Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Messageboard Golem" data-source="post: 2010642" data-attributes="member: 18387">There are some d20 products that are just plain useful. The Tome of Horrors by Necromancer Games is clearly one of them. A 325-page monster book, The Tome of Horrors contains mostly monsters not included in either the Monster Manual or Monster Manual II by Wizards of the Coast. Value-priced at $29.95 and entirely black & white on the inside pages, it is apparent that the publisher wanted to pack in as many monsters as possible at a relatively low price. This results in the main problem with the product-- because the Tome of Horrors attempts to put in so many monsters  (over 400!), the descriptions for each entry is scant. You'll see many monsters (example: Death Dog) with only two sentences for a description prior to going into combat information. This book is clearly intended for those who quickly need to look up 3rd edition stats for monsters left out of the MM or MMII, but not much else. It is not a book that you sit down to and enjoy reading. In fact, you'll probably need the first edition versions in addition to the ones here to get a better idea of the nature of these monsters. One thing that I noticed is that some of the credits given for each monster entry are simply wrong. It says that a monster "originally appeared" in the first edition Fiend Folio or Monster Manual II, but I know that it was first published in a module or Dragon magazine article. I think this was done often to avoid all the detailed research work involved, but it would have been appreciated (since there was an attempt there).   The cover art is acceptable and many of the interior art is quite good (example: Orcus). Some of them are not so good (example: Lurker Above). The section I liked least was probably the demons and devils section. Most (with some exceptions like Orcus) are just grotesque, but poorly-illustrated. This contrasts to the exceptional drawings of demons and devils in the original first edition Monster Manual. It would have been better if there was just a little bit more descriptive text for each monster. Though putting in less description means more monsters, I question the reasoning behind including such entries as the devil Lucifer. It may have seemed "cool" to do so, but I don't really need stats for Lucifer because I probably won't have him in my game anyhow. I am guessing that many people, like myself, bought this book to get monsters they felt should have been in the MM or MMII, but weren't. So, why include entries like Lucifer? For a company that boasts ties to first edition, Necromancer Games has even included some second edition monsters like the Fogwarden at the expense of some other good first edition monsters.  There is talk about a Tome of Horrors II, but the list of proposed monsters make it sound similar to the Creature Collection series. I did not buy those books and I don't plan to buy Tome of Horrors II if it also includes a bunch of mediocre, never before used  silly monsters. There are many more monsters from the first edition Monster Manual II, Fiend Folio, and Dragon magazines that have not yet been published. A book including such monsters would appeal to me more than something similar to Creature Collection-type ones. Of course, the Fiend Folio recently released by Wizards of the Coast for third edition included many monsters that were only supposed to be exclusively in the Tome of Horrors. This only makes the Fiend Folio less appealing to me, however, than making the Tome of Horrors less useful. The production value for the Fiend Folio is much better though: better art (colored, too), more descriptions, and better binding. However, it does not have as many monsters. There's the trade-off.   So, in many ways the Tome of Horrors is just that: plain, but useful. A-</blockquote>

Verification