Just got my Dragon Compendium - Pretty!

[mearls]

I got my copy yesterday... overall a very good impression.

I'm a bit surprised by the take on the Mountebank. Not that I don't like the class, but I believe that Gary orginal idea had nothing to do with fiendish patrons.

The rules/updates/designs of Gary's ideas try to at least stay close to the spirit. I don't have the text from his Dragon article outlining the mountebank (along with other classes), so I can't say for sure.

I'll admit one thing: that was probably the hardest part of the book. It felt really weird following up on ideas that EGG had lo those many years ago. On one hand, it was an exhilarating experience. On the other, I had a distinct voice in my head saying "If you screw this up, you'll never live it down!"

I am more proud of the Dragon Compendium than almost anything else I've worked on. The Dungeon Crawl Classic I wrote comes close, if only because the reprint was dedicated to DCS. I'm glad that people seem to like it. If I walked away from D&D tomorrow, I'd feel content with my career knowing that I had a hand in the Compendium. I've never been so giddy about waiting for a book I worked on. Usually, getting my author's copies is a bit of a let down - I've already read the book, so there's not much there for me to look at aside from the art. In this case, I can't wait to read through it again.

 

[DungeonmasterCal]

The Mountebank is a pretty interesting class, to be sure. A great villainous NPC if there ever was one. Multiclass it with a Hexblade or Warlock, and woooohooooo!!!!

 

[Shade]

I'm glad it's still loved.

It'd be ironic though, that of all the work I've done, that this crude (by today's standards) article would be the one that endures the longest.

I know that a few of us monster geeks love ya for the avari and diurge.

 

[BOZ]

yep, especially the diurge!

 

[GVDammerung]

If there are future volumes (it's up to WotC, of course), they will feature a wider array of eras than this first volume. We had to prove that there was a market for this type of product at all before we got too esoteric, but my desk is filled to bursting with old articles begging to be included in future volumes.

--Erik Mona
Editor-in-Chief
Dragon & Dungeon

Had to prove there was a market? And thus lead with less than the best of the best? Your logic escapes me.

What is in Vol 1 is well done.

What it not in Vol 1 that should have been included detracts from Vol 1. That is, on the four squares of the product, unfair but it is my, and apparently a few other's impression, nonetheless.

And I apologise but every time you say "if there is another volume" when you deliberately choose to exclude wildly popular material that was specifically identified at your request, you sound like you are holding the best material hostage to force people to buy Vol 1 in the hopes of seeing future volumes.

And, if as you have indicated, an article would not be included because there is a current Wotc version of the material "active" (ie the 114 Witch), what does that say for planar material dealing with the lower planes when the Fiendish Codex series is to shortly debut? Will the Fiendish Codex material "preclude" similar material in Vols 2 or 3? If so, have you then lost your opportunity to include this material in future compendiums, at least for the foreseeable future?

Inquiring minds want to know.

 

[BOZ]

And, if as you have indicated, an article would not be included because there is a current Wotc version of the material "active" (ie the 114 Witch), what does that say for planar material dealing with the lower planes when the Fiendish Codex series is to shortly debut? Will the Fiendish Codex material "preclude" similar material in Vols 2 or 3? If so, have you then lost your opportunity to include this material in future compendiums, at least for the foreseeable future?

well, as one of the authors for FC1, Erik can choose whether to save that stuff for DC2 (or 3 or 4 or 5...) or put it in his big book o' fiends.

 

[Psion]

Had to prove there was a market? And thus lead with less than the best of the best? Your logic escapes me.

The impression that I got from Erik in another post was that converting the old articles was more work.

That means its a bigger investment.

That means that loading it more heavily with conversions is a bigger risk.

Doesn't seem that complicated to me.