Gelatinous Icosahedron

 Before we had golems in the Expert Set, the Basic Set gave us living statues. There are some similarities, but also some important differences, in particular some tantalizing hints that living statues might, unlike golems, actually possess a degree of human-like intelligence and free will, and we'll get to those a bit later. We start off the monster description with the declaration that a living statue is an enchanted animated creature made by a powerful wizard. So, it isn't natural, and it doesn't arise spontaneously (at least under normal circumstances.) That's a strong point of commonality with golems. A living statue may be of any size and any material, but only three are listed. What, exactly, this statement implies is not explored, but it would seem reasonable to assume that the stats listed for the three forms represent roughly man-sized statues, and that larger or smaller ones might have more or fewer Hit Dice and inflict larger or smaller amounts of damage. Fi...

 Today's monster, the giant leech, is one I've never used, nor been tempted to use in play. I'll get to why a bit later, but first, let's look at the stats and write-up as given in the Expert Rules. The monster is described as a swamp-dwelling, three- to four-foot sluglike creature. A giant leech has a listed AC of 7, equal to leather armor, which probably represents a rubbery hide. It has a whopping 6 Hit Dice, which puts it on par with tigers, minotaurs, caecilians, polar bears, and white dragons, hit points-wise. Not gonna lie, that's a lot of beef. It moves at a rate of 90' (30') which is quite brisk for a big slab of worm-slug. Its damage of 1-6 points per attack is not exactly massive, but once it hits, it hangs on and sucks blood for an additional 1-6 every round, and only killing the leech will detach it and stop the bleeding. Its morale of 10 is presumably only to be used before the creature latches onto a victim, making it very unlikely to give up ...

 We use the word "game" in distinct and mutually exclusive ways, and then get confused when we try to equivocate between the two. There are games in the sense of free-form make-believe, such as when children play Cops and Robbers or House, or adults engage in theatrical or comedic improvisation. Then there are games of objective rules, such as chess, checkers, Monopoly, and card games.  D&D, as originally created and played, is a game of objectivity. It has slowly evolved away from those roots. Many of the old forms have been intentionally preserved, but they are vestigial, and as such, useless and pointless to the way the game is played in its modern incarnations.  D&D is known for its mathematical rules -- perhaps digital is even nearer the mark. Target numbers and modifiers are precisely defined, and they're intended to be used that way. There are no "fudge factors" and indeed, that would defeat the entire purpose of the digital precision. If these n...

  The classic Erol Otus kobold.  There might not be a more iconic staple monster of low-level play than the kobold. Curiously, kobolds get a lot more extensive write-up in the Basic Rules than many other monsters, such as goblins. Kobolds have been depicted in a variety of ways in D&D, but in B/X they're describes as small, scaly, rust-brown, hairless, and dog-like. Perhaps the adjective "scaly" contributed to their later portrayal as little dragon-men, a model I personally find cheesy and stupid. I imagined "scaly" more like a skin condition such as mange. Folklore tends to lump them in with goblins and dwarfs, and it wouldn't be a huge stretch to depict them as ugly, gnarled little bearded men, or even combining that with the dog-like appearance of B/X tradition.  Setting aside attempts to make them truly formidable and fearsome opponents (e.g. "Tucker's kobolds"), kobolds in their basic form are individually quite weak. Their AC is equal...

 One monster that captured my interest right away was the killer bee from the Basic Set. I'm not really sure why, exactly, but when I set out to expand the outdoor map from B2, one of the first encounter areas I wrote up was a hive of killer bees. I'd like to note that in the next revision of the rules, the Frank Mentzer-edited Basic Set, the killer bee was listed simply as "Bee, Giant." Same monster, same stats, but "killer bee" suggests something more than just a big honeybee -- it's aggressive and fearsome. It's a killer . Anyway... Killer bees are a bit odd among the critters of the D&D bestiary. They're described as being one foot long, which is gigantic relative to normal bees and other insects, but not stupidly large. They're not hard to kill, having AC 7 and only 1/2 Hit Die, but they are not an encounter to be taken lightly, even by mid-level PCs. Why? Because every successful attack features a save-or-die poison. Your 4th-level ...

 The invisible stalker... a monster I have never, ever used in any game I've run or played in. Let's see if that was reasonable, or a missed opportunity. An invisible stalker pursuing its quarry through ancient ruins. Invisible stalkers appear only due to being summoned by a magic-user with a powerful spell. The stalker is a formidable creature, having an AC equal to plate armor and 8 Hit Dice, just one fewer than an elephant. It moves at the same rate as an unencumbered human, 120' (40'). Its single attack deals an impressive 4-16 (4d4) points of damage. And its morale is 12 -- it doesn't give up, ever, until it's slain or dispelled back to its home plane. (In other editions, this is specified as the Elemental Plane of Air, but in B/X, it could be any place the DM wishes.) Only a single one is encountered a time. The signature characteristic of invisible stalkers, is, of course, invisibility, but this literally goes completely unremarked in the monster descript...