-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Dragon No. 319 arrived today
- Thread starter Shadowdancer
- Start date
Son_of_Thunder
Explorer
Missing pages
Well,
Paizo ain't winning any resubscription money with me. My copy didn't have pages 1 through 18 and had the next signature section twice. For an even further kick in the junk my email goes ignored.
Thanks for nothing Paizo.
Well,
Paizo ain't winning any resubscription money with me. My copy didn't have pages 1 through 18 and had the next signature section twice. For an even further kick in the junk my email goes ignored.
Thanks for nothing Paizo.
inevitable
First Post
Pyrex said:
Yeah, you missed a well-hidden bit of text: "a magewright's extremely limited spell selection makes this class generally unsuitable for player character use."
In other words, it's an NPC class.
Son_of_Thunder said:Well,
Paizo ain't winning any resubscription money with me. My copy didn't have pages 1 through 18 and had the next signature section twice. For an even further kick in the junk my email goes ignored.
Thanks for nothing Paizo.
A few subscribers have complained about miscut or misprinted 319 issues, so clearly there was a problem with one of the print runs. If you encountered this problem with your issue (or encounter it with a future issue) please mail us the issue with your name and return address so we can send you a replacement issue. We'll also add an issue to your subscription.
It helps us to have misprinted and miscut issues so that we can show them to our printer and ensure that such problems don't crop up again.
Also, if you ever need to speak with anyone here a Paizo about any problem with our magazines, feel free to give us a call (see below). We're sorry about the problem, but I'm sure our customer service guys will be getting back to you about it soon. They know their stuff
.Sorry again and best of luck,
F. Wesley Schneider
Assistant Editor
Paizo Publishing
Paizo Publishing, LLC
3245 146th PL SE, Suite 110
Bellevue, WA 98007
Phone: (425) 289-0060
Monday - Friday, 8 AM to 5 PM PDT.
Ranger REG
Explorer
Maybe to me, but I doubt hardcore Dark Sun fans would agree. Just a precaution, you'd better take cover.MrFilthyIke said:It was VERY different from the Realms, Greyhawk, DL, etc....with many
adapted rules. But it was still "sword & sorcery" just with more dust.
You needed to know/own the 2ed Players Handbook and DM guide, but it
had it's own MM supplements.
Very different, but still "D&D".
Make any sense??
![:]](http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/devious.png "Devious :]")
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
First, the DS issue
But you can have idealistic druids who want to restore the natural world? And idealistic rebels who want to free the slaves? And idealistic preservers who tap magic at the expense of their own well-being? But...not idealistic crusaders? I mean, sure, there'd be some setting alterations (the Code would be changed to one of preservation, rather than one of chivalry, probably), but an idealistic warrior can fit in the setting pretty well, I think. And it would be an altruism tested to it's very limits -- a "lawful stupid" paladin would be a lawful stupid corpse if he tried many of the things mentioned as 'good' in the Book of Exalted Deeds, for instance.
Bingo. I don't think there's a need for a "Dark Sun Bard/Assassin/Thing" class -- either allow the bard, or just tell people to use Rogues. That said, I don't think the bard is *essential.* I mean, it's fine that it exists, but I'd be fine with them dropping it, too; there's no reason it shouldn't exist, but I see no reason it should. I'd like, perhaps ideally, to have a "psionic jack of all trades" who gains psionics like a bard gains magic, with a bard BAB, bard skills, etc. Buy that's easy enough to weasel into, prolly especially with the XPH.
Crappy rules mechanic, IMHO....but YMMV. A game in which I'm switching characters that often is a game in which I, as a player, can't get much into the world.
I disagree. It's an edition problem, methinks. In 2e, it was "arcane magic." In 3e, it is "wizards." It has the same effect -- arcane magic, associated with Wizards, is bad -- without crippling the underlying system. That said, don't make the bard a rogue and pretend it's a bard. Just drop the thing. And you don't really make a case for Paladins.....
Looking over Dave's entry, I see a lot of what he's sayin'
- Nix monks; unarmed attacks are too potent when your weapons are crap
- Nix sorcs; psions are the 'spontaneous spellcasters.'
I think a few of his rules were clunky (weapon damage, armor damage, etc. were clunky when done in From Stone to Steel, it could be clunky here). Heat already does damage, no need to re-write the manual on that one. I think there ideally would've been a "wealth to power conversion," where you could decrease the wealth level of the game but keep giving PC's powers (sort of how my One Week Old campaign is short on wealth, but still gives PC's the powers of magic items). I do like the idea of tying some monster DR to primitive weapons...pretty sweet.
Now, the Eberron Stuff
Awesome. Now if only I could get a look at how this fits into the DMG demographics, I think Eberron has nearly sold me on it's completeness.
But you can have idealistic druids who want to restore the natural world? And idealistic rebels who want to free the slaves? And idealistic preservers who tap magic at the expense of their own well-being? But...not idealistic crusaders? I mean, sure, there'd be some setting alterations (the Code would be changed to one of preservation, rather than one of chivalry, probably), but an idealistic warrior can fit in the setting pretty well, I think. And it would be an altruism tested to it's very limits -- a "lawful stupid" paladin would be a lawful stupid corpse if he tried many of the things mentioned as 'good' in the Book of Exalted Deeds, for instance.
Bingo. I don't think there's a need for a "Dark Sun Bard/Assassin/Thing" class -- either allow the bard, or just tell people to use Rogues. That said, I don't think the bard is *essential.* I mean, it's fine that it exists, but I'd be fine with them dropping it, too; there's no reason it shouldn't exist, but I see no reason it should. I'd like, perhaps ideally, to have a "psionic jack of all trades" who gains psionics like a bard gains magic, with a bard BAB, bard skills, etc. Buy that's easy enough to weasel into, prolly especially with the XPH.
Crappy rules mechanic, IMHO....but YMMV. A game in which I'm switching characters that often is a game in which I, as a player, can't get much into the world.
I disagree. It's an edition problem, methinks. In 2e, it was "arcane magic." In 3e, it is "wizards." It has the same effect -- arcane magic, associated with Wizards, is bad -- without crippling the underlying system. That said, don't make the bard a rogue and pretend it's a bard. Just drop the thing.
And you don't really make a case for Paladins.....Dave Noonan said:
Looking over Dave's entry, I see a lot of what he's sayin'
- Nix monks; unarmed attacks are too potent when your weapons are crap
- Nix sorcs; psions are the 'spontaneous spellcasters.'
I think a few of his rules were clunky (weapon damage, armor damage, etc. were clunky when done in From Stone to Steel, it could be clunky here). Heat already does damage, no need to re-write the manual on that one. I think there ideally would've been a "wealth to power conversion," where you could decrease the wealth level of the game but keep giving PC's powers (sort of how my One Week Old campaign is short on wealth, but still gives PC's the powers of magic items). I do like the idea of tying some monster DR to primitive weapons...pretty sweet.
Now, the Eberron Stuff
Awesome. Now if only I could get a look at how this fits into the DMG demographics, I think Eberron has nearly sold me on it's completeness.
Ranger REG
Explorer
Well, if you feel that you have a defective issue, then notify Paizo. They don't print their magazines, they let a printing company do it for them.Son_of_Thunder said:Paizo ain't winning any resubscription money with me. My copy didn't have pages 1 through 18 and had the next signature section twice. For an even further kick in the junk my email goes ignored.
Thanks for nothing Paizo.
Henry
Autoexreginated
Kamikaze Midget said:
The druids would like to restore the natural world, but more likely they're just preserving one little patch of land that's yet-undefiled. And the preservers aren't sacrificing anything but time - it costs nothing of their own energies to cast spells. If it did, there would be ever fewer preservers in the setting than there are. I'll just have to disagree on the "paladin" issue and leave it at that. Beyond even just the basic argument of "try to model the setting to preserve the feel, I have strong reservations about allowing players rampant idealism in the setting, because one of the dichotomies of the implied setting is that of the "greivously flawed hero." There COULD be paladins, because its implied that there once were, but they are as rare as high-powered Jedi under the Emperor's rule in the first Star Wars movie.
Te rest I'll wait until I have the issue.
Where did Dave Noonan make those comments, incidentally? if it's in this thread I missed them by a country mile.
EDIT - never mind. I found Arani's link to rpg.net. Thanks!
Last edited:
Dragonblade
Adventurer
I was recently made aware of this post by Dave Noonan over at the Wizard's boards:
-------
I’m the guy who wrote the Dark Sun rules. I was as surprised as anyone by some of what I read in Dragon #319. And I strongly disagree with some of the decisions the Dragon editors made.
It’s their right to make those decisions—they bought my work fair and square. But if you’re starting a Dark Sun game, you might find my perspective useful. I’ve run 3E Dark Sun since late 1999, playing out of three-ring binders, and it’s far and away my favorite setting. Along the way I’ve had plenty of opportunities to goof up as DM—and in the process learn how the core rules and the Dark Sun setting interact.
Characters
My original manuscript said this: “There are no bards, monks, paladins, or sorcerers in Dark Sun.” I stand by that 100%.
• Paladins simply have no place in the setting, as any longtime fan of Dark Sun knows. If I had a player at my Dark Sun table who really wanted to play a paladin, I’d write an elemental crusader prestige class or adapt the holy liberator, maybe in an antislavery direction.
• Monks pose serious balance problems that aren’t immediately apparent but emerge once your Dark Sun campaign has been going a while. In short, they’re way too good in a campaign that places significant limits on armor (which the monk doesn’t have to worry about) and weapons (which the monk also doesn’t have to worry about). Removing monks also creates more design space for psychic warriors.
• Rather than a bard base class, I wrote an “athasian bard” prestige class full of mysterious, assassin-like goodness. It didn’t see print.
• Sorcerers crowd the psion’s design space too much. If there’s one thing that playtesting taught me, it’s that Dark Sun works best when psions are the best spontaneous casters in the game. (And I’m baffled why sorcerers would pretend to be wizards.)
Weapons
My original manuscript had a weapon breakage rule that didn’t see print. Without it, I’m not sure that there’s much point to the different weapon materials, because character wealth will quickly ascend beyond the point where inferior weapons matter. With the rules as published, I imagine everyone will buy metal or blood obsidian weapons right away and ignore the other choices. After all, a metal longsword is still only 150 cp in the published rules, and it’ll last indefinitely.
In my playtests and my ongoing campaign, I got satisfying results if PCs start with obsidian/stone, bone, or bronze weapons and have to contend with inferior weapons and breakage for the first few levels of the campaign. Then the PCs earn their metal weapons, but they still have to worry about breakage when they’re unlucky or facing sundering enemies. If your Dark Sun game derives a similar result, I think you’ll enjoy it immensely.
I also think it’s worthwhile to distinguish costwise between all-metal weapons (like swords) and hafted metal weapons (like axes). And if you use blood obsidian in your own game, here's a tip: it might make an interesting component in some monsters' DR.
Armor
The published armor rules are also much different than the ones in my manuscript. I wrote some detailed “hot weather”rules that were punishing to PCs who wore heavy armor. The published rules don’t provide a disincentive for wearing heavy armor; a typical PC will be able to afford iron full plate easily by 7th or 8th level. If you want a traditional Dark Sun game where most PCs are lightly armored, consider adding some teeth to the Heat Dangers section on page 303 of the DMG and send the metal armor prices through the roof.
As an aside, people who really like tinkering with their game could ramp down the character wealth by level (DMG table 5-1) in their Dark Sun game. It’d further emphasize the harsh, metal-poor nature of the world. But character wealth by level touches many other aspects of the game, from class-by-class balance to challenge ratings, so tread carefully. You’ll probably have to refigure CR for monsters based on your own playtesting, which is time-consuming (but kind of fun). I left character wealth unchanged because I wanted DMs to be able to port new monsters and other game elements into their Dark Sun game without extensive playtesting. But if you’re interested in tinkering, I think it’s an idea worth exploring.
While I don’t agree with some of the decisions the Dragon editors made, it’s absolutely their right to make those decisions. And fundamentally, you’re in charge of what goes on at your game table, so do what you want. No matter what rules set you use, I’ll just be glad if you’re playing Dark Sun.
---------------
My apologies, David. I was not aware that Paizo changed what you had submitted.
Now, I just need to get together a mob of like-minded fans, some pitch forks, torches, signs with catchy slogans, and storm Paizo's offices for making a mess of my favorite setting!!
-------
I’m the guy who wrote the Dark Sun rules. I was as surprised as anyone by some of what I read in Dragon #319. And I strongly disagree with some of the decisions the Dragon editors made.
It’s their right to make those decisions—they bought my work fair and square. But if you’re starting a Dark Sun game, you might find my perspective useful. I’ve run 3E Dark Sun since late 1999, playing out of three-ring binders, and it’s far and away my favorite setting. Along the way I’ve had plenty of opportunities to goof up as DM—and in the process learn how the core rules and the Dark Sun setting interact.
Characters
My original manuscript said this: “There are no bards, monks, paladins, or sorcerers in Dark Sun.” I stand by that 100%.
• Paladins simply have no place in the setting, as any longtime fan of Dark Sun knows. If I had a player at my Dark Sun table who really wanted to play a paladin, I’d write an elemental crusader prestige class or adapt the holy liberator, maybe in an antislavery direction.
• Monks pose serious balance problems that aren’t immediately apparent but emerge once your Dark Sun campaign has been going a while. In short, they’re way too good in a campaign that places significant limits on armor (which the monk doesn’t have to worry about) and weapons (which the monk also doesn’t have to worry about). Removing monks also creates more design space for psychic warriors.
• Rather than a bard base class, I wrote an “athasian bard” prestige class full of mysterious, assassin-like goodness. It didn’t see print.
• Sorcerers crowd the psion’s design space too much. If there’s one thing that playtesting taught me, it’s that Dark Sun works best when psions are the best spontaneous casters in the game. (And I’m baffled why sorcerers would pretend to be wizards.)
Weapons
My original manuscript had a weapon breakage rule that didn’t see print. Without it, I’m not sure that there’s much point to the different weapon materials, because character wealth will quickly ascend beyond the point where inferior weapons matter. With the rules as published, I imagine everyone will buy metal or blood obsidian weapons right away and ignore the other choices. After all, a metal longsword is still only 150 cp in the published rules, and it’ll last indefinitely.
In my playtests and my ongoing campaign, I got satisfying results if PCs start with obsidian/stone, bone, or bronze weapons and have to contend with inferior weapons and breakage for the first few levels of the campaign. Then the PCs earn their metal weapons, but they still have to worry about breakage when they’re unlucky or facing sundering enemies. If your Dark Sun game derives a similar result, I think you’ll enjoy it immensely.
I also think it’s worthwhile to distinguish costwise between all-metal weapons (like swords) and hafted metal weapons (like axes). And if you use blood obsidian in your own game, here's a tip: it might make an interesting component in some monsters' DR.
Armor
The published armor rules are also much different than the ones in my manuscript. I wrote some detailed “hot weather”rules that were punishing to PCs who wore heavy armor. The published rules don’t provide a disincentive for wearing heavy armor; a typical PC will be able to afford iron full plate easily by 7th or 8th level. If you want a traditional Dark Sun game where most PCs are lightly armored, consider adding some teeth to the Heat Dangers section on page 303 of the DMG and send the metal armor prices through the roof.
As an aside, people who really like tinkering with their game could ramp down the character wealth by level (DMG table 5-1) in their Dark Sun game. It’d further emphasize the harsh, metal-poor nature of the world. But character wealth by level touches many other aspects of the game, from class-by-class balance to challenge ratings, so tread carefully. You’ll probably have to refigure CR for monsters based on your own playtesting, which is time-consuming (but kind of fun). I left character wealth unchanged because I wanted DMs to be able to port new monsters and other game elements into their Dark Sun game without extensive playtesting. But if you’re interested in tinkering, I think it’s an idea worth exploring.
While I don’t agree with some of the decisions the Dragon editors made, it’s absolutely their right to make those decisions. And fundamentally, you’re in charge of what goes on at your game table, so do what you want. No matter what rules set you use, I’ll just be glad if you’re playing Dark Sun.
---------------
My apologies, David. I was not aware that Paizo changed what you had submitted.
Now, I just need to get together a mob of like-minded fans, some pitch forks, torches, signs with catchy slogans, and storm Paizo's offices for making a mess of my favorite setting!!
Similar Threads
