Talk:Ahghairon's dragonward

Fun fact: Waterdeep City of Splendors has a map that provides a scale of 4000 feet. Using that scale, the whole city is under the dome of the spell, unlike what the text states. LylaNikker (talk) 22:12, July 15, 2020 (UTC)

Per this discussion with Eric Boyd on Facebook, the dome was always meant to cover the entire city's borders. Which makes me think the comment (The southern reaches of Dock Ward are outside the effect because the city slopes down just beneath the ward’s coverage. This little-known fact is occasionally exploited by wyrms that swim into the harbor and meet with minions along the docks or in the southernmost sewers.) - is regarding the spell effect being a hemisphere in shape, and the part that's not protected is at too low of an elevation - it's below the dome.

>How much of the city was the dragon ward's radius meant to cover? Eric Boyd: All of it, to 3.5e boundaries.

> So - this part: (The southern reaches of Dock Ward are outside the effect because the city slopes down just beneath the ward’s coverage. This little-known fact is occasionally exploited by wyrms that swim into the harbor and meet with minions along the docks or in the southernmost sewers.)" If I understand correctly - that's about elevation then, rather than distance from the center of the dome? - It's under the dome, but you would have to fly up to be affected because there's a gap? Eric Boyd: Think of Waterdeep as a slightly tipped board, sloping down to the water. The Dragonward is a half dome. So the southernmost end of the tipped board is just below the half-dome. Loopholes are important.

ValasRPGE 21:07, May 27, 2022 (UTC-3)

>"effect did not extend to the harbor" Was this mis-cited, or perhaps another reference to the bottom elevation of the dome? I couldnt find anything about this on the listed page in Dragon Heist
 * Hey there. Like any other designer that isn't Ed Greenwood, Eric Boyd's comments are unfortunately not considered canon&mdash;only what he's written in official sources is. As such, his input here is really of no consequence. If discounting his commentary helps resolve this apparent information conflict, I would advise doing so. Ir&#39;revrykal (talk) 10:22, 1 June 2022 (UTC)