Tome of Horrors overlaps with new Fiend Folio

[kenjib]

Wow, according to the table of contents posted:

http://www.gamingreport.com/article.php?sid=7855&mode=&order=0

There look to be significantly more than 15 overlapping creatures. I must say that I don't like to support people that go back on their word.

I really like the Tome of Horrors, and the new (rather than updated) creatures that WotC creates are often among my least favorite in the various WotC monster books. I certainly don't have any urgent need for Fiend Folio. I'll save my bucks from Monkey God's Stone to Steel.

 

[Nightfall]

Agreed. I'm pretty much passing on Fiend Folio. At least until I find a cheap copy and then add it. But Tome of Horrors, I feel, is a better product and money better spent.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

True enough... Personally, I'm waiting to find a copy of Denizens of Avadnu. The preview is excellent.

 

[Alzrius]

I sat down with the Table of Contents for both the Fiend Folio (which was posted here on EN World), and for the Tome of Horrors (which was posted over at The Creature Catalogue). Here is the list of monsters that I found overlapped between the two:

Blood Hawk
Caryatid Column
Crypt Thing
Dark Creeper
Dark Stalker
Death Dog
Demodand, Farastu/Tarry
Demodand, Kelubar/Slime
Demodand, Shator/Shaggy
Deva (Celestial), Monadic
Deva (Celestial), Movanic
Disenchanter
Huecuva
Iron Cobra
Jackalwere/Therianthrope, Jackalwere
Kelpie
Mongrelman/Mongrelfolk
Necrophidius
Shedu
Skulk
Spriggan
Yellow Musk Creeper
Yellow Musk Zombie
Yugoloth, Piscoloth/Piscodaemon

There are twenty-four overlapping entries here altogether, and this isn't even taking into account unexpected overlap from other WotC books (emphasis on "unexpected", Orcus in the ToH doesn't count).

Can someone please go post this over at the Necromancer Games boards? I hate EZ Boards, and have the hardest time in the world registering and logging onto them.

EDIT: Added the Blood Hawk, don't know how that slipped by me. So now it's a nice round two dozen monster overlap.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Actually, CH, the paragraph you quote isn't about WotC's use, so your response isn't exactly in context (or, that is to say, it's in context until your last sentance... to which...)
I guess it depends what you define as "official". For me, it's always what I bring to the table as the DM (or, in those rare instances where I get to actually play, what the DM brings to the table). Whether the source is WotC or someone else doesn't really have any bearing in the matter, only that it contributes to the fun of the game and the depthness of the setting.

So, again, I invite more overlap. It's only more material for me to pick, choose and scavange from.

I was trying to illustrate a point more than respond to your post, but didn't quite achieve my objective. The use of critters from OGC sources is a good thing, and helps foster a kind of "milieu" for d20/OGL stuff separate and independent from closed content from WotC. When WotC comes along and creates their own "official" (and by "official," I mean WotC material, which is very, very often seen as the be-all and end-all of D&D/d20 material by virtue of its huge market share) versions of stuff that they had agreed to not bother with, it just strikes me as bad form. Maybe not illegal, maybe not intentional, but it's simply not very cool to effectively undercut a d20 publisher who acted in good faith like that.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Ah, yes... That's much clearer. Sorry to not understand your point.

 

[Ulrick]

Well, it doesn't look like I'll be getting Fiend Folio unless I can get it cheap somewhere (at least 50% off).

 

[Derulbaskul]

Hi all!

Does anyone know if the Fiend Folio contains any new Demon Lords or Dukes of Hell (etc.)?

I don't need to know specifics (if people are worried about NDAs) just a yes or no would suffice. I'll have the book in about two weeks anyway...

Hi UK,

No, no new unique fiends but there are three really cool 6-level prestige classes, Fiend of Blasphemy, Fiend of Corruption and Fiend of... I forget. The two new baatezu are excellent, aided by some very interesting art, and really powerful.

I think it's an infinitely better buy than MMII.

One 3.5 change I noticed, Constructs seem to get bonus hit points based on size like an ooze does (or did... I haven't checked that yet).

Cheers
D

 

[Alzrius]

This is a minor thread-hijack, but did anyone besides me notice that the ToH messed up where the Therianthropes were concerned?

"Therianthrope" is the correct word for werecreatures. Werewolves, werebears, wererats, etc. all of these are therianthropes. Things like wolfweres and jackalweres are "antherions". The 2E Monstrous Manual spelled that out rather clearly. It was an annoying mistake to see in the otherwise-great work that is the ToH.

 

[Samnell]

Consistancy and portability. If WoTC would adopt the very good rules created by other publishers, such rules would become more cannonical and therefore more portable between gaming groups as well as more accessible via other 3rd party publishers.

Who decides which are the very good rules, pray tell? WotC? It's certainly not going to be the desperately non-representative sample of people who post on this message board. There's no reason not to conclude that WotC has decided it's doing just that and no third party publisher has yet produced anything they considered up to snuff, with the exception of two monsters.

Sure, I think there's good third party stuff out there. I worship at the altar of Monte with occasional offerings to Bruce Cordell and Sean Reynolds. But neither you nor I make decisions about WotC's product line. I would much rather see WotC producing new content all its own than copying from other publishers. A world with more than one DM is never going to have a growing level of consistancy and portability between campaigns anyway. It's unrealistic, and frankly undesireable.

I'm not at all down on d20 pubs (as a large section of shelving would indicate) and I'll even agree that they have at times produced things clearly superior to WotC's stuff...to me, anyway. Psionics in my games are per Mindscapes, not the PsiHB. But that's my choice because alternatives exist in third party material. If the industry decides that this or that is the canonical way to do something, they have no desire to produce alternatives, which means if I want one I'll have to do it myself. The main reason I buy gaming books is because I don't have much in the way of time or inclination to work up whole new rulesets on my own.

You guys are coming across like WotC has some kind of deep animus against d20 pubs and it's bending over backwards to screw them over. Fact is those books have finite space and I'd vastly prefer they spent time doing what I pay them money to do, that is make up new material, than just copy someone else's. I feel the same way about all the d20 publishers.