I was wondering why I'd possibly want to buy that book; now I know the answer. Very excellent.
(On the other hand, no Revenants and Assassins in Dragon Annual? Booo. I guess the money for Draconomicon 2 is coming from the Annual I won't be buying.)
Today's Ampersand reveals Draconians are statted up in Draconomicon: Chromatic Dragons (and includes sample stats for Auraks and Sivaks).
Which I actually think is a strike against the "DL as a 4e campaign setting" idea, BTW... :D
Which I actually think is a strike against the "DL as a 4e campaign setting" idea, BTW... :D
I don't think it's a strike for or against. I see the argument, "Core DL material in a non-DL book, so there's less need for the DLCG." And I see the argument, "Draconomicon 2 needed more material and DL has so many unique races and monsters that it had some to share, plus it will help us cross-promote the new setting."
I'll wait and see. Now that I'm getting Draconians no matter what happens I'm frankly just as happy to see Dark Sun next year as I am Dragonlance.
Which means one of the big pieces of evidence people have been propping up their Dragonlance for 2010 guessing, has now been removed.
Which I actually think is a strike against the "DL as a 4e campaign setting" idea, BTW... :D
I wouldn't say so. We had Warforged appear in the Monster Manuals, even though they are Eberron creatures. Draconians in the Draconomicon only adds utility to the creatures.
People were pointing at the Draconian minis as proof Dragonlance is coming. I'd say including them in the Draconomicon isn't proof Dragonlance is coming. But it also isn't proof Dragonlance won't be coming. Its neutral.
Which means one of the big pieces of evidence people have been propping up their Dragonlance for 2010 guessing, has now been removed..
Not that I'm highly invested either way in regards to which setting is next, but even if the draconian minis can't be taken as a clue because of Draconomicon 2, there is still the matter of the dark paladin in one of the upcoming hero packs who is apparently modeled after a major Dragon Lance character. As the first to wave of hero minis are mostly made up of figures from canceled sets (such as Feywilde and Revenge of the Giants) it can be reasonably presumed that character was going to be a mini in one of those sets.
Then the there's all the Dragon Lance hype, even if only due to the setting's anniversary, at the upcoming convention were next years setting will be announced. If I were placing bets I'd still be betting on Dragon Lance.
Anyway. I'm moderately interested to see draconians included in Draconomicon 2. Makes sense, them being metallic eggs corrupted by Takhisis and all. Also, it should play as an interesting counter point to dragonspawn, which are chromatic eggs blessed by Tiamat (who is fundamentaly the core setting version of Takhisis).
I choose to view this as a mixed bag. On the good side, less independent Dragonlance material means that it's less likely it will be the next published campaign setting, making room for something I might actually want to buy. On the bad side, that's more room in D2 devoted to another humanoid-dragon variation, and less on potentially interesting material that might possibly be useful in my games.
I gotta say, I agree. I admit I don't know much about Dragonlance, but I didn't really understand the purpose of having Draconians when we already have Dragonborn. (Draconic humanoid, meet draconic humanoid; and don't forget about humanoid dragonspawn...)
As long as their distinct, I suppose, but then no more new types of draconic humanoids, got it? We've got enough already, WotC!
Cheers,
Cam
I gotta say, I agree. I admit I don't know much about Dragonlance, but I didn't really understand the purpose of having Draconians when we already have Dragonborn. (Draconic humanoid, meet draconic humanoid; and don't forget about humanoid dragonspawn...)
The two they picked to showcase in Legendary Evils and Ampersand (Aurak and Sivak) should give you a good idea why Draconians aren't just reflavoured Dragonborn. The on-death powers alone are a significant difference in both mechanics and flavour. To put it another way, Dragonborn are what you get when you take Draconians and file off their edges enough to be balanced as a PC race; Draconians are the original spit-in-your-face-and-then-explode monstrous version.
Draconians have been around in D&D for 25 years. Dragonborn have been around for less than two.
Cheers,
Cam
That's kinda arguable. Realistically, the Dragonborn are the descendants of the Draconians, as are every other "dragon-man" race. I think even the Dracons of Wizardry came out just after Dragonlance, though I could be wrong.
In it's strictest sense, yeah the Dragonborn have only really been around since 4e began, or maybe since the Races of the Dragons book. But I'd say their heritage at the minimum goes back to the Council of Wyrms half-dragons from 1994, since those were the first DnD "dragon-men" PC race complete with breath-weapon. That I know of anyways.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
No ... I don't know what my point is either ...
Which I actually think is a strike against the "DL as a 4e campaign setting" idea, BTW... :D
That's kinda like saying that having Warforged and Shifters in MM is a strike against the "Ebberon and a 4e campaign setting" idea. :P
That's kinda arguable. Realistically, the Dragonborn are the descendants of the Draconians, as are every other "dragon-man" race. I think even the Dracons of Wizardry came out just after Dragonlance, though I could be wrong.
Either way, the poster's assumption that draconians are some kind of new wyrm on the block is off base. Just as Dragonlance's tinker gnomes have inspired dozens of short tech-minded races, from gnomes to goblins, in fantasy games and books, Dragonlance's draconians have inspired hundreds of similar dragon-men.
While it's kind of a no-brainer to have humanoid dragons in fantasy fiction, Dragonlance was the first place this showed up in D&D in any substantial form. Fan interest even drove their inclusion as protagonists in Margaret Weis and Don Perrin's Kang short stories (and later novels).
While I prefer draconians as the bad guys or foils for the PCs, I do think WotC made a good decision to include dragonborn in the 4E core just to satisfy that "I have the blood of dragons in my veins" sort of thing.
Cheers,
Cam
Either way, the poster's assumption that draconians are some kind of new wyrm on the block is off base. Just as Dragonlance's tinker gnomes have inspired dozens of short tech-minded races, from gnomes to goblins, in fantasy games and books, Dragonlance's draconians have inspired hundreds of similar dragon-men.
While it's kind of a no-brainer to have humanoid dragons in fantasy fiction, Dragonlance was the first place this showed up in D&D in any substantial form. Fan interest even drove their inclusion as protagonists in Margaret Weis and Don Perrin's Kang short stories (and later novels).
While I prefer draconians as the bad guys or foils for the PCs, I do think WotC made a good decision to include dragonborn in the 4E core just to satisfy that "I have the blood of dragons in my veins" sort of thing.
The poster isn't "assuming" anything, particularly in light of the very large dust-gathering collection of Dragonlance novels and game material he owns.
As you've observed, Dragonborn and Draconians are different enough that they can't fill the same role. However, as humanoid dragons, there's significant overlap. The Dragonborn are versatile, as they're a full, independent race. Draconians, as you pointed out, are mostly limited to being antagonists. And it's silly to have two humanoid dragon races.
Just because something is old doesn't give it more value. Draconians are pretty worthless in a game that's already got a better version.
That's kinda like saying that having Warforged and Shifters in MM is a strike against the "Ebberon and a 4e campaign setting" idea. :P
Except for a few factors make these things not the same at all.
The Draconians will likely get a full write-up in the Draconomicon, not just a stat block to allow people to continue using those races while they wait for their full introduction as a PC race. Warforged and Shifters, after all, were included in the EPG and PHB2, respectively.
Also, Eberron had a lot more new ideas to offer than just those two races. Dragonlance, on the other hand, is fairly stock fantasy, except for the integration into the setting of rules elements of bygone editions. It has nothing positive to offer that another setting couldn't do at least as well.
And no, don't bring up the tinker gnomes. There's no possible way to make any sort of decent rules to govern tinker gnomes.
Kender are just Halflings With A License To Disrupt The Game, and are the single worst contribution a campaign setting has ever made to my gaming experience.
Either way, the poster's assumption that draconians are some kind of new wyrm on the block is off base. Just as Dragonlance's tinker gnomes have inspired dozens of short tech-minded races, from gnomes to goblins, in fantasy games and books, Dragonlance's draconians have inspired hundreds of similar dragon-men.
While it's kind of a no-brainer to have humanoid dragons in fantasy fiction, Dragonlance was the first place this showed up in D&D in any substantial form. Fan interest even drove their inclusion as protagonists in Margaret Weis and Don Perrin's Kang short stories (and later novels).
While I prefer draconians as the bad guys or foils for the PCs, I do think WotC made a good decision to include dragonborn in the 4E core just to satisfy that "I have the blood of dragons in my veins" sort of thing.
Cheers,
Cam
I didn't mean to sound like I was implying that Draconians were some kind of "new thing", and I apologize for being unclear in that regard.
I understand that Draconians are an important part of Dragonlance, and that they're as old as that setting is, and that they are quite distinct from Dragonborn; Dragonborn would not make an acceptable substitute for Draconians, nor vice versa.
What I was trying to say is that between Dragonborn, Draconians, and Dragonspawn, we've got quite enough different "families" of draconic humanoids, and that if any more are created, redundancy is inevitable. (Redundancy being a quality that 4E has worked hard to avoid thus far.) I would prefer that there are no further categories of draconic humanoids, lest this archetype be done to death; draconic humanoids shouldn't be the "elves" of 4E, with dozens of allegedly "unique" subspecies all clustering around the same basic role.
If you want to say that we have enough 'dragonmen' then we never needed dragonborn. Long before them we already had lizardmen and kobolds, the original 'dragonman' of D&D. Troglodytes got changed into reptilemen along the way somewhere as well (they were originally what a RL troglodyte is: a caveman).
There's also the saurials of FR. Sure Saurials and lizardmen aren't 'pure' dragonmen but they are reptilian humanoids with possible draconic links depending on the worlds genesis of dragons and the subraces.
If dragonborn are in DL in 4e they'll likely either be some sort of 'new arrival' (aka rare) or possibly come from one of the other continents that the novels haven't covered so still 'new' to the setting just not the world. DL would have to be jumped thousands of years to say draconians evolved into Dragonborn as even during the War of Souls draconians looked and acted much the same as they did when first created during the War of the Lance period (other than being able to breed which they weren't designed to do originally).
Also at this point draconians and dragonspawn are pretty much set up as atagonists/villains in 4e (as are lizardmen and kobolds). Of all the reptilian/draconic race options only the dragonborn is geared towards being a PC race and by the fluff are good guys much more often than not where the others are rarely if ever a good guy.
I doubt we'll see PC race writeups for Draconians. Their death-throes powers alone make them poor choices for a pc race and it IS the key mechanic of the creatures.
If you want to say that we have enough 'dragonmen' then we never needed dragonborn. Long before them we already had lizardmen and kobolds, the original 'dragonman' of D&D. Troglodytes got changed into reptilemen along the way somewhere as well (they were originally what a RL troglodyte is: a caveman).
There's also the saurials of FR. Sure Saurials and lizardmen aren't 'pure' dragonmen but they are reptilian humanoids with possible draconic links depending on the worlds genesis of dragons and the subraces.
If dragonborn are in DL in 4e they'll likely either be some sort of 'new arrival' (aka rare) or possibly come from one of the other continents that the novels haven't covered so still 'new' to the setting just not the world. DL would have to be jumped thousands of years to say draconians evolved into Dragonborn as even during the War of Souls draconians looked and acted much the same as they did when first created during the War of the Lance period (other than being able to breed which they weren't designed to do originally).
Also at this point draconians and dragonspawn are pretty much set up as atagonists/villains in 4e (as are lizardmen and kobolds). Of all the reptilian/draconic race options only the dragonborn is geared towards being a PC race and by the fluff are good guys much more often than not where the others are rarely if ever a good guy.
Yes, if you want to actually play Dragonlance, for some reason, Dragonborn would not be a good fit, and you might need Draconians.
But as we've got 4E as a baseline to work with, Dragonborn exist, and Draconians are redundant and unnecessary. The other not-quite-draconic-any-more races aren't in the current, already-existing PHB as draconic humanoids. Whether or not you feel the Dragonborn were a necessary or good addition to the game, they're here to stay, and additional draconic humanoids would be silly and redundant. This is why I'm not happy that they're in the Draconomicon. And yet, if they choose to present Dragonlance material piecemeal rather than in a full campaign setting, that's good, because that means that the next campaign setting could very well be something I'd buy and use, because it had something to contribute to my game.
One thing they've been trying to do with the CSs in 4e is make them semi-universal. Any major element of one CS should exist as a minor element in other settings. Genasi and Swordmages and Teiflings are now present in Eberron and PoL. Warforged and Artificers are now present in FR and PoL.
Draconians are a key element of DL, something that was unique to the setting. By placing them in another general use book, they are doing the same thing they did by placing Warforged in the MM, they are including them in other settings. They are generalizing parts of DL, which is the same thing they did with both FR and Eberron shortly before THEIR releases.
I'm pretty sure the 25th aniversary of DL will be celebrated with DL 4e Campaign books.
I doubt we'll see PC race writeups for Draconians. Their death-throes powers alone make them poor choices for a pc race and it IS the key mechanic of the creatures.
Agreed. They don't suit the role, and we've already got Dragonborn for draconic PCs. In DL, I'd prefer if they just called Dragonborn a type of Draconian, rather than making another draconic humanoid PC race.
If you want to say that we have enough 'dragonmen' then we never needed dragonborn. Long before them we already had lizardmen and kobolds, the original 'dragonman' of D&D. Troglodytes got changed into reptilemen along the way somewhere as well (they were originally what a RL troglodyte is: a caveman).
Lizardfolk/Lizardmen aren't really draconic any more than a dragon is "lizard-y"; they're both reptilian, but the themes are quite different.
As for Kobolds, they weren't originally reptilian at all; they were hairless and horned, but they were associated with goblinkind (as were Orcs). By 2nd Edition, Kobolds became rat-people. It wasn't until 3E that Kobolds gained any kind of association with dragons.
There's also the saurials of FR. Sure Saurials and lizardmen aren't 'pure' dragonmen but they are reptilian humanoids with possible draconic links depending on the worlds genesis of dragons and the subraces.
Possible, but tentative. Personally, I see Lizardfolk as highly distinct from Dragonborn, and I'm still a bit miffed that Dragonborn seem to have precluded the need for Lizardfolk NPCs and PCs in the minds of WotC. I really dug the whole, "primitive, reptilian, druidic swamp-people" angle that Lizardfolk had in 3E.
To the contrary of the Anti-DL speculation, I feel that this turn of events supports Dragonlance as the next Campaign setting.
One thing they've been trying to do with the CSs in 4e is make them semi-universal. Any major element of one CS should exist as a minor element in other settings. Genasi and Swordmages and Teiflings are now present in Eberron and PoL. Warforged and Artificers are now present in FR and PoL.
Draconians are a key element of DL, something that was unique to the setting. By placing them in another general use book, they are doing the same thing they did by placing Warforged in the MM, they are including them in other settings. They are generalizing parts of DL, which is the same thing they did with both FR and Eberron shortly before THEIR releases.
I'm pretty sure the 25th aniversary of DL will be celebrated with DL 4e Campaign books.
Except that it was celebrated with Eberron books instead. By the time the next setting is due out, it won't be the anniversary any more.
Yes, Draconians are a key element of DL. One of the very few unique things about the setting, and WotC is putting them in a core book, rather than a setting. How much generally useful rules information do you think is really left to stuff into a PG and CS? Swordmages are generally useful, as they're a pretty basic concept. Sword + magic. The races, too, are pretty generally useful. And I'm really sort of surprised FR never officially adopted Warforged and Artificers before. They fit so well.
And again, Warforged is a bad example. They're incredibly appropriate to the default "points of light" setting about the fall of greater civilizations resulting in spread-out settlements, and people still wanted to be able to play them in converted games using their favored settings... and still they only got a quick little stat block. They didn't get a full section.
And no, don't bring up the tinker gnomes. There's no possible way to make any sort of decent rules to govern tinker gnomes.
I don't believe that's true at all. I know because I wrote more on gnomes and tinkers in 3.5 DL than anybody else. I won't claim it was perfect, but it was decent.
Kender are just Halflings With A License To Disrupt The Game, and are the single worst contribution a campaign setting has ever made to my gaming experience.
Those players were going to find a loophole somehow. If you take an axe from an axe murderer, he's still going to find something to murder you with.
Cheers,
Cam
I don't believe that's true at all. I know because I wrote more on gnomes and tinkers in 3.5 DL than anybody else. I won't claim it was perfect, but it was decent.
A valiant attempt it was, but you were playing a losing game. I don't know if there's a system that handles big, flashy creation of any device imaginable and the various ways it could go wrong, but if there is one, I guarantee that it can't be contained within a D&D framework.
Those players were going to find a loophole somehow. If you take an axe from an axe murderer, he's still going to find something to murder you with.
No. These players read the books, liked Tasslehoff, and set out to play a character like that, because that's what the material urges them to do. Unfortunately, Tasslehoff himself was an extreme annoyance, and trying to play him on the fly is even worse. Dragonlance didn't just offer the axe. It assured people that axe murderers were cute and lovable and overall great people to have around.
I doubt we'll see PC race writeups for Draconians. Their death-throes powers alone make them poor choices for a pc race and it IS the key mechanic of the creatures.
I dunno about that. We have the Minotaur with it's ferocity ability already. It shouldn't be too much of a stretch to make a PC friendly version of the Draconian abilities.
I dunno about that. We have the Minotaur with it's ferocity ability already. It shouldn't be too much of a stretch to make a PC friendly version of the Draconian abilities.
Their bodies explode. I really don't see how that's particularly PC-friendly.
But as we've got 4E as a baseline to work with, Dragonborn exist, and Draconians are redundant and unnecessary.
Sorry, Matthias, I don't follow your logic. Your line of thinking would have resulted in Elves OR Eladrin OR Half-Elves, but we got all three in the same PHB. It's just as applicable to Eladrin/Deva - surely we only need one immortal race - or Halflings/Gnomes - surely we only need one variety of "little people".
The real question for Draconians as a PC race is, can Draconians be mechanically different enough to be interesting? And no one's really answered that question here; I personally think the answer's a pretty clear "yes".
As far as having them as monsters - look, you only need to look at the Ampersand column to see that there's nothing even remotely like these guys in the existing Monster Manuals. And that's just two breeds.
Sorry, Matthias, I don't follow your logic. Your line of thinking would have resulted in Elves OR Eladrin OR Half-Elves, but we got all three in the same PHB. It's just as applicable to Eladrin/Deva - surely we only need one immortal race - or Halflings/Gnomes - surely we only need one variety of "little people".
The real question for Draconians as a PC race is, can Draconians be mechanically different enough to be interesting? And no one's really answered that question here; I personally think the answer's a pretty clear "yes".
As far as having them as monsters - look, you only need to look at the Ampersand column to see that there's nothing even remotely like these guys in the existing Monster Manuals. And that's just two breeds.
I agree with most of what you wrote; I don't see any problem with Draconians as monsters. However, I've highlighted the part above that I disagree with.
Personally, I don't think that being mechanically distinct is the only issue; redundancy is one factor that you haven't considered. Do we need another race of draconic humanoid for players to have access to? Bear in mind that the differences between Elves, Eladrin, and Drow, for example, are thematic as well as mechanical.
Also worth considering is whether or not exploding upon death (hindering resurrection efforts, and potentially destroying your allies in the process) is an appropriate PC ability.
What does being able to play an exploding, evil, draconic humanoid add to the game that couldn't be accomplished with a sets of feats for Dragonborn characters? In my opinion, nothing.
Personally, I don't think that being mechanically distinct is the only issue; redundancy is one factor that you haven't considered. Do we need another race of draconic humanoid for players to have access to? Bear in mind that the differences between Elves, Eladrin, and Drow, for example, are thematic as well as mechanical.
That's a good point. Personally, I see the thematic differences. Dragonborn are the proud heirs of an ancient empire; Draconians are the recent bastard spawn of a mad god who owe their very existence to a magical abomination. In my own mind, it's a much stronger distinction than that between Elves and Eladrin. When you take into account the chromatic/metallic symmetry between Dragonborn and Draconians I think Elves/Drow is a pretty good analogy.
Besides, people love their half-dragons. When something's that popular, can we really have too many?
On-death abilities aren't something you'd want to heavily emphasise in PC builds. As far as PC abilities, I'm thinking of stuff like the Sivak shapechanging. That's vastly more powerful than something you'd typically get out of a feat. When you take into account that Draconians typically don't have a breath weapon, a better option would probably be to model Draconians on Dragonborn but give them different options for their racial encounter power. Much like the concept of "builds" for classes, only applied to races.
On the other hand I think it's just fine to leave them as monsters; the only difficulty is working out what to do with Dragonborn so far as Krynn is concerned.
That's a good point. Personally, I see the thematic differences. Dragonborn are the proud heirs of an ancient empire; Draconians are the recent bastard spawn of a mad god who owe their very existence to a magical abomination. In my own mind, it's a much stronger distinction than that between Elves and Eladrin. When you take into account the chromatic/metallic symmetry between Dragonborn and Draconians I think Elves/Drow is a pretty good analogy.
It's funny, because that's basically the description of Dragonspawn too, except that Dragonspawn haven't even got decades of history and legions of fans to defend them...
Besides, people love their half-dragons. When something's that popular, can we really have too many?
True facts! OTOH, so are "elves", but all of their subraces didn't help to endear them to folks who were neutral to them. I think there's a balance that needs to be struck, and the fact that dragon-people lend themselves at least as readily to being monsters as to being heroes needs to be considered.
On-death abilities aren't something you'd want to heavily emphasise in PC builds. As far as PC abilities, I'm thinking of stuff like the Sivak shapechanging. That's vastly more powerful than something you'd typically get out of a feat. When you take into account that Draconians typically don't have a breath weapon, a better option would probably be to model Draconians on Dragonborn but give them different options for their racial encounter power. Much like the concept of "builds" for classes, only applied to races.
On the other hand I think it's just fine to leave them as monsters; the only difficulty is working out what to do with Dragonborn so far as Krynn is concerned.
Good ideas! And I think you're on the right track as far as Dragonborn and Draconians go! Personally, my first instinct is to say, "Draconians = monsters only", but in the case of folks who'd insist upon playing Draconians, I would definitely lean towards using Dragonborn as the base-race (as you suggested), and then modifying them with variant racial abilities and/or racial feats (again in a manner similar to what you suggested).
As for how exactly to fit Dragonborn into DL, I have some ideas, but I have to reiterate that I say this as someone who is at best only vaguely familiar with the setting. You include them as another form of Draconian, as is. Or instead of as is, you could make them some new kind of "base"/"type-neutral" or larval form of Draconian, which grow into the familiar varieties. (One major snag here is that not all types of Draconian will be appropriate for PCs, the Large varieties in particular.) The downside here is that we'd be looking at a massively Dragonborn-heavy racial section of the book, which might leave other races and their fans feeling alienated.
I think Dragonborn are potentially a natural fit for the Dragonlance setting, except that they missed the first quarter of the game, so to speak. Now it's not a matter of whether or not they should be in the DL lineup, but rather where, when, and how to include them without wrecking what's already working.
It's funny, because that's basically the description of Dragonspawn too, except that Dragonspawn haven't even got decades of history and legions of fans to defend them...
Popularity is nine-tenths of everything. It's why we've got playable Drow but not playable Svirfneblins. And providing you can find suitably interesting mechanics I don't see anything wrong with deciding what gets a write-up on the basis of fan following rather than specific need.
Popularity is nine-tenths of everything. It's why we've got playable Drow but not playable Svirfneblins. And providing you can find suitably interesting mechanics I don't see anything wrong with deciding what gets a write-up on the basis of fan following rather than specific need.
You might be right about that; it's hard to say for certain because of the fickle nature of fanbases. What I can say for certain is that I don't care much for Dragonspawn, and I don't know anyone who does; I get the feel they were conceived as sort of "core" Draconian, which causes problems when you start throwing real Draconians (and their not-nonexistent fans) into the mix.
You might be right about that; it's hard to say for certain because of the fickle nature of fanbases. What I can say for certain is that I don't care much for Dragonspawn, and I don't know anyone who does; I get the feel they were conceived as sort of "core" Draconian, which causes problems when you start throwing real Draconians (and their not-nonexistent fans) into the mix.
I love DRAGONSPAWN, so there exists at least one fan. I have loved them ever since their introduction and I've been most disappointed with the more limited coverage they have received in 4E (eagerly awaiting Ecology of the Dragonspawn or Creature Incarnations: Dragonswpawn).
Personally I find them much more interesting than draconians, due to the multiple varieties within each color. Draconians are all just foot soldiers of to some extent, while dragonspawn range from humanoid soldiers to barely sentient beasts. Alsos, the powers and abilities of dragonspawn seem more thematicaly conected with the base chromatic, where as the powers and abilities of draconians seem somewhat random and unrelated to the base metallic.
It is my contention that these second-generation draconians should be dragonborn. They don't have their parents' unstable magical natures, thus they don't explode when they die, but they need to work hard to develop any of the special abilities their parents had (other than the breath weapon, which they regain as part of their stable genes.)
Cheers,
Cam
Draconians could never breed in the original campaign, and until they discovered that there was a hidden cache of female eggs their existence as a race was doomed. Now, with the females having reached maturity, they can produce natural-born offspring.
It is my contention that these second-generation draconians should be dragonborn. They don't have their parents' unstable magical natures, thus they don't explode when they die, but they need to work hard to develop any of the special abilities their parents had (other than the breath weapon, which they regain as part of their stable genes.)
Cheers,
Cam
I think that could work! I was going to suggest, "Maybe Dragonborn are what happen when Draconians have babies," but I didn't know if Draconians could do that. But if anyone would know, I assume it would be you, and if this solution works for you, then let's do it!
It is my contention that these second-generation draconians should be dragonborn. They don't have their parents' unstable magical natures, thus they don't explode when they die, but they need to work hard to develop any of the special abilities their parents had (other than the breath weapon, which they regain as part of their stable genes.)
This. I might only have passing familiarity with the Dragon Lance setting, but after having done some minor research on draconians this is exactly the idea that I came up with.
Now, with the females having reached maturity, they can produce natural-born offspring.
Aha! Thankyou. I've been wondering how to incorporate Draconians into Eberron. If they're always created from Dragon eggs, then I have difficulty imagining how they could possibly continue to exist without the metallic dragons wiping out the egg thieves. However if they breed true, I can hide their creation somewhere in the past
Dragonlance didn't just offer the axe. It assured people that axe murderers were cute and lovable and overall great people to have around.
Somebody should sig this :D
Dragonlance didn't just offer the axe. It assured people that axe murderers were cute and lovable and overall great people to have around.
Somebody should sig this :D
If I were the type to sig random quotes I'd be far more likely to sig the more sensible quote that inspired it.
Those players were going to find a loophole somehow. If you take an axe from an axe murderer, he's still going to find something to murder you with.
If I were the type to sig random quotes I'd be far more likely to sig the more sensible quote that inspired it.
There is such a thing as problem players. Unfortunately, there is also such a thing as problem concepts.
If a player independently came up with the idea of playing a kleptomaniac with pathological curiosity and fearlessness and a penchant for smack talk, he'd be refused by any sensible DM. Far, far too disruptive and annoying. It's likely the player would be ejected from the group. Who does something like that?
And then somebody starts a Dragonlance campaign, and someone always seems to want to play a kender - by definition, an insanely curious, fearless kleptomaniac with a penchant for smack talk. That's right there in the description and rules starting on page 28 of the 3E Dragonlance campaign setting. You can't get upset at the player, because the race and description are right there in the book. Plus, it's Dragonlance, and everyone at the table has probably read the novels and therefore knows and probably loves Tasslehoff. He's iconic, so it's hard to outright ban his race completely.
What some people to realize is, having a kender around was a pain in the butt for the novel characters, and if they try to stay in character at all, having a kender around is going to be at least as bad for your group's characters, and players. The only way to keep them from being annoying and dangerous is to quash them completely, and that's hardly going to be much fun for the player, now is it?
Despite all this, kender are a PC race in Dragonlance.
One thought I had was letting the various Breeds be feat/paragon paths for the dragonborn, if you have the feat you're a pure-breed or close to it, anyone who didn't have a breed feet was a mutt, and then you took the paragon path which gave you all the really neat powers.
DM's Guide to Handling
Kender handling is one of the most debated and misunderstood of all kender traits. Handling is the action of taking the property of another without permission of the owner and without the intent of depriving that individual of their property. Kender handling has been equated to kleptomania, an obsessive impulse to take things regardless of need. This is not exactly true, because the obsession is not with taking things but with exploring things. Kender don’t feel a need to take things from others; they feel a need to examine things. Therefore they do have a need—curiosity.
Unfortunately, in many games, kender seem to target valuable items, such as money pouches or jewelry. This type of role playing leads people to believe that a kender steals out of greed. All you have to do is check a kender’s pouches to see this isn’t the case. Tiny wooden penguins, feathers, ribbons, candy, quills, and river stones are only a few of the hundreds of items kender keep that have no real worth to anyone. So when a money pouch or jewelry joins the list of tree bark, marbles, and bee’s wax, it’s just another item on the list.
It must be made abundantly clear that kender do not steal out of greed, profit, or revenge. They borrow items for inspection and usually immediately stuff them in a pouch for further inspection at a later date or examine it while they wander off, thus forgetting to return it. This is how they were raised, and it is not an evil intent that drives them.
There are three basic methods in which a DM can deal with how a player character’s kender handles. The first, pre-meditated handling, places all the work on the player. The second, restricted handling, lets the player do all the work when the DM allows. The third, absentminded handling, places all of the work on the DM.
Making it Easier
Having a kender in a game can be a major commitment, but it doesn’t have to be disruptive. There are a few ways to cut down on the interruptions that may occur due to handling. The easiest way to do this is for the DM to maintain what’s in the kender’s pouches. After an initial list is created, it is given to the DM. Then the kender only gets to see the list when she specifically says she has emptied her pouches. She reviews it and hands it back when she is done. If she can remember something from the list, she’ll remember it’s in the pouch. If the player forgets, the kender forgets.
After each game session or major encounter, the DM can take a minute to update the kender’s pouch list. The DM can remove a random item and add any new items he wishes. When the kender makes a pouch grab, the item they are looking for may not be there anymore. The DM can also slip in items that may lead the adventuring group in the direction he needs them to go. “What do you mean the kender took the King’s crown?!”
The DM and player must decide what is fair game to displace. Some players may be upset if the DM trades away a treasured magic item for a peanut shell.
There should be firm house rules stating that anything in a pouch is fair game for misplacing. If the player values a particular magical dagger, she must state she is sheathing it apart from her pouches.
Above all, remember that handling and dealing with kender pouches should add to the atmosphere of the game and not detract from the roleplaying experience. If you’re getting too bogged down with the paperwork of dealing with handling, simply roll on the following charts or pick something at random.
Cheers,
Cam
That addresses a few of the problems of only one negative point about the kender.
Why would they release ALL the Draconians at once? There are still Bozaks, Kapaks, Baaz left to be statted.
They gave a list of what egg they come from. Even Cobalt and Iron and Adam....
I sure hope we wouldn't get all the draconians at once in the miniature setting. We only get 40 monsters every 3-4 months. Having almost 10% based on 1 species would be bad.
I think that could work! I was going to suggest, "Maybe Dragonborn are what happen when Draconians have babies," but I didn't know if Draconians could do that. But if anyone would know, I assume it would be you, and if this solution works for you, then let's do it!
You info on how Dragon-born are will probably cost you $9.95. Since they are making a 64 page book about the race.
If you can get your hands on the races of dragon 3.5 book it explains quite a bit about them.
Plus Draconians were corrupted Metallic dragon eggs. The only spin on this is that not all Metallic have to be Good.
You info on how Dragon-born are will probably cost you $9.95. Since they are making a 64 page book about the race.
If you can get your hands on the races of dragon 3.5 book it explains quite a bit about them.
Plus Draconians were corrupted Metallic dragon eggs. The only spin on this is that not all Metallic have to be Good.
Umm 3.X Dragonborn are completely different from 4th Dragonborn, so Races of the Dragon wouldn't do any good with regards to them.
Anyways doctorhook was just suggesting how to retcon Dragonborn into Dragonlance, not discussing their generic orgin.
I simply had a humongous chart (something like a thousand variables) of a lot of useless stuff (wooden spoon, cup, rock, interesting bug etc...) then whenever the kender went to poke around in his bag or he got searched, I rolled a few times to show what he had picked up.
So the only "Stealing" the player did was concerted effort in the name of the party.
And I can't wait to see DL as a campaign setting, I hope that its the one. My girlfriend has been bugging me like crazy to get kender back into our games.
And I can't wait to see DL as a campaign setting, I hope that its the one. My girlfriend has been bugging me like crazy to get kender back into our games.
Halfling with immune to fear
done...
Halfling with immune to fear
done...
well, yea, but we're not playing Krynn right now, and I don't really feel like moving Kender over to my homebrew...
So what I should say, is I can't wait to see the new stuff for Dragonlance 4e as a setting and start an adventure in it...
and then she gets her kender...
well, yea, but we're not playing Krynn right now, and I don't really feel like moving Kender over to my homebrew...
So what I should say, is I can't wait to see the new stuff for Dragonlance 4e as a setting and start an adventure in it...
and then she gets her kender...
She is going to wait that long?
You have her well trained :P
I'm just good at redirecting the flow of anger.
What the hell is a Draconian?
Corrupted Metallic Dragon egg.
What the hell is a Draconian?
Corrupted Metallic Dragon egg.
...Umm, no.
A Draconian is one of several different types of evil draconic humanoid, native to the Dragonlance setting. Small groups of them are created from magically a corrupted Metallic Dragon egg. (Pay attention, Mr Azalin; Draconians are the creatures that come from the corrupted eggs, not the eggs themselves!) The specific type of Draconians which result depend upon the type of egg used to create them. The types differ widely in appearance and abilities, but they're all evil, and they all "explode" upon death.
I did once hear someone mention that there are such things as good Draconians, and that these are created from corrupted Chromatic Dragon eggs, but you'll have to ask someone who knows more about Dragonlance to verify this.
The reason we're discussing Draconians is that they (the evil kind, at least) have been confirmed to appear in 4E in this fall's Draconomicon II: Metallic Dragons.
PS: Cam, please double check everything I just said; I'm still learning this DL thing, so I wanna run it past someone who will for sure know if I'm getting things mixed up.
Umm 3.X Dragonborn are completely different from 4th Dragonborn, so Races of the Dragon wouldn't do any good with regards to them.
Anyways doctorhook was just suggesting how to retcon Dragonborn into Dragonlance, not discussing their generic orgin.
Thanks for getting my back there, R! Every once in a while, it's nice to know that someone at least skims my posts.
Thanks for getting my back there, R! Every once in a while, it's nice to know that someone at least skims my posts.
I have to disagree with you here doctorhook, pink ponies are not the most awesome thing in existence. I question why you even bring this up in this thread.:P
I have to disagree with you here doctorhook, pink ponies are not the most awesome thing in existence. I question why you even bring this up in this thread.:P
I knew I could count on you, man!
Draconians could never breed in the original campaign, and until they discovered that there was a hidden cache of female eggs their existence as a race was doomed. Now, with the females having reached maturity, they can produce natural-born offspring.
It is my contention that these second-generation draconians should be dragonborn. They don't have their parents' unstable magical natures, thus they don't explode when they die, but they need to work hard to develop any of the special abilities their parents had (other than the breath weapon, which they regain as part of their stable genes.)
Cheers,
Cam
I like that idea. My only problem with it is that it requires advancing the setting again; my preference is to see a rewind back to the War of the Lance, or in the alternative equal support for each key era of the setting.
I like that idea. My only problem with it is that it requires advancing the setting again; my preference is to see a rewind back to the War of the Lance, or in the alternative equal support for each key era of the setting.
I'm quite the opposite. I'd rather see the setting advanced around about 1,000 years. That way all the novels can still be true, but will have happened long enough ago so as to have faded into myth and legend, thus mostly freeing DMs to make stuff up as they go along. A 1,000 year advance will also be long enough for all the change needed to adapt the setting to have happened gradually so as to avoid the need to turn everything upside down like WotC did with the Forgotten Realms.
I like that idea. My only problem with it is that it requires advancing the setting again; my preference is to see a rewind back to the War of the Lance, or in the alternative equal support for each key era of the setting.
My preference would be to set it 100 years after the War of the Lance, which would actually only require moving it ahead one generation from the current era. The War of the Lance ended in 352 AC; the 3.5 DL setting started the year after the War of Souls, in 422 AC, and the novels advanced things through ten years, ending in 432 AC. Indeed, Doug Niles' dwarven trilogy ends a couple years after that, so we're already 80+ years ahead of the War of the Lance.
20 years gives you time to:
* mature a lot of dragonborn from their draconian parents, now in their own nation of Teyr;
* divide the elves into those who now live in the Valley of Inath-Wakenti (eladrin) and those who have reclaimed the ancient elven lands on the island of Cristyne (elves), with Kerianseray and Gilthas' son old enough to actually do something interesting;
* stabilize the Solamnic Empire under Emperor Jaymes Markham, whose son would now be of age and pivotal in the destiny of that nation;
* rebuild the Wizards of High Sorcery to their former status, under the tutelage of Dalamar, Jenna, and Coryn;
* expand and stabilize the minotaur empire, the Ithincarthian invasion of the Plains of Dust, the Dark Knight factions in Neraka and Qualinost, the tiefling infiltration of the Empire of Ergoth, the rebuilding of the dwarven nations of Thoradin and Thorbardin, the rise of artificers in Mount Nevermind...
...and lots more.
I had a huge plan for how to fully implement Dragonlance into this new 4E era, without major retcons, without retreading the War of the Lance, without leaving all the action to the NPCs, without sacrificing the flavor of the setting.
And yeah, it had Paladine and Takhisis. Sort of.
Cheers,
Cam
I had a huge plan for how to fully implement Dragonlance into this new 4E era, without major retcons, without retreading the War of the Lance, without leaving all the action to the NPCs, without sacrificing the flavor of the setting.
Cheers,
Cam
While you're on the thread, Cam, I can see that some people like the "expanded universe" of Dragonlance, and I think those people should get 4E support for it. But on the other hand, I don't see the aversion to re-treading the War of the Lance. If you have a genuinely good story and era, I don't think there's any reason that the world does need to progress. It's generally held that the War of the Ring is the era for Lord of the Rings, and the Galactic Civil War still continues to be the part of the Star Wars continuity that does the best business.
It's exactly the same as if you made a World War II roleplaying game - let's call it "Hitler Must Die!". Yes, time moves on, and eventually there's a 1950s and a 1960s... but the 1960s simply aren't the world of "Hitler Must Die!". The mood and context of the 1940s are what made the game unique and resonant, and while we technically can tell stories in other periods of history - good stories - it's trimming around the edges of the setting's heart.
I say that not meaning to disparage anything that's been done in the many years of Dragonlance since its beginning (except Dragons of Summer Flame, I really do hate that book). Just - not everything needs to be transfigured by the march of time, you know?
(Star Trek's a great example: three very successful and distinct eras of history, plus one that sucked, but when it comes time to reinvigorate the series for a new generation, what do they turn to? A reimagining of the concepts that originally captured everyone's imagination. And like it or loathe it, it's done great business for them. There's, I think, room for a reimagining of the War of the Lance without disrespecting anything that's come since.)
(Star Trek's a great example: three very successful and distinct eras of history, plus one that sucked, but when it comes time to reinvigorate the series for a new generation, what do they turn to? A reimagining of the concepts that originally captured everyone's imagination. And like it or loathe it, it's done great business for them. There's, I think, room for a reimagining of the War of the Lance without disrespecting anything that's come since.)
Wait, which three eras are there, and which one sucked? I count TNG, DS9, and Voyager all as one era, then there's Enterprise (which wasn't very successful) and TOS (which also wasn't very successful in its time). What am I missing?
Oh right! The era of the first six movies! They were okay.
There is, quite literally, far too much that's in core 4E to shoehorn into the setting that you would end up more with Scales of War than the War of the Lance. If anything, you should Trek-retcon the series into the years immediately after the War, the period in which the YA novels for Dragonlance were set. Bring in as much as you can of the 4E and borrow from the future, and it might work.
But at the end of the day, you stand to include more of the older fanbase and attract more new people if you move ahead a generation and not put out the 5th version of the Classic adventures (1st was in 1984-85, 2nd was 2nd edition repackage, 3rd was SAGA/AD&D single volume for DL's 15th anniversary, and 4th was the 3.5 trilogy we released a couple years back.) Not even the classic Greyhawk adventures get that much rehashing.
Cheers,
Cam
...Umm, no.
A Draconian is one of several different types of evil draconic humanoid, native to the Dragonlance setting. Small groups of them are created from magically a corrupted Metallic Dragon egg. (Pay attention, Mr Azalin; Draconians are the creatures that come from the corrupted eggs, not the eggs themselves!) The specific type of Draconians which result depend upon the type of egg used to create them. The types differ widely in appearance and abilities, but they're all evil, and they all "explode" upon death.
I did once hear someone mention that there are such things as good Draconians, and that these are created from corrupted Chromatic Dragon eggs, but you'll have to ask someone who knows more about Dragonlance to verify this.
The reason we're discussing Draconians is that they (the evil kind, at least) have been confirmed to appear in 4E in this fall's Draconomicon II: Metallic Dragons.
PS: Cam, please double check everything I just said; I'm still learning this DL thing, so I wanna run it past someone who will for sure know if I'm getting things mixed up.
1. You already said you don't know much of the DL setting. This is true by your statements. You might want to take the time and read the Ampersand.
I said it is a Corrupt Metallic Dragon Egg. Which is true since it has always been that way and here is it in 4.0 "Evil spellcasters and priests create cruel servitors known as draconians by using a ritual that corrupts metallic dragon eggs". I guess you failed on critical thinking. Since it is a corrupt metallic dragon egg that is where Draconians come from. You are welcome to try again at anytime.
2. Again your reading comprehension and critical thinking are very low. You said "they explode". They do something on their death and they always did. Some blew up and others turned to stone. This isn't new the Boneshard Skeleton does it twice.
3. What Draconian was not evil?
Good try I will say I needed a laugh this morning.
Wait, which three eras are there, and which one sucked? I count TNG, DS9, and Voyager all as one era, then there's Enterprise (which wasn't very successful) and TOS (which also wasn't very successful in its time). What am I missing?
Oh right! The era of the first six movies! They were okay.
You have
2063 first contact
1. 2151-2161 - Enterprise
2. 2233 Nero arrives creates an alternative timeline
3. 2266-2269 TOS
4. 2364-2670 TNG
5. 2369-2375 Yoyager
then movies up to Nemesis
6-7 depending on if you count the movies - Star Trek Online
2. Again your reading comprehension and critical thinking are very low. You said "they explode". They do something on their death and they always did. Some blew up and others turned to stone. This isn't new the Boneshard Skeleton does it twice.
He was clearly using "explodes" as short-hand for the various death throes of the various species. The same way you used "are corrupt metallic eggs" as short-hand for "they are born from corrupted metallic dragon eggs). You should cut him the same slack you ask for yourself.
3. What Draconian was not evil?
Noble Draconians
He was clearly using "explodes" as short-hand for the various death throes of the various species. The same way you used "are corrupt metallic eggs" as short-hand for "they are born from corrupted metallic dragon eggs). You should cut him the same slack you ask for yourself.
Noble Draconians
The "explodes" part was put in the amp article. He just misunderstood the meaning when he reused it in his sentence. There was no short hand on his attempt.
You are going to take me to a Wikipedia.org site. That is not a credible site to get information; henceforth, I didn't look at it and still poise you the question that there are Good Draconians?
The "explodes" part was put in the amp article. He just misunderstood the meaning when he reused it in his sentence. There was no short hand on his attempt.
You are going to take me to a Wikipedia.org site. That is not a credible site to get information; henceforth, I didn't look at it and still poise you the question that there are Good Draconians?
Well, they are in the following products: Bestiary of Krynn - game supplement (all five types), Dragons of Krynn - game supplement (racial stats and monster levels for all five types), the Price of Courage - adventure (venom draconian pirate, Skullface), and Dragons of Time - novel (vapor draconian mystic).
The noble draconians come from the eggs of chromatic dragons, Frost are white, Venom are black, Vapor are green, Lightning are blue, and Flame are red.
Cheers,
Cam
You are going to take me to a Wikipedia.org site. That is not a credible site to get information; henceforth, I didn't look at it and still poise you the question that there are Good Draconians?
You're rather behind the times. Studies have shown that wikipedia is as reliable, if not more so, than most major encyclopedias. True it's more vulnerable to malicious vandalism, but for the most part it's rather stringent sourcing policies combined with a massive community of editors dedicated to preserving its integrity mean that any attempts at intentional misinformation rarely go unchecked for any length of time.
You're rather behind the times. Studies have shown that wikipedia is as reliable, if not more so, than most major encyclopedias. True it's more vulnerable to malicious vandalism, but for the most part it's rather stringent sourcing policies combined with a massive community of editors dedicated to preserving its integrity mean that any attempts at intentional misinformation rarely go unchecked for any length of time.
But its new and non-traditional. Surely it must be unreliable :headexplo
;)
Encyclopedias and dictionaries tend to include deliberate FALSE information as plagiarism catches.
People have this tendency to take anything listed as a fact somewhere as if it really is a confirmed fact.
As a result of these two things combined, people spread all sorts of false information, this gets picked up second hand from derivative works, and republished in tertiary sources, and viola, suddenly a bad joke someone put in as a copyright infringement catch is in EVERY BOOK EVERYWHERE, as an honest to god fact beyond reproach.
So, yeah, basically you should believe things in print reference books to the same extent you believe random web-pages. If anything, Wikipedia is better, because the the BS is often more obvious.
After all, any sane person will realize that Tycho Brahe's mother wasn't really a horse, and that cupcakes weren't invented by Lord and Lady Samuel Cupcake. But if you read in the encyclopedia that Liberia was founded by escaped slaves in 1827, would you realize it was wrong? Can you tell me the truth without looking it up? Didn't think so.
1. You already said you don't know much of the DL setting. This is true by your statements. You might want to take the time and read the Ampersand.
I said it is a Corrupt Metallic Dragon Egg. Which is true since it has always been that way and here is it in 4.0 "Evil spellcasters and priests create cruel servitors known as draconians by using a ritual that corrupts metallic dragon eggs". I guess you failed on critical thinking. Since it is a corrupt metallic dragon egg that is where Draconians come from. You are welcome to try again at anytime.
2. Again your reading comprehension and critical thinking are very low. You said "they explode". They do something on their death and they always did. Some blew up and others turned to stone. This isn't new the Boneshard Skeleton does it twice.
3. What Draconian was not evil?
Good try I will say I needed a laugh this morning.
I'm glad I could entertain you! You're pretty hilarious yourself.
Someone asked what a Draconian is. You responded with an answer which, while not totally false, was entirely unhelpful. Taken at face value (the only value possible, because you neglected to provide a context) your comment could lead someone to incorrectly think that a Draconian is an Metallic Dragon egg which has been corrupted, rather than the creatures that come out of it. The lesson here is that if you want people to understand you, write in sentences, and don't assume that people reading your words can read your mind too.
As for the "They explode upon death" bit, I admit I didn't know that different types of Draconians have different attacks that trigger upon their deaths, and that I only skimmed the Ampersand article, and that I borrowed the shorthand "explode" to describe what I thought all Draconians do. I wasn't correct. That said, IMHO I still think "They explode upon death," is part of a much clearer (not to mention technically accurate) answer than what you offered.
Apparently I was right about their being Good/Non-Evil Draconians. I think it's pretty funny that you laughed at me for being correct.
The "explodes" part was put in the amp article. He just misunderstood the meaning when he reused it in his sentence. There was no short hand on his attempt.
You are going to take me to a Wikipedia.org site. That is not a credible site to get information; henceforth, I didn't look at it and still poise you the question that there are Good Draconians?
I've seen you attack several people's "reading comprehension and critical thinking" in at least a couple different threads already. I'm going to assume it's because you're insecure about your literacy, because you certainly seem to have the very same troubles you've accused me and others of. Also, you badly misused several words (not to mention logic) in the final sentence of the above post.
Why do we gotta keep hating? I don't have anything against you, Azalin, but I will flame you mercilessly if you're hostile or ridiculous. Let's end this.
We had a kender in a game and it wasn't disruptive at all. It depends on the maturity of the player. Kender are mostly antagonists. A DM should be prepared to handle these types of players, regardless of class. The biggest disruption we ever had? A 3.5 Warlock. 'Nuff said.
I am pretty new here, guys and gals, but I play. I am just more the lurker type.
Also, tinker gnomes can rock if played right. I ran a game with the rules for their tinkering fully intact. They were kind of slow but they worked. Also, used the rules for kender's pouches. Again, they worked. Almost all of a kender's pouches are filled with useless, "pretty" stuff.
It seems Draconians would be better as enemies than as a PC race. Although, no, not all are evil, the dragonborn will outshine them unless they are somehow brought up to muster, which would change the race as we know it.
If a book came out detailing 12' tall kender....it would fundamentally change the race too much. Same with draconians.
Just my two cents.
Peace~Nephilim
This race is blatantly, explicitly made to drive everyone around them mad. If they don't, then they're not in character. That's my problem with kender. If you can't roleplay one fully without it causing problems, why have them as PCs?
I am glad, though, that the general opinion seems to be that Draconians aren't fit to be a PC race.
You're rather behind the times. Studies have shown that wikipedia is as reliable, if not more so, than most major encyclopedias. True it's more vulnerable to malicious vandalism, but for the most part it's rather stringent sourcing policies combined with a massive community of editors dedicated to preserving its integrity mean that any attempts at intentional misinformation rarely go unchecked for any length of time.
Behind the times? LMFAO
I take it you haven't attended any higher learning facilities? If you have you would know it is not credible; henceforth, used as a source. Anyone with any sense stays away from something like that and finds the information in more credible locations.
I'm glad I could entertain you! You're pretty hilarious yourself.
Someone asked what a Draconian is. You responded with an answer which, while not totally false, was entirely unhelpful. Taken at face value (the only value possible, because you neglected to provide a context) your comment could lead someone to incorrectly think that a Draconian is an Metallic Dragon egg which has been corrupted, rather than the creatures that come out of it. The lesson here is that if you want people to understand you, write in sentences, and don't assume that people reading your words can read your mind too.
I guess the person would lack critical thinking skills and common sense. Since it is in an egg it would have to hatch. I don't think anyone that hasn't had any schooling would have misunderstood what I wrote.
As for the "They explode upon death" bit, I admit I didn't know that different types of Draconians have different attacks that trigger upon their deaths, and that I only skimmed the Ampersand article, and that I borrowed the shorthand "explode" to describe what I thought all Draconians do. I wasn't correct. That said, IMHO I still think "They explode upon death," is part of a much clearer (not to mention technically accurate) answer than what you offered.
What did I offer? That they have many different effects? From turning into stone and such is what I offered and this is what they did in the past and novels. Now I mention that they are like the Boneshard Skeleton the only difference between that and the Draconian is that the Draconian only gets to do its effect once. As the Skeleton does it twice.
Apparently I was right about their being Good/Non-Evil Draconians. I think it's pretty funny that you laughed at me for being correct.
From what I read and actually played in the DL setting. The good people would never do that in the first place. Secondly, you don't happen to find Evil Dragon eggs just lying around. Tiamat (sorry Takhisis) wouldn't let them fall in hands that were not deserving.
Plus when that bestiary was written it was (if memory serves) during the time of just putting as much product out that wasn't rewritten and just cash the checks. The Novels that they were used in (if memory serves) weren't published under the D&D Flag (TSR/WoTC), correct?
I've seen you attack several people's "reading comprehension and critical thinking" in at least a couple different threads already. I'm going to assume it's because you're insecure about your literacy, because you certainly seem to have the very same troubles you've accused me and others of. Also, you badly misused several words (not to mention logic) in the final sentence of the above post.
Why do we gotta keep hating? I don't have anything against you, Azalin, but I will flame you mercilessly if you're hostile or ridiculous. Let's end this.
The final sentence that I wrote was...
That is not a credible site to get information; henceforth, I didn't look at it and still poise you the question that there are Good Draconians?
Explain yourself as you make no sense to me on what you wrote (bold)
But no, the real problem tends to be their personalities. Insanely curious, fearless, chatty, and with an inherent racial smack-talk ability.
This race is blatantly, explicitly made to drive everyone around them mad. If they don't, then they're not in character. That's my problem with kender. If you can't roleplay one fully without it causing problems, why have them as PCs?
Sounds a lot like my old HALFING warmage, whom I played in a distinctly non-Dragon Lance setting, before I had ever heard of kender. He was a real hoot, and none of my fellow players ever felt the need to smack me across the so far as I could tell. Sure once or twice another PC would clamp their hands of my PC's mouth to keep him from saying the wrong thing to the wrong person, but that's in character interaction. Truthfully thats the key; not to let in-game character tensions translate into out-of-game animosity. My halfling might have been chatty and the other CHARACTERS might have found it annoying, but for the PLAYERS at the table it's all fun and games.
I take it you haven't attended any higher learning facilities? If you have you would know it is not credible; henceforth, used as a source. Anyone with any sense stays away from something like that and finds the information in more credible locations.
Wrong. 1) I have, not that it should matter. 2) while I have had my fare share of old-guard professors who feel the only legitimate information source is a dusty tome, most younger professors (the ones who actually know how to turn on a computer) have actually begun to recommended Wikipedia as a place to start a research project. Granted, wikipedia is a poor choice to cite in and of itself, but it's a great place to get an overview of any given topic, and the links at the bottom can often be used to find appropriate citation sources.
Seriously sites like Wikipedia are the way of the future. Academia will have to evolve, but it's hardly the first time. The entire internet itself was once taboo to cite in a research papers, and before that it was another evil modern media resource.
From what I read and actually played in the DL setting. The good people would never do that in the first place. Secondly, you don't happen to find Evil Dragon eggs just lying around. Tiamat (sorry Takhisis) wouldn't let them fall in hands that were not deserving.
You're right the powers of good wouldn't do that kind of thing. It was Takhisis herself who ordered her own priests to perform the corruption rituals on chromatic eggs, due to a shortage of metallic eggs. The untended result was the the ritual created GOOD draconians, most of which were destroyed immediately upon discovery of their alignment.
Here's my (off-topic) response to Azalin's increasingly off-topic ridiculousness
In order to illustrate why what you wrote doesn't make any sense, I'm going repost the exact conversation that started this, except that I'm going to replace the original topic (Draconians) with the topic of chickens:
Clearly your answer wouldn't be appropriate or correct; after your answer, I'd expect Scallat to go to the store looking to buy a carton of a dozen "chickens". My point is that the word "egg" is not a synonym for what comes out of that egg; that's as true for chicken eggs as it is for Draconian eggs.
Okay... I don't wanna say it (because it's your shtick, not mine), but, "Your reading comprehension failed here." Reread my post again and try to figure out what I meant by, "...a better answer than what you offered." If you think you've figured it out...
I guess the person would lack critical thinking skills and common sense. Since it is in an egg it would have to hatch. I don't think anyone that hasn't had any schooling would have misunderstood what I wrote.
In order to illustrate why what you wrote doesn't make any sense, I'm going repost the exact conversation that started this, except that I'm going to replace the original topic (Draconians) with the topic of chickens:
What the hell is a [chicken]?[Farmer's] egg.
Clearly your answer wouldn't be appropriate or correct; after your answer, I'd expect Scallat to go to the store looking to buy a carton of a dozen "chickens". My point is that the word "egg" is not a synonym for what comes out of that egg; that's as true for chicken eggs as it is for Draconian eggs.
What did I offer? That they have many different effects? From turning into stone and such is what I offered and this is what they did in the past and novels. Now I mention that they are like the Boneshard Skeleton the only difference between that and the Draconian is that the Draconian only gets to do its effect once. As the Skeleton does it twice.
Okay... I don't wanna say it (because it's your shtick, not mine), but, "Your reading comprehension failed here." Reread my post again and try to figure out what I meant by, "...a better answer than what you offered." If you think you've figured it out...
The correct answer is:
"Corrupted Metallic Dragon egg."
I'm not saying you're wrong about that, all I was saying was that I've heard people mention that there's such things as "Good Draconians". I don't play DL or read the novels, so I only know what I've heard, and it doesn't sound like I've heard wrong given that a Cam Banks, Dragonlance author, confirmed the existence of Non-Evil Draconians in this very thread.
This - this - is what I love about Dragonlance. That it inspires such a sense of fan ownership, even in people who haven't been following the novels for years, that someone who's been part of the official guardianship of the franchise can make a flat out declaration of how things have appeared in offical source material, and have fans go, "No, I don't believe that."
Only the very best franchises inspire this kind of "Just because the writer said so doesn't mean it's right." It really requires something which has origins that really resonate to be able to look at stuff that's come later which lies on a creatively equal footing and say, "No."
We did a lot to rehabilitate the negative perception of the kender in our 3.5 DL books.
I understand you are a worker on these books. but really why bother...the idea of a kender works great in novels and horrid in games. Just keep them out of the games. See what makes tas (and other kenders/tinker gnome/ gully dwarf) great is they get to be comidic at times, and still cool, and be able to be uniqe help in some situations...becuse the writer has 100% full control. In a novel if we are in the middle of a heart felt or seriuse sceen the character only is humuris if the writer wants it. In my game the kender can 'ohh shinny' or run off to investigate something weird in the middle of my scean...or the kender taking X Y or Z when it only makes the game harder...
DM's Guide to Handling
Kender handling is one of the most debated and misunderstood of all kender traits. Handling is the action of taking the property of another without permission of the owner and without the intent of depriving that individual of their property.
I want to break part of this out...
the action of taking the property of another without permission of the owner
THEIFT...you see i don't put up with some one stealing from me. So I will say this right now...if in any game a kender stole from me, and was allowed to continue in the party I would attack them. No argueing 'well that is unfair' inless I can design my human theif (rouge) and steal from party members with out any bad effects. Intent only cares so far, at the end of the day no one in real life would keep someone like that around withou a major problem...
Kender handling has been equated to kleptomania, an obsessive impulse to take things regardless of need. This is not exactly true, because the obsession is not with taking things but with exploring things. Kender don’t feel a need to take things from others; they feel a need to examine things. Therefore they do have a need—curiosity.
again all this is BS...
kleptomania, an obsessive impulse to take things regardless of need.
fits like a glove, now your explanation
Kender don’t feel a need to take things from others; they feel a need to examine things. Therefore they do have a need—curiosity.
is WHY they are klepto's not disproveing that they are...
Unfortunately, in many games, kender seem to target valuable items, such as money pouches or jewelry. This type of role playing leads people to believe that a kender steals out of greed. All you have to do is check a kender’s pouches to see this isn’t the case. Tiny wooden penguins, feathers, ribbons, candy, quills, and river stones are only a few of the hundreds of items kender keep that have no real worth to anyone. So when a money pouch or jewelry joins the list of tree bark, marbles, and bee’s wax, it’s just another item on the list.
so if my human rouge had a bunch of useless things...AND your gold on him, and the wizards potion of cure light, and the fighters non magic neckless made of crystal and mythral given to him bt his wife he longs to see...I would be told 'ok' not a problem you are not being greedy then...or I would be (at the very least) threatned and told to shape up???
It must be made abundantly clear that kender do not steal out of greed, profit, or revenge.
I don't care why...if you left your house tomorro morning and found your car stolen, would you care why the person stole it...or would it upset you it was stolen? What if it was your wedding ring? Your pay check? Your computer?
They borrow items for inspection and usually immediately stuff them in a pouch for further inspection at a later date or examine it while they wander off, thus forgetting to return it. This is how they were raised, and it is not an evil intent that drives them.
Inteent can midagat...it can't excuse. again you focus on why...I wan to know 'WHY should I or any other player put up with this behavior in race Y when races A-X would never be allowed to do it???'
There are three basic methods in which a DM can deal with how a player character’s kender handles.
this had me hopeful you had something here...
The first, pre-meditated handling, places all the work on the player.
witch fall back to what makes it diffrent them my human rouge stealing???
The second, restricted handling, lets the player do all the work when the DM allows.
so something like "No you can't take from PCs, or shop keepers, or friendly NPC" I tried that once it went over like a fart in church with the Player of the kender...
The third, absentminded handling, places all of the work on the DM.
so out of game when the fighter with that non magic neckless above gets it taken I can split my anger...Oog at the DM, in game at the character...how does this answer 'why do we put up with it'???
Making it Easier
Having a kender in a game can be a major commitment, but it doesn’t have to be disruptive.
that is a good joke...
There are a few ways to cut down on the interruptions that may occur due to handling.
cut down interruptions...but not eliminate them...well that is more honnest of you...
The easiest way to do this is for the DM to maintain what’s in the kender’s pouches. After an initial list is created, it is given to the DM. Then the kender only gets to see the list when she specifically says she has emptied her pouches. She reviews it and hands it back when she is done. If she can remember something from the list, she’ll remember it’s in the pouch. If the player forgets, the kender forgets.
what is to stop the PC from writeing down something he doesn't want to forget???
The DM and player must decide what is fair game to displace. Some players may be upset if the DM trades away a treasured magic item for a peanut shell.
wait...so you make a deal with the kender becuse that player doesn't want something gone...BUT they might steal (for a non bad reason
) from others...
There should be firm house rules stating that anything in a pouch is fair game for misplacing. If the player values a particular magical dagger, she must state she is sheathing it apart from her pouches.
how can a player playing a theif (for a non bad reason ) argue his stuff should be more valibul then shanny things he steals (for a non bad reason ) .Above all, remember that handling and dealing with kender pouches should add to the atmosphere of the game and not detract from the roleplaying experience. If you’re getting too bogged down with the paperwork of dealing with handling, simply roll on the following charts or pick something at random.
or even better If you’re getting too bogged down with the paperwork of dealing with handling, simply tell the player to play a hafling, call him a kender in game, and remind him calling yourself a kender doesn't give you immunity to jail...being kicked out of a party, or being attacked.
I ran a 2-year Age of Mortals campaign with no kender PCs at all, and didn't notice.Cheers,
Cam
This - this - is what I love about Dragonlance. That it inspires such a sense of fan ownership, even in people who haven't been following the novels for years, that someone who's been part of the official guardianship of the franchise can make a flat out declaration of how things have appeared in offical source material, and have fans go, "No, I don't believe that."
Only the very best franchises inspire this kind of "Just because the writer said so doesn't mean it's right." It really requires something which has origins that really resonate to be able to look at stuff that's come later which lies on a creatively equal footing and say, "No."
This is indeed a good thing, and in fact we always say once you take the books home and play your games you can do whatever you like with it. But you've completely missed the point of this discussion, which is that in the official material there have been good draconians created from chromatic dragon eggs.
Whether you want those in your game or not is of course up to you. You could throw in orcs, drow, lycanthropes, and anything else you like, as well. But if you're going to ask on a forum, you shouldn't be surprised to get told the answer, right?
Cheers,
Cam
Or, you know. You could just not have any kender player characters in your game.
yes, infact no small races from DL became a house rule in almost every game me and my friends played since the 90's...then after the 3.5 DL setting came out we tried to keep them, since at that point our rule was anything WotC was allowed in...we even refluffed warforged for our DL game once...but after the 'tinker gnome/Kender' incadent in '06 we went back to the no small races from DL rule...since we have not house ruled out anything in 4e I am hopeing not to have to start with that same rule
This is indeed a good thing, and in fact we always say once you take the books home and play your games you can do whatever you like with it.
That is a good thing no doubt, but I'd say it applies (or at least ought to apply) to every campaign setting. Granted, in practice it's a lot less true for some settings... *cough*Forgotten Realms*cough*
This is indeed a good thing, and in fact we always say once you take the books home and play your games you can do whatever you like with it. But you've completely missed the point of this discussion, which is that in the official material there have been good draconians created from chromatic dragon eggs.
Whether you want those in your game or not is of course up to you. You could throw in orcs, drow, lycanthropes, and anything else you like, as well. But if you're going to ask on a forum, you shouldn't be surprised to get told the answer, right?
Cheers,
Cam
Sorry, Cam, I wasn't personally disagreeing with you. I'm happy that that's the official answer. I was commenting on the discussion around it.