Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Euangelion 01-09-06, 08:58 PM	After almost two months, a new Dragonshard (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ebds/20060109a)! These guys should definately give the Valenar a run for their money as the best warriors in Khorvaire (apart from the PCs of course!) In particular I like how Keith uses feats from many different resources.
Restless 01-09-06, 09:40 PM	Delicious...simply delicious. The NPCs will definitly prove to be a valuable resource, at least in my game. A triumphant return of the DS articles (I'd almost forgotten we had them.). Only thing, it may just be me, but I'm not sure the Goblin scout should have the rage ability...
Edymnion 01-09-06, 10:33 PM	Yeah, I'm going to have to look back into Heroes of Battle for those archery feats...
Hellcow 01-09-06, 11:08 PM	Only thing, it may just be me, but I'm not sure the Goblin scout should have the rage ability... It should not. I wrote the stat blocks in the old format; the editors converted them to the new format, and that must have slipped in there accidentally during this process. These guys should definately give the Valenar a run for their money as the best warriors in Khorvaire (apart from the PCs of course!) Bear in mind, these are exceptional Dhakaani; as noted previously, the typical Dhakaani soldier is a 2nd-level fighter. So they're very good at what they do... but the chainmaster is called a "champion" for a reason, and not every soldier has this level of skill.
Kryptonian Scion 01-09-06, 11:59 PM	Sorry, Keith. I am going to have to disagree with the sheep who believe that everything you touch turns to gold on this one. I can write stats. Easily, as a matter of fact. I don't need to wait two months impatiently, only to receive a page worth of class-leveled goblinoids. One year ago, I eagerly awaited Mondays to see what flavor the creator of Eberron could provide to assist in my campaign. Since the decree that Dragonshards could not cover material which may one day appear in a sourcebook, we have seen only a single series of Dragonshards relevant to druidic sects. Alot of rules crunch in those 'shards, actually - but at least they were clarifications and had some explanation of Khorvaire's druidic sects to go with them. Today's article was nothing short of disappointing to me. Others may absolutely love it, and that's fine. I, however, find it disheartening that Ed Greenwood gets to cover two pages worth of "Realms Lore" every single Wednesday, and we Eberron fans have to wait two months for a set of stat blocks. There are so many better ways to go about this and stay within the "no sourcebook material in Dragonshards" requirement (which, by the way, is stupid). Swashbuckling 101, The Shulassakar, The Role of Dragons, and Masters of Magic were some of the best Dragonshards to ever be presented on Wizards.com, and they seem to be material that falls within WotC's new "rules." More material presented in the same format as those particular articles would be much better than what we were given today. Whatever you decide to do, though, please avoid the stat blocks. They are an insult to good DMs everywhere, implying that we don't know how to design an NPC. For the record, I do love your work. I've lauded you constantly in the past, and I'm grateful that WotC has seen fit to allow you to write for the Players' Guide to Eberron and Mysteries of Xen'drik. Your presence as an author was most definitely missed in Five Nations and the Explorer's Handbook. Looking forward to reading The Shattered Land in a few months, as well. -KS
Hellcow 01-10-06, 12:48 AM	Swashbuckling 101, The Shulassakar, The Role of Dragons, and Masters of Magic were some of the best Dragonshards to ever be presented on Wizards.com, and they seem to be material that falls within WotC's new "rules." More material presented in the same format as those particular articles would be much better than what we were given today. Actually, that's very valuable feedback. However, honestly I'm not sure all of these do fall under the new rules. I originally wanted to do more with the Masters of Magic article and was steered away from it. But things like Swashbuckling 101 are certainly acceptable. The issue is having too many "canon" elements enter into online articles, which can lead to things like Aeren being female in my article and male in Magic of Eberron; while this may seem easy enough to track, it gets more complicated when you consider how far in advance WotC books are developed. However, an article like Swashbuckling 101 doesn't add anything into canon... it's simply a look at the world. Whatever you decide to do, though, please avoid the stat blocks. They are an insult to good DMs everywhere, implying that we don't know how to design an NPC. I'm sorry that you feel that way, KS, because that wasn't my intent at all. My interest was not in the statistics as such, but rather to establish a baseline for how effective a goblin military force can be. After all, PC classes are supposedly relatively rare among NPCs; the goal here was to reinforce that Dhakaani are truly skilled soldiers, a significant cut above both the Ghaal'dar and the common troops of the Five Nations. In any case, the future of Dragonshards is still in flux. As such, I certainly value your opinion (and that of everyone else on the boards): I'll be trying out a variety of different things in the future, and the only way for me to know what people would like to see more or less of is to hear it from you.
Temjinstrife 01-10-06, 02:13 AM	I very much appreciate any and all Dragonshards; I find Eberron fascinating, and I'm more than willing to deal with canonical errors (at least in legends and the like, errors "closer to home" might be more bothersome) in order to get more Dragonshards. The Dhakanni could not have been better timed; my players are headed straight into the holy sites of Darguun, where these warriors abound. And its true that we all can create stat blocks, but now I can devote more time to make encounters interesting. It also plays into the previous Dragonshard about the Heirs of Dhakaan, where such characters were described but not blocked out. Perhaps interspersing stat blocks with background text would previde a more effective format? Again, well timed... you've saved me a lot of work for this upcoming adventure!
Korhal_IV 01-10-06, 02:26 AM	I'm with Temjinstrife - I'm looking at revising Red Hand of Doom (upcoming next month!) to fit Eberron, and this strike force is exactly what I needed! Kryptonian Scion - remember those raging debates about class levlels for NPCs? This helps solidify the "standard", so we have fewer of those arguments.
Junkyard Dog 01-10-06, 03:00 AM	I was glad to see the return of Dragonshards and while Kryptonian Scion makes some good points, I don't mind getting stat blocks along with the fluff. Those would probably take me an hour each to do, as multiclassed NPCs who are not of the core PC races aren't so easy to do. One reader caught the goblins' rage ability; I have another question. What's up with the CRs? Is there some rationale as to why they're so high? The dirge singer, a hobgoblin bard 7, should be CR 7, but is CR 8. The chain master champion, a hobgoblin fighter 6/exotic weapon master 1, should be CR 7, but is CR 8. The heavy infantry trooper, a hobgoblin Ftr 4, should be CR 4, but is CR 5. The sniper, a hobgoblin Rgr 2/Ftr 2, should be CR 4, but is CR 5. The bladebreaker, a bugbear Bbn 1, should be CR 3, but is CR 5. The Taarka'khesh scout, a goblin rogue 3, scout 3, should be and is CR 6. The evoker, a goblin evoker 5, should be CR 5, but is CR 7. So they're all off by one or two, except the Taarka'khesh scout. Any reason for that?
Isran_Imrador 01-10-06, 07:16 AM	Thanks Keith, Good Shard! Will we see more about the old goblinoid empire in the Shards to come? Isran
DarkWarriorKarg 01-10-06, 07:31 AM	I was glad to see the return of Dragonshards and while Kryptonian Scion makes some good points, I don't mind getting stat blocks along with the fluff. Those would probably take me an hour each to do, as multiclassed NPCs who are not of the core PC races aren't so easy to do. One reader caught the goblins' rage ability; I have another question. What's up with the CRs? Is there some rationale as to why they're so high? The dirge singer, a hobgoblin bard 7, should be CR 7, but is CR 8. The chain master champion, a hobgoblin fighter 6/exotic weapon master 1, should be CR 7, but is CR 8. The heavy infantry trooper, a hobgoblin Ftr 4, should be CR 4, but is CR 5. The sniper, a hobgoblin Rgr 2/Ftr 2, should be CR 4, but is CR 5. The bladebreaker, a bugbear Bbn 1, should be CR 3, but is CR 5. The Taarka'khesh scout, a goblin rogue 3, scout 3, should be and is CR 6. The evoker, a goblin evoker 5, should be CR 5, but is CR 7. So they're all off by one or two, except the Taarka'khesh scout. Any reason for that? I can answer that... Hobgoblins are LA +1, bugbears get extra HD, the evoker (says so in the beginning of the stat block) has more equipment than it should at that level. Although I agree that a +2 CR for a wand of dispel magic is a bit much...
blargney the second 01-10-06, 07:42 AM	Thank you Keith! The timing of this article is absolutely impeccable. My players have already arrived at a Dhakaani ruin that is being investigated by Heirs. I'd sketched up some mini-statblocks, but this is *perfect* for what I'm looking for. Great article. :) -blarg ps - Non illegitimati carborundum. *wink*
Junkyard Dog 01-10-06, 09:02 AM	I can answer that... Hobgoblins are LA +1, bugbears get extra HD, the evoker (says so in the beginning of the stat block) has more equipment than it should at that level. Although I agree that a +2 CR for a wand of dispel magic is a bit much... There may be a good reason for these creatures' having inflated CRs, but it isn't their level adjustments or hit dice. Level adjustments are irrelevant to CR. A hobgoblin warrior has a CR of 1/2, meaning that if he has levels in PC classes, his CR equals his levels in PC classes. I'm not sure what you mean about bugbears' getting extra HD. Bugbears get 3 racial Hit Dice and advance by class. The standard bugbear with his 3 racial Hit Dice is CR 2. If you add a PC class to that, as was done in the article, he should become a CR 3, not a CR 5. Good catch on the evoker, though; the article does say that her CR is increased due to her equipment. I just don't see a similar comment for any of the others. I'd just like to know if the CRs are a mistake or if there's a reason they should be so high.
The Necromancer King 01-10-06, 09:27 AM	Most of the time, stat blocks are a pain in the butt for me. I'm a very free-form narrativist Game Master, and the more planning time I have to devote to number-crunching, the less time I have to develop interesting characters, situations, locations and complications for my players to encounter. Having a ready-made stat block helps me quite a bit. Honestly, I would prefer to see something of a 50/50 spread in the Dragonshards. Ideally, about half the 'shard would give me fluff that I can work into my campaign, while the other half would give me stats to back it up. And I second the notion of canonical statements being permitted in the Dragonshards. Bad form on Wizards for not giving Mr. Baker free reign. If something from a Dragonshard contradicts something from a sourcebook, I think we gamers are quite intelligent enough to realize that such contradiction only offers us more choices. Choices are good. Do I want to present Aeren as a man or a woman? Myself, I'm going with a femal Aeren, because it fits better with my slightly feminist lean on Eberron's History. You might choose a male Aeren to establish a more patriarchal Aereni Elven society, or for a different reason. That's cool. That's what makes gaming fun; choices. As always, your milage may vary. (But we all know I'm right. :P)
davethebrave371 01-10-06, 09:33 AM	I, however, find it disheartening that Ed Greenwood gets to cover two pages worth of "Realms Lore" every single Wednesday, and we Eberron fans have to wait two months for a set of stat blocks... ...whatever you decide to do, though, please avoid the stat blocks. They are an insult to good DMs everywhere, implying that we don't know how to design an NPC. For the record, I do love your work. I've lauded you constantly in the past, and I'm grateful that WotC has seen fit to allow you to write for the Players' Guide to Eberron and Mysteries of Xen'drik. Your presence as an author was most definitely missed in Five Nations and the Explorer's Handbook. Ditto. I couldn't have said it better than your post, especially the bits above. One thing though, about stat blocks. If you want to give an example stat block of something with a bit of new crunch you've included in the shard, please, by all means, go for it. If you introduce a new Feat, make an NPC with it. But otherwise I do agree with KS.
Euangelion 01-10-06, 09:36 AM	Bear in mind, these are exceptional Dhakaani; as noted previously, the typical Dhakaani soldier is a 2nd-level fighter. So they're very good at what they do... but the chainmaster is called a "champion" for a reason, and not every soldier has this level of skill. It wasn't the high levels so much as the tradition of discipline and smart tactics that I was thinking of, along the lines of a gruff Brelish veteran debating with another as to who are the best soldiers in Khorvaire: "Sure the Valenar can fight well, but if you want to see a real soldier, find yourself a Dhakaani. They're smart, discliplined, and fearless." I realize that you weren't attempting to make the Dhakaani superior to the Valenar, but instead just excellent in their own ways. By the way, what's the deal with the Exotic Weapon Proficiency (chain weapons) that the chain master has? Isn't "chain weapons" too broad a category to take the feat in? Also, isn't that feat a little redundant with the Darguun Mauler feat (IIRC, that feat giving proficiency with the spiked chain and dire flail. Also I realize that the PrC requires certain feats to quailify, so that may be why the redundancy with the feats).
MarkB 01-10-06, 09:46 AM	By the way, what's the deal with the Exotic Weapon Proficiency (chain weapons) that the chain master has? Isn't "chain weapons" too broad a category to take the feat in? Also, isn't that feat a little redundant with the Darguun Mauler feat (IIRC, that feat giving proficiency with the spiked chain and dire flail. Also I realize that the PrC requires certain feats to quailify, so that may be why the redundancy with the feats). I suspect it's because of the introduction of the Drow Scorpion Chain in Races of Eberron, which can be used by anyone proficient with the spiked chain. Personally, I loved the article, including the stat blocks. As others have stated, the stat block 'crunch' is a pain to put together, and is very much the 'homework' part of building a campaign. Having a ready-made set of Dhakaani warriors is very handy. Furthermore, whilst you could build your own, seeing the way a 'real' set of these NPCs is constructed gives further insight into their intended roles and aptitudes as characters.
Yarael 01-10-06, 11:56 AM	My PC's fro one, already have a healthy respect for goblins after facing a tactical strike force of the shaarat khesh comprised of ninjas and a rage mage. I can't wait to throw my shaarat khesh warlocks at them next. The point of this article was to add dimension to an often times underutilized humaniod. I think Eberron (Keith in particular) has done a wonderful job of reinvigorating the goblinoids. I just wish there had been more pure goblins in this article. (I will certainly be adding the scout/rogue to my list of NPC's) Hopefully this signals a return of the Dragonshards to a regular lineup.
Hellcow 01-10-06, 12:34 PM	I'd just like to know if the CRs are a mistake or if there's a reason they should be so high. Good questions, JD. Now: I went off the basis that ECL determined CR. A hobgoblin fighter 2 has an ECL of 3; thus I assumed he had CR 3. The article was changed in a few ways during the time it spent in the hands of WotC development, and this aspect of it was NOT change, which to me suggests that the designers felt the same way. HOWEVER... on reflection, I agree with you. By the MM, the hobgoblin warrior does not have his CL modifier affect his CR (and since the hobgoblin is, IMO, on the weaker end of +1 CL, I can relate to that). Ditto on the bugbear. So, following that pattern, you could go class level for the hobgoblins, and CR 3 for the bugbear (the base CR 2 plus one class level). Without confering with the WotC design team, I can't give you an official answer. But yes, the reason I made those 7th-level hobgoblins CR 8 was because of ECL... and the MM Hobgoblin entry does suggest that this is incorrect. With the evoker, the increase may seem high, but she's got more than just the wand; her potions can be tactically quite useful. By the DMG, a level 5 character should get 4,300 gp in gear; she's got 15,000 gp in gear. Increased value in gear means increased CR.
Mula 01-10-06, 12:37 PM	The dragonshard was nice, but it also felt a bit empty. I would've preferred "The dirgesinger is a level this-and-this bard and utilizes this-and-this feat" instead of complete stat blocks. By the way, I prefer your version of the Aeren legend, Keith. :)
Hellcow 01-10-06, 12:50 PM	By the way, what's the deal with the Exotic Weapon Proficiency (chain weapons) that the chain master has? Isn't "chain weapons" too broad a category to take the feat in? Also, isn't that feat a little redundant with the Darguun Mauler feat... Yes and yes, in fact. Generally, I write an article, it goes to the development team, and then it gets sent back to me. For some reason, this one DIDN'T get sent back to me. This was a change made during development, and whoever made it wasn't familiar with Darguun Mauler, or just overlooked its presence. Here's the deal. Darguun Mauler allows you to treat chain weapons (including the dire flail and spiked chain) as martial weapons. More importantly, it allows you to use feats such as Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization for any chain weapon. SO, when I created the character, it had Weapon Focus (chain weapons) and Weapon Specialization (chain weapons)... which technically would have been purchased as "Weapon Specialization (flail)", but expanded to "chain weapons" by Darguun Mauler. He did not have EWP, because with Darguun Mauler, he doesn't need it. Instead he had Improved Trip, which I consider to be a fairly important feat for him. I'll see if I can get that changed (and while I'm at it, get the rage out of the goblin). This was just a case of miscommunication during a very busy time at WotC (Edit - and if you check again, it's been fixed!). One more minor change made during the editing process: I'd originally given the evoker molten strike (from Heroes of Battle) in place of one of the scorching rays. I assume this was out of a desire to limit the HoB material, but for a battlefield evoker I'd at least add it to her spellbook.
Euangelion 01-10-06, 12:56 PM	(and while I'm at it, get the rage out of the goblin) I've found that to be a lot easier said than done! ;)
jasamcarl 01-10-06, 01:05 PM	Sorry, Keith. I am going to have to disagree with the sheep who believe that everything you touch turns to gold on this one. I can write stats. Easily, as a matter of fact. I don't need to wait two months impatiently, only to receive a page worth of class-leveled goblinoids. One year ago, I eagerly awaited Mondays to see what flavor the creator of Eberron could provide to assist in my campaign. Since the decree that Dragonshards could not cover material which may one day appear in a sourcebook, we have seen only a single series of Dragonshards relevant to druidic sects. Alot of rules crunch in those 'shards, actually - but at least they were clarifications and had some explanation of Khorvaire's druidic sects to go with them. Today's article was nothing short of disappointing to me. Others may absolutely love it, and that's fine. I, however, find it disheartening that Ed Greenwood gets to cover two pages worth of "Realms Lore" every single Wednesday, and we Eberron fans have to wait two months for a set of stat blocks. There are so many better ways to go about this and stay within the "no sourcebook material in Dragonshards" requirement (which, by the way, is stupid). Swashbuckling 101, The Shulassakar, The Role of Dragons, and Masters of Magic were some of the best Dragonshards to ever be presented on Wizards.com, and they seem to be material that falls within WotC's new "rules." More material presented in the same format as those particular articles would be much better than what we were given today. Whatever you decide to do, though, please avoid the stat blocks. They are an insult to good DMs everywhere, implying that we don't know how to design an NPC. For the record, I do love your work. I've lauded you constantly in the past, and I'm grateful that WotC has seen fit to allow you to write for the Players' Guide to Eberron and Mysteries of Xen'drik. Your presence as an author was most definitely missed in Five Nations and the Explorer's Handbook. Looking forward to reading The Shattered Land in a few months, as well. -KS See, and I thought any 'good' DM would be able to come up with the predictable (but not bad) fluff contained in those articles you claim to be preferable to what we have here. The stat blocks, on the other hand, save time that would be spent on generating them while also serving something of a fluff role. Of course you could claim that you simply want consistent setting info, but then the entire reason that they moved away from the aformentioned articles was because they were inconsistent with the books, which are more likely to be read by the majority of Eberron players. Think harder before going into another self-righteous semi-rant. :)
Naudachu 01-10-06, 01:05 PM	Actually, I'm a little confused. I was surprised to see Power Attack under the listed feats for the Chain Master Champion. The Heirs of Dhakaan dragonshard mentions this is a rare feat for the Dhakaani who emphasize speed over strength. I don't have the book in front of me, so I'm guessing this may be a prerequisite for the Exotic Weapon Master PrC. If so, another option would be staying straight Fighter. Then you could have feats like Combat Reflexes, Improved Trip, Improved Disarm, etc. like the article suggests. One thing I did notice is the heirs of Dhakaan are smarter than the average goblinoid since most take Combat Expertise which needs 13+ Intelligence. That's interesting and definitely forces a different kind of Fighter build. It also says something interesting about their culture. I do have to say I like getting Keith's view on builds is great. It expands the way I think about NPCs. I agree a 50/50 mix of stats and fluff works well.
Hellcow 01-10-06, 01:30 PM	I've found that to be a lot easier said than done! ;) Actually, it seems to already have BEEN done... I just looked at the article again, and it seems to have been removed already. So, perhaps the good faeries will fix the EWP issue too. ;) As for the chainmaster having Power Attack, I don't see it as a central part of the Dhakaani military tradition, as noted in the earlier article, but that doesn't mean skilled Dhakaani fighters can't have it - it just means it is rarer at the lower levels. I would have removed Power Attack before I removed Improved Trip, but I did intend for the chainmaster to have both. The issue in my mind isn't brute force, but rather versatility: with Combat Expertise and Power Attack, he is a versatile fighter capable of putting his skill where he needs it the most. And, of course, as he's using a two-handed weapon, he gets extra mileage from Power Attack. But he should have Improved Trip as well. EDIT: And if you check the article again... now he does!
Sereno 01-10-06, 03:09 PM	Considering that we don't PAY for Dragonshards, and (IMHO) they're generally as good if not better than the material we DO pay for, I just want to say "Thanks!" to Keith for giving us a kick-ass Dhakaani warband. Personally, coming up with the stat-blocks is a very tedious and time consuming process that diverts me away from plots and personalities. I'm glad to have them. I happen to believe I'm a good DM, and I don't feel one bit insulted! :)
Kid SixXx 01-10-06, 03:16 PM	KS: I pretty much concur with nearly everything you said except: Whatever you decide to do, though, please avoid the stat blocks. They are an insult to good DMs everywhere, implying that we don't know how to design an NPC. On behalf of my fellow brilliant-but-lazy DM's out there, I have to disagree ever so slightly. I don't mind generating my own stats for specific NPC's (primarily villains), but generic stat blocks save me the trouble of filling in the blanks with nameless NPC's who would otherwise float through the end credits of a movie as "Bugbear Guard #3" or "Laughing Elf." I personally use generic stat blocks like that as inspiration for expansion (my current Eberronian Hobgoblin villain, Komog Kan, started off as a generic stat block & grew into a Monk / Sor, dire flail-wielding menace) or for general fleshing out of whatever area I'm working on. Other than the above, your comments were pretty spot on. I actually look for Dragonshards to provide the exact opposite information that I'd see in a sourcebook: that they provide the fluff that would otherwise end up on the editing room floor after a splatbook goes to the presses. I'm desparately looking for Dragonshards to "fill in the blanks," especially when it comes to areas that the sourcebooks have barely scratched the surface of (*cough* more fluff for the Kalashtar and more PrC options for Kalashtar psions *cough*). Crunch is always welcomed if it saves time on plot generation, but crunch in DS articles isn't as welcomed as the amazing amounts of lore that the first few DS articles generated. In the meantime, I'll make good use of the current article. I'll be putting a new group though the paces this summer and the new DS article will help me make the field trip to Darguun in SoTLW a little more interesting.
PoeticJustice 01-10-06, 08:00 PM	*Snip*, ...emphasizing Swashbuckling 101, The Shulassakar, The Role of Dragons, and Masters of Magic were some of the best Dragonshards to ever be presented on Wizards.com, and they seem to be material that falls within WotC's new "rules." More material presented in the same format as those particular articles would be much better than what we were given today. Mr. Baker, Swashbuckling 101, the Mournland, and Half-Elves of Khorvaire are what got me into the setting. Neither Swashbuckling nor Half-elves had any game data whatsoever and the Mystery of the Mournland will never be officially solved. It would seem that prior to last April, Eberron comprised mostly intriguing possibilities and sweeping, grand suggestions. Now I feel the writing is desperately trying to establish hard and fast details that are painfully contrived, needlessly limiting, and too focused in scope to be of use to any but a select few and those getting paid to write it. I am extremely disappointed in this change. And another thing, I am sick to freakin' death of seeing Favored Souls, Warlocks, and Scouts in Eberron Material. Granted, I don't have to buy it, and sometimes get it for free on the net, but if you dislike subraces, why are you so fond of subclasses?
Splendide 01-10-06, 09:36 PM	Most dragonshards include something I may want to refer to later on. This one I can safely say does not. More fluff, thanks. I imagine that if it doesn't involve elves, warforged, daelkyr, Vol, Lord of Blades, Kaius, Silver Flame, drow or Merrix d'Cannith, it would be very unlikely that it will conflict with planned material.
Hellcow 01-10-06, 09:47 PM	Now I feel the writing is desperately trying to establish hard and fast details that are painfully contrived, needlessly limiting, and too focused in scope to be of use to any but a select few and those getting paid to write it. Could you be more specific? Do you feel this specifically holds true of the last few Dragonshards, and taking, say, the subject of druids, what would you have prefered to see done with it? And, of course, I do have to bring up Sereno's point: you're not paying for Dragonshards, and I'm getting paid precious little for them. I am sorry if they don't meet your needs, and I'd prefer to write articles that a majority of people find useful. But they are free content - at the worst, you've lost 10 minutes out of your day reading it. If it is useful to SOME people, then I've at least helped them out. What have you lost? I will say that I think Secrets of Xen'drik is a step back towards providing options instead of painfully contrived details... but you can judge for yourself when you see it. And another thing, I am sick to freakin' death of seeing Favored Souls, Warlocks, and Scouts in Eberron Material. Granted, I don't have to buy it, and sometimes get it for free on the net, but if you dislike subraces, why are you so fond of subclasses? A few reasons. First, I'm not "so fond of them". Let's look at the Dhakaani dragonshard. Favored souls? Nope. Warlocks? Nope. One character uses the scout. Why does he use the scout? Because it's a class that precisely serves the needs of the character. As a third level scout he gets fast movement and trackless step, both of which were exactly what I wanted... and making him a druid/barbarian to get these abilities would have been silly. Second, I LIKE the scout. I feel that it serves a useful niche as a skill-based character who doesn't get sneak attack, and as a recon character who does not possess an animal companion or affinity for natural magic. When I'm creating an army, this is a skill set I want to bring into play. I can work on duplicating it with rogue/rangers, but I end up with things I don't want. I could bring in the no-magic ranger from Unearthed Arcana, but if I do that I'm equally involved in variant rules... even more so, because Unearthed Arcana specifically states that everything within is an optional variant, while the Complete books are theoretically in play. Third, you may not have them, but some people HAVE bought Complete Arcane, Complete Adventurer, etc. I want our content to focus on the core material. But I also want people to get mileage out of those books where I feel that it's appropriate. Did I make every character in the Dhakaani party swashbucklers and scouts? Did I use a warlock or favored soul instead of a bard? No. But I did put in some material from those books, because I do own them, they are part of official D&D, and they were ideally suited to what I was trying to create. (I will note, however, that in my original draft I included functional data on feats like Plunging Shot for people who didn't have the releveant book, which I guess was a no-no.) Fourth, for me, there's no comparison between subraces and new core classes. You may have a different opinion, and that's your right. But to me, a class is an occupation. Scientist. Plumber. Priest. With core classes in particular, any person of any race can take one. As I said, for me scout serves a useful niche not filled by the other classes. Subraces, on the other hand, are a matter of biology. Wood elves are stronger and dumber than high elves. Whisper gnomes mysteriously have their physiology and magical abilities twisted to make them super-sneaks. A gnome deciding to follow a profession that makes him sneaky? Love it. A gnome who miraculously evolves in such a way that he's even sneakier than that first sneaky gnome? Not so much. My dislike for subraces is NOT derived from a dislike for varient rules: after all, subraces are IN the core rules (MM) and I STILL don't like them. I specifically don't like subraces... use of newly created classes has nothing to do with it. Again, I'm sorry you don't like them. I personally would prefer to see Eberron books confined to the material that is available in the SRD and ECS, and as far as I know that is the directive of the design department; you won't find scouts or warlocks in, for example, Secrets of Xen'drik, regardless of whether or not I think that drow would make good scouts (The Player's Guide to Eberron is a notable exception to this rule, something I imagine will cause some people distress). But online content? Magazine articles? This is optional material and this is where you will see me using everything that's out there... because if you don't like a Dragonshard, well, you haven't paid it and you don't have to use it. As shown by the Aeren example, there's a fair chance it won't match up to the print canon anyway.
Pistilpeach 01-10-06, 10:28 PM	This is all I'm going to say: the Dragonshards are often more useful than half of the "canon" books. The ECS is stellar, and Sharn: City of Towers is great (and came with a complementary CD, encouraging "cinematic" playing.) But the more recent books are a mixed bag. Races of Eberron is damn crunchy, but the fluff could have done much, much more. Five Nations was a major let-down, mainly because of the awful formatting. Maybe it might be a good idea to keep consistency between chapters? We have 18 pages on Cyre with hardly any description of Cyrans, no Thranish fashion rules--basically the Breland chapter was done correctly (big surprise there, it's not like Wizards is pro-Brelish or anything) and the rest of the chapters should have followed suit. I haven't even picked up Explorer's Handbook or Magic of Eberron, although I assume I eventually will. To be honest, I don't know why Keith doesn't have a hand in every Eberron project. While I can't say how good he is because I know jack squat about game designing, his Dragonshards should prove that he writes excellent fluff, on the AKB threads he gives thorough explanations, "Shadows of the Last War" is the best of the three adventures, the sourcebooks he worked on are great, and his novel has very lively dialogue. So the bottom line is, I'm grateful to read free Dragonshards at all, and if the occasional one is super-crunchy, I don't think that's such a bad thing. The next time I think anything Dhakaan I'll head back to the Dragonshard and see what I can work in--that to me is useful.
Edymnion 01-10-06, 10:29 PM	Since the decree that Dragonshards could not cover material which may one day appear in a sourcebook, we have seen only a single series of Dragonshards relevant to druidic sects.Which really castrates Keith in what he can write about, IMO. On the other hand, it means he can write kick-ass goblinoid material from now until doomsday, because WotC will never have the testicular fortitude to give goblins their due, much less EBERRON goblins that aren't just PC cannon fodder. I mean, they did a whole book about the main races of eberron, and instead of the totally PC worthy goblins, they devoted page after page and item after item to the freaking xenophobic half-feral drow half a world away. So here's hoping we see a dragonshard all about how goblins are the greatest thing since sliced bread, like this one has started in on.
dang 01-10-06, 10:41 PM	open flavor question: if dhakaani are supposed to be vaguely roman, and make use of testudo-like shield-walls, etc., wouldn't the preference for chain weapons be a little, um... hazardous? hard to swing and not hit your friend. this is why the romans used short javelins and the gladius.
DarkWarriorKarg 01-10-06, 10:47 PM	I don't hate drow at all, but I do wonder why they were in Races of Eberron to begin with (yes, I Know... Marketing...) I didn't mind the Drow information, but I was wondering why goblinoids hadn't been covered. If this is the only way we'll get info on the Goblinoids, then so be it. And I appreciate the stat blocks. They save time. I will add my voice to those who request an aooficial sourcebook on goblinoids. And instead of banning sourcebook-possible material, why not use it as an outline? Or vice-versa?
Euangelion 01-11-06, 01:03 AM	Thinking about it some more (it takes me time to think sometimes, I think), the CRs are way off. I was under the impression a CR indicates the average level of a party of 4 would be challenged by the creature(s) in question. A CR of 4 means that four 4th level characters would find the creature challenging. Here's one quote from the SRD about CR (there's better ones in the DMG, of course): Challenge Rating This shows the average level of a party of adventurers for which one creature would make an encounter of moderate difficulty. I doubt a hobgoblin fighter 6/exotic weapon master 1 would be even a moderate challenge for a party of 4 8th level characters.
Hellcow 01-11-06, 01:14 AM	I imagine that if it doesn't involve elves, warforged, daelkyr, Vol, Lord of Blades, Kaius, Silver Flame, drow or Merrix d'Cannith, it would be very unlikely that it will conflict with planned material. Sadly, that's not the issue. It's not that there's a list of approved or forbidden topics. It all comes down to an unfortunate but simple fact: I am not part of the Eberron design team. WotC has been kind enough to let me continue to be a part of the ongoing development of Eberron. I just finished work on one unannounced sourcebook (something that I was more deeply involved in than on any project since Sharn), and I'm begining work on yet another unnannounced sourcebook, which I'm very excited about. The second novel in the Dreaming Dark trilogy comes out in a month. But at the end of the day, I am a freelance author who doesn't even live in Seattle. WotC has an official team tasked with developing Eberron. These are the people who decide what books will be written, who review all of the books that are written, and who, ultimately, determine the future of Eberron. And I'm not one of those people. I have my own vision of Eberron. But it's not always going to match WotC's vision, and today, Eberron is WotC's world, not mine. If I write a Sarlona dragonshard, I draw on my vision of Sarlona. But that may be completely different from what the WotC design team has in mind... At which point either the Sarlona dragonshard gets cancelled (meaning I've wasted my time), needs to be altered to fit the views of the design team (and in the past, I've spent a lot of time arguing back and forth over Dragonshard edits... more time than either I or they can really afford to spend over such small articles), or slips through, runs and contradicts the Sarlona book that eventually comes out, creating a universe full of holes. This has been an ongoing problem, and it's why you've seen the big gaps in Dragonshard releases over the last year. What it ultimately comes down to is that material in Dragonshards needs to be material that can be ignored - that at the end of the day you shouldn't be able to say "Sourcebook X says this, but Dragonshard Y says that." One suggestion was to provide material that could be useful to DMs in a hurry; you've just seen one of these and I'm seeing what the response to that is. Another direction would be things like the Swashbuckling 101 article, which is more about style of play than about canon facts of Eberron. A third possibility is to find subjects that are fluffy but which are minor enough to not cause problems: Zil cuisine, fringe sects of the Sovereign Host, minor but interesting events of the Last War... things which could be used in a game, but which won't cause a problem if they are overlooked. And, of course, another option is for Dragonshards to disappear completely... which is certainly something I've given a lot of thought to. The fact of the matter is that I may not be able to give you the articles you most want to see... and if you don't want to see what I can give you, than why waste everyone's time? So. The issue is that I cannot continue to write Dragonshards as I have been doing. One way or another, they will change. I'd like them to change for the better: but for that I need you to tell me what you want to see, bearing these restrictions in mind.
Hellcow 01-11-06, 01:30 AM	I doubt a hobgoblin fighter 6/exotic weapon master 1 would be even a moderate challenge for a party of 4 8th level characters. Unfortunately, the baseline for determining the CR of NPCs makes it difficult to determine. From page 37 of the DMG: "An NPC with a PC class has a Challenge Rating equal to the NPC's level. Thus, an 8th-level sorcerer is an 8th-level encounter." So at the least, the champion is a CR 7 encounter... by the rules. Is a 7th level bard really a challenge for a 7th-level party? Tough call, but that's what the rules say. In a perfectly logical world, if a character's CR is based on his character level, one would expect his ECL to be an equally valid determiner. And this is the yardstick I have been using. However, on reflection, I'm the first to admit that it's a mistake; I'm NOT the Sage, by any stretch of the imagination, and I am not infalliable when it comes to rules (though I'll note that the article passed through the WotC design team without being altered). That same section of the DMG notes that a drow should have a +1 to its CR... even though it has a +2 to its ECL. As Junkyard Dog has noted, the hobgboblin's ECL is not included in its CR by the MM. So, as it stands, you should knock one point off the CR of each hobgoblin to be in line with the rules, and the bugbear should be CR 3... apparently treating the monstrous HD as an NPC class and ignoring the ECL.
Hellcow 01-11-06, 01:38 AM	if dhakaani are supposed to be vaguely roman, and make use of testudo-like shield-walls, etc., wouldn't the preference for chain weapons be a little, um... hazardous? hard to swing and not hit your friend. Excellent point! Unfortunately, this is were it comes down to D&D physics versus real world physics. In the real world, we know that a short sword is an ideal weapon in a shield wall situation. But in D&D, there's no risk of hitting your buddy when using a longsword or a flail... and a longsword and flail are both equally precise (setting aside the longsword's improved critical potential). So if it bothers you from a realism standpoint, it would certainly make sense to change it... but the Dhakaani developed their tactics based on the physics of D&D. ;)
Hideous Phidias 01-11-06, 02:00 AM	All this talk how the dragonshards are bad or good is getting old. They are either uses full to you as a Dm or not. Some people, like myself, just read them to maybe see if there is an idea bared in one to help out my own campaign. Like keith has said in the past your own campaign is your own veiw and thoughts on how Eberron goes. This means if you find someing added you don't really like then don't add it or play up the themes you do like. Like I am not a big fan of psionics so I as a DM leave the whole inspired thing alone if I can. My Campaign is based around Cannith South Marrix and one of the players trying to become the new head of the House. But, I have a player who like psionics and is playing a soulknife and I do try and through him a bone once in a while and put a kalashtar into the campaign so that he can play up his psionic character. It is just part of trying to be a good DM. I kind of lost the point I was trying to make, if you are the type of person when running or playing in a campaign world game that likes to follow the storylines and the set themes the the Dragonshard are of get use the give nice FREE information on things in the campaign world. While if your are the type that likes to take an idea and make it truly your oun and run a campaign world the way you see it, add and removing elements the the dragonshard aremaybe not so uses full to you. Does it matter as long as someone finds the information usesful at some point. I mean, I use to be the type that ran the set storylines only with very little off my own elements added in. But when I started run Eberron Campaigns I found myself staying to the Set storyline and just running with a idea. I mean this is not Forgotten Realms where there are so many books on the setting the room for free thought is slowly goingout of the world. I have all thebooks for Eberron, but find that most of the time when I am planing a game, I use llittle more then the Campaign setting for world info and add in my own elements to shape the world in my veiw. I read the Dragonshards, I find them having alot of basic info in them that I think th e main book kinda infurs,but I still find them helpful, for in almost everone there is atleast one line of information that helps spark a thousand ideas in my head. In fact some times my players think that I have to many little plots going on at the some time that they get destracked from their main goals. And I do think that posting NPC can be useful, because as it was said most DMs can make up their own NPCs and may even do a better job of it, but someitmesthere is no time to. I know with my work and other things going on in life I don't always have the time to spend planng out a game as well as I would like and the they are a time saver. And other times I just need a quick group of NPCs to put my party in it's place.
Euangelion 01-11-06, 02:11 AM	Unfortunately, the baseline for determining the CR of NPCs makes it difficult to determine. From page 37 of the DMG: "An NPC with a PC class has a Challenge Rating equal to the NPC's level. Thus, an 8th-level sorcerer is an 8th-level encounter." So at the least, the champion is a CR 7 encounter... by the rules. Is a 7th level bard really a challenge for a 7th-level party? Tough call, but that's what the rules say. In a perfectly logical world, if a character's CR is based on his character level, one would expect his ECL to be an equally valid determiner. And this is the yardstick I have been using. However, on reflection, I'm the first to admit that it's a mistake; I'm NOT the Sage, by any stretch of the imagination, and I am not infalliable when it comes to rules (though I'll note that the article passed through the WotC design team without being altered). That same section of the DMG notes that a drow should have a +1 to its CR... even though it has a +2 to its ECL. As Junkyard Dog has noted, the hobgboblin's ECL is not included in its CR by the MM. So, as it stands, you should knock one point off the CR of each hobgoblin to be in line with the rules, and the bugbear should be CR 3... apparently treating the monstrous HD as an NPC class and ignoring the ECL. I figure the whole ECL vs. CR vs. EL thing is something that will be modified in the eventual 4th ed., since it's so :censored: confusing (along with Caster Level requirements, or the lack thereof, in magic item creation.) If there is anything I'll never think less of a DM/designer/writer regarding, it's trying to determine something's CR. Associated class levels, non-associated class levels, NPC class levels vs. PC class levels, how many more hit dice are needed to raise a creature's CR by one, etc. etc. etc. It's just nasty. Then there's these quotes: From the DMG pg. 38 "Since NPC classes are weaker than PC classes, levels in an NPC class contribute less to a creature's CR than levels in a PC class. For an NPC with a NPC class, determine her Challenge Rating as if she had a PC class with one less level. For a creature with monster levels in addition to NPC class levels, add the NPC class levels -1 to the creature's base CR (always adding at least 1)." From the MM, page 294 under Nonassociated Class Levels: "Adding a nonassociated class level to a monster increases its CR by 1/2 per level until one of its nonassociated class levels equals its original Hit Dice." Then at the end of the same entry it states: "Levels in NPC classes are always treated as nonassociated," meaning that they should always add only 1/2 to a monster's CR, contradicting the DMG statement. But then again, when have we ever seen a CR 4 monster with 3 levels of expert statted out with a CR of 5 1/2? So I guess the DMG is right. All I can say is that at least you get paid to work this stuff out! ;)
Splendide 01-11-06, 03:06 AM	A third possibility is to find subjects that are fluffy but which are minor enough to not cause problems: Zil cuisine, fringe sects of the Sovereign Host, minor but interesting events of the Last War... things which could be used in a game, but which won't cause a problem if they are overlooked. And, of course, another option is for Dragonshards to disappear completely... which is certainly something I've given a lot of thought to. The fact of the matter is that I may not be able to give you the articles you most want to see... and if you don't want to see what I can give you, than why waste everyone's time? So. The issue is that I cannot continue to write Dragonshards as I have been doing. One way or another, they will change. I'd like them to change for the better: but for that I need you to tell me what you want to see, bearing these restrictions in mind.You had me at `Zil cuisine'.
maollelujah 01-11-06, 03:18 AM	I thought I would give my two cents worth on the subject. As a DM I am crunch deficent, but have no problem creating fluff, so I found the NPC stat blocks quite useful. If the Dragonshards continue to have stat blocks I don't think that is a bad thing. Maybe not as good as a nice article on descision making process of the Dreaming Dark, but hey...
Sereno 01-11-06, 08:37 AM	Excellent point! Unfortunately, this is were it comes down to D&D physics versus real world physics. In the real world, we know that a short sword is an ideal weapon in a shield wall situation. But in D&D, there's no risk of hitting your buddy when using a longsword or a flail... and a longsword and flail are both equally precise (setting aside the longsword's improved critical potential). So if it bothers you from a realism standpoint, it would certainly make sense to change it... but the Dhakaani developed their tactics based on the physics of D&D. ;) Perhaps the Dhakaani use a modified version of the shield wall with the chain masters at the ends. They'd have more room to swing their weapons without hitting their companions, and they'd be able to "sweep" more enemies into the path of the advancing shield wall or knock off stragglers attempting to get around the shield wall. The Dhakaani shield wall might be narrower than historical Roman one, or staggered somewhat so that the chain fighters have rooom. Kind of like this where the dashes are regular soldiers and the *'s are chainmasters: *-------* *------* *------* There would probably be far less chain experts than shield wall soldiers, they are "champions" after all.
Sereno 01-11-06, 08:45 AM	A third possibility is to find subjects that are fluffy but which are minor enough to not cause problems: Zil cuisine, fringe sects of the Sovereign Host, minor but interesting events of the Last War... things which could be used in a game, but which won't cause a problem if they are overlooked. I would love to see some Dragonshards around these ideas ... for me, it's sometimes the small details that bring the world to life more completely than the big details. It seems that the longer we go, the more Eberron is starting to take on cultural references too similar to Earth ... the lack of which is a big factor to my draw to the setting. But, now, we're starting to see an awful lot of Breland is like USA/UK, Karnaath is like Germany/Russia, Aundair is like France ... and a lot less work is being done to detail the societies and make them stand out. That you DIDN'T just take real-world cultures and plunk them down on Khorvaire was part of what makes Eberron great. It's familiar ... but, it's different, too. If you could come up with some Dragonshards that help lead away from the "cultural homogenization", that would be greatly appreciated. Something like all of the ways that Aundair ISN'T "like France with magic". BTW, PLEEEEESE ... don't pick option 4 ... ANY Dragonshards are better than none! :)
fuindordm 01-11-06, 08:59 AM	Another vote for option 3 here. Some of my favorite dragonshards so far have been the ones that explored niche elements of the setting. Such details help my liven up the campaign, and often serve as seeds for plot development. And what about the history dragonshards? WotC puts precious little word count into exploring the history of Eberron even in sourcebooks such as Five Nations where you would think such things are very important. If you've got interesting hortorical events in your head, then I'd love to see them in dragonshards. The War of the Mark? The creation of the Aurum? Battles of the Last War? The adventures of Kaarn the conqueror? Colonization attempts? The History of the Eyes of Aundair? etc... And for the record, I quite enjoyed this dragonshard even though it didn't have any surprises for me--but I'm sure it will for people who haven't been hanging around the boards talking about Eberron for the past couple of years. Ben
Kryptonian Scion 01-11-06, 09:04 AM	Zil cuisine, fringe sects of the Sovereign Host, minor but interesting events of the Last War... This is exactly what I am talking about. How about some more holidays, festivals, or popular sports? I turned Wildnight from Sharn: City of Towers into a continent-wide celebration of depravity, like a medieval Mardi Gras with ten times as much violence, from a single paragraph in one sourcebook, and was able to base an entire session of play around the events of that evening. This is the kind of material I want to see - fluffy ideas full of inspiration. Most of us aren't looking for the origins of the changeling race or the exact wording of the Code of Galifar. Try not to think of our comments as angry criticism toward your ideas, even though it may come off that way. It is a credit to your writing style that many of us would rather have a weekly Dragonshard the way they were originally written than half the published sourcebooks out there. You may not be part of the Eberron design team, but I assure you that the majority of Eberron fans wish you were.
davethebrave371 01-11-06, 09:32 AM	Most of us aren't looking for the origins of the changeling race or the exact wording of the Code of Galifar. A yea and a nay for that statement. For the same reason I don't want to know what's up with the Mournland, I don't want to know the origins of Changelings, but I'd sure as shooting like to see a several hundred page full-on Code of Galifar. It'd never happen, but I can always dream.
MrFilthyIke 01-11-06, 09:50 AM	Keith, If you're looking for opinions to help you design the DS's, here' my 2cp. Going over levels is fine for giving a baseline, but avoid stablock period. As we see, too much chance of goof ups (as we have seen). I'd say stick with fluff, and then list "stats" something like: Hobgoblin Hvy Infantry Fighter 4 Goblin Scout Rogue 2/Scout 2 Goblin War Wizard Wizard(evoker) 5 Just keep it simple. Stats can be very handy, but almost too much hassle in such a short article as a DS.
PoeticJustice 01-11-06, 04:45 PM	Could you be more specific? Do you feel this specifically holds true of the last few Dragonshards, and taking, say, the subject of druids, what would you have prefered to see done with it? I do believe this holds specifically to the last few Dragonshards. When you make separate feats to make Brelish, Eldeen, Valenar, and Talenta druids distinct, I think of the wretched region system from Forgotten Realms. I would have dropped the supplemental rules in favor of the following -Savage Druids of the Demon Wastes: which were mentioned but disappeared between part 1 and 4 -Druid activity: Rather than say what an Eberron druid is and how I should know him from Adam, I am much more interested in learning what they are doing throughout Eberron. The followers of the Broken Path are an excellent example of something I simply would not have thought of, but makes for an excellent encounter. What are the Mask Weavers doing? Do they care that Talenta is slowly turning into a desert? -Non-sect druids. Given the difficult nature of divine magic in Eberron, are there any Druids among the Vadalis or Lyrandar heirs? Goblins are Agnostic, but that doesn't specifically preclude druidic beliefs. You are incredibly creative, Keith. That's what I need to make the game interesting not only to the players but also myself. I don't need to worry about the stats of a Valenar Warhorse (BTW different stats were published in another book but I forget which, and am 60 miles away from my collection) and a reincarnation table is nice but again, alomst anybody could write that up. And, of course, I do have to bring up Sereno's point: you're not paying for Dragonshards, and I'm getting paid precious little for them. I am sorry if they don't meet your needs, and I'd prefer to write articles that a majority of people find useful. But they are free content - at the worst, you've lost 10 minutes out of your day reading it. If it is useful to SOME people, then I've at least helped them out. What have you lost? Forgive me, I don't mean to cause undue stress, and I realize that you are not obligated to anyone, much less to me, but the only way to get what I want is to let you know what that is. Keith, you wouldn't have stuck around as long as you have if you didn't want to serve the community. I think the past few Dragonshards have been a step backward from that direction, and I am letting you know why. Take it or leave it. First, I'm not "so fond of them". Let's look at the Dhakaani dragonshard. Favored souls? Nope. Warlocks? Nope. I was referring to your 'Touched by Madness: Cults of the dragon below' and 'Umbragen: Dark Elves of Eberron' articles respectively. At first I was amused by the clever placement of Warlocks and how fully you integrated them into the setting. The Cults article, however, simply said that Favored Souls were more common than clerics because Cultists are disinclined to serious religous study. Can you see the disconnect? It's like they were simply dropped in for conveniance. Then the scout class pops his head in during a dragonshard. I hate this trend. Hate, Hate, Hate it! If you're going to drop a new class, then don't assume it's a matter of fact. Scouts, Favored Souls, Spellthieves, whatever, all deserve to similar treatment to that of the Warlock. In short, create a place for it, don't assume it already has a place. Fourth, for me, there's no comparison between subraces and new core classes. You may have a different opinion, and that's your right. We shall agree to disagree, then. As shown by the Aeren example, there's a fair chance it won't match up to the print canon anyway. Look, comic book nerds know that nothing ruins a series like enslaving it to an abstract notion of internal consistancy. So there are two different accounts of the Aeren myth? I don't care. I'll use the one that I think is better and ignore the other. The writers should be free to do what's best for the book. Whatever grabs the reader. It should not be haphazard or absurd, and they shouldn't rewrite the ECS, but I couldn't care less if a few contradictions occur.
Count Nerindil Van Seraph 01-11-06, 06:08 PM	A third possibility is to find subjects that are fluffy but which are minor enough to not cause problems: Zil cuisine, fringe sects of the Sovereign Host, minor but interesting events of the Last War... things which could be used in a game, but which won't cause a problem if they are overlooked. I think that this is the best choice for now. You have layed down the foundation for your (thats right WoTC, HIS) world, and they can't take that away from you. Now, I think you should do as much as you possibly can on all the little details. Thats what makes Eberron fun, all the possibilities. It's like a pizza. you already have the dough. Now add all the little toppings. Bake it up into a delicious 'shard and hand it off the pimply delivery boy (WoTC). You have made a perfecly good pizza. If the people don't like what the delivery boy gave them, then it is his fault. Did that make any sense at all? Here's hope'n, The Count :dragon: p.s.: Hey! There's a new 'shard for you right there. Pizzas of Eberron: Exploring the mysterious 13th Topping.
Hellcow 01-11-06, 06:11 PM	When you make separate feats to make Brelish, Eldeen, Valenar, and Talenta druids distinct... In my defense, where did I do this? First off, the Shadows of the Forest are not, in my mind, "Brelish druids"; they are the druids of the King's Forest, bordering both Breland and Zilargo. A group of druids found elsewhere in Breland could be entirely different. Furthermore, I don't introduce a new feat for the shadows: I suggest how they might use the existing feats from the ECS. My goal here was actually to give some indication of how the Beast Totem, Beast Shape, and Beast Companion feats could be tied to the tone of a group of druids. But just because the shadows like displacer beasts, there's no reason you couldn't find druids around Ringbriar with entirely different feats and traditions. It certainly wasn't my intent to say "All Brelish druids are like this"... but rather "Not all druids follow the Eldeen traditions", and to give an example of a different group. Reviewing the druid articles, I don't see any actual new feats presented in any of them. Did I miss something? the only way to get what I want is to let you know what that is. Certainly. The Cults article, however, simply said that Favored Souls were more common than clerics because Cultists are disinclined to serious religous study. Can you see the disconnect? It's like they were simply dropped in for conveniance. I see how you perceive it that way, but that wasn't my intention. Favored souls have appeared in two separate sourcebooks. In my mind, the favored soul is the divine equivalent of the sorcerer: the person who spontaneously develops divine magic through raw will and faith instead of through traditional devotion. That's how I saw them fitting in with the Cults: people touched by divine fervor, who may have no knowledge of religion whatsoever but who become ecstatic vessels for the Dragon Below, as opposed to the more traditional and devoted cleric or adept. I also like this as a way of giving the priests of the Dragon Below a very different feel from the priests of the Sovereign Host or Silver Flame. So no, I didn't drop them in for convenience: I used them because I felt that they were a good match for my vision of the cults. Furthermore, I said "more common"... meaning that if you don't have any of the sourcebooks bringing in favored souls, you can use clerics instead and still not be in contradiction with the article. Could I have gone into more detail about what it means to be a favored soul of the Dragon Below? How this power manifests, how these people act? Certainly. I have those answers in my mind. But to do that, I would have had to cut other material... and would that have been worth it? And as I said before, I feel that a place like Dragon IS a valid place to cater to people who have purchased other books. I didn't say you had to use favored souls. But if you DO use favored souls, I've now made a suggestion for one place where they can fit into the world. I don't want to force you to use non-SRD material, and as such I'd prefer to keep it out of core Eberron books. But it is out there, and I don't want to completely ignore the people who do use it. Especially since I AM one of those people. I made the Dhakaani a scout not because I felt I had to... but because that's how I would make him for use in MY campaign. I like the scout class, and I don't feel it NEEDS any special explanation to fit into the world. All scouts don't have to come from culture X. It's simply a particular skill set that can be a useful military specialty. Warlocks? I do want to explain them a little more, because their magic powers are unusual. Spellthieves? That's a very unusual tradition that I'd want to give a good background for. Scouts? They're just a blend of rogue and ranger specializing in reconnaissance and swift combat, and I feel that they could find a place in any army. I think they would have a stronger role in some cultures, such as the Valenar... but if I'm making a soldier who is supposed to be a scout, I don't feel any qualms about making him a scout... especially in free material. Frankly, I feel more of a need to create a place for the RANGER in the world than I do for the scout, because the scout is a completely mundane class. With his spells and animal companion, the ranger isn't just a stealthy soldier, and I feel that the question of how rangers fit into the armies of the Five Nations is actually a fairly good one. We shall agree to disagree, then. It seems so.
Count Nerindil Van Seraph 01-11-06, 06:13 PM	A yea and a nay for that statement. For the same reason I don't want to know what's up with the Mournland, I don't want to know the origins of Changelings, but I'd sure as shooting like to see a several hundred page full-on Code of Galifar. It'd never happen, but I can always dream. That would be cool. But remember, this is how "trekkie" types are born. I'm not talking fans of the series. Not even people who have all the seasons of all the shows on DVD. I'm talking the folks who, if you gave them enough balsa wood, they could build a fully funtional model of DS9. And those kind of people are (sorry if I offend) sad.
Edymnion 01-11-06, 06:31 PM	And, of course, another option is for Dragonshards to disappear completely... which is certainly something I've given a lot of thought to. The fact of the matter is that I may not be able to give you the articles you most want to see... and if you don't want to see what I can give you, than why waste everyone's time? So. The issue is that I cannot continue to write Dragonshards as I have been doing. One way or another, they will change. I'd like them to change for the better: but for that I need you to tell me what you want to see, bearing these restrictions in mind.Okay, I'm making a thread just for this. This is big, it needs discussing.
Raziel_Brokodar 01-11-06, 06:34 PM	I loved the new Dragonshard, and I had no problem with seeing a chainmaster made by Keith... :P
Edymnion 01-11-06, 06:46 PM	Okay, I'm making a thread just for this. This is big, it needs discussing.The Future of the Dragonshard Articles?
davethebrave371 01-11-06, 09:18 PM	Hey! There's a new 'shard for you right there. Pizzas of Eberron: Exploring the mysterious 13th Topping. No! The 13th topping must always remain a mystery! YOU'LL SPOIL IT FOR EVERY DM THAT HAS THEIR OWN VERSION!
Lurkalot 01-12-06, 02:00 PM	All this talk how the dragonshards are bad or good is getting old. They are either uses full to you as a Dm or not. Some people, like myself, just read Though I understand that everyone has different tastes and always will, I think this raging debate is a good thing. Firstly, these are all posts from people who obviously really care about the Eberron setting and what Keith does with it. That's nice to see. Secondly, Keith shows a very high save vs. criticism and an ability to take just the useful feedback from it. So that said, I thought the Dragonshard was good, it was an area that I am interested in, and given that there's probably not a DM on the planet who knows the rules worse than I do, stat blocks are always appreciated. My only problem is that the power level is way too high for me. I'd regarded the centuries long-living Valenar to be the elites of the military world, and here is a staggeringly powerful group of goblins. These people could be the heroes of their race. I'd accept this power-level if there were one such group. I don't think the campaign setting should have several. I can always tone it down a little though. If I want to maintain the CR, I pad the group out with some goblin archers / worg knights. Cheers, Keith. Dragonshard seems to have got me plotting again.
Pocalem 01-12-06, 05:22 PM	The Dhakaani/Goblinois are a group I'm planning on using heavily in my first attempt at DMing Eberron, and I am very greatful for all the info in this current dragonshard. I don't mind the Stat blocks, as I've only now done two NPCs, and bot hwere for my upcoming campaign. Thank you for all your hard work, especially with the situation as it is, Keith. DM Pocalem
Wick 01-12-06, 05:33 PM	I have to say I have nothing against stat block they make great foundations and/or save me lots of time...