Lost Prehistorica
By Steven Cook and David Woodrum
Dark Quest Games product number DQG 1601
109-page PDF, $6.95
I received
Lost Prehistorica out of the blue with no prior notice, having never even heard of the work before, which was somewhat of a new occurrence for me. (I guess I'll have to get used to this sort of thing as a staff reviewer.) As a result, I went into it with no preconceptions. As I found out,
Lost Prehistorica provides the DM everything needed to run a "lost world" section of the campaign, complete with dinosaurs, prehistoric mammals, and primitive races.
The cover art, by Steve A. Roberts, depicts a humanoid of indeterminate race and gender (it's probably a female human, but it could just as easily be a male elf) carrying a spear into a primordial jungle. There are winged reptiles in the skies, and in the distance we can see a family herd of brontosaurs. Steven does an excellent job with the waterfall in the background, and he does a great job of depicting the "textures" of the various objects: the leaves, the bark, the rocks - everything looks three-dimensional. I also like the use of the rock pattern as a "matte" to capture the central painting; it certainly adds to the prehistoric feel.
The interior artwork consists of 31 black-and-white illustrations by only two artists, Owen Kuhn and Gillian Pearce. However, several of these pieces are actually smaller sections of an illustration that appears elsewhere in the book. For example, the two skulls from page 30 show up all by themselves on page 6, and one of the two figures from the drawing on page 19 shows up alone on page 37. I'm unfamiliar with Owen's work, but he does a decent human figure, and rather nice expressions as well. (I like the happy "cave kid" on page 17.) I'm familiar with Gillian's work over at Mongoose, and while she's improved her craft significantly over the past few years, she still seems to have a bit of a problem when it comes to shading, and in particular contrast. For example, it took me awhile to realize that there's a second humanoid figure hiding from the tyrannosaur in the foreground of page 3; my first clue was that there was an extra hand on the axe, which I had originally assumed was being held by the woman. Still, Gillian does a great job with the monsters towards the end of the book (it seems like her best work of late has been depicting monsters; she has a real eye for detail with them). I just wish - as I often do in works of this type - that she had been allowed to depict each and every monster in the
Monster Manual section of this PDF.
Lost Prehistorica is laid out as follows:
- Chapter 1 - The Lost Lands: Different ways to introduce a prehistoric setting into any given campaign (remote areas, islands, subcontinent, continent, lost underworld - AKA "hollow world," as in Edgar Rice Burroughs' "Pellucidar," an entire world, one of a multitude of alternate worlds, or as a lost plane), plus geographic elements such as bitter weather, disease, ruins of ancient civilizations, petrified wood and amber, and fossils
- Chapter 2 - Survival: 16 new diseases, 12 natural hazards, and 10 plants and fungi
- Chapter 3 - Cultures: Sections on different subsistence patterns of primitive societies (hunter/gatherer, pastoral, horticultural, and agricultural), families (including kin-groups and marriage), political organization (bands, tribes, chiefdoms, and states), technology (archaic settlements, village settlements, and cities), trade and commerce, tools and trades, clothing and decoration, warfare, food and drink, cannibalism, and language
- Chapter 4 - Tribes: Rules and recommendations for creating new tribes, plus 5 ready-to-use tribes
- Chapter 5 - Items: 14 items of clothing, 6 decorations, 34 general items, 5 types of food/plants, 14 weapons, 5 types of armor, 20 types of stonework and art, and 53 types of gems for trading (either as raw chunks or shards)
- Chapter 6 - Characters: 10 new feats, a discussion of how the various PC/NPC classes can be used in a prehistoric setting, a similar discussion on the standard races (including some new subraces: creek dwarves, fern elves, feather gnomes, flint gnomes, spear toe halflings, moss toe halflings, and scrapling halflings), 9 new PC races, and 3 possibly-extinct races (although they have everything you'd need to create a PC from one of those races as well)
- Chapter 7 - Religion: 4 greater gods and 7 lesser/intermediate gods appropriate for a prehistoric setting
- Chapter 8 - Bestiary: 8 "critters" - creatures not powerful enough to be used as monsters to fight, but useful as food sources, pets, and the like - plus game statistics for 37 monsters (mostly dinosaurs and early mammals), followed by a four-page section detailing which Monster Manual creatures would be appropriate for a prehistoric setting.
Lost Prehistorica definitely takes the "toolbox approach" - rather than provide a sample "lost land," the authors provide the DM with all of the pieces and allow him to assemble it as he sees fit. While there's certainly nothing wrong with this approach, I would have liked to have seen a sample "lost world," and I'm sure it would have been useful as an idea generator for those DMs who didn't wish to use it as-is. (Plus, a map would have been cool.)
However, as useful as most of these "pieces" are, I question whether some of them should have been included.
Lost Prehistorica should, by definition, focus on those things found in prehistory: dinosaurs, prehistoric mammals, etc. Do we really need a cat-humanoid PC race in a prehistoric setting? For that matter, do we really need
two? (Both the felklaw and the kifter are humanoid felines.) The early and later hominids are certainly welcome additions, and I don't mind the mandrillion at all (it's a baboon-man, perfectly useable as a type of "proto-human"), but do we then also need another type of baboon-man (the mandreg) and a proboscis-monkey-man (the probosin)? If lizardfolk and troglodytes fit in so well in a lost land setting, do we really need a newt-man (amphimid), reptilian elf (slither elf), or long-haired-lizardfolk-without-a-tail (golgaut)? Likewise, diseases are sure to play a significant role in a prehistoric setting (as they would in any jungle setting, really), and some of them - like the cannibal fever, jungle fever, and clammy crud - fit right in, while others - the blue giggles and green nose, in particular - don't seem to have much to do with the subject matter at all. Even some of the natural hazards are somewhat questionable: the only way I can see blast crystals fitting into a prehistoric setting at all is that I also remember that one episode of "Land of the Lost" where the dad gets hurt testing the properties of the crystals they found in the cave (gosh, a red one next to a yellow one makes noise; a blue one touching a yellow one blows up - or whatever). I'm sure that "Land of the Lost" played a part in the inclusion of the blast crystals, and hey, if you're going to go that far, then where are the Sleestak stats?
As far as the proofreading and editing goes,
Lost Prehistorica is at both ends of the spectrum. On the one hand, I documented more errors in this 109-page PDF (both sides of three pages of legal paper) than I have for any of the other 69 books I've reviewed to date, some of them over twice the size of this work! On the other hand, an overwhelming number of these errors were in capitalization (mostly in the new races sections), and even I, anal retentive as I am, am willing to admit that a capitalization error is just about the easiest type of error to ignore while reading. (Still, that didn't stop me from documenting them anyway; as this is a PDF, I'll send my list of errors to the folks at Dark Quest Games in case they want to fix up the book.) Besides capitalization, there were only a few instances of typos and misspellings in the rest of the PDF, very impressive overall. There were a few questionable formatting decisions made, however, like why all but the first two races get sections after their descriptions detailing how the various PC/NPC classes fit in to the race in question. Why were the amphimids and slither elves not given the same treatment? Also, the "feline racial language" is referred to alternatively as "Felklaw," "Felaine," and "Felanid." Which is it?
Still, there is plenty to like about
Lost Prehistorica. I enjoyed the discussions about the different types of settlements and clans, and found the section on cannibalism to be particularly well done. The various gods all pretty much make sense for a prehistoric campaign, although some of them did seem rather bland or just out-and-out weird. (For instance, I was surprised to see Quartikos, whose portfolio consists of
golems of all things, although I enjoyed the bit about him creating a fully-functioning hand out of a giant ruby for his brother, the intermediate god Dysarkus.) I really liked the "critter" section, as I've always believed that there are more interesting creatures in any given game world than those that you can get experience points for killing. I also thought the monster selection was reasonably broad and well thought out (with a few exceptions, noted later). However, there were quite few mistakes made in the creature stats. I suggest making the following changes:
- p. 83, Amphimid: No Hit Dice are given! As the sample creature is a 1st-level Warrior, and since his BAB is +1, I can extrapolate the following: HD 1d8, hp 4. Grapple should be +0, not -1 (+1 BAB, -1 Str). "Spear melee" should be "Spear +0 melee" in both the Attack and Full Attack lines.
- p. 84, Brachiosaurus: Why is the brachiosaurus smaller than the apatosaurus/brontosaurus? This isn't the case in real life; I believe the brachiosaurus was larger, and thus should have more HD than the apatosaurus. Tail slap attacks should be at +20 melee, not +17 (+12 BAB, +12 Str, -4 size). Tail slap damage should be 1d8+18, not 1d8+16 (since it's the creature's only attack form, it gets 1.5 times its Strength bonus, which in this case is +12).
- p. 85, Dinofelis: BAB should be +4, not +9 (as a 6-HD animal, with the BAB of a cleric).
- p. 87, Entelodont: With 6 HD, it should have 3 feats, not just the 2 listed.
- p. 88, Gastronis: Initiative should be +2, not +3.
- p. 89, Glyptodon: With HD of 6d8+24, its average hp should be 51, not 53. Slam damage should be 1d4+4, not 1d4+6 (it has a +3 Str bonus). It should have 3 feats, not 2.
- p. 91, Hominid, Early: Flat-footed AC should be 10, not 11.
- p. 94, Leptictidium: No touch or flat-footed ACs given; should be touch 14, flat-footed 13.
- p. 94, Magma Brute: Grapple should be +20, not +21 (+6 BAB, +6 Str, +8 size). Slam damage should be 2d6+9, not 2d6+10.
- p. 96, Mandrillion: BAB should be +1, not +0 (it's a 1st-level Warrior). Grapple should be +2, not +1 (+1 BAB, +1 Str).
- p. 97, Massospondylus: Claw damage should be 1d6+6, not 1d6+4 (since this is its only attack form, it gets 1.5 times its Strength bonus, which in this case is +4).
- p. 98, Megatherium: Claw damage should be 2d4+7, not 2d4+5 (since this is its only attack form, it gets 1.5 times its Str bonus, which in this case is +5).
- p. 99, Plateosaurus: HD should be 4d8+16, not 4d8+24 (its Con bonus is only +4). Thus, its average hp should be 34, not 42. (Of course, it's possible that both HD and hp are correct as listed, and it's the Con that's in error - it would have to be a 22 or a 23. Personally, I'd give him the benefit of the doubt and give him a 23 Con; after all, as a Huge animal with only 4 HD, he needs all the hit points he can scrounge!)
- p. 99, Primordial Ooze: HD should be 3d10+3, not 3d10+13. Thus, hp should be 19, not 29. Flat-footed AC should be 6, not 10.
- p. 100, Protoceratops: Grapple should be +4, not +5 (+2 BAB, +2 Str).
- p. 100, Probosin: BAB should be +1, not +0 (it's a 1st-level Warrior). Grapple should be +0, not -1 (+1 BAB, -1 Str).
- p. 101, Pteranodon: Bite attack should be +2 melee, not +3 (+1 BAB, +2 Dex due to Weapon Finesse, -1 size).
- p. 101, Scaphonyx: Bite damage should be 1d6+3, not 1d6+2 (it gets 1.5 times its Str bonus of +2 since this is its only attack form).
- p. 102, Stegosaurus: Grapple should be +18, not +14 (+6 BAB, +4 Str, +8 size).
- p. 103, Stegotaur: Initiative should be +2, not +1. No touch/flat-footed AC values given; should be touch 11, flat-footed 15. Why doesn't it get any weapon attacks, even if it's only with a club (as pictured in the accompanying illustration)? For that matter, since its favored class is monk, what about open hand attacks? Why does its tail provide it with a +2 racial bonus to Jump checks, when the stegosaurus - with an identical body and tail - does not? (Personally, I don't see the four-legged stegotaur as that great of a jumper, anyway.)
- p. 104, Trachodon: Bite attacks should be at +7 melee, not +3 (+4 BAB, +4 Str, -1 size). It looks like the "Attack" and "Full Attack" lines were swapped by mistake. Tail slap attacks should be at +7 melee for Attack and +2 melee for Full Attack.
- p. 104, Tyrotaun: BAB should be +3, not +2. Grapple should be +5, not +4 (+3 BAB, +2 Str).
While I was bothered by the many mistakes in the creature stats, I was also a bit bothered by what did and didn't make the list. The two dinosaur/humanoid hybrids, the stegotaur (stegosaurus centaur) and tyrotaun (top half human, bottom half tyrannosaurus) were, well, just plain
silly. The primordial ooze didn't seem to add anything that the standard oozes don't already have. I think some of these could have easily been dropped, to make way for some "standard" prehistoric creatures that surprised me by their absence: the Eohippus, Iguanodon, Moschops, Parasaurolophus, Pachycephalosaurus, and Styracosaurus, to name just a few. For that matter, there's apparently a creature called a "debalka" - it's referred to on page 91 - but where are the game stats for this creature?
Lost Prehistorica is certainly still a good deal at 109 pages for only $6.95 (and a
much better deal than the $26.95 accidentally listed on the back cover of the PDF!), but all in all I think it could have been much better had it focused a bit more on the truly prehistoric (as opposed to cat-humanoids!), added a bit more to the bestiary, and cleaned up the monster stats. Still, it's not a bad job, and considering the current competition it's still the best work available on the subject of "lost worlds." I put it at a "3 (Average)."