Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Shebeleth Regidin

RavinRay's page

106 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 106 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Mikaze wrote:

So to summarize:

And the elf looks rather sulky because of his lack of privates.

But he's got washboard abs! Never seen that on an elf before.

James Jacobs wrote:

Gem dragons aren't open, so we're going to be avoiding that category, I suspect. The Tian Xia dragons we've already mentioned are not gem-related, and since there's a LOT of real-world myth to draw upon for the Asian-themed dragons, we'll be using that to build them when we get to them.

But when (not if!) you do psionics, and you're going to consider draconic paragons of psionics, you can create psionic dragons, just not named after gems.

I am so late to this thread. And a paleontologist too!

Anyway, James and company, personally I'd like a mix of familiar and not-so-familiar dinosaurs. We need some of the former to give players a sense of familiarity, and some of the latter so make players realize that there's more to dinosaurs than the typical Tyrannosaurus Triceratops Apatosaurus (=Brontosaurus) Stegosaurus menagerie. If Wizards and Paizo came up with over 50 official true dragons, Pathfinder can broaden the scope of dinosaurs and use some obscure ones.

BTE [SHAMELESS PLUG]We're doing a conversion thread of 2e prehistoric animals at EN World's Creature Catalog, so you can mine that for ideas.[/SHAMELESS PLUG]

James Jacobs wrote:
sowhereaminow wrote:
Crazy ideas for saving page count:

Some crazier than others! :)

sowhereaminow wrote:
3. Remove a few grouped creatures entirely from the base book. Give Dragons their own Pathfinder Draconomicon! If that's too iconic, pull the celestial and infernal denizens and put them in the Big Fun Coloring Book of the Outer Planes.
Dragons MUST be in the book. That's guarenteed. And I'm not gonna give up the demons, which means devils and daemons are in there too. Again, though... formians might be getting the boot. Mephits too... at least SOME of them...

Goodness, I came to this thread so late and I don't have time to slog though all the posts. So, to add my voice for more dragons (and homebrew ones if Paizo is open to them), I've got aquatic true dragons, now archived at Gleemax and still very much available at EN World's Homebrew Monsters forum, available. Yes, water-breathing dragons with the aquatic subtype with fins like manta rays instead of wings but with flippers as well. Subcategories of the metallic and chromatic dragons (mercury dragons and sepia dragons for example, the former completely unrelated to Faerûn's mercury dragon). I'm willing to make them available to Paizo since Wizards won't use them anymore I bet.

"NemesisDragon wrote:

Just wanted to quickley chime in and say I love all draconic themed monstrosities as they are the pinnicle of awsomeness for the game. That being said, these have my vote!

The true neutrals (Pearl, Jade, Jacinith, Moonstone and Amber) were originally in the 2nd edition Monstrous Compendium Annuals I believe. I don't know if any 3rd edition versions were done at all (I know some if not all were converted at Enworld though and them guys do excellent work!)

[SHAMELESS PLUG]I'm part of the conversion team, and yes, we've done jacinth and moonstone already at this Creature Catalog true dragon conversions thread.[/SHAMELESS PLUG]

Dark Psion wrote:

Psion Conversion
9: Add D20 Modern powers since they are OGL also.

Aren't most of them 3.0 powers with some name changes? BTW Dark Psion are you the same Dark Psion who co-wrote the alternate psionic class features with Mark Jindra for the last Mind's Eye articles?

Here's something that wad discussed at WotC's 4E message boards, on a thread about psionics.

One really useful concept is that arcane magic, divine magic, and psionics are three co-existent and co-equal mental sources of power. Each has its own individual strengths and weaknesses. Each has unique abilities, abilities it shares with one other power source, and abilities that are common to all three. It can be visualized by the primary color Venn diagram.

If Pathfinder can distinguish arcane magic from divine magic (perhaps renaming the latter as something other than magic), and then distinguish both from psionics, and treat all three equally, it would be perfect for me.

cappadocius wrote:

More examples of type-madness:

Dragon Turtles are Dragons.
Dragonnes are Magical Beasts.

Both are reptilian creatures, usually winged, with magical or unusual abilities.

WotC had a chance to alleviate this when it introduced the dragonblooded subtype in Dragon Magic and applied it to kobolds but not to dragonnes (even though both have draconic ancestry). I'd say as a workaround use a similar subtype for dragon-descended monsters that don't even qualify as lesser dragons.

Quick reply.

Keep all six disciplines.

If magic and psionics will have complete transparency, it will impossible to match 8 school with 6 disciplines one-on-one. In fact some subschools match some subdisciplines better. The equivalencies should be re-adjusted.

If we're going to allow more light-manipulation powers (Marvel's Dazzler anyone?) to create holograms (that word sounds too modern though) and such, maybe we can create a light-based subdiscipline in psyckokinesis.

Thanks for the offer BD. I downloaded your sampler PDF and will check it out over the weekend.

Mike McArtor wrote:
nightflier wrote:
I would like to see different dragons - perhaps like in Birthright or Dark Sun. It would be great to have some new interpretation of old ideas. Dark Elves that live in Underdark can become Night Elves that live Underhill, etc.

Ooooh... dragons...


I'll suggest to BOZ and Shade at EN World's Creature Catalog if any homebrew monsters, including dragons (disclosure: I've done almost a dozen myself) can be considered for the Pathfinder… er, Bestiary? Monstronomicon? Monstropaedia?

BD, were any of my fellow paleontologists involved in this? Just curious.

Oh, if anyone wants psionic dragons for Pathfinder, I've co-created some alternatives to the gem dragons at EN World and am willing to make more and make them available.

Actually, the human skull does have a cranium hole where the bones don't fuse until appropriately two years of age… oh, where was I? Yes, if for nothing else than to see 3.5 psionics continue, I'm for it.

Not the cover I had in mind for Dragon's last Paizo-published, paper issue, but we do get a vet artist in Elmore. My first reaction was, it reminds me of Elmore's Dragonlance DM Screen, which I have. So it's not a wrap-around then. What species of dragon is this, BTW?

Mike, you've just made a lot of gem dragon fans happy! Wait till I post this over at the WotC board. Woot! :D

Marc Radle 81 wrote:
Wouldn't it be great if they collected the existed Core Faiths articles, as well as wrote additional ones and put them out in a single volume (hardcover like the Dragon Compendium or softcover like the Monster Ecologies special volume). I would think it would sell very well.

It would be like a Faiths and Pantheons for the Greyhawk deities. Neat-o!

Hmmm, is the Diplomacy check for me to convince you to tell me Who When Where too high, or is your Will save against my mind probe or read thoughts too good? ;)

Mike McArtor wrote:
Matthew Morris wrote:
P.S. When do we get (3.5 psionic) Gem Dragons as PCs?

Just as soon as Jason or Erik ask me for them. :)

Which is probably just this side of never. :\

Pardon for reviving this thread, but with WotC reassuming publication, maybe now's a good time to do it Mike? Table 3-22 on page 144 of Draconomicon shows which chromatic or metallic dragon each gem dragon is comparable to, so I think it's a matter of modifying that dragon's PC table to match a gem dragon's abilities. Matter of fact, I'm experimenting on the topaz, emerald and sapphire by editing the tables of their counterparts.

Does it have a thumbnail of the cover for #359? I hope not, so that it will be a complete surprise. And I hope Paizo doesn't show it on the website either. I don't want seeing the cover for the first time as I buy it spoiled.

Definitely a red and silver dragon as those two species are mortal enemies. And, you can expect some dermal variations within one dragon species much as there is in humanity. The cover wasn't meant for the article I think.

Uzziel the Angel wrote:
As I understood it, the king of the ferrous dragons (why didn't the original author give him a decent name?!) wasn't a deity like Bahamut and Tiamat.

I suppose "Gruaglothor" has to mean something significant in Draconic. :)

Uzziel the Angel wrote:
It would be very cool to see a king of ferrous dragons with a CR of maybe 35.

He could be advanced with extra age categories (like what Scott Brocius and WotC's Mark Jindra did for Sardior's thanes), or add a few levels of dragon ascendant.

My mineralogy book, BTW, is a classic, but it's gone through several editions, and it does take into account valence electrons and that sort of stuff. Suffice it to say that Fe and Ni are indeed grouped together because of similar physical and chemical properties; Au, Ag, and Cu are likewise grouped together. Electrum does occur in nature (complete solid solution exists between pure Au and pure Ag), so that Myth Drannor creation account of gold and silver dragons magically merging into electrum dragons (though not genealogically related to the first electrum dragons) makes sense.

Uzziel the Angel wrote:

I'd never heard of an "iron group" before, so I did a Google search and came up with vandium, chromium, manganese, iron, cobolt and nickel, elements 23 through 28 (everthing sandwiched between titanium and copper). But what makes these the iron group?

I guess it would have sounded funny to have had a ruthenium dragon and an osmium dragon. I sure wouldn't have wanted to have gotten breathed on by the radioactive hassium dragon! :D

If the non-scientists here can be patient with us and this little digression... According to my copy of Dana's Manual of Mineralogy, iron occurs in the native state in nature and forms two natural alloys with nickel, kamacite and taenite. Osmium and ruthenium belong to the platinum group of metals along with palladium, iridium and rhodium. So maybe those five other metals are the names of demigods and quasi-deities that serve in Bahamut's court. :D

Uzziel the Angel wrote:
Did the original article refer to the group of dragons as ferrous dragon? Since I'm something of a purist, the label bothers me. Of the metallic dragons included in the article, only the iron dragon is actually ferrous. (The steel dragon, which I've seen elswhere, would be the only other ferrous dragon.)

Yes, the original article referred to them as "ferrous" IIRC. In the real world iron and nickel are the two iron-group elements, while steel is an alloy of iron and carbon. (This probably explains why the steel dragon can be LN/LG; it is a metallic dragon with traces of ferrous dragon ancestry.) If my geologist side is feeling particularly ornery, I'd be as miffed as you. In a parallel development, the five original metallic dragons are all named after the gold group of elements (gold, silver, copper) or alloys of these (bronze and brass being alloys of copper with other metals). The fanboy side of me, though, would simply just let the matter drop.

Dragonmann wrote:
Tiamat and Bahamut having a pint together

With text balloons saying, "Ok, ok, we admit it, we're also the deities Takhisis and Paladine of Krynn."

N1NJ4 wrote:
The best out of all the dragons is the cobalt dragon, in my humble opinion... Plus they are the rumored progentiors of the kobold race, which is humorous.

The authors picked up on the derivation of the word "cobalt" from "kobold": cobalt is derived from the German kobalt, from kobold meaning "goblin". And the blue color is of course from cobalt ionization (hence "cobalt blue").

The gang might have already chosen a cover to knock our socks off, but still, it won't harm to try. What do you want the cover of the final issue of Dragon to look like?

  • An homage to Dragon #1, with that "green" dragon done by Todd Lockwood.
  • The Dragon staff as the iconic D&D characters (Jozan, Lidda, etc.)
  • The Dragon staff as the core Greyhawk deities (Boccob, Wee Jas, etc.)
  • A portrait of Bahamut and Tiamat together. Yikes!
  • A portrait of the entire draconic pantheon (including Sardior please - his very first incarnation was in Dragon #37) presided over by Io.
  • A collection of thumbnails of all Dragon covers.


Two independent ideas for rock dragons: Kelly Pederson's rock dragons, and Krishnath's Creating Rock Dragons on EN World. The former are all neutral on the good-evil axis, the latter are all chaotic.

Doug Sundseth wrote:
Magnus Magnusson wrote:

They also say "Leak" for Lich.

Me it "Yanki" like Yankee or Yahn-kee (sounds like "Yanni" the flutist or whatever he plays).
I use "Yahnkee", because it is something of a default pronunciation of those characters in several different languages and some forms of English. I certainly wouldn't be offended if you say them differently.

It would be a whole different matter though if Vlaakith takes issues with how you pronounce the names of her race and her nature. ;P

Interesting Iron War backstory there... I'd guess that the CG rock dragons would not actually battle the LG tungsten dragons to the death (much like archons and eladrins restrict themselves to philosophical debates) unless under extreme circumstances, but would instead go for the LE ferrous dragons (and vice-versa for the tungsten dragon going for the CE rock dragons).

Only months away from its final issue, and looking back at its run, I was surprised to learn that Dragon had a sister UK edition. According to this website, some of the content differed from the US edition, though a quick comparison shows that the cover art was the same, the text blurbs were just different.

I have #344 which has the anagakok as a variant wizard, but flavor-wise I don't think it's the one you're looking for.

Shade wrote:

As one of the co-authors of the article, I can address the similarities between the nickel and black.

As RavinRay and others have pointed out, true dragons tend to be very similar in terms of Hit Dice, ability scores, breath weapon damage, and special ability progression. Compare the silver and red in the MM, for example. Only a slight difference in ability scores, swapping cold for fire and a few spell-like abilities.

Silver and topaz are even closer. Ability scores, HD (and thus saves), advancement, SR/PR and most spell-like/psi-like abilities, cold immunity are identical. When you put all true dragons into a spreadsheet (as I do, which allows me to automatically calculate the dependent stats from the independent stats), it's easy to see the similarities and differences.

One great thing about the article though, is that I finally get to know Shade's and BOZ's RW names, though which is which is something they'll never tell me. ;D

Edit: That's a neat story on Gruaghlothor. Gives both Tiamat and Garyx another rival to worry about. Now if only he will ascend to godhood...

N1NJ4 wrote:
They have stats that tend to differ only marginally, different breath weapons, and different spell-like abilities.

Well, there's the silver dragon and the *cough* topaz dragon *cough*.

Mike McArtor wrote:
This and a few other minor tweaks to the layout were done to make them look more like the new stat blocks.

Will WotC use this new-fangled table as well? Two more weeks to wait at my FLGS for #356. At least I'll pick it up with my pre-ordered She-Hulk #18, and Hulk #106 and Worldbreaker Prologue. (Hulk Smash!) :)

I like deClench's idea - the possibilities of a buffer zone between the two regions where the two styles mix-and-clash are tantalizing.

Azzy wrote:
I hate to nitpick, but the wu jen originally appeared in Oriental Adventures in 1e waaay before 2e's The Complete Wizard's Handbook. Yes, I'm a nerd. :D

I stand corrected. Hey, we're all nerds here about different stuff. :) Me? The application of the warm-blooded vs cold-blooded dinosaur argument to the dragon physiology that was mentioned in the Draconomicon.

Shade wrote:
Since alternate class features aren't in the SRD, will you be including new core classes in Pathfinder to fill some of the gaps (like ninja, swashbuckler, etc.)? Or will you focus on a different alternative?
deClench wrote:
I happen to like playing around with new mechanics and alternatives. For some reason, that seems to be frowned upon lately. I would love to see Paizo's versions of the swashbuckler and ninja.

Well, we have Unearthed Arcana's OGC to serve as inspirations for class substitution levels and variants where needed, and look at Class Acts. The anagakok variant wizard which appeared in Dragon originally appeared as a kit (as did the wu jen, incidentally) in the 2e The Complete Wizard's Handbook (and my copy is sitting on my lap right now :) )

It might not seem significant at the start, but sometimes bringing in names from the older editions brings a new flavor to the game (vis-a-vis daemon/yugoloth mentioned in another thread). I'd like to see the word "demi-human" being thrown about in Common to refer to the other humanoid races. That has such a 2e feel to it, using it in the current edition somehow jolts me a bit.

Re: Manticores - the classic ones were wingless. Gorgons/medusae - the Grecian versions were winged, and IIRC the original Manual of the Planes mentioned that the Outer Plane variety was in fact different from the Material Plane one, ditto for titans. Chimera - the famous Etruscan bronze sculpture had a lion's head in front, a goat's head rising from the back, and a snake's head at the end of the tail.

Locke1520 wrote:
I vote for a new yellow dragon type. Given all the other re-imagining perhaps the basic dragons would also need some new thoughts which might leave room for the yellow Dragon by environment.

In fact, let's do a twist on the "missing chromatics" (which are not OGC anyway), and do these three, based on primary colors (not pigments):

red x blue = magenta
red x green = yellow
blue x green = cyan.
Of course, this would mean magenta and cyan kobolds later on.

That fire-breathing dragon depicted in the blog does not look like a standard red or gold dragon. Two alar thumbs like a silver dragon, but four wing fingers (for a total of six). Is it, dare I speculate, a new species? Like something similar to my homebrew pyrite dragon, an evil artificial cross-breed of red and gold dragons that is the mirror image of the gold? Or just an atypical (mutated?) red or gold?

James Jacobs wrote:
Genasi aren't in the SRD, so we can't use them... We're also likely to pick up new races from other OGL sources, and will certainly be inventing some of our own in time.

But mephits are OGC, along with 3 of the 5 genies (how I wish dao and marid were OGC too), so creating alternatives to mephlings and genasi shouldn't be too tough.

Over at the Oriental Adventures forum of WotC, there's a petition thread to make OA material OGC. It's not likely to happen anytime soon, but if it were, the races there (hengeyokai, korobokuru, spirit folk, vanara - I don't know if the nezumi is trademarked by AEG) would be nice to use if Pathfinder's world has an exotic land.

Erik Mona wrote:
Pathfinder is not an officially licensed Dungeons & Dragons product, so it will be based on the "SRD"...

Which potentially includes the d20 modern SRD as well, though what we might feasibly get out of that is up in the air.

Dragons with innate clerical, shaman, druid spellcasting instead of sorcerous spellcasting abilities would be nice. Dragons that are purely physically combative without magical abilities.

Taliesin Hoyle wrote:


I believe that the dragons in the MM are OGL. That said, I am tired of the old chromatic and metallic divides. It makes far more sense to me to have dragons be based on the terrain they are adapted to.

The upcoming ferrous dragons give us a good example of a subcategory that spans different alignments. ("What, they're not all good? But I though they're a subcategory of metallic dragons.") And I have a copy of Legends & Lairs' Draconic Lore which has several 3.0 dragons (all OGC), which can be used as a good start-off point. (As an aside, I figured the Swim-By Attack feat in Stormwrack was adapted from this book.) And various new dragon threads at EN World that the contributors (like me) would be willing to show to Paizo.

Fossil animals: the good thing about them is that because they're extinct, even with the best educated guesses about their biomechanics their game abilities are not necessarily true-to-life so there's a bit more leeway in making variants of them while keeping them realistic. Imagine the walrus-headed whale Odobenocetops using its tusks as weapons, or carnivorous kangaroos that are like the pouncing and jumping equivalents to velociraptors.

The Jade wrote:
The legend of the wendigos is far richer than what the D&D version offered.

Which version are you familiar with? I know the Marvel Comics version, which is when a curse afflicts someone who becomes cannibal, transforming it into a large, white-furred, tailed humanoid with prodigious strength (able to hold off the Hulk in battle), regenerative abilities (fast healing from wounds inflicted by Wolverine's adamantium claws), and magical metabolism. Basically, a humanoid tarrasque. Oh, and it's tied to the Canadian hinterlands.

James Jacobs wrote:
Anyway, like I was saying, um... Drink More Ovaltine?

Ah, Milo reigns supreme where I live. I'll be waiting for that preview of the new world you're developing.

James Jacobs wrote:
Actually... I can say this. I, personally, am interested in new monsters that are based on real-world legend and myth that haven't yet been statted up.

There's a lot of potential material form mythologies that are overlooked. In Philippine folklore I can already think of the kapre, tikbalang, and manananggal (a counterpart to the Malaysian/Indonesian-based pennanggalan from Oriental Adventures), all with basic write-ups on Wikipedia. Madagascan folklore speaks of anthropomorphosed animals, apparently based on extinct lemurs. And, from my own profession (paleontology), there are scads of beasts that haven't been statted yet.

James Jacobs wrote:
Since we can't use any of the campaign settings owned by WotC, we'll be creating a brand new setting as a background for Pathfinder... We'll be releasing more info about the setting and the new adventure path over the next several days, so stay tuned!

Just speculating here, but does WotC own the two others settings that made it to the final three (along with Eberron) of its campaign setting search? If not, will either of the two be this one then?

I'll assume that international FLGS will automatically carry Pathfinder after Dragon and Dungeon cease. I get my Dragon (as well as Marvel comics) at the local comic-book and gamin chain ComicQuest here in the Philippines.

Though I buy individual copies of Dragon and am not a subscriber, I'm sad to see it go.

Dragons of Faerûn is a 3.5 book, and it includes the most current stats for the mercury and mist dragons as well; all three new dragons first appeared on the now defunct Monster Mayhem column at Wizards' D&D website (by Skip Williams with Sean K. Reynolds), here, here, and here. It might also interest you that the Greyhawk dragon (which according to canon is the original name of the steel dragon as it was named after the city of Greyhawk on the world of Oerth) also appeared in Dragon #339 with different CRs.

For those who don't know yet, over it EN World Shade started a dragon conversion thread with several people involved (including me) and posted the completed dragons at this Creature Catalog true dragon conversions. So far we've done jacinth, maztican, cobra, and ichthyodrake, and pink is up right now. It's just a matter of time as to when these will be sent as a query. Someone just said that the ferrous dragons will be in Dragon #356.

Kirth Gersen wrote:
The Storm Drake from Draconomicon is the 3e cloud dragon. We'll have to learn to accept the lack of age categories.

I hope not, and that despite the practically identical abilites with the 1e/2e cloud dragon that it is a different dragon and that "cloud dragon" is just a confusing junior synonym for storm drake (much like "moonstone dragon" should be a junior synonym for the ethereal dragon). If they are one and the same, I expect someone to give them the phaerimm treatment: it had only a single age category in the 3.0 Monsters of Faerûn and was updated with six age categories in the 3.5 Monsters of Faerûn Web Enhancement for the Player's Guide to Faerûn. I support this move for the hellfire wyrm in Monster Manual II as well, because it is listed as the planar dragon of Baator in the latest planar dragon article and is the only lesser dragon there. Based on the fact that at Todd Lockwood's website there's a picture of a "hellfire dragon" that was intended for a magazine cover (Dragon?) and which is a dead ringer for his hellfire wyrm, I suspect that it was meant to be a true dragon at first but then got nerfed; and then the fiendish dragons showed up in Dragon #300.

1 to 50 of 106 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

©2002-2017 Paizo Inc.® | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Need help? Email or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours, Monday through Friday, 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM Pacific time.

Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, Starfinder, the Starfinder logo, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Legends, Pathfinder Online, Starfinder Adventure Path, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.