Samuel Siebenaler's page

I guess this will be my first post ever aimed at the folks in charge of the magazine.

First, let me start by saying the cover art has been absolutely awesome looking. And the adventures are absolutely great. I am a truly big fan.

Ok, here is my respectfully submitted objection. Some of the players in my group have dungeon subscriptions (36 issue options from long before Age of Worms started it release in most cases). The rest I am sure look at the sweet cover art in the local book store when they go there to buy the new released books or get new dice.
The problem is, I kind of feel some teaser information lately has given away quite a bit of information in regards to the AoW campaign. They all know the AoW is being published each month for the last year. The covers even say so. While I don’t mind the Hall of Harsh reflections mentioning “a new adventure with doppelgangers” and a pic of a mind flayer, the covers lately such as the last months and this month especially feel like they are giving it away. The art is fine, but statements like “Kill the first Dragolich” and “ Slay a God, Save the World, Claim a Kingdom” and “Kyuss” are giving my players meta game information (we are just starting Hall of Harsh reflections) At the very least, now all my players will know whole the BBEG will be for the series.
Even my players don't like it. It makes it harder on them to no meta.

So my party is about to travel with old Allustan to Blackwall keep having just finished up the 3 faces of evil, and after throwing bit of a party at their newly renovated, formerly broken down mine manager residence, they are prepping to leave on their way to Blackwall keep, only to be shocked by the assault of the fortress.

So, in an Ironic twist of fate, one of my PC’s has decided to play a ½ dragon ranger with dragons as a favored enemy. He has mentioned he wanted to have either a black dragon or blue dragon parent. I told him if he took black dragon, there would be the possibility of me being able to tie his back story into the adventure a little better. He agreed. I think we know know who his mother will turn out to be *wink wink*

So going into the assault on Blackwall and the subsequent encounters with the Ilthane allied lizard folk tribe, are there any suggestions as to how the lizardmen including the chieftain should react to a character who’s linage is very plainly descended directly from their master? I don’t wish to change the adventure any more than I really have to, but I also do not want to down play the unique connection that this PC has with this group of Lizardmen. Although he is quite aware of his linage, this will be the PC’s first fleeting hints of whom his parent maybe, and what she is all about.
Thanks for any suggestions...

I am one of 8 player/Dm/close friends that all play in the same group. Since we all DM for each other, we come to group agreements on the mechanics of how the rules work. This is so that one character a player may have is "DMable" by anyone on the group. It has never been a problem. Well, there is one thing the group has never been able to agree on. The Parrying feat tree in Dragon 301. It has led to (and I kid you not) more than a few multi hour long debate/aurgements on if they should exsist. The key aurgement being that there are so many other feats and class ablities where "parrying" is described as AC bonus vs. a landed blow deflection. So now it is to the point where only 2 players have parrying characters, and the other 6 pretend those characters don't exist. We simply try to not EVER mention the word parry when we all play.

I was just curious if anyone else has had thoughts on this one? Or if these feats have caused any kind of controversy? Has this discussion taken place else where?