Shroomy
Adventurer
Though they're not quite devils either.
Not much interest in the Draconomicon?
- Thread starter Derren
- Start date
Though they're not quite devils either.
jdrakeh
Front Range Warlock
Arg! My plan was to hold off on buying any more 4e products until the errata was incorporated into new printings of the core books, but this new Draconomicon is darn tempting.
I think there is less interest because it is a DM's book, rather than a player book - which means less people reading and using it. Just like there was more discussion for the FRPG than the FRCG.
I have to disagree strongly here - but then, I'm really not sure how much use your review can actually be to 4E players, given your admitted bias against 4E.
In any case, I personally found this book incredibly interesting and flavorful. It is interesting - I never really cared much for the 3rd Edition Draconomicon, despite it being much more useful to me (as a player resource, which I tend to value over DM resources.) I found it somewhat bland - it did little to fire up my imagination. I used it, occasionally - if running dragons, it certainly was worth consulting. But in general, it was something of a disappointment.
I've only gotten through about half of the 4E Draconomicon thus far, and I'm loving it. Despite the fact that it will be a long while before I'll be running anything that can really use material from here, I'm finding it extremely inspirational, and thinking up a number of adventures based on the material in the book.
I actually loved the way they did the fluff for many of the famous figures - making them accessible, while still firmly grounding them in their backstory. Cyan Bloodbane is a good example - the default lore about him never mentions Dragonlance or any specific names, but is very clearly that story. A sidebar confirms this, detailing his place in the Dragonlance mythos - but I like that they have made him much more available to use in a personal campaign, without actually 'butchering' his background as you seem to be claiming.
I was very surprised by how much I liked it - possibly because of my feelings towards the 3rd Ed version, possibly because I was looking forward to Martial Power much, much more. But it is a great read, and well worth it - perhaps not for players, but definitely for DMs, and anyone who enjoys the use of Dragons.
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
It is. It's a solid product (specific minor gripes and 4e-isms notwithstanding). Go ahead, buy it. If you aren't buying Martial Power, they'll cancel each other out.
Thats why I only comment on the edition independant fluff and not on the rules (which I can't judge accurately anyway). I think I clearly mentioned that in my report (never said that this was a review).
And I stay by my word. When you have the 3E Draconomicon then you don't need to read the first chapter of the 4E Draconomicon as they are the same with some small exceptions.
The only thing which the 4E book does better is how it describes lairs and the mindest of dragons. But that is countered by butchering the fluff of many famous dragons and by trying to explain why powers are encounter powers which is similar to linkink the ability to use the force with medichloreans.
Just compare Wyrms of the North: Daurgothoth, "The Creeping Doom" with his 4E Drac entry.
By the way, I remember that the book talks about true names and that they don't hold any power over dragons, but mentions a sidebar of optional true name rules. But I couldn't find such a true name (although I only searched a few pages for- and backward). Is that sidebar somewhere else in the book or even in the core rules?
As for butchering Cyans fluff, he did far more than what is described in the book. Everything after the chronicles is left out, even the part where he tricked a whole elven nation into destroying itself with a magical shield and nearly succeeded if not a chosen revealed his identity.
Also his picture is ugly. Since when is Cyan related to Mind Flayers or Gold Dragons?
Last edited:
Oh, sure - but I think there is a level of difficulty in judging something which has a significant portion of material you already are set against. But fair enough on not claiming it was a review, and I certainly don't want to say you aren't entitled to declaring your own opinion on the book!
Well, sure - but if they posted that detailed an entry for every one of the 'famous dragons' mentioned in the book, it would take up another 100-200 pages!
Even comparing it to the detailed entries in the Dragon Hall of Fame, the Daurgothoth article is nearly triple their length. Including that much detail would mean going from 8 such entries to only 2-3. Personally, I'd prefer it as it is, where each entry gets a write-up with more than enough information to be of use, but no so much that other material has to be cut out for it.
Now, if they were to do a similar write-up as an article in an issue of Dragon, I'd find that perfectly fine - and I see that as the logical place for such in-depth entries, in all honesty.
Not sure, don't recall seeing it in there - I think one of the rituals in the book has something to do with this, but I don't recall it involving detailed rules for true names.
Is it really needed to get into that much detail? Sure, yes, it is part of the dragon's story. But we aren't dealing with a novel - we are presenting a product for use in the game. How much does that extra information add?
Does it really help to have the following:
DC 25 Lore: Cyan nearly destroyed an elven nation through trickery and deceit, manipulating its king into using a powerful magic item to protect his nation, and instead the elven nation was nearly destroyed until some champions of the gods stopped Cyan's plans.
DC 30: Cyan later nearly destroyed the same elven nation through trickery and deceit, manipulating its king into using power magic to protect his nation, and instead the elven nation was nearly destroyed until some champions of the gods stopped Cyan's plans.
And let's be really honest - even if you would prefer that information be added, is it really butchering his fluff by not including it? Is the dragon's character somehow completely lost because they only included the core fluff of his background?
Heck, didn't the story you are referring to end in his death? Maybe they didn't include it because they wanted to present Cyan Bloodbane in all his original glory, rather than having him show back up as a dracolich or the like? I certainly don't see how that hurts the game in any way.
As for the picture, I think its awesome. I'm sorry you dislike a dragon looking remotely distinctive, but I think the Fu Manchu tentacle look is absolutely perfect for his personality.
Wik
First Post
Um. I love the book, and I hated the 3e one.
Why? the 3e book was all just fluff, and since I have a tendency to change things to suit my homebrews, fluff is really just a starting point that gets ignored.
Meanwhile, the 4e book is stuff I can use in a pinch. It has something like nine adventures in it, each about 2-3 hours playing time (and most with notes on how you can expand it). It gives you two complete campaign arcs, from heroic to epic, that really piqued my interest (I was tempted to change my current campaign, still in heroic, to the second of the two arcs). It gives us some nice monsters to play with (Abishai!), and the information on creating draconic hoards is, in my mind, very useful for a 4e game - much more useful in context than the same information for the 3e book.
As for the fluff, it's useful, but of course I'll change it as needed.
I was really excited by the power replacements at the end of the book, so you can create your own unique dragons (I know the 3e book did something like this, too, and I loved it there as well). The two new templates were useful, and was a nice way to give the DMs access to monsters like the Dragonne and Dracotaurs without having to write up yet another "half-dragon/half-x" monster description.
What I really love in this book, though, is the artwork by a Mr. Tsai. His painting for the start of chapter 2 really caught my eye - the characters are just wearing armour, and not a dozen small WAR packs and belts. It's very classical, but at the same time modern. Love it. The Brown dragon painting on page 169 is also awesome and hearkens back to old 2e years of D&D art (my favourite era of D&D art) - it actually reminds me of the 2e PHB in many ways.
Seriously, the art in this book made me realize how bored I had become with W.A.R.
There were things in the book I wasn't a fan of (the famous dragons in particular skipped some of my favourites, such as Ashardalon and Flame; Using draconic organs as treasure), but no book can please everyone.
I bought this book instead of Martial Power, because I couldn't buy 'em both lest I anger the s/o. It was really a Sophie's Choice, but I'm glad I bought this one in the end.
Why? the 3e book was all just fluff, and since I have a tendency to change things to suit my homebrews, fluff is really just a starting point that gets ignored.
Meanwhile, the 4e book is stuff I can use in a pinch. It has something like nine adventures in it, each about 2-3 hours playing time (and most with notes on how you can expand it). It gives you two complete campaign arcs, from heroic to epic, that really piqued my interest (I was tempted to change my current campaign, still in heroic, to the second of the two arcs). It gives us some nice monsters to play with (Abishai!), and the information on creating draconic hoards is, in my mind, very useful for a 4e game - much more useful in context than the same information for the 3e book.
As for the fluff, it's useful, but of course I'll change it as needed.
I was really excited by the power replacements at the end of the book, so you can create your own unique dragons (I know the 3e book did something like this, too, and I loved it there as well). The two new templates were useful, and was a nice way to give the DMs access to monsters like the Dragonne and Dracotaurs without having to write up yet another "half-dragon/half-x" monster description.
What I really love in this book, though, is the artwork by a Mr. Tsai. His painting for the start of chapter 2 really caught my eye - the characters are just wearing armour, and not a dozen small WAR packs and belts. It's very classical, but at the same time modern. Love it. The Brown dragon painting on page 169 is also awesome and hearkens back to old 2e years of D&D art (my favourite era of D&D art) - it actually reminds me of the 2e PHB in many ways.
Seriously, the art in this book made me realize how bored I had become with W.A.R.
There were things in the book I wasn't a fan of (the famous dragons in particular skipped some of my favourites, such as Ashardalon and Flame; Using draconic organs as treasure), but no book can please everyone.
I bought this book instead of Martial Power, because I couldn't buy 'em both lest I anger the s/o. It was really a Sophie's Choice, but I'm glad I bought this one in the end.
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
.....?
The pre-statted dragons of every age category and color were one of the more useful parts of the book for me. I also enjoyed a few of the Prestige Classes and the rules for playing dragons.
I mean, there was a lot of fluff in the 3e book, but there was a PILE of crunch, too. In my mind, the Draconomicon was one of the strongest 3e books (in part because of the AMAZING art...which 4e's isn't really up to par with, but it's okay).
They don't have to write all this. They could have summarized it like "Daurgothoth is an ancient Dracolich who experiements with combining the strengths of several dragon species into one mate for him so he, after he found a way to become alive again, can sire the perfect dragon race.
There. Its short and still much truer to his fluff than "He has minions stealing stuff for his hoard".
Not to forget all the monsters in it.
Similar Threads
