Undead Sourcebook in January 2009

[Rechan]

And each one of the monsters were unique and distinctive, right? Right.

To some degree, yeah. Especially Lords of Madness. It was juicygood. But I also liked Libris.

The thing is, 4e is giving you 3-4 variants of each kind of monster. You don't just have "Skeleton" you have Burning Bones and Boneshard skeletons, skeletal warriors, skeletal temple guardians (Elite), Decrepit skeletons, and so on.

So even one Undead type of monster (skeleton) is going to have a hefty variety. That's a lot to cram into just a MM. So yeah, I see room for expansion books.

Besides, it clears the way for other monsters in the MM. Like oh, Frost Giants. MMs are apparently themed somewhat, so I expect expansion books.

Doesn't mean I'm going to buy them. For instance, I'm not touching the Chromatic Dragons book; I may use one dragon a campaign, and it's going to be special, and it'll be out of the MM. Even if I have to tweak it myself.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Also if you take Draconomicom for example, we will get:

-More indepth and wide range of monster powers
-Story hooks such as; locations, myths, and information on how undead interact with the world.
-Campaign/Story elements for Ready-to-Use game material, such as quests, treasure, etc.

So I think if we figure we get lots of monsters, NPCs and Powers, plus all that. We will have lots of stuff.

 

[Rechan]

And on the topic of crunch creep:

On the one hand, I understand the need. If WotC put nothing in the books for players to use, then only 1 out of 5-6 people in a gaming group is buying the book. Same problem with adventures/dungeon tiles/etc. If they put player stuff in there (powers/feats/whatever) then there's at least an incentive to increase sales.

On the other hand, I hate that. I hate having to turn down the Swordmage because I don't want to buy the FRCS. I hate that all that power stuff isn't cordoned off in its own little place (PHBs and the Splat books) where it Belongs. Quite frankly, giving someone only one or two little tidbit incentive to buy the book pretty much leads to piracy, IMHO.

 

[Sojorn]

On the other hand, I hate that. I hate having to turn down the Swordmage because I don't want to buy the FRCS. I hate that all that power stuff isn't cordoned off in its own little place (PHBs and the Splat books) where it Belongs.

To be fair, it's not the FR Campaign Guide (Supplement?) that contains the Swordmage.

It's the FR Player's guide, which contains the Swordmage and other feats, powers, paragon paths, races, epic destinies and equipment, all which are FRish in nature. It's a FR themed PHB supplement in other words. I'd say it qualifies as cordoned off to a degree, at least as much as the Martial Power book is.

If you got the FRCG assuming it contained the Swordmage, it would leave you very disappointed as it's a combo monster manual/DMG for FR along with the heavy fluff and a short intro adventure.

 

[Rechan]

It's the FR Player's guide, which contains the Swordmage and other feats, powers, paragon paths, races, epic destinies and equipment, all which are FRish in nature. It's a FR themed PHB supplement in other words. I'd say it qualifies as cordoned off to a degree, at least as much as the Martial Power book is.

Even so, I think the Swordmage is a far more universally appealing thing. It's not exactly a Purple Dragon/Red Wizard of Thay/Witch of Rashemon type thing.

It'd be like if they put the Necromancer in a Ravenloft players handbook, instead of putting it in some other book where it's more appropriate.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Also, I don't think the Swordmage is the best example. I think most people would be fine with say the Artificer being in the Eberron Player's Guide. Well, the Swordmage is essentially FR's Artificer.

I say this since, more likely then not the fluff will be based around FR and will be one of the unique properties of FR like the Artificer in Eberron. This is further brought into affect by the fact that a new FR book, set post-Spellplague is coming out entitled; Swordmage. So this I think shows a very strong connection to FR.

 

[Rechan]

Also, I don't think the Swordmage is the best example. I think most people would be fine with say the Artificer being in the Eberron Player's Guide. Well, the Swordmage is essentially FR's Artificer.

I really don't see how the fluff can be so important to FR. And I think it is a good example, as it's a very potent and popular archetype.

But I think we're derailing the thread.

 

[Zulithe]

I just hope it turns out well. A lot of people felt Libris Mortis was rather weak compared to similar supplements like the Aberrations one. Chance to improve on past wrongs.

 

[pukunui]

I don't mind. I just hope they come up with a better title. Open Grave doesn't have the same connotations (ancient, mysterious, creepy) as Libris Mortis.

 

[Connorsrpg]

Orrr, I actually loved the Libris and ran heaps from it in our undead/necro focussed campaign. In fact it is one of the few 3e books I have kept (having sold the others) for ideas to adapt to 4e. I will get me more 4e monster books and frankly, I prefer these themed ones.

Especially true in 3e. I much rather any of the themed monster books to any of the MM after the first. I even loved the dragonspawn 'theme' of IV. Lots of related monsters makes for great campaign planning in my mind.