Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="(un)reason" data-source="post: 4856890" data-attributes="member: 27780">Dragon Magazine Issue 130: February 1988part 1/5112 pages. Back to familiar topics here. In 1984, it was Clerics who not only got two specials, but also got godly stuff nearly every issue. Now it's wizards turn, with their regular arcane lore columns being added too further, with a whole batch of magical articles. Couldn't we have some more mundane plot hooks instead? Ironically, that is exactly what Roger's editorial is about, pointing out some of the stranger and more dramatic things that have happened in recent history. He also points out that in some ways, technology has already overtaken sci-fi, and this is only going to get more extreme in the future, given the breakneck rate computers are progressing. And with that interesting little set of contrasts setting the scene, let's launch off into another massive issue, explore it's outer limits. In this issue:Letters: Another letter asking for more coverage of minis. Roger replies that they are seriously considering this, since quite a few people do seem to want it. Keep sending in suggestions, to help us refine the format to a form that'll please the greatest number of people. A letter asking how you get your games published. Hee. We're always getting that one. And we have to break the hearts of most of the people asking it. Better us do so than you self-publishing and facing the horror of absolute public indifference. A letter commenting on their recent format change. They've finally decided to start calling a magazine a magazine, not a "monthly adventure role-playing aid" We also get some questions on fonts used, which they duely answer. Some more layout questions and praise. All complements and criticism on this go to Roger Raupp. A letter from someone having problems finding people to play with. Oh, woe, etc etc. Forum: Christopher Earley introduces a more complicated new system for determining how likely magic-users are to learn a new spell, based on intelligence, level, and the level of the spell being examined. Yawn. Brent Silvis debates the D&D handling on PC's becoming lycanthropes, where they seem to adapt to their new condition straight away, and would prefer to remain that way with no angst at all. This doesn't seem right, especially when their player would prefer to retain control of them. Roll on Ravenloft. Kelly Calabro is one of the people who thinks getting rid of the illusionist entirely and merging their spells with wizards is a damn good idea. David Carl Argall continues to be a regular contributor. He continues the rather amusing debate on the nature and frequency of male harpies. You may of course choose any of these explanations for your game. Tom Brincefield thinks that when the characters get to higher level, you ought to change the enemies, instead of just having them face more. Can't we do a bit of both? Get the most from your magic: Tactical advice for spellcasters. Haven't had that in a while. And we haven't had many of the specific bits of advice this article gives us before at all, which is very good. Particular attention is paid to spells which have long-lasting effects. Buff yourself up with a load of those as preparation, and then rememorize your spells, and you are at a substantial advantage compared to someone who just walks into dungeons with a load of magic missiles and fireballs. (which lest we forget, are frequently unintentional suicide in enclosed spaces) Ethics go out the window, as they encourage you to charm all your companions just in case to ensure their loyalty, polymorph things liberally and exploit the hell out of this, and raise the corpses of your fallen foes to use against the next bunch of opposition. This is how you make people really dread your spellcaster. Just be grateful that personal buff spells aren't too common yet. Apart from stoneskin and contingency, you don't have to worry too much about tracking endlessly overlapping, long lasting stacking buffs, even if you wanted too. This is definitely one for players who play to win, and have to deal with GM's that are similarly ruthless, but have no objection to their players exploiting every little rules quirk for maximum personal advantage. Or to be less diplomatic, this is total twink fodder, likely to polarize the readerbase. Still, if it results in flamewars, that means more fun for me. Definitely an interesting decision for Roger to put this one first.</blockquote>

Verification