barsoomcore said:
A couple of responses to various queries:
There are a couple of great features here that I wish more monster books would feature:
- Size comparison charts -- for each creature there is a small silhouette image alongside a scale image of a human. Gives you a great idea of how big these things are.
- Legends and Lore -- easy-peasy answers to Knowledge checks, Bardic Knowledge, divinations, or Gather Information checks.
- Hooks -- down on ideas for tomorrow's game? Grab the Monsternomicon and leaf around. You'll find dozens of ideas to build quick adventures around.
- Cool variants on existing creature types -- Trolls become a whole new thing. Likewise goblins, minor undead and all that jazz.
It's a book in which fit and finish and attention to detail stand out. It doesn't make you feel like a sucker for having bought it. It makes you want to show it to everyone you know. And I so far have found it massively useful.
Will it fit into a non-steampunk setting? Well, here's a couple of numbers. Of the 95 creatures in the book, 14 might be considered "steam-punky". Of those, 7 or 8 are just constructs and could reasonably be found in any sort of campaign where golems and their like are found. Only 6 or 7 are really "steam-punk".
There's all kinds of value in here for any campaign.
Thank you for the specific responses, and especially the number breakdown. I like the idea of the size comparison chart (and remember it from CoC).
How are the monsters distributed by CR? (i.e., how many levels will my campaign have to progress before I can make full use out of the little beasties? -- but then, I don't want to "run out" of critters.)
The legends/lore, and plot hook descriptions are hopeful signs - from their web releases, it is one of the reasons I am looking forward to the Atlas Games Bestiary.
In general, what am I afraid of? (This applies to *any* new monster book.)
-> "Second verse, same as the first -- but this time in A#, not A natural!"
Retreads of other monsters, especially where it seems like I can use Thing #1 (which I already have) *or* Thing #2. A variant of this is the "They're like orcs, but they use *falchions* instead of short swords!"
In general, the consensus seems to be that the variants are well done. Are there a lot of them?
-> World specific monsters
Actually, this doesn't concern me too much. The monster has to be pretty darn specific to make something unusable.
-> More undead
Why I didn't get Denizens of Darkness, though I only looked through it, so I might be being unfair. (Please tell me, someone, if you feel that I am mistaken on DoD) Really, when it gets down to "This form of undead is created when 6th-level orc paladins get angry at someone else taking the last cheese danish, and die on the spot. And they die on a Tuesday. In Lent." With the expanded use of templates, a lot of this seems to be already taken care of.
(Although a book discussing clever ways to use templates could be exceptionally useful.)
-> Too many dragons
What dragons exist, and what type they are, do a lot towards making a campaign well-defined and unique. Spending a substantial portion of the book on big either/or monsters (see above)that feel like retreads puts me off my lunch.
-> "Orcs, but with green hair"
See "Undead", above. I'd much rather buy a good society book, like Kenzer's _Fury in the Wilderness_.
-> A lot of constructs
This most often overlaps with campaign-specific monsters.
Harry
I love that one touch, reminds me of the old CoC stuff.
man, it takes a lot to make this man mad...
