It's kind of a mixed bag question. But the big question is why is there such a huge emphasis on monsters in the first place? There are a ton of monsters in all editions of d&d, so why aren't there monsters discussed in Tolkien by the characters like this? There were a few, and either a large creature from the depths of hell that only struck one place, a giant spider who was content to be in her home and not be bothered by Hobbits, and an army of orc/goblin hybrids. In a d&d game, we are supposed to be attacked by several monsters, all different types, at any given time.

So I guess that's actually several questions, and they each have different answers. **Why does combat feature heavily in D&D?** It doesn't. Or at least, not necessarily. How much or little it features is dependent on your DM. **Ok, so why has it *historically* been featured heavily?** Because of D&D's lineage. The game evolved mechanically from wargames, where combat was the whole thing, and thematically from works like Conan the Barbarian and Tolkein, where fighting monsters featured prominently. **Why so many types of monsters, then, if works like The Hobbit only had a half dozen or so?** Because The Hobbit is a single story, whereas D&D is a framework for creating lots of stories. Maybe one short campaign or a campaign arc has as many monsters as a Tolkein story, but then you go on to the next arc, the next campaign, and you need something new. You can obviously recycle lots; orc bandits are different from orc soldiers are different from orc cultists. But with (tens of?) thousands of games going on continuously, year after year, there's always a demand for new content to slot in, and monster design is often a handy thing for DMs to outsource. Hence, there are a lot of kinds of monster because there is demand for them.

I think the simple answer is that DnD is a game focused on combat, so it'll have a lot of cool hostile creatures, while Lord of the Rings is focused on exploration and drama, so it'll have a lot of cool places and friendly creatures. But when I compile a mental list of all the fights in LotR + The Hobbit, they do feature quite a varied assortment of monsters. Trolls, orcs, spiders, a dragon, a balrog, wargs, nazghuls, ringwraits, wights, the watcher, olifants. Then there are the non-hostile monsters like ents, eagles, ghosts, and shape-shifters. So I'm not sure the enemy variety in DnD is that much greater in relation to the amount of time spent fighting.

Yes, however, to appease the pedants out there, saying Gygax and Arneson and the rest of the Geneva Lake crew "grew up on" DnD is a bit of a misnomer. They didn't grow up on it, they invented it, and they were well into adulthood at the time.

Agreed. It's why I have all of Kobold Press's supplemental monster books. Variety is the spice of life, and I'm constantly trying to find ways to make combat more engaging than just slugging it out with my players. Quirky stat blocks help me come up with scenarios.

Supplement books or make your own monsters. I love making a custom monster. I had really fun encounter with a custom ooze that could use engulf as a legendary action. Fun to have it chase the players around the map

Assuming they started in the crib, yes. If you were about 10 like in stranger things, that’s 60’s/70’s.

I just explain it as "LOL zombie apocalypse werewolf destroys your character if it puts them at zero hit points ... but 2024 5e thinks it's fine because they removed all its resists and regeneration". Or "It's a Carrion Crawler, failing one saving throw means you are permanently afflicted ... yes you get a new save every six seconds, but you automatically fail it forever".

Harold "Wisconsin" Johnson is the answer to your question. Actually got to meet him this past Sunday in Lake Geneva, WI at the "Dreams and Nightmares" Convention put on by the Wisconsin Historical society. Also got to meet Tom Wham, who is the original artist for many creatures in the original Monster Manual including the Beholder. Wisconsin Johnson was hired to to be an editor of the original first edition books. His degree from Northwestern University is listed as a BS in Biology. What that doesn't tell you is he minored in European and Eastern history. He has extensive knowledge of European, Middle Eastern, Sumerian and Asian mythologies. He used that knowledge to add to the AD&D compendium. He drove a lot of design and content in the 1e days at TSR as he was promoted very quickly after he was hired. Also, there is a AD&D Monster Manual II that is even larger than the original. As to why he is called "Wisconsin Johnson". He loves to wear hats, especially at conventions so that people could find him. He settled on wearing a Fedora exactly like Indiana Jones wore. Someone even called him "Indiana Johnson", but Harold stated emphatically that he was from Wisconsin. So the moniker Wisconsin Johnson was born. Yes, he was wearing his Fedora this past Sunday at the convention I attended.

I actually do not miss the powerful save-or-suck mechanics as "roll the dice to see if you get to keep playing" is more randomly punishing than fun IMO. But getting rid of damage type resistance doesn't make any sense, as that's one of the few ways weapon choice actually matters! Giving monsters better initiative seems like a good idea, because otherwise they risk dying without getting to actually do much. Making creatures like Gith and Gnoll, Aberrations and Fiends etc. makes sense, and gives a bit more meat to the creature types. But having them not be humanoids also seems really weird. Either they should be both, or "humanoid" should be renamed. So it really seems like a mixed bag to me. Good well implemented ideas, good poorly implemented ideas, as well as oversimplifications.