Fiend Folio vs. Tome of Horrors!

[The Serge]

Let me preface this by saying that I still don't understand how or if the agreement between WotC and Necromancer Games was broken. Perhaps it wasn't, I don't know. But, the "agreement" (or lack thereof) is not the purpose of this thread.

The purpose of this thread is to discuss the differences between versions of the same creatures in both books, like the Devas, Shedu, and others. I suppose this could also be a discussion about "official" vs. "unofficial" material.

For the most part, I prefer the WotC versions. Although I respect Necromancer Games' desire to maintain the "feel" of 1ed, I've never been much of a fan for slavish nostalgia. On the other hand, I'm not a fan for the "official" line. I think a lot of people make the mistake of assuming that just because something creative comes from a source that has the legal rights to that material that it's better than alternative products. Sophistry (as U_K would say). A lot of material from Malhavoc Press and Green Ronin Publishing seem to be far more interesting and balanced than some of WotC's material.

That said, I do prefer the versions presented in FF. I'll give more specific explanations later, but first I would like to hear some other opinions.

 

[Kanegrundar]

While I use my copy of the Tome of Horrors, it simply didn't provide me with enough information about the creatures. I like seeing societal information about intelligent creatures. I want to know how crabfolk live and things like that. Plus, I didn't like that they didn't put PC information for all the creatures with "By Character Class" as their advancement form. I understand that they were trying to keep that 1st Edition feel, but why do that when it makes the book subpar in comparison to other monster books like the Fiend Folio or the Monsternomicon (the best monster book on the market, IMO)? The only thing I've got against the Fiend Folio is that it seems to have broken the agreement with Necromancer Games. However, the amount of overlap is actually very little, so IMO it's not that big of a deal. I will say, I think that WotC did a better job overall with overlap monsters, if for nothing else that giving more extensive information on the creatures.

Kane

 

[The Sigil]

I voted that ToH destroys the FF. Pros and cons of each:

PROS:
ToH is bigger.
ToH tries to credit the original source of the material. FF does not (I think those who create things deserve credit).
ToH contains archdevils, demon princes, etc. for really high-powered PCs.

CONS:
FF has better artwork/production values than ToH, being in glorious full color.
FF stuff "feels" slightly more like a "native to 3e" creation rather than a conversion.
FF contains a great variety of "new" monsters (as opposed to conversions).

IMO these are mostly balanced out (though I think the extra size of ToH gives it the nod)... but there's one more huge factor in my rating of any d20 product...

ToH contains mostly OGC, so other publishers can re-use it. FF contains no OGC.

That is what makes ToH destroy. I can re-use their stuff. Perhaps I'm biased because I also publish on the side, but that makes ToH infinitely more valuable to my d20 collection than FF. Hence ToH destroys FF. It's not an "anti-WotC bias" (as many have claimed I have - and I may, though I try not to), but a simple question of utility.

--The Sigil

 

[Crothian]

They both have their uses. ToH has a great amount of creatures but mostly from older sources that I have. FF has the WotC backing so people who like the fact that it has Wizards name on it feel better. The OGL is an intertesting point, but not one the average gamer should care about. FF is in theory more 3.5 compatible, so it has that going for it.

 

[LordFair1969]

I have and like both books. I would have to say for my own games, I will likely use the FF more than the TOH, for those monsters that are in both (due to the fact that my game is a high-powered one, and the monsters there were re-thinkings of the originals rather than just conversions, and in most cases this meant they came out more powerful). However, I like the TOH more, for the fact that it is OGC. Hard call.

 

[Desdichado]

Most of the older conversions in ToH seem to be there "just because." Hey, let's convert all the old monsters that haven't yet been converted to 3e. Why? Just because. Never mind that most of them were left behind for a reason: because they weren't that interesting. At least, says I.

FF also has an eye towards being much more flexible. Lots of hints on how to use it, in that book, rather than just a "list o monsters." I still think the Monsternomicon is my favorite monster book that I own, but FF comes fairly close on a lot of counts. ToH seems to be nostalgia for it's own sake rather than because it's good, in many cases. Not that it doesn't also have a lot of stuff I'd use, but it certainly has much more stuff that I'd never even consider using.

 

[BOZ]

ToH contains mostly OGC, so other publishers can re-use it. FF contains no OGC.

mostly? i thought the whole thing was supposed to be.

 

[BOZ]

FF is in theory more 3.5 compatible, so it has that going for it.

only cuz WotC had the distinct advantage of knowing about 3.5 before anyone else. i don't even know if scott and clark knew about 3.5 before the ToH went to print, and if they didn't then i know they didn't have the specifics on it yet.

 

[Crothian]

only cuz WotC had the distinct advantage of knowing about 3.5 before anyone else. i don't even know if scott and clark knew about 3.5 before the ToH went to print, and if they didn't then i know they didn't have the specifics on it yet.

Well, the reasons don't really matter much. Sure Wizards has that advantage, but that is one of the reasons many people perfer their products.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

I voted that ToH destroys the FF. Pros and cons of each:

PROS:
ToH is bigger.
ToH tries to credit the original source of the material. FF does not (I think those who create things deserve credit).
ToH contains archdevils, demon princes, etc. for really high-powered PCs.

--The Sigil

1. Yes it has more monsters but tells you much less about them. Anyone can throw together some stats and call it a monster. I can do it in 3 minutes. That doesnt mean much to me.

2. Who cares who created the monster first. That does not do a single thing for my game or anyone elses game for that matter. Furthermore TOH has several mistakes in its crediting. It credits lots of monsters to MM2 which had almost no new monsters in it.

3. Most Archdevils are so high level that less than 5% of all games will ever use any of them and less than 1% of all games will ever use more than 3 or 4 of them. A few neat overpowered monsters I will probably never use is hardly a selling point.


Finally who cares what is OGC and what is not OGC. To the average gamer who will enver publish the difference between the two is meaningless.


Sounds like most of your reasons for prefering TOH are rather thin to me.