Tome of Horrors overlaps with new Fiend Folio

[Upper_Krust]

Hi Bedris!

Well, considering the announcement that some time after 3.5 is released, Epic and DDG material is going into the SRD, than I'd say we should likely see more integration of these rules in WotC and 3rd Party releases. So, I'd say another 6-9 months for the release (just a guestimet, mind you), followed by a few months of material development, and then 21+ games should get a boost in material.

When was this announcement?

I have it on faith from the WotC bigwigs that they are to be entered into the SRD before 3.5.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

When was this announcement?

I have it on faith from the WotC bigwigs that they are to be entered into the SRD before 3.5.

Actually, your sources are probably right. I thought this story indicated otherwise, but I think I just took the release times to be in the same order that the announcements were made.

Personally, I'd like the "mechanics end" of the MotP released (to allow a unified manner of defining planes), but finallizing and uploading my own HLP/ES rules when ELH is released would be helpful as well, so I'll take it as it comes.

 

[The Little Raven]

Absolutely, but why can't WotC acknowledge that a percentage of players do actually play epic/immortal campaigns and donate a small percentage (not like I am asking for much) of these books accordingly.

I mean I don't think I am being unreasonable here!?

You are being unreasonable. You are asking a major corporation to spend money on limited releases for a very SMALL portion of the gaming community. That is not a good business tactic for them. They release products that can be used by a large majority of the gaming community.

If they were going to throw support to smaller areas, then the many campaign settings that TSR owned would be done again in 3rd Edition. However, since FR is the only one that really made TSR/WoTC money, that is the setting they opted to release.

Remember, Wizards does print runs of 10,000 (minimum), but sometimes has print runs of 100,000 or so for bigger, more popular releases. Asking them to waste money on a 1,000 print run on a book that most of the community wouldn't buy or use is simply ridiculous.

I am happy supporting WotC (I have every major release to date), why can't they support me (and many others)!?

They do support you, and others.

Fact 1 - They saved D&D. There is no argument against this, and there is nothing they can do to invalidate this. TSR was dead, and D&D was going into a deep grave. Be grateful.

Fact 2 - They formed the OGL with the d20 System to allow people to publish D&D products without being sued... which was a favored tactic of TSR (They Sue Regularly).

Fact 3 - They release all manners of free material, web enhancements, errata, updates, previews. What did TSR do? They released crappy material with crappy rules, then instead of doing reprints and errata, they merely published ANOTHER book to fix the problems of the other one.

Fact 4 - You, as an individual, are not important. This may sound mean, but it's true. One individual complaining does nothing. The majority of the community doesn't have a problem with anything stated on here, and NO, the 50 some-odd people posting their completes do not even make up a fraction of a percent of the community.

Out of the 150+ monsters in the Fiend Folio would it just have bust their chops to have maybe three or four Arch-fiends (General of Gehenna, Zuggtmoy etc.) and a like number of epic monsters!?

It wouldn't have been a good move on their part. For one, they are limited to a number of pages (multiples of four, set in a module unit, etc.). Secondly, if they put in any ELH material, then the amount of people that would purchase that product would diminish due to the fact that NOT EVERYBODY USES THE HANDBOOK. I know people that didn't buy Races of Faerun because it had the Elven High Mage as an epic level PrC.

You know it makes sense.

No.

And as for the FF and ToH overlaps. At the time, they stated that no book announced would overlap with ToH. The Fiend Folio wasn't announced at that time.

 

[Gez]

Hello Craig !

Absolutely, but why can't WotC acknowledge that a percentage of players do actually play epic/immortal campaigns and donate a small percentage (not like I am asking for much) of these books accordingly.

IMHO, a pit fiend -- especially a revised pit fiend -- with all six levels in each of the PrC is going to be a force to be reckonned with in most epic campaigns. If that's not enough, max its HD...

I mean I don't think I am being unreasonable here!?

Have you ever thought that ?

I am happy supporting WotC (I have every major release to date), why can't they support me (and many others)!?

Out of the 150+ monsters in the Fiend Folio would it just have bust their chops to have maybe three or four Arch-fiends (General of Gehenna, Zuggtmoy etc.) and a like number of epic monsters!?

They're out to get you... No, more seriously, they don't seem to continue TSR's tradition of putting unique, named, defined individuals into monster books (the Tarrasque may be seen as an exception, since she's supposed to be unique). In the Book of Vile Darkness, archfiends are put in a different chapter than the monsters. Hence, that may explain why no archfiends there, nor in MM or MM2. Myself, I'm rather OK with that -- it seems logical to separate "raw" creatures from NPCs. And beside, generic monsters get more use than unique NPCs.

That said, here's a good thread for archfiends and epic beasties. You may like Sep's version of Graz'zt better than the BoVD one...

Well, funny you mention [fiendwurm]...

I just did a dozen post ago:

Only five.

Monster Manual 2 had a dozen...and thats not counting the Gem Dragons.

Yes, but some of these CRs weren't deserved. Fiendwurm, CR 28 ? A CR 28 beastie without SR, only one attack per round, and a mere Str 36 score... Demonic belch ? The name is fun, but vrocks and quasits aren't that impressive. It can't fly and it has no ranged attacks. CR 18 maybe, definitely not 28. I have similar doubts about the mountain giant (CR 26, no SR).

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi Mourn!

You are being unreasonable. You are asking a major corporation to spend money on limited releases for a very SMALL portion of the gaming community. That is not a good business tactic for them. They release products that can be used by a large majority of the gaming community.

If they were going to throw support to smaller areas, then the many campaign settings that TSR owned would be done again in 3rd Edition. However, since FR is the only one that really made TSR/WoTC money, that is the setting they opted to release.

Remember, Wizards does print runs of 10,000 (minimum), but sometimes has print runs of 100,000 or so for bigger, more popular releases. Asking them to waste money on a 1,000 print run on a book that most of the community wouldn't buy or use is simply ridiculous.

I think you have misunderstood what I have said.

I don't want them to go out of their way to make products for a market minority. What I would like is that when they make a new product they consider devoting a small percentage of that product to those gamers who entertain epic/immortal play.

They do support you, and others.

Fact 1 - They saved D&D. There is no argument against this, and there is nothing they can do to invalidate this. TSR was dead, and D&D was going into a deep grave. Be grateful.

Fact 2 - They formed the OGL with the d20 System to allow people to publish D&D products without being sued... which was a favored tactic of TSR (They Sue Regularly).

Fact 3 - They release all manners of free material, web enhancements, errata, updates, previews. What did TSR do? They released crappy material with crappy rules, then instead of doing reprints and errata, they merely published ANOTHER book to fix the problems of the other one.

...and I love them too, but that doesn't mean I can't make suggestions about things I would like to see. I am sure they appreciate honest consumer feedback!

Fact 4 - You, as an individual, are not important. This may sound mean, but it's true. One individual complaining does nothing. The majority of the community doesn't have a problem with anything stated on here, and NO, the 50 some-odd people posting their completes do not even make up a fraction of a percent of the community.

Funnily enough most people have agreed with my position; essentially that a few Arch-fiends and Epic Monsters wouldn't have hurt the Fiend Folio one bit, quite the contrary!

It wouldn't have been a good move on their part. For one, they are limited to a number of pages (multiples of four, set in a module unit, etc.).

You really are clutching at straws with this point. Are you trying to say they couldn't add maybe four pages of Archfiends and another four of Epic Monsters!

Secondly, if they put in any ELH material, then the amount of people that would purchase that product would diminish due to the fact that NOT EVERYBODY USES THE HANDBOOK.

So what!? Is everyone who buys the Fiend Folio going to use EVERY SINGLE MONSTER IN THE BOOK!?*

No, of course not.

*Hey whadya know, I can hit caps lock too!

I know people that didn't buy Races of Faerun because it had the Elven High Mage as an epic level PrC.

Anyone who would refuse to buy a book because it had a single reference to the epic rules (which lets face it are an extension of the core rules) is an utter fool.

No.

Yes.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hello Craig !

Hey Gez mate!

IMHO, a pit fiend -- especially a revised pit fiend -- with all six levels in each of the PrC is going to be a force to be reckonned with in most epic campaigns. If that's not enough, max its HD...

What am I, a novice. Don't answer that...

Have you ever thought that ?

What I think or do not think is secondary to the facts.

They're out to get you...

No, more seriously, they don't seem to continue TSR's tradition of putting unique, named, defined individuals into monster books (the Tarrasque may be seen as an exception, since she's supposed to be unique).

Indeed.

In the Book of Vile Darkness, archfiends are put in a different chapter than the monsters. Hence, that may explain why no archfiends there, nor in MM or MM2. Myself, I'm rather OK with that -- it seems logical to separate "raw" creatures from NPCs. And beside, generic monsters get more use than unique NPCs.

I'm generally okay with it to, but would I prefer it the other way around, hell yes (pun intended)!

That said, here's a good thread for archfiends and epic beasties. You may like Sep's version of Graz'zt better than the BoVD one...

Thanks, I'll go take a look.

I just did a dozen post ago:

I was refering to the 'better monsters than' portion of post.

Yes, but some of these CRs weren't deserved. Fiendwurm, CR 28 ? A CR 28 beastie without SR, only one attack per round, and a mere Str 36 score... Demonic belch ? The name is fun, but vrocks and quasits aren't that impressive. It can't fly and it has no ranged attacks. CR 18 maybe, definitely not 28. I have similar doubts about the mountain giant (CR 26, no SR).

I never said their CRs were perfect, but it was the thought that counted.

 

[Olive]

I know people that didn't buy Races of Faerun because it had the Elven High Mage as an epic level PrC.

uhhhh... that's wierd. they didn't buy it because of a side bar?!?!?!? it's tiny. really, if people don't want to buy a book, they should just say so...

I'm not using the epic rules at the moment either (and have no real intention to do so), but what the hell?

 

[The Little Raven]

Hi Mourn!

Hi!

I think you have misunderstood what I have said.

Alright, let's see.

I don't want them to go out of their way to make products for a market minority. What I would like is that when they make a new product they consider devoting a small percentage of that product to those gamers who entertain epic/immortal play.

And I think that is unreasonable. Most books only assume that you possess the three core books, with the exception of campaign settings, which assume you have the core campaign setting book as well.

Plus, you already have an entire web feature dedicated to it, just like psionics. They give you FREE epic-level material on the site, which is why they don't want to or need to put it in books.

...and I love them too, but that doesn't mean I can't make suggestions about things I would like to see. I am sure they appreciate honest consumer feedback!

I never said you couldn't. I make suggestions all the time. If you took a look at my inbox and outbox, you'd see tons of emails to and from developers, designers, and editors, bouncing ideas... most of them don't get through, but that doesn't stop me.

Funnily enough most people have agreed with my position; essentially that a few Arch-fiends and Epic Monsters wouldn't have hurt the Fiend Folio one bit, quite the contrary!

"Most people?" I'm sorry, but the people on this forum do not comprise even 1/8th of the D&D gamers on the internet alone. And gamers with access to the internet make up a little over half the gaming population. If you're going to say "most people" be a little more specific... most people in this thread may agree with you, but most of the players in the world don't.

You really are clutching at straws with this point. Are you trying to say they couldn't add maybe four pages of Archfiends and another four of Epic Monsters!

Yes, I am. When you print a book, you print it in increments of 16 or 32 pages. That is why all page counts are multiples of 16 (FRCS is 320 pages, which is 20 16-page modules). So, they'd have to add an additional 16 pages, or cut 4 pages of material that can be useful to anyone (as it does not require the ELH). Then, they have to pay a developer additional to write text for those pages, pay a designer more to spend more time making sure nothing contradicts itself, and pay an editor more to take more time to edit the document. Then you have additional art to add, R&D to have check it out for rules consistency. All of these factors can also increase the cover price of the book, which will, of course, anger gamers even further.

There's a lot more to adding those four pages than you think. You want Archfiends... get the BoVD. You want epic level monsters... get the ELH and check out the web supplements. Or make your own.

So what!? Is everyone who buys the Fiend Folio going to use EVERY SINGLE MONSTER IN THE BOOK!?

No, of course not.

No, they are not going to use all of them. Hell, I don't even use all the monsters from the Monster Manual. However, there is a difference between having a monster that someone MIGHT not use, and having a monster that someone CANNOT use because it would require an additional supplement.

As they have stated many times before, especially when 3rd Edition first came out. Supplements will assume you have the PH, DMG, and MM. Nothing more.

TSR had that problem, requiring a slew of sourcebooks to use others.

*Hey whadya know, I can hit caps lock too!

Actually, it was a pinkie on SHIFT.

Anyone who would refuse to buy a book because it had a single reference to the epic rules (which lets face it are an extension of the core rules) is an utter fool.

Yes, he is an utter fool. He's an utter fool who had one interest in the Races of Faerun book: Elven High Mage. However, he despises the ELH and the way it handles those things, and thus has no use for the book.

Yes.

Is that your final answer?

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi!

Hey Mourn!

And I think that is unreasonable. Most books only assume that you possess the three core books,

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

with the exception of campaign settings, which assume you have the core campaign setting book as well.

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?

Plus, you already have an entire web feature dedicated to it, just like psionics. They give you FREE epic-level material on the site, which is why they don't want to or need to put it in books.

But we are not discussing free web material.

I never said you couldn't. I make suggestions all the time. If you took a look at my inbox and outbox, you'd see tons of emails to and from developers, designers, and editors, bouncing ideas... most of them don't get through, but that doesn't stop me.

There you go then...

"Most people?" I'm sorry, but the people on this forum do not comprise even 1/8th of the D&D gamers on the internet alone. And gamers with access to the internet make up a little over half the gaming population. If you're going to say "most people" be a little more specific... most people in this thread may agree with you, but most of the players in the world don't.

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

Yes, I am. When you print a book, you print it in increments of 16 or 32 pages. That is why all page counts are multiples of 16 (FRCS is 320 pages, which is 20 16-page modules). So, they'd have to add an additional 16 pages, or cut 4 pages of material that can be useful to anyone (as it does not require the ELH). Then, they have to pay a developer additional to write text for those pages, pay a designer more to spend more time making sure nothing contradicts itself, and pay an editor more to take more time to edit the document. Then you have additional art to add, R&D to have check it out for rules consistency. All of these factors can also increase the cover price of the book, which will, of course, anger gamers even further.

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

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

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.

There's a lot more to adding those four pages than you think. You want Archfiends... get the BoVD. You want epic level monsters... get the ELH and check out the web supplements. Or make your own...

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

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.

No, they are not going to use all of them. Hell, I don't even use all the monsters from the Monster Manual. However, there is a difference between having a monster that someone MIGHT not use, and having a monster that someone CANNOT use because it would require an additional supplement.

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.

As they have stated many times before, especially when 3rd Edition first came out. Supplements will assume you have the PH, DMG, and MM. Nothing more.

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

TSR had that problem, requiring a slew of sourcebooks to use others.

No its a totally different situation now. T$R spread core mechanic updates throughout a variety of books.

Monsters (nor Items) are not the same as intrinsic rules mechanics.

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.

Actually, it was a pinkie on SHIFT.

Yes, he is an utter fool. He's an utter fool who had one interest in the Races of Faerun book: Elven High Mage. However, he despises the ELH and the way it handles those things, and thus has no use for the book.

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

Is that your final answer?

What is this 'Who Wants To Be A Millionaire'!?

*cough*

 

[Shoon]

Anyone who would refuse to buy a book because it had a single reference to the epic rules (which lets face it are an extension of the core rules)

Sorry to break your ice, but they aren't. Epic level is, IMHO, just an exercise at stat inflation: I do not want 10 epic monsters gracing a book I bought when I could have 10 useful or just plain ridiculous monsters (sorry, but I've chuckled when I saw the grick. The atropal, for all its power and glory, didn't even do that to me )

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

Oh yes, let's go back to the 2E days. I remember buying Lands of Intrigue, and not knowing whether to laugh or cry when I discovered Zazzespur had some spaceport of some kind (Spelljammer appeasing? WTF?).

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.

I've heard this exact same complaint during the late 2E-era: the fanbase would simply melt away, because WotC would not support the oh-so-important settings of Spelljammer and Mystara

No its a totally different situation now. T$R spread core mechanic updates throughout a variety of books.

Monsters (nor Items) are not the same as intrinsic rules mechanics.

Psionics, spell seeds and epic feats, not to mention epic progression, are "intrinsic rules mechanics". I don't want WotC to repeat the same fiasco T$R did with the 2E MM, which had some 20 totally unusable psionic monsters.