Search Posts
That new stat block does look formidable, so I think I'll trot out some ideas for "The Cast" in the next few weeks just to get the practice :) Having recently built a bunch of them for an adventure draft, I can tell you that they're not as bad as they look. Not having to double up on attack/full attack and having specific places for SR, DR, and Resistances/Immunities was a big selling point for me.
That sounds like a reasonable place for it, though I doubt that it's going to come up very often; I know I make a point of not building spellcasters who are vulnerable to Arcane Spell Failure. Armor Check Penalties are figured into the stat block as appropriate, so that stuff's all behind the scenes. Or part of the laborious process by which one grinds out the stat blocks in the first place. =)
Since all of these Campaign Workbook folks happen to be posting in one place... do you find yourself submitting one type of Campaign Workbook article more than others? Cast articles would be a breeze if it weren't for the stat blocks. Heck, even with the stat blocks, the hard part is outfitting characters with gear and spells. That takes ages. I think I actually have more Journey articles sitting on Jeremy's computer than anything else, though. The only City CW I submitted has already been published.
Hal, I emailed you my article. I wrote it at about the same time as the rest of the CW's that Jeremy's been working through, so my guess is that he's got a pile of Cast pieces he thinks will be more widely useful. A bunch of mine were pretty esoteric/expensive.
Darkjoy, this is distinctly not my experience, and I've had a few Campaign Workbooks published lately, with another one coming up in issue #128. Jeremy Walker is the guy who picks out the CW's, and from what I can tell, he has a folderful of manuscripts on his computer which he digs into whenever he needs to fill out the content for a new issue or two. I suspect that these manuscripts have already been through a slush-culling process, and I couldn't tell you how often Jeremy trawls the slush, as these things tend to vary wildly depending on an editor's workload. To put it another way, I've never had a CW article explicitly *rejected* yet, even though several of the ones I've submitted (like the 'Intelligent Magic Items' Cast article) are unlikely to ever see print.
I wonder if any of the editors had to go through the submissions process? Generally, my experience with editors is that while they may or may not have dealt with the submissions process of the magazine they currently work at, they've definitely submitted material to other magazines. So the answer to your question is, yes, they're probably aware of how much time and effort goes into a query.
The best thing to do is to just write up the stat blocks in the same style as the rest of the body text. Don't insert lines into the text; we'll take care of that at this end. Right. Thanks!
James: With regards to the new stat blocks, should adventure authors try to approximate them as best they can in their submissions until a revised version of the style sheets is released? I ask because I've produced a decent approximation of the new format using the old stat block style, though I suspect it would take some work to make it match the new format exactly.
ANYway... what do all you DMs out there think? Is rend the secret killer of D&D? So I just ran the fight against four Girallons in the Banewarrens, and... wow. Just wow. You know all that stuff I said about pounce and stuff being better than rend? I take it all back. 4 attacks at +12 with rend is the worst thing ever. ;) The NPC fighter-type was dropped to -33 hp and had his head torn off. The Warforged fighter was dropped to -7 hp. The Artificer was at -3 hp, the Cleric had to cast divine power and fight in the frontlines, the Rogue was at 6 hp, and the Warforged's Cohort saved the party. It would definitely have been a TPK if I'd run the Girallons as intelligent opponents. I think I have a new favorite monster. And at CR 6, no less. It warms my bloodthirsty little heart.
I hate to say it, Zaebos, but that kind of math can get a lot of characters killed. Two CR 13 monsters (Glabrezu, let's say) against a group of 6 10th to 11th leve characters is a really nasty challenge, especially as their ACs and Save DCs are callibrated for level 13 characters. Now, if your party is very well equipped and has high stats and hp, they may well be able to take on such an encounter. But 4 of them in a row, without rest? I'm skeptical. I think a *much* more accurate (and less lethal) system is to treat the effective party level the same way you'd treat a CR. If the baseline party is 4 characters of the same level, a party of 6 has a +1 EPL, while a party of 8 has a +2 EPL. This means to challenge Zaebos's example party, I would throw four EL 11 encounters at them, not four EL 15 ones.
If we're going by sheer numbers, I would say that evil games deserve at least the same "once in a blue moon" consideration that psionic, epic and Dark Sun advantures do. Okay, so in an attempt to move this out of the "evil games need support"/"no, they dont!" back and forth, I'm going to talk about what I do when designing morally ambiguous* adventures. There's usually a primary antagonist, either an individual, an area, or an organization. This antagonist is so despicable or so implacably hostile that negotiating with it is pointless. There is usually at least one inimical (or at least enigmatic) individual or organization the PCs can ally with, if they play their cards right. This alliance may be temporary or long-term, depending on the situation and the motivation of everyone involved. There's an expedient path to victory, and a more principled one. (For example, in Monte Cook's the Banewarrens, one of my players is currently using the lich's hand in close fights.) The more principled one usually involves more heroism and a greater risk of death. The expedient path usually involves allying with former adversaries or using dangerous or tainted magic rather than feeding babies to a demon. Except for the least subtle 'evil' campaigns, I think that an adventure modeled along the lines I've described above would be quite useful, while still remaining playable by neutral or good-aligned parties. Any thoughts? *: I actually mean "morally ambiguous" here. My players tend to run characters who are firmly planted in the 'neutral but kind of creepy' camp.
I wonder if people will be complaining about this cover like they complained about Dragon 329's cover. :smirk: What, like "demons! DEMONS! Aaagh!"? Well, whatever. *I* think it's an awesome cover (better than Dragon 329's, even). Kudos to everyone involved with this one.
That was really neat. Zogonia always amuses me whenever I get my new issue of Dungeon; it's probably my favorite of the strips.
* A character wakes up to discover that her shadow is missing. Who has stolen it, and are there others who have suffered the same misfortune? * The town's urchins are acting strangely, and the symbol of a nine-pointed star has appeared over certain doors across town. What does the symbol mean, and what has sparked this spate of activity? * A merchant is doing a booming business in masterwork equipment in a city's market, undercutting his competitors' prices. Where are his wares coming from, and what is the significance of the claw that seems to be their maker's mark? Why has the local crafter's guild not responded with their usual intimidation tactics?
So unexpected large groups of invisible rending beasts would be truly, truly horrific...an interesting thought for any future submissions.Richard... the point is for it to be fun, with the POTENTIAL for TPK... not a guarantee!!!! No, no, I think the man's got a point. I mean, Girallons are kinda weak by the time you hit 9th or 10th level or so, right? So an encounter with a 3-4 girallons led by an ogre mage or bone devil wouldn't be that bad... would it? *chuckle* Flying invisible Girallons. I love D&D.
Anyway... what do all you DMs out there think? Is rend the secret killer of D&D? Heh. My players would laugh to hear you describe it as a "secret killer". Rend is defintely up there, though in my experience an encounter with a monster that has rend tends to be a bit all-or-nothing; PCs either put down the creature quickly enough that it doesn't get a chance to do much damage, or their hp and healing magic are massively depleted once the fight is over. Things get more interesting if you give the monster some defenses vs. magic, though. Honestly, rend is second to pounce and naturally invisible enemies in my book. The two combine to make Hellcats one of my favorite monsters, as a pair of them can keep pouncing on the same victim on alternate turns. Invisible stalkers are a close second in the "hellish invisible monsters" category, especially when they float above characters and use their reach to seem to be attacking from the side-- although I've got to say that flying Hellcats are even better. Hrm. What's else on the list? Elder Xorn, Bulette, and any other high damage burrowing monsters I've forgotten. Remorhaz (not nearly as horrifically deadly as they were in 1E or 2E!). Any low CR and high HD and damage monster with the Half-fiend template, though you have to watch out for that 1/day blasphemy, which can be a little unfair. Still, the 15d6 horrid wilting you can get out of a half-fiend elder xorn just makes me smile...
Right now, I'm running a D&D 3.5 game. I also play Exalted (irregularly), and ran a *heavily* modified version of Castle Falkenstein last year that basically turned into a complete homebrew system of its own. In the past, I've run a wide variety of White Wolf storyteller games, Unknown Armies, My Life With Master, and a fair amount of other stuff. Like most longtime gamers, I own more games than I could possibly play.
I'm looking for an article with guidelines or a mechanic for making a monster or NPC weaker: Take away all of the 15th level fighter’s equipment and give him a sharp stick and a loin cloth. What's that fighter's CR now? What about the littlest giant, who’s no bigger than a house, and only has 8 hit die instead of 12, what’s his CR? What if the red dragon doesn’t cast spells (like 60% of his first edition predecessors), what does his CR drop to? I'd love to see (or write) something like this, although I'm not sure which magazine such an article would fit into Paizo's new publication model. My personal guess is Dragon, just because Eric seems to be making its subject matter more flexible. With regards to reducing CR, one could easily use the advancement rules in reverse, to strip away hit dice and reduce a monster in size. How effective this would be in terms of producing an accurate CR is somewhat debatable, but if you don't take it too far (i.e. only a 1-2 CR / one size category) drop, it should produce fairly decent results. When doing this, it's particularly important to strip away feats and attribute points as well, and I'd suggest an 'inferior' stat set (-4, -4, -2, -2, +0, +2) be applied to the attributes of base monsters who have a high attributes compared to monsters that are CR-appropriate to the party's current level. As a rule of thumb from my first 3.0 campaign, an equipment reliant character type with sub-par or mundane gear loses about 1 point of CR per five character levels (e.g., a 10th level fighter with only masterwork equipment is about CR 8). Characters who are less reliant on equipment, such as spellcasters and monks, should usually only be docked about 1 point of CR, assuming the reduction in their gear makes them appreciably less dangerous or easier to kill. An off-the cuff estimate on the fighter you describe is CR 9 or so (15, -3 for mundane gear, -2 for AC and damage deficiencies, -1 for being unable to use his weapon-specific feats). With regards to the dragon, no CR reduction for the loss of spellcasting until CL 6 (or higher), and maybe -1 or -2 after that. Dragons aren't scary because they can cast spells, and they aren't losing hit dice or anything else important as part of the deal.
Well, that's the idea. #329 is promising. #330 is very, very good. Beyond then I hope they just get better and better. I'm very hopeful based on the previews I've seen of #329, and if I like it and #330, you'll probably have another subscriber.
I think DeadDMWalking is right on about the number of interesting topics on the Dragon boards. Also, I think QSamantha just nailed what's wrong with Dragon right at the moment. Most of the recent issues I've looked at haven't really had content that was ambitious enough. The fact-based articles have been improving steadily, but the rest of the magazine has felt either inconsistent or rather pedestrian. On the other hand, I'm comparing a magazine read by my jaded twenty-something self to the heaping piles of Dragon magazine I read when I was an pre-teen lacking any critical discernment, which isn't exactly a fair comparison.
No, you're absolutely right about that, particularly the non-core content. At the same time, though, low and mid-level stat blocks don't take up that much space, especially for characters that stick with the core rules and aren't spellcasters, so I don't think the idea is completely unviable. It just might need to be adapted to the specifics of each article.
I noticed recently that Dragon has an article request forum on its message boards, and while Dungeon doesn't have nearly as many articles each month, I'm interested in hearing about which Campaign Workbook articles people think are the most useful, and what kinds of articles they'd like to see in the magazine. Personally, I like quirky and less obvious articles, like #119's "Sounds of the Underworld", and flexible articles that don't require much work to use, like "Five-Second NPCs" from #117. I'd like to see more Critical Threats, but with 2-3 stat blocks for a character at different power levels, so the character can be used in a campaign more easily. Anyone else?
At the risk of beating a terribly dead horse: There are obviously some readers of Dungeon who strongly dislike Will Save. At the same time, I think that the amount of energy and emotion being expended on reviling the column is really out of proportion to the "offense" of its presence in Dungeon. To paraphrase Erik Mona slightly: It's difficult for me to get bent out of shape about the fact that you don't care about _1_ page in the entire magazine. It's not for you. That's ok. I think this is really the crux of the matter: Will Save is _one_ page per issue. Obviously, Erik and the Dungeon crew see a reason to keep it. Whether that's feedback that doesn't make it to the letters page, or the highly unscientific like/dislike numbers that've emerged from this thread, or just the fact that they like the column and it's a page of guaranteed content each month from a reliable writer**, we don't know. We're not privy to Paizo's internal decision-making process. Frankly, I'm inclined to trust them to do their jobs. It's in their best interest to keep Dungeon's sales and quality high, and they seem to be doing well so far. I'm not telling anyone that they can't say they dislike Will Save, or any other part of Dungeon. If a feature is truly unpopular, the editors should know so they can replace it. These guys are the most engaged magazine staff I've seen in a long time, and ultimately, if you don't like Will Save, they're the guys you need to convince, not your fellow readers. And at this point it's plain that they’ve heard the readers who dislike Will Save. And for whatever reason, they don’t agree with you. So can we stop beating this dead horse, please? It’s getting kind of gooey... **: Speaking as someone who used to do editing and production on tight deadlines, content from a reliable writer is worth its weight in gold. Seriously.
Can you drop any cookies about the Campaign Workbook? Pretty please??? :) There's not much to tell, really. I just wrote the guy so he'd fit in with gnomish society in Eberron (The Trust, intrigue, etc.), as well as being a viable NPC in a non-Eberron game. Anything more than that would give away too much.
Nope. I, um, wrote it. =) Apparently I've got an article in 120 too, so I'm really looking forward to getting my copy in the mail! With regards to your point regarding Throne of Iuz... yeah, I can see how that'd be hard to run in Eberron as written. Here's how I'd do the conversion: Set the mound in the Eldeen Reaches. King Bog and the fiendish influences all come from the nearby Demon Wastes, while the giants were imported via Khyber. The serpent mound isn't an elven site, it's an ancient orcish one. The kidnapped gnomes are a House Sivis group that was there to certify a trade agreement between the Eldeen Reaches one of the Dragonmarked Houses or a nearby kingdom. I guess my feeling was that since coming up with a list of modifications like that only takes me a few minutes, it's really easy. I seem to be alone in this, though, so maybe brief conversion notes like Keith Baker will be doing for the Adventure Path wouldn't be out of line.
Ditto ASEO on 'Ebberonizing" other D&D adventures. In most cases it's not too hard. Heck, I'm running Monte Cook's the Banewarrens in Sharn right now.
That'd be interesting, but I don't think it'd work for at least two reasons. The first is that all the extra stat blocks would seriously eat into the space available to actual adventures. The second is that I think it would feed the notion (which I believe is wrongheaded) that Eberron is *soo different* from ordinary D&D that one has to convert all the NPCs to make a given adventure work. I'm constantly amused by people groaning and moaning over the "radical changes" Eberron brings to the game, when they're so much less extreme than anything in Dark Sun, or Birthright, or any of the late TSR campaign settings...
Takasi- Unless I've been misinformed, there should be a Campaign Workbook in issue #121 with a 12th level gnome NPC who could spark a lot of Eberron adventures. I know you're looking for completely pregen adventures already set in Eberron, but I think Keith Baker and the WotC guys have that market cornered... and with a backdrop and a three-part adventure coming up, I don't think we can complain too much. :)
This isn't a Dungeon adventure, but I've been doing a 3.5 conversion of the Tomb of Horrors for my home campaign. (It's for a recurring nightmare sequence.) Sadly, the final encounter is in no way OGC compliant, though I guess I could call Acererak something other than a demi-lich and cobble together stats for him which are slightly less horrid than those out of the ELH. It's actually quite surprising how easy the early areas of the Tomb are now that poison doesn't kill you instantly. It brought a tear to my eye to use Deathblade instead of the unnamed poison of doom so prevalent in 1st edition adventures...
No, you're miscalculating the CR. As of the 3.5 Monster Manual, "associated" class levels for a monster add to CR at a 1:1 ratio, while "non-associated" class levels add to CR at a 2:1 ratio. As Valiker's base creature is a hill giant, the primary purpose of which is to smash stuff, fighter levels would have been associated, while cleric levels are not. Thus 12 levels of cleric -> CR (7 + 12/2) = CR 13. Now, this system can be somewhat problematic, as it demonstrates that the present CR system over-rewards characters for defeating classed NPCs-- I don't think anyone I know would claim that a 13th level human cleric and Valiker are truly comparable opponents, even in light of the instant-kill effects 7th level cleric spells offer. Just by virtue of extra hit points and battle prowess, a monster advanced in a non-associated class is likely to prove a much bigger challenge than a human of 'equivalent' CR.
Without the benefit of having the map in front of me, I believe that G18 is the outdoor porch, and G21 is built directly on top of the stables, the walls of which serve as part of the upper floor's support structure. The two maps are placed directly over each other, so you end up with the stables underneath the final areas of the building, and G18 (an open porch/walkway) visible from the street below as a possible alternate means of entry. Because G21 has solid walls, one could probably make it up there, but without hacking through the walls, it wouldn't do you any good.
So my question is: Does he use these unarmed strikes with his head? I'm not sure what the author's intent was, but my assumption was the Marik would use the end of his intestines for his unarmed attacks, and use the uppermost part for the entrails attack. This could be just overthinking on my part, though. The lotus position is the way you usually see the Buddha depicted, which doesn't help answer your question, sadly.
Well, there's the ever-popular Vampire Monk combination, which just gets uglier when you stack on a potion of haste, AC & stat boosting items and potions, and suchlike. Flurry of Blows + an extra attack + Negative levels = Unhappy party. Then start playing tricks with the accessibility of the vampire's coffin. It can also be particularly unpleasant to hit a party with groups of enemies that have different types of DR; switching weapons mid-melee is never fun. The Erinyes is a death machine in 3.5, especially if you pair her with another devil or two to pin down your (good or neutral-aligned) PCs in melee. Just have her hang back and use Unholy Blight every round, then teleport away if they ever get close or otherwise pose a credible threat to her. Sorry, I'm sick, so I'm having a hard time coming up with my other favorite monster combos. Those should do for now.
After a two week hiatus, my party finished off the Queen with Burning Eyes last night. Having recruited Kettrin the Inscribed (a female wizard) to back them up, they returned to the excavation and exterminated the giant spider, along with Krang and his hordes of kobolds. As they headed down to Area 10, however, Sheldon heard a man in the room with the pit berating his followers for being unsucessful in acquiring the PCs as sacrifices! Bursting into the sacrificial chamber, the PCs made short work of Vestran and the surviving thugs, though they were somewhat disturbed to find that his armor and his greatsword were attached to his body through plugs of flesh that fit into sphincter-like sockets on his body. (This was foreshadowing for a plot involving the daelkyr and Vallorians from Malhavoc Press's Legacy of the Dragons.) After scraping off the fleshy attachments, the party headed home to their flat in the cogs, only to discover, as they came closer, that their home was in flames! On their arrival, the heroes discovered that Demise and Travack had animated several of the PCs' neighbors as undead and destroyed the artificer's apartment and notes. Enraged by Demise's demand that they turn over their golden prize, the heroes turned successive waves of undead and burned through all their remaining action points as Travack, the Emerald Claw soldiers, and the animated forms of former friends sought to bring them down. In the end, Demise fled for her life as the last of her soldiers fought to the death to cover her escape. Having finished the adventure, I really like the sense of context that the Queen with Burning Eyes presents in its sidebars and scheduled event encounters. As I mentioned earlier, the dungeon itself is a bit static, save for room 11, and it would have been nice to have advice on having the monsters react to events outside of their immediate area. OTOH, I love the sheer number of hooks that the adventure introduces into the game, as my characters were very frightened of selling Vestran's gear on the open market, for fear of political and personal reprisals, now have a reason to visit Xen'drik, and hate and abominate both the Emerald Claw and the Cults of the Dragon Below. Overall, a solidly enjoyable adventure, although I would have appreciated it if I didn't have to flip from page to page quite so much when running Events 2 and 3.
A few comments on the adventure and Eberron's flavor in general: * The first thing my players did after killing the Queen was to ask how damaged her body was, so they could sell it to a museum. I suspect this was partially motivated by the fact that a prior visit to Thurias Tower after the Forgotten Forge impressed on them that antiquities and rare specimens are quite valued, and is partially just the pulp trapping rubbing off on my game. Either way, it's a trend I like. * Adamantine Body (the warforged feat) is just brutally effective. Tom has had AC 21 since 1st level, and that'll only increase once Qual picks up Craft Wondrous Item. It's not really a problem, as running a 3-player game means that the party either needs to be a bit tougher than normal, or encounters have to be adjusted to compensate (by adding friendly NPCs or lowering ELs). * I really didn't expect the party to head straight for the Queen and take her out, so I'm glad that the adventure had instructions on what to do if that happened. Things lose a bit of their drama with both the Queen and Vestran's thug brigade dead... but I suppose it beats having three PCs being kidnapped and having to fight Vestran, the Queen, and hordes of thugs and cultists unprepared. Anyway, now that I've run most of it, I must say I'm liking the Queen with Burning Eyes a lot more than I did on paper. The dungeon crawl itself isn't particularly outstanding, but the event-based stuff surrounding it and the world context really work for me.
So I'm running an Eberron game, and after putting the PCs through The Forgotten Forge (from the ECS book), they got hooked into the Queen with Burning Eyes. Didn't use DDM tiles for the dungeon, as I don't own them, but I replaced most of the rooms with tiles from the D&D Basic Game; I can list them if anyone's interested. The Party: (3 characters, 2nd level when the adventure began) * Sheldon, a Human Cleric of the Sovereign Host
Sheldon maintains a small shrine in the upper Cogs (the PCs have been barely scraping by ever since the Last War), and one of his parishoners came by to beg for help with the disappearances surrounding the excavation that he and his work crew had been digging out for Lord Vestran. Motivated by a desire to help, Sheldon rounded up Tom and Qual, and headed to the excavation, where they met with Vestran and were offered a moderate sum of money to deal with the disappearances and clear out the monsters in the ruins. *Area 1* The 'rat creatures' in the first room made the players groan (none of their characters knew what kobolds looked like), and some good tactics on the part of the kobolds pinned the cleric and artificer near the door while the warforged got sneak attacked and stabbed at. Soon enough, though, the warriors were dead, and the rogue drank his potion of invisibility only to be cut down in spite of it. *Area 2* Descending into the dungeon, Tom, Qual and Sheldon alighted from their rope only to be attacked by a pair of beasts with scabbed and cracked flesh where their eyes should have been (I made the grimlocks look creepier than usual- see below), and a hyenalike creature with a tri-pronged tail (a Staj, or "Eye Hunter", from Monte Cook's Legacy of the Dragons- it plucks and consumes eyes from its victims). This fight lasted a bit longer, and the Staj almost tore out Qual's left eye, but in the end our heroes were victorious, and plunged onward. *Area 6* The Dolgrims creeped the party out (I gave them four eyes each, with several missing - eaten by the Staj), but they died before they could lure the heroes into their pit trap, and the party rested here with Tom standing guard. *Area 7* The chill from the brown mold drove the party away from this room before they even entered it (metagaming - they came back later), but the Dolgaunt followed them as they retreated, and some good Listen checks led to a confrontation in room 2. Though the Dolgaunt drained a portion of Tom's alchemical fluids, it too fell swiftly. *Areas 8, 9, & 11* Ambushed by the ghouls, Tom and Sheldon were struck several times, but neither was paralyzed (Tom was immune and Sheldon saved), so on Sheldon's first action, he destroyed the undead with a blast of holy power. After looting the sepulchers and examining the idol, the party ignored the door to room 10 and headed into area 9, taking minor damage from the scythe trap. After opening the door to area 11, Sheldon and Tom noticed that Qual had disappeared, and turned around to rescue him from the Choker that had grabbed him. After healing up, they skirted the pit into Khyber and headed on to the lair of the Queen with Burning Eyes. *Area 12* The party confronted the Queen with Burning Eyes, and without her court, she died in two rounds, taking 25 points of damage from a single critical hit from Tom. After lashing the Queen's body to an improvised sledge and collecting her treasure and the contents of the Dolgaunt's chest in room 7, the party left the dungeon, heading for home. *Events 1 & 2* Travack stopped the party as they left the excavation site and gave them his spiel, but the party asked for a way to contact him without telling him they already had the amulet. After dropping off the Queen's body at a tannery, they headed home for a good night's rest. The next morning, on the way to the library to research what it was they'd just killed, the party was ambushed by Vestran's thugs, and prompty killed and routed all but one of them, who they interrogated in a nearby alley. After babbling about the Dragon Below for a time, the thug let slip that he was fighting to avenge the Queen, and bit off his own tongue. This left our heroes somewhat disturbed, but they proceeded onward to the library, and armed with the knowledge that they possessed a nearly intact Bright Naga specimen, they headed on to the Morgrave Museum of Natural History, where they found a curator who them promised payment appropriate to the quality of the specimen. The rest of the session was taken up in banking, the sale of goblin relics, and similar logistical fun, although the group also recruited an NPC to accompany them on their next delve into the dungeon.
Congratulations, Erik! We hope for great things. And Chivalry and Sorcery rules mods. Those would be nifty. ;)
Being a DM who likes to create his own adventures, my suggestion would be to cut back on them (have only two, or make them shorter), and put in some good DM articles. Things like "who's afraid of the dark" (dragon 322) are precisely the kind of thing I look for in a d&d magazine, providing creative ideas for my adventures. I suspect that the reason that many people liked the revision of Dungeon so much was that it upped the number of adventures from 2 to 3, so I doubt this is likely to happen anytime soon. That said, your point regarding the player/DM split in the guidelines is well made; I recently sent a DM article query to Dungeon (and had it rejected for precisely the reasons Erik outlines above) because Dragon's guidelines so explicitly spell out that articles must be of use to players.
Hell, if your players are in Eberron, all that needs to happen is their Artificer learning of this ability. Eight rings of Bull's Strength, anyone? Or something equally silly... Well, the bonuses don't stack, so each character gets a maximum of +6 to each stat, assuming they're willing to pay through the teeth for it. It's pretty balanced, really. Not to mention that you can do more or less the same thing by adding extra abilities to a pre-existing ring or item...
The sad thing is how many of those I can recognize, even without the names attached.
My first 3E campaign ended up with 8 players in it, so I might have a few comments that could help, but a lot of what I'd have to say is covered in one of Monte Cook's DMs Only columns on his website: http://www.montecook.com/arch_dmonly27.html Overall, it seems to me as if an article about tailoring CRs would be better suited for Dungeon than Dragon, because of its DM focus, and it seems as if Monte already wrote one a while back, but I'll probably be sending in a query...
Very nice cover. Kudos to all involved. My initial impression of the issue wasn't terribly positive, but I have to admit that it's growing on me as I read through it again. While a lot of its content isn't directly applicable to my game (the exceptions being the Quori and the ice monsters), the HP Lovecraft article was very cool, and actually taught me some things I didn't know about D&D/Cthulhu mythos connections. I'm still a little iffy on Class Acts... most of them were good, but I think the section has a lot of potential that remains untapped. The "Flaws" articles in particular left me a bit cold, although the Paladin Flaws included a few I might steal to give character to villains. While I liked the Mike Hou art, the Exorcising Equipment and Sworn Slayer articles only became interesting to me when I started thinking about using their content in ways opposed to the authors' intent (Using mummy mites on PC corpses, & the Sworn Slayer as a genocidal warlord/maniac). But possibly this reflects more on me than on the articles in question...
Regarding readability, you should consider not reusing the font used in the "Exorcising Equipment" article in #324: While it looks cool, it's also fairly hard to read, especially when it's printed in green. Also, w/ regards to Melmoth & Charles's request, I don't kow if Mike & Co. already have something like that in the works, but if they don't, I submitted a proposal for an article like that just a few days ago... (*plug plug*)
downer is a waste of good space. Maybe I'd feel differently if I'd read it from the beginning, but I don't see the point of Downer either. Then again, it's just two pages. Until the guys at Dungeon have another article type like "the Journey" or "the Dungeon" in mind to replace it, it's not really cutting into adventure space.
All of these would be awesome, especially the battlemap idea, though I suspect that it would be a pain in the rear to implement.
Cool maps, Master0fDungeons. I'll probably be using them if my players end up taking the bait and heading down beneath the Cogs before I throw them into Shadows of the Last War.
Hey, Gary. I've just looked through the guidelines, but they don't seem to include the standard disclosure form they say is appended to the .pdf file. While there's a copy of the form in Dragon's guidelines, I figured I should point this out...
Hi, Pat! With regards to Nick's question: I agree with slashdevnull that problem solving is key, though I take a more tactical and intrigue-focused approach. I like multi-level battlefields, lots of props for players to stunt with or use against their foes, and intelligent and tricky opponents. Outside of combat, I like players trying to figure out who they should support, and having to make their own value judgments based on limited information. Ambiguity makes me happy, which is part of why I like Eberron's take on alignment so much.
I only read trades ever since I stopped working for a comic store, but these are the series I'm trying to keep up with: 100 Bullets
Count me as another pro-Eberron voice, at least tentatively. I've liked what I've seen of Keith Baker's Eberron adventures so far, both in Dungeon and outside the magazine, though James Wyatt's Queen with Burning Eyes wasn't quite up to snuff, and its map using D&D miniatures tiles was kind of a turnoff.
While I sympathize with those who want more gaming content, I'm never going to use at least one whole adventure published in each issue of Dungeon (and that's probably being generous). As such, while Wil Save is light reading (I've only read #115), it fills the same personal interest niche for me which Monte Cook's Dungeoncraft usually does. I mean, sometimes Monte has advice I hadn't already thought about, but mostly I just like reading his stuff. Maybe in a year or so, Wil Save will become tired and self-indulgent, but until that happens, I can live with a single page less game content each issue. |
