Libris Mortis is no Draconomicon?

[Doug McCrae]

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.

Why'd you buy it then?

 

[ShadowDenizen]

Nothing to see here.
Move along.

 

[ShadowDenizen]

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.

I agree.
I enjoy both Dragons and undead in near-equal measure. Thus, I ws completely blown away by the "Draconomicon" when I read it. Not only was there useful "crunch", but there was nearly as much "fluff", showing how to best present any type of Dragon in the light it deserved.

So, I was all excited about "Libris Mortis" when I heard about it, but after leafing through it, I decided to spend my money elsewhere. This book just doesn't do it for me. Aside from the errors, IMO, there's been other, better supplements on Undead (both previous ones by TSR/WotC, and current ones by other publishers.)

 

[Whisper72]

Hmmm.... I am certainly interested in the LM book, since my campaigns feature undead frequently, but I am amazed at all the loving the Draconomicon is getting.

It may be just me but (through the years nary an article in Dragon, the old bestiaries etc. and the various articles on dragons on the WOTC website etc.) there was not a single thing in there that made me light up and say 'gee! cool idea!'. I had a definate 'been there, done that' feel about the book, with nothing new nor intriguing. I admit that the art was good, but I don't even think it was that majorly evocative either.

Am I the only one who was disappointed after having bought it after all those rave reviews??

(sorry if I am hijacking the thread a little, just would like to hear a reviewer on LM who shares the same view as I do on the Draconomicon)

 

[devilish]

Haven't picked up Draconomicon so I can't speak to how great it was.

But I really enjoyed LM -- mostly because it has something for
every level -- whether you want to add on to skeletons or zombies, or
reinforcing liches. It really got me thinking about how to make
undead different, enhanced, and spooky for a group of players
that were ho-hummed about undead. Now, they're freaked out.

Dragons, to me, are more high-level BBEG, so a sourcebook to
create 1-3 major creatures in a campaign world asks alot.
How many characters are going to bump into baby dragons at
low level?

 

[Turjan]

Hmmm.... I am certainly interested in the LM book, since my campaigns feature undead frequently, but I am amazed at all the loving the Draconomicon is getting.

Am I the only one who was disappointed after having bought it after all those rave reviews??

No, you are not the only one. When I read it I got the feeling that I did not want to know these details about dragon types. In my view, dragons are rare, and they are more distinguished by personality than by type. Anyway, the sample dragons might prove useful for some encounter. That's about it.

I haven't bought Libris Mortis (somehow I still have to chuckle about the explanation of the name by WotC ), because I'm not that much interested in undead.

 

[Arnwyn]

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...

As a few others have mentioned, no you're not imagining things.

I was very disappointed in LM - it just didn't provide the information that I thought would be appropriate for the subject. I was expecting a much more adequate look at the nature of undead (much like what Draconomicon did for dragons), and I didn't get that at all.

It became a pointless book, just a focus on a bunch of new - wait for it - feats, PrCs, spells, and magic items. (And a bunch of new monsters that continue to make it more difficult for any ecology to handle.)

While there were some good things in LM, it was extremely disappointing and not all that valuable to my game. I'll be looking very closely at Codex Anathema before buying.

 

[Psion]

Undead are my favorite villainous evil beasties. And LM wasn't bad. Indeed, I consider many of its undead beasties better than many of those in the flurry of monster books on the market. And some other parts of it were interesting and useful as well.

But indeed, it was not the awesome, beautiful, intriguing to read and useful book that Draconomicon was.

(I still need 3.5 gem dragons, though.)

 

[Vocenoctum]

I thought Draconomicon was a great book, but didn't buy LM for a few reasons;
1) don't really like undead, nor think they have a lot of personality. They're mostly constructs and a perusal of the book didn't seem to flesh them past that point.
2) LM was soooo thin! (page count wise)
3) "Undead" is a broad catagory. Richten's Guides were more focused and interesting, but I'd probably not buy them again anyway. Draconomicon didn't talk about kobolds, or other "dragon type" creatures. Having a small book dedicated to a broad catagory means not much detail. The PrC's and new monsters would go in any book, nothing made this a useful book for me.

Dragons might be a BIG encounter, but Draconomicon gives you the tools to really feel out that big encounter and make it different and detailed. LM is just another monster book for me.

 

[Lars Porsenna]

I think the amount of praise Draconomicon is getting is well deserved, but I'm also one of those that was a little let down by it. My main gripe was there was too much focus on the "main" dragons (metallic and chromatic) with nothing much on other types of dragons. I really would have liked to have seen some incorporation of, FREX, Oriental dragons, some of the other types of dragons (shadow, mist, deep, etc) and gem dragons. I always thought the primary dragons to be pretty well fleshed out, but the less mainstream ones could have used a bit more, if for no other reason than as an incentive to use them in-game.

As for LM, I wasn't overwhelmed by it either, but then I see it as being more utilitarian than anything.

Damon.