The Traveler
Explorer
I'd say compatibility with the present nomenclature was not a concern. I'd also say that even if they weren't insisting on "first edition feel", they may not have had leeway in how to name these monsters.Carnifex said:
Tome of Horrors - The Art (oh the horrors!)
- Thread starter Carnifex
- Start date
The Traveler
Explorer
Have you purchased any S&S books other than the monster books? I think you have a bit of a limited sample. Most of the more recent Scarred Lands products have excellent art, as does the entire Ravenloft line.megamania said:S&S books in general have over inked blotchy images with no sense of detail. I don't like it as much as more detailed drawings and it seems I'm not alone.
coyote6
Adventurer
The reason I dislike the term "daemon" (and have since I looked the word up, back in the days of 1e) is that, if pronounced correctly, it sounds just like "demon". So, to be able to easily differentiate between the chaotic evil demons & the neutral evil daemons when speaking, I have to mispronounce "daemon" (as "day-mon"). Which is silly, to me.
Maybe if they'd used "daimon", which at least can be correctly pronounced differently.
Of course, "daimon" is a name for helpful spirits, so it's not a very accurate description, either. Outside of D&D, I've mostly seen the word "daemon" used to describe helpful spirits & minor gods, as opposed to big evil nasty spirits.
(Look here, and here)
As for the ToH -- well, the art didn't impress me much, but I didn't really buy it for the art. And some of those critters, I doubt anyone could make look good.
Maybe if they'd used "daimon", which at least can be correctly pronounced differently.
Of course, "daimon" is a name for helpful spirits, so it's not a very accurate description, either. Outside of D&D, I've mostly seen the word "daemon" used to describe helpful spirits & minor gods, as opposed to big evil nasty spirits.
(Look here, and here)
As for the ToH -- well, the art didn't impress me much, but I didn't really buy it for the art. And some of those critters, I doubt anyone could make look good.
Jay Lofstead
First Post
Some content is great. Others were not fitting for 3e. For example, I think it was the memory moss (I can't remember and don't have my books available) steals "memorized" spells. Given the change in flavor of the game, spells are now "prepared" meaning that they are partially cast ahead of time. Converting a creature that steals memories and prepared spells didn't make sense. There were some others that just didn't sit with 3e rules too well either.
I did really like the selection of plant creatures. I think that is really one of the great strengths of the book (there are really very few plant creatures elsewhere).
Overall, I was happy with the purchase. Other than some minor editing and the above mentioned problem, it is a good book. As for the art, I think it served its purpose, but it didn't strike me as exceptional nor overly inspiring.
I did really like the selection of plant creatures. I think that is really one of the great strengths of the book (there are really very few plant creatures elsewhere).
Overall, I was happy with the purchase. Other than some minor editing and the above mentioned problem, it is a good book. As for the art, I think it served its purpose, but it didn't strike me as exceptional nor overly inspiring.
The Traveler
Explorer
If you ask me, that's just nitpicking.Jay Lofstead said:
jdavis
First Post
I was pretty impressed with Tome of Horrors. I have no opinion at all on the Daemon/Demon/Yuggoth issue it was about first edition flavor. I found that the artwork wasn't all that good but then again alot of the first edition monster books had some pretty poor artwork too (the original Fiend Folio had some terrible pictures in it). All and all (including the sub par artwork) I found the book very nostalgic and I enjoyed it, wish it had more higher level creatures though.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
