2006 WotC D&D Product Survivor - Player's Handbook II is the sole survivor!

[Greg K]

For me, the reasons are as follows:

1.) FC1 did a better job remaining faithful to the canon of every edition of the game. It melded things from OD&D, 1E, and 2E with greater success than FC2. To me, that's a big boon. To those who dislike the canon fiends, I can see why they'd prefer FC2.

2.) FC1 went into greater detail on the layers it presented. Despite the fact that the layers of the Abyss are infinite, and the Hells limited to nine, the FC1 layers felt more developed.

3.) The obyriths. FC1 ran with the idea of the pre-tanar'ri demons and really expanded the game by developing the obyriths. FC2 chose to simply ignore the ancient Baatorians.

4.) FC2 made some poor design decisions when updating some of the fiends (or choosing not to, in the case of the kocrachon). The nerfing of the amnizu's spell-like abilities, for example.

5.) FC1 did a better job compiling all the non-primary-focused unique demons than FC2 did with the dukes of Hell, for example.

FC2 is a great book. I'd peg it 2nd best for the year. It just doesn't live up to FC1, IMHO.

I also agree with everything Shade said

 

[Cthulhudrew]

c) How many people got confused? I've seen none that fessed up so far, and it would need to be greater than 30 FCII fans that couldn't vote right to make a difference at this point. (assuming 100% correct voting by PHBII fans)

*raises hand*

I confess, I didn't read the question before voting. I'd have voted for the PHB II, rather than the Fiendish Codex had I done so (fortunately, the PHB II is winning, so my misvote doesn't really matter).

You're right, though- given the "Survivor" theme, the final vote really should be cast for the one that you think deserves it. I should have known better.

 

[sckeener]

For me, the reasons are as follows:

1.) FC1 did a better job remaining faithful to the canon of every edition of the game. It melded things from OD&D, 1E, and 2E with greater success than FC2. To me, that's a big boon. To those who dislike the canon fiends, I can see why they'd prefer FC2.

2.) FC1 went into greater detail on the layers it presented. Despite the fact that the layers of the Abyss are infinite, and the Hells limited to nine, the FC1 layers felt more developed.

3.) The obyriths. FC1 ran with the idea of the pre-tanar'ri demons and really expanded the game by developing the obyriths. FC2 chose to simply ignore the ancient Baatorians.

4.) FC2 made some poor design decisions when updating some of the fiends (or choosing not to, in the case of the kocrachon). The nerfing of the amnizu's spell-like abilities, for example.

5.) FC1 did a better job compiling all the non-primary-focused unique demons than FC2 did with the dukes of Hell, for example.

FC2 is a great book. I'd peg it 2nd best for the year. It just doesn't live up to FC1, IMHO.

Shade that was a great sum up of my feelings for FC1. Thanks for saying what I wanted to say.

I agree that FC2 is the 2nd best book for 2006, but they also faced a harder time fixing all the histories of hell. In the end, I think there was no way they could please everyone.

 

[BryonD]

For me, the reasons are as follows:

1.) FC1 did a better job remaining faithful to the canon of every edition of the game. It melded things from OD&D, 1E, and 2E with greater success than FC2. To me, that's a big boon. To those who dislike the canon fiends, I can see why they'd prefer FC2.

2.) FC1 went into greater detail on the layers it presented. Despite the fact that the layers of the Abyss are infinite, and the Hells limited to nine, the FC1 layers felt more developed.

As I mentioned in the other thread, this all fell under me paying them to play the game for me, as far as I'm concerned.
I strongly felt that FCII focused much better on providing tools for making your future game better while FCI droned on with a pointless review of the past.

3.) The obyriths. FC1 ran with the idea of the pre-tanar'ri demons and really expanded the game by developing the obyriths. FC2 chose to simply ignore the ancient Baatorians.

I loved this part.

4.) FC2 made some poor design decisions when updating some of the fiends (or choosing not to, in the case of the kocrachon). The nerfing of the amnizu's spell-like abilities, for example.

meh... Not even on my radar.

And if nerfing is going to be criticized then FCI takes the hit as far as I'm concerned.

5.) FC1 did a better job compiling all the non-primary-focused unique demons than FC2 did with the dukes of Hell, for example.

Maybe. But only as part of the whole misplaced focus I already mentioned.

 

[Zaukrie]

I found the redundancy between the details of the Rulers of Hell, and the information in the layers section annoying. I just didn't get inspired to run a Hell's based campaign like I did one that is influenced by the Abyss - not even close for me. Other than agreeing with Shade, I'm not sure how to put it in words.

PHBII will, does, see significant use at my table - it is a better product.
FCI is better than FCII, and I think RHoD is the best adventure I've seen in a long time.

 

[Shade]

As I mentioned in the other thread, this all fell under me paying them to play the game for me, as far as I'm concerned.
I strongly felt that FCII focused much better on providing tools for making your future game better while FCI droned on with a pointless review of the past.

To each their own. I'd prefer a unified, cohesive backstory that jives well with my campaign prior to the book's release any time. I sure don't ever feel like they're playing the game for me.

And if nerfing is going to be criticized then FCI takes the hit as far as I'm concerned.

I assume you're referring to the demon lords? True, but if they'd applied the "avatar of" before them (as apparently they intended during development), that wouldn't be an issue.

Maybe. But only as part of the whole misplaced focus I already mentioned.

Once again, that's a matter of taste. I'm just curious, if you don't care for the canon Abyss/Hells, why bother including them at all? Wouldn't you prefer a more free-form toolkit for designing your own planar rulers?

 

[Arnwyn]

I sure don't ever feel like they're playing the game for me.

Hell, I don't even know what that means!

 

[Stalker0]

This is how the show does it and it is pointed out multiple times to be sure and read the question.

There comes a point where if people can't be bothered to read the post, whose changes are pointed out in two major places, then they shouldn't be voting

 

[severine]

duh

of course FC2 was way better than PH2, and yet still FC1 kicks tail

 

[Jakar]

I don't think people are reading the question. There is no way the PHBII is better than FC2 (or 1 for that matter).

In your opinion of course. I think it is a much better product all round.