Kanegrundar
Explorer
I understood your point, but that's what I disliked about ToH. Not everyone can play on memory due to not ever knowing the original material. Based on ToH's popularity I would say that Necromancer did a good job (their stats were very well done), but comparing it to other monster books that give more information on the creatures, it's rather bland. All in all, it's a matter of what you look for in a monster book. If just stats with minimal background info does it for you, that's great. However, I like the approach taken with other monster books like Monsternomicon, Minions, and Denizens of Avadnu better. ToH is used regularly by me, but seeing as how I don't have any of my old D&D material, I have to rely on my (sometimes) faulty memory or make it all up myself for background. Not that that's hard or anything, since I don't always use things as how the authors intended, but a solid background or plot hooks may give me ideas I hadn't considered before.Voadam said:But that was my point, TOH is stats and cut down, bare bones descriptions, so the value was in the stats and the number of creatures included. I expect most people who knew the originals to only use the TOH for the stats and rely on memory or the more fleshed out descriptions from older editions. In that scenario, printing out the stat block separately for a creature that inspired you from the old sourcebook is more useful than having the full 300+ page book to haul out in addition to the older edition one with the better flavor description.
I did the same thing for bladelings in the 3e MMII finding lots of great flavor from the two page description in the 2e planescape monster entry in my pdf of planes of law that was not in the two paragraphs or so of the 3e description. Although I appreciated having the 3e statblock.
Kane