D&D 5E Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft - A Grognard Finally Reads It (Review)

[Retreater]

My Ravenloft History

I admit that I'm not one of the original Ravenloft fans: I didn't play I6 back in the 1st edition era. My introduction to the hobby (and Ravenloft) came in 2nd edition AD&D. The boxed set was the first published campaign setting I used, running games for my goth friends in high school (who I bait and switched from a Vampire: The Masquerade game). Later, it became the basis of one of my foundational campaign experiences as a player, when the DM cobbled together a domain-spanning campaign including the modules Adam's Wrath, Dark of the Moon, Hour of the Knife, Howls in the Night, Touch of Death, Night of the Walking Dead, House of Strahd, and Web of Illusion (where the party met its unfortunate end to a naga).
In 3rd edition, I ran the Expedition to Castle Ravenloft (my first time running the castle itself). I also played the boardgame in the 4E era.
My first homebrew campaign in 5e was set in a conversion of the Ravenloft campaign setting.
When I met my future wife, she was playing Curse of Strahd in another DM's group, and that became her foundational campaign full of great memories. During the COVID pandemic, I ran Curse of Strahd myself on Roll20, and that became one of the favorite campaigns for that group. Most recently - for Christmas, my wife just bought me my first hardcopy of Curse of Strahd and the Tarokka deck in hopes that I will run it for our neighborhood group, comprised of teenagers who have never played it.

"Barovia Isn't All of Ravenloft"

I had a great time running Curse of Strahd (and I think it's one of the best releases from this era), I couldn't help but wish there was more. I missed the other domains, the different flavors of horror, the Dark Powers checks, the "sinkhole of evil" that would effect paladins and good-aligned clerics. Even in my Roll20 game, I sprinkled in some of the classic campaign setting lore, speaking of Azalin, Mordenheim, etc.

"Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft"

So when the Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft was announced, I was anxious. Would it live up to my memories of the setting? Could I use it to expand Curse of Strahd? Would it give new life to the setting? The initial reviews were mixed, and I had no Ravenloft game on the horizon at that time, so I passed. Seeing stacks of the book (I think 10 or more copies) languishing on the shelves of the FLGS didn't help sell the product either. But once I started considering running Curse of Strahd for a group of new players AND I saw the book on Amazon marked down to $15, I thought I had nothing to lose and ordered the thing.

It's a mixed bag. Deep down, I'm not surprised it can't beat the level of detail (and the forces of nostalgia) for that original boxed set (which I still own physically).

• The new lineages miss the mark for me. Players shouldn't strive to become vampires in Ravenloft. That's missing the point.
• The subclasses are for characters tinted by evil. What about having a vampire hunter ranger subclass? An exorcist cleric?
• There are no rules for corruption, Dark Powers checks. No "sinkhole of evil."
• Of the talk of getting a diverse team of writers to make it more authentic and flavorful (which I'm totally in favor of and totally loved the Historica Arcanum's fantasy Istanbul), our Indian-inspired domain has unevocative place names like "Taramind Falls," "Lake of Saffron," and "The Silent Sitars." To me this is like having a place called "Chutney Castle" or "Tikka Masala Beach."

What exemplifies the general lack of attention and care in the book are the map scales. Granted, this is something I could change easily, but it shows a bizarre absence of understanding of a world.
Most of these domains are tiny, unrealistically so.

• The "vast deserts" of Har'Akir is 25 miles across. A party can cross the desert in two days.
• The zombie ravaged domain of Falkovnia is 15 miles across - with mountain ranges spanning 5 miles.
• The magical wasteland of Hazlan has features separated by 2 miles (a 30 minute trek), where magically-corrupted purple worms slither.
• Lamordia's Sleeping Beast mountain range "stretches for miles" - 18 miles to be exact.

For all the focus on the Darklords - and the book's assumption that the Darklords are active and meant to be encountered by the characters - there is little attention given to them. Of course we get background information and some details about their goals, but no stat blocks. Instead we are referred to the Monster Manual to use a run-of-the-mill baddy. The laziness of this design ensures that Darklord encounters do not standout as climactic encounters for an adventure (or campaign).

• For the "Nightmare Queen," just reference the mage from the Monster Manual (but give her a Handy Haversack).
• For the fallen Red Wizard whose magical experimentations have warped his kingdom, he's an archmage.
• The "deathless god-king," don't worry, he's only a mummy lord.
• For the mad scientist who can create various kinds of golems and constructs, look to the spy entry in the Monster Manual.

What Am I Going to Do with My Ravenloft Campaign?

The jaded answer: probably not use anything from Van Richten's Guide. But in truth, I will take from it a more clear version of what the Ravenloft setting means to me.

• Trackless wilderness where survival against the elements is as important as supernatural threats.
• Darklords who are as flavorful and as unique in abilities and motivations as the player characters.
• The power fantasy of most D&D campaigns can be a gateway to corruption.
• Characters' research and knowledge can be used to find weaknesses against otherwise unstoppable foes.

For me, this realization has made Van Richten's Guide a worthwhile read and purchase (at least for $15).

I know the product has been out for a year and a half now, and I'm late to the discussion party, but I'm curious of your takes on this book.

Edit: This grognard can't remember the numbers of the old modules, apparently.

 

[Voadam]

I have a somewhat similar situation. I did not play the 1e version. I ran a lot of 2e Ravenloft and loved it, switching my years long evil 1e Greyhawk campaign to them being sucked into Ravenloft and then continuing for years and running another long campaign with a different group there as well with 2e. I ran a lot of modules and used a lot of domains and had plots with various darklords going on. I used the setting as a full setting and not weekend in hell in pocket dimensions.

I found the 2e modules a mix of some of the best modules in AD&D and also some of the worst with terrible agency stealing of PCs.

I read a lot of the Ravenloft novels (I really enjoyed the Vampire of the Mists, a lot of others were hit and miss).

I played in games where we were in the setting, though usually only for a short time.

In 3e I played in a Castle Ravenloft game and I got a lot of the Arthaus core stuff (campaign setting, monster books, the darklords book, the undead guide) and liked their material but only ran a little 3e Ravenloft, continuing that 1e Greyhawk Ravenloft campaign into 3e using Web of Illusion as a Shiva world destroyer/creator plot.

I did not follow a lot on 4e, I read one or two Dragon/Dungeon articles on new individual pocket domains which seemed fine.

I watched part of the 5e discussion and was not particularly thrilled with the changes. I liked Ravenloft as a setting with politics and bordering kingdoms and darklord on darklord plots. Switching to individual nightmares that are isolated was not to my taste. The changes to the Darklords were not to my taste. Taking away Lukas's signature monocle, changing wolfwere to werewolf, changing the har akir mummy lord's backstory, doing a full identity reboot on a number of lords and domains. A lot of things just meant it was incompatibe with continuing old campaign stuff straight. It now seems about as compatible as mixing and matching Pathfinder's Gothic Horror Ustalav setting and adventure path stuff.

I was given the 5e Ravenloft book as a gift, I read some parts but not a lot so far. The pocket nightmare domains are OK, but do not really grab me.

Maybe when I read through the whole thing at some point it will grab me more.

 

[toucanbuzz]

There are no rules for corruption, Dark Powers checks. No "sinkhole of evil."

That'd be my #1 gripe along with treating Ravenloft Lords as combat targets.* In original design, they're eternally cursed playthings of the Powers that exist to feed off the corrupted, the fallen, the Lost, and the Powers aren't going to simply let centuries, perhaps eons of that delicious meal go away because some PCs who picked up adventuring 6 months ago saunter in.

The true challenge of Ravenloft should be not to fall into despair.

The AD&D Powers would tempt you with just a tiny bit of power in return for corrupting your soul, or revel in the crushing despair you feel as it becomes clear evil holds sway and there's nothing (really) you can do about it. I used this with delight in Curse of Strahd wherein Strahd, realizing Ireena/Tatyana looked up to the PCs, sought to recreate history (from the novels wherein she nearly has an affair with him and comes to him willingly) with PC help. When they refused, he casually mentioned "why bother." Even if he fails, this storyline just repeats itself in another generation, and as an eternal being, he'll just try again. They'll die of old age having achieved nothing in this so-called "struggle" against him. And, by now, they've probably discovered enough history in Barovia to know this statement is true.

In AD&D adventures, with the beautifully done boxed set and its maps, a primary goal was to avoid becoming a permanent resident (basically, you're corrupted beyond repair, DM takes your character sheet and you become an NPC). Now, I'm not sure why you go to Ravenloft.

* Many Dark Lords were barely a challenge in combat but given complete power over their Land. The horror came in understanding why they, compared to all others of their kind, were here, and perhaps use that knowledge to escape.

 

[delericho]

I thought VRGtR was a technically well-done presentation of a setting that I pretty much hated. That is, the presentation was strong, the depth of the material felt about right, and I wouldn't hesitate to reference it as an example of how to do a setting - provided you changed everything that's actually in the book.

It's also the setting that persuaded me not to give Spelljammer the benefit of any doubt, and the setting that more or less persuades me I'm not interested in any further WotC settings (which, given that Tasha's did the same for rules supplements, and "Storm King's Thunder" for adventures, doesn't leave much).

For all the focus on the Darklords - and the book's assumption that the Darklords are active and meant to be encountered by the characters - there is little attention given to them. Of course we get background information and some details about their goals, but no stat blocks. Instead we are referred to the Monster Manual to use a run-of-the-mill baddy. The laziness of this design ensures that Darklord encounters do not standout as climactic encounters for an adventure (or campaign).

Of all the many flaws in the book, this is the most damning, IMO. And, actually, had they not done this, and had actually included the stat blocks, it's probably the one thing that would have redeemed the book.

 

[Faolyn]

As a fellow long-time Ravenloft DM...

It's a mixed bag. Deep down, I'm not surprised it can't beat the level of detail (and the forces of nostalgia) for that original boxed set (which I still own physically).

• The new lineages miss the mark for me. Players shouldn't strive to become vampires in Ravenloft. That's missing the point.
• The subclasses are for characters tinted by evil. What about having a vampire hunter ranger subclass? An exorcist cleric?
• There are no rules for corruption, Dark Powers checks. No "sinkhole of evil."
• Of the talk of getting a diverse team of writers to make it more authentic and flavorful (which I'm totally in favor of and totally loved the Historica Arcanum's fantasy Istanbul), our Indian-inspired domain has unevocative place names like "Taramind Falls," "Lake of Saffron," and "The Silent Sitars." To me this is like having a place called "Chutney Castle" or "Tikka Masala Beach."

"Strive to become" undead, probably not. May end up as, quite possibly. Have an unpleasant background that turned the PC into a vampire, also quite possible. I have a player who started out as a half-elf, a hexblade whose sword wanted him to consume blood. When VGR came out, I asked the player if they wanted to switch to dhampir, and they thought about it for a while and then said sure.

You can already have a vampire hunter ranger--be a ranger whose preferred monster type is undead, and stock up on stakes. Anything cooler would probably require called shots, which D&D as a whole doesn't use. And 5e cleric archetypes are all based around divine domains, not jobs within the church, so an exorcist was never going to be possible.

The Dark Powers checks were fairly arbitrary and rare. The PC commit bloody murder dozens of times and the dice don't care, but this one time the PC steals an apple and that's what gets the DP's attention, because the DM rolled a 3 or less on a d100? Nah. It's actually more appropriate and more fun for the DM to decide when the DPs take notice, or to work it out with the player. I'm doing that now--I've even discussed with the player what they might turn into, if they keep playing their character in an evil-ish way. Curses from the Dark Powers are a powerful roleplaying tool if they aren't left to random chance.

And what do you mean, no rules for corruption? That's what those Dark Gifts are for!

It's taramind, not tamarind; as far as I can tell, taramind isn't even a real world--or at least google translate isn't giving me anything from either Hindi or Punjabi, nor am I finding anything that suggests it's an actual name. I admit I didn't look too hard, though. And anyway, I live in a state that is named after a person, in a county that is named after a person (who had never actually been in the area), in an unincorporated area that is named after a tree, so even if it were Tamarind Falls, well, tamarind is a tree. There's plenty of precedent. Quite frankly, most place names are pretty dull. India itself merely means "land of the Indus river" or words to that effect.

You're also ignoring the more evocative names of Lake of the Lost and Forest of the Still--and "The Silent Sitar" is also quite evocative, since sitars are musical instruments, and this suggests an unnatural quiet that prevents music being played.

For all the focus on the Darklords - and the book's assumption that the Darklords are active and meant to be encountered by the characters - there is little attention given to them. Of course we get background information and some details about their goals, but no stat blocks. Instead we are referred to the Monster Manual to use a run-of-the-mill baddy. The laziness of this design ensures that Darklord encounters do not standout as climactic encounters for an adventure (or campaign).

• For the "Nightmare Queen," just reference the mage from the Monster Manual (but give her a Handy Haversack).
• For the fallen Red Wizard whose magical experimentations have warped his kingdom, he's an archmage.
• The "deathless god-king," don't worry, he's only a mummy lord.
• For the mad scientist who can create various kinds of golems and constructs, look to the spy entry in the Monster Manual.

OK, let's look at stats.

Nightmare Queen... do you mean Tsien Chiang? Well, I suppose just being a mage is a bit of a let down considering she was a 20th-level wizard who could turn into a treant. I'll give you that one.

Hazlik was only 12th level in 2e, and 14th level in 3e. In 2e, he could detect it when people in Hazlan could cast spells, but that ability was curtailed in DoD and gone complete in 3x. Being an archmage able to cast 9th-level spells with constant surveillance over the entire domain, not just the spellcasting part of it, due to his magic eyes in 5e--that's a major upgrade!

Viktra Mordenheim is only a spy, but in 2e, Victor was a 0th-level human. AC 10, THAC0 20, one attack (by weapon), no special attacks, his only special defense is that he would regenerate from any wound as long as Adam was still alive. He was buffed a lot in 3x in terms of his BAB because he was a 15th-level expert, but he still had the same number of hit points and no special abilities or attacks. At least Viktra can use her knowledge of anatomy to deliver sneak attacks.

And finally, Ankhtepot. He was a greater mummy in 2e. His stats were identical to those of a 500-year old greater mummy from the Ravenloft MC entry. And greater mummies had no real interesting abilities outside of spells and mummy rot unless you used the salient abilities from Van Richten's Guide to the Ancient Dead... which he wasn't given. So as a 5e mummy lord, he's literally more powerful and more interesting than in 2e.

So... what exactly is the problem with the darklords again? Just make Chiang able to turn into a treant and bam!, you're done.

 

[ECMO3]

I love the Undead Warlock class. It is my favorite Warlock and I have played several of them in other Forgotten realms settings ..... ironicallly, due to mechanics I would play an Undying Warlock(from SCAG) if I were actually playing the Ravenloft campaign (I have not yet played the campaign).

I also like the Dhampir and have played one of them in the Forgotten Realms as well. I like Hexblood mechanically and it has some really cool stuff but I have not played one and would have difficulty with wrapping myself around the thematics for it.

 

[dave2008]

My Ravenloft History

I admit that I'm not one of the original Ravenloft fans: I didn't play I3 back in the 1st edition era. My introduction to the hobby (and Ravenloft) came in 2nd edition AD&D. The boxed set was the first published campaign setting I used, running games for my goth friends in high school (who I bait and switched from a Vampire: The Masquerade game). Later, it became the basis of one of my foundational campaign experiences as a player, when the DM cobbled together a domain-spanning campaign including the modules Adam's Wrath, Dark of the Moon, Hour of the Knife, Howls in the Night, Touch of Death, Night of the Walking Dead, House of Strahd, and Web of Illusion (where the party met its unfortunate end to a naga).
In 3rd edition, I ran the Expedition to Castle Ravenloft (my first time running the castle itself). I also played the boardgame in the 4E era.
My first homebrew campaign in 5e was set in a conversion of the Ravenloft campaign setting.
When I met my future wife, she was playing Curse of Strahd in another DM's group, and that became her foundational campaign full of great memories. During the COVID pandemic, I ran Curse of Strahd myself on Roll20, and that became one of the favorite campaigns for that group. Most recently - for Christmas, my wife just bought me my first hardcopy of Curse of Strahd and the Tarokka deck in hopes that I will run it for our neighborhood group, comprised of teenagers who have never played it.

"Barovia Isn't All of Ravenloft"

I had a great time running Curse of Strahd (and I think it's one of the best releases from this era), I couldn't help but wish there was more. I missed the other domains, the different flavors of horror, the Dark Powers checks, the "sinkhole of evil" that would effect paladins and good-aligned clerics. Even in my Roll20 game, I sprinkled in some of the classic campaign setting lore, speaking of Azalin, Mordenheim, etc.

"Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft"

So when the Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft was announced, I was anxious. Would it live up to my memories of the setting? Could I use it to expand Curse of Strahd? Would it give new life to the setting? The initial reviews were mixed, and I had no Ravenloft game on the horizon at that time, so I passed. Seeing stacks of the book (I think 10 or more copies) languishing on the shelves of the FLGS didn't help sell the product either. But once I started considering running Curse of Strahd for a group of new players AND I saw the book on Amazon marked down to $15, I thought I had nothing to lose and ordered the thing.

It's a mixed bag. Deep down, I'm not surprised it can't beat the level of detail (and the forces of nostalgia) for that original boxed set (which I still own physically).

• The new lineages miss the mark for me. Players shouldn't strive to become vampires in Ravenloft. That's missing the point.
• The subclasses are for characters tinted by evil. What about having a vampire hunter ranger subclass? An exorcist cleric?
• There are no rules for corruption, Dark Powers checks. No "sinkhole of evil."
• Of the talk of getting a diverse team of writers to make it more authentic and flavorful (which I'm totally in favor of and totally loved the Historica Arcanum's fantasy Istanbul), our Indian-inspired domain has unevocative place names like "Taramind Falls," "Lake of Saffron," and "The Silent Sitars." To me this is like having a place called "Chutney Castle" or "Tikka Masala Beach."

What exemplifies the general lack of attention and care in the book are the map scales. Granted, this is something I could change easily, but it shows a bizarre absence of understanding of a world.
Most of these domains are tiny, unrealistically so.

• The "vast deserts" of Har'Akir is 25 miles across. A party can cross the desert in two days.
• The zombie ravaged domain of Falkovnia is 15 miles across - with mountain ranges spanning 5 miles.
• The magical wasteland of Hazlan has features separated by 2 miles (a 30 minute trek), where magically-corrupted purple worms slither.
• Lamordia's Sleeping Beast mountain range "stretches for miles" - 18 miles to be exact.

For all the focus on the Darklords - and the book's assumption that the Darklords are active and meant to be encountered by the characters - there is little attention given to them. Of course we get background information and some details about their goals, but no stat blocks. Instead we are referred to the Monster Manual to use a run-of-the-mill baddy. The laziness of this design ensures that Darklord encounters do not standout as climactic encounters for an adventure (or campaign).

• For the "Nightmare Queen," just reference the mage from the Monster Manual (but give her a Handy Haversack).
• For the fallen Red Wizard whose magical experimentations have warped his kingdom, he's an archmage.
• The "deathless god-king," don't worry, he's only a mummy lord.
• For the mad scientist who can create various kinds of golems and constructs, look to the spy entry in the Monster Manual.

What Am I Going to Do with My Ravenloft Campaign?

The jaded answer: probably not use anything from Van Richten's Guide. But in truth, I will take from it a more clear version of what the Ravenloft setting means to me.

• Trackless wilderness where survival against the elements is as important as supernatural threats.
• Darklords who are as flavorful and as unique in abilities and motivations as the player characters.
• The power fantasy of most D&D campaigns can be a gateway to corruption.
• Characters' research and knowledge can be used to find weaknesses against otherwise unstoppable foes.

For me, this realization has made Van Richten's Guide a worthwhile read and purchase (at least for $15).

I know the product has been out for a year and a half now, and I'm late to the discussion party, but I'm curious of your takes on this book.

If you need them, I made stats for all of the Darklords in VRGtR: Project Darklords

 

[Clint_L]

I think 5e adventure settings always risk suffering in comparison to 2e antecedents. This is by design: after they bought TSR, WotC did a forensic analysis of TSR's finances and discovered that all those 2e settings were an albatross for the company. They each became their own game within the game, fragmenting the player base and making it so that almost all of them lost money, despite being beautiful and richly developed. So now WotC tries to keep settings from feeling exclusive from the rest of the game, which tends to make them more generic, and also means that WotC seldom release follow-up books exclusive to a particular setting.

 

[humble minion]

I like the mechanical options the book provides, personally. Undead is probably my favourite warlock patron, and dhampir is a solid race choice too. And even in old editions of Ravenloft I'd argue they'd be perfectly appropriate character choices. But I think VRGtR did the setting and the whole horror genre a bit of disservice when it threw out the idea of corruptive consequences for seeking power from evil sources. I understand why they did it - partly to avoid endless arguments about 'why is killing someone with vampiric touch inherently corruptive but doing the same with fireball isn't?', partly because they didn't want to have setting-specific hamstringing of certain subclasses (like the fiend warlock, or necromancer wizard), and partly because since the Sunlight Sensitivity debacle negative aspects to subclasses or races seem to be a no-no for WotC on principle. But it really detracts from the themes of the setting, I think - the more Gothic horror elements in particular.

I don't mind the missing Darklord stat blocks toooo much. If I'm using a Darklord in-game, then they're going to be a big deal and i'll put in the time to handcraft their stat block. Other than the mini-adventure, and some of the sillier monsters like that badly-conceived cult who worship the Dark Powers, I'm not sure what material in here I'd cut in favour of 20-odd space-hungry stat blocks for Darklords, of which most will never get used.

 

[Voadam]

And finally, Ankhtepot. He was a greater mummy in 2e. His stats were identical to those of a 500-year old greater mummy from the Ravenloft MC entry. And greater mummies had no real interesting abilities outside of spells and mummy rot unless you used the salient abilities from Van Richten's Guide to the Ancient Dead... which he wasn't given. So as a 5e mummy lord, he's literally more powerful and more interesting than in 2e.

That is not quite the take I have on it.

Also you forget the mummy fear ability which is pretty standard in all editions.

I normally view the core MM Mummy Lords from 5e and 3e as an adaptation of the Greater Mummy from the 2e Monstrous Manual which is explicitly taking up the Greater Mummy from 2e Ravenloft and making them more core. Its how I have thought of and used Mummy Lords in 3e and 5e, as advanced tougher mummies, but not unique mummy types like Ankhtepot.

The Base 5e Mummy Lord has 13 HD and 10th level cleric casting, The base 2e Greater Mummy has 8+3 HD and spellcasting of 16th to 20th level. There is general monster HD inflation from 2e to 5e so I think the mummy lord is still supposed to be reflective of the baseline greater mummy of which there are many instead of the ancient unique more advanced progenitor who is more powerful and has many greater mummy servants. The 5e base mummy has 9 HD, the 2e Mummy has 6HD, so an edition inflation of +50% (plus con bonus for actual hp.) This +50% ratio matches the HD increase from 2e to 5e in base Greater Mummies and Mummy Lords.

Ankhtepot is 13 HD and has 13th level clerical abilities. So with no inflation of stats between editions the Mummy Lord's 5e stats of 13HD and 10 caster match decently to the 2e Dark lord's 2e combat stats for HD and such.

It is an oddity that 2e greater mummies generally have greater clerical abilities than he does in 2e that has stuck out since I saw his stats in Darklords, but eh.

The base 5e mummy lord has con bonus to hp so while they both have 13 HD the 5e version has 30 hp more than the 2e lord's 2e hp stats, though Ankhtepot has a higher constitution, but since he is a 2e monster it gives him no hp bonus. The 5e mummy lord has legendary actions which is a big deal in the action economy of a fight so that is a power boost over the straight 2e stats of Ankhtepot. The Darklord has a higher level of clerical casting but in 2e cleric spells only go up to 7 so they can both only cast 6th level spells.

Ankhtepot in 2e is basically a max age category greater mummy with 13th level cleric abilities and a few specific ones like turning people into Greater Mummies under his complete control which he uses as agents in his land and in other realms. He does not have a lot of interesting new powers like the 5e legendary actions, but all his powers and stats and defenses keep getting more potent with each age category. There are five categories between the base greater mummy and the 500+ age category.

It is worth noting that Ankhtepot created all Greater Mummies and that the Core of Ravenloft in 2e started with Barovia entering the mists in 350 on the Barovian calendar and the setting current date in Realms of Terror (the first 2e setting boxed set) is 750, so the setting itself is only 400 years old. So saying he is just like a 500 year old greater mummy is actually saying he is at least a category more powerful than any greater mummy created since the setting first existed.

I would expect that the 5e version of Ankhtepot would be about 50% stronger in some stats than a baseline Mummy Lord, which I would assume a 5e Ankhtepot would make and control.

The 5e Mummy Lord stats can work for him, but it also takes him from being the top of the line greater mummy with the max five advancements beyond his creations to being just another mummy lord out of the MM.