619 lines
26 KiB
Plaintext
619 lines
26 KiB
Plaintext
==================================================
|
|
Results for Rating Form #2: Core 2nd Edition Books
|
|
==================================================
|
|
|
|
Compiled by: brooks@odie.ee.wits.ac.za (Goth)
|
|
|
|
==============
|
|
Points Ratings
|
|
==============
|
|
|
|
In order for a product to appear on the points rating table, it must
|
|
have at least five votes. Products are listed in points order, from
|
|
highest to lowest.
|
|
|
|
/-------------------------------------------------------\
|
|
| - Key - |
|
|
| |
|
|
| Score = the product's average rating |
|
|
| Low = the lowest rating anyone gave this product |
|
|
| High = the highest rating anyone gave this product |
|
|
| Voters = the number of people who rated the product |
|
|
\-------------------------------------------------------/
|
|
|
|
Product Score Low High Voters
|
|
------- ----- --- ---- ------
|
|
Player's Handbook (2nd Ed) 7.9 3 10 90
|
|
Monstrous Manual 7.4 0 10 73
|
|
Dungeon Master's Guide (2nd Ed) 6.7 2 10 89
|
|
Tome of Magic 6.4 0 10 80
|
|
Legends & Lore (2nd Ed) 5.2 0 9 46
|
|
Book of Artifacts 5.0 0 8 42
|
|
|
|
========
|
|
Comments
|
|
========
|
|
|
|
This next bit is a selection of comments people have sent in. I've
|
|
removed some remarks which were very similar, especially for products
|
|
which provoked large quantities of comment and I've done some minor
|
|
editing for grammar and spelling. Other than that, this is how they
|
|
were sent in.
|
|
|
|
General Comment on 2nd Edition Material
|
|
---------------------------------------
|
|
I'm happy with the products in general. I use them all from time to
|
|
time, with varying degress of success depending on what I'm looking
|
|
for, but if I can't find it... I make it up. After all, that's what
|
|
the game is all about, right?
|
|
|
|
The PH and DMG are over wordy, long winded, and obviously written by
|
|
a committee. The Handbooks are the same, only moreso, and obviously
|
|
intended merely as a ploy to relieve the consumer of their $$.
|
|
|
|
Both the PH and the DMG were pretty damn good, if not absolutely
|
|
spectacular. TSR's quality slide came later. The MM is quality stuff,
|
|
but it's the same old quality stuff all over again, in hardcover.
|
|
They seem to have tried to get some of everybody's favourite monsters
|
|
in it, but I preferred the old MC Appendix format. If you couldn't
|
|
care less about a given world, you didn't buy the Appendix for it.
|
|
Now, when TSR puts out new campaign settings, expect to see a whole
|
|
SERIES of hard-cover MMs to deal with the best critters from these
|
|
worlds MM2, MM3, MM4, MM5, ad infinitum.
|
|
|
|
Generally, I think the 2nd Edition campaign settings are of much
|
|
better quality than the 1st edition. The designers have learned to
|
|
put relevant material into the boxes, rather than what they think is
|
|
interesting.
|
|
|
|
I'm not really into 2nd edition. I do think that there are some
|
|
improvements in the rules, but that overall, it costs far too much to
|
|
justify buying all the stuff. Our group is still using 1st edition
|
|
with some "home rule" changes mixed with a few 2nd edition things we
|
|
liked.
|
|
|
|
A good revision of AD&D, but some oversights and unnecessary
|
|
material.
|
|
|
|
The basic rules got the points they got just because of nostalgia,
|
|
truthfully I think they should never have been published.
|
|
|
|
The core rules are, well, the core rules are quite essential. They
|
|
definitely are not spectacular or anything. There are many
|
|
improvements over the original rules, and some annoying things.
|
|
|
|
My only comment is that there is no need for seperate players' and
|
|
DM's books. Other RPGs don't need them. Champions is a good example
|
|
of a "one book system".
|
|
|
|
Perhaps TSR should spend more time facilitating storytelling instead
|
|
of burdening the system down with more rules. We're bright enough to
|
|
add our own bells and whistles; we just don't have time to create our
|
|
own gaming systems from the ground up.
|
|
|
|
I'm not much of a second edition fan, but I use what parts I like...
|
|
few though they are...
|
|
|
|
The group that I play in still uses mostly the 1st edition. We use
|
|
the 2nd edition mostly just for non-weapon proficiencies.
|
|
|
|
If the typos were removed they would be excellent purchases.
|
|
|
|
Generally, the consolidation of all the information is quite good.
|
|
Explanations are clear and concise.
|
|
|
|
You need to have the Player's Handbook (2nd Ed) and Dungeon Master
|
|
Guide to play the game in the beginning but once you have learned the
|
|
system you can always improvise. I almost never use the L&L,ToM or
|
|
BoA.
|
|
|
|
Player's Handbook
|
|
-----------------
|
|
By far the best book TSR have published, but certain ambiguities like
|
|
thieves being able to backstab with ANY weapon they can wield
|
|
(missile attacks) tend to mess things up.
|
|
|
|
The PHB is very well organized and very complete, and is worth the
|
|
money to buy it. The only problem is that some of the rules are
|
|
unclear, and it is aimed at a much younger audience.
|
|
|
|
The 2nd Edition PHB is much better than first edition.
|
|
|
|
The second edition PHB is a vast, VAST improvement over the original.
|
|
Clear concise rules, intelligent reworking of Gygax's infinite
|
|
tables. My personal favourite is the THAC0 system. Much better than
|
|
the attack matrices. Two minor beefs: the rules for illusion magic
|
|
are scattered in two or three places in the book, and the system is
|
|
silly; four die rolls or so just to determine whether the orcs
|
|
believe in that giant boulder rolling towards
|
|
them? Please.
|
|
|
|
Well written and coherent. A huge improvement over the first edition.
|
|
|
|
The PHB contained some good stuff, like the revised proficiency list.
|
|
And some bad stuff... the cheesy secondary skill list (I absolutely
|
|
hated it!)
|
|
|
|
More complete and friendlier than 1st Edition, though I had a first
|
|
run copy and the errors through it didn't help, plus the binding
|
|
isn't as good as on the 1st Edition books - but this criticm can be
|
|
levelled at all the 2nd Edition books in general.
|
|
|
|
You need somewhere to start. This was a good one. I had a later
|
|
version that missed some of the problems in the earlier printings so
|
|
some folks rating on these mistakes might differ from mine.
|
|
|
|
Very useful, although directed at a younger audience than the 1st
|
|
edition. There are a few annoying errors and ambiguities.
|
|
|
|
The Player's Handbook was okay, but some of the rules blew chunks.
|
|
They stripped out a lot of what should have been in it so they could
|
|
make more money on supplements.
|
|
|
|
I think the Player's Handbook is too messy - info should be more
|
|
organized and all tables in one place. For example if I want to know
|
|
a daily movement rate I must scan a lot of text in order to find the
|
|
fact. Too few prices.
|
|
|
|
This one's more organized than the 1ed, and vital combat rules are
|
|
present here, as they should be. The Ranger is a bit too weak when
|
|
compared to the Paladin, especially for the same XP. The Illusionist
|
|
has been castrated in 2ed after losing his special prerogative to
|
|
powerful illusions, and he, like some of the other specialists (e.g.
|
|
Diviner) is too weak in an adventuring situation, or has limited
|
|
specialist spells (e.g. Necromancer). The new bard is good, but I
|
|
question why a bard would more likely have climb walls than, say,
|
|
move silently. A good job of unmunchkinning the Unearthed Arcana
|
|
rules.
|
|
|
|
The worst problem with the Players Handbook is that it gives too much
|
|
|
|
information to players - informations they shouldn't have. Why should
|
|
a simple starting player know that much about spells and undead
|
|
creatures?
|
|
|
|
The PHB clears up a lot of the ambiguities that there were in the 1st
|
|
edition, but to be honest, with the exception of the thief, I just do
|
|
not like the way that they have revised the classes.
|
|
|
|
The PHB is an essential. If you are never going to DM, this is really
|
|
the only book you NEED. It got only a 9 because there are always ways
|
|
to improve on things.
|
|
|
|
The PHB is of course absolutely essential to playing the game.
|
|
|
|
The Player's Handbook is the essential first book; even after all the
|
|
supplements, it still contains the essential information and leaves
|
|
out the less important stuff. (The only exception to that being
|
|
non-weapon proficiencies, which have become more significant in the
|
|
game than when the 2nd ed was first published.)
|
|
|
|
After having played a lot of different role playing systems I'd say
|
|
the the Players Handbook is the easiest book to use ONCE you've been
|
|
playing for a year or two :) Its orginization is lacking to say the
|
|
least.
|
|
|
|
This book heralded a whole new look and style and a complete
|
|
revamping of the rules of AD&D. It showed gloss and sharp layout and
|
|
set the standard for the RPGs of the 90s. It was FAR easier read and
|
|
comprehend, contained everything a player needed to begin play at a
|
|
basic level, and featured all new art. The reason I haven't given
|
|
this a 10 is because of the quality of materials and editing
|
|
problems. This book has been reprinted several times, each time with
|
|
minor corrections. Also, the first few printings were done with cheap
|
|
covers and binding that fell apart too quickly. The most recent
|
|
printings have been with more durable stock, and they've taken to
|
|
printing all their hardbounds this way.
|
|
|
|
Well, it's certainly better written than almost every other book,
|
|
though the beginning is kind of stupid. I also wish the later
|
|
chapters on time, movement, vision, and light were clearer, and that
|
|
there weren't so many "See the DMG" bits in there. Surely, TSR can
|
|
correct most of this with their flashy new release.
|
|
|
|
Dungeon Master's Guide
|
|
----------------------
|
|
I think actually that the 1st Edition DM's Guide was just as good, or
|
|
perhaps better. Of course the 2nd Edition Guide was much more smooth,
|
|
and efficent but, there were some major mistakes. The 2nd Edition
|
|
version didn't have the lists of all the monsters, and their hps like
|
|
the original -- that was a mistake... Although the charts and tables
|
|
were pretty good. Although in both editions, the DM's Guide dosn't
|
|
tell a newbie DM how to DM well.
|
|
|
|
The DMG contains useful information but it just waffles on about many
|
|
things and doesn't clarify a lot. I personally run my games without
|
|
one.
|
|
|
|
The 2nd Edition DMG can't even compare to first edition. It went from
|
|
a wealth of information to a dearth of the same.
|
|
|
|
The DMG is fairly good, but severely lacking in information compared
|
|
to the first edition (but its organization almost makes up for that
|
|
loss).
|
|
|
|
I find the DMG slightly less necessary than the PHB, and find myself
|
|
referencing it far less often.
|
|
|
|
Nowhere near as complete as the 1st Edition DMG, and missing those
|
|
nifty little cartoons. Might be more user friendly, but somehow I
|
|
feel I'm getting ripped off when the DMG shrinks so much.
|
|
|
|
Many of Gygax's sillier ideas are better forgotten. Random creation
|
|
of dungeons?
|
|
|
|
*ick* It was just a reprint of the Players Handbook plus a few other
|
|
things that you needed, so were forced to buy the damn thing.
|
|
|
|
Although the DM's Guide is improved over 1st Edition, a few of the
|
|
miscellaneous tables could have been left in.
|
|
|
|
What happened to all the information?
|
|
|
|
There was nothing in here worth having, since they moved all the
|
|
charts and tables for combat to the PHB (well most). This book is
|
|
pretty pointless, there was nothing new from the original DMG in it,
|
|
but a lot was lost.
|
|
|
|
The DMG is a bit general; I need more exact info. It also lacks
|
|
complex tables as in PH.
|
|
|
|
Too thin. That's the biggest problem. It lacks advice on campaigning,
|
|
and on adjucating high-level situations. Needs more rules on
|
|
developing spells and magical items. Also, it seems ridiculous that
|
|
this book didn't include at least 1 or 2 first-level adventures.
|
|
|
|
Half of the DMG is PH. It doesn't even give advices to new DMs!!! I
|
|
use the DMG only for the magical items.
|
|
|
|
The DMG contains little information of value, period.
|
|
|
|
I am an experienced DM, so I thought I didn't need the DMG much. I
|
|
was right.
|
|
|
|
The DM Guide is also still appropriately titled, considering its
|
|
content: necessary for a DM, not a necessary consult for players.
|
|
|
|
Giving the DM his own book is a good idea but not with the kinds of
|
|
stuff they put in there. Why not have all that stuff in the Player's
|
|
Handbook?
|
|
|
|
Whereas the DMG of first edition provided just about everything a
|
|
dungeonmaster needed to run a game, the second edition seemed to
|
|
strip a lot of the meat out of the DMG. It became basically a
|
|
handbook with rules for experience, magic item creation, treasure and
|
|
magic item description, with a few odds and ends about spellcasting
|
|
and combat and movement thrown in as filler. Instead of producing a
|
|
definitive dungeonmaster's guide, TSR threw this thing out and then
|
|
subsequently published the CASTLE Guide, the Sourcebook of Catacombs,
|
|
and the other Dungeonmaster Handbooks. I would have gladly paid 30
|
|
bucks for a more comprehensive DMG about 3x as thick as the wimpy
|
|
thing that came out.
|
|
|
|
The Dungeon Master Guide has lost a lot since 1st Ed. When I recently
|
|
bought the 1st Ed DMG I was pretty shocked to see how *big* it was
|
|
compared to my 2nd Ed one. When I say big, I mean big in ideas! It is
|
|
great. I now regard my 2nd Ed one as fairly skimpy, hence the low
|
|
score...
|
|
|
|
Great for $18; I've always wondered how it's just as cheap to make
|
|
this as it is to make one of the CHBs... why not hardbind about 3 of
|
|
the CHB's together, take out all the crappy parts, and sell it for
|
|
$20?
|
|
|
|
Monstrous Manual
|
|
----------------
|
|
The Monstrous Manual is good, but for more common animals, the
|
|
lack of an illustration or text details is annoying (meaning it is
|
|
still necessary to own the Compendiums). Also, quite a few of
|
|
illustrations are recycled black and white artwork (and it shows).
|
|
|
|
Great art work, but I liked the binder better... I could pick out the
|
|
monsters I wanted and save time fumbling through books looking for
|
|
info when I needed it.
|
|
|
|
It is just another ploy to make us spend money on stuff that we
|
|
already have (why couldn't TSR just put a book out in the first place
|
|
- AARGH!)
|
|
|
|
When will TSR make up their minds? The MC was an okay concept (though
|
|
lacking an overall index (or section ones for that matter)). Back to
|
|
the ol' MM. Wait for FF and MMII to reappear.
|
|
|
|
Monsters specifically from Ravenloft or another world in one common
|
|
book? NEVER.
|
|
|
|
I much prefer the Hardbound version to the loose-leaf.
|
|
|
|
In short, I bought the Monstrous Compendiums. A great many of them.
|
|
I believed in that product, and now TSR has ditched me.
|
|
|
|
The Monstrous Manual is the most useful book for a DM to have... it
|
|
has all the monsters you normally use (I've never really needed the
|
|
compendiums)...
|
|
|
|
The Monstrous Manual gets it's high points because of Toni
|
|
Di'Terlizzi's fabulous art and for being one of the most thorough and
|
|
still compact monster guides to any game.
|
|
|
|
The Monstrous Manual is a a beautiful product, the best of the lot,
|
|
as it's a complete summary and has some fabulous art.
|
|
|
|
Until the Monstrous Manual came out, I still stuck by my good ol' 1st
|
|
Edition MM and MM2, except for a few products.
|
|
|
|
Far better than the original MC's, but still lacking the character
|
|
and inspirational qualities of the original Monster Manual.
|
|
|
|
With this, TSR hit new lows. To put out all the Monstrous Compendium
|
|
crap, then to switch back to the hard covers just to rehash the same
|
|
stuff, but to make it look like something new is LOW. The only
|
|
redeeming value is that it is useful to have if you didn't blow the
|
|
cash on the MCs.
|
|
|
|
The MM lacks a rolling chart for random encounters and therefore gets
|
|
a very low score.
|
|
|
|
A must to have. Good descriptions on ecology and habits.
|
|
|
|
I don't have this one, but the colour art seems nice.
|
|
|
|
A fine book in fine price. The essential AD&D supplement.
|
|
|
|
The Monstrous Manual (hardcover, 2nd Edition) is excellent,
|
|
especially with the new color art.
|
|
|
|
The Monstrous Manual I own and use (for travel), but I preferred the
|
|
looseleaf format for monsters over the perfect binding. Now, we have
|
|
a bunch of the same monsters described yet again.
|
|
|
|
What the hell is this? You go out and buy all the Monstrous
|
|
Compendiums and then they completly change the format on you!!! This
|
|
is complete garbage. If it weren't for the fact that they have the
|
|
same style and ease of use as the originals I would have scored it
|
|
much lower.
|
|
|
|
I liked the whole Monstrous Compendium thing. I resent the fact that
|
|
they've abandoned it without even an acknowledgement. However, the
|
|
Monstrous Manual (basically a revamping of the original Monster
|
|
manuals) is an excellent resource for game play. I have all the
|
|
monsters I would normally need within one hardbound, and all the
|
|
illustrations are in color.
|
|
|
|
I only use the basic monsters in normal play, with none of the
|
|
specialities.... Most of my baddies are NPCs as they are so much more
|
|
versatile and unpredictable. If you see an orc you generally know
|
|
what you are getting yourself into. But when you encounter another
|
|
nondescript man, dwarf, elf, halfling etc, they could be death
|
|
incarnate or just some drunken bum, peasant of no interest or threat
|
|
to the players. The players do not know this until they have made
|
|
some attempt with communication.
|
|
|
|
The colour of Monstrous Manual, is a great addition. It helps for
|
|
more accurate descriptions, as well as helping miniature painting.
|
|
Not bad, not bad. Still not perfect, and I don't really think it
|
|
should have to be this long... it IS "Monstrous."
|
|
|
|
The Monstrous Manual is very good, with color pictures for almost all
|
|
the monsters, although the best is the Invisible Stalker. However,
|
|
too much information is shortened to fit it all on one page.
|
|
|
|
Legends & Lore
|
|
--------------
|
|
It's missing non-human deities, and xps for defeating avatars. Use
|
|
the 1st Edition version instead.
|
|
|
|
Legends and Lore is very useful, I use it for all the gods in my
|
|
campaign, with different areas (northern etc) having the different
|
|
myths.
|
|
|
|
Good, but does not correspond at all to the Complete Priest's HB with
|
|
regards to spheres, granted powers, etc. Works good as a base for
|
|
making your own priest-classes.
|
|
|
|
Thank God! They took away the stats for the gods. Always bothered me
|
|
that the 1st edition Deities & Demigods book gave stats to the gods
|
|
so the players could go out and kill them. Now they are once more
|
|
gods. No stats. You can't kill 'em damn it! Let the players have a
|
|
crack at an avatar if they want to do some deicide. =) I was annoyed
|
|
to see the Babylonian and Finnish mythos' excluded from the 2nd
|
|
edition book though.
|
|
|
|
Again, I dislike the whole idea of giving divine beings stats for
|
|
munchkins to beat.
|
|
|
|
Legends and Lore is not all that essential, especially if you have
|
|
the Complete Priest's Handbook.
|
|
|
|
Legends and Lore is an interesting book to read but I've found that
|
|
some of the powers given to specialty clerics are too unbalancing in
|
|
game situations.
|
|
|
|
The 2nd Edition Legends and Lore definetely improves the gods over
|
|
those of 1st Edition and a neccessity for playing.
|
|
|
|
Sad... just plain sad. What they did to mythology in this is an
|
|
abomination.
|
|
|
|
The LL book took out a lot of what was good from 1st, such as the
|
|
"How to become a god" parts.
|
|
|
|
The priesthoods are good, especially if you use the TOM sphere
|
|
allowances published in Dragon Magazine. However, probably only about
|
|
10% of this book would be useful to any one DM, except as inspiration
|
|
for granted powers.
|
|
|
|
Full of great ideas. Very inspiring but some priests are
|
|
"unbalancing".
|
|
|
|
The revised yet again Legends and Lore is not necessary.
|
|
|
|
L&L is OK. If you wanted to run a FR campaign this makes a good
|
|
referance
|
|
tool.
|
|
|
|
This was a better priests' handbook than the priests' handbook.
|
|
Unfortunately, it didn't introduce any new pantheons, just revamped
|
|
the ones we had in first edition.
|
|
|
|
Legends & Lore was not very good. It only had details for Earth
|
|
mythology. I wished it included the other worlds such as Maztica,
|
|
Forgotten Realms, Krynn, Greyhawk, etc...
|
|
|
|
Tome of Magic
|
|
-------------
|
|
Wild Magic is a cool idea, but just how many new spells do we need,
|
|
anyway?
|
|
|
|
The Tome of Magic IMO was totally useless. They didn't need more
|
|
spells.
|
|
|
|
It gives me the definite feeling of being an outside job. It doesn't
|
|
have the AD&D look and feel, quite. It does an okay job of
|
|
filling in some nooks and crannies, but the new spells for wizards
|
|
are too few and seem to focus on the off-beat more than the useful.
|
|
|
|
It adds immensely to mages and clerics, and fills in some very
|
|
glaring gaps in the priest spells, such as faith magic, co-operative
|
|
magic, and the quest spells.
|
|
|
|
I love wild mages and the new priest spells. I find myself using the
|
|
mage spells slightly less often, and the magic items rarely.
|
|
|
|
Good points -- wild magic, bad points -- gives clerics too much power
|
|
unless you have a strict DM. Sorta like the 1st Edition UA but minus
|
|
the munchkin classes. I woulda liked more on the research side of
|
|
magic.
|
|
|
|
I love the addition of Wild mages from the Tome, the elementalists
|
|
wizards are also pretty good. The only problems with the book is the
|
|
magic items are either way to lame or powerful (mostly) and quest
|
|
spells are pretty useless, they give what DMs have been giving for
|
|
ages but usually in the form of an object that can perform such
|
|
spells at certain times.
|
|
|
|
A lot better if they didn't try to introduce so many useless spheres.
|
|
Thanks to Dragon Magazine for realigning some of these spheres to
|
|
specific gods.
|
|
|
|
The Tome of Magic is excellent, if only TSR bothered using the new
|
|
spheres introduced there in later products.
|
|
|
|
The Tome of Magic is a great magic supplement
|
|
|
|
The Tome of Magic had some new spells, otherwise I didn't care for
|
|
it.
|
|
|
|
Adds Wild magic to my campaign and also elementalists. Good extension
|
|
spells for mages.
|
|
|
|
Quite impressive. The new spheres allow specialist Priests to finally
|
|
have some powers denied to Clerics without carbon-copying the Druid.
|
|
Some of the new spells are interesting, but the magic item section is
|
|
rather weak.
|
|
|
|
No one would buy this if the world designers didn't put those new
|
|
schools/spheres in their worlds. It's just a - low quality -
|
|
commercial trick.
|
|
|
|
Each of the books that I have read are really useful, except for Tome
|
|
of Magic. The ToM, in my opinion, could have been better filled with
|
|
spells and items, as to me it seemed that the extra spells were put
|
|
in to fill up space. I do like the Wild Mage and Elementalist Mage
|
|
classes, however.
|
|
|
|
The Tome of Magic not only added considerably to my friends and my
|
|
campaigns but had some _excellent_ artwork.
|
|
|
|
Tome of Magic is way off cool, with many useless or next to useless
|
|
spells (*I* think they are cool, but people who want new killer
|
|
spells think it is boring).
|
|
|
|
The Tome of Magic has interesting and useful ideas, spells and toys.
|
|
|
|
Here's a GOOD idea! I think they should come out with a Tome of Magic
|
|
2!!!
|
|
|
|
This was an excellent and long-needed expansion on the AD&D magic
|
|
rules. Priests have long been neglected (as shown by the poor
|
|
Priest's Handbook) by TSR, and this book increased the spell lists
|
|
for clerics by 50%. It's still far outweighed by the numerous spells
|
|
published for mages, but it was a nice chunk all the same. The added
|
|
speres also enabled further customizing of original pantheons, and
|
|
thereby the powers of individual pc priests. The new spells for
|
|
mages, along with the rules for wild magic and elementalist magic
|
|
(brought in from other sources -- nothing new) were also helpful and
|
|
expanded on the existing class.
|
|
|
|
The TOM is just a waste of shelf space.
|
|
|
|
I don't really see the use of buying this book. Most of what's in
|
|
here seems like it's designed to fill up space. There are a few good
|
|
spells, but most of it is just making the wizard's repetoire more
|
|
complex. The wild mage and elementalist are worthless IMHO.
|
|
|
|
As for the Tome of Magic and the Book of Artifacts, why not put them
|
|
in the PHB and DMG? Or is it too hard for TSR to combine?
|
|
|
|
Book of Artifacts
|
|
-----------------
|
|
The Book of Artifacts was nice, but the rules for magic item creation
|
|
were preposterous. No mage in his right mind would spend all that
|
|
time trying to make some of the less useful magic items, for *any*
|
|
reason.
|
|
|
|
The Book of artifacts is neat, but there's very little I would
|
|
actually use. The magic item creation stuff is invaluable though.
|
|
|
|
While I have not purchased it, the Book of Artifacts looks
|
|
particularly good and would be a fun resource to have.
|
|
|
|
Basically OK, contains long-missed guidelines for making magical
|
|
items.
|
|
|
|
I thought Artifacts had some neat stuff, but was all in all, quite
|
|
useless.
|
|
|
|
Yet another example of stuff that should have been in the DMG, but
|
|
TSR saved to make more money. Beyond that it wasn't bad, but if you
|
|
had the old DMG, then you already knew most of that stuff.
|
|
|
|
The information in the back of the BOA on how to make magical items
|
|
was excellent.
|
|
|
|
Adds good amount of detail in designing & recharging magical items.
|
|
Artifacts are secondary in importance.
|
|
|
|
I like the artifact writeups, and they expand well on the material in
|
|
the old DMG. But, even more so than for the LL book, only a small
|
|
portion of this book will be useful to any one DM. One highlight is
|
|
the large number of low powered artifacts, suitable for about levels
|
|
7-12.
|
|
|
|
This will give you all the material for creating a campaign. Much
|
|
more interesting for the stories than for the mech. Expensive.
|
|
|
|
Book of artifacts is pretty useless and its just basically stories.
|
|
|
|
Not necessary.
|
|
|
|
What the heck is this crap? Why in the hell would you give out an
|
|
artifact to a PC? There is no way in my campaign a PC could have an
|
|
artifact without incuring the wrath of a deity or two or being hunted
|
|
by other NPC's. As far as I'm concerned this is the most ridiculous
|
|
thing TSR has ever published.
|
|
|
|
Artifacts: I was not that impressed by this offering. It basically
|
|
took all the old artifacts from the old (much better) DMG and fancied
|
|
up their presentation. It *did* go into magical research and the
|
|
possible creation of artifacts, which was more than the supposed
|
|
Complete Wizard's Handbook did.
|
|
|
|
DON'T buy it. It's a snazzy book, well-presented, etc., but I (as a
|
|
DM) will probably NEVER get my $20 out of the freaking thing. Not
|
|
recommended.
|
|
|
|
=======
|
|
The End
|
|
=======
|