Author Topic: "Someone got paid for this?!" Terrible sourcebooks and modules thread  (Read 37279 times)

Offline 123456789blaaa

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ***
  • Posts: 623
  • Not very active here but still active online
    • View Profile
Re: "Someone got paid for this?!" Terrible sourcebooks and modules thread
« Reply #80 on: February 18, 2013, 11:58:11 AM »
The Sorcerer is actually number 1 on my worst designed classes list, barely edging out the Cleric, and then followed by the Wizard, Psychic Warrior, and Fighter.  Fighter and PsyWar are pretty much tied, with a slight benefit towards the PsyWar for having powers.

Why the PsyWar?
Please, call me Count :).

Offline Officeronin

  • Lurker
  • *
  • Posts: 11
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: "Someone got paid for this?!" Terrible sourcebooks and modules thread
« Reply #81 on: February 18, 2013, 12:13:07 PM »
Has anyone encountered "The Revised Recon"?  It was a Vietnam War based RPG.  Interesting that the chance to hit someone with a M-16 at 20 feet was the same as 400 yards...  No rules for personal interaction, weapons had one range (meaning, the chance to hit was the same from "in your face" to max range), there was not much development, and there was no way you could be "the other side".  What was included, however, was several racial epithets and slurs, and artwork that would have made Goebbels wince.  I think that they did a second printing which cleaned up some of the racist stuff.

I always thought it appropriate that the Palladium Fantasy RPG listed their insanity tables well before their character creation information...

Finally, I like GURPS, I like the setting for Traveller, so GURPS Traveller should a fit, right?  Then I encountered GURPS Vehicles.  I think more effort goes into statting out a new design of spaceship in GURPS than would actually be needed to design and build a new spacehip IRL.

Offline GenghisDon

  • Lurker
  • *
  • Posts: 25
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: "Someone got paid for this?!" Terrible sourcebooks and modules thread
« Reply #82 on: February 25, 2013, 06:30:31 PM »
I'm going to stick to D&D, so they probably are not the worst of the worst, but they surely did more damage to games/gamers & made way more $ for their crappy writers/companies in spite of their sheer awfulness:

2e AD&D players option: skills & powers
1e AD&D Unearthed Arcana


3.5e Book of Exalted Deeds & several others are crap, indeed, but nowhere near being in the same league. The above 2 count as edition/game destroyers...the game needed to be reset/rebooted due to their pernicious influences. Skills & powers "wins" because it's not even edited & couldn't possibly have been playtested AT ALL.

That the horibawful UA gotr reprinted & made some more $ for WOTC recently adds extra salt to the wound. 

Offline Empirate

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ***
  • Posts: 258
  • I'm not as new as my post count suggests!
    • View Profile
Re: "Someone got paid for this?!" Terrible sourcebooks and modules thread
« Reply #83 on: February 26, 2013, 04:25:22 AM »
I think this hasn't been mentioned: Monsters of Faerûn.

Yes, the early 3.0 book, which came out right after the glorious Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting. MoF contains what feels like 25 different (but not really different) brands of evil humanoid. Which also contains some of the worst CR estimates I've ever seen (seriously, look at the Ibrandlin, or the Banelar). Some of the beasties in there feel horribly 2E, like that water thingy near the beginning, which can't be killed unless you have just the right spell ready. Most of the monsters are just terribly uninspired - a bunch of HD with a few natural attacks, that's it, no role or niche or even theme.

I think no other monster book has had so many reprints or revamps of the creatures it contains in later sourcebooks, which already speaks volumes, doesn't it?

Offline Cyclone Joker

  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 369
  • Flamboyant Flamer
    • View Profile
Re: "Someone got paid for this?!" Terrible sourcebooks and modules thread
« Reply #84 on: February 26, 2013, 04:38:35 AM »
I think this hasn't been mentioned: Monsters of Faerûn.

Yes, the early 3.0 book, which came out right after the glorious Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting. MoF contains what feels like 25 different (but not really different) brands of evil humanoid. Which also contains some of the worst CR estimates I've ever seen (seriously, look at the Ibrandlin, or the Banelar). Some of the beasties in there feel horribly 2E, like that water thingy near the beginning, which can't be killed unless you have just the right spell ready. Most of the monsters are just terribly uninspired - a bunch of HD with a few natural attacks, that's it, no role or niche or even theme.
How bad are we talking? Like, compete with MMII bad?

Offline nijineko

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 2408
  • two strange quarks short of a graviton....
    • View Profile
    • TwinSeraphim
Re: "Someone got paid for this?!" Terrible sourcebooks and modules thread
« Reply #85 on: February 26, 2013, 01:53:17 PM »
I always thought it appropriate that the Palladium Fantasy RPG listed their insanity tables well before their character creation information...

ever tried synnibarr?

Quote
Finally, I like GURPS, I like the setting for Traveller, so GURPS Traveller should a fit, right?  Then I encountered GURPS Vehicles.  I think more effort goes into statting out a new design of spaceship in GURPS than would actually be needed to design and build a new spacehip IRL.

not quite actually. from when i used to work in close association with an airline, i was once informed that in real life the paperwork generated from start to finish by a single 727 aircraft weighs slightly more than the aircraft itself. that assumes hardcopies of everything, of course, no electronic records.

Offline Empirate

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ***
  • Posts: 258
  • I'm not as new as my post count suggests!
    • View Profile
Re: "Someone got paid for this?!" Terrible sourcebooks and modules thread
« Reply #86 on: February 27, 2013, 05:38:24 AM »
I think this hasn't been mentioned: Monsters of Faerûn.

Yes, the early 3.0 book, which came out right after the glorious Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting. MoF contains what feels like 25 different (but not really different) brands of evil humanoid. Which also contains some of the worst CR estimates I've ever seen (seriously, look at the Ibrandlin, or the Banelar). Some of the beasties in there feel horribly 2E, like that water thingy near the beginning, which can't be killed unless you have just the right spell ready. Most of the monsters are just terribly uninspired - a bunch of HD with a few natural attacks, that's it, no role or niche or even theme.
How bad are we talking? Like, compete with MMII bad?

MMII has nothing on MoF... it's that bad.

Although I must admit that quite a few cool/iconic monsters turn up in MoF. Wonky mechanics, bad CR estimates etc. included. The Deepspawn is one that comes to mind, a monster that I find endlessly cool (YMMV).

Offline zook1shoe

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 4930
  • Feeling the Bern
    • View Profile
Re: "Someone got paid for this?!" Terrible sourcebooks and modules thread
« Reply #87 on: February 27, 2013, 02:07:27 PM »
not to mention a pair of mindless spiders with LAs!!!!

of the true Monster Manuals, i thought 4 was complete trash. half was wasted on crap fluff for already printed race npcs we'll never use.
add me on Steam- zook1shoe
- All Spells
- playground

Offline RedWarlock

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 628
  • Crimson-colored caster of calamity
    • View Profile
    • Red Blade Studios
Re: "Someone got paid for this?!" Terrible sourcebooks and modules thread
« Reply #88 on: February 27, 2013, 02:11:21 PM »
not to mention a pair of mindless spiders with LAs!!!!

of the true Monster Manuals, i thought 4 was complete trash. half was wasted on crap fluff for already printed race npcs we'll never use.
...I use those entries all the time...  :(
WarCraft post-d20: A new take on the World of WarCraft for tabletop. I need your eyes and comments!

Offline zook1shoe

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 4930
  • Feeling the Bern
    • View Profile
Re: "Someone got paid for this?!" Terrible sourcebooks and modules thread
« Reply #89 on: February 27, 2013, 02:24:40 PM »
haha sorry.

to ME its garbage, but at least someone is using them. so that's good

maybe its because it was really the start of the new stat blocks, which i don't like
add me on Steam- zook1shoe
- All Spells
- playground

Offline Libertad

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3618
    • View Profile
    • My Fantasy and Gaming Blog
Re: "Someone got paid for this?!" Terrible sourcebooks and modules thread
« Reply #90 on: February 27, 2013, 06:06:20 PM »
How bad are we talking? Like, compete with MMII bad?

Alright, here' what we've got:

It introduced the Beholder Mage Prestige Class, with all its potential brokenness.

Phaerlin Giant.  Challenge Rating 3.  68 hit points, 2 claw attacks +9 (2d4+5 each).  Their Reflex and Will Saves suck, but they're a nightmare to fight in melee and will tear up unoptimized low-level groups.  An archer on horseback can outrun it and whittle down its hit points, but in enclosed underground dungeons (natural habitat), they'll murder most level 3 parties.  Or get caught in grease or fall for a silent image.

Ibrandlin.  Gargantuan Challenge Rating 5 Dragon.  135 hit points, +18 melee bite attack (3d6+12), Spell resistance 20.  Can also pin, and has a breath weapon (2d6 fire).

Both monsters have not-too-shabby armor class(17), and move slowly, so they're like trolls and giant scorpions in the sense that they wreak hell in close combat for the noncasters.

Tomb Tapper.  Challenge Rating 14.  Has blindight and burrow speed.  Armor class sucks (22), pitiful DR (5/Magic), and its attacks are terrible for a monster of its CR (warhammer +14, 2d8+10), and they have some utility magic (stone spikes, detect magic, and stone shape).  Under-CRed.

Greater Doppelganger.  Challenge Rating 12.  Has 49 hit points, bad saves (7/9/11), pitiful armor class (17) and attacks (slam +7, 1d6+1).  Special abilities are underpowered, mostly normal doppelganger except can use any magic item.  And it can deal a touch attack against polymorphed creatures and deal damage to them (6d6 damage).

And if it eats the brain of a Medium or smaller humanoid, it can the victim's memories alignment, and all abilities (except 2nd level+ cleric spells, paladin and divine magic abilities).  Potentially abusable, but the standard stat block has none of that.
« Last Edit: March 07, 2013, 01:01:25 AM by Libertad »

Offline zook1shoe

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 4930
  • Feeling the Bern
    • View Profile
Re: "Someone got paid for this?!" Terrible sourcebooks and modules thread
« Reply #91 on: February 27, 2013, 07:42:27 PM »
Ibrandlin is cool because its one of the few low HD gargantuan creatures

but yeah i agree with all of that
add me on Steam- zook1shoe
- All Spells
- playground

Offline Empirate

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ***
  • Posts: 258
  • I'm not as new as my post count suggests!
    • View Profile
Re: "Someone got paid for this?!" Terrible sourcebooks and modules thread
« Reply #92 on: February 28, 2013, 04:57:49 AM »
Banelars can cast a spell or use a magic item as a free action while attacking. Oh, and they're beefy (7 HD), poisonous, have two powerful attacks, multiple movement modes, are highly intelligent, and cast like 6th level Clerics AND like Wizards (as if they were a Cleric 6/Wizard 6 dual class, so lots of spell slots), all for a CR 5. Yeah.

EDIT: They were refitted as CR 8 in Serpent Kingdoms, which is more like it. Still dangerous even at that level, due to their action economy advantage. Nice boss monster, actually.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2013, 05:02:46 AM by Empirate »

Offline Wrex

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 584
  • Large and In Charge.
    • View Profile
Re: "Someone got paid for this?!" Terrible sourcebooks and modules thread
« Reply #93 on: March 01, 2013, 01:50:42 AM »
Hairy Spider There must have been a typo in the 3.5 conversion, because it has a +0 LA in said pamphlet.


This is a tarantula-esque monster, Mindless vermin.

Offline zook1shoe

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 4930
  • Feeling the Bern
    • View Profile
Re: "Someone got paid for this?!" Terrible sourcebooks and modules thread
« Reply #94 on: March 01, 2013, 01:58:05 AM »
See the sword spider? Mindless too
add me on Steam- zook1shoe
- All Spells
- playground

Offline nijineko

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 2408
  • two strange quarks short of a graviton....
    • View Profile
    • TwinSeraphim
Re: "Someone got paid for this?!" Terrible sourcebooks and modules thread
« Reply #95 on: March 01, 2013, 03:19:13 PM »
all this talk about spiders reminds me of a homebrew monstrous spider i know of...

commonly called the dung spider, collects and processes dung into a paste to line nests with - will actually farm small creatures for their dung, also fond of caves with sulphur springs, and likes to reduce wood to ash with a special acid to mix with the dung lining. notable physical characteristics include an exoskeleton covered with a dense proliferation of spikes, and the tendency to explode in a hail of fiery chitinous spikes when subjected to fire based attacks. many of which spikes contain embedded hibernating eggs just waiting to warm up enough to hatch. the subsequent swarm of baby dung spiders, hungry-will-eat-anything swarm of baby spiders, is frequently considered worse than the exploding parent by those who survive. ^^

Offline GenghisDon

  • Lurker
  • *
  • Posts: 25
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: "Someone got paid for this?!" Terrible sourcebooks and modules thread
« Reply #96 on: March 06, 2013, 07:01:22 PM »
Monsters of Faerun is bad in all the ways mentioned above. I don't dislike the book though, I just adjust, over rule or modify as needed (& that was often).

It's certainly true that whomever did the book was over paid in the extreme

Offline zook1shoe

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 4930
  • Feeling the Bern
    • View Profile
Re: "Someone got paid for this?!" Terrible sourcebooks and modules thread
« Reply #97 on: March 06, 2013, 09:33:07 PM »
I really like the extra template stuff for liches and ghosts in the back, and the malaugrym is crazy cool!
add me on Steam- zook1shoe
- All Spells
- playground

Offline Empirate

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ***
  • Posts: 258
  • I'm not as new as my post count suggests!
    • View Profile
Re: "Someone got paid for this?!" Terrible sourcebooks and modules thread
« Reply #98 on: March 07, 2013, 07:50:04 AM »
The Malaugrym is also crazy unusable as-is. Shapechange, CL 20, at will. That's really all there is to this monster, and it means the DM has to leaf through piles and piles of monster manuals anyway. The creature will never be in its base form, because there is absolutely no reason to when you have that kind of versatility. For that reason, I'll call it the poorest case of monster design evar.

Offline zook1shoe

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 4930
  • Feeling the Bern
    • View Profile
Re: "Someone got paid for this?!" Terrible sourcebooks and modules thread
« Reply #99 on: March 07, 2013, 12:15:15 PM »
I never said it was a good concept, I just thought it was pretty cool. Esp since there's only a few
add me on Steam- zook1shoe
- All Spells
- playground