video, like the Titanothere and the Quasit, have reappeared in 5e, although I’m not sure how they each compare to their 1e counterparts.
The Catoblepus was brought back in 5e
Psionics were introduced in Eldritch Wizardry; Brain Moles and the other psionic monsters originated there. The Catoblepas is a mythological creature. The underwater monsters originated in the Blackmoor supplement; we really need to give Dave Arneson a break!
Thanks, if I ever revisit this it is good to know.
Dave basically invented the concept of D&D as a spinoff of the war gaming going on at the time. His notes were pretty chaotic and the 1974 version of the rules were an amalgam of his rules and what Gary’s group was doing. Dave was much younger than the others that were involved in publishing the game and was kinda cut out of a lot of the development. Ironically Gary would be cut out of is own company roughly a decade later.
Nothing wrong with having an obsession with underwater monsters...
I think I'm showing my age, but I think I played so much 1e, I actually used *all* of those as a DM (except maybe the Morkoth). 😂 Part of the fun of the 1e books was all the sheer creative absurdity of all the random stuff included, and how many had custom rules for them.
FWIW, I like your style, and would love to hear you generate a psionic PC using the 1e PHB, just to show the randomness, and then another trying to run an unarmed combat using the 1e DMG. Not to torment you, but because I think your natural curiosity and love for the game would come thru as you spelunk thru the Byzantine rules 😉
That sounds like something I could do.
Great topic. I agree that the Axe
Beak would be a cool opponent, especially for a low-level party on an outdoor adventure.
Oh those things are going to be roaming the plains between the town and dungeon in my next campaign.
Happy belated birthday
Thanks.
Axe beak appeared in publication in 2nd and 3rd edition
Supplementary material I guess.
Happy birthday buddy, well I'm a day too late though...
Old school DND? Oh yes please! We salute the monsters that did not make it haha
That axebeak is actually a decent looking monster!
That mole lol
Most of these are fine, that says something about the great quality of monsters in dnd
I am definitely going to have Axebeaks roaming the plains in my next campaign.
@@onefootgamer It seems like World of Warcraft got their own version of Axebeaks haha
Psionics was an Appendix in the 1e PHB, and was absent from 2e until they published the softcover Psionicists Handbook.
Ah, well then it was only a 1 year wait to know what those monsters could do.
@@onefootgamerthe original psionics rules were in Eldritch Wizardry. The MM was more of a reference work that collected as many of the previously published monsters as possible and was a bit of a hybrid of OD&D rules, Holmes basic and AD&D. The psionics rules that came later in the PHB worked mostly the same as the previous rules but AD&D was such a mess as far as organization and patchwork rules go that it was basically a collection of different mini games masquerading as a cohesive RPG.
Happy belated birthday bro.
Thank you.
Just started playing dnd about 7 months ago.. All ive ever known is 5e. It's interesting to see these older versions.
Every version I have played has had its own special magic to it.
Axebeak is in 5e.
Catoplepas is in 4e and 5e
Intellect Devourer is in 5e
Ixitxachtl is in 5e
Kirin is in 5e
Leucrotta is also in 5th
Morkoth is in 5e
Perytons were in 4th and 5th
Piercer is in 5th
Quasits are in 4th and 5th
Shriekers are in 5e as a trap
Slithering Tracker is in 5e
Su Monster was in 3rd and 5th
Trapper is in 5e
5e did a nice job bringing back many of the wacky classics.
I really would not have expected 4th and 5th to bring back so many classic monsters.
Lurker became cloaker. It's in 5e
@@jasong8085 Cloakers were another kind of monster in AD&D, and trappers and lurkers were related to them. The Lurker Above was also in 3.5e (in the Underdark book).
@@onefootgamer 4e actually brought back a hefty number of fairly obscure creatures from earlier editions, but most of them got new lore to fit into the unnamed "core" setting of 4e that included the Nentir Vale.
5e has made a concerted effort to bring back even more creatures from the past. Probably to bring back lapsed players and try to legitimize WotC's ownership of the brand.
Never tealized how aqua focused the MM was! I think there were a couple Pathfinder adventure paths that got in depth aquatic. I think it might be fun to run a campaign with all those nutty "no one ever used these" monsters...players pre-roll 3 or 4 characters so when the ear booger gets you, etc you have a replacement ready to go. Start the adventure with a caveat "dont get attached to these PCs cause the campaign is a killah!"
Oh, I am going to be putting Axebeaks and the fields and forests of my next campaign for sure.
I liked all the underwater monsters as a,warning that the oceans were deadly, even if player characters might never adventure there.
Good point there.
Stephen Marsh created the Sahuagin, Ixitxachitl, & other underwater creatures. I think he made more for the OSRIC bestiary, Monsters of Myth. He also wrote the 1st Expert rulebook among other contributions. Perhaps that's the "obsession" you're trying to identify.
It's odd to hear "too many underwater creatures" as a complaint. Most people complain about how many dinosaurs were in the MM.
Well, at least I could use the dinosaurs. Never had real call to use any of the underwater monsters.
Is the Rotgrub something that made later editions? I don't remember seeing in in 3rd and beyond.
Rot grubs I believe have been in nearly every edition, although not always in the main monster manual.
@@onefootgamer2E monster compendium and Monstrous manual had rot grubs, but after that it was relocated to lesser status
I have a different take on this. You keep saying that a creature was in 1st & 2nd edition & then it was "gone." The D&D line ended completely with 2nd edition. It isn't surprising that some creatures aren't in "3E" because "3E" was a completely different system. It had the "D&D" name only because WotC owned the trademark. It was like putting a backgammon board in a box labelled, "chess." It's a TTRPG, but it isn't actually a version of D&D.
Some of the creatures you mention and others are still in use in OSRIC, OSE, & For Gold & Glory which are actually versions of D&D. None of those creatures are "gone."
The Rules Cyclopedia pulled its bestiary from BECMI and the Gazeteer line, not from AD&D. That line ceased publication BEFORE 2nd edition did, not after.
I went in order of the releases of the Monster Manuals. Rules Cyclopedia (1991) came out after the 2nd Edition Monstrous Compendium (1989).
I believe there is a quasit in 3.0 just not 3.5. Ik I'm the one person alive who prefers 3.0 lol
Happy late birthday btw man
Yeah, hard to get a game of 3.0 going. I have the 3.5 rules so ingrained in my head from being an RPGA DM that I think 3.0 would make my head explode from the tiny differences.
@onefootgamer It's easy to run one when you're the only DM your friends know and refuse to play anything else lol. Much to their dismay.
@@onefootgamer I just couldn't stand how they underpowered certain classes like ranger and monk