Let's read the entire run

[(un)reason]

Best of Dragon Magazine 2


part 5/6


MONSTERS AND MISCELLANY: Our first two chapters definitely showed the quality hit from sticking to a theme over simply picking the best articles. Since this last one is just another collection of general stuff, hopefully that won't be the case here. Still, they have only had two years to pick up more, so I'm not hugely optimistic. It may well have been just too soon for a second best of.



Theory and use of gates: Our first Ed Greenwood piece to make the cut, reminding us that he started making his mark as soon as he was published. This fun little romp certainly fits the bill, taking us through the worlds of Michael Moorcock and Philip Jose Farmer, both of which have plenty of inspiration for your fantasy campaign. Universe-spanning adventures are challenging, but they give you the widest range of options, especially as a DM, and allow for really long campaigns, as you can switch things up whenever they get boring, and put people in universes where their old tricks don't work when they get too powerful. If they're truly an incarnation of the eternal hero, they'll find a way to accomplish awesome things regardless. The whole multiverse is your oyster, get out there and grab some pearls from it the way Ed has.


Inns and taverns: Back down to the ground with a bump, with a little general setting stuff. Since PC's will have to stay in inns and taverns unless they have contacts wherever they go, the skill to live off the land, or the magical power to conjure their own lodgings, you do need some info on how to handle them as a DM. As Gary included some stuff like this, complete with price list in the Keep on the Borderlands module with the next D&D basic set, it seems that advice was taken on board as they tried to make the game more user-friendly. After all, it doesn't take too much space, and it comes in handy pretty regularly, so it makes a lot of sense to keep it in your toolkit.


Good evening: Len Lakofka was making contributions to D&D since the Strategic review days, but this was the first one under his Leomund's Tiny Hut column. Since this still feels like an extended Sage Advice piece, nerfing the vampire wherever there is any ambiguity as to the extent of their powers, I'm not very impressed by it, just as I wasn't back in the day. They could definitely have put a more constructive article in it's place.


Varieties of Vampires: The sheer number of bloodsucking monsters from myths around the world still amuses me, and this article reminds me that their popularity started before D&D came out, and has never really gone away. Vampires are no more a fad than sex, chocolate or cars. Maybe at some point in the distant future they'll fall out of fashion, but only if the world changes substantially and something else takes their niche in the public consciousness. In the meantime, this collection of 14 variants are easily adapted to other systems, given the small amount of detail each gets, so this article remains useful as inspiration even all these years later.


A look at Lycanthropy: This one also seems pretty relevant, given the wide variety of lycanthropes we've seen in fiction, and how the different degrees of transformation and self-control can be multiplied out by the number of animals you could turn into. Even if some bits of the rules are D&D specific, it's another one where the basic concepts serve as a good checklist for other systems, so you can tell the kinds of stories with infectious shapeshifters that you really want too. Course, if you want the hereditary ones, you'll still want to go with White Wolf, but that's a story for another time. We can't work miracles in a two page article.


Blueprint for a Lich: Unlike vampires and werewolves, liches are very specific to D&D, and the method for creating them especially so. As with Shades, they prevent them from gaining levels after transforming, which seems to be put there mainly to discourage PC's from becoming one, and would be rapidly thrown out in later editions. This along with all the other fiddly bits here, very much lacks iconic resonance, and it's no surprise that later methods of eternal life are a little easier and less risky. It's very much a means to an end rather than an end in itself, so there's no reasons for wizards to get hidebound about their procedures. Movin' on up.

 

[(un)reason]

Best of Dragon Magazine 2


part 6/6


Tesseracts: This introduction to four-dimensional thinking is still very cool and relevant to any fantastical (and many sci-fi) games. As reading Flatland reminds us, there are a whole bunch of unexamined assumptions in our lives, and by changing a few of them, we can tell very interesting stories indeed. We can also write very interesting adventures too, when you change the rules and then work logically from the new ones. We can't leave the dungeon behind entirely, and still say we're playing D&D, but the definition of dungeon can get pretty broad. A transdimensional maze certainly qualifies.


Which way is up?: Continuing directly on, we examine what happens when you not only have dungeons with dimensions beyond the normal three, making linear mapping impossible, but you can also get into the same place, but with gravity in a different direction. This makes things even more interesting, because there are a number of exploits you can pull with objects that have weight in a different plane to everything else. (although keeping hold of them may prove tricky long-term, for things flying into space as soon as you let go outdoors is a pain.) This is one case where collecting the two articles in their original format is definitely for the better, since they were by different writers, and it's good to see people building on the inspirations of others. And when you're working in four dimensions, you just know there are going to be a lot of perspectives on the same thing.


The politics of hell: This article, on the other hand, is not universal, and indeed, seems very much of it's time. Since it's intimately linked to real world history, using it in D&D worlds is a bit of a problem, even more so than the various polytheistic pantheons from Deities & Demigods, as a single supreme creator deity constrains your cosmology options substantially. It's no surprise that when Ed Greenwood did the 9 hells article, he didn't use material from this. It still remains interesting, but feels like a dead-end branch on the evolutionary tree, since the 4th wall has gradually got more solid between fantasy worlds and the real earth. Funny how that's worked out.


Poison: from AA to XX: Save or Die on every hit was never going to be sustainable game design if you want to play long-term campaigns. Even by the release of the 1e DMG, there were already some monsters that didn't just wipe you out straight off, instead paralysing you or just doing extra damage if you failed. This article continued that trend, giving us the letter system that they'd use in the 2e corebooks. (even if it's purely dedicated to dealing damage rather than other more interesting debilitations) As such, it does seem nicely influential, and very much deserves to be here in hindsight. Sometimes you want to be cruel, but you do need those other shades in between for it to have full impact.


The nomenclature of pole arms: We finish with one of Gary's other little fetishes, the many different types of historical polearms. This still seems pretty boring in hindsight, especially after the weirder dimensional stuff and monsters. As with the editorial rants, it seems that while he may have created the game, after a certain point he was holding it back as well, keeping it focused on the small-unit dungeoneering experience when other people wanted to do more with it. It's a bit of a pain really that most people don't actually want accurate information about the medieval world in their escapism, they want something that looks cool and resonates emotionally with them. And given the competition, polearms really don't cut the mustard. (to say nothing of how awkward it is to spread it on your bread afterwards with one.) When you only have limited space in your mental inventory, it's hard to find room to pack one.



Pretty disappointed with this one. With two chapters that feel like misfires, and the final one remaining pretty hit and miss, it does indeed feel like they jumped the gun releasing a second best of so soon after the first, and should have waited a bit longer to reload. It definitely makes me wonder if there'll be even more diminishing returns in the next three, or it the broadening submissions base and less reliance on the same few writers will let them pick better. Let's see what they thought was worth repeating in the next collection.

 

[(un)reason]

Best of Dragon Magazine 3


part 1/6


82 pages. Well, at least they're using a different dragon for the cover this time even if it's still recycled from other products. I suppose that's the point, really. As with the last one, they have a bunch of themed chapters, and I shall have to see if there's enough good material within each for them to make sense, or they should have held back a little longer again. After all, the more best of's they do, the more esoteric the topics will have to become.



FINISHING THE RACES: Last issue, Gary got a whole chapter dedicated to his writings. This time, it's Roger Moore's turn, as his series expanding on the various demihuman races and their gods proved quite the hit. By collecting and reprinting them just a year after they first came out, they ensure that these guys would be a mainstay of the D&D cosmology for many years to come, until 3e wiped the slate again and focussed on just the head honcho of each race. Since I mostly liked these first time round, I'm definitely more optimistic now than I was going into the last best of. Let's see if they've held up with age and don't look too dated or cheesy like many childhood favourites from the 80's.



The dwarven point of view: Dwarves have appeared in a fair number of books and movies before D&D, and so while dwarves do have a racial stereotype, it's a fairly nuanced one. They might be serious and hardworking, but they also love a good drink. They might be sensible and reliable, but they can have their head turned by shiny things and corrupted by greed. They're suspicious of and resistant to magic, but also produce a quite a few really cool magical items, and more that might as well be magical to anyone else. It means you have plenty of options to choose from for your own character without it them seeming completely uncharacteristic. And fortunately, Roger had enough room to talk about them all here, as well as giving his opinion on the great women with beards debate. (he's all for it, gives you something to hang onto) This still feels both useful, and seasoned with enough lighthearted humour to make entertaining reading, and right away, I can quite understand why they wanted to reprint these.


The gods of the dwarves: The gods of the dwarves still look pretty solid too, showing us the good, neutral and evil sides of their nature. Whether they're fighters, miners or merchants, there's plenty of opportunity for them to get involved in adventures, so a priest of any of them save possibly the token female home goddess fits in pretty well with an adventuring party. Even Abbathor's servants make a pretty good addition to a group focussed on killing and taking of stuff, as long as they accept they have to share to some degree for greater long-term profit. So these remain useful as both protagonists and antagonists, even if you have a dwarf in the party, since dwarves are hardly united as a race. Definitely already happier about these than I was about last issue.


The elven point of view: While elves do have a fair amount of variety, with a load of subraces, it's all presented in a far more glowing light than dwarves. There's always been the temptation to make them into mary-sues, and Roger was no exception. Their long lifespan gives them the time to have fun, laze around and flit between lots of different projects, because they know they still have the time to get things done. They do have some sadness in their life, because they see so many thing around them die or fade away, but they're equipped to deal with it. So not only are they Better Than You, they make it look easy. It's no wonder they get a fair bit of backlash as well. It's unfortunate to be reminded that Roger is part of the problem in this case.

 

[(un)reason]

Best of Dragon Magazine 3


part 2/6


The gods of the elves: You know, if you say elves have lots of gods, you're inviting people to send more in, when as we've found, people need no encouragement at all to give elves cool new stuff for free, because they're just sooooo pretty. :vomits in pot plant: Indeed, we got follow-ups for this in 155, 176, 191, 236 & 251, most of which gave their speciality priests lots of cool bonus powers. Once again, the fact that these articles were pretty influential is even more apparent now I've gone through the whole magazine and seen the long-term repercussions. For better or for worse, these guys are going to be with us for a long time.


The halfling point of view: While elves and dwarves have a ton of inspirations to draw upon, Halflings are still intimately tied to the LotR series, for better and for worse. In this era, it's probably for the worse, as Roger can't seem to stop himself from playing up their boring aspects. Yes, a large quantity of them may be homebodies, but even in LotR, there were plenty of hints that they got up to more fun than they let on, with the Tooks getting their fortunes from adventuring. (and being gossiped extensively about in the process) And it's not as if they can't be pretty deadly, as stealth and affinity with missile weapons is a great combo for beating stronger enemies without them being able to hit back. So in hindsight, the 3e refocussing towards them being roguish nomads might have been a little irritating, but it made a lot of sense when you consider what they'd had to deal with in previous decades. When you want to get back to the dungeon, you need to slay a few sacred cows for supplies, and those plumptious little ones looked mighty tasty.


The gods of the halflings: It's interesting that Halflings are the only race here that have more female deities than male, and are presented as female-dominated. And I suppose it's one way they do differ from the Tolkien portrayal, where the focus is very much on the guys. (and religion works completely differently anyway) Still, even if the women are in charge, they still have the same traditional gender roles as humans, where the men go out, and the women stay at home. We still have some serious automatic assumptions going on here. I guess fantasy is often about an imaginary past, and so parochial tendencies are to be expected. But it is funny to see just how dated these articles appear in this respect.


The gnomish point of view: Gnomes are still very much the 5th wheel as a D&D race. However, this has given the writers a freedom to change them dramatically with less complaint from players. Tricksters, animal-lovers, miners, crafters, talkaholics, bards, they have a whole bunch of hats that they can wear, and it seems quite likely more will be added in future editions if they ever go back to creating settings. Even back in the early 80's, there was plenty of nuance to their portrayal, which contrasts to the love-in of elves and the somewhat boring halflings. They can sometimes be pains in the ass, but overall, they're a valuable asset to a party, with their social skills, sharp senses and wide selection of classes. They're much better in your party than out.


The gods of the gnomes: If you were in any doubt as to how Gnomes are differentiated from Dwarves, their selection of deities makes it very clear. Aside from their greater connection to nature, the way they go bad is very different indeed, becoming skulking murderous tricksters instead of greedy drunken s. Plus, they often have sidekicks, which is ironic when the short races are more likely to be considered the secondary characters in stories told by humans. These guys still seen pretty interesting to me, even if the all-male nature of the pantheon seems a little more grating after three more decades of pushing gender equality. Maybe next edition, as I keep on hoping, although it seems unlikely at this particular point in time.

 

[(un)reason]

Best of Dragon Magazine 3


part 3/6


The half-orc point of view: Now, if Gnomes are the 5th wheel, Half-Orcs are the red-headed stepbrother that the family keeps "forgetting" to invite to parties. They've been in and out of the corebooks from one edition to the next, and if they don't show up straight away, they often pop up later. Because you have to learn to be tenacious when you're stuck between two cultures and struggle to fit into either. The funny thing is, despite their intelligence penalty, they often learn to be cunning because it's their big advantage when compared to full-blooded orcs. But then, racial differences are always a matter of degrees and contrasts. Orcs have shorter lifespans than humans, which have shorter lifespans than halflings, then up through dwarves, gnomes and elves, which are dwarfed by treants and dragons, who in turn can't compare to the eons immortal outsiders see. Similarly, differences in intelligence, aggression, size, etc, it's your neighbours that are important. Orcs aren't that different from humans, but those differences are enough and they're common and expansionistic enough as a race that those differences get shoved in your face. And so they're stuck with the role of villains, at least until a bigger threat comes along and forces them to ally with humans against rampaging dragons, even faster-breeding and dumber gibberlings, slime molds that can only be hurt by specific damage types or extraplanar threats to the laws of physics. It's a life, as this makes very clear. And that's one thing that certainly hasn't changed over the years and settings. They might not be the eternal underdogs like kobolds, but they get no respect and they're never on top for long. See ya, wouldn't want to be ya.


The gods of the orcs: It's notable that while most of the good demihuman races have a token evil deity for when they turn to the dark side, monstrous races don't have a token good god, and the thing that they fear and only propitiate to keep away is even worse than their regular gods. In Orc's case, an unspeaking embodiment of disease that strikes or leaves you alone as it pleases, because they don't have the smarts to figure out hygiene. It's not as if the other gods in the pantheon are particularly united either, with plenty of room to play them off against one-another. In the end, their inability to plan ahead or co-operate for long periods of time will be their undoing, just like their followers. So this brings the chapter to a close in fairly interesting fashion, giving you plenty both to work with and think about for your games, in a far less confrontational way than Gary did.



BREATHING LIFE INTO DRAGONS: At this point, they'd formalised the three regular themes that would remain throughout most of their lifespan. April for comedy material, June for Dragon related stuff, and October for horror. Since the comedy stuff proves pretty controversial, I find it unlikely they'll be putting much more of that in their best of's, but collecting the dragon related stuff makes perfect sense, and I wouldn't be surprised to see a horror one sometime in the future, given the quality of submissions they generally got for that. Let's keep their namesake in the limelight, even if they sometimes struggled to get enough good submissions for them.



That's not in the Monster Manual: Gem Dragons have certainly more than proved their worth over the years. Someone would probably have introduced a neutral dragon type eventually, since there was an obvious symmetry there, but it might not have been as cool as our enigmatic psionic friends. Since they can be both allies and adversaries, they've done their share in many adventures. Arthur Collins can feel proud of himself for adding them to the canon, and for writing them strongly enough that despite a few mechanical tweaks as the editions progressed, their core tricks and personality traits remain the same. Good to be reminded that they got their start in the magazine.


Hatching is only the beginning: Even in the very first D&D books, they made dragons more than just combat encounters, as the rules for subduing illustrate. There were certainly plenty of precedents for them as silver-tongued roleplaying encounters. However, that doesn't add the kind of comedy that trying to raise a baby dragon adds to your game. If you think trying to raise a human baby is tricky, bringing up something that has a decent chance of disemboweling or frying you when less than a year old is fraught with pitfalls and scenes of mayhem, especially with a type naturally aspected towards chaos or evil. This article still seems very applicable to any game with supernatural monsters that breed normally, not just D&D, and full of fun variants. Had enough of killing monsters? Try running a shelter for them. (after all, we wouldn't want them to go extinct and leave the next generation of heroes nothing to do, and it's a good solution for all those paladins who balk at killing babies, no matter how likely they are to be a problem in the future) Every day will be an adventure.

 

[(un)reason]

Best of Dragon Magazine 3


part 4/6


Self defense for dragons: Anything that has a lot of attention put on it tends to increase in power over the years. This definitely applies to dragons, which got tons of new spells, magic items, tricks, tactical advice and so forth. Adding wing buffets, tail lashes and rear claw kicks to their repertoire is a pretty obvious addition, and one that caught on right away, being added officially in both AD&D 2e and the D&D Companion set. Similarly, the tactical advice here is easy to implement, unlike the more esoteric long-term planning advice that would show up later. You don't need to be a genius to know when it's a bad idea to use your breath weapon, especially when you have centuries to practice, and move yourself into a position where you can't be ganged up on and taken down by weight of numbers. It's nice to reminded where the ground floor is, and that a lot of groups wouldn't even be able to win against them at that level.


The faerie dragon: Here's another one that's remained with us throughout the editions, much to the exasperation of many players. After all, prankster monsters are frustrating enough when they only have a few tricks, like Sprites. When they have a full complement of spells from two class lists, and near immunity to magic themselves at higher age categories, you're left just praying that you'll get off lightly, as it's not easy to turn things back on them. Still, it's nice to know exactly who to blame, and that it wasn't one of the usual suspects this time around. Random submitters could still contribute something that remained influential in those days.


Two tough foes: This one, on the other hand, has pretty much faded away, with the Steel dragons most players think of being the Forgotten Realms' friendly shapeshifting poison-breathers, and Gray dragons not catching on at all. (it is a boring colour, let's face it) They also suffer by comparison to the hugely upgraded stats of dragons in later edition, not being particularly impressive in terms physically, magically, or in terms of personality detail. The colour wheel dragons may have got upgraded and remained current, but these guys? Sorry, no dice. Can't get it right every time.


Evil dragons make good armor: This one, I remember being disappointingly weak and fiddly, given just how much effort it took to kill dragons. The resulting scale mail is no better than normal unless you engage in a whole load of expensive preparations to give it a fraction of the resistance that the original dragon enjoyed. When you compare that to what you got in 2e ( AC 4 worse than the dragon, which could mean a base of -8 if you killed a great wyrm) it seems pretty pointless. But then, they did upgrade the dragons themselves a good deal in each edition change as well, so if you did beat them, it really felt like a hard-won victory. This is one instance where working harder to balance things actually felt like an upgrade rather than a nerf. So this is one article that can remain discarded, outmoded technology.



PLAYING WITH CLASS: The last two best of's both had quite a few articles introducing new classes. Now they've got a fairly substantial collection, they're instead doing a chapter expanding on or revising existing classes, in a similar vein to the races collection earlier. Makes sense. They might have refined the rules a little over several editions of D&D, and the creation of AD&D, but they are still pretty clunky in many ways. It's not surprising that people would remain dissatisfied with them and continue to send stuff in.



The thief: a special look: Last best of, Len essentially did a Sage Advice for the Vampire. This time, they've decided to revive his similar piece on rogue abilities. Since rogues are somewhat less powerful than vampires, the degree of nerfing is less, but there is some. Thankfully, it's counterbalanced by Len giving them a couple of extra tricks, which comes as welcome. To be a successful thief, you really do need a fair amount of common sense to apply your powers properly, especially at low levels where you have little chance of success, which is ironic as they encourage you to use wisdom as their dump stat. Really, this reminds me what a huge improvement discretionary skill points were for Rogues in 2e, letting them choose which skills they wanted to develop, and become useful at them even at low levels, while ignoring ones they wound up not needing entirely. It just made them so much more practical while not changing their overall power level.

 

[(un)reason]

Best of Dragon Magazine 3


part 5/6


The druid and the DM: Bizarrely enough, people tended to underestimate the druid in the old days, thinking that they were only useful outdoors, not for dungeoneering. This is not the case at all, even before many supplements expanded their spell list and corresponding flexibility, as they had both shapeshifting and a high charisma to take advantage of. In hindsight, this article has some irritatingly niggly specifics, but that comes with the old school territory. It also feels a little outdated as it's from before Gary added on the Hierophant levels, and all the cool wider scale stuff that came with them. I certainly don't feel the need to use all the little optional rules here, but the general advice is still good to see. Don't forget, they got called CoDzilla for a very good reason once the CharOp people got a good look at them.


It's not easy being good: Sigh. Given how many times they had to pontificate about paladin morality, I knew I wasn't getting out of here without at least one more reiteration of it. Yes, they can have a sense of humour. Yes, they can have sex and indulge a little in their off-hours, but if they do naughty things in the pursuit of it, they have to face the consequences. Yes, they can kill neutral things, especially if it's them or you and there's no better options to hand. No, they shouldn't be arrogant pricks to people of lower classes, or slaughter everything that pings evil. No, they don't have to kill themselves in the pursuit of impossible goals, as that would result in less long-term good being done. They're supposed to have a wisdom prerequisite, use it, for god's sake. How many times do we have to repeat it for it to stick? I suppose all it takes is a small minority to perpetuate the stupid stereotypes. In any case, I am so very very VERY tired of this, and look forward to leaving it behind for good.


He's got a lot to kick about: At first glance, Monks look overpowered, since they have a pretty long list of special powers, and no equipment requirements, unlike most classes. However, this is not borne out by actual play, as they only have a few tricks while spellcasters have loads and can swap them out day-to-day, and their social limitations in 1e were pretty onerous. So while this is still an unequivocal upgrade compared to the PHB version, it feels more welcome this time, giving them more room to grow before they have to get into the challenge business, and giving them exactly one new trick per level, which means there's no dead levels and you get to discover and get used to their powers gradually. Plus of course, saying there's more than one monk order, so there isn't only one grandmaster of flowers in the entire world, and having to deal with the big question of how that order communicates worldwide with D&D technology. While this doesn't solve all their problems, it is an improvement, and so it is welcome in hindsight.


Singing a new tune: Bards also proved problematic, particularly after Gary got through with them, and this redesign into a less roguish and more positively aligned order is pretty interesting. Unlike the Monk one, it isn't so much an upgrade as simply an alternative, as it sacrifices some things for others, and the different versions are capable of co-existing and each having their own niche. (and quite possibly having cross-order conflicts about the true way, which is always fun. ) It's still fairly powerful and versatile, but hey, it's in good company. Better everyone be cool than no-one.


Cantrips: minor magic: Three quarters of the way through the issue, and this is our first contribution from Gary. That really does rub in just how much he let go of the reins when he went off to LA to do the D&D cartoon. Still, the ones he has remain pretty influential, given how cantrips became incredibly handy in 2e and ubiquitous in 3e. There is something to be said for your wizard always being able to pull off minor tricks that don't really do any damage, but simply make things more convenient and help you maintain a suitably mysterious reputation, while still only having a few big guns to unleash per day. This definitely feels like a positive addition to the game, all these years later.

 

[(un)reason]

Best of Dragon Magazine 3


part 6/6


Cantrips for the illusionist: Even more than regular wizards, illusionists benefit from having an array of tricks that are low-key, but incredibly useful when applied cleverly. So this little symmetry filler also comes as welcome here, even if the tendency to make spell components into bad puns does date this a little. If you want to avoid them seeing through your tricks, you will need to practice the art of misdirection, or make sure you're safely offstage while an accomplice draws all the attention and looks like they're doing miracles. Just the way it should be, really.


Spell books: Gary's given us a few enhancements. Now for the counterbalance, this piece spelling out exactly how expensive and inconvenient wizard's spell books are, how much of a pain it is to lose them (and how awesome it is to get hold of an enemy's one) and how much they will charge to cast spells for hire. (which if you're playing by RAW, they'll then have to plough into training costs and the creation of new spellbooks ) The tiresome stuff that keeps spellcasters from getting out of hand, you don't want to go into too much detail on it, but we've seen what happens when you remove it. Just the nature of the game. Sigh.



CREATING NEW CHALLENGES: We finish the issue with a half-hearted grab-bag of one new race, and two new classes. Not really one thing or t'other, but I guess they had a fixed page count and needed to fill it. Plus most of the new classes they'd done recently were the ones Gary did, and would later put in Unearthed Arcana. He obviously had bigger plans for them than just a magazine reprint.



The winged folk: Ah yes, the winged folk. Time has not changed just how ridiculously overpowered these guys look compared to standard demihuman races, with better ability scores, more innate abilities and higher level limits than even elves. If they'd been picked up and ran with by other writers, they could have been a real problem. Thankfully, the official writers continued to be conservative about creatures with natural flight or water-breathing becoming PC's, leaving the winged folk as just an interesting footnote in the annals of gaming. It's almost a relief really, given how much harder it is to design adventures when one of the PC's has powers like that.


The alchemist: Now if the winged folk were overpowered, the alchemist still looks amusingly underpowered compared to regular wizards, although this is compensated by their equally low XP tables. Still, at least they're a proper functional NPC class, which you certainly couldn't say for Scribes, and the things they make can be pretty handy in adventures. Ironically, their smaller XP tables means they'll actually be able to take more hits than a regular wizard of the same XP, and being able to get acid and flaming oil at trade prices is not to be sneezed at. But they're still best kept in the backline, as a secondary character or hireling in a large party, just as you wouldn't want to play a single-class aristocrat or expert in 3e.


The archer: Time has mellowed me in one respect, in that the Archer no longer looks so annoying in hindsight. While still slightly cooler than regular Rangers, the greater awareness of just what regular primary spellcasters do to the game at high levels make their bag of tricks seem like just another day at the office, with the main irritation being the hinky archer-ranger setup, which would also be used in the cavalier-paladin. Go ahead, pincushion a few enemies. You have my blessing.



Well, this was certainly an improvement on the second best of, bringing in contributions from a wider range of writers, and rules that are considerably more solid than the first two best of's. Goes to show how much evolving they did in the early 80's, as they expanded and brought in new fans. So it'll be interesting to see whether the next one sees the pace of change accelerate further, or slow down again. Time for another leapfrog forward, this time to the middle of 1985 to see what they considered worth keeping that time.

 

[(un)reason]

Best of Dragon Magazine 4


part 1/6


82 pages. Don't remember seeing this particular dragon before. Is it recycled, or did they actually pay for a new bit of artwork this time around. For a third time, they're giving us a bunch of loosely themed chapters, so they can compile the stuff they liked from the past couple of years, and maybe a few more old ones they missed previous goes around. How have their tastes changed this time?



IT TAKES ALL KINDS: One thing remains the same for all these best of's, and that's that there's a ton of demand for new classes. At this point, it feels like virtually every one they published in the magazine gets revisited in here, regardless of quality. I wonder if there'll be any design trends I can spot compared to the previous best of's then, since these will all be fairly recent articles.



The bandit: Bandits still look decent enough as an intermediate between ranger and rogue, giving you some thieving skills, some wilderness skills, and good basic fighting ability without adding the supernatural gubbins and strict alignment restrictions that makes rangers problematic for many character concepts. They're entirely suitable as both PC's and NPC's without causing any power balance issues. Absolutely no objection to using them in game.


The bounty hunter: Funnily enough, they decide to only reprint one of the three bounty hunter classes from the original issue. Even more strangely, they pick the one that was probably my least favourite, and was certainly the least naturalistic of the classes in terms of abilities, restrictions, and having a worldwide hierarchy with limited places at the top. Really not sure what to make of that decision at all. Goes to show how subjective taste is, and how much one person becoming a regular writer can influence the editors when it comes to choosing these things. Slightly irritating, really.


The cloistered cleric: Why would someone want to create a version of a class which is simply inferior to the existing one? It baffles me. I can understand more powerful versions, especially if they're balanced out by higher XP costs and behavioural restrictions, but this stuff? Is it really needed, and is anyone going to get any use out of it? We did get a cool and fairly balanced version of the cloistered cleric in 3e, so some good did come from this article in the long run. But still, this article on it's own is just boring. I remember being regularly irritated by Len's design decisions back in the day, and it looks like that hasn't changed here.


The death master: While the cloistered cleric isn't fully functional as a PC, the Death Master is. However the combination of not getting spells until 4th level, and even then, having a quite limited and specialised selection definitely leaves them looking pretty weedy. Until they can amass an army of undead, they're not much of a threat, and even then, they'll be no match for a wizard or cleric who's used their buffing abilities wisely. Once again, it only seems like they got through because their designer was a regular writer for the magazine, and it could have done with a thorough redesigning.

 

[(un)reason]

Best of Dragon Magazine 4


part 2/6


The duelist: The new fighty classes continue to come out better than the spellcasters with the duelist, which does look slightly overpowered compared to regular fighters, but in a fun way, like Paladins and Rangers, adding on a bunch of little tricks while never reaching the sheer versatility primary spellcasters can muster. I suppose that's an indictment of just how little vanilla fighters can do, which makes inventing new classes that overlap with them much easier, and needed to fulfil many people's character concepts. With wizards, people just added new spells to the existing class if they want to do something new. With fighters, they'd have to wait until kits were introduced next edition to make little changes like that easy.


The jester: Now love or hate them, I think we can agree that Jesters don't overlap much with any of the existing classes, so while you might not want them in your party, if you did, you couldn't just say "reskin a rogue" and get a satisfactory result. And while annoying, they certainly are effective with their bag of tricks in both surviving and making enemies look foolish. The trick, of course is realising you still have to work with the other members of the party, and know when to temporarily get serious. They're one that I definitely appreciate more coming back, knowing just how much more serious the magazine became over the years. Their best april contributions combined humour and usability, and this fits the bill on that count, so it's good to see it again.


The scribe: Now, if the death master is somewhat underpowered when compared to regular PC's, the scribe is downright weedy. It is substantially improved mechanically from the version in the second best of, in that it is an actual class rather than an insult to our intelligence and excuse to bilk PC's out of money. But even Ed Greenwood can't make it interesting, or desirable to include in our games in anything but the most peripheral way. Weak. I do not know why they bothered to include it.


The smith: Smiths, on the other hand, still seem quite interesting, even if they use their own system of multiclassing that breaks the rules. (but then, with bards and ninjas, they're in fine company) While not really suited as a primary adventuring character, they're useful enough that they'd work as part of an ensemble party, and save the other PC's a good deal of money in the process. After all, Scotty rarely went on away missions, but he was still both an important member of the team, and interesting in his own right. You can definitely manage that kind of dynamic, especially if each player has more than one character.