Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="(un)reason" data-source="post: 4917534" data-attributes="member: 27780">Dragon Magazine Issue 141: January 1989part 1/5108 pages. Another year, time to put some more old chessnuts to rest. No more Allycia and Scud. No more world destroying adventures of Waldorf. No more harpy biology. And definitely no more sodding debate on if female dwarves have beards. We haven't published stuff on that in years, so stop sending it in. Instead, it's back to humanoids. Another thing that has previously had a special on it. Do they have some new ideas? Or is it going to be 1982 all over again. Page turning time. In this issue:Letters: A letter suggesting they do a holographic cover for their 150th issue or some similar special occasion. Since it's expensive and awkward to do, Roger is skeptical about if that would be worth it. Not very Visionary of him, eh? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> Someone asking why there's no articles for Dragonlance. Like BD&D, Greyhawk, and a ton of other things the magazine could cover, it's because people don't sodding submit them. It's not some conspiracy, honest. Another question about the value of old stuff. Good question. How long is a piece of string, as ever. Hold on a few decades more, and it'll definitely go up in this case. Another recycled question. Another group wants to try break the record for longest continuous session. Roger, once again, plays the spoilsport. For health and safety reasons, we do not recommend this. And finally, someone upset because the role of computers skipped an issue. Honestly, it was only one issue. You don't have to go getting paranoid that quickly. A little variety is good for the brain. Forum: Walker White continues the illusion handling debate, with another lengthy bit of opinion. You've got to keep the changes you make logical, so people are more likely to believe them. Brad Shimzo introduces 4 new martial arts for the Marvel superheroes game. Another relatively unusual occurrence around here.  Mark Hunter dislikes the way many Dragon articles do not take each other into account, and are mutually incompatible. He's also not keen on the idea of adding new attributes. Perception should stay purely derived. Douglas M Burck has some more sound strategies for aiding the survival of low level magic-users. Remember, spells can be combined to good effect, and even cantrips are invaluable. He also goes into some detail about the nature of different kinds of spellbooks. Larry Madden has some more talk about ways for spellcasters to make a living, and rubbishes the idea of dual class 1st level fighter/magic users. It's not a practical option, in or out of the game. Timothy Makinson chooses to debate the issues of weapon lengths and two-handed fighting, of all things. Well, it's one people can study themselves. That means realism nigglers can have a field day on it. Aaron Goldblatt thinks, as a jew, that real world religion should stay the hell out of D&D games. Similarly, modern values cause substantial amounts of moral dissonance, and making your world too like them is not a great idea. Darrell Anderson Talks about weapon and armour restrictions, coming to the conclusion that clerics are better overall than fighters or magic-users, and a certain amount of rebalancing wouldn't be a terrible idea. Jimmy B Ellis points out that according to the RAW, a fighter can only specialise in one weapon. This means that you can't pour all your slots into several things to the exclusion of all else. Not that many future writers won't ignore that rule as well.</blockquote>

Verification