Fiend Folio vs. Tome of Horrors!

[Darrin Drader]

I like both. They both have their own merits and bring different things to the table. I also happen to be a huge Necromancer Games fan, but I work for WotC, so that leaves me in a position to be extremely happy with both products.

So, to sum up my point of view, its like comparing apples and oranges.

 

[Technik4]

My .02

I dont have either but I voted that theyre both useful in different ways. From what Ive picked up:

Necromancer Games worked with WotC to 3.0-ilize some older monsters and got a list of monsters that WotC would not be using in products (for 1 year?).

Tome of Horrors is a massive monster compendium, and I may see references to the monsters in other works by Necromancer Games or anyone else who thinks the monsters are cool enough.

Fiend Folio also has a classic name, but does not include the breadth of what is in ToH, nor does it include really high-level devil princes and whatnot (which I dont really care about, as I own D&DG).

Fiend Folio contains a little bit more info per monster, and probably a higher art ratio (or bigger art ratio).

So, Im pretty much on the boards about this one, I dont really need either book. Personally (though some might think Im a bastard) Im waiting for a revised MM2, ever since they announced 3.5 I decided not to buy any more WotC product that wasnt "3.5 enhanced", mostly because Im not in a game currently.

Technik

PS- I would be interested in a revised, erratted, 3.5-enhanced ToH or FF, but it seems neither is very likely.

 

[Gez]

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

Some names used (like Yeenoghu) and the Credit sections aren't OGC.

I'll vote when I will see the actual FF and compare said duplicated beasts. The FF seems to be a bit more "a book about monsters" than "a book of monsters" like the ToH is.

FF contains a great variety of "new" monsters (as opposed to conversions).

The ToH contains new monsters as well. Astral Shark, Barrow Wight, Bhuta (I just used one yesterday), Bloody Bones, Bog Beast, Bone Cobbler, Bonesucker, Giant Caribe (I used these too), Carrion Moth, Cerberus, Chrystone (NGA), Clockworks (NGA), Cobra Flower, Crystalline Horror, Cacodaemon, Darnoc, Death Worm, Demiurge, Demons (Aeshma, Beluiri, Demons of Corruption, Dagon, Daraka, Gharros, Maphistal (NGA), Nerizo, Sonechard, Tsathogga), Demonic Knight, Devils (Baaphel, Ghaddar, Gorson, Lucifer, Tormentor of Souls), Drake (Salt Drake), Draug, Elemental (Psionic), etc...

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Well I bought TOH the day it was released and haven't picked up any of the WOTC monster books beyond the MM. So I went with TOH DESTROYS the FF. It's got a lot of the crazy AD&D monsters I love and it's got tons of Daemons, Demons, Devils, Demodands, and all that other good stuff. All of the modules I'm going to run after RttTOEE will be 1e mods so I'll have plenty of need for some of the stuff in TOH. Look at all the puddings, oozes and slimes in the TOH! I love those.

But the ultimate question is...does the FF have a Flumph? End of story.

 

[Pants]

But the ultimate question is...does the FF have a Flumph? End of story.

Thank god, No!
What's this weird fascination that people have with the Flumph? Is it one of those 'so stupid you have to love it' things or is it just like how people can be fascinated by a car wreck?
Really, to me, it's just a lame, space-wasting monster?

*in Jerry Seinfeld voice*
What's the deal with Flumphs?

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I've been thinking of a war between the Fiendish Dire Flumphs and the Celestial Flumphs. You see the Gods of Greyhawk are really Divine Flumphs, who only take human form to interact with thier followers. Divine Flumphs have one weakness, if they are flipped over they are helpless just like a regular Flumph. Becuase of that they keep thier Flumphness to themselves. There is an Empire of Flumphs devolping in Blackmoor, they are going to assert themselves as the true children of the Gods.

 

[Arnwyn]

I own both, and I prefer the ToH over the FF, due to the content. But I have a use for both of them in my game.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'm a fan of both.

ToH with full color artwork and a chunk less slavish adherence to 2e/1e would've been the absolute cream. Slap on some more well-thuoght-out monster design (which it can only be partially held at fault for...the MM didn't have much well-thought-out....), and I'd say you've got a nice thick book of what the Monster Manual SHOULD have been....all OGC, so that's purdy (meaning that anybody else can take it and work with it, so it's more valuable to the COMMUNITY).

FF did a lot of things even ToH ignored (RILMANI!!!!), and covers a large chunk of my old Planescape faves....but it also has a smaller compilation, a lot of unpronouncable silliness, and a lot of things I'll probably never use.

ToH's weird monsters were at least inspiring....the Flumph may have been silly, but it made me WANT to structure some ecology around it...

 

[Technik4]

Kamikaze: Remember that ToH didn't necessarily "ignore" certain monsters, they worked out a deal so that there wouldnt be reprints of the same monster, and to avoid the official vs unofficial debates that would no doubt ensue.

Of course, unfortunately, it was slightly for naught.

Technik

 

[Enceladus]

I was thinking about throwing the whole book at my players. Which is thicker the TOH or FF? Which would do the most damage upon impact?