# Dragon Compendium Volume 2



## Razz (Nov 14, 2006)

Apparently, Paizo really wants to do a Volume 2 of Dragon Compendium but are still waiting on the "ok" from WotC. Who's really taking their sweet time on giving them the ok for some strange reason. Volume One made a lot of sales, you'd figure Volume 2 would've been in the making and out at least by now if not soon.

So vote "Yes" if you'd like to see it out ASAP and would like WotC to give them the go already and, well, "no" if you're not that interested to see the next one.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Nov 14, 2006)

Yay, the yes vote! Hopefully, with enough numbers, it might send a message to. . . someone. Somewhere.


----------



## Mark Hope (Nov 14, 2006)

Yes, give us the Compendium or give us death!!!

Or, you know, just the Compendium.  Your call...


----------



## smootrk (Nov 14, 2006)

How many years of articles that are prime for updates?... I cannot wait.  I love the DC1.


----------



## philreed (Nov 14, 2006)

I'm in.


----------



## Psion (Nov 14, 2006)

I endorse the aforementioned product/service.


----------



## JoeyD473 (Nov 14, 2006)

I'm in rush for DC2


----------



## JustKim (Nov 14, 2006)

Razz said:
			
		

> Apparently, Paizo really wants to do a Volume 2 of Dragon Compendium but are still waiting on the "ok" from WotC.



What? WotC has not given the okay on an Age of Worms collection, most likely because of its persistant use of intellectual property and copyrighted characters. As far as I know any Dragon Compendium 2 is still in the works and Paizo has not pitched it at all.


----------



## Shade (Nov 14, 2006)

Absolutely!


----------



## Seeker95 (Nov 14, 2006)

Razz said:
			
		

> Apparently, Paizo really wants to do a Volume 2 of Dragon Compendium but are still waiting on the "ok" from WotC.



Do you have a source for the second part of this claim?


----------



## diaglo (Nov 14, 2006)

it has to be better than the first one.

The Jester???


----------



## Psion (Nov 14, 2006)

diaglo said:
			
		

> The Jester???




A jester? 
A jester?
A funny idea, a jester. 
No butcher, no baker, no candlestick maker, 
and me with the look of a fine undertaker 
impressed her as a jester?

But where was I to learn any comical turn?
It was not in a book on a shelf.
No teacher to take me, to mold me and make me
a merryman, fool or an elf.

But I'm proud to recall 
that in no time at all,
with no other recourses but my own resources,
with firm application and determination...
I made a fool of myself!"


----------



## Alzrius (Nov 14, 2006)

What I would give to see a DC2...


----------



## JoeGKushner (Nov 14, 2006)

Depends on what's in it.

Based on the heavy amount of 3.0/3.5 material in DC 1, no, I'm in no hurry.

Now if we could get a list of proposed articles that were going into said book, that might change my mind.


----------



## BOZ (Nov 14, 2006)

sure, why not.


----------



## Seeker95 (Nov 14, 2006)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Based on the heavy amount of 3.0/3.5 material in DC 1, no, I'm in no hurry.



What would you expect to be in a Dragon Compendium?
All the material is updated to 3.5 rules.


----------



## schporto (Nov 14, 2006)

Seeker95 said:
			
		

> What would you expect to be in a Dragon Compendium?
> All the material is updated to 3.5 rules.



But a whole lot of it seemed to be from about issue 275 on.  There were some older articles but those seemed mostly on 'ideas', not crunch.
I'd like to see some of the old stuff converted from AD&D to 3.5.  But that is my opinion.
-cpd


----------



## JoeGKushner (Nov 14, 2006)

schporto said:
			
		

> But a whole lot of it seemed to be from about issue 275 on.  There were some older articles but those seemed mostly on 'ideas', not crunch.
> I'd like to see some of the old stuff converted from AD&D to 3.5.  But that is my opinion.
> -cpd




Bingo.

The material in the 1st book was way too recent with hardly any 'classic' material and some of  that which was updated was... of questionable  value. And the editing was about as good as a WoTC book so that wasn't too good. And the second printing carried over those errors. Bad Piazo.


----------



## diaglo (Nov 14, 2006)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Bingo.
> 
> The material in the 1st book was way too recent with hardly any 'classic' material and some of  that which was updated was... of questionable  value. And the editing was about as good as a WoTC book so that wasn't too good. And the second printing carried over those errors. Bad Piazo.




ditto, ditto, ditto.


----------



## Psion (Nov 14, 2006)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> The material in the 1st book was way too recent with hardly any 'classic' material and some of  that which was updated was... of questionable  value. And the editing was about as good as a WoTC book so that wasn't too good. And the second printing carried over those errors. Bad Piazo.




I do agree they should have done more conversions of older stuff. I disagree that its necessarily a problem to collect recent material.

Quite frankly, I could see individual issues of Dragon being of use to to players more than a GM. A player might find a single article interesting and approach the DM to use it, but I find that as a DM, a collected volume makes it more likely the content will be used that if I have to try to recall which of a scattered volume of back issues had that one article I was looking for. (The same goes for the spell compendium and spells scattered through various supplements.)

That said, I do agree that for DC2, I am really interested in seeing more converted old material.


----------



## Nightfall (Nov 14, 2006)

That makes two of us Psion. I liked DC 1 but I mostly kept hoping for conversions of old monsters, old classes and yeah spells too. (I know, I know people got spells but there's dozens more that haven't been touched on that Dragon did in the past). Plus maybe a few planar thingies too.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Nov 14, 2006)

There were NO spells in DC 1 because Spell Compendium was coming out.


----------



## Psion (Nov 14, 2006)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> There were NO spells in DC 1 because Spell Compendium was coming out.




Yup. I even recognized the seven sin domains in SC from one of my earmarked articles in the Dragon.

I could turn this into a "what I'd like to see redone in 3e" thread, but I think we've had that one...


----------



## Mark Hope (Nov 14, 2006)

Anoother vote here for less 3e-era material and more from the days of 1e and 2e.  Recent back-issues are easy enough to pick up and convert.  It's the classic era stuff that I want to see updated.  Not to say that there is no good stuff in DC1 from the 3e era, or that there were no cool articles from the old days in there.  But the best stuff remains untapped.


----------



## Nightfall (Nov 14, 2006)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> There were NO spells in DC 1 because Spell Compendium was coming out.





So? Doesn't mean we couldn't have had OTHER spells from previous dragons before that could have gone in there too.  

I mean what about say a Dalamar's spell or two, Dragonlance spells, or even Planscape type dealios? Ravenloft? Come on...


----------



## Mystery Man (Nov 14, 2006)

I thought the Dragon Compendium rocked on toast. Lead the charge Razz!


----------



## Razz (Nov 14, 2006)

Seeker95 said:
			
		

> Do you have a source for the second part of this claim?




Actually yes, it's in the Dragon magazine message boards on Paizo's website, under the thread "Dragon Compendium Volume 2???"


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Nov 14, 2006)

Yes ... though I'd like to see an Age of Worms hardcover first.


----------



## Soel (Nov 14, 2006)

diaglo said:
			
		

> it has to be better than the first one.
> 
> The Jester???




I hope so as well. Still, there's lots of gold to be mined...


----------



## Seeker95 (Nov 15, 2006)

Razz said:
			
		

> Actually yes, it's in the Dragon magazine message boards on Paizo's website, under the thread "Dragon Compendium Volume 2???"



If you mean Mike McArtor's statements:

1. _I can't talk about Paizo products too far out in advance, but I too would really like to see DCII in 2007. Or ever. Email Wizards of the Coast and demand they let us do it. ;D_

and

2. _It's because Paizo is a licensee of WIzards of the Coast. We pay for the right to produce actual official Dungeons & Dragons content (as opposed to D&D compatible d20 content that almost every other company can produce). As part of that licensing agreement, Wizards of the Coast takes ownership of everything we create that is official D&D content. Our license gives us the ability to create two magazines every month. Anything beyond that we can only create with permission._

Then you have taken a serious liberty with your statement about WotC "taking their sweet time".
Mike's statement did not indicate that Paizo has requested permission.
Nor did he state when they requested it (if indeed they did).
Nor did he state that WotC has NOT granted permission.

At best, we know that:
Mike McArtor would like to see a DCII in 2007, and
Mike McArtor cannot talk much about future Paizo products.

Go ahead and write WotC requesting DCII, but save the innuendo for another time.  Saying that WotC is taking its time on granting permission is a jab that is not needed.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Nov 15, 2006)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> And the editing was about as good as a WoTC book... Bad Piazo.




Heh 

-Hyp.


----------



## 00Machado (Nov 15, 2006)

diaglo said:
			
		

> it has to be better than the first one.




QFT. The last one I found to have missed its potential.


----------



## was (Nov 15, 2006)

not really interested


----------



## jefgorbach (Nov 15, 2006)

Is it too soon to pre-order? 
Hopefully DC2 will be searchable/printable full-text and not just graphic scans, but either way a coupla of CDs is much easier to review/store than years of hardcopy.


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Nov 15, 2006)

We're not talking about a CD compilation - the _Dragon Compendium_ is a hardcover reprint/update of selected articles, mostly game material


----------



## Pants (Nov 15, 2006)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> And the editing was about as good as a WoTC book so that wasn't too good. And the second printing carried over those errors. Bad Piazo.



I found it worse actually.

Still a handy and nice book, but by no means perfect.


----------



## Nightfall (Nov 15, 2006)

Joe standard of perfection have increased ever since he found out his beloved teddy was actually an Unholy Scion Half Fiend Half Dragon Thrall of Dagon. 

I also agree with Oglar about a AoW HC...but I've been wishing for an Orcus Plushie for a while now so it's kind of a pipe dream we'll have to live with for now.


----------



## Ghendar (Nov 15, 2006)

schporto said:
			
		

> But a whole lot of it seemed to be from about issue 275 on.  There were some older articles but those seemed mostly on 'ideas', not crunch.
> I'd like to see some of the old stuff converted from AD&D to 3.5.  But that is my opinion.
> -cpd




Yeah, I gotta agree. Update the old stuff.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Nov 15, 2006)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> Joe standard of perfection have increased ever since he found out his beloved teddy was actually an Unholy Scion Half Fiend Half Dragon Thrall of Dagon.
> 
> I also agree with Oglar about a AoW HC...but I've been wishing for an Orcus Plushie for a while now so it's kind of a pipe dream we'll have to live with for now.




No, no standards of perfection here.

Editing in the gaming industry is a joke. Not just WoTC but every game publisher. AEG's WLF, Warlords, and L5R 3rd edition all have major gaffs for example. Most White Wolf books still have editing errors here and there. heck, I remember a time when they were xx pages in almost every book they did.

A few books escape this editing but for most, it's a non-issue. In most cases, as they're generally single print runs, you're scrwed with hoping to see some online errata. With the DC it's worse because they carried over the errors without fixing them.   

Still, it'd be nice to see more than lip service given to the idea of editing.


----------



## Jedi_Solo (Nov 15, 2006)

Perfect editing or not, as long as I can tell what it is supposed to be (which, granted hasn't always happened even with WotC stuff).  Still, sign me up as soon as possable.

DC2!  DC2!  DC2!


----------



## diaglo (Nov 15, 2006)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> No, no standards of perfection here.
> 
> Editing in the gaming industry is a joke. Not just WoTC but every game publisher. AEG's WLF, Warlords, and L5R 3rd edition all have major gaffs for example. Most White Wolf books still have editing errors here and there. heck, I remember a time when they were xx pages in almost every book they did.
> 
> ...




qft.

i nominated Spycraft last year as a judge... but i had the hardest time with it due to need its for editing.


----------



## grimblade (Nov 15, 2006)

Count me in for DC2.


----------



## The_Gneech (Nov 15, 2006)

And while you're at it, give Code Monkey Publishing their license back!

-The Gneech


----------



## Razz (Nov 15, 2006)

Seeker95 said:
			
		

> Go ahead and write WotC requesting DCII, but save the innuendo for another time.  Saying that WotC is taking its time on granting permission is a jab that is not needed.




With mistakes WotC have been making as of late, I wouldn't be surprised if they were just taking their time.   

From what ~I~ got in those statements, it sounds to me like they're ready to do a DC2 (or else, why would they call the first one Volume One?) and are waiting for the "ok" from WotC. This sounds to me like they've asked WotC already and WotC keeps dilly-dallying. I personally think it's overdue for a DC2.

But to each his own.  

And that wasn't the thread I was talking about, though I've read that one too.

Here it is: Any News on Volume 2?


----------



## JoeGKushner (Nov 15, 2006)

diaglo said:
			
		

> qft.
> 
> i nominated Spycraft last year as a judge... but i had the hardest time with it due to need its for editing.




I remember that. Heck, you caught far more editing/errors than I did and I like to think I'm reading for comprehension/utility!


----------



## Greylock (Nov 15, 2006)

Didn't Erik say, on several occasions, that the first DC had a lot of later 3.x material out of the necessity of seeing how the market responded to the book? And that eventual, hopefully, Compendiums would delve deeper into the archives?

I'd swear I saw him say that about a half a million times. Give or take a few.


----------



## Psion (Nov 15, 2006)

Greylock said:
			
		

> Didn't Erik say, on several occasions, that the first DC had a lot of later 3.x material out of the necessity of seeing how the market responded to the book? And that eventual, hopefully, Compendiums would delve deeper into the archives?




At least once...



			
				Erik Mona on Paizo boards said:
			
		

> Future volumes, if there are any, will focus largely upon older material.


----------



## Seeker95 (Nov 15, 2006)

Razz said:
			
		

> And that wasn't the thread I was talking about, though I've read that one too.
> 
> Here it is: Any News on Volume 2?



Umm... that's the thread the McArtor quotes came from.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Nov 15, 2006)

Greylock said:
			
		

> Didn't Erik say, on several occasions, that the first DC had a lot of later 3.x material out of the necessity of seeing how the market responded to the book? And that eventual, hopefully, Compendiums would delve deeper into the archives?
> 
> I'd swear I saw him say that about a half a million times. Give or take a few.




Indeed. And yet some of the material included that weird concept given  class by Mike Mearls... the Mounteback or something?    Updating old edition stuff to newer edition when it wasn't even a class proper?  :\  Strange choices there man. Strange choices.


----------



## BOZ (Nov 15, 2006)

Greylock said:
			
		

> Didn't Erik say, on several occasions, that the first DC had a lot of later 3.x material out of the necessity of seeing how the market responded to the book? And that eventual, hopefully, Compendiums would delve deeper into the archives?
> 
> I'd swear I saw him say that about a half a million times. Give or take a few.




most people will ignore that part, though, until they actually see it.

but thanks for reminding me; i had forgotten it.


----------



## Nightfall (Nov 17, 2006)

Joe,

Maybe so. But I still think you finding about your Teddy might have pushed you along.


----------



## Ant (Nov 17, 2006)

I loved the first Dragon Compendium despite some of the flaws (all of which have already been gone over many times).

I'd buy the second one in an Immediate Action.


----------



## Shadeydm (Nov 17, 2006)

An emphasis on pre 3E material would ensure that I buy it asap.


----------



## Xyanthon (Nov 17, 2006)

I'd like to see some more of the classic (from the 1st 150 or so) material updated in the second one.


----------



## Nightfall (Nov 18, 2006)

Well glad to see people also want pre-3rd edition material too. 

But I still think Joe's teddy is sending him bad thoughts.


----------



## Nikosandros (Nov 18, 2006)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Indeed. And yet some of the material included that weird concept given  class by Mike Mearls... the Mounteback or something?    Updating old edition stuff to newer edition when it wasn't even a class proper?  :\  Strange choices there man. Strange choices.



What surprised me even more was that classes like the mountebank didn't even keep the original concept as it was presented by Gary Gygax in Dragon, but just used the name...


----------



## Nightfall (Nov 18, 2006)

Funny I thought Death Master was pretty darn close to my recollection of Orcus' priests.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Nov 20, 2006)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> Funny I thought Death Master was pretty darn close to my recollection of Orcus' priests.




A 13 level NPC class that turned into a lich at level 13?     


That would be impossible these days as everything must be balanced.

Thinking about it, it's messed up that the only NPC classes are actually WEAKER than the core classes.    Certainly well against the old standards of highly specialized forces that were meant for NPCs to take on groups of PCs.


----------



## MKMcArtor (Nov 20, 2006)

JustKim said:
			
		

> What? WotC has not given the okay on an Age of Worms collection, most likely because of its persistant use of intellectual property and copyrighted characters.




That has nothing to do with it. They own it all, why would they care if it uses their IP?



			
				JustKim said:
			
		

> As far as I know any Dragon Compendium 2 is still in the works and Paizo has not pitched it at all.




That is incorrect. We pitched it in 2005. We pitched it again early in 2006.



			
				Seeker95 said:
			
		

> Go ahead and write WotC requesting DCII, but save the innuendo for another time.  Saying that WotC is taking its time on granting permission is a jab that is not needed.




Wizards of the Coast is taking its time granting permission for us to do the DCII. We have asked multiple times. That isn't a jab; it's information Erik Mona has stated multiple times.


----------



## Greg K (Nov 20, 2006)

I asked Lisa Stevens of Paizo about a Dragon Magazine Compendium volume 2 while at Gen Con SoCal.  She also said that Paizo has asked for permission multiple times.  

I also asked her about Paizo publishing compendiums for both the Demonicon and Core Beliefs. The likelihood did not sound good for either.


----------



## Razz (Nov 21, 2006)

I wonder what their ploy is? I wish they would give some statement as to why no word was given yet.


----------



## 00Machado (Nov 21, 2006)

Who is the right person to send email to at WotC to tell them we want to see this and the Age of Worms compiled edition (which I'm personally more intestested in)? Not that they're not reading this, but I'm talking about a more formalized approach that people can take if they really want to see this product.

Something along the lines of...

I am your customer, I spend x on your products per year, and I want you to green light this licensed product.

If you're willing to stop spending money on their products over it, or are losing faith in their brand because of the red tape, tell them that too.

I suppose you could skip the business planning folks and just launch an email campaign to Hasbro's CEO if you really have a large enough base that it will get attention at that level. YMMV


----------



## JustKim (Nov 21, 2006)

MKMcArtor said:
			
		

> That has nothing to do with it. They own it all, why would they care if it uses their IP?



The idea that Paizo would have to ask permission to republish something from the magazine has led me to believe that the license doesn't grant you the right to it, and WotC has a history of saying "no" to companies who try to use their IP.

It seems like a reasonable assumption to me.


----------



## BOZ (Nov 21, 2006)

WotC has been fickle; i mean, they have allowed other companies to publish Dragonlance, Ravenloft, and (wasn't there a third setting that I can't think of at the moment?), however they sometimes say no to things.  they've let projects like the Tome of Horrors gets through and be OGL.  they did let the SCAP and DC1 get through as well.  maybe they're willing to let paizo do it, but are waiting for the right time or want a specific deal that paizo has yet to make?


----------



## Nightfall (Nov 21, 2006)

Boz,

Wotc is fickle. Now THERE'S the understatement of the decade!  

Joe,

I think you need to check who's brewing your coffee man.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Nov 21, 2006)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> Boz,
> 
> Wotc is fickle. Now THERE'S the understatement of the decade!
> 
> ...





I'm like Rosarch in his secret identity with the sign of doom man. Doom!


----------



## Nightfall (Nov 22, 2006)

Well doom and gloom is for sure. I think you were born under the gamer sign of Eeyore.


----------



## CelestialBarbarian (Dec 12, 2013)

*I Just Got Volume 1 and It Looks Great!*

My campaign has been running since 2002 (starting with 3.0) and we're still using 3.5.  One of my players got me Volume 1 for my birthday and it looks great.  I'm particularly happy to see the old orange, purple and yellow dragons brought back from 1982 with 3.5 rules!  I have two questions:

1.  Can anyone direct me to the CRs of the three dragons?  The stat block for each one says "CR: See Table" but I'm not seeing the dragons' CR either on their own tables or on the CR table on page 172.

2.  Did Wizards ever produce a Dragon Compendium Volume 2? I did a search on Amazon.com and didn't find it, and a Google search led me to this thread.  

Thanks!


----------



## Ahnehnois (Dec 12, 2013)

Necro-ing a seven-year-old thread is unlikely to get a ton of responses, but the short answer is no, I don't believe another volume was ever produced. I looked hard for it a little while back and came up empty.


----------



## Nightfall (Dec 13, 2013)

Thread-o-mancy strikes again!


----------



## CelestialBarbarian (Dec 13, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> Necro-ing a seven-year-old thread is unlikely to get a ton of responses, but the short answer is no, I don't believe another volume was ever produced. I looked hard for it a little while back and came up empty.




Thanks. I did at least find the errata over at Paizo.com, and it contains the corrected CRs and ECLs for the dragons.


----------

