| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| The Sage |
Posted - 09 Apr 2004 : 08:17:30
Just cleaning through some of my old saved archives, I found this small tidbit of information regarding the upcoming Book of Undead -
quote:
As many have theorized, Libris Mortis is indeed the undead's answer to the Draconomicon.
It was written by Bruce Cordell and me. IIRC we split it basically 50-50--I focused a bit more on character-building (feats, PrCs, monster classes, etc.), sample undead, and "running undead" material, while Bruce tangled with monster design and general undead flavor material. (That's hardly exclusive--we dabbled in each others' sections quite a bit as well.) There's also a really cool new undead template (that is, a template to apply to undead) written by Matt Sernett originally destined for inclusion in MM3 that we just had to steal for Libris Mortis instead.
Like Draconomicon, it's a core D&D sourcebook that features new game mechanics, exploration of existing rules, and discussion of undead and their place in a D&D game. It includes plenty of material both for DMs and for players, from tips on how to make undead encounters extra-scary to information on including undead characters in the party.
At 192 pages, it's smaller than Draconomicon, but Draco was a special case--originally envisioned as a super-deluxe book, Draco shrunk slightly in design but the topic still merited a super-sized tome. Libris Mortis fits our more standard product size (192 to 224 pages). Don't worry--it's still chock full of material.
I don't have any insight on the naming process that produced Libris Mortis. I don't know Latin and wasn't involved in selecting that name. Regardless, I think what's in the book is far more important that what name is attached to it.
If you like the way that Draconomicon approached dragons in D&D, I think you'll appreciate Libris Mortis as well.
Andy Collins
Senior Designer
Wizards of the Coast Roleplaying R&D
I apologise for not posting it earlier...
|
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| SiriusBlack |
Posted - 10 Oct 2004 : 16:29:28
For those scribes pondering a purchase of this item, some ENWorld users have obtained the tome and are discussing it within this thread. |
| SiriusBlack |
Posted - 08 Oct 2004 : 03:45:30
Wallpapers and a Screensaver for this product are now available. Additionally, I've just seen the product for sale at an online vendor. |
| SiriusBlack |
Posted - 06 Oct 2004 : 05:20:39
And, since we are fair and balanced at WOTC  , we have 10 Reasons Why Your Character Wants You To Get Libris Mortis. |
| Kuje |
Posted - 02 Oct 2004 : 17:34:06
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
So now we've got a book of dragons, and a book of undead... Has anyone else noticed that the most common monster types in the game are either dragons, dragon-related, or undead?
Edit: I don't mean common by frequency of appearance. I mean the overall percentage of monster types that have been detailed in rule books and magazines. There has been a larger percentage of dragons and undead than any other kind of critter.
Aberrations is the next book in that "series" and it's um Codex Anathema. See the link below. :)
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndacc/177410000 |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 02 Oct 2004 : 17:08:14
So now we've got a book of dragons, and a book of undead... Has anyone else noticed that the most common monster types in the game are either dragons, dragon-related, or undead?
Edit: I don't mean common by frequency of appearance. I mean the overall percentage of monster types that have been detailed in rule books and magazines. There has been a larger percentage of dragons and undead than any other kind of critter. |
| Wood Elf Ranger |
Posted - 02 Oct 2004 : 08:09:38
Wow! no kidding, if the rest of the tome has artwork that good it's going to be a masterpiece. Then if it has as good fluff as it does artwork (which does seem to be the case so far! [:d] Well lets just say its going to be really hard to top this tome! |
| Arivia |
Posted - 01 Oct 2004 : 22:00:24
quote:
Originally posted by Dargoth
Which means we should see stuff from Shining south Next friday
It's already out.
And ye gods, does the artwork look stunning. |
| D-brane |
Posted - 01 Oct 2004 : 14:52:13
I'm still undecided on this product.
Undead don't feature prominently in my campaigns, but, if the quality of the sourcebook is as well presented as the Draconomicon, it's definitely a D&D book I'd like to have on my book shelf.
What's a DM with limited funds to do? 
|
| Capn Charlie |
Posted - 01 Oct 2004 : 14:31:31
Well, quite frankly, the 10 cruncy reaons to buy it, are for me, 10 reasons to keep it. Were the book all fluff(which I will call it till people reciprocate by calling rules something besides crunch) I could read it once or twice really good, then have no real further need of it.
For a book ot be worth keeping around, it has to have a need to be used at the table, for me, and for me to want to keep it around. Since I am not able to file away rules in my head, like I can fluff, and thus would need it around to reference, most likely away from the table, but at it, if there are monsters, items and spells within as I assume there will be.
My funds are limited, so I buy several books to read, then pass them along for at or near at what I payed for them, to get the next one, meaning that it has to be very useful for me to keep it around, as such, rulebooks tend to make the list far more often than lorebooks, as I can remember histories of the realms, and reference them in free 2e products, but am unable to do so with stat blocks, and the like. |
| Dargoth |
Posted - 01 Oct 2004 : 14:05:25
Which means we should see stuff from Shining south Next friday |
| SiriusBlack |
Posted - 01 Oct 2004 : 13:44:47
There is also a Design team interview and excerpt now available for this product. |
| Lord Rad |
Posted - 01 Oct 2004 : 13:40:21
Hmmmm, Wotc have released an article entitled 10 Reasons Why a DM Should Get Libris Mortis.... the terrible thing is, all 10 reasons are CRUNCHY!! ARGH!
I'm quite looking forward to this book, nevertheless, and if its anything like the quality of Draconomicon, then ill be quite happy |
| Sarta |
Posted - 19 May 2004 : 07:06:54
quote:
Originally posted by Sarelle
However Sarta, I must diagree about your prediction - you are right about divine spellcasters getting the better lot in 3.x (in 2e it was the other way around), and as most Necromantic spells dealing with undead are divine spells, or both divine and arcane spells, I think the boost will be equal - leaving divine spellcasters ahead.
I sincerely hope you are right. My prediction was based on years of playing EQ and seeing various classes tweaked in order to achieve better class balance. Typically you could always guess which class would be ungodly powerful next revision by which was the weakest at the moment.
If I were not to base my prediction on this, but based on established trends within 3.5 D&D I'd say divine necromancers will remain more powerful, but arcane necromancers will have far more variation and flavor.
Sarta |
| Lady Kazandra |
Posted - 19 May 2004 : 06:22:18
Sachiel, those are old rumors. And consequently they were actually about the inclusion of the 'White Magician' PrC in the Ravenloft tome, Heroes of Light. White Wolf originally created the PrC and it was to be included in an upcoming WotC sourcebook. However, the class must have access to the Mists for it's abilities that are tied to the 'Mists' domain to work. Therefore it would be impossible for this PrC to used outside of the Realm of Dread.
|
| Sachiel |
Posted - 19 May 2004 : 03:59:51
Does anyone known anything about the details surrounding a prestige class called 'White Magician' that is supposedly to be included in this sourcebook? The White Magician is said to be a LG necromancer.
|
| Gerath Hoan |
Posted - 18 May 2004 : 18:43:21
I find it kind of disappointing that arcane Necromancers are that little bit behind their worshipful kin... i always felt that it was more likely that a wizard with the aptitude to specialise and the appropriate moral system (or lack thereof) would be the most capable at creating various kinds of Undead.
I always felt that the Clerical focus should be on restoration to life and healing, due to their spiritual interest in the afterlife, as opposed to the creation of Unlife. Of course, this varies in certain circumstances, especially when dealing with evil deities. I do think that they should have some abilities in that area (perhaps provided by 3e/3.5 Domain choices?) for Clerics of gods like the old Myrkul and now Velsharoon. I just always felt that a specialist Wizard should have the potential to top anything else in his field, so the idea of a Necromancer being less capable of raising large numbers of the dead than a Cleric seems a but odd to me. |
| Sarelle |
Posted - 18 May 2004 : 18:08:30
I'm not sure my opinion on the Libris Mortis. I loved Draconomicon, but as others have said - hat was because I'm a big fan of dragons and their flexibility. Undead arn't all that flexible, but have their fair share of interest. I will be counting on you guys to give me info on this book.
However Sarta, I must diagree about your prediction - you are right about divine spellcasters getting the better lot in 3.x (in 2e it was the other way around), and as most Necromantic spells dealing with undead are divine spells, or both divine and arcane spells, I think the boost will be equal - leaving divine spellcasters ahead. |
| Sarta |
Posted - 18 May 2004 : 03:37:53
Given the need for prc's in all new products, I seriously doubt that necromancers will be overlooked.
My prediction will be that arcane necromancers will get beefed up a bit. They have lagged behind divine necromancers in effectiveness and in the spirit of revisions, the balance of power will probably shift to favor the arcane.
Fortunately, the book is extra big and is hopefully intended to follow in the footsteps of Draconomicon and we will receive a lot of fluff in addition to the crunch.
I actually thought the Complete Book of Necromancers by Steve Kurtz for 2ed wasn't too bad when it comes to fluff. Hopefully, they will elaborate on this foundation.
Sarta |
| Gerath Hoan |
Posted - 18 May 2004 : 01:59:51
Is no one else interested in seeing Necromancers get a bit more development in this book along with their creations?
I do think a book about the Undead should spend some time look at those magically proficient individuals who create the majority of their ranks. |
| SiriusBlack |
Posted - 16 May 2004 : 17:08:53
quote:
Originally posted by Gerath Hoan
What i'd really like to see in this upcoming book is lots of fluff (and maybe a little crunch too) about Necromancers as well as their creations.
I'll be very curious to see the fluff to crunch ratio for this product. |
| Gerath Hoan |
Posted - 16 May 2004 : 16:26:55
What i'd really like to see in this upcoming book is lots of fluff (and maybe a little crunch too) about Necromancers as well as their creations. They have as much of a place in a book about the Undead as the Undead themselves IMO.
Some of my favourite recurring villains are wandering Necromancer types who turn up in town to raise most of the graveyard to add to their burgeoning army of the dead... it would be cool to have some D&D background material on some of this stuff. |
| Sarta |
Posted - 13 Apr 2004 : 09:27:38
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
If you're talking about the d20 conversion of Necropolis, it has generally very favourable reviews at both rpg.net and enworld.org, both sites anti-Gygax-AD&D-biased.
I should check those out. I never bothered with the conversion since I have two copies of it for Dangerous Journeys and figured I could always do a conversion if running it seemed interesting. I am a bit curious to see how much he may have changed it around. If they merely updated stat blocks, it isn't as interesting to me.
Edit: It would seem that few of the reviewers are familiar with the original run of the adventure and of those that are, only one seems to have read it... and he doesn't mention how much is new content. Too bad.
Sarta |
| The Sage |
Posted - 13 Apr 2004 : 04:41:00
Thanks for those reviews Faraer. I guess that, in my haste to decide whether or not to purchase Gygax's Necropolis tome, these websites were unfortunately ovwerlooked...
|
| Faraer |
Posted - 12 Apr 2004 : 14:40:17
quote:
Their book on dragons far exceeds the Mongoose publication.
Well, it's bigger, but I'm interested in how dragons are conceived by the creator of D&D for D&D-Greyhawk, not so much in how they are by Andy Collins, James Wyatt, and Skip Williams.
quote:
As for Gygax-named products, I had originally wanted to purchase his necromancer-based campaign setting, but I've never read a pleasant review about it since it's release over two years ago...
If you're talking about the d20 conversion of Necropolis, it has generally very favourable reviews at both rpg.net and enworld.org, both sites anti-Gygax-AD&D-biased. |
| Elrond Half Elven |
Posted - 12 Apr 2004 : 14:24:11
Dargoth I was more interested in the 'fluff' associated with these Undead Beasts. Akin to the 'fluff' shown in the VRGs.
Hanx
Elrond |
| Dargoth |
Posted - 12 Apr 2004 : 13:33:53
Elrond
Death Knights are in Monster manual 2 and Juju Zombies are in Unapproachable east |
| The Sage |
Posted - 12 Apr 2004 : 13:14:33
quote:
Originally posted by Elrond Half Elven
I wonder how much this book will draw on Past Undead Sourcebooks. The Books in the Van Richen Series are awesome. IMHO this is what the books should be like content wise. Just one small change that I would make would be confining all the DM material (i.e. rules) to a single pull out book. This means the books could be used as player handouts.
[...]
The Undead creation section sounds great fun. Not when a resurrection doesn’t work you can create and Undead PC! Reminds me of the (Grand Requiem).
Without a doubt, the 2e RL 'Van Richten's Guides' were some of the best tomes ever written that dealt with the undead, and other monstrous creatures. In fact, even the 3e Guide to the Walking Dead sets the standard higher (if that's even possible). They're all a truly great resource, for any campaign setting, in any edition...
If this new undead tome, Libris Mortis, even comes close to what the VR books are, I will be happy...or rather...laughing with joy...
And Elrond, as for your comments about the Grand Requiem, I'm sure that Azalin would indeed approve...
It is good to be the king...
|
| Elrond Half Elven |
Posted - 12 Apr 2004 : 11:49:39
I wonder how much this book will draw on Past Undead Sourcebooks. The Books in the Van Richen Series are awesome. IMHO this is what the books should be like content wise. Just one small change that I would make would be confining all the DM material (i.e. rules) to a single pull out book. This means the books could be used as player handouts.
I'm looking forward to the Libris Mortis. Undead have always had a special place in my Heart and as Rad and Sage both say are used a lot more than Dragons and Demons in my Campaigns.
I'm hoping that the book will detail the long undetailed 'Death Knight', 'Heucuva', 'Juju Zombie', and 'Demi-Shadow'. I would enjoy reading on specifically how each one is created. I would also like to see variants of Undead Creatures placed in the book (Which reminds me I have a Oriental and Feral Variant of the Death knight kicking around here somewhere).
We have almost all the rules we need for these creatures already I'm looking forward to seeing some considerable 'fluff' on unusual undead creatures. (Hopefully I wont be disappointed).
The Undead creation section sounds great fun. Not when a resurrection doesn’t work you can create and Undead PC! Reminds me of the (Grand Requiem).
This certainly looks to be a great resource for this year! One that’s definitely in my purchase list!
Hanx
Elrond
|
| The Sage |
Posted - 11 Apr 2004 : 23:17:44
Oh, there was some minor trouble with the transfer to India, but that had more to do with the now-persistent revisement of international posting laws...
|
| SiriusBlack |
Posted - 11 Apr 2004 : 17:05:59
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
Actually, the ceremony did include a transfer of gifts with at least four players from overseas. Two different game-products were sent to two gamers in the US (one from Seattle, and New York was the other), one to London, in the United Kingdom, and the other, to the village of Kurl, in India.
And it was pulled off without any trouble? Now that is beyond cool. Way to show overseas unity. Let any coalition top that! |
