I have to say that I love these articles. I got to look at my buddy's brand-spanking new issue with the chromatic dragons article last night. With the metallics covered last year and the chromatics covered this year, does that mean that we will see the gem dragons next year? Please?
Anyway, I have only had one complaint and it covers both issues. They stop at 20th level. I was really hoping that I would see the entire progression 1st through whatever level tops out the creatures at Great Wyrm. I know that the space issue prevents it most likely, but I would have liked to have seen it.
By no means does this mean that I am unhappy with the information provided, it is just the kick in the pants that the Council of Wyrms needs to get into v3.5. (Nope, I am not going to let it drop, even if I have to write it and submit it to Dragon myself.)
Thanks, and keep up the good work.
Neomorte
Contributor
|
I have to say that I love these articles. I got to look at my buddy's brand-spanking new issue with the chromatic dragons article last night. With the metallics covered last year and the chromatics covered this year, does that mean that we will see the gem dragons next year? Please?
Well, Erik and I have certainly talked about doing the same thing for gem dragons. As of right now I think we're in favor of that idea. It might not/probably won't appear in next June's issue (which will be the 30th Anniversary issue!), but if we do decide to run the article I'm sure it won't come out until 2006.
Anyway, I have only had one complaint and it covers both issues. They stop at 20th level. I was really hoping that I would see the entire progression 1st through whatever level tops out the creatures at Great Wyrm. I know that the space issue prevents it most likely, but I would have liked to have seen it.
Space is the main issue. For the metallics I first went through and created full progressions for all of the age categories mentioned in the article, extending most of them past 20th level (progressions ended around 22nd to 23rd level, generally). Wes, Matt (then editor-in-chief Matthew Sernett), and I talked about whether we should include those extra levels. Ultimately, as you can see, we did not. The levels were deleted and are lost to the ages (so no, asking to see them won't avail you). ;) To go beyond those age categories to include all twelve categories would require at least two pages just for the class progression chart...and that's per dragon!
Another issue is basic economic principles: supply and demand. There isn't a lot of call for epic-level material. Having breakdowns of the dragon classes beyond 20th level just isn't something our readers have expressed interest in. Sure we get calls for epic-level stuff and yes we get calls for more dragon class progressions, but ne'er the twain shall meet (well, not 'til your post anyway). :)
By no means does this mean that I am unhappy with the information provided, it is just the kick in the pants that the Council of Wyrms needs to get into v3.5. (Nope, I am not going to let it drop, even if I have to write it and submit it to Dragon myself.)
Well, January is the Campaign Classics issue, so you never know what'll happen. No, that isn't a hint that Council of Wyrms content will appear in the January issue...I'm honestly saying I don't know! :D
If you want to submit a query regarding Council of Wyrms I encourage you to do so. The proper email is dragon@paizo.com. :)
Thanks, and keep up the good work.
Thank you! We're certainly trying! :)
Well, Erik and I have certainly talked about doing the same thing for gem dragons. As of right now I think we're in favor of that idea. It might not/probably won't appear in next June's issue (which will be the 30th Anniversary issue!), but if we do decide to run the article I'm sure it won't come out until 2006.
Man, an article on Gem Dragons would be awesome! :) Any chance the good old OD&D Jade and Amber dragons would make their appearace aswell? They don't exist in 3E so far AFAIK...
Håvard
Man, an article on Gem Dragons would be awesome! :) Any chance the good old OD&D Jade and Amber dragons would make their appearace aswell? They don't exist in 3E so far AFAIK...
They don't as far as I know either. The obsidian dragon did make it's way to the Mind's Eye feature at wizards.com. That is the only one that I know has made the conversion into a post-v3.0 version.
And thank you for the encouragement, Mr. McArtor. I have grabbed my old 3.0 conversion notes of CoW and will begin again on making it v3.5 friendly. Now all I need to do is grab the submission guidelines and away I go.
Neomorte
And thank you for the encouragement, Mr. McArtor. I have grabbed my old 3.0 conversion notes of CoW and will begin again on making it v3.5 friendly. Now all I need to do is grab the submission guidelines and away I go.
CoW for 3.5 sounds interesting. I didn't care much for the way it was handled in 2e rules-wise, but I do like the idea of a setting centered around dragons (and with Dragon PCs).
Håvard
I've actually done my own 3.0 psionics to 3.5 psionics conversion of the gem dragons (including the obsidian dragon and the not-quite-gem-dragon ectoplasmic dragon) at the gem dragon psionics page of my website.
I have my own jade and amber dragons, but I've remade them. This has happened to other dragons as well; the 2e rust dragon become an extraplanar true dragon from Acheron, and the 2e firedrake is now one of eight elemental drakes. In my case, I made the jade dragon into one of three subpsionic gem dragons, and the amber dragon as a sort-of-gem-dragon, but with druidic spellcasting abilities. (Hint, hint for article idea submissions. :) )