| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Dargoth |
Posted - 31 Oct 2005 : 23:01:10
Amazon have a Monste Manual 4 listed for sale in July next year
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0786939206/qid=1130799341/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-1159190-8443307?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
I predict it will include the Justice Archon, Bloodhulk and the Wrackspawn (or as its known by in DDM circles the WTF)
|
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Mace Hammerhand |
Posted - 13 Jan 2007 : 15:43:26
I just got the book, and since I already loved the way the later Ravenloft MCs handled monsters, I immediately LOVED the book. Ready to use stuff, every DM's dream! |
| Eremite |
Posted - 20 Sep 2006 : 09:18:24
This is one book where I am glad I ignored the (mostly negative)reviews. I would rather have fewer monsters done well with lots of detail than the grab-bag that appears in most other books. |
| Alisttair |
Posted - 19 Sep 2006 : 16:28:34
This book is excellent. Spawn of Tiamat is one of the best things to have made its way into my campaign. |
| Beirnadri Magranth |
Posted - 08 Sep 2006 : 16:56:13
i liked the verdant princes in the faerun world |
| warlockco |
Posted - 08 Sep 2006 : 07:43:10
quote:
Originally posted by KnightErrantJR
quote:
Originally posted by warlockco
quote:
Originally posted by KnightErrantJR
I also like the sheer number of evil fey (lets repopulate the ranks of the Unseelie . . . woo hoo . . . though we still need 3.5 stats for quicklings).
I could say something about this, but I won't 
Oh, now I get it . . . 
Glad you remembered this, because I had forgotten about it. |
| KnightErrantJR |
Posted - 08 Sep 2006 : 03:02:59
quote:
Originally posted by warlockco
quote:
Originally posted by KnightErrantJR
I also like the sheer number of evil fey (lets repopulate the ranks of the Unseelie . . . woo hoo . . . though we still need 3.5 stats for quicklings).
I could say something about this, but I won't
Oh, now I get it . . . |
| Ardashir |
Posted - 08 Sep 2006 : 00:31:16
I like the MMIV, at least from what I've seen of it. Fewer monsters than I'm used to, but they give you some notes on them a la the various "Ecology of" articles, which I like. And certainly the notes on how to use them in a Realms campaign were good.
I like the Spawn of Tiamat, and I love the Lunar Ravagers and Verdant Prince. I'd especially love to see someone do a full "Ecology of the Lunar Ravager" someday; bring on the Wild Hunt! Yet I do wonder -- the LRs seem to be natural Malar worshippers with their love of violence and brutality, but doesn't he hate all Fey? Minor question, yes, but I'm curious. |
| warlockco |
Posted - 21 Jul 2006 : 01:40:31
Got a good look at this recently, all I can say is this is going onto my "It Can Wait List" I was not impressed at all with it. |
| Asgetrion |
Posted - 20 Jul 2006 : 22:54:03
quote:
Originally posted by Sanishiver
If not...well then I'll still think the MMIII is the best MM out there.
J. Grenemyer
I always preferred MMII personally... MMIII has too much Eber-whatsit content to my liking  |
| Sanishiver |
Posted - 16 Jul 2006 : 08:53:45
Went to my FLGS tonight to pick up this book.
Found it on a shelf and immediately looked through it to find the list of creatures by CR (I run a high level/Epic campaign, so the more high CRs the better).
Sadly, right away the book dissapoints me.
And no, not because I couldn't find that many high CRs (which is true, only six creatures with a natural CR of 15 or higher), but because the contents page listed the CR chart on page 221.
Turn to page 221 and what do you get...the list of monsters by type and subtype.
I found the CR list on page 204.
Annoying and dissapointing, that.
Anway, the artwork was more eye-catching to me with the book in my hands, and I found a decent number of sub-CR 15 creatures that I could work with, so I purchased the book.
Truth be told I also bought Secrets of Xen'Drick at the same time, if for no other reason than because looking through it left me more excited than after I looked through the MMIV.
If I can put fear in my player's hearts with this book, it'll have been worth it. If not...well then I'll still think the MMIII is the best MM out there.
J. Grenemyer |
| warlockco |
Posted - 15 Jul 2006 : 01:08:58
quote:
Originally posted by KnightErrantJR
I also like the sheer number of evil fey (lets repopulate the ranks of the Unseelie . . . woo hoo . . . though we still need 3.5 stats for quicklings).
I could say something about this, but I won't |
| GothicDan |
Posted - 14 Jul 2006 : 22:31:22
I agree with that. It's weird to me - introducing 'generic' world-wide/major themes and then expecting them to carry-on in the campaign worlds... I hope Eric can carry the idea through with some nice Realmsian lore and logic. I suspect so already. :) |
| KnightErrantJR |
Posted - 14 Jul 2006 : 22:15:46
Dan, its basically an underlying theme that was first introduced in Races of the Dragon, and sort of in Red Hand of Doom, that Tiamat is making a push to start taking over worlds, and Bahamut is getting more active to oppose her aggresion. The "game effect" is that WOTC introduces a lot of "dragonblood" creatures of various types that are related to dragons. And it gives them the thematic device for the Huge Minis pack they have out.
On the other hand, I'm not sure its a wise element to introduce, since of the nominally supported worlds that WOTC influences, this SHOULD have nothing to do with Eberron or DragonLance, and therefore only Greyhawk and the Forgotten Realms would be affected, and Greyhawk is not supported in the traditional sense. Meaning that if anything comes of this, it will be in the Realms, where Tiamat has had limited influence.
I'm not saying elements of it won't work, and I am eagarly looking forward to what Eric Boyd does with it in Dragons of Faerun (which, as I understand it, doesn't have this as a main theme at all, but does help to explain it). But saying that Tiamat is going to start a major offensive and is breeding troops to make a big push, then not really having a setting or adventure in mind to detail it, seems kind of anti-climactic and smacks of "we need a marketing idea for this Year of the Dragon" thing. |
| Archwizard |
Posted - 14 Jul 2006 : 22:14:33
quote:
Originally posted by GothicDan
What is this whole War of Tiamat thing?
Second. Though I'm guessing Dragons of Faerun will go into more details. |
| GothicDan |
Posted - 14 Jul 2006 : 21:49:25
What is this whole War of Tiamat thing?
EDIT: WOOHOO! New rank! |
| warlockco |
Posted - 14 Jul 2006 : 21:28:24
quote:
Originally posted by KnightErrantJR
Just had a chance to sit down with this one for a while at Border's (which I now feel much guiltier for because of the Dragons: World's Aflame thread, but I feel less guilty with game books than with novels . . . so I'll deal with it).
I like the clockwork creatures, as they imediately put me in mind of Trobriand, and even Beatrix from Elaine's Coucilors and Kings books. Though the ones in the books definately lean toward the Trobrian style of constructs. I also like the sheer number of evil fey (lets repopulate the ranks of the Unseelie . . . woo hoo . . . though we still need 3.5 stats for quicklings).
The NPC/Monsters with class levels are okay, and may be useful for "on the fly" stats, but some of them are kind of . . . out there. How many fiendish gnolls/half-fiend gnolls hang out with normal tribes of gnolls?
Still not thrilled with the Spawn of Tiamat, but I'm also still waiting to see Dragons of Faerun. I trust Eric Boyd's ability to make things fit well into the Realms, so maybe my opinion of these creatures will change.
The Realms notes seem kind of hit or miss. Some of them make good sense, but a few seem like afterthoughts, or make you scratch your head and say, "how was that helpful." Also, its always weird when two related monsters are in the book, and only one of them gets a Faerun adaption note.
I'm still on the fence, but the evil fey and elementals are tipping me more to the buy side.
Hmm, will have to take another look in the bookstores. Neither the Borders or Barnes & Noble had it on Wednesday, and I hate reading a book at the FLGS. |
| KnightErrantJR |
Posted - 13 Jul 2006 : 21:58:01
Just had a chance to sit down with this one for a while at Border's (which I now feel much guiltier for because of the Dragons: World's Aflame thread, but I feel less guilty with game books than with novels . . . so I'll deal with it).
I like the clockwork creatures, as they imediately put me in mind of Trobriand, and even Beatrix from Elaine's Coucilors and Kings books. Though the ones in the books definately lean toward the Trobrian style of constructs. I also like the sheer number of evil fey (lets repopulate the ranks of the Unseelie . . . woo hoo . . . though we still need 3.5 stats for quicklings).
The NPC/Monsters with class levels are okay, and may be useful for "on the fly" stats, but some of them are kind of . . . out there. How many fiendish gnolls/half-fiend gnolls hang out with normal tribes of gnolls?
Still not thrilled with the Spawn of Tiamat, but I'm also still waiting to see Dragons of Faerun. I trust Eric Boyd's ability to make things fit well into the Realms, so maybe my opinion of these creatures will change.
The Realms notes seem kind of hit or miss. Some of them make good sense, but a few seem like afterthoughts, or make you scratch your head and say, "how was that helpful." Also, its always weird when two related monsters are in the book, and only one of them gets a Faerun adaption note.
I'm still on the fence, but the evil fey and elementals are tipping me more to the buy side. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 12 Jul 2006 : 04:48:31
quote:
Originally posted by Archwizard
Yup, I knew about Spellfire. I meant a 3e version. WotC has revived/expanded D&D into every other aspect of gaming (video games, miniatures, non-related card game tie-ins Three Dragon Ante), might as well try a D&D CCG.
I don't think it would work, now... It worked, before, because everybody and their brother was pumping out CCGs, and TSR had the brand recognition and all. Now? Well, some CCGs linger, but the days of a market supporting lots of CCGs has passed -- particularly with collectible minis being the current thing. |
| Archwizard |
Posted - 12 Jul 2006 : 02:51:08
Yup, I knew about Spellfire. I meant a 3e version. WotC has revived/expanded D&D into every other aspect of gaming (video games, miniatures, non-related card game tie-ins Three Dragon Ante), might as well try a D&D CCG. |
| GothicDan |
Posted - 11 Jul 2006 : 04:27:19
Well, I hadn't heard much about the actual gameplay. :) |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 11 Jul 2006 : 04:14:24
quote:
Originally posted by GothicDan
There was an AD&D CCG called Spellfire. :)
It was pretty horrible, from what I've heard, and they used all recycled art.
My friends and I enjoyed it, though none of us played Magic, so we can't make any comparison.
TSR was big on reusing art.  |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 11 Jul 2006 : 04:09:41
quote:
Originally posted by Archwizard
Didn't you know, it's the precursor to the D&D 3e CCG, of which the Spawn of Tiamat will be the first set.
Actually, I'm surprised there isn't a D&D card game by now...
There was. When Magic was at its height, several companies tried to ape its success, with varying degrees of success. TSR gave us the CCG Spellfire. I liked it, though I can't tell you how it compared to other CCGs, since the only other one I ever played was Rage. Though I no longer have all the other cards, I do still have the different Spellfire decks I built (One each for Dragonlance, Greyhawk, and Ravenloft; two Forgotten Realms decks, and a psionic deck).
Ironically, my FLGS got in a mislabled box. It read "Sellfire".
quote:
Originally posted by Archwizard
After looking through the Monster Manual 4 art gallery I skimmed through the previous Monster Manual art galleries to get an overview of what has come before. I feel the latest offerings are less inspiring that the previous art. This isn't even looking back at pre-3e. The monster ideas just don't seem interesting, which more than likely affected the orders and descriptions sent to the artists. It appears the book has a lot of humanoids with minor feature differences, advanced regular races, blob beings and ghostly figures, and take cool creatures and make lesser/greater versions (e.g. Dragons). All of those concepts seem to have been better executed in previous products. There also seem to be fewer monsters, but perhaps not all the art was posted, since some of the previews hinted at creatures not shown in the gallery.
I've long been underwhelmed by the art...
I've pointed this out before, though: the two creature types we always seem to see more of are dragons (or critters related to dragons) and the undead. While I understand that dragons and the undead have a treasured place in the game, and that variations are good, I got sick of the parade of "Undead of the week" and "dragon of the week" monsters back when 2E was still going quite strong. |
| GothicDan |
Posted - 11 Jul 2006 : 04:00:19
There was an AD&D CCG called Spellfire. :)
It was pretty horrible, from what I've heard, and they used all recycled art. |
| Archwizard |
Posted - 11 Jul 2006 : 03:30:07
quote:
Originally posted by KnightErrantJR
The Githyanki didn't look right to me at all, but I have to say I kinda liked the orcs . . . I was never a big fan of the "pig people" look that started to dominate orc depiction. The yugoloth looked kind of cool . . . and let me preface this by saying, this isn't a comment on the actual creatures, because I've only seen stats for a few of them . . . but why must the Spawn of Tiamat have names that sound like rejected Yu-Gi-Oh cards?
Didn't you know, it's the precursor to the D&D 3e CCG, of which the Spawn of Tiamat will be the first set.
Actually, I'm surprised there isn't a D&D card game by now...
After looking through the Monster Manual 4 art gallery I skimmed through the previous Monster Manual art galleries to get an overview of what has come before. I feel the latest offerings are less inspiring that the previous art. This isn't even looking back at pre-3e. The monster ideas just don't seem interesting, which more than likely affected the orders and descriptions sent to the artists. It appears the book has a lot of humanoids with minor feature differences, advanced regular races, blob beings and ghostly figures, and take cool creatures and make lesser/greater versions (e.g. Dragons). All of those concepts seem to have been better executed in previous products. There also seem to be fewer monsters, but perhaps not all the art was posted, since some of the previews hinted at creatures not shown in the gallery.
|
| KnightErrantJR |
Posted - 11 Jul 2006 : 01:51:02
The Githyanki didn't look right to me at all, but I have to say I kinda liked the orcs . . . I was never a big fan of the "pig people" look that started to dominate orc depiction. The yugoloth looked kind of cool . . . and let me preface this by saying, this isn't a comment on the actual creatures, because I've only seen stats for a few of them . . . but why must the Spawn of Tiamat have names that sound like rejected Yu-Gi-Oh cards? |
| Kuje |
Posted - 11 Jul 2006 : 01:45:22
quote:
Originally posted by GothicDan
Is it just me, or is there something seriously lacking in the art in this one? I only saw half a dozen, tops, that caught my eye.
Not sure, I stopped looking at the current art a long time ago cause it doesn't interest me. :) Very rarely do I find a piece in the current material, current as in 2000 till now, that speaks to me or gives me any ideas on how to use it's scene for a scene in a campaign. |
| Sanishiver |
Posted - 11 Jul 2006 : 01:37:53
quote:
Originally posted by GothicDan
Is it just me, or is there something seriously lacking in the art in this one?
I'd say it's you.
Seriously though, my reaction from looking at the art of this book last night was neutral. I'm already on the fence about the book and the art didn't leave me wanting to buy the book any more or less.
Have to admit I probably will pick up the book, for completeness sake (and because it'll make my brand-spankin-new bookshelves look so damn cool ).
I'd say there's nothing overtly wrong with the art at all, though, beyond what subjective attitudes (such as a yearning for book traits to be 'as they were') us old-schoolers regularly apply to such things.
J. Grenemyer
|
| GothicDan |
Posted - 10 Jul 2006 : 06:08:21
Is it just me, or is there something seriously lacking in the art in this one? I only saw half a dozen, tops, that caught my eye.
|
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 10 Jul 2006 : 05:09:43
We now have an art gallery for this book. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 28 Apr 2006 : 07:07:35
And we have the WotC Product entry now:- http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndacc/953767200
|
|
|
