Why must the Spell Compendium be innovative?

[Glyfair]

I think it would be cool, if it had all past and all future spells in it. Now that would be innovative.

And huge. After all, how many books were the Wizards and Clerics Spell Compendiums combined? Add to that the ones created for 2E after they were produced, and all the 3E spells (regardless of which version of 3E) and you have a book that either will be unreadable due to small type, the size of a small coffee table, or electronic.

Anyone can be useful. A *leader* should be more

I'll disagree here. The industry leader is the one that doesn't have to be more. It's the smaller companies are the ones that have to be innovative to survive. The industry leader is the one who should be putting out the bread and butter products that are more useful than innovative.

That's not to say that WotC shouldn't want to put out innovative products. Putting out the next big thing will certainly help keep them at the top of the mountain. However, they don't need to be innovative.

 

[Meloncov]

I think Wizards ought to leave books like this to third party publishers, letting them focus on new material. In this particular case, that would require making all DnD spells OGC. I don't think this would have an adverse affect on their products sales, but they seem unwilling to do this.

However, if they are unwilling to make it open game content, I am glad that someone is making this product.

 

[Nightfall]

I agree, about more spells being in the OGC. But I'm more in favor of domains that EVERYONE uses. Repose, Craft, Darkness, etc. But then I'm kind of biased that way.

 

[wingsandsword]

I like the Spell Compendium.

Not everybody buys every single WotC product. I haven't regularly bought all the new releases for over a year, I just realized that out of every book there was just a handful of things I would like, but not enough to justify $30 worth of my money. This however, has loads of spells and domains, things I know I can use.

I'll agree, it doesn't have to be innovative, it has to be a good product. It has to be something people want to buy. Some people don't want to buy it because they have everything else that WotC makes, and from a business perspective, they are good customers that might not buy Spell Compendium (although those who are completionists or really want errata or a more handy reference might), but fans who don't buy every new book can be a lot more excited about a big book of spells than about the latest Environment or Race book or about Heroes of Somethingorother, because everybody can use a big book of spells.

 

[the Jester]

I'm not going to kiss the ground they walk on because they did something that they were to a greater or lesser degree obligated to do.

WotC had absolutely no obligation to compile, edit and revise 1000 spells from other sources. Unless I'm misunderstanding your point?

I think the compendium looks like a great resource, is well worth the money and is prolly a better buy than most other things I am aware of that are coming out in the next few months.

 

[GQuail]

Just to clarify, I'm not knocking it for what it does. What it does it does sublimely. I love what it does. I look forward to other books that do the same thing (class compendiums? feat compendiums? sure! bring it!)

However, you can't say that it's particularly imaginative. Or innovative. It's not trying to be, but that's really part of the problem -- WotC, as the industry leader, SHOULD be trying to be.

It took some effort, it took some design skill, but it does nothing to inspire a game. It's a toolkit. It's not like the game NEEDS more spells.

You acknowledge it's a compilation, then complain because "It's not like the game NEEDS more spells.", which seems a bit counter-intuitive: though I think I agree on that point regardless. :>

Still, no, I happen to think that you're being quite unfair in mocking the book because it doesn't include something earth-shatteringly new. It's clear marked and marketed as what it is: a collection of spells form lots of different sources (various D&D sourcebooks, magazines and web articles) and gives you a single book which features them in unified lists.

I play my D&D game at home, but remember having to carry X books with me alld ay because I didn't have time after lectures to go home, get D&D books and come back to Uni for my RPG club: and the core rulebooks could be bad enough, without having to bring campaign or adventure specific sourcebooks. The utility of a single book that pulls all these sources together for that kind of situation is immense: rather than carrya huge wad of books, photocopies, or a laptop with PDFs or OCRs of your spell lists, all of which involves way more rooting around in game time. Even with the best notes in the world, you'll still slow the game down having to crack open a new book every time you cast a spell.

So actually, yes, I think it is quite innovative to pack a pile of spells, complete with some errata, into one handy book, with an implication this process will be repeated. Wizards have been mocked before for their somewhat liberal use of reprinting at times (I'd rather that than TSRs "assume you've read every D&D sourcebook ever released" policy, but still...) but this time it's totally upfront and put together in a useful way: especially since they've also thrown in web/magazine spells. All too often, I've read a great spell in Dragon, but bene put off trying to drop it into my game because of the hassle of either trusting the players with more sheets of paper to keep track of it's rules, or having to add Dragon 326 or whatever into the "players books" pile.

OK, innovative is quite a heavy word: a "greatest hits" collection is hardly a unique idea. But it's still a good one, and even if you don't want the book, complaining that it's intrinsically inferior to something like, say, Magic of Incarnum because it's not a brand spanking new game mechanic seems unfair. In fact, considering that you have given Magic of Incarnum a relatively low review, wouldn't you concede that simply having an idea which "breaks the mould" does not a good game product make?

(Note: I've enjoyed "innovative" products as much as the dull ones, so I don't want to dig on peple for liking new game system books like WoL and MoI: I think they're interesting too. But I'm far more likely to use the Spell Compendium in my campaign, and in fact in any D&D campaign I ran, on a constant basis, so it's to me a "better" product idea by far.)

 

[GQuail]

I love the idea of a compendium. Now all they need is the Class (& PRC) Compendium, the Race Compendium, the Feat Compendium, etc... all of which I would probably purchase.

Certainly, I'd be interested in a Race/Monster Compendium that got together creatures which appeared scattered around various 3.0 Books: though a fair few have seem 3.5 updates via other books, it'd definatly be useful.

Of course, a whole line of reprints like this would probably be universally mocked as Wizards "running out of steam" a nd having to churn out a line of nothing but rehashes: and I think a Class Compendium series might negate the bulk of the point of the Complete Series, and thusly shouldn't be expected while that's in print.

Of course, the spell compendium collects things for other sources as well, so perhaps a Race/Class compendium is more viable if it's going to raid Dragon for articles. But with the Best of Dragon now out, and more volumes published, that might come across as Paizo and WotC stepping on each others toes.

 

[Reynard]

This seems like a luxury item, an extravagance that's nice to have if you don't mind paying twice for material you already have in your gaming collection - for some gamers it may prove to be a useful tool, but so is an index to spells and the books where they're found offered as a free web enhancement.

Really? I was under the impression that it might be useful to have for those that don't own all 20 books from which those spells are drawn. i know I don't. i bet most people don't, in fact. Only the absolute completist is going to be 'paying twice' for any measurable amount of material.

 

[Reynard]

I agree, about more spells being in the OGC. But I'm more in favor of domains that EVERYONE uses. Repose, Craft, Darkness, etc. But then I'm kind of biased that way.

Look here.

 

[Barak]

Here's what I don't get about bitching about this book.

Well first off, if you have all (or most) of the source books from which the spell comes, and don't want them in one book.. Well don't buy the book. And if you don't have many of those books.. Well to quote NBC about airing reruns, "It's new to you!".

But that's a gimme, and not my main point for this post.

Kamikaze Midget seems to believe (in my impression) that WotC is... "Wasting" their resources by doing stuff like that -instead- of more.. "Imaginative" books. But.. Really, what resources lead to said "imaginative" books? Writers, mostly, and to a degree line editors. And, seomhow, I doubt they tied up any R&D resources in making the compendium. It's mostly grunt work, after all, and I'm sure WotC can hire all the grunts they want. As far as money, the Compendium will at the very least pay for itself, and I'm pretty darn sure it'll turn a profit. So by publishing the Conpendium, they gave themselves -more- resources, which technically would allow them to publish more risky books (note that I think they will).

I think you'd be surprised to learn how much silly crap big composers like Beethoven and Bach made in their lifetime to keep their patrons happy, and paying the bills so they'd make their more famous symphonies.

Sorta like how Spielberg made Jurassic Park so he could do Schindler's List.