Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Upper_Krust" data-source="post: 999206" data-attributes="member: 326">Hey BOZ mate! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Well if the material is already written (which it purportedly is) and the book has already been announced (which it has) then I can't see things being changed.Personally I think this move may hurt the dynamic of what the Tome of Horrors stands for.I mean its not like they couldn't have come up with an alternate name. WotC have the Monster Manual (and sequel) and Fiend Folio...although there was no reason the recent Fiend Folio couldn't have been Monster Manual III...since the initial dynamic of the FF was that it was comprised of submissions compiled outside the company (then TSR).So while I am all in favour of a sequel to the Tome of Horrors I think changing its 'unique selling point' (conversions) will be detrimental to the books reputation.The idea (presumably?) from Necromancers point of view is that with the Tome of Horrors already an established name (and one with a great pedigree) any sequel can in part ride that wave of success. Whereas a wholly new concept book will have to build its reputation all over again.</blockquote>