Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="(un)reason" data-source="post: 6268211" data-attributes="member: 27780">Best of Dragon Magazine 2part 1/685 Pages: 2 years later, the end of 1981, and they're still using exactly the same cover, only in a different colour. The contents are a little different though. they've already dropped their penchant for putting unnecessary Capitals in the Middle of Titles, and divided the articles into themed sections, which is a positive development. Not so positive is that they've already cut out all the non D&D material. A couple of years of meteoric sales increases has made everything else seem secondary, and they have to please their new audience. There might still be several non D&D articles a month in the regular issues, but this all seems very familiar. Oh well, that's how it goes. At least I only have to live through it in microcosm this time around. NEW NPC'S (OLD FAVOURITES): No surprise that new classes get preferential treatment when it comes to reprints. Although they might be billed as NPC only, no-one took that prohibition seriously, and many people were eager to try out any new bit of crunch we got, since they didn't show up every month, and there were far fewer supplements in general released as well. Until they oversaturated the market, they got a lot of letters asking for more like this. So here we go, time to reap what we sowed. The Anti-Paladin: No escaping this one, even if they're one class that's actually stuck as NPC's simply because they didn't add an experience table. And hey ho, they still get a fairly extensive suite of powers as they advance to make them look like a good big bad for a party, whatever their level, and they're still selfish <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />s who have to be in charge or plotting to backstab the guy who is. I think that concept survives the test of time, even if the mechanics have been refined in later editions. Once more for good luck before we go. Muahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!Samurai: These, on the other hand, still look extremely clunky indeed, as they're basically a bunch of extra powers bolted onto the fighter chassis with no drawbacks but the social one. That grew increasingly irksome as I saw it in kit after kit throughout 2e, and I'm not amused to be reminded that it started out this early. At least when they became a class of their own in OA, they had both serious social ties to deal with, alignment restrictions and higher XP costs, plus they lacked the low level larceny abilities Bushi enjoyed. You can't just cram in ideas willy-nilly, it just makes a mess. Healers: Annoyingly, while healers were a fully functional, if somewhat odd class in issue 3, the reprint here leaves out their XP and spell advancement list, which means they're not usable if you own only this anthology. That makes me very grumpy indeed, as their idiosyncratic spell selection and the order in which they got access to things really made them stand out from standard clerics. The editors really aren't doing their job properly here, making this pretty disappointing so far compared to the previous best of. Berserkers: The animal totem berserkers from issue 3 also look somewhat goofy in hindsight, with their restricted maximum intelligence being particularly amusing, but at least they're fully functional as a class, (or actually a set of 5 classes) with XP tables, followers at high levels, incentives to act appropriately, and drawbacks. I can definitely see these playing a substantial part in a campaign as NPC's, and players wanting to be one too. They may have been done better in 3e as a prestige class, but these still at least have a certain charm to them. Scribes: These on the other hand, don't feel so much like a proper class, as a big <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> you to players, forcing them to rely on others and spend substantial amounts of money by creating an arbitrary monopoly, when they could be creating and copying spells easily enough themselves. I'm not amused at all to see that kind of thinking perpetuated here. If there's one thing the internet age has done, it's breaking down the gatekeepers, and shown nearly anyone can do it themselves and broadcast anything around the world. You don't have to pitch it to a network, get signed to a label or follow union regulations, and most so-called big secrets aren't that impressive at all once you know them. And honestly, even though it's harder to make decent money being creative, it's probably better that way. So this kind of thinking can stay in the past where it belongs.</blockquote>

Verification