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 ...

  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...

 Here's another "monster" that is wildly underappreciated and underutilized: the insect swarm, from the Basic Rules. I don't think I've ever used one myself, neither back in the day nor more recently, which is kind of a shame. Let's get into it and see what sort of possibilities such an unconventional monster entry lends itself to. According to the book, an insect swarm may be comprised of various types of insects (or other arthropods such as spiders), either crawling, flying, or both. (Presumably a single swarm is composed of a single type of creature, though.) The swarm has an Armor Class of 7, which is mediocre but still better than an unarmed human, perhaps because of the decentralized nature of the swarm. There's just not a coherent "body" to strike against. In fact, because of the other curious mechanics of the insect swarm, this number is completely, entirely irrelevant; it will never be used in play. The swarm effectively has 2-4 Hit Dice...

 TSR-era D&D produced a plethora of published adventure modules. Some are beloved, some reviled. Some exemplify the modern "old school" ethos and some started D&D down some very dubious paths, which old schoolers today by and large disavow. Some of them made for engaging, fascinating reads, but were problematic at the game table.  In this series, I plan to take a look at some of these old modules for Classic (that is, non-"Advanced") D&D, not necessarily as a reviewer, but really digging into the specifics of what I like, what I don't like, what works and what doesn't, and most importantly, what DMs and authors of today might learn from them. It seems appropriate to kick it off with the module that introduced me to the game, that is still considered a classic among classics, so without further ado, I give you may take on... Module B2: The Keep on the Borderlands, by E. Gary Gygax himself (Spoilers to follow, on the off chance you're not famil...

 The hydra is a monster with deep roots in Greek myth. Like many D&D creatures portrayed as whole types or species, the hydra, too was once unique. It was a many-headed serpent, reputed to have poisonous breath and blood so toxic even the scent of it was deadly, with later incarnations of the myth adding the regeneration of two heads for each one severed. The slaying of the hydra served as the second of the mythic Labors of Hercules.  The standard D&D hydra is toned down a bit from the myth. Though it's a tough beast to be sure, it can be slain by heroes of less than demigod status. The book describes it as having a dragon-like body (minus wings) and 5 to 12 snake-like heads.  The hydra is a bit of an odd duck, mechanically. Its AC of 5 is decent. It has 1d8+4 heads, with 1 HD and 8 hit points for each one. That makes it quite a bit tougher than other monsters of the same HD, on average, since it always has maximum hp. Compare a 10-headed hydra with 80 hp to a typ...

 Horses are one of those entries in the B/X bestiary that exists not because they're interesting as monsters, but because they're creatures that are useful to characters. They're essentially living pieces of equipment, but as such, they need stats like monsters. The book breaks them down into three broad categories: riding, draft, and war. All three have a base AC of 7, which is pretty standard for most animals with no predatory inclinations or particular affinity for combat. Everything else is different among them. Riding horses are the standard we're most familiar with in our modern world. Their purpose is to be sat on and take their riders places. They're capable of a very brisk pace of 240' (80'), or twice the speed of an unencumbered human, and can maintain that speed while carrying up to 3,000 coin weight (300 pounds), including the rider. They can carry up to 600 pounds at half speed, which is still a very respectable 120' (40'). (More on this...

 Well, it's been a few seconds since I last felt inspired to write and post here, but here I am again. An A to Z Monster post feels like a good way to ease back into the flow. We come now to another perennial staple of low-level play: the hobgoblin.  Hobgoblins are described as bigger and meaner relatives of goblins, presumably with a similar appearance (e.g. chalky tan to livid grey complexion, red eyes, etc.) though that is not explicitly stated. Though they live underground, they are able to function in full daylight without penalty, unlike goblins. Mechanically, hobgoblins are exactly what it says on the tin. Their AC of 6 is equal to a goblin, while their 1+1 HD give them an extra couple of hp on average. They are slightly faster at 90' (30') (compared to 60' (20') for goblins), and a bit braver with a Morale score of 8 (vs. the goblin's 7). Their damage is listed as "1-8 or by weapon," so it's implied that they wield swords or perhaps battle ...

 Just a quick post about another idea I had for the fighter class, to give it a little more, well, "fight." This would probably be best used to replace the so-called "mook rule" (one attack per level vs. opponents less than one full HD) or "cleave"/"sweep" (make an extra attack when an attack kills the target.) In a nutshell, a fighter may make a single attack vs. a single target, per the rules as written, OR may make attacks against multiple targets, reducing the damage die used by one step for each additional target, to a minimum of d4. So, if a fighter using a d6 weapon is beset by a mob of kobolds, he could either make his usual single attack, dealing 1d6 points of damage if successful, or he could attack two different kobolds, making a separate attack roll for each and dealing 1d4 points of damage on each successful attack. If the fighter is using a d10 weapon, he could make attack a single target for 1d10 damage, two targets for 1d8 each, t...

 A while back I wrote about how the B/X fighter was underpowered relative to other classes, and offered some ideas to help bring it up to par. Perhaps even more underwhelming, though, is the thief class.  The thief, as an archetype and concept, has a lot going for it. Tricksters, opportunists, sneaks, knaves, and rogues of all stripes fit neatly under the thief banner. There's a lot of potential for players who relish the idea of succeeding by wit, cunning, and deceit rather than magic or combat prowess. The time-honored rule of awarding experience points primarily for treasure recovered rather than monsters slain or any other metric seems practically tailor-made for thieves. Unfortunately, the thief class as written in Classic D&D has some really glaring problems that make it a difficult and frustrating one to play. Many have complained about the class's d4 Hit Dice, a gripe which wholly misses the mark in my opinion. Thieves are not meant to be durable stand-up fighters....