Mordenkainen's Tome Of Foes Showing Up In The Wild -- See These Preview Shots!

That tweet seems to have disappeared quickly - I can't find it on his account, unless I'm missing something. And it's not surprising if it has been removed as it's a month before even the FLGS release date!

 

[Demetrios1453]

Roll20 has it for preorder and there is some info. I don’t know if any of it is new.

https://marketplace.roll20.net/browse/compendiumexpansion/4/mordenkainens-tome-of-foes

The "over 230 new monsters" is new, we had assumed only 100 or so from the previous "dozens of monsters" in the blurbs. That's a significantly larger than expected amount of stat blocks!

 

[ShinHakkaider]

Hiya!



Hmmm. The NPC's of "D&D" (regardless of campaign setting), are effectively all ready established. If I was to introduce them into my campaign...even if it's in the 'correct' world (Greyhawk for Mordenkainen, Elminster from Forgotten Realms, Tika (Tikka?) for Dragonlance, etc)...they would come "pre-cooked" so so say. When one of their names is in the title of the book...how can everything in the book NOT be 'related' to them? Like if some manager at a Starbucks does something supposedly bad, and then suddenly ALL of Starbucks employees of EVERY outlet are seen as "potentially bad" so people boycott Starbucks.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

I thought we weren't supposed to be discussing real-world politics and race issues here?

 

[Vanveen]

I'd argue it's not so much about politics as it is about framing. But I do psych research, so. People associate Starbucks with a negative experience...and they judge it as negative because millions of people sent strong signals that it is negative. As apes who somehow learned to go to space, we still spend most of our time figuring out the world by looking at what the other apes are doing and how they feel about things.

pming has got it right. Positioning the book as "Mordenkainen's" is intended to evoke a range of associations with branded D and D product, just as that famous white ribbon (and even a certain shade of red) evokes Coca-Cola. Much of this association happens at an unconscious or preconscious level--you don't think it's working, but it is, just not on a level you can think about using language. Many people resist this--"Ads have no effect on me!" But they do. Brand-focused advertising works, which is why you see so much of it. It doesn't work as well as advertisers want it to, a subtle distinction, but believe me it works.

I've often said that 5e is a much better *product*, but not really a better *game* than the OSR. I don't like the "specified" or "precooked" flavor of much 5e products. "Gnomes are like this: here's what they say and do in great detail. Oh, and if you like gnomes, go read the adventures of Burglebut Arcanafeather, wacky steampunk tinker illusionist, in these 57 novels!" For a DM like me who spends a lot of time building emotionally resonant settings based on archetypes, this kind of thing is worthless at best, completely irritating at worst. It's crap by hacks, frankly. This stuff doesn't have to be great art, although it'd be nice to see someone try, but a lot of times it's like going to some hick high school play. With, inexplicably, $40 tickets.

I'd prefer to think of the game as software. The rules are Linux (they'd have to be more complete and stable to get to Linux status, but I digress). The "programs" and "apps" are where you put all the meta-decisions about what gnomes are like (and where you make your money, not with trickling out "updates" to the OS that should have been handled in the first release). This kind of straightforward or "low flavor" rule set, like Gygax's earlier work, supports people like me AND people who are fans of Burglebut. That's healthier for the hobby, I think.

 

[Mistwell]

The halflings in 5e are actually a return of sorts to their 1e and 2e forms (Hobbits). The only thing missing is the hairy feet.

I disagree.

1e:

2e:

Those don't resemble the 5e halfling very much.

 

[Parmandur]

The "over 230 new monsters" is new, we had assumed only 100 or so from the previous "dozens of monsters" in the blurbs. That's a significantly larger than expected amount of stat blocks!

That may be misleading: there over 230 digital objects for Roll20, but if I recall correctly Volo's got slight inflated by things like multiplying Kobold stat blocks by six (for each Draconic type) when translated to Roll20.

Still, interesting. Also, full printable handouts for the Lord's of the Nine Hells, veeeery interesting.

 

[Elderbrain]

I don't understand why a grognard would object to Mordenkainen's name in a product, given that Mordenkainen and his associates have been in the core books since 1e (in names of spells, for instance: Mordenkainen's Sword, Bigby's Hand, Tenser's Floating Disc, Odoluke's something or other, Tasha's Hisdeous Laughter, etc.) The Hand and Eye of Vecna, and lots of other miscelanious bits from Greyhawk (named magic items, like Keogomen's Ointment)... but having Mordenkainen's name in the title of a product is a bridge too far?!?

 

[Elderbrain]

I disagree.

1e:

2e:

Those don't resemble the 5e halfling very much.

That's hardly the only picture of a Halfling in the core rulebooks.

 

[Mistwell]

That's hardly the only picture of a Halfling in the core rulebooks.

Agreed. And? Are you arguing those are not fair representations from those books, or that I need to post every single picture of all those races in all those core books in order to make the point? Because I think they are fairly representative and make the point pretty well. If you think I am misrepresenting them, then what's your evidence to the contrary?

 

[Vanveen]

I don't understand why a grognard would object to Mordenkainen's name in a product, given that Mordenkainen and his associates have been in the core books since 1e (in names of spells, for instance: Mordenkainen's Sword, Bigby's Hand, Tenser's Floating Disc, Odoluke's something or other, Tasha's Hisdeous Laughter, etc.) The Hand and Eye of Vecna, and lots of other miscelanious bits from Greyhawk (named magic items, like Keogomen's Ointment)... but having Mordenkainen's name in the title of a product is a bridge too far?!?

It's odd, isn't it? My feeling is that WOTC is *overspecifying*. Calling a spell "Mordenkainen's Sword" in 1e rules allows you to come up with the backstory or just shrug when players ask. Now Mordenkainen is a developed figure with a history that may or may not fit with yours...and if it's called "Mordenkainen's Sword" even if you ignore the published character his ghost, if you will, is hovering over the table.

Ironically, providing this detail makes *more* work for the DM while robbing him or her of choice and flexibility. I wouldn't mind as much except this seems to be a core rulebook, not a sourcebook.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

It's odd, isn't it? My feeling is that WOTC is *overspecifying*. Calling a spell "Mordenkainen's Sword" in 1e rules allows you to come up with the backstory or just shrug when players ask. Now Mordenkainen is a developed figure with a history that may or may not fit with yours...and if it's called "Mordenkainen's Sword" even if you ignore the published character his ghost, if you will, is hovering over the table.

Ironically, providing this detail makes *more* work for the DM while robbing him or her of choice and flexibility. I wouldn't mind as much except this seems to be a core rulebook, not a sourcebook.

Modenkainen was known to be a character back in 1e. And it does not really provide more work. As the answer is just the creator of this spell is a wizard named this. Also this is a source book Vanveen. It's a Monster and Lore book like Volo's Guide.