Throw me a bone, WOTC! [Twilight Tomb]

[Olgar Shiverstone]

So I got Twilight Tomb in the mail last night and read it over. Seems a reasonable multi-session site-based adventure, with some good opportunities to combine combat, diplomacy, and intrigue if played right, plus in spite of being a FR title it's essentially self-contained and could be easily ported anywhere.

Here's what bugs me: it makes a lot of use of supplemental material, including (IIRC) Libris Mortis, Unapproachable East, Lost Empires of Faerun, MM3, and others. Which is actually good to a point: it puts the other material to work, and of course the stats for the non-core stuff is included ... sort of. That's the real problem. Using a creature or class from a supplement, they include a stat block ... but there's no description of what the creature is! All stats, no context! (This isn't universally true, as there are a few room descriptions that have some descriptive text, but it is true of many of the unsusual creatures). I mean, how do I use an XYZ if I don't know what it is? Throw me a bone, here, will ya?

(Now, admittedly, I have all of the supplemental books listed, but I suspect I'm in the minority. What about those folks who don't have them? At least a short creature description and overview could be provided.)

 

[Numion]

Now, admittedly, I have all of the supplemental books listed

 

[Shroomy]

I thought the WoTC website has an art gallery for all the monsters published in their books.

 

[EricNoah]

They actually did the same thing with Red Hand of Doom. Until MMIV came out, months later, we really had no idea what a "blackspawn raider" was or looked like, and the same with the greenspawn razorfiend.

As shroomy points out, at least there are art galleries for the products you mention. Though as we all know sometimes the art doesn't quite match with the text.

 

[Kishin]

I noticed this with Red Hand of Doom (Although the Razorfiend is at least pictured on Page 62, it isn't labelled and identified as such) and I'm a bit confused as to why it keeps occuring. Any adventures using non-core monsters submitted to Dungeon magazine are required to include descriptions of the creature in the encounter, and all of them do this with little problem. I don't see why WoTC adventures don't follow the same policy.

 

[diaglo]

i've got all of them too. :embarrassed:

but totally agree with Olgar.

somebody ain't doing their job.

 

[fafhrd]

I noticed this with Red Hand of Doom (Although the Razorfiend is at least pictured on Page 62, it isn't labelled and identified as such) and I'm a bit confused as to why it keeps occuring. Any adventures using non-core monsters submitted to Dungeon magazine are required to include descriptions of the creature in the encounter, and all of them do this with little problem. I don't see why WoTC adventures don't follow the same policy.

It doesn't surprise me much. Paizo puts out a more polished product than WotC these days.

 

[howandwhy99]

I mean, how do I use an XYZ if I don't know what it is? Throw me a bone, here, will ya?

I agree with you here, but I've begun to think this is standard operating procedure. Rules are created without reference to the fantasy world they are simulating. If there's not even the most baseline attempt at, say, spell preparation or magic item creation, how can any DM be expected to come up with ALL of those things. Better to have a wealth of flavor options than a "you make the in-world rules" up dearth of such. IMHO, that is.

BTW, XYZ is a PDQ BBEG

 

[Pants]

It doesn't surprise me much. Paizo puts out a more polished product than WotC these days.

Erm. Really?
Editing-wise.... they're much worse.

But still, Dungeon does it right when it comes to using non-core monsters. However, merely making use of non-core monsters in adventures is a big step in the right direction.

 

[Haffrung Helleyes]

It's true that Paizo has stat block issues, but I trust them to get the 'feel' of D&D right far more than I trust WoTC.

Ken