Dragon #309

[Glyfair]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dragon #309

I can see that D&D battle information could be well used in a campaign, I just don't see it being used very frequently, and I do understand that other people's mileage may vary.

You know, this is what I buy Dragon for. If it's something I'm going to be using frequently, there is often a product out there I can pick up (assuming I don't have an idea of my own on how the handle it). However, if it's something that's just going to rear its head every so often, I'd like to be able to look through my magazines to find an article that gives a reasonable overview on how to handle it.

 

[Terry Edwards]

Okay, I have finished reading #309 and I must say I can understand people's disapointment. I still stand by my earlier post stating my aproval of the Incursion campaign components article. It is the best campaign components yet though it might be more acurately titled a campaign template. Anyway I can't wait to spring it on my players.

Of course I feel the Hobgoblin article is top notch.

After reading the Sun Tzu article I just feel that Sun Tzu's war insights cannot be properly translated for the D&D game. Furthermore this attempt to do so really failed. The game information was obvious to useless I would really have preferred this with more flavor and less game information.

The history of war isn't a bad idea but there are many websites that can give more detailed information without crowding the bottom pages of half the magazine. I would have preferred a sample war history involving the D&D races, fairly generic so it could be applied to any campaign.

3.5 update...I honestly don't read these. I just check the breakdown in the messageboards.

I give beasts of the battle field a thumbs up since I do run games with large battles where these new monsters would be great. I must admit though that I am a sucker for monster articles.

I don't have much to say regarding the shut up and roll article. I guess it's good to be reminded of the basics once in a while.

War Spell? More like "convert a handful of existing spells for mass combat" I was initially excited when I opened the mag to this article between customers at the coffee shop but that excitement turned into flipping quickly through the 8 pages and back again wondering where the new spells were. This would have been better if they had done something more in line with the Birthright campaign setting.

New Martial Arts Styles just isn't my cup o' tea (personally I enjoy earl gray) so it may have been a good article for those who care to implement fancy fighting into their game but not for me.

Finally, where are Nodwick, Dorktower and Zogonia? I didn't realize how much I enjoyed having these in the mag until they disappeared. And yet there was still space for Phil and Dixie, which I feel is a complete waste of space, ink, paper, time and talent (if it seems I am being too harsh on Mr. Foglio I'm sorry. I really do respect him as an artist, dating back to my MtG days.)

Overall I'll give the issue a thumbs up if only for the Incursion article.

 

[Arnwyn]

Without mas combat rules, i don't think they should have any articles in Dragon about War. I also found it to be a weak issue, but then again I don't like themed issues.

Now this I pretty much agree with. I love war, and have been clamouring for mass combat rules for a while, but including some half-*ssed war-related rules in the magazine without a mass-combat system was less-than-helpful (but, to be honest, I love any war-related stuff anyways, so I do appreciate the effort). But the whole "theme issue" thing has gotten real old and real tired real fast.

In any case, I found this to be a mediocre issue. The Sun Tzu article was laughably bad, but the other things were decent. I like the new martial arts styles and war monsters, and think I can adapt the war spells article once Eden's Fields of Blood comes out. I also like the incursion thing - I love getting info about society, etc for interesting monsters. Getting info for the Githyanki was a long-time coming, IMO.

The little map for the Ecology of the Hobgoblin was appreciated, but was still not so good - no grids! *sigh* Ah Paizo - you giveth, yet you so quickly taketh away. *sigh*

(And just a quick note - IMO, April was the best issue I've seen in a year. I could use *every single one* of those articles, with virtually no additional work on my part. Fantastic!)

Edit: Oh, I should just point out again: These "theme issues" are a complete stinker. I'm beginning to see merit in the idea put forth that these theme issues allow garbage articles that would otherwise never see the light of day to get printed in Dragon just because it fits the "theme", but otherwise excellent articles are being chucked or put by the wayside because they don't fit...