Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="(un)reason" data-source="post: 4658918" data-attributes="member: 27780">Dragon Issue 92: December 1984part 1/3100 pages. A second cleric special in the same year? How odd. And without even focussing on the other classes in between. Someone on the editorial team must really like clerics. They've been getting extra crunch in the form of new gods with distinctive special powers the whole time, while the other classes have been getting very little. And yet they're still probably the least popular of the core 4. Seems like a definite case of <a href="http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ShillingTheWesley" target="_blank"> Shilling the Wesley</a> to me. Ho hum. What are we to do about this? Keep reading, see if it changes in future issues, I guess. In this issue:Letters: We get more physics talk and formulae, as they further refine the calculations for realistic falling damage. They get more and more complicated as you factor in initial speed before falling, height of the creature throwing you, and other edge case modifiers. More stuff to put in the really not worth it files.A letter asking why Ed's new bats have infravision when real bats are blind. A good question, albeit one that has since been discredited. They give the usual noncommittal the rules are what they are answer. So much for physics. And finally we have three more letters asking about various details of gladsheim. Some are obvious, some obscure, and one potentially litigious. Damn you Tolkien's estate :shakes fist: The forum: Katharine Kerr continues to be surprisingly controversial, with Cristopher R Kopec and Greg Meier providing their own opinions on her condemnation of evil PC's and the people who play them. One is in favour, and one is against, as is often their wont. Meanwhile, Mark Herman is unhappy about the way falling damage survivability interacts with level. Since level is all about combat training, the lethality of falling damage ought to remain about the same. That ..... would involve substantial system redesigns. Once again we see how some topics get raked over endlessly while others are ignored, in most amusing fashion. From the sorceror's scroll: Gary puts his Official AD&Dtm Stamp Of Approval on the idea that clerics and druids of particular gods should have their spell lists restricted as well as gaining special powers. Balance must be Maintained! If they automatically had access to every cleric spell introduced in every available supplement they would be far more powerful than magic users, with their need to research spells themselves. A perfectly reasonable proposition, made more interesting by being explained in his usual florid manner filled with Excess Capitalization, and illustrated by a Most Excellent Example. I'm sure that these days he's writing like that to play to the crowd, because his mannerisms were nowhere near as exaggerated in the early years. Still, it makes for an interesting article where this could easily have seemed like a dull nerfing, and is more evidence that the sphere system of 2nd edition didn't come out of nowhere. Maybe it would have been handled differently if he'd still been in charge, but the basic direction would have been the same. That's definitely one for the historical footnotes. First, spread the faith: Roleplaying advice. Whaat! Are people still playing clerics badly? Do they not feel they have enough role models for them in fiction? Did they miss the great fanboy rant about Archbishop Turpin a couple of years ago? Jesus? (and every other bibilical guy who God interceded for at various points in the book) Friar Tuck? Every pretentious shaman who ever went into a trance and gave cryptic advice in bad fantasy? This is primarily an encouragement for you to develop your cleric's god further, and make sure your cleric sticks to those tenants. Which of course includes trying to ensure the rest of the party doesn't violate them too much. Which if done wrong causes almost as many problems as the thief who steals from the other party members and the lawful dick paladin. There are plenty of ways that this stuff could hurt party unity. You've just got to make solving them part of the fun rather than an obstacle to it. Once again they provide advice that in hindsight is somewhere between obvious and discredited. This is not a good way to fill a feature. The more, the merrier: Following straight on from the last article is the concept of introducing a mechanical system to the process of converting people to your religion. Charisma, Alignment, class, time spent trying, all sorts of stuff factors in. And if you do so successfully, you get XP. This could indeed be used to make a fun single player game, although a few mechanical kinks mean it's not as dramatic or versatile as it could be. Social mechanics are a controversial thing, and it's interesting seeing them show up like this. Another thing I'd rather like to test, see how it pans out in actual play. Could be cool, could be annoying, I don't really feel I can pass judgement just from reading. Anyone have any experiences with them to recount? A better open, it figures: Once again the expansion of the hobby has resulted in more people entering the competitions at conventions, and a higher overall standard of entries. Judy Brown and Mike Jaecks show up again, each being highly placed in multiple categories. In addition, Larry Peters and Matthew Sturm make names for themselves this year. All the photos are very red and brown, and not that brilliantly done though. You really could be better presenting them to us. Coming attractions turns up two months in a row, albeit with fewer products to plug this time. We get new mini's for the indiana jones game, and 2010 - Odyssey 2. The endless quest series gets two new installments, Blade of the young samurai and Trouble on Artule. And the marvel super heroes RPG gets it's own modulicious version of the secret wars plot arc. Now if anyones a railroader it's the beyonder. He seriously needs to suffer for this. No D&D stuff though. Goes to show, they were hardly a one product company.</blockquote>

Verification