Expedition to Underwhelm-ountain!

[BlackMoria]

I don't have the book but I do have the 2E Undermountain boxed set, therefore, I may be talking about something I don't full grasp - lacking the Expedition book.

That said, the presentation seems about the same as the 2E boxed set, namely:

Large sections of undetailed rooms,

Encounter areas with no overriding context (like an adventure) to link them together,

A series of vignettes (I wouldn't call them adventures proper),

A series of plot hooks and idea on how to develop a Undermountain campaign.

That is how 2E Undermountain was presented and it sounds like the Expedition to Undermountain uses the same presentation.

Now, I understand that given the presentation of past 'Expedition to ______' and 'Return to ____' have been in the past, why people are upset since WOTC deviated from the format that everyone assumed was the norm. In that regard, that is a bad call on their part and the second time that people have had their disappointed expectations. The first time was the Mysteries of the Moonseas book which many FR fans assumed would be a sourcebook like The Shining South or Unapproachable East books and were surprised it turned out to be a string of loosely connected adventures (I still have a serious knot in my face over that).

I throw this out - if the product was called 'Undermountain 3.5', would there be the same level of disappointment, since it appears this product seems to follow in the footsteps of the 2E boxed set?

 

[Faraer]

As has been said, you can't hope to fully describe Undermountain in a book this size. You either give thorough descriptions of a few levels or you overview the whole thing and detail small sections. You might argue that it shouldn't have been done without more pages, but I don't think it's reasonable to criticize the book for going the second way rather than the first. I do think it's fair to criticize it for specific map problems, the low density of content caused by the encounter format (and bloated 3E stat blocks), and the fact that it's a less vivid and idea-filled work than the original -- exacerbated by the Realms/'generic' compromise and the multiple authors.

The good stuff -- the already established Undermountain premise and history and factions, the brand new information on the lower levels, and some of the new rooms -- is really good; but there's less than 224 pages of it.

By the way, some of you may not know the Vanrakdoom sublevel is detailed here.

 

[rowport]

...

Now, I understand that given the presentation of past 'Expedition to ______' and 'Return to ____' have been in the past, why people are upset since WOTC deviated from the format that everyone assumed was the norm. In that regard, that is a bad call on their part and the second time that people have had their disappointed expectations. The first time was the Mysteries of the Moonseas book which many FR fans assumed would be a sourcebook like The Shining South or Unapproachable East books and were surprised it turned out to be a string of loosely connected adventures (I still have a serious knot in my face over that).

I throw this out - if the product was called 'Undermountain 3.5', would there be the same level of disappointment, since it appears this product seems to follow in the footsteps of the 2E boxed set?

I think you are right, BlackMoria. My only other critiques are the small maps being hard to read, and the ELs being too high for low-level characters, but consider both of those to be quibbles. Mostly, I was disappointed in that I expected a similar product to Expedition to Castle Ravenloft (which was *GREAT*) and found something else. On its own merits, I would still give it an average score, though, not a good one. I really thought it would be better. Shrug. Oh, well.

 

[cildarith]

Am I imagining things, or was this map ripped straight out of Axe of the Dwarvish Lords?

 

[Treebore]

Not a review - I took a quick flip at the local semi-FLGS, and was completely flabbergasted at the lack of any maps. At first,I assumed that perhaps the maps had fallen out, or were maybe being kept safe at the front counter. Nope. No maps. What gives, WotC?

Just serves as an example of why boxed sets are so well loved by some. The boxed sets of Undermountain are awesome! Not a "ho-hum" deal like this thing is.

 

[Faraer]

That is how 2E Undermountain was presented and it sounds like the Expedition to Undermountain uses the same presentation.

Not really. Ruins of Undermountain describes in detail most rooms of level 1 except those pasted onto the edges of the map, and key rooms in levels 2 and 3. Expedition details rooms visited in the course of its specific adventures into Halaster's halls.

Am I imagining things, or was this map ripped straight out of Axe of the Dwarvish Lords?

Eric Boyd has discussed that:

There is a reason for this, which has to do with a series of decisions that happened without foreknowledge of the next opportunity.

I first mentioned Vanrak's hidden lair back in Powers & Pantheons.

For fun, I decided to write Vanrakdoom up as a web enhancement for Champions of Ruin. However, there wasn't a map budget for that project, so I picked a "random" map off the Map of the Week maps on this website and used it. By chance, the map I picked was part of Axe of the Dwarvish Lords. (I didn't realize that when I picked the map for the WE. I thought those were new maps, as it was put on the website around the time that the Maps of the Week were new maps, not maps from products with tags removed.)

Then I mentioned Vanrakdoom in City of Splendors: Waterdeep, consistent with the CoR WE.

Then, long after, we were asked to map the various levels of UM. So, Vanrakdoom now existed as described in the WE, but with a map lifted from another product.