4E Creature Collection from Fiery Dragon

[Zaukrie]

My review at this point is based on a skim (with more detailed reading on one or two creatures).

The fluff is light, like the 4E MM, and I'd want more. There is the occassional piece of more fluff, but I really think that MMs suffer from being as generic as the current iterations. I have no idea how a new DM, that had not played the game much if at all, could build stuff around the lack of fluff. I'd hoped that since this was tied to a world that was supposedly going to be re-released, that we'd get more fluff.

 

[Scribble]

I must check this book out.

 

[Nebulous]

My review at this point is based on a skim (with more detailed reading on one or two creatures).

The fluff is light, like the 4E MM, and I'd want more. There is the occassional piece of more fluff, but I really think that MMs suffer from being as generic as the current iterations. I have no idea how a new DM, that had not played the game much if at all, could build stuff around the lack of fluff. I'd hoped that since this was tied to a world that was supposedly going to be re-released, that we'd get more fluff.

Edited: after buying this, i think it has MUCH more fluff than the 4e monster manual, and this is actually a fun book to read. Good job FD!

 

[PeelSeel2]

I got it. I like it. On a skim, monster's are low power like the MM. I really like Goodman Games on these points. They build their monster with some Whoop-ass installed.

 

[avin]

Keep in mind that even if fluff is condensed 4E style it's not generic, it's Scarred Lands fluff so it's probably sound better than the generic MM4E.

Even so, it's a must have for any 4E DMs.

I wish Wotc could make some arrangement to include that on Compendium!

And make miniatures for the Ratmen.

 

[Twowolves]

So this is just 4ed stats on a lot of the old Scarred Lands monsters, with the same artwork and no new fluff?

Damn, I was going to get this. I guess not now.

 

[Klaus]

So this is just 4ed stats on a lot of the old Scarred Lands monsters, with the same artwork and no new fluff?

Damn, I was going to get this. I guess not now.

There are over 50 pieces of new artwork. Just from me there are two new Aasatthi, a new Bat Devil, Angler Ooze, Vengaurak, Ratman, Spider-Eye Goblin, Valraven and Charfiends. FDP's Todd Secord did a lot of new pictures, including two new Proud, Narleth, Wrack Dragon, Crown and Hollow Naga and more. Rich Thomas contributed a few pictures as well.

Creature Collection 4e definitely has more fluff per page than the first MM. Some of the fluff entries are in fact quite long, like the Hollow Knights, Coreanic Steed and more. While I didn't compare to earlier CCs, the fluff has at least been re-organized and streamlined.

 

[Glyfair]

Monster list: number of statblocks in parenthesis

Asaath (6)
Barrow Worm (1)
Batfolk (3)
Blight Wolf (2)
Blood Moth (2)
Boar (3)
Charfiend (3)
Crocodile (4)
Deadly Plant (5)
Dragon, Wrath (8)
Dryad (2)
Dune Delver (3)
Fell Bird (7)
Flailing Dreadnaught (1)
Forge Beast (1)
Ghoul (7)
Giant (5)
Goblin (12)
Goblin Bear (1)
Golem (6)
Gorgon, Ghelspaian (4)
Hag (5)
Harpy (1)
Hill Howler (2)
Hollow Knight (2)
Horse (3)
Hound (5)
Iron Serpent (2)
Lethal Swarm (3)
Minotaur (2)
Mock Dragon (3)
Murder Sprite (2)
Naga (3)
Narleth (4)
Ooze (4)
Piscean (4)
Proud (5)
Ratfolk (7)
Roc (4)
Sandhulk (1)
Sandmasker (2)
Skeleton (5)
Slarecian Legacies (5)
Slaver's Pet (1)
Slon (2)
Snake (4)
Specter (3)
Sphinx (1)
Spider (8)
Totem (3)
Trogodon (4)
Troll (3)
Unhallowed (4)
Unicorn (1)
Vengaurak (4)
Wraith (2)
Wyvern (2)
Zombie (7


Templates (Envenomed Beast, Hex Creature, Hydran Beast, Multi-Armed Creature, Soulless,)

 

[Glyfair]

As for "fluff," to me it is comparing close to the AD&D MM. You can argue about quality, but the amount is about the same (several monster groups have most of a page of description).

Art is comparable to the first Creature Collection, IMO (if you throw out the few abysmal pictures in the original).

 

[haaz]

There are no new stuff (I didn't check exactly, but no fluff entry seemed really new). To the authors, here you have some feedback:

* some times you use eladrin, elsewhere forsaken elves, and even elf-flok in an entry to describe the forsaken elves. I suggest that you use only one term, and don't change anywhere.

* Furthermore, you used "eladrins" to describe Urian elves. According to the Ghelspad Campaign Setting, Urian elves are relatives from the wooden elves of the Ganjus. In fact, the Uria realm was just created during the Divine War. So I would think that the Urian elves are the same race than the Ganjus elves, and since I think that the Ganjus elves are 4e elves and not eladrins, therefore I think that Urian elves are 4e elves and not eladrins.

* some piece of arts are "eaten" by stat blocks (I don't remembre exactly which however, but the Narleth is one of those)

* there are some layout problems with the stat blocs of the pisceans

* I would have prefered information on the races of the Scarred Lands, or more archetypes, or information on the Scarred Lands, instead of Appendix 2 and 2A. Furthermore, your book won't attract any new player (or GM) to the Scarred Lands: the world is nowhere described, even if its only 1 page, and a short description of the main gods and titans!

* So it's a really great work, I enjoyed reading it, but it might still be improved.

EDIT
* Some spider-like monsters indicate in their typical encounters dark elves. In Scarred Lands, dark elves does not have that special relation with spiders like in other typical fantasy campaign setting. I would suggest to rework those entries...