Frostburn v. Sandstorm

[Hand of Evil]

I like them both BUT the 1st Edition Wilderness Survival Guide was the best.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Okay, what does the Fur in the title imply? Furry armor, different uses for animal part, what? Also how does F&F (and possibly Frostburn) stand up against AEGs Wilds?

[Lie]Fur bikinis.
A fur bikini grants a +8 bonust to the fortitude saves for cold weather effects.[/Lie]

More seriously Frostburn had way to much stuff that was 'kewl'*, and way too little that was 'believable'. Guess which one I would have found more useful? Frost & Fur was much better in that regard.

The Auld Grump

*In my dictionary 'kewl' translates to 'sounds nifty, but is unbelievably stupid'.

 

[Mystery Man]

[Lie]Fur bikinis.
A fur bikini grants a +8 bonust to the fortitude saves for cold weather effects.[/Lie]

More seriously Frostburn had way to much stuff that was 'kewl'*, and way too little that was 'believable'. Guess which one I would have found more useful? Frost & Fur was much better in that regard.

The Auld Grump

*In my dictionary 'kewl' translates to 'sounds nifty, but is unbelievably stupid'.

Again with the "believable" in a fantasy game. :\ To each his own I guess.

I'll take "fun" before "believable".

 

[Mystery Man]

icicle bolts is imaginitive??

Both books are very imaginative. Frostburn (of course this is my own very humble opinion) is just done better and is more useful in a fantasy game.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Again with the "believable" in a fantasy game. :\ To each his own I guess.

I'll take "fun" before "believable".

'Believable' is not the same as 'realistic'. I use the same standard for fantasy gaming as I do for fantasy novels. If I ran across an icicle crossbow in a fantasy novel I would note the author, and never get anything by that author again. I may not know the properties of a fireball, but I do know the properties of an icicle. A fireball is unrealistic, but an icicle crossbow is unbelievable.

The Auld Grump

 

[Belen]

Frost and Fur is a far more useful book IMO. The treatment on cultures that live in the icy wilds provide an awesome base to create your own cultures based on the material. Not to mention that the book is just a better read.

I own Frostburn, but I would not really use it. I already have enough feats, PrCs and spells to last until my grandkids grow old. It had a lot of potential, but would have been a stronger book if it had less "kewl" to it and more imagination.

Not to say that is lacked imagination, but more that there seems to be strict WOTC guidelines on imagination. All wizards stuff is beginning to look the same.

 

[diaglo]

touche. I'm just realizing that maybe *I* am becoming MerricB.

you poor soul.






MEH to both books.

 

[Nellisir]

I own Frost & Fur, Frostburn, & Wilds, and as the Sesame Street song goes....two of these things are not like the other.... Wilds isn't a bad book, but it's not a focused environment book like F&F and Frostburn.

Frostburn is clearly "higher magic" (not higher fantasy, IMO) than Frost & Fur, and I've noticed that trend throughout WotC's recent work. Not something I'm thrilled with, but since I don't expect to use Frostburn, not something that bothers me.

I think Frostburn & Frost & Fur are about equal, with different strengths. Frost & Fur has much more information on real-world cultures, whereas Frostburn has none...but Frostburn presents at least the skeleton of a fantasy setting, and F&F doesn't. F&F could've been more imaginative and innovative in their adaptations of real-world myths & practices; Frostburn pretty much threw restraint out the window and just wrote up whatever sounded "kewl", regardless of believability.

Kinda like peanut butter and jelly.
Cheers
Nell.

 

[Mystery Man]

'Believable' is not the same as 'realistic'. I use the same standard for fantasy gaming as I do for fantasy novels. If I ran across an icicle crossbow in a fantasy novel I would note the author, and never get anything by that author again. I may not know the properties of a fireball, but I do know the properties of an icicle. A fireball is unrealistic, but an icicle crossbow is unbelievable.

The Auld Grump

Believable, plausible, possible, realistic, and what not. However you want to spin it, it's still fantasy and as such anything can happen. This is where you and I are going to differ, probably forever. I just can't see holding up an example like "icicle crossbows" as a premise to down the book as a whole. Hazards, perils, traps, terrain, the adventure sites, the monsters...all these make up for the little crossbow problem which, with a mental pencil you can "X" it out of your game.

F&F, I have the book and like it very much I just wish I hadn't bought it. I get more use out of Frostburn in my fantasy game. That's just all I'm sayin' mang!

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Believable, plausible, possible, realistic, and what not. However you want to spin it, it's still fantasy and as such anything can happen. This is where you and I are going to differ, probably forever. I just can't see holding up an example like "icicle crossbows" as a premise to down the book as a whole. Hazards, perils, traps, terrain, the adventure sites, the monsters...all these make up for the little crossbow problem which, with a mental pencil you can "X" it out of your game.

F&F, I have the book and like it very much I just wish I hadn't bought it. I get more use out of Frostburn in my fantasy game. That's just all I'm sayin' mang!

The icicle crossbow is simply the example that seems to have become the poster child for the book. I also did not like most of the prestige classes, nor most of the other equipment and weapons.

The monsters were okay, but nothing spectacular. Ditto most of the spells.

The weather effects and the hazards I did like, but they were not enough to sell me on the book, at least for the price.

In honesty when I looked at Frostburn I was looking for something to supplement Frost and Fur, and Frostburn just did not fit my needs at all. About three quarters was useless from my perspective. So you are right, we likely never will agree on the comparative virtues of the books, and each of us will point to the other's virtues and call them flaws.

I have to admit that I am having to restrain myself from jumping up and down screaming 'Aaaargh, I hate this book!' because this discussion is bringing up all the things I didn't like about it, and yet seems to be making me forget those things that I did like about it.

And picking up the MacFarland Fire Clan dragon has me wanting to do an arctic adventure, so not liking Frostburn is a bit more galling at the moment than it might otherwise be, I went and rechecked it the day I got the dragon, just in case I had changed my mind. I had, but it was a crystalization of my previous opinion rather than a thawing.

So some of this is doubtless bitterness and disappointment. If I hadn't wanted to like it so much I probably wouldn't dislike it as much as I do.

And novel wise... I do not read R. A. Salvatore for the same reason I did not like Frostburn, I find his writing unbelievable. But I do read a lot of fantasy, so it is not just realism.

The Auld Grump