Bravo for Beastiary - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Bravo for Beastiary

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
ferratus
Jun 11, 2004 17:24:18 Well, what can I say but well done. This is one of the best beastiaries I have seen put out, in terms of artwork and content. There are a couple complaints (such as the well-known formatting issue) but it seems petty to even bring them up, given how highly I regard this product.

If not the best, then certainly one of the best, dragonlance products put out. A good product can get a rave review even from my undiplomatic and critical eye.
#2
zombiegleemax
Jun 12, 2004 1:26:37 I'll second that ferratus. I just got mine the other day and the artwork alone just about knocked my socks off. Great job Cam and Andre!
#3
zombiegleemax
Jun 12, 2004 22:10:23 Saw it in my local game shop. It gets this WizO's seal of approval.
#4
zombiegleemax
Jun 15, 2004 23:52:16 I have to dissent on this one.

While I very much support Sov Press and will continue to buy their products, sight unseen, (and I urge all DL fans to do the same) I did not find the Bestiary to be a particularly good product.

The monsters which were presented, for the most part, are of passing interest to me and I did not find many of them to be terribly useful.

I appreciate that the task is daunting, but this could have used simply better monsters. It needed better content and better ideas.

One of the few gems was the Bloodrager. I liked these a lot.

I was not a fan of the Noble Draconians. I find the justification for them exceedingly thin. It is simply not logical that Evil dragon eggs would have been destroyed by Takhisis for any purpose, let alone at a time when the utility of the Draconian troops was greatly reduced because of the Dragon Orbs.

Trade long term awesomely powerful evil dragon followers for draconians of little short term use? Nah, Takhisis is a goddess with a long term view. This would not have been ok...

I think a better approach would have been to posit that in each perverted egg, there was a prime Draconian in which the "soul" of the True Mettalic dragon resided. This draconian was able to succssfully resist possession by the Abishai during creation. Each of these "prime" draconians was routinely identified and weeded out of the clutch at birth and killed. Nevertheless, on a very few occasions, a mix-up occurred such that the wrong draconian was destroyed and the prime was allowed to live by error.

This draconain would have been born with a noble soul yet raised among the dark troops of Takhisis.

Lots of reasons for internal character conflict and an almost defenceable origin that integrates with canon well. You might give such a Draconian extra powers, a breath weapon - all kinds of crunchy goodness can happen there.

But destroying Chromatic dragons to get more draconians? Sorry, I don't think so...
#5
Dragonhelm
Jun 16, 2004 0:12:45 Remember, though, that evil turns upon itself. ;)

There's various possibilities here where the noble dracs are concerned. One is that Takhisis only targeted the eggs of her dragons that had already perished in battle. Without a mother, would they have even survived? Maybe, maybe not.

Likewise, Takhisis may not have approved of the use of the chromatic dragon eggs. Perhaps Ariakas got desperate at one point, and made the decision on his own. Remember, there's free will.

Just a couple of thoughts.
#6
zombiegleemax
Jun 16, 2004 0:23:54
Originally posted by Steel_Wind
The monsters which were presented, for the most part, are of passing interest to me and I did not find many of them to be terribly useful.

Well what would you have liked? I got everything I wanted except for huldrefolk, and a ton that I wasn't expecting but found quite brilliant.
#7
zombiegleemax
Jun 16, 2004 1:43:08 I must say comment or couple also about Bestiary - just bought it, FINALLY!

I think bestiary really is GREAT. I personally liked many template-kind-of-monsters. They really expand monsters types (example: Proto-Creatures - I was waiting did they remember put Traag in the Bestiary. Very nice).

Noble Draconians are also nice, and I actually once (maybe few years back) discussed about same idea with my players. What would happen if evil dragons eggs were corrupted? I like them. I think one of the Dragonlances unique touch is all the Draconic creatures (Dragons, Draconians, Proto-Draconians, Spawn, Abominations, and now Noble Draconians).

Dragons are also my favorites and lot's of them in Krynn! Orthlorx (did I spell that right) weren't in the Bestiary. Ok, probably will be in Taladas Sourcebook, in the hopefully-not-so-distant-future.

Basicly I think most monsters are actually very well invented, and 3.5 rules were well used to make them challenging.

And then finally encounter tables. Good. Always need those. My characters travel and sometimes just to travel one location to another is adventure of it's own.

BUT something to complain also. Personally I would have liked if ALL the monsters from previous books would have been here also - again - so you would have them in one book. Also DM Screens chapter about monsters would have belong to this book also. Minor flaws.
#8
zombiegleemax
Jun 16, 2004 2:46:06
Originally posted by crown
BUT something to complain also. Personally I would have liked if ALL the monsters from previous books would have been here also - again - so you would have them in one book. Also DM Screens chapter about monsters would have belong to this book also. Minor flaws.

that was truely my main concern, the whole formating thing doesnt even bother me (oh but the one lone feat radomly placed in the middle of the book does though....) but on any other note Andre, if your reading this io will be hunting you down for a signature at gen con!!!
#9
Dragonhelm
Jun 16, 2004 7:15:13
Originally posted by crown
Dragons are also my favorites and lot's of them in Krynn! Orthlorx (did I spell that right) weren't in the Bestiary. Ok, probably will be in Taladas Sourcebook, in the hopefully-not-so-distant-future.

I think that's more of a social condition rather than being a new monster. The Othlorx (sp?) are the "uninvolved". Otherwise, they should be just like a normal dragon.

And I'm sure they'd get a mention in a Taladas sourcebook.
#10
brimstone
Jun 16, 2004 10:05:59
Originally posted by crown
Personally I would have liked if ALL the monsters from previous books would have been here also

I was going to comment on this, but I thought I should get something clarified first. What do you mean by "previous books?" Did you mean the DLCS, AoM, DLDMS, and KoD (all the Sovereign Press books). Or did you mean all previous Dragonlance books (TotL, SAGA, The Bestiary, etc.)?
#11
talinthas
Jun 16, 2004 10:19:54 besides, so many of the DL monsters are straight out of the core rules that its not even worth the effort to rewrite them.
#12
brimstone
Jun 16, 2004 10:27:58
Originally posted by talinthas
besides, so many of the DL monsters are straight out of the core rules that its not even worth the effort to rewrite them.

And probably messy, legality wise.
#13
zombiegleemax
Jun 16, 2004 11:02:22
Originally posted by Steel_Wind
...Trade long term awesomely powerful evil dragon followers for draconians of little short term use? Nah, Takhisis is a goddess with a long term view. This would not have been ok...

I think this was in Draconian Measures.
#14
baron_the_curse
Jun 16, 2004 11:54:17 The only issue I have with the Bestiary is that in my opinion there aren't enough monsters too challenge epic characters. I would have also liked to see the Astral Dragons, Kodragon, and Yaggol. Most of the other missing creatures are covered in KoD so that was a nice companion adventure to get shortly after the Bestiary was release. Very few products are going to satisfied everybody but over all I think the Bestiary delivers quality material.
#15
Dragonhelm
Jun 16, 2004 12:09:51 Yaggol probably would be in a Taladas supplement.

Astral dragons, IIRC, have a history to them that contradict the history of the creation of dragons on Krynn. Kodragons are tied to them, so I can see them being left out.
#16
ferratus
Jun 16, 2004 12:17:24
Originally posted by Dragonhelm
Yaggol probably would be in a Taladas supplement.

Astral dragons, IIRC, have a history to them that contradict the history of the creation of dragons on Krynn. Kodragons are tied to them, so I can see them being left out.

I'm afraid I'm still confused about this. If we are going to declare the module non-canonical, why can't we just dump the history and keep the monster? We still need a counterpart to the Shadow Dragon, and Kodragons still make excellent familiars.

Why does using the monster automatically force us to make the module canonical?
#17
baron_the_curse
Jun 16, 2004 15:06:15 That's an exellent point Ferratus since in KoD the Pheatom are given a whole new origin and complete write up.
#18
ferratus
Jun 16, 2004 20:42:45 What are Phaetons in 3e? Are they outsiders, fae, or monstrous humanoids?
#19
baron_the_curse
Jun 16, 2004 21:56:12 They are Medium Humanoid with the Type (Fire, Elf).

They are descendants of a Kagonesti elf that claims to be the son of Habbakuk.
#20
zombiegleemax
Jun 18, 2004 1:41:26
Originally posted by Rev_Jake2
that was truely my main concern, the whole formating thing doesnt even bother me (oh but the one lone feat radomly placed in the middle of the book does though....) but on any other note Andre, if your reading this io will be hunting you down for a signature at gen con!!!

Sorry to disappoint, Jake, but unfortunately I'm not going to be at Gen Con this year. I guess this gives you something to look forward to for the following year, though.

Edit: Also, the placement of the feat was deliberate: it was put in the dragons section of the book since it applied to dragons primarily.
#21
zombiegleemax
Jun 18, 2004 2:14:14
Originally posted by Brimstone
I was going to comment on this, but I thought I should get something clarified first. What do you mean by "previous books?" Did you mean the DLCS, AoM, DLDMS, and KoD (all the Sovereign Press books). Or did you mean all previous Dragonlance books (TotL, SAGA, The Bestiary, etc.)?

Hi, Brimstone.
Yes, I meant just collecting and writing all the monsters from Dragonlance Corebook and from Age of Mortals to Bestiary again. Just easier to find all in the same book.

I think Dragonlance monsters have been covered very well in the bestiary and in other products, and also by normal 3.5 Monster Compedium. Only few are missing (like Hulderfolk, Scions, Yaggol), but these are probably comming in later products that they are related.

Like I said before, just minor flaw.
#22
brimstone
Jun 18, 2004 8:18:06
Originally posted by crown
Yes, I meant just collecting and writing all the monsters from Dragonlance Corebook and from Age of Mortals to Bestiary again. Just easier to find all in the same book.

Ah, okay. Nevermind them...my comment was for if you meant all previous editions. :D

I wonder if we're even going to see any Scions, though, as a race. Because the way the DLCS retconned what they were...it doesn't really sound like they're a golden skin silver haired (or was it the other way around?) magical race of dwarves.
#23
zombiegleemax
Jun 18, 2004 8:24:21
Originally posted by Brimstone
I wonder if we're even going to see any Scions, though, as a race. Because the way the DLCS retconned what they were...it doesn't really sound like they're a golden skin silver haired (or was it the other way around?) magical race of dwarves.

Hmm... If we're not going to see any Scions than I guess we should not have included a really cool illustration of a Scion by Jason Engle in the History chapter of TOWERS OF HIGH SORCERY!

Note that we do not cover them "as a race" but their role in the history of magic is definitely explored.

Jamie Chambers
Sovereign Press, Inc.
#24
cam_banks
Jun 18, 2004 9:13:16
Originally posted by jechambers
Hmm... If we're not going to see any Scions than I guess we should not have included a really cool illustration of a Scion by Jason Engle in the History chapter of TOWERS OF HIGH SORCERY!

Biggest tease ever!

Cheers,
Cam
#25
brimstone
Jun 18, 2004 9:14:38
Originally posted by jechambers
Hmm... If we're not going to see any Scions than I guess we should not have included a really cool illustration of a Scion by Jason Engle in the History chapter of TOWERS OF HIGH SORCERY!

LOL! Suh-weet! :D

I would like to point out though, Jamie...that I didn't say we "won't" I said "I wonder if we will." ;)

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 ferratus Jun 11, 2004 17:24:18	Well, what can I say but well done. This is one of the best beastiaries I have seen put out, in terms of artwork and content. There are a couple complaints (such as the well-known formatting issue) but it seems petty to even bring them up, given how highly I regard this product. If not the best, then certainly one of the best, dragonlance products put out. A good product can get a rave review even from my undiplomatic and critical eye.
#2 zombiegleemax Jun 12, 2004 1:26:37	I'll second that ferratus. I just got mine the other day and the artwork alone just about knocked my socks off. Great job Cam and Andre!
#3 zombiegleemax Jun 12, 2004 22:10:23	Saw it in my local game shop. It gets this WizO's seal of approval.
#4 zombiegleemax Jun 15, 2004 23:52:16	I have to dissent on this one. While I very much support Sov Press and will continue to buy their products, sight unseen, (and I urge all DL fans to do the same) I did not find the Bestiary to be a particularly good product. The monsters which were presented, for the most part, are of passing interest to me and I did not find many of them to be terribly useful. I appreciate that the task is daunting, but this could have used simply better monsters. It needed better content and better ideas. One of the few gems was the Bloodrager. I liked these a lot. I was not a fan of the Noble Draconians. I find the justification for them exceedingly thin. It is simply not logical that Evil dragon eggs would have been destroyed by Takhisis for any purpose, let alone at a time when the utility of the Draconian troops was greatly reduced because of the Dragon Orbs. Trade long term awesomely powerful evil dragon followers for draconians of little short term use? Nah, Takhisis is a goddess with a long term view. This would not have been ok... I think a better approach would have been to posit that in each perverted egg, there was a prime Draconian in which the "soul" of the True Mettalic dragon resided. This draconian was able to succssfully resist possession by the Abishai during creation. Each of these "prime" draconians was routinely identified and weeded out of the clutch at birth and killed. Nevertheless, on a very few occasions, a mix-up occurred such that the wrong draconian was destroyed and the prime was allowed to live by error. This draconain would have been born with a noble soul yet raised among the dark troops of Takhisis. Lots of reasons for internal character conflict and an almost defenceable origin that integrates with canon well. You might give such a Draconian extra powers, a breath weapon - all kinds of crunchy goodness can happen there. But destroying Chromatic dragons to get more draconians? Sorry, I don't think so...
#5 Dragonhelm Jun 16, 2004 0:12:45	Remember, though, that evil turns upon itself. ;) There's various possibilities here where the noble dracs are concerned. One is that Takhisis only targeted the eggs of her dragons that had already perished in battle. Without a mother, would they have even survived? Maybe, maybe not. Likewise, Takhisis may not have approved of the use of the chromatic dragon eggs. Perhaps Ariakas got desperate at one point, and made the decision on his own. Remember, there's free will. Just a couple of thoughts.
#6 zombiegleemax Jun 16, 2004 0:23:54	Originally posted by Steel_Wind The monsters which were presented, for the most part, are of passing interest to me and I did not find many of them to be terribly useful. Well what would you have liked? I got everything I wanted except for huldrefolk, and a ton that I wasn't expecting but found quite brilliant.
#7 zombiegleemax Jun 16, 2004 1:43:08	I must say comment or couple also about Bestiary - just bought it, FINALLY! I think bestiary really is GREAT. I personally liked many template-kind-of-monsters. They really expand monsters types (example: Proto-Creatures - I was waiting did they remember put Traag in the Bestiary. Very nice). Noble Draconians are also nice, and I actually once (maybe few years back) discussed about same idea with my players. What would happen if evil dragons eggs were corrupted? I like them. I think one of the Dragonlances unique touch is all the Draconic creatures (Dragons, Draconians, Proto-Draconians, Spawn, Abominations, and now Noble Draconians). Dragons are also my favorites and lot's of them in Krynn! Orthlorx (did I spell that right) weren't in the Bestiary. Ok, probably will be in Taladas Sourcebook, in the hopefully-not-so-distant-future. Basicly I think most monsters are actually very well invented, and 3.5 rules were well used to make them challenging. And then finally encounter tables. Good. Always need those. My characters travel and sometimes just to travel one location to another is adventure of it's own. BUT something to complain also. Personally I would have liked if ALL the monsters from previous books would have been here also - again - so you would have them in one book. Also DM Screens chapter about monsters would have belong to this book also. Minor flaws.
#8 zombiegleemax Jun 16, 2004 2:46:06	Originally posted by crown BUT something to complain also. Personally I would have liked if ALL the monsters from previous books would have been here also - again - so you would have them in one book. Also DM Screens chapter about monsters would have belong to this book also. Minor flaws. that was truely my main concern, the whole formating thing doesnt even bother me (oh but the one lone feat radomly placed in the middle of the book does though....) but on any other note Andre, if your reading this io will be hunting you down for a signature at gen con!!!
#9 Dragonhelm Jun 16, 2004 7:15:13	Originally posted by crown Dragons are also my favorites and lot's of them in Krynn! Orthlorx (did I spell that right) weren't in the Bestiary. Ok, probably will be in Taladas Sourcebook, in the hopefully-not-so-distant-future. I think that's more of a social condition rather than being a new monster. The Othlorx (sp?) are the "uninvolved". Otherwise, they should be just like a normal dragon. And I'm sure they'd get a mention in a Taladas sourcebook.
#10 brimstone Jun 16, 2004 10:05:59	Originally posted by crown Personally I would have liked if ALL the monsters from previous books would have been here also I was going to comment on this, but I thought I should get something clarified first. What do you mean by "previous books?" Did you mean the DLCS, AoM, DLDMS, and KoD (all the Sovereign Press books). Or did you mean all previous Dragonlance books (TotL, SAGA, The Bestiary, etc.)?
#11 talinthas Jun 16, 2004 10:19:54	besides, so many of the DL monsters are straight out of the core rules that its not even worth the effort to rewrite them.
#12 brimstone Jun 16, 2004 10:27:58	Originally posted by talinthas besides, so many of the DL monsters are straight out of the core rules that its not even worth the effort to rewrite them. And probably messy, legality wise.
#13 zombiegleemax Jun 16, 2004 11:02:22	Originally posted by Steel_Wind ...Trade long term awesomely powerful evil dragon followers for draconians of little short term use? Nah, Takhisis is a goddess with a long term view. This would not have been ok... I think this was in Draconian Measures.
#14 baron_the_curse Jun 16, 2004 11:54:17	The only issue I have with the Bestiary is that in my opinion there aren't enough monsters too challenge epic characters. I would have also liked to see the Astral Dragons, Kodragon, and Yaggol. Most of the other missing creatures are covered in KoD so that was a nice companion adventure to get shortly after the Bestiary was release. Very few products are going to satisfied everybody but over all I think the Bestiary delivers quality material.
#15 Dragonhelm Jun 16, 2004 12:09:51	Yaggol probably would be in a Taladas supplement. Astral dragons, IIRC, have a history to them that contradict the history of the creation of dragons on Krynn. Kodragons are tied to them, so I can see them being left out.
#16 ferratus Jun 16, 2004 12:17:24	Originally posted by Dragonhelm Yaggol probably would be in a Taladas supplement. Astral dragons, IIRC, have a history to them that contradict the history of the creation of dragons on Krynn. Kodragons are tied to them, so I can see them being left out. I'm afraid I'm still confused about this. If we are going to declare the module non-canonical, why can't we just dump the history and keep the monster? We still need a counterpart to the Shadow Dragon, and Kodragons still make excellent familiars. Why does using the monster automatically force us to make the module canonical?
#17 baron_the_curse Jun 16, 2004 15:06:15	That's an exellent point Ferratus since in KoD the Pheatom are given a whole new origin and complete write up.
#18 ferratus Jun 16, 2004 20:42:45	What are Phaetons in 3e? Are they outsiders, fae, or monstrous humanoids?
#19 baron_the_curse Jun 16, 2004 21:56:12	They are Medium Humanoid with the Type (Fire, Elf). They are descendants of a Kagonesti elf that claims to be the son of Habbakuk.
#20 zombiegleemax Jun 18, 2004 1:41:26	Originally posted by Rev_Jake2 that was truely my main concern, the whole formating thing doesnt even bother me (oh but the one lone feat radomly placed in the middle of the book does though....) but on any other note Andre, if your reading this io will be hunting you down for a signature at gen con!!! Sorry to disappoint, Jake, but unfortunately I'm not going to be at Gen Con this year. I guess this gives you something to look forward to for the following year, though. Edit: Also, the placement of the feat was deliberate: it was put in the dragons section of the book since it applied to dragons primarily.
#21 zombiegleemax Jun 18, 2004 2:14:14	Originally posted by Brimstone I was going to comment on this, but I thought I should get something clarified first. What do you mean by "previous books?" Did you mean the DLCS, AoM, DLDMS, and KoD (all the Sovereign Press books). Or did you mean all previous Dragonlance books (TotL, SAGA, The Bestiary, etc.)? Hi, Brimstone. Yes, I meant just collecting and writing all the monsters from Dragonlance Corebook and from Age of Mortals to Bestiary again. Just easier to find all in the same book. I think Dragonlance monsters have been covered very well in the bestiary and in other products, and also by normal 3.5 Monster Compedium. Only few are missing (like Hulderfolk, Scions, Yaggol), but these are probably comming in later products that they are related. Like I said before, just minor flaw.
#22 brimstone Jun 18, 2004 8:18:06	Originally posted by crown Yes, I meant just collecting and writing all the monsters from Dragonlance Corebook and from Age of Mortals to Bestiary again. Just easier to find all in the same book. Ah, okay. Nevermind them...my comment was for if you meant all previous editions. :D I wonder if we're even going to see any Scions, though, as a race. Because the way the DLCS retconned what they were...it doesn't really sound like they're a golden skin silver haired (or was it the other way around?) magical race of dwarves.
#23 zombiegleemax Jun 18, 2004 8:24:21	Originally posted by Brimstone I wonder if we're even going to see any Scions, though, as a race. Because the way the DLCS retconned what they were...it doesn't really sound like they're a golden skin silver haired (or was it the other way around?) magical race of dwarves. Hmm... If we're not going to see any Scions than I guess we should not have included a really cool illustration of a Scion by Jason Engle in the History chapter of TOWERS OF HIGH SORCERY! Note that we do not cover them "as a race" but their role in the history of magic is definitely explored. Jamie Chambers Sovereign Press, Inc.
#24 cam_banks Jun 18, 2004 9:13:16	Originally posted by jechambers Hmm... If we're not going to see any Scions than I guess we should not have included a really cool illustration of a Scion by Jason Engle in the History chapter of TOWERS OF HIGH SORCERY! Biggest tease ever! Cheers, Cam
#25 brimstone Jun 18, 2004 9:14:38	Originally posted by jechambers Hmm... If we're not going to see any Scions than I guess we should not have included a really cool illustration of a Scion by Jason Engle in the History chapter of TOWERS OF HIGH SORCERY! LOL! Suh-weet! :D I would like to point out though, Jamie...that I didn't say we "won't" I said "I wonder if we will." ;)