Last month's Dragon had a Features article on an Insider-only race, the Revenant. I've always liked the idea of a revenant, a figure brought back from the dead for a sole purpose, driven to accomplish it. The novels that introduce the well-known drow Drizzt Do'urden have him chased by a revenant (his father? It has been years since I've read them), and the MMO Ultima Online had the revenant as a summonable creature that doggedly followed its target, outsmarting invisibility and teleportation.
Allowing players to play this race is definitely an interesting idea, though not likely a choice that is going to work for a casual campaign. While I'm sure DMs would be accommodating to a player that wanted to try it out for a lark, I think the whole concept of the revenant -- the back-from-the-dead, single-minded driven creature -- requires a campaign that has this idea interwoven into the plot, instead of just something that might come up once in a while.
I think the revenant would work well for a single-player campaign, providing a great hook into why the character adventures alone, and also providing the motivation to advance through the adventure (if you have problem players that like to (jokingly?) NOT follow the hints that the module provides.) The revenant can provide a basis for a single-session game, being brought back to take down this cult stronghold or that evil warren, and upon success or failure, returning to the afterlife from whence he or she came.
Of course, it works well for a whole party, too: a whole campaign could be based around some of the ideas hinted at in the article, with the party being pawns in the games of gods, or representing a party that, in service of one deity or another, was wiped out, and brought back as a favour to the deity for another try. In fact, the idea of bringing a group's party back from the dead after a Total Party Kill works well if you really wanted to see a campaign to the end. In fact, the 3.5 Ghostwalk sourcebook was useful for this, and was a backup plan that I had had for a few adventures in the past.
One of the interesting ideas of the revenant is that you choose a race that you were before, and gain benefits based on that race, most importantly, satisfying prerequisites that require the race. This applies most directly to most of the revenant feats, which specify both "revenant" and an additional race as the prereqs, such as the "Soul" feats which let you dabble back into lost racial powers, such as the Human Soul to get a +1 bonus to your defenses, or the Halfling Soul, to use your second chance power in an encounter instead of the dark reaping one that you get as a revenant. This can be especially useful if you are playing a previous character, returning for a second time around, and got used to certain racial abilities.
The racial Paragon and Epic Destiny paths are interesting, though I'm not sure the latter compares in "strength" to other epic destinies. The Paragon path touches on your pseudo-undead nature, and the Epic Destiny sure plays on the idea of "destiny", and "fate" and how your life, such as it is, has been reclaimed for yourself, allowing some interesting bonuses to saving throws.
I'd be curious to try this race out. As it stands, I don't see race mattering too much in the grand scheme of things - the initial racial traits, the occasional use of a racial ability, and the role-playing aspect of NPCs dealing with your character's race don't amount to that much compared to class selection and power choices. This is too bad, because one of the ideas in 4e was that race was going to matter a little more. In fact, if our current party was to switch to all revenants instead of two humans, a halfling, an elf, an eladrin and a dragonborn, I wonder how much we'd notice. I think the storyline reason for playing a revenant would be the most noticeable change.
Showing posts with label Dragon magazine. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Dragon magazine. Show all posts
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Insider Knowledge
I've talked before about how I don't really care for the fact that Dragon and Dungeon magazines are now all electronic, and that I no longer get a paper copy. This means that all of the articles go unread in a pile of bits instead of a pile of pulp.
But the news post from last Friday (see how far behind I am?) talks about how one of the articles in the lastest issue of Dragon has been re-issued. Of course, not having gotten to the previous article, I hadn't formed an opinion on it before, so was curious as to what the masses had found so wrong about it, as I certainly don't follow any of the forums where this might be discussed.
The article in question is on the Class Act: Ranger, which provides a variant path of powers for your ranger if they become a part of the Verdant Silence. The introduction text was changed a surprising amount, considering it's all flavour for this class path. Whether this was done because the Cordell had an opportunity to change things, or whether this was one of the focuses of complaint, I'm not sure; it still feels like it has the same idea; things like
"...is a furtive martial order that appears to safeguard natural forests and Feywild
crossings from corrupting influences."
to
"...is a furtive martial order that safeguards forests and Feywild crossings from corruption."
could have all sorts of things read into it, such as the "appears to" being omitted, the "natural" forests, and no longer "corrupting influences" but "corruption." Just a writer's fancy? Or were these all bones of contention with readers?
Even the flavour text in the Powers got modified, though the more interesting things are the Powers' effects themselves that changed. The Bending Branch exploit once gave a free basic attack, now just gives a bonus to the next attack. The Death Threat exploit got totally revamped, from dealing ongoing psychic damage to gaining combat advantage for a turn. Blood of the Fallen used to give you a +2 attack bonus by spending a healing surge; now it lets you regain hit points without spending a surge at all. And then others just had their wording changed to get rid of ambiguity, such as the confusion surrounding Confusion of Blades, which could be interpreted as 1[W]+Strength+1 for every adjacent enemy, instead of just the +1 for every adjacent enemy.
This kind of change would likely never have happened with a print version of Dragon - the only avenue for such a change would be through the magazine itself, in either an editor's note or a completely new article, wasting value space... and for that, the electronic version is definitely a boon. I do wonder, however, if the article might have been vetted better had it been going to print. I understand that the Sneak Peak articles are provided with every intention of the userbase to comment and help change the race, class or whatever, but this article is not presented as such, but as a published extension to a class. Are the writers and editors getting lazy with their new medium? Or is this just how the internet is changing publishing? We have the Compendium as a "live" source of the rules, in theory, so are the PDF articles now just introductions to new rules, with the final, current word always found online?
And will such a change to an article prompt the fanbois to be even more vocal about future articles, including all of the ones that aren't soliciting input? And will Wizards capitulate more readily? I hope not, and the wording of the news article definitely has the tone of apology, embarassment, and resolve to not have to make such changes in the future.
But the news post from last Friday (see how far behind I am?) talks about how one of the articles in the lastest issue of Dragon has been re-issued. Of course, not having gotten to the previous article, I hadn't formed an opinion on it before, so was curious as to what the masses had found so wrong about it, as I certainly don't follow any of the forums where this might be discussed.
The article in question is on the Class Act: Ranger, which provides a variant path of powers for your ranger if they become a part of the Verdant Silence. The introduction text was changed a surprising amount, considering it's all flavour for this class path. Whether this was done because the Cordell had an opportunity to change things, or whether this was one of the focuses of complaint, I'm not sure; it still feels like it has the same idea; things like
"...is a furtive martial order that appears to safeguard natural forests and Feywild
crossings from corrupting influences."
to
"...is a furtive martial order that safeguards forests and Feywild crossings from corruption."
could have all sorts of things read into it, such as the "appears to" being omitted, the "natural" forests, and no longer "corrupting influences" but "corruption." Just a writer's fancy? Or were these all bones of contention with readers?
Even the flavour text in the Powers got modified, though the more interesting things are the Powers' effects themselves that changed. The Bending Branch exploit once gave a free basic attack, now just gives a bonus to the next attack. The Death Threat exploit got totally revamped, from dealing ongoing psychic damage to gaining combat advantage for a turn. Blood of the Fallen used to give you a +2 attack bonus by spending a healing surge; now it lets you regain hit points without spending a surge at all. And then others just had their wording changed to get rid of ambiguity, such as the confusion surrounding Confusion of Blades, which could be interpreted as 1[W]+Strength+1 for every adjacent enemy, instead of just the +1 for every adjacent enemy.
This kind of change would likely never have happened with a print version of Dragon - the only avenue for such a change would be through the magazine itself, in either an editor's note or a completely new article, wasting value space... and for that, the electronic version is definitely a boon. I do wonder, however, if the article might have been vetted better had it been going to print. I understand that the Sneak Peak articles are provided with every intention of the userbase to comment and help change the race, class or whatever, but this article is not presented as such, but as a published extension to a class. Are the writers and editors getting lazy with their new medium? Or is this just how the internet is changing publishing? We have the Compendium as a "live" source of the rules, in theory, so are the PDF articles now just introductions to new rules, with the final, current word always found online?
And will such a change to an article prompt the fanbois to be even more vocal about future articles, including all of the ones that aren't soliciting input? And will Wizards capitulate more readily? I hope not, and the wording of the news article definitely has the tone of apology, embarassment, and resolve to not have to make such changes in the future.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Insider treats you like an outsider
I recently hinted towards my dislike for the way that the D&D Insider handles their authentication. The problem is that logging in only seems to last a short time, perhaps 15 minutes? 30 minutes?
I'm not sure, because I tend to browse Insider throughout the course of a day (yes, I'm bad, I read it while I'm at work). Every Monday, Wednesday and Friday, when there is new Insider content, I pop up every new article in a new tab in my browser, so they are then available for reading and for adding to wizardslinks. If these articles require Insider access to read, as most do, then each of these popped-up tabs only gives a preview; I then have to log in in one tab, and refresh the other.
Okay, that's fine, but I don't read these pages right away... they can stay in their tabs for hours, days, weeks (I currently have 13 of them open as "to-do" tabs). If I've already loaded the article, then it doesn't matter if Insider has logged me out, of course -- it's now in the tab, and I can read it fine. But if the article was a link to a PDF, and I haven't opened the PDF soon enough after popping up the article, then my attempt to open the PDF fails because I've since been logged out.
This happens all the time. ALL the time, because, as I said, I don't read these articles immediately. The webpage that comes up, instead of the PDF, helpfully tells me that I have to log in. But, even if I do so on that page, the URL is for the "hey, you need to log in" message, so now I'm logged in, but getting that message. Back button, etc., etc. and I can finally get my PDF. This is the headache I've lived with for months -- ever since Insider subscriptions were required for most of the articles.
And now, the Compendium gives me the same problem. I can go to the Insider Compendium page, log in, and pop up the Compendium window. What I cannot do, however, is hope to come back in 30 minutes and use that window, because my session will have logged out. Worse, as I mentioned in the last post, the authentication screen that is offered in that Compendium window doesn't successfully log me in -- it just keeps helpfully telling me that I need to log in, probably in a similar manner to the PDF problem mentioned above.
So now I have to close the Compendium window, go back to the Insider Compendium page (which I've wisely left open in another tab), hit refresh to get a login area (because that page unhelpfully claims that I'm logged in.) I then have to log in again (oh, and if you mistype your password, it just quietly redisplays the login section again, with no little "sorry, that username/password don't match" message or anything), and once I've logged in, I can re-launch the Compendium window. All this, because I wanted to look up the wording on some feat that I'm discussing with Griff. And I'm going to go through it all again in a few minutes, when he asks about a certain power or class.
The reason behind this short login session is clear; they want to ensure that the reader is really the paying customer, that I cannot go to Griff's place, log into Insider, and leave him with access until he reboots. Fine, I can accept that. But if you have to have a timed logout, make it longer. Make it 24 hours. Better yet, don't have a timed logout, but instead let me keep my session open on this browser for as long as I like. If I go home, fine, make me log in there, and log out my other session. I'll understand. But if I logged into this machine, and I access it again, you're being overzealous in assuming that I might no longer be the subscriber. If I choose to go to Griff's and log in as me, and let him play with Insider, then I've screwed myself from using it when I get home. THIS IS NO DIFFERENT FROM BUYING A BOOK. Granted, books have an inherent permissibility to be shared, and my Insider account does not. But those hours that my account is logged in at Griff's could very well be me using them, too, and assuming it isn't is offensive.
Perhaps your (and Wizards') response will be "then use your book". And I used to, bringing my PHB to work (don't worry, they already know I'm a geek) when I think I'll need it. But that's not a viable defense for Dragon and Dungeon magazine, not anymore. My only access to those is through my subscription, and I'm being prevented from reading these by these authentication issues.
This may be Dungeons & Dragons, but that doesn't mean that your authentication system needs to be draconian.
I'm not sure, because I tend to browse Insider throughout the course of a day (yes, I'm bad, I read it while I'm at work). Every Monday, Wednesday and Friday, when there is new Insider content, I pop up every new article in a new tab in my browser, so they are then available for reading and for adding to wizardslinks. If these articles require Insider access to read, as most do, then each of these popped-up tabs only gives a preview; I then have to log in in one tab, and refresh the other.
Okay, that's fine, but I don't read these pages right away... they can stay in their tabs for hours, days, weeks (I currently have 13 of them open as "to-do" tabs). If I've already loaded the article, then it doesn't matter if Insider has logged me out, of course -- it's now in the tab, and I can read it fine. But if the article was a link to a PDF, and I haven't opened the PDF soon enough after popping up the article, then my attempt to open the PDF fails because I've since been logged out.
This happens all the time. ALL the time, because, as I said, I don't read these articles immediately. The webpage that comes up, instead of the PDF, helpfully tells me that I have to log in. But, even if I do so on that page, the URL is for the "hey, you need to log in" message, so now I'm logged in, but getting that message. Back button, etc., etc. and I can finally get my PDF. This is the headache I've lived with for months -- ever since Insider subscriptions were required for most of the articles.
And now, the Compendium gives me the same problem. I can go to the Insider Compendium page, log in, and pop up the Compendium window. What I cannot do, however, is hope to come back in 30 minutes and use that window, because my session will have logged out. Worse, as I mentioned in the last post, the authentication screen that is offered in that Compendium window doesn't successfully log me in -- it just keeps helpfully telling me that I need to log in, probably in a similar manner to the PDF problem mentioned above.
So now I have to close the Compendium window, go back to the Insider Compendium page (which I've wisely left open in another tab), hit refresh to get a login area (because that page unhelpfully claims that I'm logged in.) I then have to log in again (oh, and if you mistype your password, it just quietly redisplays the login section again, with no little "sorry, that username/password don't match" message or anything), and once I've logged in, I can re-launch the Compendium window. All this, because I wanted to look up the wording on some feat that I'm discussing with Griff. And I'm going to go through it all again in a few minutes, when he asks about a certain power or class.
The reason behind this short login session is clear; they want to ensure that the reader is really the paying customer, that I cannot go to Griff's place, log into Insider, and leave him with access until he reboots. Fine, I can accept that. But if you have to have a timed logout, make it longer. Make it 24 hours. Better yet, don't have a timed logout, but instead let me keep my session open on this browser for as long as I like. If I go home, fine, make me log in there, and log out my other session. I'll understand. But if I logged into this machine, and I access it again, you're being overzealous in assuming that I might no longer be the subscriber. If I choose to go to Griff's and log in as me, and let him play with Insider, then I've screwed myself from using it when I get home. THIS IS NO DIFFERENT FROM BUYING A BOOK. Granted, books have an inherent permissibility to be shared, and my Insider account does not. But those hours that my account is logged in at Griff's could very well be me using them, too, and assuming it isn't is offensive.
Perhaps your (and Wizards') response will be "then use your book". And I used to, bringing my PHB to work (don't worry, they already know I'm a geek) when I think I'll need it. But that's not a viable defense for Dragon and Dungeon magazine, not anymore. My only access to those is through my subscription, and I'm being prevented from reading these by these authentication issues.
This may be Dungeons & Dragons, but that doesn't mean that your authentication system needs to be draconian.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Not-so-Portable Document Format
It has been a bit quiet around here, because of time crunches (September heralds in a new semester), illness (children are germ factories) and a missed weekend of play. But with all of that, I should be able to comment on all of the good, new material coming out out Dragon magazine, right?
Yes, if I had time to read all of the tantalizing articles, but I find I've barely been able to keep up with the wizardlinks indexes. Still, it got me thinking about the fact that I've read very few of the articles that have appeared in Dragon since the magazine went online.
The problem, in a nutshell, is that I prefer to read away from the computer, in my armchair or in bed. Sure, I read my general RSS feeds online and that keeps me informed, and lead to the occasional full article being read on-screen. I read digital books for work purposes, when a hardcopy isn't at hand. But when I have spare time to read (and I do try to make that time), I realize that I'm reading OTHER content -- Scientific American, Wired, National Geographic, Dr. Dobbs -- instead of any D&D material. Dragon and Dungeon magazines used to be part of that pile of magazines, but no longer.
Do I need to train myself to read at the computer, to decide that "those magazines" are part of my regular circulation? That's difficult, as I usually go to read when I'm tired of sitting in front of the computer. Should I read them as they appear? That's also difficult, as I'm generally at work when the RSS feed informs me of a new article, and I make time to update my index and to pop the PDF up in a new tab -- but I don't have the time at work to sit there and read it, even if that tab sits open for a week or more (until my browser crashes or the machine gets rebooted).
Do I print it out? Possible, I suppose, though I don't know that I'd enjoy the printer-paper version nearly as much as I used to enjoy the glossy magazines. Also, do I just print out individual articles as they appear? Or do I wait until the whole issue is compiled into a single PDF, giving me one complete issue, but making me wait until the end of the month before I get a chance to comment on it?
Of course, at this rate, I'm not commenting on any of it, as I'm never getting to it.
I had mixed feelings about the move to online content before, and I still do. I like that the new content is going to be added to the Compendium, though that's not really something that the online version enables -- it could have been done with a paper issue as well. But I see how the push to a full digital layout drives this setup.
Perhaps the solution is a tablet PC.
Anyhow, I'm going to try to be more diligent in reading this material. If I succeed, don't be surprised if I post about material from a few months ago...
Yes, if I had time to read all of the tantalizing articles, but I find I've barely been able to keep up with the wizardlinks indexes. Still, it got me thinking about the fact that I've read very few of the articles that have appeared in Dragon since the magazine went online.
The problem, in a nutshell, is that I prefer to read away from the computer, in my armchair or in bed. Sure, I read my general RSS feeds online and that keeps me informed, and lead to the occasional full article being read on-screen. I read digital books for work purposes, when a hardcopy isn't at hand. But when I have spare time to read (and I do try to make that time), I realize that I'm reading OTHER content -- Scientific American, Wired, National Geographic, Dr. Dobbs -- instead of any D&D material. Dragon and Dungeon magazines used to be part of that pile of magazines, but no longer.
Do I need to train myself to read at the computer, to decide that "those magazines" are part of my regular circulation? That's difficult, as I usually go to read when I'm tired of sitting in front of the computer. Should I read them as they appear? That's also difficult, as I'm generally at work when the RSS feed informs me of a new article, and I make time to update my index and to pop the PDF up in a new tab -- but I don't have the time at work to sit there and read it, even if that tab sits open for a week or more (until my browser crashes or the machine gets rebooted).
Do I print it out? Possible, I suppose, though I don't know that I'd enjoy the printer-paper version nearly as much as I used to enjoy the glossy magazines. Also, do I just print out individual articles as they appear? Or do I wait until the whole issue is compiled into a single PDF, giving me one complete issue, but making me wait until the end of the month before I get a chance to comment on it?
Of course, at this rate, I'm not commenting on any of it, as I'm never getting to it.
I had mixed feelings about the move to online content before, and I still do. I like that the new content is going to be added to the Compendium, though that's not really something that the online version enables -- it could have been done with a paper issue as well. But I see how the push to a full digital layout drives this setup.
Perhaps the solution is a tablet PC.
Anyhow, I'm going to try to be more diligent in reading this material. If I succeed, don't be surprised if I post about material from a few months ago...
Thursday, August 7, 2008
Inside the Insider
The latest news from D&D Insider is about the content planned for it, how it's coming along, and how much it's going to cost us.
The online version of Dragon and Dungeon magazines have been discussed here before, and organization aside, the content is very good. That alone is why I will pay for D&D Insider.
The D&D Compendium is a nice bonus. With more keywords in the game design, being able to search for all of a type of power will be very handy. And not having to bring my books to work will also be convenient. Having a way to bookmark certain searches would be handy ("find all cleric powers"), and for that matter, having it just behave as a regular webpage instead of a little popup window of Javascript obfuscation. I like the fact that the Dragon and Dungeon content will be added to it as well. I would, however, like it to be working right now, instead of the "SERVER ERROR - Datastore unavailable A request to the datastore failed or was denied. We apologize for the inconvenience." I just got.
The little bonus tools are things that you can find a dime-a-dozen around the net, but I suppose it's handy to have them all in one place. The mention of a monster-building tool, however, got my attention. Let's see how they manage that.
The Character Builder, along with the Character Visualizer, are their current focus, and I'm keen to see how they turn out. I've worked on various systems for doing this, and if theirs can do the job, I can scratch one time-consumer from my list. Oh, and I suppose it'll be handy to use, too. The Visualizer sounds like a novelty unless you're using the Game Table, but I guess it might help some to immerse in the game if they have a picture of their character.
They mention that the Dungeon Builder is almost done. They then mention that it's not very useful without the Game Table, even though Buehler starts the article saying that it "allows you to construct maps to play with either on the kitchen table or ... Game Table". Let me construct them for the kitchen table then! Don't make me wait for the Game Table, which I won't use...
...and that's the last item on their list. Don't get me wrong, I'm curious to see how they do it, because I'm planning on creating something similar with the Metaplace platform. But unless we can convince our one ex-pat in Chicago to play online, we won't have any use for the Game Table in our group.
And then there's the price. This is their current pricing list:
Web-Content Only Subscription Package:
12 Months = $59.40 ($4.95 per month)
3 Months = $19.95 ($6.65 per month)
1 Month = $7.95 ($7.95 per month)
Note that this is the Web-Content Only package - it's for access to Dragon, Dungeon, the Compendium and the bonus tools. Since the magazines are my main reason to pay, I think $5 per month is reasonable for two magazines, even if I don't get a glossy copy. As for how much they might charge once the rest is available, we shall see if it's worth it. I do hope that they maintain two sets of subscriptions, though: one for the content as above, and another to get the whole thing. And if they price it right, they might get the suckers who don't really want the rest of it to buy it anyway, just in case. Suckers like me.
The online version of Dragon and Dungeon magazines have been discussed here before, and organization aside, the content is very good. That alone is why I will pay for D&D Insider.
The D&D Compendium is a nice bonus. With more keywords in the game design, being able to search for all of a type of power will be very handy. And not having to bring my books to work will also be convenient. Having a way to bookmark certain searches would be handy ("find all cleric powers"), and for that matter, having it just behave as a regular webpage instead of a little popup window of Javascript obfuscation. I like the fact that the Dragon and Dungeon content will be added to it as well. I would, however, like it to be working right now, instead of the "SERVER ERROR - Datastore unavailable A request to the datastore failed or was denied. We apologize for the inconvenience." I just got.
The little bonus tools are things that you can find a dime-a-dozen around the net, but I suppose it's handy to have them all in one place. The mention of a monster-building tool, however, got my attention. Let's see how they manage that.
The Character Builder, along with the Character Visualizer, are their current focus, and I'm keen to see how they turn out. I've worked on various systems for doing this, and if theirs can do the job, I can scratch one time-consumer from my list. Oh, and I suppose it'll be handy to use, too. The Visualizer sounds like a novelty unless you're using the Game Table, but I guess it might help some to immerse in the game if they have a picture of their character.
They mention that the Dungeon Builder is almost done. They then mention that it's not very useful without the Game Table, even though Buehler starts the article saying that it "allows you to construct maps to play with either on the kitchen table or ... Game Table". Let me construct them for the kitchen table then! Don't make me wait for the Game Table, which I won't use...
...and that's the last item on their list. Don't get me wrong, I'm curious to see how they do it, because I'm planning on creating something similar with the Metaplace platform. But unless we can convince our one ex-pat in Chicago to play online, we won't have any use for the Game Table in our group.
And then there's the price. This is their current pricing list:
Web-Content Only Subscription Package:
12 Months = $59.40 ($4.95 per month)
3 Months = $19.95 ($6.65 per month)
1 Month = $7.95 ($7.95 per month)
Note that this is the Web-Content Only package - it's for access to Dragon, Dungeon, the Compendium and the bonus tools. Since the magazines are my main reason to pay, I think $5 per month is reasonable for two magazines, even if I don't get a glossy copy. As for how much they might charge once the rest is available, we shall see if it's worth it. I do hope that they maintain two sets of subscriptions, though: one for the content as above, and another to get the whole thing. And if they price it right, they might get the suckers who don't really want the rest of it to buy it anyway, just in case. Suckers like me.
Thursday, July 3, 2008
New content? Only if you try really hard!
Okay, I thought I could keep my ranting about Dragon magazine to one post, but it was getting pretty bad with me commenting on my own post.
To recap those comments: yay, a full PDF of issue #364. Boo that the table of contents isn't clickable. And hey, guess what? There's an article in there that I had no idea about!
Now, I suppose I'm the one that could be blamed for this oversight, since there's a page maintained for each issue, such as this one. And I could always go there daily, and scroll through and make sure I haven't missed a new article, or perhaps just read them all again each day, just to be sure.
Why don't I just look at the Dragon features archive list, which my software reads to update wizardslinks? Because the article isn't there!
Why don't I subscribe to the RSS feed? Oh, I do, I do -- that's how I keep abreast of everything. So I thought. Because the article isn't there!
Which article am I talking about? How about Class Acts: Wizard. It's an article I would have loved to know about back on, you know, JUNE SIXTEENTH, when it was apparently posted.
There's the once-in-a-while feeling I get that maybe I'm too hard on Wizards and their online presence, whenever I'm updating wizardslinks, that maybe their stuff isn't that hard to find after all. But then...
Tell me, did any of you also miss this article? Or a better question would be: did anyone actually see it?
To recap those comments: yay, a full PDF of issue #364. Boo that the table of contents isn't clickable. And hey, guess what? There's an article in there that I had no idea about!
Now, I suppose I'm the one that could be blamed for this oversight, since there's a page maintained for each issue, such as this one. And I could always go there daily, and scroll through and make sure I haven't missed a new article, or perhaps just read them all again each day, just to be sure.
Why don't I just look at the Dragon features archive list, which my software reads to update wizardslinks? Because the article isn't there!
Why don't I subscribe to the RSS feed? Oh, I do, I do -- that's how I keep abreast of everything. So I thought. Because the article isn't there!
Which article am I talking about? How about Class Acts: Wizard. It's an article I would have loved to know about back on, you know, JUNE SIXTEENTH, when it was apparently posted.
There's the once-in-a-while feeling I get that maybe I'm too hard on Wizards and their online presence, whenever I'm updating wizardslinks, that maybe their stuff isn't that hard to find after all. But then...
Tell me, did any of you also miss this article? Or a better question would be: did anyone actually see it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
