Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="(un)reason" data-source="post: 4545990" data-attributes="member: 27780">Dragon Issue 52: August 1981part 1/284 pages This month, clerics get the spotlight upon them. And I'm guessing they'll be running through the other classes in the near future, as its the kind of topic that's always good to fill out a load of articles with every few years, like women in gaming. In this issue. A Dungeons & Dragons adventure. Oh god, I remember seeing these adverts being mocked. A jackalwere! Don't look in it's eyes or you'll sleep forever! So this is when they start. I get the impression that we'll be seeing more in this series in the near future. Honestly, this is preaching to the choir. You do not need to run these adverts in this magazine. Concentrate more on TV and stuff, getting it out there. Out on a limb: A letter criticizing issue 49 for putting a big interview in the middle, rather than more modules. You ain't gonna be happy with this months issue either then. Another letter criticizing issue 49, this time for focussing too much on convention stuff. A letter praising the interview from issue 49, and asking for more. Because they do so love presenting contrasting viewpoints. A letter from someone who worked his characters up to high level the hard way, and resents being lumped in with the monty haul crowd, or being asked to retire their character. They also object to making deities untouchably powerful, particularly considering the number of real world myths where a mortal manages to somehow get the better of a god. It makes for better stories when gods aren't untouchable, as comparing greek and norse myth to the bible demonstrates. A letter from someone who wants articles to be less DM focussed, and more useful to the players. After all, they make up a far bigger proportion of people roleplaying. The role of the cleric: Or, Verily, Archbishop Turpin kicketh righteous posterior. Why should D&D clerics not behave likewise? Know they not the tales of heroic priests to draw from? Or those of adventurous shamen who outsmarted the spirits and monsters bedeviling their lands. It is most demeaning to see the glorious servants of gods treated as mere medics and second string fighters or wizards. Be we weak? Be we restricted to pseudochristian dogma? I say thee NAY! We will have respect as befits our station. We will smite those who oppose us. We will not rest until it is proven that clerics are deserving of a place in adventuring parties to a degree matching any fighter or thief. Did I mention the massive hard-on for Archbishop Turpin, by the way? As usual, the themed section comes out with its biggest gun first. And quite an impressive ...... weapon it is too. Ok, you can put it away now. No, Really. Put it away. I don't care how much epic poetry you read me, I don't swing that way. Thank you. This land is my land: Hmm. This is very interesting. Should the power of a cleric be influenced by the amount of power his deity has in an area? Quite possibly. But probably not quite to the extent this article posits, as it'd mainly benefit stay at home clerics and hinder adventuring ones. Which would not be useful or fun from a PC's point of view. This kind of thing is ok when you're going extraplanar, at which point things should be epic, weird and stacked against you, but not for normal adventures. The sense of sacrifices: Even good gods like receiving gifts. (including sacrifices of sentient beings it seems, as long as they're of an alignment opposed to the deities. That's a little dubious. Another example of the double standards applied to the morals of  deities.) If you give them something special, they might do so in return, granting a miracle above and beyond the usual spells. Don't take it for granted though, and don't give them the wrong stuff. You are their servant, they are not yours. A bit of a filler article, really. Sage advice is back again, after 3 months off, and is joining in on the cleric theme. Exactly who is responsible for answering the questions is no longer clear, however. How many spells should starting clerics know and where do they learn them from (clerics can automatically access any spell on their list that they are of a high enough level to cast, unless they piss off their god. )If you attack a monster you turned, can it fight back? (yes) Can a cleric appeal again in a day if their god does not grant their request the first time (yes, but it's not a good idea. Do not take your deities generosity for granted for a smiting often offends. ) How much area is covered in darkness by the reverse of the light spells (the same as for the normal version) How long does the paralyzation caused by a glyph of warding last (Godammnit. Did the writer for get to put a duration for this stuff again? We recommend 1-6 turns)Can good clerics cast cause wounds and evil ones cast cure (yes, on both counts) Do morally neutral clerics turn or command undead? (Depends on the deity. Use your common sense. )Since elves and half-orcs have no souls, does that mean they are immune to the reversed forms of the raising spells which kill you instantly (No. One form of a reversible effect not applying does not mean the other does not as well. Quite the opposite in fact, in most cases.) What happens when you attempt to resurrect an undead creature? (it'll work if it has a body present to raise and died within your time limit, but you need to touch it, and suffer the concequences of doing so before the spell takes effect. Depending on how it became undead, it may still be pissed off at you once raised, or of dubious sanity if it was undead for quite a while.) If a spawning undead under your control creates a spawn, is that spawn also automatically under your control (No. Beware the chain of command, because it can get out of control very easily as you add more links to it. )What level does a cleric have to be to become a saint (becoming a saint is a level independent process that is entirely up to the GM's adjudication. We don't want to give rules for everything. )Basic D&D points of view: John Holmes and Tom Moldvay talk about the new basic set, (yay!) and how it has improved on both OD&D, and the first edition of the basic set. Making it clearer for people who've never roleplayed before, and don't have someone else to explain the game to them is of paramount importance. The plethora of random tables and advice on how to use them make it easy for both players and DM's to start playing quickly, with no experience of the game. The new module, the keep on the borderlands, is a massive improvement on the previous one. But the dice still suck. Horrible little blue things with no marking of the numbers to make them easier to read. And beware the d4. You don't want to tread on that baby. Very interesting because it reveals that John, like so many people grappled with infravision and alignments, what exactly they mean, and how they should be applied. If even he had problems, then maybe the new edition's designers were right in stripping these right back. Still, they didn't seem to stop this edition becoming the biggest selling one ever, and I certainly had no problems understanding the concepts at the age of 8, so they must have been doing a lot more right than they did wrong. Leomund's tiny hut: This month, we get lots of stuff for greyhawk, with Gary's official seal of approval. Random tables for determining birthplace and languages spoken are more interesting than they first appear, as they also give secondary details such as the most common alignments in these various countries, and the appearances of people from various regions. This is important, because it reveals that the humans of oerth have ethnic groupings not found on earth. (brown skinned redheads, gold and bright yellow (as opposed to RL oriental colouring) skinned people, coppery and bronzed tones, amber coloured eyes.) Which is something I rather approve of, as it's an easy way to make the world more fantastic without having to alter things stats. I wonder if they'll remember to portray them like that in future art?</blockquote>

Verification