Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="John Cooper" data-source="post: 2212077" data-attributes="member: 24255">E. N. CRITTERS VOLUME 1: RUINS OF THE PALE JUNGLEBy Joshua Courtney, Robert Lajoie, Charles Lewis, Jim E. Vilandre, and Nancy VosnidouE. N. Publishing product number ENP771043-page PDF, $7.45I was really interested in seeing Ruins of the Pale Jungle, not so much because I was particularly interested in jungle creatures, but because this was (to the best of my knowledge) the first Monster Manual-like product from the creative minds of E. N. Publishing, and I was eager to see what they'd come up with.  Those of you who have read my previous reviews know that I'm a fan of monsters, and an even bigger fan of correct monster stats.  How would Ruins of the Pale Jungle turn out?Not very well, as it turns out.  In fact, "amateurish" is the first word to come to mind.The PDF is 42 pages (43 with the cover), formatted in a "portrait" (as opposed to "landscape") configuration.  The cover art, by Jeffrey LeBoeuf (going by the initials in the corner and the artists listed on the credits page) is a colored sketch of a step pyramid, with jungle foliage in the foreground and a snake twining around a branch overhead.  The coloring job was nicely done - I particularly like the shading of the sky - but it suffers a bit in being a sketch; there is little detail present.  Still, as the authors were kind enough to explain that their primary goal with the artwork was to minimize file size, I won't ding them for the general sketchiness and lack of detail in the cover or the interior art.Speaking of which, the interior artwork consists of 33 black-and-white and 3 color pictures by four artists: Allen Kerswell, Jeffrey LeBoeuf, Matthew Lyons, and Mike McMenemey.  This runs a bit of a gamut, from some nicely-shaded pieces like the baya tumbili gorilla head on page 9, the water-dripping, stone-bodied kithrotto on page 24, and the bulbous sandtrapper plant on page 33, to the silly-looking (the banyaba on page 7 - supposedly a jungle dryad-child - looks like a Muppet), the cartoony (the panicked monkeys escaping from the detritus lurker on 15 look like they escaped from a Disney cartoon), to the anatomically incorrect (it looks like Jeffrey just plain got lazy when it came to the "spots" on the fur of the balam chac's jaguar form on page 5).  Still, the hands-down winner of the worst picture is arguably the parryn on page 29: the poor thing looks like an overly-happy baseball mascot wearing a bird costume, taking a breather with its "bird mask" off.  How in the world am I supposed to treat the parryn as a sensible race with that staring me in the face?  I just can't.  My other complaint in the art department is that several pieces are hardly worth the effort it took to attach them to the PDF.  I'm not sure what purpose the creators thought was being served by adding a half-inch by inch-and-a-half picture of a pair of eyes to stand in for an illustration of baya tumbili spawn, but it doesn't really add much to the entry.  Likewise, there's a line drawing of some sort of flylike insect on page 19 whose purpose I have yet to discern, as it's neither the jungle drake on that page nor the earthbound on the next, and it has only two body segments (the head and thorax - no abdomen!).  Overall, I'd rate the artwork as quite a bit lower than average, but I appreciate the authors at least stating the reasons behind it.The first thing I noticed about Ruins of the Pale Jungle was the proofreading and editing job - or, perhaps I should say the lack thereof.  Robert Lajoie is listed in the credits as the d20 Line Manager & Editor, so he's going to bear the brunt of my complaints in this department (and please correct me if I'm making an incorrect assumption, Robert, but there's no proofreader listed in the credits for me to pick on).  Hoo boy!  Where to start?  I guess I could just cut to the chase and mention that while reading this 42-page PDF, I documented 9 pages of errors - that's both sides of four sheets of paper (legal-sized paper, mind you), and one side of a fifth; easily more errors per page than I can recall in any other d20 product I've reviewed to date.  (The last product I made such a big stink about this level of poor proofreading was The Quintessential Sorcerer, and I only compiled 5 pages of errors on that one - and it was a 128-page book!)  The biggest error by far was a definite misunderstanding of simple punctuation principles; apostrophe usage was particularly bad - I'll bet at least a full page of the nine was spent documenting times when "it's" was used to denote possessiveness.  It's enough to make an English teacher cry.Then, of course, there were the monster stats.  Quite a few of them had errors; in fact, of the 38 monster stats appearing in Ruins of the Pale Jungle, only 8 emerged error-free from my one-time read through the PDF.  That works out to be 78.9% of the monster stats having a problem in them somewhere - definitely not good.  For the record, here are the changes I recommend making to the monster stats that appear in Ruins of the Pale Jungle: <ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">p. 3, Animus: AC should be 17, not 14 (+1 size, +3 Dex, +3 deflection).  Touch AC should be 17, not 14 (+1 size, +3 Dex, +3 deflection).  Flat-footed AC should be 14, not 11 (+1 size, +3 deflection).  (It looks like they just forgot about the Charisma-based deflection bonus all incorporeal creatures get.)  The creature's description mentions the "beast" creature type, something that should have been excised from a product using the 3.5 version of the D&D rules.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">p. 4, Arach: Poison Fort save should be DC 15, not DC 14 (10 + 1/2 HD + Con modifier = 10 + 4 + 1).</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">p. 6, Balam Chac, Hybrid Form: The creature's +1 keen dagger should have a critical threat range of 17-20 (as under Full Attack), not 15-20 (as under Attack).</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">p. 6, Balam Chac, Godlike Jaguar Form: Flat-footed AC should be 21, not 25 (-4 size, +15 natural).  Claw attacks should be at +30 melee, not +32 (+22 BAB, -4 size, +12 Str).  Bite attacks should be at +28 melee, not +30 (+22 BAB, -4 size, +12 Str, -2 for a secondary attack with Multiattack).  Fort should be +22, not +16 (+13 as a 22-HD outsider, +9 Con).  Frightful Presence Will save should be DC 27, not DC 26 (10 + 1/2 HD + Cha modifier = 10 + 11 + 6).</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">p. 7, Banyaba: Grapple attacks should be at -4, not +0 (+2 BAB, -2 Str, -4 size).</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">p. 10, Baya Tumbili, Incorporeal Form: Shouldn't "possess gorilla" be considered a Special Attack?  The description goes out of its way to mention that the baya tumbili has no Special Attacks, then describes how it can automatically possess any gorilla within 30 feet.  Also, why do awakened gorillas get a DC 14 Will save to avoid this fate, when the very similar "dominate apes" Special Attack has a DC 15?  The DC should be 14 if it's Charisma-based and 15 if it's Wisdom-based; neither is specified, but you'd think both attacks would be based on the same ability.  Finally, Special Qualities should include "weaknesses" - not all Special Qualities are necessarily beneficial.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">p. 10, Baya Tumbili, Possessed Gorilla Form: Special Qualities should include "weaknesses" - not all Special Qualities are necessarily beneficial.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">p. 10, Baya Tumbili Spawn: Flat-footed AC should be 16, not 18 (-1 size, +7 natural).  Special Qualities should include "weaknesses" - not all Special Qualities are necessarily beneficial.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">p. 12, Colony Spiders: HD should be 1/2d8+1, not 1/2d8 (+1 Con bonus).  As a result, average hit points should be 3, not 2.  Poison Fort save should be DC 11, not DC 10 (10 + 1/2 HD + Con modifier = 10 + 0 + 1).  Escape Artist checks to escape from the web should be DC 7, not DC 10 (10 + 1/2 HD + Str modifier = 10 + 0 - 3).  Strength checks to escape from the web should be DC 11, not DC 14 (10 + 1/2 HD + Str modifier + racial bonus = 10 + 0 - 3 + 4).</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">p. 13, Creeper Cat: Bite damage should be 1d6+1, not 1d6+2 (half of its +3 Str bonus; round fractions down).  Also, this creature was apparently called a "camocat" at one time, but they forgot to replace one of the usages of its previous name.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">p. 14, Demon, Pashinor: Either Initiative should be +6, not +10 (it has a +6 Dex modifier), or it should have Improved Initiative as a bonus feat.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">p. 16, Detritus Lurker: Grapple attacks should be at +24, not +23 (+9 BAB, +8 size, +7 Str).  Slam attacks should be at +14 melee, not +13 (+9 BAB, -2 size, +7 Str).</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">p. 16, Detritus Lurker (Swamp): With HD 25d10+225, average hit points should be 362, not 363 (round fractions down).</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">p. 17, Devil, Bloodhunter (Coagadirra): With HD 12d8+60, average hit points should be 114, not 104.  Claw attacks should be at +17 melee, not +18 (+12 BAB, +5 Str).  Also, given that its claws do 2d6+5 points of damage (+5 Str), you'd think its "impale" damage would either be 2d8+5 (Str modifier of +5) or 2d8+7 (1.5 x Str modifier of +5), not 2d8+6.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">p. 18, Dragon, Jungle Drake: With HD 30d12+300, average hit points should be 495, not 395.  (I'm sure that extra 100 hp is going to make a significant difference in most battles!)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">p. 20, Earthbound Ogre: Greatclub damage should be 2d8+12, not 2d8+11 (1.5 x Str modifier of +8).  Slam damage should be 1d8+8, not 1d8+11 (+8 Str).  Under Feats, Weapon Focus should specify "(greatclub)."</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">p. 23, Haze Horror: With HD 6d12, average hit points should be 39, not 42.  Will should be +6, not +5 (+5 as a 6-HD undead, +1 Wis).  Also, as per the "Notes & Game Balance" section, the creature should have the "(Fire)" subtype.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">p. 24, Kithrotto: Under Advancement, 15 HD is listed as both Large and Huge; it should be split up as either 9-14 HD/15-25 HD or 9-15 HD/16-25 HD.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">p. 26, Leafling Warrior: The Organization line refers to "dire monkeys" - where is the information on these creatures found?  (It's certainly not part of this PDF or in the SRD.)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">p. 26, Leafling Shaman, Sor4/Rog2: Fort should be +3, not +5 (+1 as a Sor4, +0 as a Rog2, +2 Con).</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">p. 27, Leafling Ancestor, Sor6: Speed should specify that this is a fly speed.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">p. 27, Greater Leafling Ancestor, Sor 11: With HD 11d12, average hit points should be 71, not 77.  60 feet does not equal 8 squares; its fly speed (not specified as such, by the way) should either read "60 ft. (12 squares) (perfect)" or "40 ft. (8 squares) (perfect)."  Bite attacks should be at +8 melee, not just "+8."  Will should be +8, not +9 (+7 as a Sor11, +1 Wis).</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">p. 31, Root Roper: With HD 9d10+9, average hit points should be 88, not 94.  Bite damage should be 1d8+4, not 1d8+3 (1.5 x Str modifier of +3).  With 9 HD, it should have 4 feats, not just 3.  16 HD is listed under Advancement as being both Medium (10-16 HD) and Large (16-24 HD).</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">p. 33, Sand Trapper: First of all, the creature's name should be "sandtrapper" (one word), not "sand trapper" - at least, that's how the creature's referred to umpteen times in its description.  Alluring Scent Will save should be DC 14, not DC 11 (10 + 1/2 HD + Con modifier = 10 + 2 + 2).</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">p. 37, Swarm, Piranha Bird: With HD 3d8, average hit points should be 13, not 14 (rounds fractions down).</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">p. 38, Swarm, Vermilliants: Flat-footed AC should be 14, not 16 (+4 size).</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">p. 39, Ocelot: Initiative should be +1, not +2 (Dex 13 means a +1 Dex modifier).  AC should be 12, not 13 (+1 size, +1 Dex).  Touch AC should be 12, not 13 (+1 size, +1 Dex).  The Attack line reads "Claw melee (1d3-1)" - it should specify "+2 melee."  Under Full Attack, claw attacks should be at +2 melee, not +3 (+0 BAB, +1 size, +1 Str/Dex), and bite attacks should be at -3 melee, not -2 (+0 BAB, +1 size, +1 Str/Dex, -5 for secondary attack).  Claw damage should be 1d3+1, not 1d3-1 (Str 12 means a +1 Str modifier).  Bite damage should be 1d4+1, not 1d4-1 (+1 Str).  Ref should be +3, not +4 (+2 as a 1-HD animal, +2 Dex).  With Str 12 and Dex 13, Weapon Finesse is a useless feat, even if it is a bonus feat.  (Of course, if you bump Dex up to 14 or 15, then the AC values, Initiative, Full Attack attack bonuses, and Reflex entries all fall into place as written; in that case, the claw attack under Attack should be +3 melee (+1 size, +2 Dex).)  No Alignment is given; it should be "Always neutral."  (Yes, I realize it's an animal and thus "always neutral" is a given, but unlike the Monster Manual it doesn't state that anywhere in the PDF, and there's more than enough white space on this page to fit the extra line in.)  Finally, in the Skills description, it says that the ocelot "swims well," yet the stats do not include a swim speed and the creature has no ranks in the Swim skill.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">p. 39, Peccary: HD should be 2d8+7, not 2d8+4 (due to the Toughness feat).  As a result, average hit points should be 16, not 13.  Of course, with 2 HD, it should only have 1 feat, not 2 as listed, so you can either delete the Toughness feat (and ignore my corrections above), or make one of its two feats a bonus feat.  No Alignment is given; it should be "Always neutral."  </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">p. 40, Quickdeath Snake: BAB should be +1, not +0 (as a 2-HD animal).  Grapple attacks should be at -10. not -11 (+1 BAB, -8 size, -3 Str).  Bite attacks should be at +5 melee, not +4 (+1 BAB, +2 size, +2 Dex with Weapon Finesse).  Fort should be +5, not +4 (+3 as a 2-HD animal, +2 Con).  Ref should be +5, not +4 (+3 as a 2-HS animal, +2 Dex).  It's admittedly very picky of me to point this out, but the creature's two feats should be alphabetized.  No Alignment is given; it should be "Always neutral."  </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">p. 40, Spitting Asp: AC should be 18, not 16 (+5 Dex, +3 natural).  Touch AC should be 15, not 13 (+5 Dex).  Bite damage should include "plus poison."  Under the Poison description, mention is made of the asp's poison paralyzing its prey, but this is not mentioned in the poison stats (it only mentions Str damage and blindness, depending upon whether the venom is injected into the prey's body through a bite or spat into its eyes).  No Alignment is given; it should be "Always neutral."</li> </ul>There were also several references to non-SRD creatures, like yuan-ti, displacer beasts, and tanar'ri, that will have to be excised from the product.  Fortunately, Ruins of the Pale Jungle is a PDF, and I make it a point to type up my list of errors and email them to the PDF's editor in the hopes that they can be corrected.  (It's obviously much easier to make corrections to an electronic product that it is to reprint a book.)  It'll probably take me several hours to type up all of the mistakes I noted in this PDF, but I intend to follow the suggestion printed on page 41 - "Please send suggestions and feedback on the content to: <a href="mailto:beardeddragon@gmail.com">beardeddragon@gmail.com</a>" [edit: apparently that should read <a href="mailto:beardeddragonpublications@gmail.com">beardeddragonpublications@gmail.com</a>] - and let them have my list of corrections.  With any luck, the PDF will be corrected without too much of a delay, and people plunking down their $7.45 might actually get something closer to their money's worth.  (I notice that Ruins of the Pale Jungle is also available as a print product; naturally, I don't recommend buying it in that format just yet.)  [Additional edit: The product has been fixed to the point where I no longer recommend holding off purchasing the print product - see comments below, after the review.]Okay, so besides the poor proofreading and poor quality control on the monster stats, how did I like Ruins of the Pale Jungle?  Well, it was okay.  To their credit, the authors did pretty much confine their creativity to jungle-related monsters, and they managed to get in a wide variety of both creature types and challenge ratings.  (Of the 38 stat blocks, we've got 1 aberration, 5 animals, 1 construct, 1 dragon, 1 elemental, 1 fey, 3 humanoids, 2 magical beasts, 1 monstrous humanoid, 2 oozes, 5 outsiders, 3 plants, 9 undead, and 3 vermin (and 1 template), with challenge ratings from 1/3 to 20.)  I particularly liked the "Notes and Game Balance" section at the end of each creature's entry, where the authors explain how the creature in question stacks up against other monsters of the same CR, or else describes how the creature was designed (often using an existing monster from the SRD as a starting point).  I really enjoy such "behind the scenes" peeks at the creative process.  I also really appreciated the fact that page 41 gives full credit to the author(s) and artist for each specific monster in Ruins of the Pale Jungle.  That's a classy move, giving credit where credit is due (or blame, as the case may be), and one that I wish more game companies would do.However, despite its name, Ruins of the Pale Jungle doesn't really have that much information on the Pale Jungle itself.  On page 2 we learn that the Pale Jungle gets its name from the "bleached out" look of much of its ground cover, and although several possibilities are given as to why this might be, no conclusive answer is provided.  Sadly, that's about it as far as background goes; those hoping for a map of the Pale Jungle as a "drop-in" location to add to their campaign world are in for a disappointment.  Ruins of the Pale Jungle is simply a monster book, nothing more.Despite the fact that I'm hoping my list of corrections will eventually improve what the authors of this PDF have created, I really have to rate it as it stands now, and I honestly feel it deserves a rating of "2 (Poor)."  It's a nice concept, but the presentation is particularly bad.  An additional round of proofreading/editing (or, for that matter, an initial round - I'm not convinced this PDF was ever proofread at all!) would certainly have helped.  As it stands, I'm a little bit insulted that the creative team actually expects people to shell out $7.45 for this work - either they have a low opinion of the typical gamer's education and mastery of the English language or are blissfully ignorant about their own shortcomings in these areas.  Either way, I'm not impressed.However, Ruins of the Pale Jungle is merely the first in a series of similar monster books, so I hold out hope that future volumes in the series will be much better.</blockquote>

Verification