Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Beholder Bob" data-source="post: 1452032" data-attributes="member: 12866">Rather then be positive, I'll start by being a bastard:The tomb of horrors may be good - but 1) The artwork is so bad I'd not buy that book except under threat2) They commit a grave sin (also committed in FF or MMII, not sure which) - they have a small sized animal (The 'golden gorger' is nickname, something starting with an 'r') with an OBSCENE amount of HP.  It is an animal, perhaps a magical beast - and it seems altogether silly.  It is accurate, though, to the MMII (1st edition) - where it was stupid even then.  If I need this type of silliness, I'll use the vorpal rabbit.3) The book focuses on accurate portrayal per the 1st edition - great.  Just great.  It didn't update them, make them more consistent, and correct the logic errors that plagued the 1st edition - but rather carried them through into the 3.x edition.  Hell, I can carry over 1st edition monsters w/out fixing them fairly easy on my own - if I pay money for the book, I expect more thought then xeroxing them.  Oh well.  If I find it used I... actually, not even then.4) Others have said they like the artwork - am I the only one who found a high percentage of poor pictures?  Not all of them sucked, but far too many of them did.MMII or FF (not sure which) - the one with the gravecrawler.  A small worm thing that petrifies and has an obscene amount of HP.  OBSCENE.  For a worm.  Also - if they wish to create these odd little beasties - include a little thought behind it - like why they look and act like they do.  Not hard fact or science, but make it possible to suspend disbelief.  Come on.In general - I am willing to work with tiny little things w/great big HP if you make it logical, otherwise I'll be embarrassed in DMing the damn thing ('yep, I know it would fit in a sack, but it doesn't care that you've stabbed it 12 times - it seems... unhappy').CC 1: I haven't seen 3.5, but I bet it has the same problem as 3.0 did - no damn lists!  I want a concise list showing beasties by CR, by type, and a list by name & page number.  A small request - but it makes the book ACTUALLY useful.  Some of the beasties are rather neat - but having to crawl through the book looking for something I know is IN the book, but not remembering the name.... Grrrr.CC 2: Haglings (pa-leeze: the vile garbage pail kids are coming to get me).  Had much better format for the lists - me likee.  The beasts seemed to me (and we know how opinionated I am) lacked focus.  CC1 has no list, but I mostly use CC2 to look up the names of critters in CC1.Armies of the abyss, and Hells legions.  Cool stuff, neat descriptions, well-developed and good range of CR's (no, I do not work for them).  Nice nightmare feeling to them.  The prestige class in (do not remember the book) were nice, as was the 'standard' class, but wimpy - and using a random system to determine their defects (some of which are beneficial as a feat) risks imbalance folks.  That, and Why, god why, do people keep thinking CHA = looks?  A defect costs this fellow CHA (oh my god, I'm so ugly!  My since of self suffers so.  I mean, I may be a Satanist, eat babies (the other white meat), and thrive on cruelty, but that harelip just undercuts my sense of identity, my presence - guess my prime spell casting stat will have to slide towards the ground.  I'll never get to go to the ball now..."I like the monsternomicon - cool stuff, great description, even if it is difficult to fit into my campaign.  I'll find a way.B<img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/devious.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":]" title="Devious    :]" data-shortname=":]" />B</blockquote>

Verification