I assume there is some particular reason for it, and I'm betting it is some chicanery by WoTC, and somehow I doubt it's because the font was shrunk ;)
-Robert
Originally posted by Robert N.
I'm just wondering on that, as I have issues of PC Gamer with more pages than that (even after accounting for ads...)
I assume there is some particular reason for it, and I'm betting it is some chicanery by WoTC, and somehow I doubt it's because the font was shrunk ;)
-Robert
Part of it was that they took out several pages on gnome invention rules. I believe the thoughtline is that these rules was too much space spent on one race, at least in the primary sourcebook.
I'm not entirely certain what the whole story is.
Originally posted by SweetMeats
Aye. Something on gnomish invention should be in the DLCS, but the detailed side of it should be covered in a races book/s.
Don't worry, the basic tools are there. Actually, I think the gnome race write-up is pretty swift.
We havent had any DL for 3 years, and you're already complaining over what we got?
Remember, this isnt the last DL book we get, only the first. There will be plenty of time to get everything, so why not enjoy the wonderful book that they put out?
Really. If you hadn't known that anything had been taken out, would you be complaining over the content thats already in there?
I am not complaining over what we are getting. I am complaining that they went to the trouble of putting this stuff in there initially and Wizards started cutting things or doing stupid things like putting hooves on our minotaurs.
But I am not really complaining. I am going to be tickled pink when my book finally gets here. I just hate to see their initial visions of it to be changed.
-Robert
Originally posted by themeecer
Yes I would .. as soon as I found out there were no hoopaks or gnome invention rules. I expect almost all the info that was in the DL Adventures books.
Oh, then you should be almost impossible to dissappoint. I expect (between DLCS and Age of Mortals) almost all the info that is in the FRCS.
Originally posted by ferratus
Oh, then you should be almost impossible to dissappoint. I expect (between DLCS and Age of Mortals) almost all the info that is in the FRCS.
Stats for the Simbul?
Cheers,
Cam
Originally posted by Cam Banks
Stats for the Simbul?
I wasn't the biggest fan of the "Wizard's Three" stories. I suppose I should have said "comparative information" instead.
Stats for Emma Xela though.... ;)
Originally posted by ferratus
Stats for Emma Xela though.... ;)
So what is it with you and the Academy's resident young upstart? Last we heard of her, she and Briony Whatsername were appearing in the Herald's Report travelling Ansalon and poking their noses into Teyr and Nordmaar.
Cheers,
Cam
Originally posted by Cam Banks
So what is it with you and the Academy's resident young upstart?
I have to admit, I am completely besotted with Emma Xela. Why? I think she has more potential as a character than any other sorcerer the 5th age has presented.
The Shadow Sorcerer is a dark mysterious mage. Finkle the Green mage is the wacky mage. Theo Drawde (while I like him too) is a stereotypical Knight of the Thorn. All stuff we've seen before.
As well, authors have a tendency to pump up their characters for their "coolness" factor, often acheiving the opposite result. It is the same reason I prefer Caramon to Raistlin. Why I prefer the tinkering Ulin to the Dragon Mage Ulin. Emma Xela is shy and easily overlooked. She doesn't strut. She doesn't make impassioned speeches to prove idealistic points.
She isn't bristling with magical power... in fact magic is rather difficult for her to harness.
But what makes Emma Xela unique is that she understands magic. Palin discovered the new sorcery, but Emma mastered it. She knows what magic is in its purest sense, and thus can think completely outside the box. The WoHS are always chasing after old tomes, learning rituals, dependant on their ancient lore to harness power. Emma Xela, in contrast, lives in the midst of magic, in a way that not even Raistlin ever did.
She is the perfect person to kick Dalamar's ass.
Besotted. Completely and utterly in love.
Originally posted by Robert N.
What get's me is that there is a reduction in content and pages but not a reduction in price.
-Robert
*cough*That's WotC for you.*cough*
Originally posted by themeecer
I am not complaining over what we are getting. I am complaining that they went to the trouble of putting this stuff in there initially and Wizards started cutting things or doing stupid things like putting hooves on our minotaurs.
Last I checked, the minotaurs of Krynn *have* hooves. I've got the original Dragonlance hardback, and that's what it shows in the racial picture. That's also what they show in many Dragonlance paintings of minotaurs...
Banshee
Originally posted by Banshee
Last I checked, the minotaurs of Krynn *have* hooves. I've got the original Dragonlance hardback, and that's what it shows in the racial picture. That's also what they show in many Dragonlance paintings of minotaurs...
Banshee
It has gone back and forth many a year...and although we did want to make an effort to shift towards "feeted" instead of "hooved" minotaurs, we think that we've come up with a satisfactory middle ground: some minotaurs are born with hooves, others with feet...hooves are considered a sign of being more "beastial" than "civilized."
Christopher
while i disagree with the implication, i must admit that 'flayed' has a nice ring to it =)
Originally posted by Stormprince
It has gone back and forth many a year...and although we did want to make an effort to shift towards "feeted" instead of "hooved" minotaurs, we think that we've come up with a satisfactory middle ground: some minotaurs are born with hooves, others with feet...hooves are considered a sign of being more "beastial" than "civilized."
Christopher
You could also say that this depends on such things as family, and also what geographical location you hail from. Perhaps some of the island colonies of the minotaurs have hooves, and the ones from Mithas and Kothas have feet. Or, perhaps you're from the Horta family, known for long horns and hooved feet.
Originally posted by themeecer
That is true. It is just heart wrenching to know wizards removed stuff. I'd prefer Soviergn's version of the book versus Wizards.
You mean the version focuses on tinker gnomes and their inventin? I didn't know they initially retitled GnomeFlinger Campaign Sourcebook. But I digress.
Does shortening the book designed by Sovereign Press folks makes it any less valuable to gamers? I don't think so. For me personally, I'm not going to focus heavily on tinker gnomes in my DL game so leaving the unnecessary detail is no big deal to me. Sovereign Press can always provide them in a future product, or as web enhancement.
As for the price, I'd gladly pay $50 for a 200-page book on the new DL for D&D.
doing stupid things like putting hooves on our minotaurs.
Am I the only fan of hooved Minotaurs?
Originally posted by Mr. VanderMeer
Am I the only fan of hooved Minotaurs?
Nope.
I prefer the hooves as well. Not quite like the MM though. I prefer the look of Elmore's Minotaurs on the cover of Land of the Minotaurs.
But...that's just me.
You know... you *could* just grab your copy of the cut material from the original working edition pdf and float it out on the server (or even kazaa) for us :D
-Robert
I prefer the hooves as well. Not quite like the MM though. I prefer the look of Elmore's Minotaurs on the cover of Land of the Minotaurs.
That's the exact image I always conjure when I think of a minotaur.
Interestingly, have you noticed that on the cover of Night of Blood none of the minotaurs have their feet visible.
Originally posted by jonesy
Interestingly, have you noticed that on the cover of Night of Blood none of the minotaurs have their feet visible.
Except for the one wearing boots (on the back cover)...
Originally posted by Eidolon
Except for the one wearing boots (on the back cover)...
Yep...but he's not standing on them...so he could still have hooves. Elmore's Minotaurs have that hoof/foot combo...where it's a normal leg until about two thirds the way down the shin...then it turns into a sort of long foot with a hoof at the end...the end result making hte Minotaur kinda looking like he's standing on his tip toes...which I think looks the best, IMHO.
Because frankly, I don't have enough trust in WoTC to not ruin it. I love them, but come on, they DUMPED Dragon Lance and left it to an open license. I'm damn happy Margret jumped at the opportunity to buy it up. And AS SUCH, I want what she and her company created, not what Wizards when through and MODIFIED. Having extra pages is one thing: Not having enough is far worse.
Funny that WoTC didn't realize until the book was already started that they made a mistake with dumping DL, and asked to be put back on the cover and all. :smirks: I guess they thought it didn't have a big enough fan base to be profitable, and we smacked them smartly in the face and told them otherwise.
Of course, this is all just hearsay, but I'm inclined to believe it.
My heart sunks when I heard that DL was being dropped. I figured that was the end of my favorite gaming world. It probably was a good thing that it was dropped .. it opened doors for a new company. Now, If we can only get WoTC from twiddling with our world. Already feel wierd about the 3.5 PHB, and DMG I got in the mail not 5 minutes ago. But it is D&D .. of course I was going to buy it.
Originally posted by Krystal
Because frankly, I don't have enough trust in WoTC to not ruin it. I love them, but come on, they DUMPED Dragon Lance and left it to an open license. I'm damn happy Margret jumped at the opportunity to buy it up. And AS SUCH, I want what she and her company created, not what Wizards when through and MODIFIED. Having extra pages is one thing: Not having enough is far worse.
Folks, give WOTC a break here. The guys at WOTC worked back and forth with the good people at Sovereign Press to produce a core campaign setting that would bring Dragonlance back into the forefront of D&D gaming, heralding a new line of products and supplements written by SP. Nothing was "butchered". Revisions and changes, both in design and in layout, occur throughout the creation process of any D&D book, and especially so in the titular handbook. Just as many things were thrown out the window as were thrown in, at various points, and all decisions had good and excellent reasons behind them. There's no conspiracy or big business blindness going on.
I'm somewhat disappointed in the negative and confrontational attitude a lot of people are developing against WOTC or anybody else involved in the gaming industry. Everyone who works on these materials, regardless of their affiliation or who pays their bills, works extremely hard to produce the best quality material possible. If you have the DLCS already, you can see the end result. If you don't have it yet, you have something terrific to look forward to.
Let's turn this around and focus on what's exciting, unexpectedly good, or refreshingly nostalgic about the setting as it matures into 3rd edition. There's nothing more sobering and draining for the creative process than pointing fingers at perceived faults.
Cheers,
Cam
Originally posted by Krystal
... So the only thing I want to know is can I buy Sovereign Press's edition or is only the hacked up version for sale now?
Because frankly, I don't have enough trust in WoTC to not ruin it. I love them, but come on, they DUMPED Dragon Lance and left it to an open license. I'm damn happy Margret jumped at the opportunity to buy it up. And AS SUCH, I want what she and her company created, not what Wizards when through and MODIFIED. Having extra pages is one thing: Not having enough is far worse.
Funny that WoTC didn't realize until the book was already started that they made a mistake with dumping DL, and asked to be put back on the cover and all. :smirks: I guess they thought it didn't have a big enough fan base to be profitable, and we smacked them smartly in the face and told them otherwise.
Of course, this is all just hearsay, but I'm inclined to believe it.
The licensing deal between Sov. Press and WotC is that the DLCS would be written by Sov. Press, but produced by WotC. WotC does have a say in the book, since it is their intellectual property. Future products will be produced by Sovereign Press.
Jamie Chambers told me at GenCon last year that the DLCS was truly a labor of love. It really shows.
Originally posted by Cam Banks
Let's turn this around and focus on what's exciting, unexpectedly good, or refreshingly nostalgic about the setting as it matures into 3rd edition. There's nothing more sobering and draining for the creative process than pointing fingers at perceived faults.
I would like to second this. Now is a time for celebration, as we are headed into the rebirth of Dragonlance gaming.
Dragonlance is in very capable hands with Sovereign Press. They approach DL with the greatest love and care. Trust me when I say they have done a fantastic job. I have been very pleased with their work.
So let's not look towards the negative, but instead focus on the positive. Dragonlance is alive, my friends. Let's celebrate that life together.
Long Live the Lance!
Originally posted by Dragonhelm
The licensing deal between Sov. Press and WotC is that the DLCS would be written by Sov. Press, but produced by WotC. WotC does have a say in the book, since it is their intellectual property. Future products will be produced by Sovereign Press.
Jamie Chambers told me at GenCon last year that the DLCS was truly a labor of love. It really shows.
Unfortunately, I haven't seen a copy yet, as it's not out.....but everything I've seen in the previews looks good.
I can understand why some changes were likely made. Although I didn't like SAGA, the idea of the open magic was pretty cool. But it's very possible that the rules to simulate that in D20 terms would have been too complex.
I remember back in 2nd Ed., when they had the Players Options books. I *loved* the channeling rules. But in all honesty, as a DM, I found that though the flavour was very cool, and I loved using them at first, they got old very fast.....they just slowed down gameplay too much.
The sorcerer of 3E may be over simplified, but it works, and it keeps the game going. Hence I'm not going to worry much about Primal sorcerers or mystics.
What I'm upset about personally is the 3.5 rules updates themselves, not what I'm seeing of Dragonlance.
I've waited a *long* time for Dragonlance to be done right.....and it may be that 3rd time's the charm (#1 Dragonlance hardcover, #2 Tales of the Lance boxed set).
One thing I'd love to see is prestige classes for the Irda Changer and Irda Changer Adept. Those were in the Dragonlance Monstrous Compendium in 2nd Ed., and I think they'd be perfect adaptations into a prestige class.
And of course, Taladas updated to 3E....
Banshee
Now to be honest I've never seen either one of the books, though I have read up on them a bit. I'm just not willing to just fork over x amount of money just because "DL" is alive or because 3.5 is "D&D". I'm not willing to look over or ignore the negatives, especially if they're big ones. Maybe after I've finished my degree and have to stop scraping around for cash my tune will change. I'm just disappointed. VERY disappointed.
If you don't want to buy the 3.5 books, the SRD is a free, viable alternative. I've seen enough to know that the SRD should meet most players' needs (though prob not DMs).
We can lament 3.5 and WotC while vowing to never buy their products, or we can make gaming fun and unique to ourselves. Get the SRD, go to the Dragonlance websites, make up some information... these are more productive than cursing WotC.
Personally, I'm anxiously awaiting D&D Beta, D&D Antiquities, etc., etc...
...but I'm loving the time and effort that's been put into Dragonlance.Originally posted by Krystal
Now to be honest I've never seen either one of the books,
So why don't you reserve your opinion until you have the chance to examined the products in question. IOW, take a wait-and-see attitude for now, like I am.
IOW, you don't write a book report without reading the book. All you're doing is basing your conclusion on bits and piece from other people.
You'll notice in my posts I state "This is all hearsay," and "Now I haven't actually been able to get them.."
That's me telling you that my opinion is not based upon the books as I've read them. Still, I'm entitled to it.
I mean, come on. Do you take a "wait and see" attitude with a car when you buy it? I think not. That's what consumer magazines and "customer testimonials" is all about. I've read other's so-called "testimonials" and I don't like what I've heard. And I've heard more negative than positive. Does that mean that that's not the case? Could. But generally if a lot of people give something a thumbs down, it's not just a bunch of people getting together and yelling and griping. It's honest-to-goodness, the masses say "THIS SUCKS".
Originally posted by Krystal
I mean, come on. Do you take a "wait and see" attitude with a car when you buy it?
No, but I would examine the car that is right there before me. I'm not going to make an opinion about a car that have not yet rolled off the assembly line.
I think not. That's what consumer magazines and "customer testimonials" is all about. I've read other's so-called "testimonials" and I don't like what I've heard. And I've heard more negative than positive. Does that mean that that's not the case? Could. But generally if a lot of people give something a thumbs down, it's not just a bunch of people getting together and yelling and griping. It's honest-to-goodness, the masses say "THIS SUCKS".
If you want to believe them, then believe them. For now, I'd rather do the review by myself, then and only then will I determine if this is the kind of DL game rules I can enjoy.
Take it from a guy who have never folllowed the "in" crowd. I blaze my own path.
You're right. You are entitled to your opinion, as well as the right to air it, just as much as I am entitled to offer an opinion about your opinion, as well as the right to air it.
Thanks!
--Your friendly neighborhood moderator.
Originally posted by Krystal
I'm just disappointed, is all, with WoTC in general. First they stopped making something for DL. Then they made that agreement. Then they go and mess around and make this... this... 3.5 crap.
Now to be honest I've never seen either one of the books, though I have read up on them a bit. I'm just not willing to just fork over x amount of money just because "DL" is alive or because 3.5 is "D&D". I'm not willing to look over or ignore the negatives, especially if they're big ones. Maybe after I've finished my degree and have to stop scraping around for cash my tune will change. I'm just disappointed. VERY disappointed.
I understand what you mean. I'm pleased with some of the stuff that they fixed, like the ranger. But I find that they've gone and broken things that were working fine before.
There are so many of the changes that myself and my players have read about, that we've all decided to scrap, because they're so stupid. None of the group really wants to buy the books, except so that they can understand future products.
And that's the frustrating thing about it.
Regardless, I'm thrilled to see Dragonlance. In all honesty, I wasn't surprised to see Dragonlance bite it a few years ago. The SAGA products were a step in the right direction. For the first time in years, they were doing *something* with Dragonlance that didn't involve rehashing the Chronicles. But I didn't like the system, and they threw away much of their fan base with the change to SAGA.
Dragonlance was never as strong a setting as FR in terms of product support. I'm glad to see that Sovereign Press seems to want to put some solid effort behind the setting. I don't know how many of the books I'll buy, just due to money limitations, but I'll at least definitely buy the core book, and then take a good hard look at the others as they come out.
The fact that play support will be there for multiple timelines is a big plus.
Banshee
Originally posted by Ranger REG
So why don't you reserve your opinion until you have the chance to examined the products in question. IOW, take a wait-and-see attitude for now, like I am.
IOW, you don't write a book report without reading the book. All you're doing is basing your conclusion on bits and piece from other people.
Because *plenty* of information about the changes that have been made is already available, and there are tonnes of complete reviews out there from people that already have the books.
*Why* would I spend $40-50 CDN on each of 3 books, that I already own, when most of the previews and reviews I've read I identify changes that break things which I didn't think were already broken?
I don't know about you, but I've got bills to pay, and a limited gaming budget, so I've got better things to spend the money on than revisions which I don't like.
Banshee
Bottom line, I'm happy to see the new DLCS come out, and am only frustrated that it's going to be another few weeks before I get my hands on it
Banshee
Originally posted by Krystal
I mean, come on. Do you take a "wait and see" attitude with a car when you buy it? I think not. That's what consumer magazines and "customer testimonials" is all about. I've read other's so-called "testimonials" and I don't like what I've heard. And I've heard more negative than positive. Does that mean that that's not the case? Could. But generally if a lot of people give something a thumbs down, it's not just a bunch of people getting together and yelling and griping. It's honest-to-goodness, the masses say "THIS SUCKS".
I assume you're talking about the 3.5 rules, not the DLCS? Seeing's as how I've seen, read, heard absolutely nothing but great things about the DLCS.
Originally posted by Banshee
I can understand why some changes were likely made. Although I didn't like SAGA, the idea of the open magic was pretty cool. But it's very possible that the rules to simulate that in D20 terms would have been too complex.
I remember back in 2nd Ed., when they had the Players Options books. I *loved* the channeling rules. But in all honesty, as a DM, I found that though the flavour was very cool, and I loved using them at first, they got old very fast.....they just slowed down gameplay too much.
The sorcerer of 3E may be over simplified, but it works, and it keeps the game going. Hence I'm not going to worry much about Primal sorcerers or mystics.
Banshee, I agree with you, but I must admit that I was a tad disappointed when I learned that sorcerers and mystics would merely be spontaneous casters rather than the cast-spells-from-scratch casters we knew from SAGA. While this is a minor point and it irks me only a little, I might eventually just replace the 3E 5th Age magic rules with the rules Rooks came up with for his 5th Age DL Conversion (which I did like very much).
And yes, part of my discontent stems from the fact that I too enjoyed the old 2e Spell Points & Channeling system immensely (in my mind, that was how magic was really supposed to be).
Still, I can't wait to get my hands on a copy of the DLCS! :D
Originally posted by Dragonhelm
Thanks!
--Your friendly neighborhood moderator.
Dragonhelm, you've been a constant presence on these boards (as any good moderator would be), but why then are you not listed as the moderator for the DL Boards?
Methinks you and WizO Paradox should have it out in a battle to the death (spells and swords only). Winner earns the right to be moderator and the loser is...well, dead. :D
I'll bet on you, of course.
Originally posted by Archmage
Dragonhelm, you've been a constant presence on these boards (as any good moderator would be), but why then are you not listed as the moderator for the DL Boards?
Methinks you and WizO Paradox should have it out in a battle to the death (spells and swords only). Winner earns the right to be moderator and the loser is...well, dead. :D
I'll bet on you, of course.
When they switched over to the new boards system, they made some changes which essentially listed only the WizOs as the mods. All the people from the official sites who have functioned as mods on their respective boards now are not showing up as moderators. Paradox is working on getting things fixed up so that I show as a "community advisor", or some such.
Long story short, it's in the works.
Anyway, if you guys want to discuss the changes being made to D&D, you can discuss them on the 3.5 revision board, which you can find by clicking >>here<<.
As for Paradox...bring him on! :fight!:
Originally posted by Archmage
Banshee, I agree with you, but I must admit that I was a tad disappointed when I learned that sorcerers and mystics would merely be spontaneous casters rather than the cast-spells-from-scratch casters we knew from SAGA. While this is a minor point and it irks me only a little, I might eventually just replace the 3E 5th Age magic rules with the rules Rooks came up with for his 5th Age DL Conversion (which I did like very much).
And yes, part of my discontent stems from the fact that I too enjoyed the old 2e Spell Points & Channeling system immensely (in my mind, that was how magic was really supposed to be).
Still, I can't wait to get my hands on a copy of the DLCS! :D
This is one of the beauties about having the Nexus as a resource. Not everyone will like everything in the DLCS (it's just a fact of life), so we can present some alternatives for people on the site.
You might also check out a book by Mongoose Publishing called Chaos Magic, which may prove to be useful.
I need to look up those rules on spell points and channeling. Been a while since I dusted off that old tome. ;)
Originally posted by Dragonhelm
As for Paradox...bring him on! :fight!:
Hehe... we got to get Dragonhelm and Paradox listed on the next DL Rumble!!. Like who cares about superheroes... I want WizO pudding smack!
Or are you both
-Gilles
One of the features of the book is that it includes rules for Dynamic Sorcery, whereby you choose what effects you want from the broad category of magic you possess and the effects are determined based on complications and so forth. Worth looking into. It's also available as a free download in System Reference Document form from the Guardians of Order website (http://www.guardiansorder.com/d20/animed20_srd/) but without all the pretty pictures and details.
Cheers,
Cam
Laurana and Kitiara would have made wonderful Magical Girls.
We're still trying to think of a name for the group of fans who help run the boards, since "moderator" is not exactly correct. (We're trying to eliminate confusion between them and WizOs- Only WizOs enforce the CoC, and so on.)
As for Paradox...bring him on!
I look a bit bigger... you're not even the size of my d20! Looks like I win. :D
Originally posted by WizO_Paradox
I look a bit bigger... you're not even the size of my d20! Looks like I win. :D
Ah, but my dragonlance is bigger.
Er....that didn't sound right. ;)
I wouldn't like to call it, I've seen Dragonhelm do some evil things in The Killer Boards Battle Royale. :D
[I'm backing Dragonhelm to win in the fifth. Any takers?]
____________
KIDDING!
Originally posted by themeecer
Now, If we can only get WoTC from twiddling with our world.
It's too late. The first sign of their twiddling: replace artist Larry Elmore and his work with a Stawicki for the cover.
Just kidding ... sorta-kinda-maybe. ;)
Originally posted by talinthas
i loved old elmore art, but man, his new stuff doesnt hold a candle to stawiki. The change was long overdue.
Personally, I'm glad that both are working on Dragonlance. Elmore brings back that classic feel, and Stawicki gives some new life into things.
Plus, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the red dragon a Jeff Easley dragon?
I've got to say, this just puts the "hoo" in "hoo-wah!". ;)
-Krys
Stawiki is a great artist in terms of vibrant color, great backgrounds and awesome poses. Elmore used to be like that.
But this is a meaningless argument. Suffice to say, i think they are both amazing, and both capture dragonlance for me, and both are better than jeff easley ever was =)
-Krys
Raistlin is supposed to be sickly, ugly, twisted, and thin.
Elmore has a slim, strong, handsome guy.
Did someone miss the memo?
For what its worth, stawiki's covers are incredibly inspired by elmore. Unfortunatly, Elmore himself isnt inspired by his earlier better works anymore.
-Krys
Speaking of Easley, I agree with you. I don't like the way he paints humans. But I greatly admire his dragons.
Do you know of any sites that has a lot of the dragonlance art in one place? The only ones I have found show only the older work.
And Raistlin isn't supposed to be ugly. His twin is Caramon. He is just supposed to be frail and sickly.
Originally posted by talinthas
Stawiki is a great artist in terms of vibrant color, great backgrounds and awesome poses. Elmore used to be like that.
"Used to"? It still is. Maybe he is getting older, and more recenlty suffered a minor heart attack, but he still make his artwork brilliant, from the sexy halfling rogue on last summer's Dragon cover to the current issue #310 cover.
Originally posted by talinthas
Suffice to say, i think they are both amazing, and both capture dragonlance for me, and both are better than jeff easley ever was =)
Hey now...Easley has some really kick a$$ stuff!
The cover of the "World Book of Krynn" comes to mind, (you know, the one from TotL). "Raistlin's Laboratory" is another cool one. "The Legend of Human" is another... Hmm...let's see..."Lair of the Live Ones" "Dragons of Flame" is prett friggin' cool too. And of course there's my personal favorite (for asthetic purposes only) "Dragons of Desolation."
Don't get me wrong though...there's alot of his that I don't think matches DL very good (although he does a good job of making the Dragon Overlords seem very alien and un-Krynnish).
Originally posted by themeecer
I heard that Elmore had a stroke and had to relearn how to paint. Is that true?
Yes...I think that happened back in the early/mid 90's.
to each their own, i say. My bedroom wall has Elmore and Lockwood side by side, and soon Stawiki will join them =)
Originally posted by talinthas
art is as subjective as it gets =)
to each their own, i say. My bedroom wall has Elmore and Lockwood side by side, and soon Stawiki will join them =)
Very true.
And there have been a few Dl artists I don't care for...but mostly it is just specific paintings that I don't care for.
Take for instance the cover of Darkness and Light. My first DL book...and still one of my favorite...but IMHO, it has the most awful cover of any DL book...followed by Kendermore (where Tas has no pointed ears). I highly dislike both paintings, but both are by artists that I really like for the most part.
So...ya never know, I guess.
Originally posted by Archmage
Banshee, I agree with you, but I must admit that I was a tad disappointed when I learned that sorcerers and mystics would merely be spontaneous casters rather than the cast-spells-from-scratch casters we knew from SAGA. While this is a minor point and it irks me only a little, I might eventually just replace the 3E 5th Age magic rules with the rules Rooks came up with for his 5th Age DL Conversion (which I did like very much).
And yes, part of my discontent stems from the fact that I too enjoyed the old 2e Spell Points & Channeling system immensely (in my mind, that was how magic was really supposed to be).
Still, I can't wait to get my hands on a copy of the DLCS! :D
Whoa! Thank you for the compliment! I appreciate that! I'm gald you liked my custom spell rules. I still like them though I do admit that I would change the system around a little. For a while I was working on a custom spell system that was based off the Seed system fromthe Epic Level handbook, but after like 15 or so pages, I gave up knowing that it would essentially be debunked after the DLCS came out. LOL!
All in all, I'm very pleased with the info I've heard on the DLCS, including the use of PHB sorcerers and the new mystics. it will make play streamlined, and very easy for anyone to get into. But I will admit, there is a part of me that will ALWAYS miss the custom spell aspect of the SAGE products. And I may just try and make something up for my homebrew D&D world just like that at some point. I just loved magic when it was on-the-fly - you could do ANYTHING, and after you got the hang of it, it was lightning fast, and awfully exciting. D&D magic doesn't hold much interest for me, but I'm just happy to see DL back in top form!
And for what it's worth, I LOVE the changes they've made to 3.5! I have all 3 books, and I've found through testing and playing that it works BEAUTIFULLY!
If you're interested in more work from me, stay tuned to my web site (below in my sig line), and to these and the Thinktank boards. The Legend of Zelda D20 will be coming out soon (within the next month or so), and following up on that, I've already begun working on a special, completely original sci-fi project that is based off the D20 Modern Rules system, and a Homebrew D&D campaign setting. Both of the latter mentioned products are serious ambitions, and with any luck, might see the light of publication. We'll see!
Peace!
this subject isn't even approached, to my knowledge, and I was wondering if anyone had a way they handle such fatigue in their DL games. I know it would be slightly unbalancing, but I like the flavor it presents...that spellcasting is truly a difficult and arduous task.
I know that's how it seemed WoHS were presented, but I can't remember if the spellcasting of sorcerers was ever described as taxing.
well, I appreciate any feedback.
thanks.
silvan
Originally posted by themeecer
Actually this is covered in the DLCS. On page 89 on the bottom is a box entitled Curse of the Magi: Variant Rule. Whenever a character casts an arcane spell they must make a Fortitute saving throw against DC 10 + the spell's level, after it is cast. If he fails he is fatigued. If he fails again, while casting, he is exhausted. If he fails again he falls unconscious.
Thank goodness that's a variant rule! Gah, that's unbalancing. Fort saves really suck for mages and sorcerers.
I wonder why this wasn't done for "elfsight". Making it a variant rule, I mean.
Originally posted by themeecer
Actually this is covered in the DLCS. On page 89 on the bottom is a box entitled Curse of the Magi: Variant Rule. Whenever a character casts an arcane spell they must make a Fortitute saving throw against DC 10 + the spell's level, after it is cast. If he fails he is fatigued. If he fails again, while casting, he is exhausted. If he fails again he falls unconscious.
*sigh* Well, at least that explains why Raistlin was always so near to physical exhaustion.
Originally posted by themeecer
Yeah .. it may be unbalancing, but it is darned cool to actually have a rule that pertains to Raistlin's ailment. I don't know if I would use this rule for every spell caster, but I will use it for a select few.
All I know is that if a DM told me I had to use this variant rule, I'd tell him where to stick it.
I mean, this is the equivelant of a fighter having to make a will save every round or be exhausted from handling a weapon, and falling unconcious if they fail another will save.
I mean, I can see a high level wizards dropping like flies after casting a single spell with this variant rule.
A DC 18 fort save is pretty tough even for a 16th level caster.
All I know is that if a DM told me I had to use this variant rule, I'd tell him where to stick it.
Thats about the same time the blacksmith turns into a dragon and eats you. :D
Originally posted by themeecer
Thats about the same time the blacksmith turns into a dragon and eats you. :D
*shrugs* There are always fair and balanced DM's out there, who want all of us to have a good time.
My character's death would be a convenient time to exit that campaign.Originally posted by Cam Banks
Folks, give WOTC a break here. Nothing was "butchered". Just as many things were thrown out the window as were thrown in.
Um... maybe you're using that "new math" because by my count, 32 pages were thrown out the window without a new 32 pages of content being thrown in. And oddly enough, the price is exactly the same.
So, it looks like, for their reasons, WoTC sliced out 32 pages of info, with nothing in its place or an appropriate price drop. That seems to be a direct loss in value.
Analogy. An Austin Martin is a great car. Wonderful. One of the best cars in the world. If I list it for sale at $35 with leather interior and mp3 cd-player, but then sell it at $35 with cloth and 8-track player, then there is a drop in value. Sure, it's still an Austin Martin, but it's not what we were shown, nor was there an equal addition or price subtraction.
So, the integral question here is, will those missing 32 pages info be given as a web enhancement or some other free method, or am I going to have to pay yet even more money to buy yet another book?
-Robert
Turns out that during production, I guess they found that for whatever reasons, content needed to be cut, or they just couldn't deliver that content at the price they'd declared or something. But it wasn't a product that had actually been released.
A better car analogy would be a car where they declared they were going to give you a Turbo variant of a sports car you want, that would have 220 horse. This was on the planned production schedule, and was *supposed* to come out for the 2004 model year.....but they found while building it that their engineers could only get 209 horse out of it before they started blowing engines.
So, they had a choice...downgrade the specs for the car, delay it to 2005 when they could work out the kinks, or put in an alternate, 3rd party turbo, that would coincidentally drive up their own costs to produce, and result in the price of the car itself going up by $5000.
So, they downgraded it. It happens. Nobody's lying. It's not like they're getting you to pay for a 320 page book, and it's there in the store, and y ou see 320 pages, but when you get home, mysteriously 32 pages have vanished...
Banshee
To me, the value of what's not there is emphasized over the value of what's present. Features, such as your analogy about the car's lack of one of numerous features, without a price drop, is undervaluing the things that are there.
If you HADN'T known about things being cut, knowing only that it was going to be 288 pages, would you have paid full price anyway?
Granak Red-Silver
Sivak
It could be conceived as false advertisement.
Originally posted by Richard Connery
The thing is that WotC have always said it would be a 320 page book. Heck their online catalog (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dlacc/869900000) still says it's a 320 page book.
It could be conceived as false advertisement.
That's true, it is false advertising, but but look at:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndacc/176680000
That's the Draconomicon, and it is listed as a 288 page book. it costs the same as the DLCS. There are other accessories that are 300+. Page count in the end didn't matter. the books were still $40 US. I'd argue that if the DLCS was a 320 page book we're actually getting added value. I gotta admit, Canadians are technically still getting a better deal. they pay three Can dollars less for the DLCS than Draconomicon.
Originally posted by Richard Connery
It could be conceived as false advertisement.
So what do you want them to do? Put out a 320-page book with 288 pages of game content and 32 pages of artworks?
When you get to that store, you'll see it's not 320 pages. They're not printing on the book itself that it's 320 pages. They're not hiding anything.
The specs changed. Get over it.
False advertising is when I bought the Forgotten Realms sourcebook for Chult, and the back cover said it contained rules for gem magic, and there was nothing of the sort in the book. That was false advertising. It was printed directly on the book, and the book came in shrink wrap, so there was no way to validate that the rules, in fact, were not in the book, until I'd bought it, and by then it was too late.
The DLCS (which it looks like I have to wait until end of August for) sounds incredible. Griping about 32 pages that were advertised in the catalog like 8 months in advance of the print date is just being nit-picky.
Banshee
Originally posted by Granakrs
That's the Draconomicon, and it is listed as a 288 page book. it costs the same as the DLCS. There are other accessories that are 300+. Page count in the end didn't matter. the books were still $40 US. I'd argue that if the DLCS was a 320 page book we're actually getting added value. I gotta admit, Canadians are technically still getting a better deal. they pay three Can dollars less for the DLCS than Draconomicon.
But Draconomicon will be (according to WotC's catalog):
"The book itself will be designed in a prestige format, with heavy use of art throughout and constructed of premium materials."
That alone would warrant an even higher price in my view.
DLCS is worth very penny but that doesn't change the fact that WotC is discriminating dragonlance fans when books with higher page count (like Epic Level Handbook) cost the same.
Ranger REG
So what do you want them to do? Put out a 320-page book with 288 pages of game content and 32 pages of artworks?
Dropping the price would be a good place to start. I paid $40 for the FRCS which comes with 320 pages and a poster map. The Epic Level Handbook threw me back another $40 and was also 320 pages.
Banshee
I'm pretty sure that whether it's false advertising or not is irrelevant. It surely wasn't intentional.
That's why I said it could be conceived as false advertising, not that I thought it was false advertising. WotC should have changed their catalog already though; the first books have been out of the printers for some time now.
Hell, it's already been sold to several consumers. Both by mail-order and available at several conventions.
As for the "engineering" analogy, that falls flat on it's face. There was no technical reason that those 32 pages could not be included. Get serious. This isn't the case of the new car advertised ahead of time with the super engine that is later found can only do so good. This is the case of the car advertised with the new engine, which even today is still being advertised with that new engine, that, on it's way to production, they decide, hey - why put this in when people will still buy it with this lesser engine. Because that is what we are getting. A lesser product.
My question still stands. Will I have to pay yet more money to get what Soverign wanted to sell us with the DLCS in the first place, or will that be available to us without yet another purchase?
-Robert
Originally posted by Robert N.
My question still stands. Will I have to pay yet more money to get what Soverign wanted to sell us with the DLCS in the first place, or will that be available to us without yet another purchase?
Although I agree with your displeasure with the "288 page for $40" of the DLCS, make no mistake: the DLCS is published by WotC and they have virtually all control over it. Don't blame the shortcomings of Wizards of the Coast's marketing and business on Sovereign Press. Everyone at SP went waaaaay above and beyond the call of duty on delivering the DLCS to WotC.
WotC were the ones that cut the book to 288 pages and they're the ones asking $40 for it.
Also, Sovereign Press has a real commitment to us, the fans of the setting. Expect to see a full complement of free web enhancements as time goes by as well as DL material available on Games Unplugged magazine.
The DLCS is in my opinion the Best Campaign Book that Dragonlance has ever had.
'Nuff said!
The DLCS is a fantastic book, and that's not just because I get a special thanks in the front.
Cheers,
Cam
but you know what? this book is so good that its not worth tripping over.
It amuses me that the only thing we have to complain about is the size of the book. Bitter Dinos everywhere are rolling over and dying.
;)Originally posted by Gellion
I hope i will be able to get this. My brother is stingy with money, and will think it is a waste. Even though it is my money, he will convince my parents not to take me to get it. If i do he will constantly berate me for wasting money.
We could send in the DEA (Draconian Enforcement Agency). :D
A. Sovereign Press rocks, I love 'em.
B. The DLCS is on my buy list. It appears to be a great product.
C. I'm not saying anyone did lesser work.
D. I'm not contesting relative worth of the product.
E. I think everyone here agrees that a 320 page DLCS would be better than a butchered 288 page version.
F. No one is saying that the 288 page version isn't good in its own right.
My question is:
Will I eventually have to pay more money to get that extra 32 pages of content?
-Robert
Originally posted by Robert N.
E. I think everyone here agrees that a 320 page DLCS would be better than a butchered 288 page version.
I think use of the word "butchered" here is more or less what I'm objecting to.
Cheers,
Cam
If it was an extra 32 pages of Geography info, then I'd call it butchered.
Perhaps some kind and loving staff memeber would like to tell us exactly what was inside of those 32 pages cut - and my original question - will I have to buy yet another book to get that content?
-Robert