I haven't had much of a chance to read it. I've glanced through it, and read some of my favorite monsters write ups and stats...but from what I've seen it looks really good. I'd have to agree with sentiments I've heard that this is easily the best 3rd party (or is it 2nd party?) monster manual out there...of course, I may be a little biased. heh heh Although it is unfortunate about the front and back covers. I assume this will be fixed in subsequent printings?
SO...now for questions.
1) Why does the Aquatic dragon not have any cleric domains that they can cast as arcane spells? I thought all good dragons were supposed to have 3 or 4 domains. And along the same lines, I would have thought the Fire and Frost dragons would be able to cast from the Chaos domain.
2) In the "Dragonlance Monsters by Challenge Rating" table...it has a few monsters that aren't in any of the current DL books. The Phaethon, Huldrefolk, and the Skyfisher come to mind right away. Were they supposed to be in this book, but were cut for some reason but forgot to remove them from this table...or does this mean we can expect to see them in the Key of Destiny?
3) At some point in the future, will we get official racial names for the chromatic draconians? The way they are now is quite...well, cumbersome.
4) What was the presedence/need for Gray Dragons? If they're not supposed to be that dragon from Stormblade I'm confused on where the idea came from or why they were necessary for the creation of Frost Dragon.
That should pretty much do it.
Again...thanks for a great book guys!
Originally posted by The White Sorcerer
Is the kingfisher in the book?
No. Sorry.
There are only 6 "animals." The austrich, 'wari, emre, moose, elk, and...uh...one other type of cervidae.
Now I'm assuming they must have a following/support from a large fan base otherwise they wouldn't be in the book...but, doesn't it bother anyone that they're basically just a race of Raistlins and Caramons?
Originally posted by Brimstone
No. Sorry.
Hmm... I think I can live with that...
...IF the kingfisher familiar is included in Towers of High Sorcery.
1) *Shrug* Didn't notice that till you pointed it out, I'd say probably the Water domain, and ... i don't know.
2) I'm almost certain that it was said the Phaeton was going to be detailed in Keys of Destiny... I assume these others will be in other upcoming books.
3) I don't see any problems with this, I could refer to a Lightning or Vapor by simpley that as easily as I could a Kapak or Bozak. Besides it's be hard to fit them into the original Dracoanian naming system (corupted mispellings of the metals) I mean what would you call a Flame a 'Readd'? A Lightning a 'Bleau' the element names are better so far as I'm concerned.
4) Not a clue.
Something I just noticed, for the Sacred Gaurdian the Water Domain dedication is mislabeled as a second Air Domain... not hard to figure out considering its the last entry and the granted powers talk about water... and its alphabetically where water should be....
As I mentioned on a thread in Dragonlance.com I noticed that the stat blocks for the Urkhan Worms (juvenile and adult) where mistakenly labeled the wrong ages, but again no big deal.
Over all I'm happy with the book, as I've said in other threads.
One thing I'm trying to wrap my head around though, as cool as Tylors are, I'm still trying to come to terms with their origins... man, what is it with dragons and sleeping around.
Originally posted by Brimstone
SO...now for questions.
1) Why does the Aquatic dragon not have any cleric domains that they can cast as arcane spells? I thought all good dragons were supposed to have 3 or 4 domains. And along the same lines, I would have thought the Fire and Frost dragons would be able to cast from the Chaos domain.
There's no strict rule that says they have to. If you were so inclined to give them domains to choose spells from as well as the standard sorcerer/wizard spell list, you could give them Good and Water.
2) In the "Dragonlance Monsters by Challenge Rating" table...it has a few monsters that aren't in any of the current DL books. The Phaethon, Huldrefolk, and the Skyfisher come to mind right away. Were they supposed to be in this book, but were cut for some reason but forgot to remove them from this table...or does this mean we can expect to see them in the Key of Destiny?
Those will likely appear as a web enhancement or in some other product. Some monsters had to be cut - the jarak-sinn is another, mentioned in the Acceptance chapter and the DM's Screen for example.
3) At some point in the future, will we get official racial names for the chromatic draconians? The way they are now is quite...well, cumbersome.
I imagine the Dragonarmies didn't bother to name them in Nerakan like they did with the original draconians, because they were a failure race. I'm sure Jamie might be convinced to come up with some later, but the ones they have in the Bestiary work just fine for the time being.
4) What was the presedence/need for Gray Dragons? If they're not supposed to be that dragon from Stormblade I'm confused on where the idea came from or why they were necessary for the creation of Frost Dragon.
Gray dragons originally appeared in an issue of Dragon magazine, one of several new dragons described in the Dragon's Bestiary column and written by Gregory Detwiler. It's pretty much just what it says it is - a white dragon offshoot, although the background involving Chaos and the frost dragons is new. See? We really did dig deep to find Dragonlance monsters.
Glad you like the book, Brim!
Cheers,
Cam
Originally posted by Brimstone
I did want to mention the Tayfolk...
Now I'm assuming they must have a following/support from a large fan base otherwise they wouldn't be in the book...but, doesn't it bother anyone that they're basically just a race of Raistlins and Caramons?
You know, I did try extremely hard to make sure they wouldn't be seen as a race of Raistlins and Caramons. Andre' even gave me a hard time about that. The fact that they can be the same gender or of different genders, and that they can possess any character class if desired, as well as the introduction of the update to their society following the Chaos War were all factors in trying to eliminate that initial stereotype. Maybe it worked, maybe not.
Cheers,
Cam
Originally posted by The White Sorcerer
...IF the kingfisher familiar is included in Towers of High Sorcery.
Actually, the kingfisher would be a better monster write-up on a sourcebook on the knights of Krynn.
Originally posted by Dragonhelm
Actually, the kingfisher would be a better monster write-up on a sourcebook on the knights of Krynn.
Well, technically this is true. However, the familiar stats for the Kingfisher would seem out of place in a knights of Krynn book unless a great deal is devoted to the Solamnic Auxilliary.
Originally posted by Cam Banks
Maybe it worked, maybe not.
It's better.
But it's still a race of twins where one is a hulking brute and the other is a wizard. I don't think the art helped much...it was a very Majere Twins-esque pose. ;)
It seems to me that the Sacred Gaurdian of the Forge is so much better than a Gacred Gaurdian of Flame. Mainly because both give the special quality 'Immunity from fire' but the fire gaurdians get vulnerbility to cold while the forge gaurdians do not.
As for Tayfolk, yeah, I can see that you tried to keep them from being a race of Caramon and Raist clones, but lets be honest here, thats what they are. I'm not sure who first came up with them, but I would find it hard to believe "race of Rasitlins and Caramons" wasn't the motivation. Though I think you may have been able to break the idea a little more if you used female tayfolk for the example, but they still are what they are.
They have potential I'll give them that, for instance, the last sentance of the tayling description suggesting Tayling monks is a good start for breaking out of the stereotype they were created with.
Originally posted by Cam Banks
There's no strict rule that says they have to. If you were so inclined to give them domains to choose spells from as well as the standard sorcerer/wizard spell list, you could give them Good and Water.
Ah...well, I guess it doesn't say in the MM...I just assumed because all five good dragons were able to do it. Well, I guess it's true what they say when you assume... ;)
Although...has anyone pointed out to WotC that the MM is confusing in that it says they can "cast clerical spells and those from the blah, blah, and blah domains as arcane spells." Now, I just assumed (there I go again) that they meant they can only cast clerical spells from said domains. But both the 3.0 and 3.5 MM say "and."
Thoughts? Am I off on what I thought they could do?
Originally posted by Cam Banks
Those will likely appear as a web enhancement or in some other product.
I also noticed that the Slig is mentioned twice. The second one is supposed to be the Ghaggler, probably?
Also, I noticed that in the Regional Encounters section that the Bakali are mentioned as "Lizardfolk." It is unfortunate if WotC is demanding this. I understand the Lizardfolk and the Bakali are supposed to be the same...but it'd be nice if we (as the Dragonlance fandom) could keep the name Bakali and not lose it all together.
Originally posted by Cam Banks
I imagine the Dragonarmies didn't bother to name them in Nerakan like they did with the original draconians, because they were a failure race.
Yeah, I could see that. The dragonspawn are kinda in the same boat. But I would think that once they went off and tried to make a life (either the dracs or the spawn) that they might eventually come up with a name for themselves, ya know? Of course it's never been specifically said if the dragonspawn can procreate (although I have my opinions ;)) or whether or not there are female chromatic dracs.
One other question about them. Both Lightnings and Flames can fly, right? And only Flames have an innate breath weapon, right? So, what do the Flames gets if they take the Draconian Breath Weapon feat? The sidebar wasn't clear to me what happens in this instance.
Originally posted by Cam Banks
It's pretty much just what it says it is - a white dragon offshoot, although the background involving Chaos and the frost dragons is new.
So...I gues my next question would be, why did you mention earlier that is not what the dragon from Stormblade. Maybe I don't remember correctly but...aside from color, we don't know much about that dragon, right? Or did it use it's breath weapon in the book? (it's been a while since I read it)
Originally posted by Cam Banks
Glad you like the book, Brim!
Love it, dude! :D
One other question, though. Would you allow a sea or aquatic dragon to take the Flyby Attack feat and subsequent feats of that category? I would think it'd be quite easy to translate the flight requirements to swimming requirements.
Originally posted by Nived
Uh, what's wrong with the covers? Either I'm blind or you got a bum copy.
I guess I'm just a little a-retentive when it comes to that sort of thing.
Originally posted by Brimstone
Ah...well, I guess it doesn't say in the MM...I just assumed because all five good dragons were able to do it. Well, I guess it's true what they say when you assume... ;)
All of the metallic dragons can. Sea dragons and aquatic dragons etc are outside of the standard list.
Although...has anyone pointed out to WotC that the MM is confusing in that it says they can "cast clerical spells and those from the blah, blah, and blah domains as arcane spells." Now, I just assumed (there I go again) that they meant they can only cast clerical spells from said domains. But both the 3.0 and 3.5 MM say "and."
This means they can learn cleric spells from the cleric list as arcane spells, yes, in addition to spells from the listed domains. You'll notice this enables dragons to appear more like mystics, which is how they were treated in SAGA, so quite a nice little convenience there.
Also, I noticed that in the Regional Encounters section that the Bakali are mentioned as "Lizardfolk." It is unfortunate if WotC is demanding this. I understand the Lizardfolk and the Bakali are supposed to be the same...but it'd be nice if we (as the Dragonlance fandom) could keep the name Bakali and not lose it all together.
I don't think that's demanded of us, we just felt that they're one and the same. Use of the word "bakali" has remained, but it's not a separate monster.
One other question about them. Both Lightnings and Flames can fly, right? And only Flames have an innate breath weapon, right? So, what do the Flames gets if they take the Draconian Breath Weapon feat? The sidebar wasn't clear to me what happens in this instance.
They already have the feat as a bonus. They can take Improved Draconian Breath Weapon if they like, but if they take the feat again nothing happens.
So...I gues my next question would be, why did you mention earlier that is not what the dragon from Stormblade. Maybe I don't remember correctly but...aside from color, we don't know much about that dragon, right? Or did it use it's breath weapon in the book? (it's been a while since I read it)
You'd have to ask somebody who read Stormblade, Brim. I didn't.
One other question, though. Would you allow a sea or aquatic dragon to take the Flyby Attack feat and subsequent feats of that category? I would think it'd be quite easy to translate the flight requirements to swimming requirements.
I suppose that's an option. Sea and aquatic dragons have their own capabilities and attack options, however, so I wouldn't give them Flyby Attack when they could have any number of other feats.
Cheers,
Cam
Originally posted by Cam Banks
This means they can learn cleric spells from the cleric list as arcane spells, yes, in addition to spells from the listed domains.
Doesn't the cleric spell list include all those spells in the different clerical domains?
Originally posted by Cam Banks
I don't think that's demanded of us, we just felt that they're one and the same. Use of the word "bakali" has remained, but it's not a separate monster.
Well, I noticed it was in the DLDMS but I didn't see it anywhere in the BoK, only the term "lizardfolk."
Originally posted by Cam Banks
They already have the feat as a bonus.
Ah...okay, that makes sense then.
Originally posted by Brimstone
Doesn't the cleric spell list include all those spells in the different clerical domains?
Nope. Some are on the sorcerer/wizard, druid, bard, or ranger lists (and sometimes at different levels), others only exist on those domain lists. Law and Chaos, for example, have some exclusive spells on their lists.
Cheers,
Cam
Originally posted by Cam Banks
Nope. Some are on the sorcerer/wizard, druid, bard, or ranger lists (and sometimes at different levels), others only exist on those domain lists. Law and Chaos, for example, have some exclusive spells on their lists.
Okay...I guess the examples I looked at last night were misleading. I chose like three or four random Chaos domain spells...all of them were cleric spells...then I did it with some other domains (mentioned from the shadow dragon). All came up cleric.
Man...I should have played the lotto yesterday.
Thanks, Cam.
~~~
Something that struck me while I was re-reading the Noble Draconian section today, both the Lightning and the Flame Draconians are described in their... well descriptions as "Over 7 feet tall" yet the Lightning Dracs are Large creatures and the Flame Dracs are Medium, so uh, what are the height ranges of these two?
*EDIT* Which tri-state area? There are a whole lot of tri-state areas around the country =)
Originally posted by Nived
*EDIT* Which tri-state area? There are a whole lot of tri-state areas around the country =)
I was about to say the same exact thing. Here, the tri-state area means ND, SD, MN.
*Grumbles*
The B&N doesn't have it here, the Waldens doesn't have it. None of the hobby stores have it (one doesn't carry any SP stuff at all, which is terrible since he gets stuff so much faster than everywhere else).
I want it now!!!
Oh well, it looks like I am gonna have to order a copy off of www.margaretweis.com again. Which isn't bad at all, seeing as every other DL book I own (besides DL 15th) is from there, so why break the trend? And opening each book to see Margaret's sig is just great (though Jamie needs to sign all the books too, it just doesn't seem right to get them without his).
Originally posted by Brimstone
Well, I noticed it was in the DLDMS but I didn't see it anywhere in the BoK, only the term "lizardfolk."Ah...okay, that makes sense then.
First of all, I want to say that I'm glad you enjoy the book, Brim!
As Cam said, we figured that the lizardfolk stats worked for the bakali, and in certain technical areas where it might cause confusion we aimed to go with the term lizardfolk so that someone unfamiliar with the term "bakali" wouldn't go mad trying to find stats for it in the book.
Originally posted by Baron the Curse
From where are you people buying this book? My local retailers here in Miami and even up north in Ft. Lauderdale don’t have the book. Hell, their distributors don’t have the book! I wan't this book!! Who has it?
Though once the books leave our warehouses it's largely out of our hands, Renae (our Director of Sales) is always ready to help distributors and retailers get their books. Honestly, however, I can't imagine why a store would not have their books by this point. We've actually re-stocked several game distributors already.
Please direct any retailers who are having problems to our website ( www.sovpress.com ) and have them call Renae. Thanks!
Jamie Chambers
Sovereign Press, Inc.
Originally posted by Brimstone
I guess I'm just a little a-retentive when it comes to that sort of thing.
;)
Originally posted by jechambers
Please direct any retailers who are having problems to our website ( www.sovpress.com ) and have them call Renae. Thanks!
Jamie Chambers
Sovereign Press, Inc.
Thanks I will. I really don't know what's the deal I'll be sure to direct Joel (my local retailer) to the website above and this person Renae. I really want this book.
Thanks again.
Originally posted by Brimstone
Well, I noticed it was in the DLDMS but I didn't see it anywhere in the BoK, only the term "lizardfolk."Ah...okay, that makes sense then.
Is the DLDMS the DL DM Screen?
Does BoK stand for Bestiary of Krynn?
Maybe there should be a stickied thread with all of the acronyms that deal with DL and DL products. (just a thought).
I believe LordOfIllusions is talking about THE tri-state area, meaning NY-NJ-CT.
Kids today. The freaking border for our tri-state forms a tri-angle. We win again.
Oh, and BoK rocks.
-TRRW
Originally posted by Maladaar
Is the DLDMS the DL DM Screen?
Does BoK stand for Bestiary of Krynn?
Yes, they do.
And the FAQ has some of the most common acronyms.
Sorry...I have a tendency to use acronyms over words...call it a bad work habbit. :D
Originally posted by Andre La Roche
First of all, I want to say that I'm glad you enjoy the book, Brim!
I'm glad that your glad. :D
Originally posted by Andre La Roche
As Cam said, we figured that the lizardfolk stats worked for the bakali, and in certain technical areas where it might cause confusion we aimed to go with the term lizardfolk so that someone unfamiliar with the term "bakali" wouldn't go mad trying to find stats for it in the book.
I must say...it's pretty cool to have such "direct" contact with the writers to be able to pick your brains on this stuff and the design choices, etc.
And in the spirit of mind picking...what was the thought process behind making the skorenoi a template? (you can ask Trampas...I flipped out when I saw the skorenoi as a satyr...before I realized it was a template and not another kind of centaur, at which point I calmed down)
Originally posted by Brimstone
And in the spirit of mind picking...what was the thought process behind making the skorenoi a template? (you can ask Trampas...I flipped out when I saw the skorenoi as a satyr...before I realized it was a template and not another kind of centaur, at which point I calmed down)
We realized that the skorenoi were not solely centaurs, based on the description of the creature in Dezra's Quest. It seemed like a great candidate for a template, especially since you could apply it to an existing centaur or sylvan creature. Templates are a lot of fun and incredibly useful, which is a philosophy that shows in some of our design choices.
Cheers,
Cam
Originally posted by Brimstone
IAnd in the spirit of mind picking...what was the thought process behind making the skorenoi a template? (you can ask Trampas...I flipped out when I saw the skorenoi as a satyr...before I realized it was a template and not another kind of centaur, at which point I calmed down)
Mostly what Cam said. If you recall Dezra's Quest, there were also satyrs who were transformed by Grimbough.
Originally posted by Brimstone
(you can ask Trampas...I flipped out when I saw the skorenoi as a satyr...before I realized it was a template and not another kind of centaur, at which point I calmed down)
:D
That's okay, Brim. I do that sort of thing all the time. Just ask Cam...
Originally posted by Cam Banks
Templates are a lot of fun and incredibly useful, which is a philosophy that shows in some of our design choices.
I agree. They really simplified a lot of creatures in D&D (mostly undead like vamps and such). A lot of creatures in DL scream for use of template, as well.
I guess I must have forgotten that the satyrs were transformed as well. I thought they were just gleefully following Grimbaugh.
So...you gave an example of the Traag draconian as a baaz (cool idea by the way...not sure if it was original, or if I just never realized that in the Taladas stuff), any thoughts on what the Sesk or the mercury draconians were as a base creatures?
(edit: corrected "Sesk" spelling)
Originally posted by Brimstone
So...you gave an example of the Traag draconian as a baaz (cool idea by the way...not sure if it was original, or if I just never realized that in the Taladas stuff), any thoughts on what the Sesk or the mercury draconians were as a base creatures?
In the proto-baaz draconian entry it actually mentions the sesk, which are proto-sivak draconians. The mercury draconians from Riverwind the Plainsman (are they the ones you mean?) could be proto-kapak draconians, I suppose, but then again they could just be altogether different.
Cheers,
Cam
Originally posted by Cam Banks
In the proto-baaz draconian entry it actually mentions the sesk, which are proto-sivak draconians. The mercury draconians from Riverwind the Plainsman (are they the ones you mean?) could be proto-kapak draconians, I suppose, but then again they could just be altogether different.
Oops...missed that.
Did I mention that I hadn't really gotten past the kick butt art of the Traag and the stat block for that one?
Perhaps the mercury one could use a bakali as the base creature... Hmm...
Originally posted by Brimstone
Perhaps the mercury one could use a bakali as the base creature... Hmm...
Or it could use yuan-ti stats!
It is amazing art, yeah. We're lucky the art is good, since it makes our work look ten times better.
Cheers,
Cam
Originally posted by Cam Banks
Or it could use yuan-ti stats!
I heard mention of the yuan-ti the other day. I recognize the name...but I can't remember what they are.
Originally posted by Cam Banks
It is amazing art, yeah. We're lucky the art is good, since it makes our work look ten times better.
Yeah, the art is absolutely amazing! The only pieces I didn't really like were the hatori, sea dragonspawn, and the abomination (which didn't really look allthat abominable...just like a centaur with wings and scales and a lizard face).
I don't know...the style I didn't like that well...but mostly it was the design of those pics. The hatori looked too much like a crocodile. And just when I was getting used to the idea that dragonspawn aren't really reptilian like the dracs are...but more humanoid (which is technically how they were depicted in SAGA material and in Easly's cover of KoD and it allows for them to be different from the chromatic draconians)we suddenly get some new designs that look more reptilian and lizardfolk/draconian like.
But...beyond those three (and maybe the tylor, too) I absolutely love the art!
I only ask because I was watching a show this weekend that had...what could only be called in Dragonlance a "war pony" on the show. Now this little horse...even though it was small, still stood at probably four to four and a half feet at the shoulder.
The description says slightly larger than a war pony, right? So, I just thought that the wendle would be closer to 6' than 5'. I'm sure I'm wrong...but it just seems to make more sense. (I still advocate that Abanasinian centaurs are only 8 feet at the max and therefore still medium...but I'll leave that alone) ;)
Man...maybe I'm just way off on all my heights.
I need to go out and measure a horse.Same goes for the Wendles.
Originally posted by Nived
Yet the DM Resource booklet lists Centaurs being from 6'4" to 7'4" would would make for some tiny torsos.
Well...I think it depends on where the torso starts from. Case in point...three prime examples of a centaur are the centaur from the MM, the centaur from the DLCS, and the wendle from the BoK. Both the BoK and MM cenaturs basically look like if you were to take away their hind quarters, they'd stand like a normal human being. Where as the centaur in the DLCS has the torso starting at the base of the neck...effectively making them much larger (the average human torso being roughly between 2 and 2.5 feet...I'm 6'1" and my torso starting at the hips is 2'4"...but yeah, I've got long legs)
So a centaur according to Elmore would be right around 7.5 to 8 feet tall (by your height). And I agree with that height. Although it seems more realistic to me that the height be between 7 and 8 feet tall. But that's neither here nor there...what my problem is...is that by the way I understood it a quadraped shorter than 8 feet should be medium...not large...I thought. (maybe the MM says 7 feet...I'd have to double check...at which point my argument is defunct
)But...5 feet tall for a wendle seems like the horse part would be very small...a lot smaller than what I'd consider a war pony.
ARGH! I think I should probably just drop the whole centaur issue. :D
Originally posted by Brimstone
ARGH! I think I should probably just drop the whole centaur issue. :D
Good plan.
The wendle is supposed to be a size smaller than the standard centaur, making it fit into the Medium category. Adjust whatever you need to let your head wrap around that intended goal, and you'll be set.
Cheers,
Cam
Originally posted by Nived
Yeah with Centaurs and Wendles I'm wondering if someone didn't get confused when doing research on horses. Horse heights are measured from the shoulder (since its hard to get them to stand up straight) and the average horse is about 5'3" at the shoulder. Yet the DM Resource booklet lists Centaurs being from 6'4" to 7'4" would would make for some tiny torsos.
Same goes for the Wendles.
Horses are of varying sizes, too. You can go as small as a miniature horse or pony, up to draft horses, including the Clydesdale. The American Quarter Horse and American Saddle Horse probably represent that middle ground, being somewhere around 15-17 hands tall (a hand equals 4 inches, and is measured at the whithers).
BTW, I grew up with Quarter Horses and also worked on a Saddle Horse farm.
I can't remember for certain, but I want to say that some of DL's centaur races, and possibly the Wendle specifically, are small in comparison.
For more information on the horse breeds of the world, check out this site:
Horse Breeds of the World
Originally posted by Cam Banks
Good plan.
:P
Originally posted by Cam Banks
Adjust whatever you need to let your head wrap around that intended goal, and you'll be set.
That's probably the best idea.
American Saddle Horse probably represent that middle ground, being somewhere around 15-17 hands tall (a hand equals 4 inches, and is measured at the whithers).
Yeah I was baseing my measure off a 16 hand horse, which is technically 5'4" but eh, I was close the first time. ANYWAY dropping that and moving on.
I was thinking. Its been mentioned that Sable, Onysablet has been getting skirted in the DLCS and the AOM books, what I mean by that is even though her swamp covers a vast geographical area, it didn't even warrent a region write up in the DLCS. Sure Sable was statted in AOM, but still that vast region was left a mystery.
Now we have the Beastiary of Krynn where a great many of the creatures trace their origin to Onysablet's twisted expiriments. Now maybe I'm way off here, but with all these new creatures, could it be the regional description was saved for something else? Could Onysablet be one of the big baddies of the 5th Age module series, where these new creatues and templets will get a good work out?
Maybe I'm way off, letting my imagination and conjecture get away from me. But one can hope, since these are some awesome creatures.
Originally posted by Baron the Curse
Thanks I will. I really don't know what's the deal I'll be sure to direct Joel (my local retailer) to the website above and this person Renae. I really want this book.
Thanks again.
Whoa. I lived in Miami for three years and the only hobby shop that I frequented was called Sunshine Roleplaying and the owner/manager was a man called Joel. Are we talking about the same Joel?
I was about to say the same exact thing. Here, the tri-state area means ND, SD, MN.
Got my copy today at Phoenix games downtown Minneapolis, MN.
Now I'm probably stir a bit of hornets nest here....
The content looks great, no complaints there, but why does it cost so darn much? For $35 I'd want to see more than that. I think $20-$25 would have been more reasonable. The Core D&D rule book has 200 beasties in it and and this book only has 75 or so. Please don't flame this, it's a legitamate question for Sov. Press. Thanks.
~~~
Originally posted by Valharic
For $35 I'd want to see more than that. I think $20-$25 would have been more reasonable. The Core D&D rule book has 200 beasties in it and and this book only has 75 or so.
It's not quite fair to the book to compare it to a WotC book. To get a more accurate comparison would be to compare the BoK to other 3rd Party Monster books.
Originally posted by Lordofillusions
It seems that is happening more and more these days, higher prices with less content.
Yep...even WotC did this when they released the revised editions...they uped the price by $10 (or did that happen before 3.5?) Either way...3.0 was originally $20...now they're $30.
But luckily, thanks to the d20 liscense, these 3rd party companies don't have to compete with WotC...just each other. Which although may jack up the prices some because they are smaller companies than Hasbro...it does give us all a very wide variety of games to choose from (without killing our brains with 20 different systems)
Originally posted by Brimstone
It's not quite fair to the book to compare it to a WotC book. To get a more accurate comparison would be to compare the BoK to other 3rd Party Monster books.
By those standards, the Bestiary of Krynn is one of the best monster books out there. The only other 3rd party monster book I know of that’s in color is Everquest. I may be wrong on that, but that’s the only one that comes to mind.
I’d put it up against Necromancer Games’ Tome of Horrors any day of the week. ;)
If it is a thick book, then yes the 40 is cool, but if not leave it at 30.
~~~
Originally posted by Serena DarkMyst
I tend to agree with this reasoning....If the book is a large book then I can see paying $40....But I simply cannot plunk down $40 for each book.....so I hope that isnt the trend.....
Exactly. You cannot just start sky rocketing prices and think that everything is cool.
Not saying the S.P. is doing that but in general 40 bucks is steep as hell for a book that is not a main CS book.
~~~
~~~
Originally posted by Valharic
Got my copy today at Phoenix games downtown Minneapolis, MN.
Now I'm probably stir a bit of hornets nest here....
The content looks great, no complaints there, but why does it cost so darn much? For $35 I'd want to see more than that. I think $20-$25 would have been more reasonable. The Core D&D rule book has 200 beasties in it and and this book only has 75 or so. Please don't flame this, it's a legitamate question for Sov. Press. Thanks.
It's a legitimate question, and one you have to ask yourself every time you spend you leisure entertainment dollar. A few things to consider, though, is that the current D&D Monster Manual is $30--and if you understand the price breaks for printing, the fact that they can print astronomical numbers allows them a much lower cost-per-book ratio than we can enjoy. Another is to look at prices of comparable 3rd-party monster books, most of which are in black-and-white on offset (coarse, non-glossy) paper.
The short version is simple. We have to set price points that make it profitable for us to publish a book at all. The alternative is to lower quality (imagine a black-and-white book with different book printed on offset paper) or to simply not publish at all. Early restocks on this book indicate that the price is not hurting our sales at all! We may actually sell out of this entire run.
Jamie Chambers
Sovereign Press, Inc.
As a guy in the IT industry in a smaller company and got bought out by a huge competitor a few years ago. I understand price breaks and the difference between what vendors offer for material. So for me you hit the nail on the head and justified to me. Again, thanks
The book has great art work. Love the encounter table. The map is nice.
If dropping the color art and dropping the gloss-type pages with the fancy color borders drop the price of the book then count me in. It is the content and durability of the book that counts, not the color art, gloss pages and color ink (IMHO).
No, there is not much of a difference between $30, $35, and $40. Factor in how many products come out though, then suddenly that 5 or 10 dollar price difference quickly adds up.
I understand that the company has to make a profit and I have no problem with that.
Originally posted by DRAKERYM RAVENSHADOW
I've been searching for the bestiary on amazon, daily for the past two weeks. is it going to be made available there, or will i have to order it from anothr on line dealer. unfortunately there are no hobby shops around my area
Order from MargaretWeis.com!
Originally posted by Maladaar
To tell you the truth I prefer black and white ink drawings. When I think of medieval drawing, I think of ink on parchment.
If dropping the color art and dropping the gloss-type pages with the fancy color borders drop the price of the book then count me in. It is the content and durability of the book that counts, not the color art, gloss pages and color ink (IMHO).
No, there is not much of a difference between $30, $35, and $40. Factor in how many products come out though, then suddenly that 5 or 10 dollar price difference quickly adds up.
I understand that the company has to make a profit and I have no problem with that.
Bingo! Man you took the words right out of my mouth! Keep the Campaign Setting books in color and a few of the books detailing specific ages of the worls but do not give me 30 glossy pages and color monsters and then skyrocket the prices.
Again I can see paying 40 for a campaign setting but not every book.
~~~
Originally posted by lorac75
I too was wondering about the Dread Wolves. Why were they excluded? They were such a great part the Legend of Huma I figured they'd be a given.
As such a great part of Legend of Huma and being specific to that story, I would think they would belong in a sourcebook on said book.
Originally posted by LordofIllusions
but do not give me 30 glossy pages and color monsters and then skyrocket the prices.
It's not 30...it's 160 pages, and the book is absolutely gorgeous...I wouldn't have it any other way. $35 for that book is a great price.
Like I said...you can't compare this to WotC products price wise. A small company like SP can't compete with Hasbro on that sort of thing.
But...I guess I'll just be the counter-point (since it's apparently my favorite place to be these days), I am very pleased with the quality of these books and will gladly pay $35 for every time for these books.
Now...the $45 War of the Lance book did make me swallow my tongue a bit when I first saw it...but I'm still okay with that too.
(don't get me wrong though...I'd prefer same quality for $30...but I know that's not possible)Originally posted by LordofIllusions
Bingo! Man you took the words right out of my mouth! Keep the Campaign Setting books in color and a few of the books detailing specific ages of the worls but do not give me 30 glossy pages and color monsters and then skyrocket the prices.
That would be 160 glossy pages, hardcover, fully illustrated and in color, with an appropriate price point that's still competitive with other 3rd-party d20 products.
Cheers,
Cam
Originally posted by Cam Banks
That would be 160 glossy pages, hardcover, fully illustrated and in color, with an appropriate price point that's still competitive with other 3rd-party d20 products.
Don't forget the great binding, too! A lot better than the crap binding WotC went for on the DLCS (which I don't understand because all my other WotC products aren't glued...except maybe the Draconomicon...I haven't really noticed with that one yet). It makes those two page maps kinda useless when you can't even open the book enough to see the crack. I would have much rather paid $45 for that book instead of $40 if it meant we could have avoided a glued spine.
Originally posted by Dragonhelm
As such a great part of Legend of Huma and being specific to that story, I would think they would belong in a sourcebook on said book.
Yeah, but its a monster from one of the best known stories in the DL canon so it would make sense to include it. Do you know if there is book coming about the Huma/Kaz/Magius Era? I'f so I'm looking forward to it. If not, then it should have been included.
Of course this would make an utter beast I mean really, an utter beast... +8 to Str, +6 Con, -2 Int -2 Wis, -4 Cha, Rage (Ex), Madness (Ex), Nat armor+6, increased HD type... utter beast.
*EDIT*
I forgot what I sat down to originally post. I finally really studied the random encounter tables, I mean I glanced over them and was happy, but now I really looked.
THERE'S A CHANCE TO RUN INTO A FREAKING BALOR INT HE DESOLATION!
Granted I can't remember ever rolling a 1 on a percentile roll but jeez... The Desolation is NOT for low or mid level characters.
Challenge rating 20. They all carry vorpal swords as standard equipment.
Balors, they win, you die.
Originally posted by Nived
Balors are the biggest baddest Demons in the D&D Core rules.
Challenge rating 20. They all carry vorpal swords as standard equipment.
Balors, they win, you die.
Is that what is on the v.3.5 Dungeon Master's screen that I received with my Dragon magazine ?
~~~
Originally posted by Nived
Balors are the biggest baddest Demons in the D&D Core rules.
This guy?
Originally posted by Serena DarkMyst
Yup Brim...that would be a Balor.....which was D&D's answer to LOTR's Balrog.......nasty eh?
I figured that was the case. And there's the Treants...sound an awful lot like Ents.
So those (or at least one or two) exist in the Desolation, eh? That ain't cool...
I agree, though...that place certainly isn't for the faint of heart. And I'm betting the new adventure series will take us right into the heart of it.
I just got my copy of the BoK. Without a doubt the finest looking Monster book out there. If Towers of High Sorcery is even half as good looking I will be one happy customer.
I agree, though...that place certainly isn't for the faint of heart. And I'm betting the new adventure series will take us right into the heart of it.
I had the same thoughts, especially given the cover art.
New Book
Originally posted by Knight of the Lily
I have read that in the new Bestiary 70 posts for creatures. In the old Book was it 200 creatures. I have not the new book, but i quest me where all the creatures has gone?
Not all of the Dragonlance monsters that have appeared in previous material ended up in the Bestiary. Some were already in print, in the Dragonlance Campaign Setting hardcover or the Age of Mortals sourcebook. Some were already covered by the core rules or other monster books published by Wizards of the Coast, but that wasn't a significant number of them. Some monsters were actually written for the Bestiary but were cut for space, since the book was specified at a certain word and page count. Those may yet see print in another book or as a web enhancement, depending on what Jamie & Margaret want to do with them.
It's also possible that monsters you don't see in the Bestiary are slated for future products. Jamie's already stated that the Key of Destiny includes the phaethon, and this year alone we've got the Towers of High Sorcery and War of the Lance hardcovers to look forward to, which may or may not have new monsters in them.
Another thing to keep in mind is that since a fair chunk of the monsters in the Bestiary are templates or categories of monsters, there's much more utility to their entries than a standard monster entry. For example, the proto-creature uses a proto-baaz draconian (or traag) as its sample creature, but it could be used to represent a number of other creatures which are failed experiments, early prototypes, bizarre aberrations, etc.
Cheers,
Cam
Cam, Andre', this book is amazing. you guys deserve mad props, as it were.
I will say that the new Frost Dragons rock. Possibly the most intimidating dragon from any setting, ever. A Great Wyrm's breath weapon nukes your Charisma for 12 points of damage per blast, after which it eradicates all memory of you and possibility for resurrection once your Cha hits 0?
That's insanely wicked! I love it.
I was actually pleasantly surprised with the amount of high CR creatures in the book. Definitely room for advancing DL campaigns to epic levels.
Originally posted by Kai Lord
I will say that the new Frost Dragons rock. Possibly the most intimidating dragon from any setting, ever.
Glad that you liked the Frost Dragons. They were a creation of mine for my home Dragonlance campaign, and one figured into an adventure I ran for my home-based gaming group. The creature seemed to nasty to keep to myself, so I had Cam and Andre help me with their official design and inclusion in the book!
Jamie Chambers
Sovereign Press, Inc.
So do a lot of these creatures figure into the Age of Mortals Module series? Because man, I want to use them, but my personal campaign is going to go on hold once KoD comes out.
Originally posted by me:
To tell you the truth I prefer black and white ink drawings. When I think of medieval drawing, I think of ink on parchment.
If dropping the color art and dropping the gloss-type pages with the fancy color borders drop the price of the book then count me in. It is the content and durability of the book that counts, not the color art, gloss pages and color ink (IMHO).
No, there is not much of a difference between $30, $35, and $40. Factor in how many products come out though, then suddenly that 5 or 10 dollar price difference quickly adds up.
I understand that the company has to make a profit and I have no problem with that.
The above statement was meant towards all products (from all vendors) not just the BoK.
I too, agree that good cover, binding and paper (not necessarily glossy) are important. I just meant that there seems to be an overuse of the glossy color pictures and borders in all of the material being released (again not strictily directed at the DL products). Look that the FR books, a lot of those books have parchment color, speckled paper.
A good product does not always have to have all of the "flash". I can't wait to get my copy of the BoK. I just wanted to vent about all of the products being churned out (again not a statement directed strictly to DL).
I guess I am having flashback of the TSR days when they were printing so much material that no one could keep up with all of the stuff.
50% of the artwork was nice, but then the rest was a bit off really (the Disir for example, that style really didn't push my buttons). Loved the monster only PrC's, those were very nice.
The only thing missing (unless I missed them elsewhere) were stats for the other two overlords who didn't get write-ups in either DLCS or AoM.
Great job on this book.
Originally posted by SweetMeats
Got my copy of the BoK today, and its a top notch product.
50% of the artwork was nice, but then the rest was a bit off really (the Disir for example, that style really didn't push my buttons). Loved the monster only PrC's, those were very nice.
The only thing missing (unless I missed them elsewhere) were stats for the other two overlords who didn't get write-ups in either DLCS or AoM.
Great job on this book.
What two overlords?
Malys, Skie, and Sable were included in the AoM.
Beryl was statted in the DLCS.
The only one whose stats we don't possess is Frost, at least as far as the Big Five are concerned.
Originally posted by iltharanos
The only one whose stats we don't possess is Frost, at least as far as the Big Five are concerned.
If you include all material (printed and web-enhancement) of the Dragon Overlords and Dragonlords we have:
Dragon Overlords:
Malystryx (Mayls)
Khellendros (Skie)
Onysablet (Sable)
Berylinthranox (Beryl)
Dragonlords:
Bryneseldimer (Brine)
Cryonisis (Ice)
Frisindia (Freeze)
Fenalysten (Cinder)
Mohrlex (Pitch)
Lorrinar (Fume)
Ones we are missing:
Dragon Overlords:
Gellidus (Frost)
Dragonlords:
Stennduunus (Thunder)
Iyesta (Splendor)
Pyrothraxus (Pyro)
Originally posted by Knight of the Lily
In my opinion i think its not ok that the creatures was share in different books. When i will buy the Bestiary. I will found all creatures in the book of Krynn. It can not be that when you will have information abaut this creature look in the other book. for example Dragonoverlords. This is a good marketing idea but not god for me as fan. Fancy that you look in a lexicon and the word that you search is not there.
I can understand that frustration. Unfortunately, because the Bestiary wasn't the first book to be released (nor was it released at the same time as the other Dragonlance books last year), either the folks who picked up the Dragonlance Campaign Setting and Age of Mortals would have been disappointed with their lack of monsters, or the Bestiary would have repeated all of them and had less room for unpublished monsters. Neither of those is ideal, thus the bulk of the monsters were left to the Bestiary while the more immediately important or significant monsters ended up in the earlier books.
Cheers,
Cam
Originally posted by Brimstone
Dragonlords:
Bryneseldimer (Brine)
Technically Brine was the sixth Dragon Overlord, not a dragonlord. At least that is what I got out of him. I would be interested to see how they stat Pyro, since he is nuts.
Originally posted by Daedavias
Technically Brine was the sixth Dragon Overlord, not a dragonlord. At least that is what I got out of him. I would be interested to see how they stat Pyro, since he is nuts.
I'd have to check...but I was sure that the SAGA material (the only one to trust...since no product, WotC or SP has been able to agree on the terms since).
Originally posted by Brimstone
I'd have to check...but I was sure that the SAGA material (the only one to trust...since no product, WotC or SP has been able to agree on the terms since).
The timeline in AoM states that he is the sixth Overlord, though none of the others knew he even existed.
Originally posted by Daedavias
The timeline in AoM states that he is the sixth Overlord, though none of the others knew he even existed.
I know...but I'm gonna hold out for what the SAGA stuff said (I'll have to check it tonight).
But the more I think about it...the more I'm starting to think you're right. But I'll check tonight.
But I've switched my mind again (this will be a fun afternoon ;)) and I think he's just a Dragonlord. I say this for a couple reasons. 1) He's not alien. 2) He's not even an advanced great wyrm...I'm not even 100% sure he's an great wyrm...he might just be a wyrm. So he's not uber powerful like the other five.
I don't know...we'll see.
Originally posted by iltharanos
The Fifth Age Saga Boxed Set describes Brine as one of the lesser lords of dragonkind (ala Pyro, Fume, etc.) and mentions only the Big Five as Dragon Overlords.
Okay. I was just going off of the AoM, which states specifically that he is the sixth Dragon Overlord, implying that he is among the big Five...err...Six.
Originally posted by Daedavias
Okay. I was just going off of the AoM, which states specifically that he is the sixth Dragon Overlord, implying that he is among the big Five...err...Six.
Yeah, it's funny that they describe him as an Overlord, since he isn't even a great wyrm sea dragon, just a wyrm sea dragon.
Originally posted by cnposner
The stats for the Kalothagh seem to be mixed up with those for the Vapor Imp.
Yep. Andre' pointed this out to me after we got copies of the books - it'll go in the file with my slip on the daemon warrior's language. We might be able to get the actual kalothagh statistics printed sometime to correct that.
Cheers,
Cam
Originally posted by iltharanos
Yeah, it's funny that they describe him as an Overlord, since he isn't even a great wyrm sea dragon, just a wyrm sea dragon.
It's implied from the novel The Dragon Isles that Brine had a skull totem and the knowledge of creating dragonspawn, having passed this knowledge onto a younger sea dragon, Tempest. Sea dragonspawn are the rarest of the dragonspawn types, and appear in the Bestiary, but if Brine had the ability to create them it would be one of the justifications for his Overlord status. That, and the fact that he was at the time of the Dragon Purge the most powerful sea dragon in the seas around Ansalon.
Cheers,
Cam
Originally posted by Cam Banks
It's implied from the novel The Dragon Isles that Brine had a skull totem and the knowledge of creating dragonspawn, having passed this knowledge onto a younger sea dragon, Tempest. Sea dragonspawn are the rarest of the dragonspawn types, and appear in the Bestiary, but if Brine had the ability to create them it would be one of the justifications for his Overlord status. That, and the fact that he was at the time of the Dragon Purge the most powerful sea dragon in the seas around Ansalon.
Cheers,
Cam
Where, specifically? I've got the novel and while it's been awhile since I've read it, I don't recall any implication of a skull totem for Brine within the book.
Originally posted by iltharanos
Where, specifically? I've got the novel and while it's been awhile since I've read it, I don't recall any implication of a skull totem for Brine within the book.
Creating dragonspawn requires it (see 209 of the Age of Mortals sourcebook), or at least acting in proxy of an overlord who possesses a skull totem. Nura Bint-Drax was able to create dragonspawn for her mistress, Sable, but presumably this was because of her link to the Black and because she'd been shown how the process worked.
If the Cold Sisters in Icewall ever manage to put together a skull totem, they'd be able to create white dragonspawn, transform the land around them, etc etc much as Gellidus is able to do. Assuming, that is, that they learn how from somebody.
Cheers,
Cam
Originally posted by Cam Banks
Creating dragonspawn requires it (see 209 of the Age of Mortals sourcebook), or at least acting in proxy of an overlord who possesses a skull totem. Nura Bint-Drax was able to create dragonspawn for her mistress, Sable, but presumably this was because of her link to the Black and because she'd been shown how the process worked.
If the Cold Sisters in Icewall ever manage to put together a skull totem, they'd be able to create white dragonspawn, transform the land around them, etc etc much as Gellidus is able to do. Assuming, that is, that they learn how from somebody.
Cheers,
Cam
That's all well and good, but that doesn't answer my question. Where in the novel, the Dragon Isles, does it imply or even flat-out state that Brine has a skull totem or the ability to create dragonspawn?
Aside from the stat block of Brine in the Age of Mortals book stating he possesses the create skull totem feat and his labeling as an Overlord, every other source indicates he is considered a minor dragonlord, not an Overlord, and has never possessed a skull totem or the resultant ability to create dragonspawn.
None of the Fifth Age novels gives any indication of dragonspawn having been created by Brine (except for the as yet unidentified implication you state exists in the Dragon Isles novel).
More Leaves from the Inn of the Last Home lists all the dragon overlords of Krynn, and Brine is not included.
The various SAGA products list Brine as minor dragonlord, and not as an Overlord.
So we've got multiple sources, contemporary and not, indicating Brine is not an Overlord. Balanced against this, we have the one stat block in the AoM book indicating he is an Overlord. It seems far more likely the AoM source is yet another piece of errata, rather than a true indication of Brine's status as an Overlord.
Originally posted by iltharanos
That's all well and good, but that doesn't answer my question. Where in the novel, the Dragon Isles, does it imply or even flat-out state that Brine has a skull totem or the ability to create dragonspawn?
How do you suppose Tempest managed it?
Cheers,
Cam
Originally posted by pddisc
I was really expecting the mastarks and the other random ogre creatures from Tides of Blood to be in it, tie in with a product released at around the same time.
Tides of Blood probably wasn't even finished being written at the time we were writing the Bestiary, so anything that's in that book will have to wait until a later date for game statistics.
As for future products dealing with the Age of Mortals, that's entirely up to Sovereign Press.
Cheers,
Cam
Originally posted by Cam Banks
How do you suppose Tempest managed it?
Cheers,
Cam
Just because Tempest created sea dragonspawn, it doesn't necessarily follow that Brine knew the process before her. For all we know, Tempest could have learned the dragonspawn creation process from Malys herself and Brine knew nothing of spawn creation. This view is supported by the numerous products and novels detailing Brine in the Fifth Age, for in none of those sources is there even a single mention of Brine having created spawn.
I fail to see how Tempest knowing how to create spawn implies Brine knowing how to create spawn, unless of course you have some information you have yet to mention. e.g. A specific page in the Dragon Isles stating Tempest having learned the spawn process from Brine.
Originally posted by SweetMeats
Whats Tides of Blood?
The second novel in the Minotaur Wars series by Richard Knaak. It is the sequel to Night of Blood
Originally posted by iltharanos
Just because Tempest created sea dragonspawn, it doesn't necessarily follow that Brine knew the process before her. For all we know, Tempest could have learned the dragonspawn creation process from Malys herself and Brine knew nothing of spawn creation. This view is supported by the numerous products and novels detailing Brine in the Fifth Age, for in none of those sources is there even a single mention of Brine having created spawn.
And yet, he's referred to as an overlord in Eve of the Maelstrom, both by the Dimernesti who meet with Feril, and in the comment made about Malys being able to telepathically communicate with all of the overlords, including Brine (whom she had asked to recover the Crown of Tides, without much luck).
The nature and creation of spawn, and the abilities and nature of the overlords and their skull totems have shown much development since the initial presentation of these concepts in the SAGA materials. While it's probably only academic now to talk about which dragon was an overlord and which wasn't, the truth of it is that in the process of settling a number of outstanding storylines and connecting some of the dots together, Brine's status as a dragon overlord has more or less been established with the release of the most recent gaming materials (notably the Age of Mortals).
I understand this can be argued around in circles and page numbers might be thrown about to provide proof of one thing and another, but all that would prove is that there's been inconsistency in the past regarding this subject and it's easier to make the assumption now that AoM and the Bestiary (which includes sea dragonspawn) are correct in explaining Brine's knowledge of the process and Tempest's acquisition of it from him. Otherwise, you're just going to muddy the water more, no pun intended.
Cheers,
Cam
1. Origin beyond Krynn
2. Greater size than Krynn-born dragons
3. Skull totems
4. Dragonspawn
Brine possesses none of these traits. He meets 3 and 4 only if you accept the validity of the AoM stat block for him. I would do so simply because it's an official product, were it not for the fact that every other novel/book out there leads me to believe otherwise.
Brine's labeling as an Overlord just doesn't make any sense. Was Brine an Overlord in the same category as the Big Five? No. Was he a minor Overlord in the same category as Fenalysten? Yes.
As has been said, the old 5a products seemed to waffle back and forth between having him be the unspoken 6th overlord and having him just be a dragonlord. Despite this, the prevalent reference among those materials was that he was an honest-to-goodness Overlord, just one from under the sea (thus necessarily limiting his influence on the bulk of the setting). This, combined with the fact that Brine was also portrayed as such quite definitively in AoM certainly influenced the fact that we regarded Brine as an Overlord in his own right with capabilities equal to the rest.
This allowed us to provide a nice reason for Tempest possessing spawn of her own. It certainly wasn't explicitly said in the previous materials, but it's certainly a believable inference to help patch a spot that needed patching.
Though I think that your pursuit of a logical and objective means for interpretation of the setting is an admirable goal, it's one that also carries with it a great deal of limitations. Creative endeavors like this are very fluidic, and because of that a lot of the "givens" of a setting can easily be changed in a believable way. After all, your criteria that he be an alien dragon isn't necessarily applicable, given that Skie himself was considered a native of Ansalon prior to WoS.
Giving Brine spawn similarly "connects the dots" in an invisible manner: it brings things together in a way that, though new, by no means contradicts anything that's been addressed in-world.
It is interesting that on page 207 of the AoM, when discussing dragon overlords, it makes mention of only five dragon overlords. Brine overlooked yet again?
Originally posted by iltharanos
It is interesting that on page 207 of the AoM, when discussing dragon overlords, it makes mention of only five dragon overlords. Brine overlooked yet again?
Brine is like the Zeppo. Everyone eventually finds out he's there, he shows up for one or two of the movies and some folks still acknowledge his role in the group but he just doesn't get any credit. Far too much focus on Groucho, Chico etc.
Cheers,
Cam
Originally posted by Cam Banks
Brine is like the Zeppo.
Or Gummo, perhaps. ;)
Originally posted by Dragonhelm
Or Gummo, perhaps. ;)
I was going to equate him to Shemp or possibly Curly Joe. But I think would probably reserve Curly Joe for Gellidus.
And Nived, yes, Brine is the George Lazenby of the Dragon Overlords. Get's one appearance and then they get rid of him.
Originally posted by Kipper Snifferdoo
I was going to equate him to Shemp or possibly Curly Joe. But I think would probably reserve Curly Joe for Gellidus.
Curly Joe or Joe? After all, there was Larry, Moe, Curly, Shemp, Curly Joe, and Joe. Six Stooges total.
Originally posted by Dragonhelm
Curly Joe or Joe? After all, there was Larry, Moe, Curly, Shemp, Curly Joe, and Joe. Six Stooges total.
Stats for all six Overstooges, complete with epic advancement and new feats, are forthcoming.
Whoop, whoop-whoop-whoop.
So, back to the actual thread content... any other questions or observations on the Bestiary of Krynn that Andre' and I can make an attempt at answering?
Cheers,
Cam
Also, do you have stats for Ruben Studdard in there?
Originally posted by Ashaman Nash
Hello...I haven't seen the book yet, but I'm just curious as to whether or not it's difficult to convert any of these creatures into PCs. Is it the same format exactly as the MM?
Yes, it's the same MM 3.5 format. In some cases, such as with sligs and ursoi etc, character generation notes are provided as they are in the MM with goblins, lizardfolk, etc.
Also, do you have stats for Ruben Studdard in there?
Er. Cut for space. Or something.
Cheers,
Cam
I have always been a big fan of the slig. Although I do admit I like the way the slig looked in the Dragonlance Monstrous Compendium released by TSR better, but I am glad to see it in the BoK.
I don't have the stats in front of me from the 1e/2e books, but I got this from dragonlance.com
"Spittle (Ex): Three times per day, a slig can squirt its venomous spittle up to ten feet away with a ranged touch attack. On contact, the spittle does 1d6 temporary Constitution damage, plus 1d3 temporary Wisdom secondary damage."
I was wondering what the reasoning behind the decision to make the slig spittle do acid damage and temporary blindness?
Not that I think that is bad, but my group has been playing with the version of the slig from the dragonlance.com website and my players fear them as being nasty adversaries.
If I was to add in the above spittle effect (maybe for an elite version of the slig), what should be the adjustment to the CR? Or maybe even a 1d3 temp Con/1d3 temp Wis penalty.
Also in the 1e/2e version, the slig was part of the goblinoid family, why were they changed to reptilian? Again more from a curosity aspect, than a critical aspect.
Originally posted by Maladaar
I was wondering what the reasoning behind the decision to make the slig spittle do acid damage and temporary blindness?
Earlier versions of the slig listed the creature's spittle as dealing actual damage and blinding its opponent. James went another way with his older conversion (the one on the dragonlance.com fan rules pages) but the version I included in the creature's entry is more in line with how the spittle used to work. I believe James was trying to treat it more like an actual poison (hence the ability damage).
If I was to add in the above spittle effect (maybe for an elite version of the slig), what should be the adjustment to the CR? Or maybe even a 1d3 temp Con/1d3 temp Wis penalty.
The Con/Wis ability damage version might justify an increase in the CR of the slig by +1, since the effect is quite debilitating. All ability damage in 3.5 is "temporary" (as opposed to ability drain), recovering at a rate of 1 point/day for each affected ability score. Characters attacked by more than one slig may quickly die if the spittle drains their Constitution scores to the point of death (0 Con).
Also in the 1e/2e version, the slig was part of the goblinoid family, why were they changed to reptilian? Again more from a curosity aspect, than a critical aspect.
They still are, in a way. The slig is rumored to be the result of crossbreeding or combining hobgoblins with lizardfolk, in much the same way as a kobold is a result of goblin and lizardfolk breeding. They're as much a part of the goblinoid family as they ever were, just reptilian, like kobolds.
Cheers,
Cam
Thanks for the feedback. As I stated I have always loved the slig as a bigger/badder goblinoid. I appreciate you sharing the thinking behind the decisions.
The spittle as a poison was quite devastating in an encounter my players had with them, which is why they have such a great respect for them. Not saying a 1d6 rounds temporary blinding is anything to sneeze at either.
It is just if I throw the new ones at them, I get the old, "Wait a second, what happened to the temp Con/Wis lose." At least if I can create an elite version, with an added CR it will help smooth things over.
Maybe have one or two elite leading a scout party, then the players won't pick up on it, unless they read the BoK.
Again, kudos to all of those involved in creating this magnificient book.