|
Can we get a hint of what you think of the issue?
Stegger
I did mention I wrote a long post, but it was lost in cyberspace, right? That frustrated me to no end. In any case, I did as I said I would, and here my comments so far.
This post is generally aimed at the Paizo staff. However, I’d like to hear whether other subscribers/readers agree or disagree with my observations as well. I’m going to begin by discussing content one article at a time, followed by general observations about the magazine in general.
First of all, congratulations on putting together another high-quality issue. I think the quality has continually improved, but that is no reason to stop striving for perfection. Even if it can never be achieved, I think all your readers appreciate a commitment to quality.
I always begin reading with the editorial. I really enjoy getting Erik’s thoughts and opinions. In many ways he and I are on the same page. It may be a function of similar age and gaming background, but whatever the reason, as long as Mr. Mona is at the helm, I’m not to worried about the direction the magazine is headed. I would like to share a quote posted elsewhere on the Paizo.com boards by QSamantha.
“You can also look at almost any of Erik’s editorials. An editorial, because it sets out to be an editorial, is always to a degree forced. However, Erik writes through the forced premise with amazing ability. By the time he is done, he leaves you feeling included in his comments. This is way more than merely being natural. At his best, Erik’s editorials draw the reader in, make them forget the forced premise and leave them feeling like they just had a conversation with Erik.”
The above quote sums up my personal feelings quite well, and probably better than I could have said on my own.
I generally enjoy Scale Mail. This month I particularly like the almost flippant responses to some of the letters. The letters section can really set the tone for the magazine, and this month it says “we’re having fun and we’re not taking ourselves too seriously”. At least, it appears that way to me.
The First Watch feature can be really good. Many of these products are things I’m already aware of, but being reminded is something I can tolerate. I will point out that First Watch is a section of the magazine that will be less useful as future issues are released. In March of 2006 I highly doubt I’ll come back to issue #328 to discover what was going to be coming out in the next month or so. I’d really like to see it cut down to two facing pages. I think 3 ½ is a little long. My suggestion would be to just cut all the information on page 18 and “Anime Super Chess” on page 20. They could always make it into a future issue.
The RPGA update is a feature that I’d also be willing to see go away. This particular month it does have enough information to pique my interest. Getting free stuff, and more of it, certainly is something most gamers would enjoy. However, if the information is intended for RPGA members it probably doesn’t need to be in Dragon. Having that information available online should be sufficient. If the point is to draw new members in, they should keep their message aimed at non-members (or inactive members, as I happen to be). I think many readers skip the article each month since it isn’t targeted at them. Why not make it a quarterly feature?
The Paragons of the Kindred article is fine. It presents a number of prestige classes, but it follows a theme, giving all of these classes some additional flavor. I doubt any of my players will be interested in these classes, but I don’t begrudge having more material I can refer to at a later date. I would like to remind Paizo about my already declared views of a comprehensive index. I don’t bring my collection of Dragon magazines to the game, and it is very easy to forget about things I read about months ago. Having a listing of suggested PrCs for various classes (as they do at the beginning of the Complete Books) would be appreciated. The Search feature on the website, Paizo.com, is actually quite good. Still, this is one area that leaves plenty of room for improvement.
I found the Dwarves at War article to be a fun read. I dislike the art, as I consider it to cartoony. It does nothing to inspire my imagination. In terms of actual content, I disagree with the author’s point about “The Shorter the Battle, the Better”. Generally this is true, but a longer battle favors the side that is more prepared logistically, which is certainly a strength of the dwarves. Particularly if they favor a defensive approach to a battle. Why kill thousands of goblins when starvation will do it for you? All that is required is waiting an extra week. It would have been nice if the article had described how the philosophies conflict with each other. Normally a conflict can be ended more quickly with a “push” which can involve much higher casualties than a static line of defense. How many lives can be lost acceptably to end the conflict immediately? I would have also liked to see information on “massed” Dwarven strategies. Certainly there are times when they must form a formation larger than forty men. I’m sure they’re quite likely to take advantage of shield walls, reach weapons, and other defensive strategies. Their inclusion would have been appreciated.
The article Nobody’s Perfect works for me. With the release of all the new supplements, particularly the Complete Series, my players all want more Feats. One of the easiest ways to get the feats you really want is with flaws. However, some of these flaws have requirements that I disagree with. For example, why can’t a human be curious? It is restricted to gnomes. Also, certain flaws list a +1 BAB as a pre-requisite. Since a flaw can only be taken at 1st level, I find that to be somewhat unfair. It is impossible, then, for a Dwarven cleric to be either a Glory-Hound or Implacable. I think both of those flaws might fit a cleric very well, so I would suggest trying to avoid BAB requirements for flaws.
The Prestige class presented in “The Force Missile Mage” is okay. It doesn’t include much in the way of flavor. Something to situate the class better would be nice. However, this presentation isn’t much different than what you find in Complete Arcane, so I can’t complain too much.
The Ecology of the Will-O’-Wisp is well done. I enjoy Ecology articles. I had some more comments when I originally wrote this post, but in the interest of time I’ll skip them.
The Saurian Shifters doesn’t provide me with anything I need or can use. First of all, I’m familiar with Shifters having the Eberron Campaign Setting. Still, the inclusion of this race really requires both the inclusion of dinosaurs and shifters, certainly not something included in every campaign. By and large, there are too many intelligent humanoids. There is no room in most campaign worlds for all of them. Without reference to any sources I can name at least 50 humanoids and monstrous humanoids that all have a society that needs to fit somewhere in my campaign world. There just isn’t room. This race also fills a niche (humanoid dinosaurs) that I think the Saurians fill better. These criticisms are somewhat mitigated by the Shifter propensity to live among other races, but I find it off-putting.
The Bazaar of the Bizarre is usually good. My biggest complaint is not providing us with a price breakdown. For example, the armor of the Long Journey has a price of 39,650. Everything but 16,000 of it is explained by other things (cold resistance, +2 enchantment, MW Full Plate). Does the 16,000 then, provide the “long journey” enchantment? Does it apply as a one time cost (like cold resistance), or does it count as a +2 enchantment (+2 armor increased to +4 also costs 16,000). Information like that would certainly make it easier to apply to most games. Undoubtedly, a player will eventually want “Battle Plate of the Long Journey”. It would be nice if I knew how to convert it.
The God of War looks horrible. This is the only section in the entire magazine where the page layout is done poorly. The bolded text looks blurred and is made further illegible by format mistakes. For example, “Entertainment” on the second and third line is broken, but no hyphen is included. The “t”s throughout the section appear to have a space before and after. Thus the last line on the first column appears as “t he mar t ial ar t s t hat”. I’m ambivalent about the content of this moths Silicon Sorcery, but please, avoid such ugly (and illegible) page layouts.
Tvash Prull’s Symphony is generally fine. It does include “specks” throughout the page that sometimes obscure words. They can be read around, but it does interfere with those of us who read quickly by recognizing the shape of words. I don’t know if that will make any sense to you, but if you are educated about how people read, you’ll understand why I dislike those “decorative ink specks”. I’d also like to point out that Dragon magazine doesn’t have much in the way of rules support. For that reason, it is VITAL that things that appear in your magazine are clear, and a DM isn’t forced to make a ruling on an ambiguous issue. For example, the spell “Fugue of Tvash Prull” is not quite clear on the effect. It says “The caster may select any of the effects for which his Perform check exceeds ore equals the required DC to manifest”. Does that mean I may choose “any one effect”, or “any and all” effects. It is unclear. If I have a 52 perform check can I make the target lose 1d6 points from an ability and be stunned for 1 round? What about effects that are contradictory? A target cannot be stunned and forced to attack the nearest opponent. If it is supposed to be only a single effect, it would be nice to have that clear, since my players will undoubtedly seek to interpret it the other way.
I’m all out of time for the moment, but I’ll come back and finish this at lunch time. I still have Under Command and the “Class Acts” to discuss.
I hope you include the will-o'-wisp comments you left out earlier in your repost, since I'd love to hear them. For now I'll just say thanks! And it sucks about the boards eating your post. I hate that. It never happens on a two-sentence post either, always a monster five page one.
-Amber Scott
I just read the "Ecology of the Will-o'-Wisp last night, and I wanted to comment on how enjoyable the article was. It did an excellent job of taking a fairly limited monster and developing it, describing it, and placing it into the D&D milieu. Good stuff!
(If I recall, Amber wrote the equally enjoyable "Ecology of the Duergar" a couple issues back?)
Director of Games
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey there,
First off, let me thank you for giving feedback, it is always appreciated. I just wanted to take a second to post up a few answers for you on some questions posed in your post.
For the armor of the long journey, the +16,000gp cost is indeed for the "long journey" portion of the armors enhancement (the increased speed, encumbrance, and fatigue reduction). This is a flat fee, not added to the enhancement of the armor.
For the Fugue of Tvash Prull, the caster may choose only one of the listed effects. Grrr... I thought we caught that one.. Thanks for keeping us honest.
Keep the comments coming. We always want to hear what you think.
First off, I love Dragon, great mag, Paizo does good work. Second, I'm new to the boards, but it looks great. Now, to the meat of my point. Now, as a "newb" here, I may not know the pecking order around here, so if I step on any toes, my apologies.
Some of the opinions here are great, but others I have to disagree with, purely for the sake of argument. The Paragons of the Kindred article is great. I love getting new templates like that. They make great new options that can be easily adapted into play. The same also goes for the Saurian Shifters article. Having more races to choose from expands the possibilites of any campain. Here's where things get ugly. I hae to disagree with DeadDM's assessment that to add the Saurians you have to add dinosaurs and shifters. Since I don't own the Ebberon campaign setting, it's great to get these looks into other books. And if a DM is dead set on adding them to their campaign, there are plenty of ways to do it, not just by adding in dinosaurs and shifters.
I really liked Tvash Prull's symphony article. I've tended to stay away from bards because they lack the offense that I like, but with this article, I've started thinking about creating a bard. I love articles that add spells or feats because it opens up more possibilities for characters, which is always a good thing.
The God of War was an odd spot to put in there. While it does add some new elements to D&D, it seemed like a big advertisement for the game. I'd like to see Paizo stay clear of those types of things in the future.
(If I recall, Amber wrote the equally enjoyable "Ecology of the Duergar" a couple issues back?)
You are correct, Mark.
|
|
I'm sorry I was unable to continue my observations at lunch. In any case, I will continue where I left off...Under Command.
Of all the features in Dragon magazine, this is the ONLY one I would like to see removed completely. In the letters section Erik mentioned that this was a section that was going to be redeveloped to be useful to everyone, including those who play D&D Miniatures and those who do not. I spent a while considering the possible ways that might work. The only ideas I could come up with were including a battle map each issue, but I immediately discarded that as prohibitively expensive. Perhaps they would develop a “war band” that could be dropped into any game as an encounter? Still, probably not what they had in mind. I can’t imagine what the changes might be, but I don’t believe this feature can be redeemed for those of us who do not play Miniatures. I strongly believe that Dragon should support Role-Playing games, and Miniatures is not an RPG. There will always be new games, and some will be amazingly popular. However, even when that is the case, Dragon has traditionally remained true to the core audience. During the height of the Magic: The Gathering craze Dragon continued to support Dungeons and Dragons. I think that is the right approach. The magazine has a fixed page count. I’d like to see Under Command removed because I think that space could be better utilized as gaming material.
I find it a little difficult to lay out my opinion concisely. I don’t know if you remember Sesame Street, but they always had a little skit about “which of these doesn’t belong?” It is obvious that Under Command doesn’t fit in the magazine. It supports a different game. I would be surprised if 15% of the readers found any use in it. It certainly doesn’t provide enough content to cause Miniatures enthusiasts to subscribe to the magazine. Rather than try to keep an unpopular feature alive, let it die. It does nothing for the magazine but waste space.
I really like Sage Advice. I think that it would be very nice if there was always a printed online link included that led to past Sage Advice answers. Because Dragon deals with so much information, it is imperative to have easily searchable indexes.
Class Acts as a whole are generally a good thing. Of course, some are better than others. This month I think they are generally good. I’ll provide my opinions on each below.
Barbaric Mounts is an interesting idea. I think it is unfortunate that two of the five mounts are useable only (or mostly) in aquatic environments. I do think the land speed for the Elephant Seal is much too quick (20’ is probably appropriate for a double move, and I think indicating that it cannot run or charge on land would certainly be appropriate). One of the mounts, the Giant Vulture, can of course fly. I think including the information about how load affects flight would have been useful, since trying to find that information is not as easy as it should be. I suppose it is probably in the Monster Manual, and probably a creature can fly with a medium load, but not a heavy load; a medium load probably reduces maneuverability. However, to increase my use of the magazine, I think details like that ought to be spelled out, or even a reminder of a page number to consult would again make my job easier.
Heavy Metal’s most useful feature is providing a list of bard spells that don’t require a somatic component. I would love to see the same thing for wizards and sorcerers. Whenever a spell caster finds they are grappled, they begin looking through the Player’s Handbook in search of a spell that they are capable of casting. Of course, the spells are not organized in that fashion. Having an easily referred to list would be very nice.
I think Peripheral Beliefs certainly stimulates my creative juices. Religion as presented in D&D is generally without “restrictions” or “obligations”. Having required practices can go a long way to make religion matter. Even traditional stand-bys as “tithing” are not discussed in the core rules. Even if the peripheral belief provided no benefit, I would consider implementing them into my campaign.
The Storm Druid doesn’t interest me much, but I generally like variant classes similar to the ones presented in Unearthed Arcana. I do actually have a player that has opted for the Storm Lord prestige class, so they might have been interested at an earlier time.
The Roman Legionnaire provides historical information, though doesn’t provide any direct benefit to my game. However, I love having accurate information provided as a reference source provided for my game. And with the information already translated into game equivalents, well, even better.
The Multiclassed Monk presents what are generally obvious pieces of advice. However, I don’t really mind – it at least provides concrete examples rather than vague generalities. For example, indicating that a +2 charisma modifier is the minimum to make levels in Paladin worthwhile.
The Paladin Domains is another class variant similar to those in Unearthed Arcana. This one, I think, is perfect. It helps give the class more flavor, make them more unique, but they don’t require massive changes. I’d love to see more Class Acts along these lines.
Arranging the Ranger also provides some specific advice over generalities that strikes me as somewhat obvious, but I have had players that could certainly use a primer on using their spells effectively.
Not Your Typical Spellcaster provides NPC descriptions. Coming up with NPC descriptions on the spot is certainly not easy, so this is a useful feature. I wouldn’t mind seeing more like this in the future.
Wizardry 101 makes the mistake of giving general advice over specific advice. Essentially, it tells the reader to determine what the role of the wizard will be, and then focus on fulfilling that role. I really would have preferred to see the article describe a role (for example, controlling battlefield mobility) and then describing how to fulfill that function. In the example I provided, detailing what spells would be useful (web, wall spells, etc) and weapon choices (reach weapon) might have been more useful.
I’d like to see fewer coverlines in the future. I don’t know if the results from Issue #326 are in yet, but I’d really like to be able to enjoy the artwork without distractions. I wouldn’t mind if the art were reprinted in the interior of the magazine.
I’d also like to say that I like the placement of each article. I think having the comics in the back works, and I found the flow from feature to feature was smooth.
Since I skipped the Ecology of the Will-O’Wisp earlier, I’ll return to it. I generally like Ecology features. It provides a wealth of useful information, generally seems well-put-together and fairly comprehensive. What I would have liked to see more of would be options for direct interaction. Perhaps the author could have imagined a Will-o’-wisp BBEG and describe how that might work. Of course, the Will-O’-Wisp is very limited in being unable to manipulate objects. Still, more information along those lines could only make the feature better.
That about covers it, at least for now. Again, I’d appreciate seeing other people’s responses, whether they agree or disagree and why.
According to this link:
http://www.paizo.com/dragon/products/v5748btpy7cbf
There should be an article called "A Novel Approach: Far Seer trilogy." I can't seem to find it in my issue.
I wouldn't normally care, but I sent out the link last Wednesday to all my friends that are fans of Robin Hobb's 2 Farseer trilogies.
We've always wanted to do that world in Ars Magica, but I was greatly interested in seeing it converted to D20.
Does anyone know what happened to the article?
|
|
[QUOTE="DeadDMWalking
"] I did mention I wrote a long post, but it was lost in cyberspace, right? That frustrated me to no end. In any case, I did as I said I would, and here my comments so far.
OK, sorry.... I was just curious.
But thanks for the large post. I was just wager to hear a thimbs up of thumbs down...Cheers,
Stegger
Contributor
|
I think that it would be very nice if there was always a printed online link included that led to past Sage Advice answers. Because Dragon deals with so much information, it is imperative to have easily searchable indexes.
Most Sage Advice questions show up on the Wizards of the Coast website a month or two after they appear in <i>Dragon.</i>
At least, we send them the Sage Advice text every month. What they do with it is up to them. ;)
|
|
Mike -
Thanks for taking the time to address some of my comments, and provide some answers to the questions that I had. Of course, the questions I wrote were as much to serve as examples of typical questions as to get answers. I was wondering if you could see about making changes to the way information is presented... For example, when an armor or weapon ability is described, indicating whether it counts as a bonus equivalency (+1 or +2) or an additional cost (like "long journey" or cold resistance). I know space is limited, but the more complete a breakdown is given, the easier it will be for us.
|
Contributor
|
I was wondering if you could see about making changes to the way information is presented... For example, when an armor or weapon ability is described, indicating whether it counts as a bonus equivalency (+1 or +2) or an additional cost (like "long journey" or cold resistance). I know space is limited, but the more complete a breakdown is given, the easier it will be for us.
Hmm...for magic weapons that might be a cool thing to do. I'll bring it up with the others. :)
Just picked up 328.
Lotsa good stuff. My two favorite articles:
1. Ecology of the Will o Wisp. On these boards Amber promised something strange and interesting, and she delivered in spades. The history of the Will o Wisp was clever and well done. The idea of different legends surrounding the same creature is something I intend to adapt in my games. That'll drive the bard with his bardic knowledge crazy. Sure, you know THAT legend, but how about this one? Which one is true, buddy!
2. Speaking of bards, the Spellcraft on Tvash-Prull was music to my ears. The world can never have enough bard spells. Love's Lament was great: Talk about singin' the blues. And how about that old saw, "Tvash Prull's Bonefiddle"? Every bard character I know will want to cut a rug -- and an opponent -- with that one.
Thanks, Troy! :-D
-Amber
|
Contributor
|
2. Speaking of bards, the Spellcraft on Tvash-Prull was music to my ears. The world can never have enough bard spells. Love's Lament was great: Talk about singin' the blues. And how about that old saw, "Tvash Prull's Bonefiddle"? Every bard character I know will want to cut a rug -- and an opponent -- with that one.
Woot! Puns! :D
I agree with almost everything discussed here EXCEPT (there's always gotta be one doesn't there?) I am one those that loves the Under Command series. I agree that Dragon is about role play, but the miniatures are a great way to introduce the game to youngsters. My sons are a little young (9 and 5) to get all the role play stuff, but the different games we can play with the miniatures introduce them to the monsters, abilities, combat, magic in a very easy way. And the Dungeon Ball gives it to them in something they understand....course as dodgball is banned in most schools they don't have the "personal" experience <G>.
-Dave
|
|
I liked the issue too, but i don't really get, what the intention for the "Dwarves At War"-article was.
Most of this has been covered in 'Races Of Stone' which was released just a few months ago.
Don't get me wrong, i found it an well readable article, but i think that this space should've been devoted to something more "unusual".
I, too, didn't really like the art for this article.
Sure, it was grim'n gritty and somehow suitable to the theme, but the style reminded me more of comics like 'Preacher' or similar stuff than of fantasy.
But i also like the fact that you try to get a wide varity of art-styles into the mag, so keep it up...
This was my favorite issue in a while. I'm feeling a little dizzy about the frequent changes in "direction," but if this is the one that sticks, I'll be very happy.
I'll start with a few negatives, so I can end on an up note. I don't like the game/novel/movie tie-in articles. I especially dislike the video game ones. Even if it's a game I've played or book I've read, I'm only mildly interested, and if it's not (most of the time), I never give it a second glance.
Under Command leaves me pretty underwhelmed as well - and I actually play the miniatures game. And finally, Nobody's Perfect was disappointing. I felt it was poorly written, and the flaws themselves seemed sort of thrown together.
The good stuff, though - the other feature articles were excellent. Others have done a good job of describing why they were so good, but I found two articles particularly enjoyable, and both for the same reason. Dwarves at War and the Ecology of the Will O'Wisp had a great deal of verisimilitude. They approached the subject from an almost scientific viewpoint. Each article answered the question, "What would it be like if these things really existed?"
The only thing I found lacking was some immersive flavor around the articles. For example, the Dwarves at War article could have referenced "real" battles ("In 1243, the Year of the Moon, Cragwell Brickthunder and his clan held off 2,000 goblins at Spanton Pass by collapsing one side of the pass, creating uneven terrain the goblins could not easily negotiate. Once the goblins were within the pass, they collapsed the other side, causing massive casualties to the goblin force. The remaining beasts could not penetrate the dwarves' defensive position."
You get the point.
Overall, props to the editorial crew and the various freelancers (one of which I fervently hope to become one day).