Tome of Horrors overlaps with new Fiend Folio

[Gez]

Hi Craig,

You are actually paraphrasing me out of context.

The question was about demons in the IH; I iterated that the numbers were very few because you would have to explain where generic demons more powerful than Balors (to use an example) had been hiding all this time.

Indeed. Unless you make them just big and really dumb (like the ghaddar devil in the ToH), no generic fiend should be more powerful than the pit fiend/ultroloth/shator/balor. Any higher would be nobility.

Of course there are a few ways round this but you want to avoid throwing a proverbial spanner into the works.

One point of note, there are no demons in the Epic Level Handbook.

But there are infernals... By the way, have you looked at Sep's Titivilus, Graz'zt, and Astaroth (plus celestials, sidhe, epic spells and epic NPCs ) ?

I actually meant a low number of monsters in the book compared to lower powered creatures, not numbers in the game world.
But I more or less agree with your observations on powerful creatures.

Doh!

 

[bwgwl]

U.K. said:

Just how far does this campaign setting leniency extend...smacks a little of hypocrisy.

I mean what if Races of Faerun refers to something from Monsters of Faerun. Is that acceptable to you whereas my suggestion is not?

IMO yes, that's more acceptable. the percentage of FR players buying Races of Faerun who also already have Monsters of Faerun is probably much, much higher than the percentage of all D&D players buying the Fiend Folio who also already have (and use) the Epic Level Handbook.

followers of a particular setting tend to get everything for it. one cannot make the same assumption with generic non-core rulebooks. not everyone who plays D&D buys (and uses) every supplement.

U.K. said:

The problem with your argument is that you are refering to specific settings. Specific being the key word here.

What I am asking is for coverage in generic volumes; Monster Manual 2; Fiend Folio; Arms and Equipment Guide etc.

but by putting in things in those books that require the ELH to use or understand, you are undermining their generic nature. in effect, you are making those parts of the book specific to campaigns that use the epic rules.

when faced with the decision to devote a certain amount of pages to material that's only useful to maybe 5-10% of D&D campaigns, vs. using that space on material useful to the other 90%, i think we know what decision the designers are going to make. (and i'd even argue it's the right decision.)

U.K. said:

Actually this percentage is comparable to the amount of Psionic Monsters in the Monster Manual 2! So actually the double standard is already there. They are happy supporting Psionic Campaigns within generic volumes but not Epic/Immortal ones.

there's a major difference here: the psionic monsters in the MM2 do not require the Psionics Handbook to use. their psionics are given as spell-like or supernatural abilities and they can be fully used with just the core rulebooks.

putting monsters in the Fiend Folio that use abilities, feats, or rules from the ELH is a different thing altogether -- those monsters will be useless to someone who doesn't own that book. this isn't the case with the psionic monsters in the MM2. now, having CR>20 monsters that only reference the core rulebooks is fine, but i think there might be a balance issue with that. (it seems to me that a core-rulebook-only CR 25 critter is not going to be as powerful as a CR 25 critter that has access to ELH material.)

i think your best bet for an epic-level monster book is to wait until after the ELH enters the SRD and hope for a 3rd-party release. i just don't see how it could be profitable for WOTC to do one, given the limited fan-base for epic campaigns. and again, devoting space to such material in otherwise generic books IMO is a bad idea, because it takes space away from material that is more widely relevant to the gaming community as a whole.

 

[Knight Otu]

there's a major difference here: the psionic monsters in the MM2 do not require the Psionics Handbook to use. their psionics are given as spell-like or supernatural abilities and they can be fully used with just the core rulebooks.

Even epic level monsters would not necessarily need the ELH. The epic feats could certainly be turned into special attacks or qualities, with a side bar talking about using the creature with the ELH. Access to an epic spell as an spell-like ability? Describe the ability in detail, instead of listing it as part of the spell-like abilities list (that is what I have done for my planar rulers template). Instead of saying a creature has abomination traits, spell them out, and mention that, if using the ELH, the creature is considered an abomination.
Obviously there are things that cannot be easily incorporated, like actual epic spellcasting. Such things should better be avoided, but it does not make epic creatures outside the ELH impossible.


I hope that made any sense.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi there bwgwl!

IMO yes, that's more acceptable. the percentage of FR players buying Races of Faerun who also already have Monsters of Faerun is probably much, much higher than the percentage of all D&D players buying the Fiend Folio who also already have (and use) the Epic Level Handbook.

...and exactly what percentage legitamizes this hypocrisy?

followers of a particular setting tend to get everything for it. one cannot make the same assumption with generic non-core rulebooks. not everyone who plays D&D buys (and uses) every supplement.

You are making the assumption that everyone who buys FR products is a 'follower'. I assure you that isn't the case. Obviously there are many people buying the FR material to supplement their own campaigns, rather than

but by putting in things in those books that require the ELH to use or understand, you are undermining their generic nature. in effect, you are making those parts of the book specific to campaigns that use the epic rules.

Not at all. As I have mentioned previously the ELH is primarily a generic progression, it would be quite easy to outline any material unique to the ELH within a monster description.

when faced with the decision to devote a certain amount of pages to material that's only useful to maybe 5-10% of D&D campaigns, vs. using that space on material useful to the other 90%, i think we know what decision the designers are going to make. (and i'd even argue it's the right decision.)

But surely constituting 5-10% of D&D campaigns should mean something in generic products where they are trying to generate widespread interest.

We have already established above that Mourns friend who didn't buy the Races of Faerun book it had a single epic reference was a doofus, you are advocating the same sort of lunacy.

there's a major difference here: the psionic monsters in the MM2 do not require the Psionics Handbook to use. their psionics are given as spell-like or supernatural abilities and they can be fully used with just the core rulebooks.

putting monsters in the Fiend Folio that use abilities, feats, or rules from the ELH is a different thing altogether -- those monsters will be useless to someone who doesn't own that book. this isn't the case with the psionic monsters in the MM2. now, having CR>20 monsters that only reference the core rulebooks is fine, but i think there might be a balance issue with that. (it seems to me that a core-rulebook-only CR 25 critter is not going to be as powerful as a CR 25 critter that has access to ELH material.)

I don't agree. It would be simplicity itself to briefly explain a handful of epic feats or the effects of an epic spell (as a spell-like ability) within a monsters description.

i think your best bet for an epic-level monster book is to wait until after the ELH enters the SRD and hope for a 3rd-party release. i just don't see how it could be profitable for WOTC to do one, given the limited fan-base for epic campaigns.

True, if that was the single target.

and again, devoting space to such material in otherwise generic books IMO is a bad idea, because it takes space away from material that is more widely relevant to the gaming community as a whole.

I still say 5-10% of campaigns could easily be adjudicated the same amount of material in overtly generic books without hurting anyone...except Mourns friend.

The 11 epic monsters (assuming CR 29 or better = epic) in the Tome of Horrors certainly didn't do that book any harm at all!

 

[The Little Raven]

Even epic level monsters would not necessarily need the ELH. The epic feats could certainly be turned into special attacks or qualities, with a side bar talking about using the creature with the ELH. Access to an epic spell as an spell-like ability? Describe the ability in detail, instead of listing it as part of the spell-like abilities list (that is what I have done for my planar rulers template). Instead of saying a creature has abomination traits, spell them out, and mention that, if using the ELH, the creature is considered an abomination.
Obviously there are things that cannot be easily incorporated, like actual epic spellcasting. Such things should better be avoided, but it does not make epic creatures outside the ELH impossible.


I hope that made any sense.

That isn't an epic-level monster. An epic-level monster uses the stats and such from the Epic Level Handbook. If a creature is merely a CR/HD 20+, but only uses the core rules, then it is not considered an epic-level monster. Dragons in the MM are not considered epic-level, but they go beyond CR 20.

We are arguing against including monsters in generic supplements that REQUIRE another, non-core book.

I have no problem with them releasing another Epic Level book... in fact, I think it would be cool if they did another release that would add more material, more monsters, spells, skill uses, feats, PrCs and everything... new ideas for campaigns... However, it should be an individual book that specifically states it is only for use with the core books and the ELH. They should not, however, break off sections of normal books and add material that is useless to the majority of gamers (because the majority do NOT use ELH material).

 

[The Little Raven]

Yes I know thats their official assumption and its an obvious flaw in my opinion.

I wouldn't say it's a flaw. You're a gamer, and like all gamers, you want material that YOU can use, everyone else be damned. I know, I'm the same way.

The designers and developers on the other hand, have to take a look at the contents of the book and make it as useful as possible to as many of the people in the industry as possible.

Just how far does this campaign setting leniency extend...smacks a little of hypocrisy.

I mean what if Races of Faerun refers to something from Monsters of Faerun. Is that acceptable to you whereas my suggestion is not?

It's not hipocrisy. Usually, when they mention something from another book, they either reprint it in its entirity (many spells, feats, monsters, PrCs have had this happen), or they show you how to duplicate with the core books. For example, in Magic of Faerun they talk about monster from Monster of Faerun, but have a small sidebar that tells you what MM combinations to use if you don't have the book.

Also... campaign settings are specific material for a specific campaign, not generic material for any campaign, like the Fiend Folio. If there was a campaign setting that was based on the ELH, then pretty much every release for it should have ELH material... but as that is not the case...

But we are not discussing free web material.

We're discussing the inclusion of ELH material, which is employed by less than 25% of D&D gamers. Your minority gets an entire web enhancement that the other 75% doesn't use.

As you well know I was refering to most people in this thread.

And referring to these "most people" is futile and worthless. They are not even a sizable minority. They do not even make up 1% of the gamers in the world.

Just like people that say "Hey, why is X out of print? Everyone I know would buy one!"... yeah, the 10 people you know personally would buy it, as would the 20 you talk to on the internet regularly. But the other hundreds of thousands of gamers wouldn't.

I'm afraid your point doesn't hold water at all.

Elaborate.

Obviously they are going to plan the design and contents ahead of schedule. Are you suggesting they are fools over at WotC!?

Yes, but plans change. Core ideas for a book change. Look at the difference between the seed of the ELH rules they put in the FRCS. They were going to use that method, but roughly halfway through the process, they changed it COMPLETELY.

And as for fools... take a look at the Sword and Fist... and yes, I'd call the people that put out that crappy book fools.

I don't mean they should tack on a few pages towards the end when the rest of the book is finished. I am talking about a conscious decision from the start to designate perhaps 5% of the book to epic/immortal centric campaigns, thats only ten pages out of every 200 for goodness sake.

A conscious effort to take 10 pages of material and make it useless to 75% of D&D gamers is stupid. That is what TSR did and that is one of the reasons they lost the market. They put in things that focused on such a minority that other gamers wouldn't buy products, myself included.

...and if I want Monsters I will get the Monster Manual.

Which is a core book. A book that all other books assume you have. A book you should have as a DM.

The ELH is not a core book. It is not a book you are assumed to have. It's not a book that the MAJORITY of gamers even own.

But now they are trying to sell us new books and I think they should recognise that a lot of people play in different campaigns, not the majority, true, but a healthy minority.

And for that minority, they have the ELH and the web enhancements. By your reasoning they should divide up books so that every 10 pages is worthless to 75% of gamers. So, when they devote those 10 pages to the ELH, after that they should devote another 10 to the PsiHB, since we can't leave them out after all, and another 10 to the BoVD... and since they added that, they'll have to put a mature rating on it.

You are asking for pages to cater to your and a couple of your friends, while ignoring the many other types of campaigns that other people play. If they listened to all of the minorities, then the books would be effectively worthless, except for a couple pages.

Any person with the three core books can use the Fiend Folio fully. A person with the ELH can use the Fiend Folio fully. If there were ELH monsters in the book, a person with the core books could NOT use the Fiend Folio fully, which would make it less valuable to the gaming community, and its sales would suffer for it.

Exactly, and that difference is that there is little of consequence for epic campaigns in the Fiend Folio...though I must admit I am interested to see that CR 25 Demon.

Actually, there is plenty in the Fiend Folio for ELH play... monsters can be beefed up, piled with templates, taking PrCs, all of which will make that monster a challenge for the EL character. And it still remains useful to everyone else, which is the point.

Didn't entirely agree with them then, still don't now.

It's called core continuity and the lack of it is what ruined TSR and AD&D.

I'm talking about a small percentage of material that will be specific to people who already have those books. They won't be new vital components to the rules.

You're asking a market-share leader to favor one small fraction of the population, while ignoring the majority and the other minorities. That's a faulty business practice.

He sounds like a bit of a doofus. Take him to the side and have a chat with him.

He is a doofus, but he also has convictions. As he told me "I'd never buy a book written by a known bigot. Why would I buy a book with material I despise?"

 

[bwgwl]

Hi there bwgwl!

hey there!

...and exactly what percentage legitamizes this hypocrisy?

You are making the assumption that everyone who buys FR products is a 'follower'. I assure you that isn't the case. Obviously there are many people buying the FR material to supplement their own campaigns, rather than

hey, i'm one of them -- i own a handful of FR books and i've never gamed (and probably never will) in the Realms. i still don't see it as hypocrisy though -- it's the difference between specific support for a specific setting vs generic support useful for all (or most) campaigns.

i don't mind the Red Wizard PrC taking up space in the FRCS even though i don't ever plan on using that organization in my homebrew. i would be annoyed by some ELH-specific monsters, prestige classes taking up space in an otherwise-generic book. not because i don't ever want to see epic-level material (i do own the ELH) but because i think that space would be better served by material useful to a larger percentage of the gaming community.

a book only has a limited amount of space in it. every page devoted to a subject useful to only a small handful of the market means a page that is not useful to the rest of the market. in order to sell books, WOTC panders to the majority. that's the best decision for them as a publishing company because it sells the most books.

i am not adverse to seeing books that are entirely epic-based. i'm not against epic level adventuring at all, i just don't think it should be mixed into otherwise generic books that don't assume the existence or use of the ELH.

Not at all. As I have mentioned previously the ELH is primarily a generic progression, it would be quite easy to outline any material unique to the ELH within a monster description.

actually, this would be even worse than just putting in the monster "naked." now, instead of a half-a-page of a monster's stats that most people will never use, we've got a half-a-page of stats and another half-a-page of supplemental material to support the monster. and the people who actually would use this monster already own the ELH and thus already have a copy of these rules. it just makes even more wasted space.

But surely constituting 5-10% of D&D campaigns should mean something in generic products where they are trying to generate widespread interest.

i don't think so. wouldn't the best way to generate interest be to spend those pages discussing things useful to the other 90% of the gaming community?

We have already established above that Mourns friend who didn't buy the Races of Faerun book it had a single epic reference was a doofus, you are advocating the same sort of lunacy.

actually, i don't follow the connection. how would what i'm describing be the same thing?

I still say 5-10% of campaigns could easily be adjudicated the same amount of material in overtly generic books without hurting anyone...except Mourns friend.

however, like Mourn describes, where do you draw the line? should every generic sourcebook devote 10% of its material to epic campaigns, another 10% to psionic campaigns, another 10% to low-magic campaigns, another 10% to Oriental Adventures campaigns, another 10% to planar campaigns, etc... after a while, there's nothing generic left.

for better or worse, there is a generic, standard way the most campaigns run. in order to sell enough books, WOTC needs to focus its books on these types of campaigns.

The 11 epic monsters (assuming CR 29 or better = epic) in the Tome of Horrors certainly didn't do that book any harm at all!

ah. see, i don't consider them "epic" monsters in the same way as i've been using the term above. those monsters do have a rather high CR, but they don't require the ELH to use. there is nothing in their stat blocks that derives from the ELH. what i was talking about is material that can only be understood when referenced to the ELH. that is a whole other animal entirely.

and FWIW, i personally was disappointed seeing all those unique high-CR fiends in the ToH. i've never run a D&D campaign that used the standard "Great Wheel" cosmology, and i've never run a campaign where those beings existed. so they were wasted space for me. however, in this, i'm guessing i'm in the minority.

 

[Gez]

Rather than a reprint, I think you would just have the monster stripped of all its epic-ness and a little sidebar saying "if you use the ELH, the Zgrubulor has Epic Pancake Cooking instead of Toughness, and may cast the epic spell Summon Munster X once per day, its weapon becomes a +6 daisy cutting great scythe, and its CR rises 2 points". Something that wouldn't takes more place than the little "If you use the Psionics Handbook, the Scrapulurgh has the attack and defense modes blah-blah-blah and the psionic feat blah".

 

[Knight Otu]

That isn't an epic-level monster.

Why?

An epic-level monster uses the stats and such from the Epic Level Handbook.

The creatures I proposed do use rules from the ELH. They are just disguised to appear as Core rules.

If a creature is merely a CR/HD 20+, but only uses the core rules, then it is not considered an epic-level monster. Dragons in the MM are not considered epic-level, but they go beyond CR 20.

We are arguing against including monsters in generic supplements that REQUIRE another, non-core book.

We seem to have differing opinions. A monster that gives epic level characters is an epic monster. Dragons are epic monsters. Brachyuruses, as much as I hate them, are epic monsters. The tarrasque is an epic monster. Any of those monsters can use epic rules.

I have no problem with them releasing another Epic Level book...

Neither do I.

They should not, however, break off sections of normal books and add material that is useless to the majority of gamers (because the majority do NOT use ELH material).

They would not do that if they included epic monsters and gave the rules necessary to use them, just as they do with psionics. WotC does give us the information necessary to use psionics with and without the PsiHB. The same can be done with epic monsters. That is all I am saying.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Mourn!

I wouldn't say it's a flaw.

Thats why I added 'in my opinion'.

You're a gamer, and...

...a designer.

like all gamers, you want material that YOU can use, everyone else be damned. I know, I'm the same way.

Not at all, I'm happy if they want to include some psionic material in a book (that sort of subliminal advertising can often lead to people wanting to learn more about 'said' areas, which of course means more sales of that book).

The designers and developers on the other hand, have to take a look at the contents of the book and make it as useful as possible to as many of the people in the industry as possible.

This is the whole crux of what I am talking about though:

Epic/Immortal gamers are a minority, but assuming they represent between 5-10% of gamers (even though I am sure the percentage of gamers who own both D&Dg and the ELH is much higher) then when WotC release a generic product wholly with non epic/immortal material they are already fracturing their market!

So to respond to your point; they are not making it as useful as possible to as many of the people in the industry as possible.

The problem to which you attest is that certain gamers are not content with 190 generic pages of material if they have to 'stomach' maybe as much as 10 pages of psionic or epic/immortal material.

It's not hipocrisy. Usually, when they mention something from another book, they either reprint it in its entirity (many spells, feats, monsters, PrCs have had this happen), or they show you how to duplicate with the core books. For example, in Magic of Faerun they talk about monster from Monster of Faerun, but have a small sidebar that tells you what MM combinations to use if you don't have the book.

More hypocrisy...you are saying they are allowed footnotes to outline material from another book in some cases but not in others!?

Also... campaign settings are specific material for a specific campaign, not generic material for any campaign, like the Fiend Folio. If there was a campaign setting that was based on the ELH, then pretty much every release for it should have ELH material... but as that is not the case...

Okay, and how does anything you have just said refudiate my points so far. I have been concentrating from the start on generic material not setting based material.

We're discussing the inclusion of ELH material, which is employed by less than 25% of D&D gamers.

Agreed. Thats probably the percentage who own the book though.

Your minority gets an entire web enhancement that the other 75% doesn't use.

To be fair those web enhancements are too specific though...prestige class updates for the most.

And referring to these "most people" is futile and worthless. They are not even a sizable minority. They do not even make up 1% of the gamers in the world.

True but they indicate a palpable cross-section.

Just like people that say "Hey, why is X out of print? Everyone I know would buy one!"... yeah, the 10 people you know personally would buy it, as would the 20 you talk to on the internet regularly. But the other hundreds of thousands of gamers wouldn't.

Irrelevant supposition. We are talking about 5% of a books content, not 100%.

Elaborate.

I did, you sliced the text off.

Yes, but plans change. Core ideas for a book change. Look at the difference between the seed of the ELH rules they put in the FRCS. They were going to use that method, but roughly halfway through the process, they changed it COMPLETELY.

Yes thats called development.

However, they didn't fall into trouble maintaining the page count in multiples of 16 which was the point of yours I was quoshing.

And as for fools... take a look at the Sword and Fist... and yes, I'd call the people that put out that crappy book fools.

...if only the book had had some epic/immortal material in it then at least one of us would have been happy.

A conscious effort to take 10 pages of material and make it useless to 75% of D&D gamers is stupid. That is what TSR did and that is one of the reasons they lost the market. They put in things that focused on such a minority that other gamers wouldn't buy products, myself included.

Firstly, obviously it wouldn't be useless since it could easily be written up to allow everyone to use it.

Secondly thats not what T$R did. They brought out a plethora of whole books (not 5% of generic books) for minorities and spread core rules updates throughout multiple products.

Which is a core book. A book that all other books assume you have. A book you should have as a DM.

The exact point I am trying to make.

The Monster Manual is a core book about monsters. Therefore if I want a book about monsters I go for the Monster Manual...it does exactly what it says on the tin.

However, the Fiend Folio is not a core book but it is a generic monster volume. They don't have to pandy to the 'core' ethos.

The ELH is not a core book. It is not a book you are assumed to have. It's not a book that the MAJORITY of gamers even own.

And for that minority, they have the ELH and the web enhancements. By your reasoning they should divide up books so that every 10 pages is worthless to 75% of gamers. So, when they devote those 10 pages to the ELH, after that they should devote another 10 to the PsiHB, since we can't leave them out after all, and another 10 to the BoVD... and since they added that, they'll have to put a mature rating on it.

Firstly, I didn't complain about Psionic Monsters in the Monster Manual 2 - in fact I thought it was a good thing.

Secondly, when I refer to Epic/Immortal gaming that includes Arch-fiends such as those from the BoVD...and the 'mature' title was essentially a gimmick therein. Obviously you could have included any of the Arch-fiends in MM2 and no one would have batted an eyelid.

Frankly your whole resolve is wholly pessimistic. You are looking at books that would be 5% empty to you rather than 95% full.

You are asking for pages to cater to your and a couple of your friends, while ignoring the many other types of campaigns that other people play. If they listened to all of the minorities, then the books would be effectively worthless, except for a couple pages.

How the hell are we ignoring them when they are still getting 95% of the book for goodness sake!?

Any person with the three core books can use the Fiend Folio fully. A person with the ELH can use the Fiend Folio fully. If there were ELH monsters in the book, a person with the core books could NOT use the Fiend Folio fully, which would make it less valuable to the gaming community, and its sales would suffer for it.

Not at all

Actually, there is plenty in the Fiend Folio for ELH play... monsters can be beefed up, piled with templates, taking PrCs, all of which will make that monster a challenge for the EL character. And it still remains useful to everyone else, which is the point.

Well of course we can 'beef' up monsters, we can also create our own, what you have to ask yourself is where is the impetus for gaming minorities to buy these books, eh"!? Thats why a few crumbs (such as I suggest) would increase the target audience.

It's called core continuity and the lack of it is what ruined TSR and AD&D.

I already responded to your 'turning into T$R' argument.

You're asking a market-share leader to favor one small fraction of the population, while ignoring the majority and the other minorities. That's a faulty business practice.

No its not.

Typical gamers lose nothing - if you design a monster book to have 200 generic (by that meaning core only material) monsters, you simply add in a few epic/immortal or psionic ones so generic gamers lose absolutely nothing. Added to that you can still easily include this bonus material so that anyone can use it!

Sales do not suffer - you are increasing your target audience from generic to generic + psionic + epic/immortal.

He is a doofus, but he also has convictions. As he told me "I'd never buy a book written by a known bigot. Why would I buy a book with material I despise?"

There are a lot of people out there with convictions, but all the conviction in the world doesn't make you right.