Well, as one of the writers who frequently contributes class act articles, I obviously have a personal bias. That said, I disagree with a lot (but not everything) you have to say.
Hei,
The 'Class Acts' articles are pretty much a waste of space!
In 1 page they manage to be short, shallow, mainly useless and even broken!
Well, there have been cases where one page really limited the development of an idea. I agree there. That contributes to "short" and "shallow" I suppose. I have to thoroughly disagree, though, on "mainly useless" and "broken." In the year since the relaunch I have seen a whole bunch o' useful, fun ideas in the class acts section. Sure, not every article is a "winner" for me, but that's OK. I understand not every article in the magazine is going to speak directly to me.
Issue 335 Class Acts
Clerics: is an article that says Bless is a useful spell really necessary?
This was an excellent article for somebody who has never played a cleric. It gives some really basic advice that somebody like you or I might take for granted. While I personally don't have a ton of use for this article, it was well written and served it's purpose - to educate newer players, or more experienced players who maybe have never played a cleric before.
Barbarians: If the small mechanical bonuses require special permission to use then doesn't this just mean they're unbalanced?
Nope, it doesn't mean that at all. What it means is the article is presenting an optional rule, and just like any other optional rule you ought to be certain your DM is going to allow it in the game before you go and build your character around the concept. It's no different than prestige classes, or psionics, or the new classes in the complete books. As a player, it's your responsibility to make sure a DM is OK with any rule you intend to use as part of your character - especially rules outside of the core rules.
Paladins: A couple of really obscure uses for a couple of minor skills
I'm going to take a pass on this one, because the topic of the article isn't coming to my mind at the moment. I need more caffeine. ;)
Some of the Feats are useful, the Chaos Monk is a nice idea but underdeveloped, same with the Totem Druids.
I agree that often times alternate class ideas (such as the ones you mentioned) are the ideas hurt most by the short article format. Not always, though. I've seen a few articles where one page was just about right - anything more would have meant the writer was just adding words to make his word count.
Come on, use the pages for something with a bit of depth, a bit of imagination.
I think this is probably your most unfair comment in your entire post. It's cool to find an article useless; it's cool to want more from a given article; it's cool to point out problems or errors with an idea in an article. But it's not cool (or correct) to say the articles lack imagination. I think you're just flat out wrong in that assessment.
So let me offer you a challenge, Elliot. Send in a query to dragon and write a few articles. Show us how good it can really be (and make a little cash on the side while you're at it ;) ).
I have to agree with Zherog here. While I have not actually put any of the articles to use, as of yet, I find them all to be fairly imaginative, especially given the length of the article. Word for word, these little articles pack more punch, has more crunch and fluff, then some of Dragon's longer articles.
True, some of them are good to very good.
But some of them look like filler ("heck, we have nothing better for XYZ class? *sigh* OK, so run it in").
A suggestion from the backseat: perhaps not all the classes could be there in all issue, i.e depending on the availability of very good material, run the mag with 3-5 classes each month?
Joël
True, some of them are good to very good.
But some of them look like filler ("heck, we have nothing better for XYZ class? *sigh* OK, so run it in").
A suggestion from the backseat: perhaps not all the classes could be there in all issue, i.e depending on the availability of very good material, run the mag with 3-5 classes each month?
Joël
Exactly. I have grown to not like Class Acts that much because of the problem with filler articles. Some of the Class Acts are good, but they are buried in a big heap of blah.
WaterdhavianFlapjack
I definitely think that class acts has its place in Dragon, but I feel that sometimes we are pulling a Charles Dickens and writing just because the editors will pay for it, not because we actually have anything to say. I have seen really good Class Acts and really bad Class Acts (when I say bad I mean not very useful).
I think what would solve the problem is if Class Acts was a little shorter each month, maybe only hitting a couple random classes each month and making room for a more or longer articles. This solution would do two things, create an environment ripe for exploring some of the other core classes (favored soul, swashbuckler) and create more quality articles due to the time to really compile and single out the quality submissions (rather than having to have a sorcerer or fighter article that month for example).
Also, one last thing and this goes out to the editors of Dragon: one major thing that I have been dying to see in class acts (and I know this might increase cost) is artist portrayals of the different classes. There is nothing I love more than to see a decked out character and say, "What the hell class is that?" and the owner of the art replies, "Oh that? That's a level one fighter." It always astounds me the diversity that D&D allows even with characters in the exact same character class (one of the reasons I am such a big fan of the Eberron source book art is that it gave me a completely new perspective on the way some of the races and character classes could look). A great example of this is the marvelous art on the cover of issue #288 of Dragon. Is that a fighter? Maybe. Probably a fighter, but you can't be sure because that woman doesn't look like a caricature of a "fighter class", she looks like an individual.
I agree with Joël and WaterdhavianFlapjack; I believe the Class Acts idea isn't a bad one per se, but running so many classes per month means running some substandard pieces.
Let's reduce Class Acts to 6 or 7 pages, accept that some classes won't run every month, and allow articles that merit it to run 2 or 3 pages. That way some Class Acts can get into more depth when needed, the editors won't feel obliged to run so-so pieces just to include all classes, and we can see a few extra smaller non-CA articles filter back into Dragon.
I guess great minds think alike Scylla. Sorry, I think you and me were writing at the same time.
I agree with hellacious huni on the topic of including other classes, like from the complete line of books in Class Acts. After a while, it gets boring to always here about the same classes month after month. Focus on a few, and everyone will be much happier.
WaterdhavianFlapjack
As some one who enjoys writing Class Act articles, let me ask all you folks a question. All the suggestions here are interesting - but they all revolve around editorial type decisions. What are some things writers can do to improve the articles? What are some ideas you'd like to see explored? What are some of the ideas you've liked so far, and why?
Hei,
The 'Class Acts' articles are pretty much a waste of space!
In 1 page they manage to be short, shallow, mainly useless and even broken!
I still haven't seen 335 yet so I can't comment on any specific articles. But on the topic of one page articles.
(get ready for something profound here :) )
Sometimes they work and sometimes they don't.
Of course whether you categorize an article as good (i.e. useful) or bad (i.e. not useful) depends to a great extent upon your own needs at the time and personal experience. Some of the 140+ CAs that have appeared in the last 13 issues have left me scratching my head, but lots of others have left my rubbing my hands and thinking about how I can put them to work in my own campaign.
The eleven pages given over the Class Acts are my favorite part of the magazine that actually deals with gaming (gotta confess, I read the comics first :) ).
Sure, if you put some or all of those pages back into the features pool you will get some meatier articles elsewhere. But whether or not you find them good (i.e. useful) or bad (i.e. not useful) will once again depend upon your own needs at the time and your personal experience.
Yes, reducing the pages allocated to CAs will make the Darwinian struggle amongst the articles a little bit fiercer. Meaning overall only the most fit will survive and in general the quality should rise. However, there will be a price to be paid for this.
With space for fewer articles the onus will be on making sure each one counts and reaches to broadest audience possible. That means some quirky, even oddball, articles that would have been acceptable with the one page format won't make the cut.
To use examples of what I mean from other industries.
It's the difference between HBO (Sopranos)and CBS (Survivor).
It's the difference between the giant bookstore on the edge of town that pretty much focuses on bestsellers and high volume magazines and the eccentric little used book store where you sometimes find a gem buried in the piles.
I'm drifting off topic here a little. My point, the one page format served a purpose, as a showcase for stuff that while interesting could not, should not, work for longer articles. Those 700 hundred words gave us a chance to play with ideas in a way that you simply can't when dealing with a 5000 word article.
Man, that's hard to pin down. Hmmmm. Well, I think that maybe the writers could... Okay, I have no idea. I'll look at some of my previous Dragons, and try to get some idea of what I want in Class Acts. Thanks for your open-mindness, Zherog.
WaterdhavianFlapjack
Thanks for asking Zherog,
I think that what would be great to see is some articles on alterior ways to play classes. For instance, I would like to see an article on the many ways to play a sorcerer (shunned wanderer, mop boy at a prestigious magic school, wilder, magician), the same could be done for any class. I know it's fluff but sometimes fluff goes down easier than crunch and it really helps my players find themself in their character, rather than just being a "sorcerer". I keep bringing up this point because I think it is the very lifeblood of what makes Class Acts necessary: a character class is only what you make it. A fighter is only as interesting and compelling as his look, history, attitude, fighting style, equipment, etc.
As for crunch, I think one of the greatest Class Acts of all time was the Knowstones article for the sorcerer, it did what all great crunch should do, it found one of the established rules of D&D (sorcerers don't get very many spells) and turned the rule on its head letting you do something that almost makes you feel like you are cheating.
Well, that's it for now, I see another thread in General Discussion called "What would make Class Acts Better", they're probably saying the exact same things right now.
By lack of imagination maybe I mean they can be repetitive sometimes. Issue 328 Class Acts has another 'good spells to know and cast' for The Ranger and exotic mounts for Barbarians, Issue 333 'good spells for a Paladin' and exotic mounts for Druids. Iss 335 we're back to 'good spells for a Cleric' again. Can I see an exotic mounts for Paladin's (or Rangers) article on the horizon or did I miss it?
Sometimes they're just recycling the same idea and slapping a different class on it.
As the writer of the druid article in #333 that you mentioned, I just want to jump in and say that some ideas may be touched upon a second time around in the Class Acts section, but that doesn’t make the articles any less useful. There are those of us that can’t get enough of things like “Tokens of Faith” or ideas on how to use spells more effectively, or whatever. With the mounted druid I didn’t go through past class acts looking for something that I could rehash; I went to the keyboard with an idea for a character type that I would like to play, a character type that I thought others might like to play as well. Class acts are about variation. They’re about shedding new light on stale and fading character themes. I think most of the articles in question succeed at doing this.
As the writer of the druid article in #333 that you mentioned, I just want to jump in and say that some ideas may be touched upon a second time around in the Class Acts section, but that doesn’t make the articles any less useful. There are those of us that can’t get enough of things like “Tokens of Faith” or ideas on how to use spells more effectively, or whatever. With the mounted druid I didn’t go through past class acts looking for something that I could rehash; I went to the keyboard with an idea for a character type that I would like to play, a character type that I thought others might like to play as well. Class acts are about variation. They’re about shedding new light on stale and fading character themes. I think most of the articles in question succeed at doing this.By lack of imagination maybe I mean they can be repetitive sometimes. Issue 328 Class Acts has another 'good spells to know and cast' for The Ranger and exotic mounts for Barbarians, Issue 333 'good spells for a Paladin' and exotic mounts for Druids. Iss 335 we're back to 'good spells for a Cleric' again. Can I see an exotic mounts for Paladin's (or Rangers) article on the horizon or did I miss it?
Sometimes they're just recycling the same idea and slapping a different class on it.
Exactly. Class Acts needs to be about showing you cool things you can do with the classes. Instead of saying "Oh, my character is a 10th level fighter with an attack bonus of +17 with his longsword", people should say "my character is a skilly swordsman, adept at turning aside his foes blades, wheather by blocking them, breaking them, or tossing them aside. Then, he goes for the killing blow.". Class Acts should be about character concepts, and things people want to do with their character, with the neccessary fluff and crunch to facilitate that concept.
WaterdhavianFlapjack
Sorry, sorry, sorry - please I don't mean to be rude about writers articles (d'oh I guess I didn't think the actual writers might be watching the message boards).
I appreciate each writer who excercises their talent and imagination each time they come up with material. Thank you.
I'm just not sure the Class Acts format is great. I want more than a single page.
Elliot,
No need to apologize! I’m not offended in the slightest, and I doubt too many of the other writers on the boards are either. I mean, you’re just expressing your personal views on the magazine! :)
Hellacious huni,
You're right -- I didn't see your (earlier) post when I wrote mine. I came home just now, saw your post before mine, and thought, man, this guy's going to think I ignored his post & wrote basically the same thoughts! Great minds do think alike!
I try to alternate background/roleplay-ey type articles and crunchier/rules articles when I write Class Acts. The "broken" Barbarian backgrounds is an example of the roleplay-heavy article with a small mechanical bonus (that, as Zherog pointed out, is an optional rule, not a broken one). Same with Tokens of Faith.
New equipment, like my "Knightly Effects" article is designed to appeal more to the crunch lovers.
No one article will please everyone, so I try to vary my style and content to appeal to a wide range of readers.
-Amber S.
The Barbarian Backgrounds was a perfect example of what I would like to see more of, variation. I don't know if that is one of the class acts you wrote, Medesha, but that was quite nice, even if some feel it was broken.
I look at rules this way, they're only broken if you let them break you. You have to be a DM, stand up to the rules, don't let them push you around! The rules are all, "Hey, kid! Where's my lunch money." And you're like, "Back up rules! I'm a big girl (or boy) now! No longer will I let you decapitate all my player characters or what not!"
LOL, excellent analogy!
Yes, the barbarian backgrounds were mine, as were the rogue backgrounds a few issues ago ("The Story So Far"). I believe our own Mike McArtor did the fighter backgrounds last year ("Battlegrounds to Backgrounds" - apologies to the writer if it wasn't Mike, but I'm pretty sure it was).
Glad you liked!
-Amber S.
No one article will please everyone, so I try to vary my style and content to appeal to a wide range of readers.
-Amber S.
What Amber (Hi, Amber!) neglected to add is that as contributors, we have no control over when the article runs. Even if a writer offers articles that take different approaches, it is an editorial decision as to whether a submission even runs, and if it does, where and when.
|
I've already made my arguments about Class Acts in another thread, (The Future of Dragon, iirc) but I'd like to say I agree with a number of other posters.
Class Acts should be changed. In the other thread, the paizo staff (Erik Mona) have indicated that they'll be tinkering with it.
Now, the first point I think everyone should realize is that there is a certain amount of overlap between classes. An article that is designed for druids could also be useful for Rangers. It can also be useful for Barbarians. The classes have certain aspects in common, right?
Now, in the current Class Acts format they "bill" the article as being for a single class. They shouldn't. If it is useful for a number of classes they should explain how. Giving an article 2-3 pages that is useful for Barbarians, Rangers and Druids is fine, and there is no reason to have something else for the included classes. So, articles that need more depth should get it (meaning a higher page count for some articles), but that means not every class gets an article devoted to it (at least officially).
I'd personally recommend reducing the total number of articles to 4. Two of them should focus on a brief idea probably useful for a core class. The third should be for a non-core class. The last should be a slightly longer version, sometimes useful for multiple classes.
Sometimes.
Anyways, I think that these changes are coming toward a consensus, and I'm sure that the staff will respond to that, making me very happy.
Sorry, sorry, sorry - please I don't mean to be rude about writers articles (d'oh I guess I didn't think the actual writers might be watching the message boards).
I appreciate each writer who excercises their talent and imagination each time they come up with material. Thank you.
I'm just not sure the Class Acts format is great. I want more than a single page.
I wasn't offended either and I didn't in any way consider your comments rude (you can keep the "polite" part of your name as far as I'm concerned :) ).
I've already said my piece re. why I think single page articles are sometimes useful so I won't repeat. But here's a thought expanding upon some of the posts I've read today:
Can folks list some of the CAs that have appeared that they actually liked?
(as opposed to gnawing on the ones they didn't like :) )
Off the top of my head I was quite taken with "Tokens of Faith", "Knowstones" and the one that offered up a bunch of new arrows (for rangers? Unfortunately the name/relevent class escapes me at the moment). I'm sure if I give it a moment or two others would come to me.
Maybe if we take a look at them we could find a common thread?
I also like to see the CA as (mostly) non mechanics expansion of the classes, i.e. more tuned to roleplaying.
Can folks list some of the CAs that have appeared that they actually liked?
Sure, I'll do it soon.
A suggestion from the backseat: perhaps the CAs could be less D&D generic once in a while? For ex, a druid article on a special area of FR? ("New feats from Evermeet", etc ?) of Eberron?
Old WotC settings could be revisited through the CAs once in a while too.
Of course, most of the articles should be generic, but let's say a third of them set in a particular setting would be cool, as we all like to read about our own prefered setting, as well as to keep in touch with other setting we know less.
Joël
Can folks list some of the CAs that have appeared that they actually liked?
Though I wasn't fully satisfied with the author's take on the Janissary, I thought that was a good one. I also liked the ones detailing other special abilities for rogues.
Getting caught up on some wonderful comments and ideas since I last saw the thread yesterday....
Thanks for your open-mindness, Zherog.
I actually once had a similar conversation with Mike McArtor about my willingness to accept criticism of my work. As both a writer and a "game designer," one of the best ways to improve my craft is to seek feedback. I understand that not everything I write and/or design will appeal to everybody. But if I wasn't open-minded about what others had to say, I'd miss the lessons in their comments. As long as folks aren't crass in their critique, I think there's always something to learn from it.
A lot of changes that have been suggested in this thread and the others are really interesting - but they're things the writers can't focus on. And that's fine. People should certainly voice their opinions to the editorial team as well. Just keep in mind that the writers work within the rules, so if when your criticism is about the structure of the articles, that's really outside the control of the writers.
By lack of imagination maybe I mean they can be repetitive sometimes.
...
Sometimes they're just recycling the same idea and slapping a different class on it.
I'm guilty of this, too, really. Sometimes you hit upon what seems like a wonderful idea, and one that could be applied to more than one class. The "good spells for a --insert class here--" is a good example of this, really. It's a very solid article for somebody who isn't familiar with the ins and outs of the spellcasting system. It can help somebody new better learn the game by pointing out some things that maybe they hadn't noticed before. Finally, it fits in well with both the class theme and the short word count.
I won't speak for the other writers, but I know there's times when I'm sitting here trying to find ideas to send to Mike that I'll look for one idea that can be applied to multiple classes/articles. The plus side to that is if Mike likes one idea, I'm likely to have a whole bunch of articles accepted. The minus side is the opposite - if Mike dislikes the original concept, then you get a whole slew of rejections. I've been on both sides of that.
-- lots of cool ideas --
* takes notes * :)
Exactly. Class Acts needs to be about showing you cool things you can do with the classes. Instead of saying "Oh, my character is a 10th level fighter with an attack bonus of +17 with his longsword", people should say "my character is a skilly swordsman, adept at turning aside his foes blades, wheather by blocking them, breaking them, or tossing them aside. Then, he goes for the killing blow.". Class Acts should be about character concepts, and things people want to do with their character, with the neccessary fluff and crunch to facilitate that concept.
Generally speaking, I agree. And there've been a lot of articles that have done just that - tokens of faith comes to mind; the recent series of fighter feats that rely on the Perform skills comes to mind. Amber's barbarian article does that. If I can be so bold as to pick my own articles, I think the Bardic Colleges do that. I think things that help players better define their characters are good; I think using the "stick and carrot" method that you see a lot in these articles ("if you take this background, you get this nice, juicy mechanical bonus...") works very well. It allows your articles to appeal to both the fluff and the crunch audiences.
Sorry, sorry, sorry - please I don't mean to be rude about writers articles (d'oh I guess I didn't think the actual writers might be watching the message boards).Like William C, you didn't offend me either. One of the really awesome things about this community is the inclusion of everybody - editors, writers, and readers. I think the message boards here have done a fair amount to make both magazines better for this reason. As a writer, I can see what the editors want, and I can see what the readers want. That's wonderful feedback.
Now, the first point I think everyone should realize is that there is a certain amount of overlap between classes. An article that is designed for druids could also be useful for Rangers. It can also be useful for Barbarians. The classes have certain aspects in common, right?*nods* Absolutely correct. Again, I won't speak for other writers, but at times I *intentionally* do this. As a prime example look at the "Animal Companion Gear" article I had in 334. When I submitted the article to Mike, it was intentionally left vague as to whether the article was for druids or rangers. Why? This gave Mike some flexibility as to where he could run it, depending upon his needs. That article, though, really works for animals that aren't even animal companions, though. There's no reason, for example, that a wizard with a hawk familiar couldn't buy "talon extenders" or why a rogue with a pet dog couldn't use a "climbing harness." That doesn't make the items less useful to a druid - it just makes the article have a wider audience than just druid players. I think that's a good thing.
Can folks list some of the CAs that have appeared that they actually liked?Other than the ones I wrote, you mean? :D Tokens of Faith comes to mind quickly. However, I've only had one cup of coffee so far this morning, so I think rather than mentioning anything else I'll simply say that I'll post more this evening, when I can quickly flip through some issues. There've been a lot that I liked, though - so I'll keep the list short.
Can folks list some of the CAs that have appeared that they actually liked?
I liked the ranger arrows one, the knowstones, the different types of "potions" was okay, and I defintely didn't like the "That Which Does Not Kill" articles. Frankly, those are the only ones that I can remember right now.
WaterdhavianFlapjack
Yee, lots of people liked my arrows apparently!
Besides the ones I wrote, I liked the bardic colleges, the article for using bardic music in lieu of speech for diplomacy checks, specialization for sorcerers, the fighter backgrounds, an article on using bard skills and knowledges (I liked that one because it had player advice too, like talking to the DM between sessions about what your bard learns), swarm familiars, and a bunch more I'd have to look up.
And I'll cop to being a wee bit pissed at seeing my beloved Class Acts maligned - broken barbarians indeed! - but I'm big enough to put my ego away and listen to some constructive criticism.
-Amber S.
Did a quick scan of some of the issues and kept notes of the CAs that leapt out of the pages to grab my eye. Not that I'm saying there's something wrong with the others, tomorrow it could be a totally different list. But here's some of my favorites for what it's worth.
-Gear for Greeners
-Specialist Familiars
-Peace Out
-From Background to Battleground
-Optional Ranger Combat Styles
-Tokens of Faith
-Swarm Familiars
-Flights of Fancy
-Trophy Hunting
-Knowstones
-Animal Accessories
-Gear for Greeners
-Specialist Familiars
-Peace Out
-From Background to Battleground
-Optional Ranger Combat Styles
-Tokens of Faith
-Swarm Familiars
-Flights of Fancy
-Trophy Hunting
-Knowstones
-Animal Accessories
Those were some good ones.
What issue had the different arrow types?
And can anyone clue me in on just what exactly a +2 arrow would do. I mean, I know what a +2 bow would do, but a +2 arrow?
Thanks.
Same thing as a +2 bow - a +2 enhancement bonus on attack rolls and damage. It doesn't stack with the bonus (if any) from the bow. Unless you're playing 3.0 instead of 3.5 - then they stack. ;)
Same thing as a +2 bow - a +2 enhancement bonus on attack rolls and damage. It doesn't stack with the bonus (if any) from the bow. Unless you're playing 3.0 instead of 3.5 - then they stack. ;)
Whoooaa! Just buy 1 +1 Vorpal, Flaming, Keen Arrow and use it with your normal bow on the boss monster. Say your norm bow is +3. Mwahahahahah!
WaterdhavianFlapjack
Sure. You'd be hitting with a +3 vorpal, flaming, keen arrow. That's quite expensive for one shot - especially since if you miss there's a 50% the arrow breaks. ;)
"Flights of Fancy" was the ranger class act from issue #330, by the way.
-Amber S.
Sure. You'd be hitting with a +3 vorpal, flaming, keen arrow. That's quite expensive for one shot - especially since if you miss there's a 50% the arrow breaks. ;)
Ahh. Well, maybe it isn't that unbalanced. I stand corrected.
WaterdhavianFlapjack
As some one who enjoys writing Class Act articles, let me ask all you folks a question. All the suggestions here are interesting - but they all revolve around editorial type decisions. What are some things writers can do to improve the articles? What are some ideas you'd like to see explored? What are some of the ideas you've liked so far, and why?
I posted this in the other Class Acts thread, but I thought I'd say it again here. I always appreciate articles that offer interesting and - most importantly - unique ways to play classes using the rules as they already exist.
For example: What combination of spells a wizard obsessed with the realm of shadow would use; the perfect combination of feats and skills necessary for a sword master who uses twin blades; etc.
As a perfect example, an author of a website dedicated to the drow developed all sorts of cool fighting styles based around feats from the PHB and the Forgotten Realms CS book. Just follow this link and click on "fighting styles."
I'm always up for some artwork. Using the class acts articles to showcase some artistic concepts might be a pretty interesting thing actually. A half page article describing a half page pic would be pretty cool IMO. Possibly include a statblock for the NPC as well. Heh, why not a fashion show showcasing the previous Class Act articles?
Hrm, favourite Class Acts:
Specialist familiars,
Gear for greeners,
Wild Monk
Storm Druid
Swarm Familiars
Archaic Weapons (despite some previous quibbles over damages)
Cultured Combatants
Knowstones
The Janisary (way cool)
and an article I have misplaced at the moment talking about Paladins and their place in the party- very, very good.
In all, I'd say there was about one class act per issue that I could see use for in my game. I figure that's not too bad all things considered. I'm pretty content actually.
Class Acts has been an awesome change in Dragon! I can't understand why anyone would waste time complaining about it.
In mostly every issue I've found at least a handful of really useful ideas from the Class Acts. Seriously, as long as they keep publishing Flaws, then I'm happy.
I agree with Flava, Class Acts have been one of the most helpful gaming tools I have used. It allows my players to create unique characters instead of your standard run of the mill PCs.
|
Contributor
|
What I'd like to see is some more depth instead of a 1 page blipvert.
Compare Chaos Monk from 335 to the Ariel Avenger from 319.
The Ariel Avenger article (it's a prestige class) has an exciting, inspirational picture, a bit of history to it and some nice class features.
The Chaos monk article has some nice rules but that's it, it's just rules. And a disclaimer: Beware, these rules may seriously alter your game. What I'd like to see is the background to Chaos monks, maybe their history, a typical character or the leader of their order.
That's what would instantly add flavour and atmosphere to my campaign (as the Ariel Avengers have already done), and that's what I'm looking from Dragon articles. I don't really need to add more rules.
I have to agree with you on that as well, and it was my article. I would have loved to provide more development.
However, that's not what the article was really about. It gave some down a dirty quick rules for playing a chaotic monk for the person that shows up wanting on friday night saying hey, I want to play a chaotic monk.There is another point many of you seem to be forgetting here. If your posting on this board, you probably play D&D a lot. You might even have played for years and are really good at.
Not everyone is, and the class acts articles make great stepping stones for new players. As a GM I thrive on new players, and over the years, I have taught dozens of people to play. Most of them don't want a ton of information shoved in their face immediately. Its intimidating and drives people off. A nice simple article suggesting someone take bless as a first level cleric, is cool for someone whose never played a 1st level cleric.
What I'd like to see is some more depth instead of a 1 page blipvert.
Compare Chaos Monk from 335 to the Ariel Avenger from 319.
The Ariel Avenger article (it's a prestige class) has an exciting, inspirational picture, a bit of history to it and some nice class features.
The Chaos monk article has some nice rules but that's it, it's just rules. And a disclaimer: Beware, these rules may seriously alter your game. What I'd like to see is the background to Chaos monks, maybe their history, a typical character or the leader of their order.
That's what would instantly add flavour and atmosphere to my campaign (as the Ariel Avengers have already done), and that's what I'm looking from Dragon articles. I don't really need to add more rules.
I have to agree with you on that as well, and it was my article. I would have loved to provide more development.
However, that's not what the article was really about. It gave some down a dirty quick rules for playing a chaotic monk for the person that shows up wanting on friday night saying hey, I want to play a chaotic monk.There is another point many of you seem to be forgetting here. If your posting on this board, you probably play D&D a lot. You might even have played for years and are really good at.
Not everyone is, and the class acts articles make great stepping stones for new players. As a GM I thrive on new players, and over the years, I have taught dozens of people to play. Most of them don't want a ton of information shoved in their face immediately. Its intimidating and drives people off. A nice simple article suggesting someone take bless as a first level cleric, is cool for someone whose never played a 1st level cleric.
Kudos on the Chaos Monk. It's really good, and something I might actually consider playing, if only for the interesting chaotic roleplaying oppurtunities. Or, maybe I could make a chaos monk street brawler...
WaterdhavianFlapjack
|
|
There is another point many of you seem to be forgetting here. If your posting on this board, you probably play D&D a lot. You might even have played for years and are really good at.
Not everyone is, and the class acts articles make great stepping stones for new players. As a GM I thrive on new players, and over the years, I have taught dozens of people to play. Most of them don't want a ton of information shoved in their face immediately. Its intimidating and drives people off. A nice simple article suggesting someone take bless as a first level cleric, is cool for someone whose never played a 1st level cleric.
11 pages of each month's magazine is too much to devote to "new" players that may or may not exist. More importantly, there is a constant supply of new players (or there should be), and the odds that the new player happened to acquire access to the particular issue of Dragon that covers useful spell lists for clerics at 1st level is unlikely to occur with regular enough frequency to make it a serious consideration. Instead, a longer article could include a condensed section for new players, meaning any player could use it, and a new player would be more likely to have a longer article "suggested" to them. For example, I have an easy time looking at my Dragon magazines and figuring out which feature article is in which. However, I have a terrible time guessing which ones include flaws, and I have no idea which flaws might be in which magazine.
The point is that while new players deserve consideration, they shouldn't be the only consideration. Experienced players are more likely to be regular purchasers of Dragon, and as such material should at least be generally useful to us.
Many of the Class Acts articles are good. Others have left me saying "duh!". Others, provide a good idea but don't do enough to explain how to do it the idea justice.
I think a great example is the idea of a mounted druid. That article presented an interesting idea (a monk that rides into battle). But, it didn't do much to explain how to make it work. One of the biggest problems is that druids are a feat poor class, and mounted combat is fairly feat intensive. Still, most of the benefit the class can provide are possible through the use of the ride skill. Still, a longer explanation about feat choices would have made that article much stronger.
The short article format can be good, but right now, the format is a straitjacket, and articles that need a longer format aren't getting it (unless they're converted to multi-part) and some classes aren't getting very good representation since they'll run anything whether it is good or not....
|
Contributor
|
Kudos on the Chaos Monk. It's really good, and something I might actually consider playing, if only for the interesting chaotic roleplaying oppurtunities. Or, maybe I could make a chaos monk street brawler...WaterdhavianFlapjack
Thanks, glad you liked it. I have a player who wanted to play a renegade githzeri with extensive brain-damage and totally bent on merging with Limbo rather than fighting against it. Anyway, that was the initial theory behind it. Though I made it so you could also just Drunken Master it.
|
Contributor
|
I hear ya,
Just to be clear on my end, I'm not saying that Dragon should cater specifically to new players (which it doesn't), and I don't think that's its selling point (or the selling point for Class Acts). Still, I'm ok with some of the more obvious Class Acts, because they aren't always obvious to new players.
I'm not usually a player, I generally DM so I look at the magazine as a source of readily available info I can throw at my players. I know I'm supposed to keep my copies in mint condition, but I bring them to games so those players that only own the PHB can have a few other options.And I do get a ton of new players with a wide demographic of education, age, culture, and sex.
I run three regular games.
One with 20 some odd players of all ages, sexes, races, and skill levels.One with 6 advanced players (pretty much all female)
One with my students, usually between 6 and 12 inner city kids between the ages of 11 and 14 (minorities of mixed sex).
So if an article doesn't hit me, it is often useful to someone else, and if that make them happy at my table... I consider it money well spent.
I have a player who wanted to play a renegade githzeri with extensive brain-damage and totally bent on merging with Limbo rather than fighting against it.
Cool. Might have to "borrow" that idea!
WaterdhavianFlapjack