Tome of Horrors watered down?

[Phoenix_Knightwind]

I have been reading through the tome for the past few days and must say that overall I am pleased and impressed by the work. Seeing creatures in print that I haven't seen since the early eighties was thrilling. I became more and more excited as I turned each page.

However, now that I've started reading the listings in detail, I feel like many of the familiar creatures aren't quite the threat that they used to be. This does not apply to the demons and devils which you guys beefed up considerably IMHO.

Is it my imagination, or were the "old-school" creatures watered down some? For example, the Aarumvorax doesn't really seem like it earns its "Golden Gorger" moniker anymore.

I don't mean this to be a disparagement towards the book. I am very happy with it and all of the Necromancer Games products I own. It just seems like some of the creatures' descriptions lacked the creative energy invested in the fiends in the book.

Am I crazy? Please share your thoughts.

 

[Crothian]

So, any other examples of creatures people felt that don't quite cut it?

 

[Nightfall]

I have no complaints. Especially regarding the unique devils/demons and others. Anthraxus, Orcus and Lucifier all rock.

 

[BOZ]

i think all the ones converted by BOZ just really really suck.

 

[thomden]

Pretty good but...

I have to admit, I got a warm nostalgic glowy feeling when I sat down with the book and took a good look at all the lost critters of my youth.

I just picked it up today, so I haven't had much of a chance to really analyze how good the conversions were.

One thing I noted...wasn't there a LOT more unique devils described in Dragon #75 and #76 than appeared in Tome of Horrors? Those were my favorite Dragon articles back in the day, and I'd really love to have those little beasties in my campaign someday.

 

[Phoenix_Knightwind]

A friend of mine pointed out that many games never make it past 10th level. As such, the focus is on encounters for PCs at that level. I don't know that this is what was on the minds of the editors, but it might explain why some of the monsters seemed watered down.

 

[Gary N. Mengle]

Re: Pretty good but...

One thing I noted...wasn't there a LOT more unique devils described in Dragon #75 and #76 than appeared in Tome of Horrors? Those were my favorite Dragon articles back in the day, and I'd really love to have those little beasties in my campaign someday.

Sooo... does that mean that monsters from Dragon are not included?

I havn't seen the book yet but am very much looking forward to scoring a copy.

 

[thomden]

Gary N. Mengle wrote:

Sooo... does that mean that monsters from Dragon are not included?

Actually there were quite a few monsters from Dragon magazine, but that's also why I noted that they hadn't translated ALL of the unique demons from Dragons #75/76

Most of Tome of Horrors is stuff from the old Fiend Folio, and it has that same quirky old-school feel too.

Come to think of it, you could create a hefty monster tome just from all the D&D monsters that ever appeared in Dragon magazine. That'd be a neat project.

edit: I meant to say devils, not demons, of course. That article on the dukes of Hell was one of the best ever in Dragon!

 

[Gary N. Mengle]

Actually there were quite a few monsters from Dragon magazine, but that's also why I noted that they hadn't translated ALL of the unique demons from Dragons #75/76

That's a bit disappointing, considering that those Dukes of Hell were the reason I asked. Still, it's not like that will keep me from buying the book... I need my Sussurus!

 

[jgbrowning]

Excellent!

I have to say that this is the best 3E product i've bought yet. For shear utility value, it can't be beat. Thanks especially for all the hazards, oozes and plants.

Well done and congrats to all those who worked on it. Thank you for your efforts and time.

joe b.