Review of Complete Guide to Dragonkin

[Napftor]

Hi Jon. Good points all. See below.

It makes sense, but the half-dragon presented in Dragonkin will never equal the templated half-dragon in terms of power - or at least not for many, many levels. As JoeGKushner pointed out, "it's nice to have a half-dragon race that isn't +4 ECL", but I don't think this fits my idea of the half-dragon. It's a good fit for a dragon-blooded race, but since most of its power come from feats, it'll take forever to approach the core template.

I suppose that it's more of a half-dragon potential than *boom* instant half-dragon, yes. The approach to the feats was so each player can customize his or her own PC toward the kind of half-dragon he/she has in mind (not to mention the advantage for the DM who can reuse the half-dragon as a monster and not have it be cliched each time) and not shoe-horned into something.

On another note, two things that I wish had been clearer in the book is how to apply the racial template to the core races. I'm thinking specifically of what constitutes a racial bonus and what is cultural since this determines what the half-dragon retains. For instance, are the human bonus skill points and feat a result of natural talent or social pressures? It's a gray area that could have been cleared up with a small chart, IMO.

Every race that can be a half-dragon does have a sample and the racial vs. culture issue is dealt with in those sections. I have to agree that having some type of chart would be great for quick reference, but all the info is there as I recall.

And despite several rereadings, the myth at the beginning continues to confuse me, particularly with regard to the Heartspear's origin. There's mention of some fantastical tree (I don't have my book in front of me) from which the Spear is crafted, but it seems fragmentary and disjointed.

Perhaps I'm just dense. :\

Nope, you're not dense. In fact, you win the prize for spotting this bit of errata that will be addressed. I'm afraid that during the revision process, the first origin story was yanked in favor of the one you see now in Chapter One. But once you hit Dragon Death Beliefs, it seems as though the original elements were not edited out. The tree you mentioned and the names Druggen and the Great Storm should not be there. The ideas are the same, but the trappings are not. Those names appear once or twice in other parts as well but do not detract from the book aside from brief confusion.

Whoops! I just thought of two other points of confusion. There's mention of two Sorcerer variants in the book and two lists of feats to model the differing approaches to sorcery, but the two feat trees don't appear to be in the book. they're both listed on the list of feats, but I can't find them in the feat descriptions.

Bing! Bing! And there's the other major errata. Again, during the revision, I handed in two new feat trees and sorcerer discussion. While the flavor text made it and the feat names appear on the table, the actual feats are missing. Look for these in a month or so on Goodman Games' website.

And lastly, no favored class: Sorcerer for dragonkin? I thought that was practically canon when it came to the dragon blooded.

Indeed, it is sorcerer. Thanks for your questions. I hope these answers help!

 

[Jon Potter]

I suppose that it's more of a half-dragon potential than *boom* instant half-dragon, yes.

Yeah, I got that. And I like the ability to fully-customize the dragonkin. I think it's really just a matter of semantics. If the racial-template had been called "Dragonkin" or "Dragonborn" or what have you, I'd not be raising this issue at all. But as a half-dragon they come across to me a little weak. I realize that was your intent - to create a dragon-blooded race that was playable from 1st level - and I'll likely make use of the racial templates in the book. I'll just change the name of the half-dragon.

Every race that can be a half-dragon does have a sample and the racial vs. culture issue is dealt with in those sections. I have to agree that having some type of chart would be great for quick reference, but all the info is there as I recall.

Those dragonkin examples are somewhat problematic. There are some typos (the half-orc referencing elven blood, for instance) and some inconsistencies that I can't account for (such as the human having low-light vision although that's not spelled out in the template).

Again, a chart or possibly working the templates up in the standard fashion found in the Monster Manual and elsewhere would have helped me immensely.

Nope, you're not dense. In fact, you win the prize for spotting this bit of errata that will be addressed.

Well, I feel honored. And I look forward to reading the errated version.

Bing! Bing! And there's the other major errata. Again, during the revision, I handed in two new feat trees and sorcerer discussion. While the flavor text made it and the feat names appear on the table, the actual feats are missing. Look for these in a month or so on Goodman Games' website.

Cool. The ideas in the flavor text seemed interesting. I look forward to seeing how they were implemented mechanics-wise.

Indeed, it is sorcerer. Thanks for your questions. I hope these answers help!

Aboslutely! And I hope I don't come across like I hated the book. Many of the ideas will definitely see use in my campaign. The Primal Beastman is sure to oppose my PCs at some point! I'm not so sure about that whip-focused PrC, though; it seems like an odd fit for a dragon book. <SHRUG>

 

[Napftor]

No, it didn't come across that you hated the book at all! I'm pleased you'll be getting use out of it.

 

[Andre La Roche]

I'm kind of on board with those who wish that the core rules half-dragon was supported more by this book. I have zero problem with the template as it stands, but the dragon bloodline feats there can't be used by it (since there's that assumption that the template is a transformed creature) or even if I just ignored that line would be redundant, covering abilities already taken into account by the template. I also find myself wondering why the half-dragon as presented wasn't granted the dragon type--it gained all the pertinent benefits. The only possible reason I can think of would be so that the creature could still be raised.

Overall though, I think this is a really creative book. I'm in love with the idea of the collective unconscious for dragonkind. Just airing my issues.

 

[Napftor]

Thanks for your comments, Andre. As to why issues like the core half-dragon weren't addressed, I can only offer up that I was working from an outline given to me by the publisher. Giving the MM half-dragon it's due was not on that agenda, but I thought some kind of justification needed to be made and it was in the reasoning of that template being a magically transformed version of the species (as mentioned above in this thread). I guess the version in the CG should be called "half-dragon potential" race. But I must say that I love the possible customizations using the feats as infinitely more than the instant half-dragon MM template (unless you are in a hurry to make such a character).

The collective unconscious idea was something I included early on. It fits with the backstory (whichever one you happen to latch on to ) and can be a neat character angle or plot hook.

 

[Napftor]

Since this book has been out for about 6 months now, I thought I'd ask if anyone was using it. Likes/Dislikes? What do you mean you haven't heard of it?

 

[JoeGKushner]

Since this book has been out for about 6 months now, I thought I'd ask if anyone was using it. Likes/Dislikes? What do you mean you haven't heard of it?

Through no fault of it's own, it feel into the 'M'eh' pile where I put books that players show little interest in. Most of them prefer the standard half-dragon tempalte.

 

[Psion]

Well, it's one of the products I threw at the player mentioned in this thread. He liked the art. He has yet to come back and tell me he likes anything from the book, but I should hear more tomorrow.

Whether or not he likes the character options in the book, if I go through with the "radiation accident" adventure I was thinking about, there will be some dragon morphology in the adventure that may use some of the book.

FWIW, I find the distinction between "half dragon template" and "half dragon racial template" confusing. I spent half my time reading it saying "this isn't a half dragon." The I went up to the top again and read the fine print.

 

[Napftor]

Well, it's one of the products I threw at the player mentioned in this thread. He liked the art. He has yet to come back and tell me he likes anything from the book, but I should hear more tomorrow.

Whether or not he likes the character options in the book, if I go through with the "radiation accident" adventure I was thinking about, there will be some dragon morphology in the adventure that may use some of the book.

FWIW, I find the distinction between "half dragon template" and "half dragon racial template" confusing. I spent half my time reading it saying "this isn't a half dragon." The I went up to the top again and read the fine print.

Let me know what you wind up using and if your player finds anything intriquing. As for the fine print for the template, it's like anything else in a d20 book--use whatever looks cool and don't worry about the rest.

 

[Jon Potter]

FWIW, I find the distinction between "half dragon template" and "half dragon racial template" confusing. I spent half my time reading it saying "this isn't a half dragon." The I went up to the top again and read the fine print.

Like I said upthread a ways, that was my chief problem with the dragon-blooded race presented in the book. If they'd been called dragonkin or dragonheir or dragon-whatever I would have liked it a lot more. I agree about the customization aspect being superior to the standard template.

And Napftor, since this someone already cast Raise Thread I may as well mention that I was somewhat disappointed that the errata didn't include the variant origin/myth of the Heartspear.

And my wife's half-dragon sorcerer died, immolated in a lake of magma, before we could make much use of this book in my current campaign. :\