Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="(un)reason" data-source="post: 4548745" data-attributes="member: 27780">Dragon Issue 53: September 1981part 1/284 pages. The class series continues, with monks getting their turn in the spotlight this month. We also get a particularly iconic bit of cover art, that I remember being reprinted in future books several times, most of the usual suspects, and a new column. Just another busy day at dragon publishing. Onward we go. In this issue: Dragon Rumbles: Oookay. We have a rather interesting editorial from Jake here where he goes to some length to distance tabletop roleplaying from LARPing, and especially Steve Jackson's new game KILLER, in the classic "we have no connection to those wierdos, and are do not want to be associated with anything they do" stylee. So much for geek solidarity. And this magazine and LARPing got off to such a nice start. Yes, I know people dressing up and running around in public can be a bit embaressing, but they're no more likely to engage in genuine psychotic stuff than tabletoppers. And they get considerably more girls. So stop kvetching. Out on a limb: Another letter asking for reprints, which forces kim to make another frustrated lengthy reply as to exactly why this would not be economical or ethical. A letter complaining about the plethora of new classes being presented as NPC's, not PC classes. They reply that they do this so that the default answer for if they're allowed is no. This is because if PC's are nonstandard classes, they can't be transferred from one campaign to another as easily. Remember, AD&D is a tournament system, so variants must be removable if you're to properly synch with other GM's who don't have access to the same stuff as you. To do otherwise would be high-handed and elitist. Er, ok then. (man what) A letter from someone who claims not to like the company, yet most of his specific statements about their content are complementary. This confuses the editors as well as me. He's got a lot to kick about: An extensive article about the flaws of the monk, exactly how and why he is underpowered compared to other character classes, and then setting out to fix this. Hey, power creep! Next thing you know, everyone'll want some. Another example of give them a new power at every level based design, that I'm pretty sure overcompensates, making them too powerful. I am rather dubious about this one.Defining and realigning the monk: More monk related pontification, this time focusing more on their position in the game world. Particular attention is given to the problem of how they should behave, and the logistics of their upper heirachy, how the upper level monks are supposed to deal with both training new monks, and getting more experience so they can challenge their superiors and move upwards. The author use some decidedly dubious statistics to try and justify how this could work. Which really just proves how full of holes the D&D implied setting was. Its no wonder they got rid of monks in 2nd edition if they were this problematic to deal with. Sage advice is also answering monk related questions this month. If my party faces another group of monks, would my monk character have to side with them against my own party. (No. ) How do I make sure a lawful evil monk doesn't cheat when I challenge him for his position?  (You don't have too. Even evil monks have to abide by the monks code of honour or lose their abilities. If the GM forgets that, cite this article at him. )If a monk stops being lawful, does he become a thief (no, he loses all his monk levels, and has to start a new class from scratch. And you thought paladins had it hard. However, that can be any class you qualify for, not just thief) Can a human fighter become a monk (yes, if they have the ability scores. But remember, humans become dual-classed, demihumans become multiclassed. There is a distinct difference, which we will explain to you once again, because it's obvious from your letters that way too many of you still don't get it.)If I lose the ability scores neccecary for my class, do I have to abandon it and lose all my abilities from it. (No. And from the sounds of things, your GM is being rather unpleasant and cheaty in the way they implemented this, and may have a vendetta against you or the class in general. Characters should never suffer ability damage from simple standard damaging attacks, as this goes against the abstract hit point system.)  Once I get to 8th level+ do I have to play out all the challenges for higher levels? Will I also have to put up with lower level characters challenging me? (yes, and that's up to the DM, but we strongly reccommend it, as it would be unrealistic if you were the only one moving up the heirachy at that point. This is not a computer game, there should be other people doing stuff in the world at the same time. ) Can monks unarmed attacks hurt creatures that need magical weapons to hit them (no. You'll just have to sit those fights out. Doesn't that suck.)  Another new class, The Oracle, gets a writeup. (well, its a bit too soon for a fourth witch or alchemist class) Another one that seems rather unsuited to adventuring, given the nature of their powers, and involves a load of implied setting stuff that falls apart all too easily if looked at hard. Frankly, given how much more specific and reliable the divination powers PC spellcasters have are, this is rather pointless. Vague predictions of the future don't work well in RPG's anyway, given how big a part randomness plays in the outcome. I really don't approve. Understanding Armory: Iiiits Mr Pulsipher again! He is getting a lot of articles published lately. This time, he's talking about heraldry. It's development, conventions, and the legalities around it. Which could be a dull topic, but lew manages to keep it interesting. It's just another part of making a rich detailed world that feels real. Some universal rules: Speaking of creating your own world, Roger Moore goes into some more general discussion on doing just that. Interestingly, it seems like playing the same characters under different DM's, who would then take the game in very different directions, was more common back then. He's not that keen on that, and would prefer characters who are properly integrated into a single world, playing a consistent storyline. Of course, to achieve that, you need to make up a world. The rest of the article is devoted to details on one of his own recent campaign worlds, (Well, Ed's doing it, so why shouldn't Roger?) and ways of getting characters from one universe to another. Another perfectly decent article from another of our reliable regulars. Up on a soapbox: Oooh. Disabilities and roleplaying. A pretty important topic I'm surprised it's taken them this long to get around to covering. (and they still haven't got around to race and gaming. What's up with that?) A person with cerebral palsy gives her account of becoming a gamer, and the difficulties she faces in things other people take for granted, such as rolling dice and writing stuff on the character sheet. Man, escapism is harder than you think, when your body doesn't work properly. (And even that's not as big a problem as trying to play with the mentally disabled, as I know from personal experience) A pretty strong article which gives us a good picture of the problems some people have to face, and how lucky the rest of us are.</blockquote>

Verification