Dragon Compendium Table of Contents

[GVDammerung]

There are two reasons why things that you might expect to see there didn't make the cut: . . .

* The article simply didn't make sense in 3.x. The witch and the archer fall into this category. Both of those classes had core, class-defining abilities that are defined by feats in the PH. The witch can make magic items. The archer had the equivalent of Point Blank Shot and a few other feats. Neither really had a role in 3.x.

I disagree. Making magic items precludes converting the witch to 3x? Hardly.

1st - The feat(s) can simply be gained at appropriate level. This is done repeatedly throughout a variety of 3x products. "Level X - Character gains Feat Y, even if does not meet prerequisites etc." Perhaps you meant something else?

2nd - The Dragon 114 witch is hardly "defined" by making magic items. A simple read of the article puts the lie to such a claim. The Dragon 114 witch is rich with possibilities outside any item creation. It is not such a one trick pony. Perhaps you meant another witch?

3rd - Assuming arguendo, that the witch is defined by making magic items and that such is "core," you design around it. When an article is going to be "translated" from a prior edition to 3.5 there are bound to be corners cut and redesign to some degree. The witch is then a matter of further degree.

The witch has no "role" in 3X? You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but there are any number of witch treatments for 3X that belie the statement on an objective basis. What makes the Dragon 114 witch so desireous of inclusion and updating is that a) it was the first truely great treatment of the witch and b) it is in many ways never been equalled in its flavor and comparative inpact (respective games, of course), even with the 3X treatments. No "role?" Hardly.

IMO

 

[JoeGKushner]

* The article simply didn't make sense in 3.x. The witch and the archer fall into this category. Both of those classes had core, class-defining abilities that are defined by feats in the PH. The witch can make magic items. The archer had the equivalent of Point Blank Shot and a few other feats. Neither really had a role in 3.x.

Hmmm... So the Quintessentail Witch, the Witch's Handbook, and the one from Citizen Games, Way of the Witch, were about witches that make magic items eh?

And as far as the "archer" not having a role, how many "official" archer PrCs are there? I know there's one in the old Silvermarch 3.0 book, and of course the Initiate of the Bow PrC. Throw in non-official and we even have a few variant core classes such as that found in Soverign Stone, and of course EN World's own Three Arrows for the King. A ranger with the appropriate feat tree might cover it in theory, but then some people don't like rangers casting spells in the first place, one of the reasons I believe we had the archer and the archer ranger back in the day.

No, I too disagree with you in the examples you've pulled out. That explanation went out with the old 2nd ed adage that "the assassin is a profession, not a class! Anyone can be an assassin!" (As opposed to being a fighter, barbarian, etc....)

 

[Michael Tree]

While I would've liked to have seen the Witch make the classes cut, overall I expect I'll still find plenty to enjoy in this book. I'm pretty excited about the Battle Dancer and the Deathmaster making it in, along with the Savant. The Seely and Unseely Court Fey is something I'm interested in, as well.

What were the battle dancer and the savant like? I don't remember those from the old dragons. The deathmaster was essentially a divine spellcaster focused on the undead, right?

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

The article simply didn't make sense in 3.x. The witch and the archer fall into this category. Both of those classes had core, class-defining abilities that are defined by feats in the PH. The witch can make magic items. The archer had the equivalent of Point Blank Shot and a few other feats. Neither really had a role in 3.x.

It was very interesting to look back and watch how Dragon progressed through the years. So many of the early, interesting articles made their way into the core rules and are now an accepted part of what D&D is.

I think that migratory path - rules show up in Dragon, spread amongst players, work their way into core D&D - is something that's missing from the magazine today.

I think the Witch (or, rather, the third iteration of the witch, from the famous creepy brown cover issue) is what a lot of people, including me, were surprised not to see.

It's true that the witch had a lot of focus on creating magic items, but it also had a slew of spells that, even now, are not available in core D&D. Making the class into a core class with lots of bonus magic item creation feats and a unique spell list was what I expected, along with new magical items that anyone, in theory, could make with the right feats.

Likewise, the archer, along with a number of old core classes that don't make sense today, could be distilled into a 5 or 10 level prestige class that contained all of the differences between those classes and the options available today.

I'm hoping the witch, at least, appears in Volume II, along with some of the fluff articles like the "Point of View" series, the Nine Hells stuff (assuming the second WotC fiend book doesn't replicate/update it) and others.

 

[BOZ]

wow, lots of ire in this thread for a book that anyone has yet to see... i wasn't super impressed with the ToC myself either, but i wasn't super de-pressed either. i think "wait and see; have a look when i see it in the store" is a better attitude to take than getting all upset over the assumptions you've made.

 

[BOZ]

i know a lot of folks are upset at the missing things, such as the witch, that could have been in the book. instead of bitching, i think something more productive would be to make a nice well thought-out post explaining why you think it should be included, and how, and what niche it ought to fill if the desginers think it doesn't have one.

 

[DungeonmasterCal]

What were the battle dancer and the savant like? I don't remember those from the old dragons. The deathmaster was essentially a divine spellcaster focused on the undead, right?

The battle dancer was based loosely on practitioners of the martial art of capoeira. They got bonuses to hit and AC if more battledancers joined the fray.

 

[Gez]

The Witch is in the DMG anyway.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

It's true that the witch had a lot of focus on creating magic items, but it also had a slew of spells that, even now, are not available in core D&D. Making the class into a core class with lots of bonus magic item creation feats and a unique spell list was what I expected, along with new magical items that anyone, in theory, could make with the right feats.

They have that. It's called the Artificer.

EDIT:

With a flavor change, if necessary.

 

[GVDammerung]

i know a lot of folks are upset at the missing things, such as the witch, that could have been in the book. instead of bitching, i think something more productive would be to make a nice well thought-out post explaining why you think it should be included, and how, and what niche it ought to fill if the desginers think it doesn't have one.

Not meaning to be argumentative but, in the first instance, it falls to the designer and publisher to make the case for what they would like to see purchased. When their rational is abbreviated, it is then, IMO, fair to respond with further inquiry, particularly when the abbreviated rationale appears to run so plainly counter to what may be objectively observed. This is not a case of the designer or publisher claiming ignorance of how to proceed but rather having proceeded with some rationale. Looking at that rationale is, then, not "bitching" but invited inquiry and such inquiry as has been made, see supra, has not been limited to "complaining" but rather tasks specific exception to the rationale offered. Your suggestion is perfectly viable as well but gives the designer/publisher an initial pass that, IMO, is unwarranted or at least not mandatory.

On the upset itself, this is, I believe, founded upon -

(1) Statements in this forum and others by the publisher they were taking note of suggestions made and those suggestions to a high degree of uniformity looked for some materials that are not included; and

(2) The publisher continues to hold hostage future volumes predicate upon the good sales of the initial volume which (one must suppose intentionally) left out many of the most desired articles. One must then buy less than the best that people were lead to imagine would be presented in order to get in a future volume what they had hoped and supposed would be in the initial volume. Bait and switch, with the hostage twist, by any other name.