Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="(un)reason" data-source="post: 6095658" data-attributes="member: 27780">Dragon Issue 310: August 2003part 1/983 pages: (108) Special update series, 1 of 3? Barbarians · Fighters · Monks · Paladins · Rangers · Rogues? So basically they're hypercompressing the class specials and getting them out of the way right at the start of this edition? That is a positive development, presuming it's because they have lots of ideas and want to skip the rehash and get to the new stuff. On the other hand, it may well mean the next three issues are annoyingly shallow, not covering any one class in enough detail to satisfy.&nbsp; Guess I'll have to see which way my ambivalence swings by the end of the articles. Scan Quality: Indexed, ad-free scan, some misaligned pages. In this issue:Wyrms turn: This editorial isn't connected with the current theme, but instead revisits the idea of changing the rules to better reflect the setting. If you follow the D&amp;D RAW literally, you end up with something that looks nothing like the medieval fantasy it's based upon, and there's so many interacting elements it's near impossible to use them all. This is why you don't put everything in the kitchen sink at once. Stuff gets broken. Better to select a smaller number of elements, and then you can keep track of how they combine, and tweak each of them to get the results you really want. In a way, it's an argument against endless supplement bloat, and it's certainly one for picking the themes of your game before you start. Once again, it seems they're recommending that you do things in your campaign they're not allowed too, because they have to pump out a certain amount of material every month and make sure it's generic enough to have wide appeal. Funny how that's working out.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="(un)reason, post: 6095658, member: 27780"] [B][U]Dragon Issue 310: August 2003[/U][/B] part 1/9 83 pages: (108) Special update series, 1 of 3? Barbarians · Fighters · Monks · Paladins · Rangers · Rogues? So basically they're hypercompressing the class specials and getting them out of the way right at the start of this edition? That is a positive development, presuming it's because they have lots of ideas and want to skip the rehash and get to the new stuff. On the other hand, it may well mean the next three issues are annoyingly shallow, not covering any one class in enough detail to satisfy. Guess I'll have to see which way my ambivalence swings by the end of the articles. Scan Quality: Indexed, ad-free scan, some misaligned pages. In this issue: Wyrms turn: This editorial isn't connected with the current theme, but instead revisits the idea of changing the rules to better reflect the setting. If you follow the D&D RAW literally, you end up with something that looks nothing like the medieval fantasy it's based upon, and there's so many interacting elements it's near impossible to use them all. This is why you don't put everything in the kitchen sink at once. Stuff gets broken. Better to select a smaller number of elements, and then you can keep track of how they combine, and tweak each of them to get the results you really want. In a way, it's an argument against endless supplement bloat, and it's certainly one for picking the themes of your game before you start. Once again, it seems they're recommending that you do things in your campaign they're not allowed too, because they have to pump out a certain amount of material every month and make sure it's generic enough to have wide appeal. Funny how that's working out. [/QUOTE]

Verification