6 iron spikes

(Dragon #79)

What’s it about?

The article starts by saying good play relies on common sense, cooperation and prioritizing the party's survival.

The core advice is strong: have the right balance of classes, prioritize defensive spells like dispel magic over offensive ones like fireball, and set clear objectives for each expedition. If you don't have an objective your goal is to scout, gather info and avoid fights. Lew stresses the importance of gathering intel—whether from rumors, sages, or reconnaissance—and tracking party items to ensure they’re used effectively, especially if others forget about them.

He discusses the power of large parties, advocating for bolstering numbers with hirelings and henchmen. However, the article loses momentum when addressing things like dealing with evil player betrayals, and overthinking camp security. Advice about concentrating fire feels incorrect, particularly with AD&D’s random target rules.

The reminder to cut your losses and run is good advice for new players, as is the warning to leave enough resources to handle wandering monsters on the way out.

The latter half of the article falters, offering questionable spell strategies and unnecessary tactics, like post-adventure doppelganger hunting. Lew’s final note—"play the referee"— feels off-putting. While he doesn’t endorse it, his advice not to give up until you’re dead and gone, based on the observation that most DMs fudge under pressure, feels ‘wrong’ despite its truth.

Any new insights?

• The advice to treat scouting and information gathering as goals when no clear objective exists.
• Tracking party magic items to maximize their utility.
• Numbers as a force multiplier underscores the value of hirelings and henchmen.

Should I share this with my players? 

Yes, the first half contains practical advice. If ruthlessly edited, it would make the “best of” list. As it stands, it’s close.

(White Dwarf #12)

Lew explores creative uses for equipment, revisiting ideas he later expanded on in Dragon magazine. Was the original better?

What’s it about?

This article focuses on practical equipment ideas with rules and prices for the items discussed. Lew provides costs for silver plating weapons and explains their use, which is genuinely helpful. He also covers niche topics like bronze weapons for dealing with rust monsters, fire arrows (arrows wrapped in oiled rags), and blessing weapons for encounters with rakshasa. 

There are creative ideas like a hollow wooden tube for breathing underwater. While ideas like the bracketed droppable torch, the odd doorstop design, the clever two dead rats (to befriend or distract monsters), and the fake dust of choking are later reused in his Dragon article.

Lew ends by advising DMs to not let players get away with too much on the item front and warns that abuses of the powerful flaming oil bomb and poison should be responded to in kind by the monsters. Lew knows there are abusable parts of the game and encourages you to de-escalate them with the players before they ruin the fun.

Any new insights?

• The inclusion of costs and gameable rules for items, such as silver-plated weapons, are appreciated.

Should I share this with my players? 

I think so. It’s got some of his ‘best’ equipment ideas and doesn’t push the envelope like his Dragon article. It's a short article that's more hits than misses. Even so, it's not making it to my “best of” list.

 

(Dragon #69)

Lew returns with out-of-the-box thinking on equipment. Engaging with the game as a game is good practice but does he push things too far?

What’s it about?

Lew suggests metal oil flasks to avoid breakage, manacles instead of rope for prisoners, and other items to solve specific problems. While creative, much is over explained. 

He spends too much time preventing potion breakage—something I rarely require rolls for unless falling into a pit or failing a fireball save. Ideas like screwing two 5’ poles into a 10’ pole or making torch protectors feel excessive/overthinking. A wine sack as a squirt gun? Not for me.

I’d allow deploying fake ‘dust of choking’ to deter pursuit from a suitably intelligent foe. Other stand out ideas: offering dead rats to dungeon monsters or carrying flawed gems as fake trinkets for barter.

Any new insights?

• Dead rats as bait or offerings.
• Fake trinkets like flawed gems for trading in the dungeon.

Should I share this with my players? 

No. While there are some good ideas, the advice is overexplained and geared toward outsmarting and winning arguments with adversarial DMs—a style I don’t endorse. Not a “best of” article.

(White Dwarf #50)

Jim Bambra, co-writer of The Enemy Within for WFRP (a campaign I loved running), explores clerics in AD&D. But is his advice worth sharing with cleric players?

What’s it about?

Jim argues that parties need clerics—something I agree with—and notes that no one wants to play them. While this hasn’t been my experience with veteran players, new players might not see the value right away.

He advocates being a protagonist for their religion. I’d like to see my players do this more often. Jim also reminds us of the historical tie between religion and society, mentioning festivals, births, and deaths.

While Jim acknowledges clerics' inspiration from medieval religious orders like templars, I think their Hammer Horror vampire-hunter origins are equally relevant. He rejects the ‘meek cleric’ stereotype, reminding us that they are warriors—at level 1, they’re as effective in combat as fighters, with maces dealing the same damage as longswords.

I appreciate his suggestion that playing a high wisdom character means following the advice in the PHB (p. 107) on successful adventures.

He highlights the importance of divinations like augury, find traps, and detect evil. However, his advice on vetting party alignment is less relevant in games that don't delve into PvP. Finally, he suggests clerics recruit henchmen from their church's acolytes, offering notes that largely follow standard henchman acquisition rules.

Any new insights?

• The value of divinations is worth revisiting.
• Religion's historical tie to society is a helpful reminder for worldbuilding, especially for those like me who aren’t personally religious.

Should I share this with my players? 

The article presents clerics as proactive champions of their faith and warriors for their cause, rejecting the role of support characters. It’s worth sharing with players, though it doesn’t make the “best of” list.

(White Dwarf #29)

Some players enjoy small races, and games like Tunnels & Trolls and the classic Wizardry series offer fairies to scratch that itch. Brownies provide a similar appeal without introducing flying PCs at level 1.

What does a brownie get?

• Class Options. Fighters (to 5th), Magic-User (to 13th) and Thief (U) and multiclass options (f/m, m/t and f/t). Thief multi-class  are restricted to thief armour and weapons.
• Magic Resistant. Constitution-based, like dwarves.
• Surprise Advantage. 3-in-6 surprise chance with no conditions opens brownies up to being the party scout though the lack of infravision kind of spoils it. 1-in-8 chance of not getting surprised is amazing. Who needs a ranger?
• Directional Sense. 50% chance to determine direction underground.
• Dodgy. -4 penalty to big creatures’ attack rolls, similar to dwarves.
• Attribute Modifiers. -2 to STR but +1 DEX and CON.
• Thief Bonuses. Racial bonuses align with key 'sneaky' thief skills, similar to halflings, but with a standout +20% to hide in shadows. With a potential 19 DEX, starting thief skills are exceptional.

The Downside

• Too Small. At 1.5 feet tall, Brownies struggle with equipment. Magic armor won’t fit, and daggers are likely their largest viable weapons. The MM mentions brownies using short swords so I guess that's OK?
• Weak fighters. A level cap of 5, -2 STR (max 16), and limited weapon options make Brownie fighters awful.

Why add the race? 

For players who love small verging on tiny characters, Brownies are a good option. They excel as Thieves, Magic-Users, or a multiclass of the two, offering high magic resistance and exceptional thief abilities. Their racial advantages make them the best single class Magic-User race available. Power creep and a race catering to a minority of players does not get you onto the 'best of' list. Also their pic in the Monster Manual is not great.

(White Dwarf #35 republished in Flipping and Turning #4)

Lew Pulsipher’s Necromancer is a standout class article, alongside his iconic My Life as a Werebear. While not inherently party-friendly, it could work in a group of neutral characters... sort of ... maybe...? Themes of degeneration, isolation and paranoia are woven throughout.

What does a Necromancer get?

• Control Undead. Communicate with all undead and turn them as an evil priest. A "D" result means permanent control. Friendly undead can also be permanently controlled with a turn check, but rolling a 1 causes them to attack the necromancer. Control HD = 10 × level.
• Undead Immunity. Immune to special powers of undead with fewer HD than the necromancer.
• Infravision at level 2.
• Fast leveling. Uses the cleric XP chart and hp.
• Necromantic Abilities. Instead of spells, you gain thematic abilities usable at will. These include Animate Dead and Speak with Dead at lower levels, escalating to draining hp and adding to your own with every hit and summoning spectres by level 10. Additional abilities are detailed in White Dwarf #36.

The Downside

• Universal Hatred. Lose 1 CHA point per level starting at level 2. At 0 CHA, your presence unnerves people so deeply you’re barred from towns.
• No Healing. Healing requires sacrificing humans or demi-humans, restoring half the victim's hp to the necromancer. This is where the party stops playing with you.
• Regular Sacrifices. Devotion to the god of death demands escalating sacrifices. By level 9, you must sacrifice a pregnant woman annually. Yeah... about that....

Why add the class? 

As an NPC, perfect. As a player character it starts manageable but degenerates into an evil that I struggle with, even keeping the worst stuff 'off screen'. Still I admire what Lew has done here. It's the perfectly crafted vile necromancer and it's making the ‘best of’ list.

(Dragon #56)

The original bard from Appendix II required high attributes and a delayed start—players had to work through 10+ levels of other classes, making it rare. This rewrite eases requirements, lets you start as a bard, opens the class to elves, and caps halflings and dwarves(?!) at level 5. But is it any good?

What does a Bard get?

• Decent saves. Cleric saves, but weaker against poison and similar effects.
• Spells. Gains druid spells at level 2 and illusionist spells at level 4.  Restricted spell lists but nothing too limiting. Spell acquisition is slower than the Appendix II class making the spells they do get feel like flavour, not focus.
• Charm. A 40-foot radius charm person effect with a low success rate. Unreliable and negated by loud noise, making combat use unlikely. If successful, it allows for a suggestion follow-up.
• Inspiration. +1 to hit for your friends in combat after the first round. Handy.

The Downside

• A worse fighter. Hit as a fighter but lacks multiple attacks, is restricted to leather armor, starts with one weapon proficiency, and has d6 hp. Poor AC encourages sticking to missile weapons.
• Unreliable Charm. The chance of success doesn’t exceed 50% until level 11 (750,000 XP). For a signature ability, that’s bad.
• Lore is Pointless. Identifies only intelligent or legendary items.
• Read Languages. Rarely impacts gameplay.

Why add the class? 

The bard already exists in AD&D as envisioned by Gygax, and this revision makes it playable from level 1. This rewrite is underpowered. For reliable charm effects, play a magic-user. If you want to add decent combat ability, multi-class or dual-class into a fighter. This bard is a jack of all trades but bad at all of them. I’d rather play the Appendix II version.

(White Dwarf #28)

Roger E. Moore offers a partial nod to dwarf players lamenting their lack of clerics. The war smith, open to dwarves, gnomes, and humans, is a hammer loving fighter with limited spellcasting abilities.

What does a War Smith get?

• Forge armour and weapons. War smiths can craft gear, though the rules (DMG p.29) are vague. A fair ruling might require half the item’s cost in raw materials. This ability is only useful before play or at low levels and with DM buy in.
• Lords of the Hammer. +1 to hit with warhammers for every four levels.
• Spells. Starting at level 5, war smiths can cast from a limited spell list. The spells are underwhelming, but there’s potential for creating custom spells.

The Downside

• Slower Leveling. Requires 2,250 XP for level 2. To gain the 10% XP bonus, you need STR, WIS, and CON at 16—an unlikely trio.
• Weak Spell List. Spells start at level 5 and include options like Protection from Fire or Detect Magic. The highlight might be Heat Metal at level 7, which isn’t saying much. Even then you're unlikely to cast Heat Metal because...
• Spellcast in leather. Spellcasting requires leather armor. By level 5, you’re likely equipped with superior metal magic armor, forcing you to switch gear. This favors long-duration spells so you can cast and put your armour on. This makes the list of viable spells pitiful. The intent seems to be to cast spells while under the effect of the War Smith's new Armour spell but that will give you an AC worse than you'd have in level appropriate gear.

Why add the class? 

Another super niche class that I think has appeal to the dwarf that wants to worship the god of the forge. And that's it. Fighters are better. The war smith doesn’t make the ‘best of’ list.

(White Dwarf #23)

A thematic magic-user variant with access to druid spells, 26 unique spells, and the ability to command elementals. You start with an extra spell at level 1. While flavorful, it’s hard to see why you’d pick this over a standard M-U.

What does an Elementalist get?

• Level 2 Spell at Level 1. Starts with a level 2 spell (likely a typo)—there's another clear error in the spell table. Given their spell list, this isn't game-breaking.
• Elemental Resistances. +2 to saves vs fire, water, air and earth attacks.
• Elemental Awareness. Detects unsafe walls, ceilings, floors, and gas within 60’. This might include pit traps, making it more useful than it seems.
• Better Elementals. When you reach level 9 your conjured elementals will have at least 5 HP per HD.
• Elemental Influence. 10% chance per level to banish elementals. You get a 10% per level > 5th level to befriend an elemental for an hour. You can telepathically talk to any elemental within 40’.
• Sage Abilities. Gain sage-like knowledge on elemental topics every other level.
• Thematic new spells. A well-curated and thematic list, including spells that mimic magic items like Gaseous Form or Alchemy (similar to an alchemical jug). Nothing overpowered.

The Downside

• Slower Leveling. Requires 3,000 XP for level 2, though the extra starting spell offsets this. Spell progression matches M-U’s from level 3 onward.
• Weaker Spell List. Thematic but less versatile. Lacks staples like Web, Slow, Dimension Door, or Teleport. Some spells are weaker versions of M-U spells, like a less effective Sleep.

Why add the class? 

M-Us offer unparalleled versatility—disabling enemies (Web), becoming invisible, picking locks (Knock), or teleporting globally. The Elementalist sacrifices this flexibility for the ability to boss elementals around.

While flavorful, the class fills a narrow niche. M-U’s do it better. It doesn’t make the ‘best of’ list.

(Dragon #73)

By popular demand Roger Moore finishes what Gygax started. Is this power creep? Half-ogres can gain unlimited fighter levels, level 4 as clerics, and can multi-class. Unfortunately, Moore’s article is full of filler.

What does a Half-Ogre get?

• Height and Weight. Makes for a better grappler than the lizardman. Should dominate against humanoid opponents.
• High STR. Half-ogres have a 2-in-6 chance of rolling an 18 STR. Fighters get a +25% bonus to their exceptional STR roll. Getting mature either by roll or multi-classing gives a +1 STR bump making an 18 even more likely. However, Moore’s rolling method feels unsatisfactory. A multi-class half-orc using 4d6dL will get you to 18 more reliably.
• More hp. Half-ogres start with 2 hit dice at level 1, giving fighter half-ogres a significant durability advantage.

The Downside

• Large Size Damage. Half-ogres take damage as a large creature, but most foes won’t wield weapons designed to exploit this.
• Spell failure. With a WIS cap of 12, half-ogre clerics have a 5% spell failure chance, the failure chance increases with lower WIS scores.
• Average Armour Class.  Finding appropriately sized magic armor is impossible. Coupled with a DEX cap of 12, their AC remains average, particularly at higher levels.
• No one likes you. CHA cap of 8 and all races (except half-orcs and humans) hate you.

Why add the race? 

In a mini-campaign I ran years ago, two players chose half-ogre fighter/clerics. At low levels, they were powerhouses, boasting high hit points, exceptional Strength, and cleric spells. However, we stopped before the characters reached higher levels where things might have evened out and the cleric cap would have hurt. Half-ogres are fine if only one is allowed in the party and someone really wants to play a ‘big’ race. On reflection, though, half-orcs fill this role better, making half-ogres redundant.