Dragon 417 Compilation

14 posts / 0 new
Last post
D&D Insider ArticleDragon 417
Compilation

By Stan!, Alana Joli Abbott, Keith Baker, Ed Greenwood, Derek Guder, Sterling Hershey, Rodney Thompson, Steve Townshend


As you noticed last month (and as Chris Perkins discussed in October’sDungeon editorial), we’ve made a change in the way the magazines are being presented. Rather than having Dragon and Dungeon articles appear individually on the D&D website, we’re experimenting with presenting them as a pair of compiled, single-PDF issues.

Talk about this magazine here.


Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

Four-Sided Caltrops are very problematic. 30 gp is of almost no cost at all to even the lowest level adventurers, but the ability to use a minor to create an encounter lasting zone that applies a save ends effect?

Yes, Slow isn't that crazy powerful of an effect, but the caltrops should need to make an attack of some kind given how inexpensive they are.
i can see what you are saying but as always its up to the dm what to allow in the game, or if magic items can even be bought and sold in the first place. i personally have a 'no duplicate items' rule in all my games, even one shots, to prevent consumable spam. i had to ever since one guy had like 12 power jewels. i personally like these dice; i want that 8 sider!
I like the dice too. But i agree the Four-Sided Caltrops may be a little too cheap a little too good.

Also thumbs up for the What's Coming Next page showing Dragon 418's Table of Content 

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

The Sword of Spells


Clarification of (5) abilities sought:


“The sword targets wizards and sorcerers.  If they avoid two of its attempted attacks or deal it enough damage, it ceases attacking them and flies on.”


a.  What is the sword’s Level, Ability Scores, Standard Attack and Defenses?

b.  Fluff says it has targeted warlocks [unintentionally perhaps?] Will it also target other users of Arcane Power the same way?

c.  Does it hate creatures with elemental origins or keywords?  [The sword did kill over sixty genasi in a few days!]  Surprised


"A small portion of the damage remains with the victim permanently."


d.  Like what “lose a permanent Healing Surge”?


"The sword deals the standard damage that a non-magic longsword would cause if thrust into a foe with a warrior’s shrewd guiding strength (and intent to kill)."


e.  Would this be an automatic critical hit?  [Hey, it is after all the warrior’s shrewdly guided hit that Is intended to kill their foe.]  Innocent

Again I'll ask...

Are we going to get a breakout of articles for forum postings?  Or will we have to read through tons of irrelevant material to find a post?

though the forum re-org was an overall positive thing, they should have left the mag article discussion forums alone.
Wow! I thought the article on Succubi was very good, with the rituals, story hooks, info for both players and DMs alike. Thumbs up!
Mad Scientist
I like the dice too. But i agree the Four-Sided Caltrops may be a little too cheap a little too good.

Also thumbs up for the What's Coming Next page showing Dragon 418's Table of Content 



I just hope that's not the only thing on next month's dragon magazine...i didn't found anything useful on this month's dragon, thought the succubi article was a fun read...wish in my opinion shouldn't be on dragon magazine, it should be on dungeon...I always saw dungeon as the DM focused magazine, dragon as the player focused...thought since the last year...if they didn't include those articles, dragon magazine would be 4 pages long...or less
I don't have a subscription (and I probably should rectify that at some point) but one of my players does, and while I can't comment on anything else in the issue since I only read the 'History Check: The Blood War', that one was really well done. Sterling did a really nice job on it.

Given the continuity disconnect in the lore on the topic between 1e/2e/3.x and 4e on the topic, it did a rather nice job including the history of the Blood War in both and not making either stick out as odd or ill-fitting. Bravo. Well researched with some of the Planescape references from Hellbound and elsewhere, and I approve of the baernaloth mention (in their original context even!), and I likewise approve of calling the yugoloths exactly that.

I hope it's a sign of design focus moving forward (allowing references to pre-4e material in their original context). That's seriously awesome
Shemeska the Marauder, Freelancer 5 / Yugoloth 10
I agree with Shemeska.  It was absolutely fantatsic to read about the Blood War and the links to the 2e Blood War boxed set.

But I'm confused...

It was stated when 4e was released that they were removing (or downplaying) the bloodwar because it represented needless symmetry, which was something they were trying to avoid. 

A similar fate happened to Yugoloths, they were retconned into Demons, as opposed to their own race.  Does that mean that the Mezzoloth and Mezzodemon are different entities? Or are the creatures formerly known as Mezzodemons now back as a seperate race of fiends?

In my own opinion, it seems a bit strange to go to all the effort of removing what was termed 'unnecessary symmetry', only to re-introduce it later.  They could have just kept it in the first place.

Is the above due to a new set of designers?  Or, as Shemeska has said, is it a sign of forward moving design focus.

I know I wish the latter!  More 2e references and 3e too for that matter are most welcome! 
I very much liked these two in edition 417 : History Check: The Blood War and Fallen Angels: The Ecology of the Succubus. Thanks a lot ! Thumbs up !
I very much liked these two in edition 417 : History Check: The Blood War and Fallen Angels: The Ecology of the Succubus. Thanks a lot ! Thumbs up !



I agree 100%, both of these articles are real standouts from the last few months. Very good stuff. Now quickly bring us the updated Tarrasque so I can slaughter my epic campaign PC's. They're getting too full  of the themselves and need to be brought down a few notches. Wink