Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
Looking back at the Monstrous Compendia: the MC appendices, Monstrous Manual, and more!
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Alzrius" data-source="post: 9053359" data-attributes="member: 8461"><p>Before getting into the nitty-gritty of the <a href="https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/16963/MC4-Monstrous-Compendium-Dragonlance-Appendix-2e?affiliate_id=820" target="_blank"><em>MC4 Monstrous Compendium Dragonlance Appendix</em></a>, I feel like I need to issue a public service announcement.</p><p></p><p>While I suspect that most AD&D 2nd Edition aficionados know this, TSR didn't switch to the binder format for its monster compendiums with the expectation that gamers would supply the binders; rather, they issued two of their own, which came with certain MCs. However, while the first binder came with MC1, the second binder was not released with MC2, but rather with MC4. And yet, they caused quite a bit of confusion by having the box that MC4 came in (which I don't actually have, having bought a copy of just the binder, pages, and tabbed illustrations, which sort of puts an asterisk on my "I've finally collected them all!" achievement, since I held out for the wrap-around covers in all of the other MCs, and even got the box for MC1) be different from what's actually on the cover of the second binder found within.</p><p></p><p>To be as unambiguous as possible, here's what the box looks like:</p><p></p><p>[ATTACH=full]288761[/ATTACH]</p><p></p><p>Whereas here's what the actual binder looks like:</p><p></p><p>[ATTACH=full]288762[/ATTACH]</p><p></p><p>You can see why a lot of people would be confused once this was out of print and became something found only on the secondary market (since used copies didn't have the box more often than not). Fun fact, the guys I bought this from, who were themselves a professional used-TTRPG outfit, actually didn't realize that this binder didn't come with MC2. I mean, compared to the well-documented issues with the three-ring binder format itself (though, as I mentioned before, I think that format ultimately contributed a great deal to the expansive entries of the monsters), this particular point of confusion is something of an afterthought, but it can still drive casual collectors absolutely nuts.</p><p></p><p>So having judged the covers thoroughly, what can be said about the actual contents of this book?</p><p></p><p>Without going into a polemical about the difficulties involved with playing in the Dragonlance setting – get too close to the War of the Lance and it feels like you're reenacting the novels; get too far away from it and it stops feeling like Dragonlance – this is a supplement that seems to typify the difficulties involved with making a campaign-specific monster book for AD&D, which in a way is the same issue as the one outlined above: if you tie the monsters too strongly to the setting, then they lose any wider appeal, but if you make them too generic, then campaign-enthusiasts will have little use for it.</p><p></p><p>By any measure, that's a hard row to hoe, and yet somehow this book manages to feel like it not only failed to walk that tightrope, but couldn't pull off even one of those options, let alone both.</p><p></p><p>To this, I attribute what [USER=8863]@Orius[/USER] correctly noted in the link he dug up to an old WotC article about <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20090601222643/http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20050909a" target="_blank">monsters that have traction</a>. As I figure it, a campaign-specific monster book is actually shooting for two <em>different</em> kinds of traction. There's the traditional kind, where the monster is just so damn cool on its own that it transcends any issues of campaign specificity, and then there's the kind of traction where the monster seems to exemplify (some of) the best parts of the campaign world itself.</p><p></p><p>Dragonlance has none of the former, and in all honesty only the draconians have ever reached the latter level of traction. And to be fair, having full-on write-ups of the five different draconians (well, six, but the "proto"-draconian traags don't really count), is pretty damn awesome. Since Spelljammer had already firmly established itself by the time I got into the game, I was well aware that draconians (I'd read the Chronicles and Legends trilogy by that time) didn't need to be confined to Krynn; there was even an in-character quote about them in the campaign worlds section of <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/complete-looking-back-at-the-leatherette-series-phbr-dmgr-hr-and-more.677493/page-14#post-8322839" target="_blank"><em>CGR1 The Complete Spacefarer's Handbook</em></a>, so for that reason alone I wanted this MC quite badly for a long while.</p><p></p><p>But really, the draconians are about as good as it gets here. True, this is the 2nd Edition debut of a few other winners, such as the death knight, but this book far and away missed more than it hit.</p><p></p><p>Part of the reason for this is because the monsters vacillate wildly between extremely Krynn-specific, and being generic to the point of being anodyne. As an example of the latter, remember the "insect swarm" entry from the <em>Monstrous Manual</em> that [USER=2209]@Voadam[/USER] noted in an <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/looking-back-at-the-monstrous-compendia-the-mc-appendices-monstrous-manual-and-more.698082/post-9038831" target="_blank">earlier post</a>? That's from here, along with yawn-inducers such as the giant anemone, a couple new spiders, and stags (in their wild, giant, and White Stag varieties; that last one is a unique creature that seems like it just wandered in out of an <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_stag#Folklore" target="_blank">Arthurian legend</a>).</p><p></p><p>Even beyond animals and vermin, there are any number of monsters which are just rather "meh" in nature. The slig tells us right out of the gate that they're distant cousins to goblins and hobgoblins; did we really need yet another goblinoid monster to round out their ranks? The kalothagh is said to be an aquatic manticore, and yet it just looks like a twelve-foot long blowfish with larger spines (hence why it has a parenthetical second name of "prickleback"). The horax is an oversized centipede, except with only twelve legs and a tougher carapace, etc.</p><p></p><p>At the other end of the spectrum are the entries for which the MC tries desperately to inject Dragonlance elements to existing creatures. And by "existing creatures" I mean humans and demihumans. I kid you not, "Man (of Krynn)" gets four pages, covering four different groups (the ice folk, Knights of Solamnia, plainsmen, and "rebels"; did that last one really need to be there?), while dwarves and elves get six pages <em>each</em> (dedicating one page to each sub-race). Even tinker gnomes and kender get full-page entries, though in this case it's a bit more justifiable having them in a monster book, since I suspect that most groups quickly learned to kill both on sight.</p><p></p><p>I should point out that this MC actually predated the formal release of Dragonlance's campaign setting boxed set, <a href="https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/16961/Tales-of-the-Lance-2e?affiliate_id=820" target="_blank"><em>Tales of the Lance</em></a>, by more than two years. That's worth noting, because it helps to explain why the (demi)human entries in this book seem to be player-facing information that was slipped into a monster book. The "Man (of Krynn)" entry, for instance, lists the class progression for the different Knights of Solamnia and how to advance in the Knighthood. The demihuman listings all have their class restrictions and level limits listed, as well as their ability score modifiers and associated minimum and maximum values allowed. Apparently this book was supposed to be a stopgap way of playing on Krynn if you didn't want to wait for the boxed set's debut (and didn't just want to keep using AD&D 1E's <a href="https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/162788/Dragonlance-Adventures-1e?affiliate_id=820" target="_blank"><em>Dragonlance Adventures</em></a> hardcover).</p><p></p><p>If that sounds uncharitable of me, I'll point to how several other entries here also act as backdoor ways of slipping setting information in...or at least, doing so in a manner above and beyond what you'd expect for a monster book. The dreamwraith not only includes the new spell used to create them, but also includes an additional section on the Dragon Orbs (saying the quiet part loud about how the entire entry is to explain what Lorac did to Silvanesti in game terms). The "dragon, othlorx" is an entire page reiterating what happened to those dragons who sat out the War of the Lance (in what seems like a reiteration of what was presented about the dragons of Taladas from <a href="https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/16960/Time-of-the-Dragon-2e?affiliate_id=820" target="_blank"><em>Time of the Dragon</em></a>). Even the fireshadow has two paragraphs (making up the end of its "Combat" section) dedicated to telling us all about...the <a href="https://dragonlance.fandom.com/wiki/Hammer_of_Kharas" target="_blank"><em>Hammer of Kharas</em></a>? Huh?</p><p></p><p>It's this split focus that showcases the weakness of most of the monsters here. Some are generic. Some are very Dragonlance-specific. Neither are very interesting. It's enough to make the cynic in me wonder if this was packaged with the second binder because even TSR didn't think this would be a strong seller otherwise.</p><p></p><p><em>Please note my use of affiliate links in this post.</em></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Alzrius, post: 9053359, member: 8461"] Before getting into the nitty-gritty of the [URL='https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/16963/MC4-Monstrous-Compendium-Dragonlance-Appendix-2e?affiliate_id=820'][I]MC4 Monstrous Compendium Dragonlance Appendix[/I][/URL], I feel like I need to issue a public service announcement. While I suspect that most AD&D 2nd Edition aficionados know this, TSR didn't switch to the binder format for its monster compendiums with the expectation that gamers would supply the binders; rather, they issued two of their own, which came with certain MCs. However, while the first binder came with MC1, the second binder was not released with MC2, but rather with MC4. And yet, they caused quite a bit of confusion by having the box that MC4 came in (which I don't actually have, having bought a copy of just the binder, pages, and tabbed illustrations, which sort of puts an asterisk on my "I've finally collected them all!" achievement, since I held out for the wrap-around covers in all of the other MCs, and even got the box for MC1) be different from what's actually on the cover of the second binder found within. To be as unambiguous as possible, here's what the box looks like: [ATTACH type="full" alt="add-2e-core-mc4.jpg"]288761[/ATTACH] Whereas here's what the actual binder looks like: [ATTACH type="full" alt="add-2e-core-mc4-binder.jpg"]288762[/ATTACH] You can see why a lot of people would be confused once this was out of print and became something found only on the secondary market (since used copies didn't have the box more often than not). Fun fact, the guys I bought this from, who were themselves a professional used-TTRPG outfit, actually didn't realize that this binder didn't come with MC2. I mean, compared to the well-documented issues with the three-ring binder format itself (though, as I mentioned before, I think that format ultimately contributed a great deal to the expansive entries of the monsters), this particular point of confusion is something of an afterthought, but it can still drive casual collectors absolutely nuts. So having judged the covers thoroughly, what can be said about the actual contents of this book? Without going into a polemical about the difficulties involved with playing in the Dragonlance setting – get too close to the War of the Lance and it feels like you're reenacting the novels; get too far away from it and it stops feeling like Dragonlance – this is a supplement that seems to typify the difficulties involved with making a campaign-specific monster book for AD&D, which in a way is the same issue as the one outlined above: if you tie the monsters too strongly to the setting, then they lose any wider appeal, but if you make them too generic, then campaign-enthusiasts will have little use for it. By any measure, that's a hard row to hoe, and yet somehow this book manages to feel like it not only failed to walk that tightrope, but couldn't pull off even one of those options, let alone both. To this, I attribute what [USER=8863]@Orius[/USER] correctly noted in the link he dug up to an old WotC article about [URL='https://web.archive.org/web/20090601222643/http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20050909a']monsters that have traction[/URL]. As I figure it, a campaign-specific monster book is actually shooting for two [I]different[/I] kinds of traction. There's the traditional kind, where the monster is just so damn cool on its own that it transcends any issues of campaign specificity, and then there's the kind of traction where the monster seems to exemplify (some of) the best parts of the campaign world itself. Dragonlance has none of the former, and in all honesty only the draconians have ever reached the latter level of traction. And to be fair, having full-on write-ups of the five different draconians (well, six, but the "proto"-draconian traags don't really count), is pretty damn awesome. Since Spelljammer had already firmly established itself by the time I got into the game, I was well aware that draconians (I'd read the Chronicles and Legends trilogy by that time) didn't need to be confined to Krynn; there was even an in-character quote about them in the campaign worlds section of [URL='https://www.enworld.org/threads/complete-looking-back-at-the-leatherette-series-phbr-dmgr-hr-and-more.677493/page-14#post-8322839'][I]CGR1 The Complete Spacefarer's Handbook[/I][/URL], so for that reason alone I wanted this MC quite badly for a long while. But really, the draconians are about as good as it gets here. True, this is the 2nd Edition debut of a few other winners, such as the death knight, but this book far and away missed more than it hit. Part of the reason for this is because the monsters vacillate wildly between extremely Krynn-specific, and being generic to the point of being anodyne. As an example of the latter, remember the "insect swarm" entry from the [I]Monstrous Manual[/I] that [USER=2209]@Voadam[/USER] noted in an [URL='https://www.enworld.org/threads/looking-back-at-the-monstrous-compendia-the-mc-appendices-monstrous-manual-and-more.698082/post-9038831']earlier post[/URL]? That's from here, along with yawn-inducers such as the giant anemone, a couple new spiders, and stags (in their wild, giant, and White Stag varieties; that last one is a unique creature that seems like it just wandered in out of an [URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_stag#Folklore']Arthurian legend[/URL]). Even beyond animals and vermin, there are any number of monsters which are just rather "meh" in nature. The slig tells us right out of the gate that they're distant cousins to goblins and hobgoblins; did we really need yet another goblinoid monster to round out their ranks? The kalothagh is said to be an aquatic manticore, and yet it just looks like a twelve-foot long blowfish with larger spines (hence why it has a parenthetical second name of "prickleback"). The horax is an oversized centipede, except with only twelve legs and a tougher carapace, etc. At the other end of the spectrum are the entries for which the MC tries desperately to inject Dragonlance elements to existing creatures. And by "existing creatures" I mean humans and demihumans. I kid you not, "Man (of Krynn)" gets four pages, covering four different groups (the ice folk, Knights of Solamnia, plainsmen, and "rebels"; did that last one really need to be there?), while dwarves and elves get six pages [I]each[/I] (dedicating one page to each sub-race). Even tinker gnomes and kender get full-page entries, though in this case it's a bit more justifiable having them in a monster book, since I suspect that most groups quickly learned to kill both on sight. I should point out that this MC actually predated the formal release of Dragonlance's campaign setting boxed set, [URL='https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/16961/Tales-of-the-Lance-2e?affiliate_id=820'][I]Tales of the Lance[/I][/URL], by more than two years. That's worth noting, because it helps to explain why the (demi)human entries in this book seem to be player-facing information that was slipped into a monster book. The "Man (of Krynn)" entry, for instance, lists the class progression for the different Knights of Solamnia and how to advance in the Knighthood. The demihuman listings all have their class restrictions and level limits listed, as well as their ability score modifiers and associated minimum and maximum values allowed. Apparently this book was supposed to be a stopgap way of playing on Krynn if you didn't want to wait for the boxed set's debut (and didn't just want to keep using AD&D 1E's [URL='https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/162788/Dragonlance-Adventures-1e?affiliate_id=820'][I]Dragonlance Adventures[/I][/URL] hardcover). If that sounds uncharitable of me, I'll point to how several other entries here also act as backdoor ways of slipping setting information in...or at least, doing so in a manner above and beyond what you'd expect for a monster book. The dreamwraith not only includes the new spell used to create them, but also includes an additional section on the Dragon Orbs (saying the quiet part loud about how the entire entry is to explain what Lorac did to Silvanesti in game terms). The "dragon, othlorx" is an entire page reiterating what happened to those dragons who sat out the War of the Lance (in what seems like a reiteration of what was presented about the dragons of Taladas from [URL='https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/16960/Time-of-the-Dragon-2e?affiliate_id=820'][I]Time of the Dragon[/I][/URL]). Even the fireshadow has two paragraphs (making up the end of its "Combat" section) dedicated to telling us all about...the [URL='https://dragonlance.fandom.com/wiki/Hammer_of_Kharas'][I]Hammer of Kharas[/I][/URL]? Huh? It's this split focus that showcases the weakness of most of the monsters here. Some are generic. Some are very Dragonlance-specific. Neither are very interesting. It's enough to make the cynic in me wonder if this was packaged with the second binder because even TSR didn't think this would be a strong seller otherwise. [I]Please note my use of affiliate links in this post.[/I] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
Looking back at the Monstrous Compendia: the MC appendices, Monstrous Manual, and more!
Top