Fiend Folio contents

[Limper]

Lost Cavens of Tsogcanth and Barrier Peaks for the most part... and it bothered me back then. The original Folio wasn't to bad Drow, Kuo toa, and Snerfnebeniunuinmen (sp?) screw it! Deep Gnomes are all I remember.

I know they're going to do it... its an old tradition in RPGland. But please dont insult me with tripe... just do it. Whatever you say wont help the outcries... if your so worried about the uproar... don't recycle critters... then there wont be 'those' complaints.

 

[NiTessine]

"And, lest anyone freak out over "recycled" monsters, keep in mind that those critters are (1) really cool monsters (2) easily accessible and (3) now 100% official."

1) Maybe

2) How weren't they before.

3) So What? Was I not supposed to use them before?

What a lame attempt to make people feel better about reprints. '03 is shaping up to be the least creative year in WotC history.

1) A matter of taste.

2) Well, you did have to either print them from your computer or have the sourcebook at the gaming table. Now they are in the same book, at least. And they have art, which is one thing the website features of then lacks.

3) Agreed. For a home campaign, whether it is official or unofficial WotC has little bearing, as long as they haven't miscalculated the CR again.

I do disagree about 'least creative year in WotC history' though. This is just one book, and they did say the majority of the monsters are all new. Savage Species was hardly unoriginal, and the closest thing there's ever been to Ghostwalk is Wraith: the Oblivion which cannot even be compared due to genre differences and setting mood. The Revised corebooks are reworking of old material, sure, but they will be useful.

 

[Limper]

I'm not saying that some might find this year useful... but most of this year is 3.5 which is rehash. Fiend Folio I think thers been about 50 or so critters in Dragon and Modules that could still be reprinted... thats about half of the New right there.

'Ghostwalk' is SKR and Monte neither of which work directly for WotC.

'Savage Species was a complicated rehash of the ELH for creatures from Dragon a while back. Useful and I liked it but it wasn't 'New'.

Its just a pretty dry year for 'New' WotC stuff they have alot of reprint/rehash on the menu.

CR? I'm sure it will be different but likely still bent. There is just to much to calculate in... it'll always be bent.

 

[Gez]

Wasn't Baalzebul originally Baalzebub?

I prefer his French name, Belzebuth. Though the "bub" sound fit well with his new slug shape.

According to a few websites I dug up, Dispater was a Roman death god.

I thought it was Orcus. But maybe both. I've also heard that the killer whales were named orca by Romans because they thought they were fiendish dolphins... Also, "ogre" is a corruption of orcus; and Tolkien coined the word "orc" from "orcus".

 

[Alzrius]

'Ghostwalk' is SKR and Monte neither of which work directly for WotC.

That doesn't matter. WotC is still the publisher of the book, ergo, it comes from them. Whether it was WotC's original idea and they wanted Monte and SKR to make it, or those two decided that they wanted WotC to be the ones they sold their idea to, in the end its from WotC with no arm-twisting involved, so you can't write it off just because it's written by freelancers.

Savage Species was a complicated rehash of the ELH for creatures from Dragon a while back. Useful and I liked it but it wasn't 'New'.

Incorrect. First, the ECL's (not ELH) from that issue of Dragon were not used in whole (and possibly not even in part either) in Savage Species since only some monsters had ECL values added. Furthermore, that article had so little material, its ridiculous to compare it to Savage Species. The book had lots of new spells, feats, PrCs, templates, and more, along with specified rules on how to create and balance monsters. The overlap between Savage Species and the article you're referring to is far, far less than 1% of the text. Ergo, it is indeed "new".

Its just a pretty dry year for 'New' WotC stuff they have alot of reprint/rehash on the menu.

Only the Fiend Folio and, to a degree, the revised Core Rulebooks will be reprints of things we've seen before. Other products such as Ghostwalk, Savage Species, Races of Faerun, Unapproachable East, Arms & Equipment Guide, the Dragonlance Campaign Setting and more ensure that this will not be a dry year for WotC in any sense of the word.

CR? I'm sure it will be different but likely still bent. There is just to much to calculate in... it'll always be bent.

Now that just seems pessimistic. There's no reason to assume it will always be bent. It seems pretty accurate to me.

Originally posted by Gez
I thought it was Orcus. But maybe both.

I did a search for "Orcus" at dictionary.com and it had him listed as being the Roman god of the dead, Pluto (in addition to the name of the place also). Seems that they had quite a few names for the same deities.

 

[Darrin Drader]

In the old old old Dragon article, "Politics of Hell" (from issue 30-something, I think...) it talks about how Beelzebub took over after Satan was overthrown and exiled from Hell. However, he was ineffectual as a ruler, and eventually had to step down in favor of Asmodeus by pressure from other devils. Part of doing so was that he change his name to Baalzebul so the old rituals involving his (previous) name would no longer work.

All these years I thought it was Baalzebub. I dug out my 1st edition Monster Manual I and looked it up, and sure enough, Baalzebul it is. So, either I was misreading it all those years, or I am misremembering what I thought I was reading. Anyway, I still like his old form better, and I would have much preferred to see the 3rd edition rendition of the lord of the flies rather than the lord of the slugs!

Oh well. No point in whining about it now.

 

[kenjib]

Only the Fiend Folio and, to a degree, the revised Core Rulebooks will be reprints of things we've seen before. Other products such as Ghostwalk, Savage Species, Races of Faerun, Unapproachable East, Arms & Equipment Guide, the Dragonlance Campaign Setting and more ensure that this will not be a dry year for WotC in any sense of the word.

Arms & Equipment Guide has some reprinted material.

 

[Alzrius]

Arms & Equipment Guide has some reprinted material.

Some, but not a lot. I figure that since only a bit of it is reprinted (whereas the Fiend Folio will be mostly reprinted monsters and the Revised Core Rulebooks will be more the same than not) that it deserves mention along with the rest of the products I said.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi Information mate!

I've only just returned to Enworld, and gaming in general, after months of voluntary exile.

Good to have you back mate!

I've noticed that Fiend Folio 3E will soon become a reality, and I'm interested in D&D 3.5.

Looking forward to all the above myself.

I'd like to know if the archdevils and demon lords will be reprinted in FF (if so, hopefully with some better illustrations).

Most were catered for in the Tome of Horrors (as someone else previously mentioned).

However, we still haven't seen the General of Gehenna; Bubonis; Cholerix; Typhus; Diptherius or Zuggtmoy yet.

Anyone (Upper_Krust, old friend?) know how complicated use of Deities and Demigods will be under the D&D 3.5 regime?

Well I am not yet privy to all the changes in D&D 3.5. But I don't forsee any major complications.

 

[demiurge1138]

I did a search for "Orcus" at dictionary.com and it had him listed as being the Roman god of the dead, Pluto (in addition to the name of the place also). Seems that they had quite a few names for the same deities.

The Romans did call Pluto "Orcus", but Orcus was originally the name of a sea monster, hence orca. The Orcus name spread through the laguages of Europe, and eventually became ogre in French. That's how DnD could use orc, but not hobbit, balrog or warg, because they told Tolkien's estate that they got "orc" from Latin.

Demiurge out.