Runepriest Article Bumped Again!

[Squire James]

Wow! I've seen these articles give poorly-designed feats and powers before, but at least they provided some extra options for their respective classes. This is essentially a DM-only article about boons that most Runepriests wouldn't even want! I expected a bit of a let-down from all this talk of "finally an article about runepriests" - after all the Dragon articles in general are hit or miss anyway - but this one exceeded all my expectations in the let-down department.

I've never even had a runepriest in my campaign and this article looks sad to me! Next, I will tell you how I REALLY feel...

 

[Destil]

Actually, this is a pretty decent article... for DMs. I'd been hoping for more rare item examples to help me gauge my own designs, and these are good from that perspective.

 

[renau1g]

yeah if this was a dungeon article, top notch as the flavour was excellent, it just doesn't add anything major (or really even minor) to the poor red-headed stepchild of 4e, the Runepriest

 

[Riastlin]

yeah if this was a dungeon article, top notch as the flavour was excellent, it just doesn't add anything major (or really even minor) to the poor red-headed stepchild of 4e, the Runepriest

I guess this is my problem with the complaints about the article. Personally, I think that regardless, its a great article. An article is good or bad regardless of which magazine it appears in. While admittedly this is definitely a DM article, and not a player article, it is still a good article. Naturally, as a player of a Runepriest (albeit a level 1 runepriest) I was hoping for something a little different. As a DM though I am still pleased with the article -- in fact, I would even be interested in the article as a player but for the fact that its unlikely that the campaign will reach the mid-late paragon.

/shrug I certainly understand the arguments, I just think that credit should still be given for a great article, just one that should have been billed differently.

 

[I'm A Banana]

An article is good or bad regardless of which magazine it appears in.

Next time Guns & Ammo prints an article about priests of Kord and Dungeon prints an article about the recent finds in child psychology and Wired prints a spread of naked women interspersed with fiction, I'll remember that....

If it was cast as a DM's article, it might give DMs ideas if they have runepriests as players.

Still, even then, it would be pretty niche.

But at least it wouldn't be something for players of runepriests to slap on their wishlists and hope for.

 

[Aegeri]

I don't understand why this article is in Dragon.

Then again I don't understand why delves and not adventures are in Dungeon.

I'm just going to throw out there that the fact my subscription is running out on the 22nd makes me extremely happy.

 

[Riastlin]

Next time Guns & Ammo prints an article about priests of Kord and Dungeon prints an article about the recent finds in child psychology and Wired prints a spread of naked women interspersed with fiction, I'll remember that....

If it was cast as a DM's article, it might give DMs ideas if they have runepriests as players.

Still, even then, it would be pretty niche.

But at least it wouldn't be something for players of runepriests to slap on their wishlists and hope for.

While I realize that you are taking my point to the extreme, I would still note that this is really different. Currently, nobody subscribes to just Dungeon or just Dragon. Your fee nets you both and there's no option to get just one. Really you are subscribing to DDi (which I guess goes to the recent survey about the need for two magazines). So long as the material is what you would expect in DDi, then I think WotC is fine (realizing of course that it still should have shown up in Dungeon ). If Dragon were to print an article on child psychology then you'd have a valid complaint as its not what you signed up for.

BTW, I would argue that this flavor in this article is sufficiently good to provide hooks to DMs regardless of whether or not they have runepriests in their party. The boons can be easily modified to aid a different character, and the runes can be altered as needed too (though I would think a rune of power would be enticing regardless). Of course, opinions will always vary from person to person.

 

[Aegeri]

The runepriest does not need flavor and me (as the DM) can certainly appreciate the article but it's in entirely the wrong place.

What the runepriest absolutely needs is mechanical support. This is a really important point and bears repeating.

 

[Jhaelen]

I play LFR. I have to use item rarities.

Ah, really? That's a shame then.

Who decides such things these days, now that WotC no longer endorses LFR?

 

[Cyronax]

Actually, this is a pretty decent article... for DMs. I'd been hoping for more rare item examples to help me gauge my own designs, and these are good from that perspective.

I thought the Illumians' Syllables of Power/Echoes (see Dragon # 392) were a much cooler type of 'boon rune.' This article just kept the runepriest as the corner case class of the entire 4.0 edition. Is this the least supported class? Has the seeker had any articles?

C.I.D.