). So, I wanted to take the very product that I attacked and tell you what I do like about it. (however, this doesn't mean I think it's okay that they missed the table...but this product is really good, IMO, and I wanted to get that out).Okay, first, there's the information that I personally would have preferred in the DLCS, but since I'll most likely be purchasing all the products anyway, it doesn't really effect me one way or the other. The racial ages and stats, the general information on the three new base classes, the NPC information on classes not included in the DMG, and racial weapons. All of these are excellent. Granted the NPC info and the base class info wasn't exciting, but good, and finally completes what we need to know about the new classes and the Dragonlance specific changes in other classes. The racial weapons, very cool...but grossly sparse. I long for 3.5e updated versions of all the racial weapons from TotL. Not for me...since again, I have it...but there are some great and interesting weapons in there that I think is sad aren't getting spread to the new DL fans...a Web Enhancement...perhaps? :D Or is there plans for possible racial books in the future like in Sovereign Stone? That would be great, those books are really good...and I know I personally would love to have such books for Ansalon.
And finally, the racial stat information on age and the effects of aging and all that...finally we have a tabulated form for all this data. Before, if you wanted this info (which I've only been able to find in TotL) you had to seach and find and pick and choose from the different racial write ups...even in the DLCS. And this is really the first time for information on gully dwarves and centaurs and Half-ogres, etc. Very good info.Now...the part that I LOVE. That would be the section on races and monsters of Krynn and how they fit in with D&D, or vise versa. Who ever wrote that is a genius. (I only say that because it matches perfectly with my view on Ansalons races and creatures) heh heh ;) Well...except for not having centaurs considered "fey" (which I still see as the only explination for why they were around before the creation and release of the Greygem)...but I think this is a battle that I'm going to (if haven't already) lose.
Anyway, this was a great section, and I like that the bakali have become a base rase for other creatures (sligs, kobolds, and other reptilian monsters). It makes perfect sense. The whole section was logically outlined...nothing I read made me go, "WTF?" To the contrary, it was the exact opposite. It has taken info from all previous products...threw them together, and made a canon that makes sense on what the "evolutionary tree" roughly looks like. Way to go, SP! (I have a feeling I know who wrote that stuff...my congrats!)
I do have one question though...I was under the impression that cyclopsi (is that the plural form?) was one of the main ogre races like ettins, trolls, hill giants, hags, etc. But they were not mentioned...were they forgotten, or not mentioned because they are no longer a D&D creature? Are they still going to be a Dragonlance creature? (okay, so it's one question with a possible follow up) ;)
So...like I said, this products was well worth the $15 it cost me. It was a very good read...and it has made me extremly excited for the Bestiary of Krynn. Of course, the 5th Age Bestiary is my favorite product of the SAGA material...so I'm starting to sense a patern. :D
p.s. That brass dragon is hillarious. If I ever get a DL game going again, I can guarantee that she'll be showing up in my game. heh heh
Originally posted by Brimstone
Now...the part that I LOVE. That would be the section on races and monsters of Krynn and how they fit in with D&D, or vise versa. Who ever wrote that is a genius. (I only say that because it matches perfectly with my view on Ansalons races and creatures) heh heh ;) Well...except for not having centaurs considered "fey" (which I still see as the only explination for why they were around before the creation and release of the Greygem)...but I think this is a battle that I'm going to (if haven't already) lose.
The compromise was made in that instance by describing them all as sylvan creatures, rather than attaching them to a specific D&D creature type - not only because centaurs don't have the fey type, but because it leaves their true origins somewhat mysterious yet strongly hints that they could share common backgrounds to other sylvan creatures.
And the author isn't a genius. But the author is happy you like it.
Anyway, this was a great section, and I like that the bakali have become a base rase for other creatures (sligs, kobolds, and other reptilian monsters). It makes perfect sense.
As I've often said, having a small but varied choice of backgrounds and origins for the creatures of Ansalon avoids the "they are all Greygem creatures" problem yet grounds the setting firmly in the mysterious past which is favored by the setting's authors. You don't need to know the absolute specifics, but knowing that it falls into one or two ballparks is nice.
I do have one question though...I was under the impression that cyclopsi (is that the plural form?) was one of the main ogre races like ettins, trolls, hill giants, hags, etc. But they were not mentioned...were they forgotten, or not mentioned because they are no longer a D&D creature? Are they still going to be a Dragonlance creature? (okay, so it's one question with a possible follow up) ;)
No cyclopes (the plural of cyclops) in the Monster Manual, sorry! Yes, they'd be included otherwise, at least according to the SAGA materials. However, I think they'd be pretty rare, much less common than hill giants and ettins.
Cheers,
Cam
Oh, well it seems that it is only getting better as products come out.
Originally posted by Cam Banks
The compromise was made in that instance by describing them all as sylvan creatures
Sorry...I meant to say Sylvan. I've been saying fey for so long...but that doesn't make sense...it's a sylvan race that I think they should be (cause that would explain why they've been around since the 1st Age).
However...I still didn't even see where it said that they were sylvan. The only mention I saw was where it said that satyrs frequently hung out with centaurs. Did I miss something else? If so, my bad...and just ignore the above comment.
Originally posted by Cam Banks
And the author isn't a genius. But the author is happy you like it.
Heh heh...I knew that was yours. That's part of the reason why this got me so excited for the BoK.
Which raises an interesting question...shouldn't it be BoA...as in "Ansalon" and not "Krynn?"
Originally posted by Cam Banks
having a small but varied choice of backgrounds and origins for the creatures of Ansalon avoids the "they are all Greygem creatures" problem yet grounds the setting firmly in the mysterious past which is favored by the setting's authors.
Agreed! This was just the first time that this has really been laid out like this trying to match up with D&D. SAGA kind of did it...but since they didn't need to match D&D anymore, they ignored alot of staple monsters/creatures/etc...like demons and celestials for starters.
Anyway...well done, Cam. Very cool stuff...as I read those 10 pages or so...I think I was smiling the whole time.
Originally posted by Cam Banks No cyclopes (the plural of cyclops) in the Monster Manual, sorry! Yes, they'd be included otherwise, at least according to the SAGA materials.
Yeah...that's what I was afraid of. I was saddened by their absence in the MM (being my favorite greek mythological monster) and was hoping they'd still be in Dragonlance...but with the only mention (that I'm aware of) being in the SAGA Bestiary...is that enough to still be included in the DL canonity?
Anyway...thanks again for an excellent section!
I do have one question about the height and weight stuff though. As I was looking over it...I assume that the weight "multipliers" should probably be weight "additions?" Other wise...you could end up with a 20 ton centaur. heh heh
Oh...and now that we have a good height for centaurs...don't they seem kind of...well...short? I would think they would have been taller. I can't remember exactly what it is...but wasn't it like 6'6" + 2d6 or something? That seems short to me.
Okay...and one last thing...has anyone ever come up with a good reason why the average height for a kender is 3'6" but their average weight is 90 lbs? It's been like that since TotL...but I can't get my head around it. Are their bones made of lead or something? ;)
Originally posted by Brimstone
Okay...and one last thing...has anyone ever come up with a good reason why the average height for a kender is 3'6" but their average weight is 90 lbs? It's been like that since TotL...but I can't get my head around it. Are their bones made of lead or something? ;)
What's it got in its pocketses?
I dunno, Brim. Insert clever explanation here.
Cheers,
Cam
Originally posted by Hammerhand
Good positive spin but it does seem that most of the stuff that you enjoyed wasn't actually the screen but the stuff that i felt was left out of the DLCS,hehe,
Maybe...
But that doesn't change the fact that it's still excellent info for me.
As for the screen itself...well...what can you say about it? It's a dungeon masters screen...it has good information on it.
I don't know...all my DMing was actually Narrating in SAGA and I had no Narrators Screen.
So I don't know enough about good DM screens to tell you whether or not this would be useful. Sorry.Originally posted by Cam Banks
What's it got in its pocketses?
Nice.
I'll take that as a "no" then. heh heh
Um...what about the "weight multipliers" question...or do you not know for sure?
Originally posted by Brimstone
Um...what about the "weight multipliers" question...or do you not know for sure?
Well, those *are* weight multipliers, but x 2d10 does seem to be a little much... when applied to a base weight of 2000 lbs! Drop a zero off the base weight for the centaur and you'll probably get a more realistic result.
Cheers,
Cam
Joe
Originally posted by ryric
The way weight multipliers work(I think) is that you're supposed to multiply them times the total you rolled as a height addition(so if you rolled a 7 on 2d6 for height it would be 7xweight multiplier) and then add it to the base weight. So a centaur would weigh 2-12*2-20+2000 lbs. It's meant to make sure that taller characters weigh more, which makes some sense in general.
And of course, now that you say that it all comes back to me and I remember exactly that - and why it was written the way it was.
Can you tell I never use racial height and weight charts in my own games? Sigh.
Cheers,
Cam
That makes pretty good sense...if one would just think about it and not jump to conclusions. heh heh
My bad.
But that doesn't change my original comment that I think 6'6" is too short for a base height for a centaur. (especially if they still have to attack as a Large creature) ;)
Originally posted by Brimstone
But that doesn't change my original comment that I think 6'6" is too short for a base height for a centaur. (especially if they still have to attack as a Large creature) ;)
The range would be 6' 8" to 7' 6", with most centaurs being around 7' tall. That's not too far-fetched, especially since their horse-bodies are probably around 6' to 8' long. Much bigger and much more powerful figure than a human.
Cheers,
Cam
Even a normal horse (not something like a Clydesdale) still has it's rump at my shoulder height. (roughly 5'6") then you have to add a human torso on top of that...which could (normally) be anywhere from 2'3" to 3'6". And Centaurs are described as big horses with large humanoid torsos...
They're already considered large creatures...shouldn't their average height be at least 8'? To me...it should be like looking at a man on horseback. At 7'...it's more like looking at a tall man (that is still roughly the same as a TotL Minotaur). Now, a Minotaur is a Medium creature...if something is going to be considered Large (yes I know they have a big rump)...but shouldn't they be over 8' tall anyway (which is a good average height, by my calculation, for a centaur)?
Originally posted by Brimstone
but shouldn't they be over 8' tall anyway (which is a good average height, by my calculation, for a centaur)?
You would be right in general, but what makes the centaur a Large creature is its overall bulk and length combined with height. It's why dwarves are medium, not small, because they're built like brick outhouses.
Cheers,
Cam
The main thing I was trying to say was that 7' makes for a small human on a small horse...which is not the way they are described.
But...I guess its just my personal preference.
I'd like to add my two steel here but first, a gigantic [b]HOWDY[/b] to everyone on these boards. I've been so busy and meaning to post more, but this place always feels like home, so I just wanted to give a shout out to everyone.
Well then. I have a DL DM screen, and I was awed at the quality. Focusing on the screen itself, I'd have to say that I absolutely love it. Though I don't really play DL anymore, I do have to say that I think it's a terrific product.
The quality paper construction and plastic coating makes it durable and the information on it is invaluable for any DL campaign. Awesome job, Sov. Press!
I'm out. I leave you with one last oddity:
I'm sorry. I couldn't help it.
Peace all!
Everyone complained about this, but then Sovereign Press listened to the fans and took their advice on this...but has anyone said anything about it? No. (unless I missed it).
Anyway...the borders. The celtic knot, dragonlance borders...Perfect!! Not so big that they're taking up space...but they're still there. It's great, if I do say so myself.
Thanks, that's exactly what we were hoping for!
BUT the important info (and there is excellent and important info) in the booklet should have still be in the Core Book. I don't like that rules are spread in different places. It would always be better to keep them in same book.