Libris Mortis is no Draconomicon?

[Ogrork the Mighty]

I don't want this to turn into a flame thread, but after purchasing Libris Mortis I'm a little disappointed. When I saw Draconomicon, I was floored; the quality was THAT good. But Libris... eh. For whatever reason, it just doesn't appear that as much time was put into it. And that worries me when it comes to the next book (aberrations?) that is scheduled to come out.

Maybe it's just a matter of the sequel not living up to the original. Or maybe I'm just imagining things...

 

[Alzrius]

A few things killed this book of the undead for me.

For one, I like the undead more than dragons, so it was a major disappointment that it didn't get nearly as many pages, when I felt it offered so much more.

Secondly, as John Cooper pointed out, there are quite a few errors in the book.

Beyond that, I enjoyed it immensely. It had its highlights...such as not wasting a few dozen pages on 120 undead NPC's.

 

[philreed]

Actually, I enjoyed Libris Mortis a lot more than Draconomicon. I think a lot of that has to do with the fact that in 20 years I've never encountered/used a dragon in a game. Dragons just don't interest me.

 

[Gothmog]

I have to agree, I like Libris Mortis a LOT more than the Draconomicon. First, I use undead a lot more in my games than dragons, so immediately, the book is of much more use to me. Second, a lot of new ideas for undead and creature types were covered, which has much broader applications that revisiting the same 10 metallic and chromatic dragons of classic D&D. And finally, there aren't dozens of pages given over to sample dragon lairs like there were in Draconomicon- something that seemed like a complete waste of space to me. To be honest, Mongoose's Book of Dragons did a lot more than the Draconomicon to interest me in using dragons in my game. So despite a few minor editing problems, Libris Mortis gets a thumbs up from me- I just wish it had been the size of the Draconomicon.

 

[reanjr]

I don't want this to turn into a flame thread, but after purchasing Libris Mortis I'm a little disappointed. When I saw Draconomicon, I was floored; the quality was THAT good. But Libris... eh. For whatever reason, it just doesn't appear that as much time was put into it. And that worries me when it comes to the next book (aberrations?) that is scheduled to come out.

Maybe it's just a matter of the sequel not living up to the original. Or maybe I'm just imagining things...

I agree with you, though I am not a big fan of undead, so that might skew my opinion (not that I use dragons much, either). To me, I think it was a problem of page count. Libris Mortis needed to be about 160 pages longer, IMO, to do undead justice. I am a big fan of the Van Richten's guides from 2e and 3e Ravenloft. Those books, I think are great additions to a game. Libris Mortis, to me, seemed to be a book focused on tweaking undead rather than explaining them. Draconomicon was the reverse and represented more what I wanted to find in a book like that.

That said, the art in Libris Mortis, I think, was even better than the Draconomicon. Since art is a major factor in the so-called prestige format, I think it's important to point that out.

 

[Nightfall]

Dunno about the errors, but I do think it's much shorter than the draconomicion.

I do think it could have been longer, especially a longer look at religions, perhaps more emphasis on "non evil" mindless undead, and yeah, deeper look at how to make various undead.

 

[Li Shenron]

I haven't seen LM yet but I had taken a look a Draconomicon (although at the end I didn't buy it just yet, because I didn't really need it).

So I ask you: does LM make undead more undead than ever? I know it's kind of a silly question, but my impression with DN was that it makes dragons more distinctive than before, which is a good thing. There were some new dragons which felt clumsily crossed with other monsters (a trick to make new monsters, but not always effective), but in general it made me feel like the book could be used to make dragons more special.

Do you have this feeling with LM? I've heard that there's a chapter e.g. about undead physiology... I am afraid that it could make the mistake of making undead more "normal", which sometimes already happened with outsiders. OTOH it could really help if done appropriately.

 

[Jolly Giant]

Both dragons and undead have featured heavily in my campaigns, and I've found both books both useful and interesting. I too wish LM could have been longer; there are so many diffenrent types of undead, filling a 100 extra pages shouldn't be a problem.

No RPG book has ever made me go WOW! the way Draconomicon did, though. I don't expect to see another book of that caliber very soon either. It's just so big, so beautiful and so useful, it's gonna be very hard to top that one.

 

[Mystery Man]

Both dragons and undead have featured heavily in my campaigns, and I've found both books both useful and interesting. I too wish LM could have been longer; there are so many diffenrent types of undead, filling a 100 extra pages shouldn't be a problem.

No RPG book has ever made me go WOW! the way Draconomicon did, though. I don't expect to see another book of that caliber very soon either. It's just so big, so beautiful and so useful, it's gonna be very hard to top that one.

By caliber you mean the size of its gun barrels and the quality of its character?

Draconomicon is the better book, dragons are a special encounter and the book reflects as such. Libris is more utilitarian in its layout since undead are a common enough encounter in most campaigns.

 

[diaglo]

like you i think the Draconomicon is a much better book.

the book of bad latin will have no place in my games. it will collect dust on the shelf just to complete my collection.