6 iron spikes

Roger Moore brings life to the Monster Manual Berserker, turning it into a playable class. There’s not much here to be honest and it probably won't make the cut. The Barbarian from WD #4 & #12 feels more fleshed out. The article introduces a berserker cleric which suffers the same downsides as the berserker only worse - losing their ability to cast spells while berserking.

What does the Berserker get?

• HP: d8+2, more dependable hp than a regular fighter.
• Battle Lust: Grants either an extra attack per round or +2 to hit. The extra attack seems like the obvious choice. Battle Lust also makes you immune to mind-affecting powers, reminiscent of the Baldur’s Gate Berserker. I have sunk far too many hours into that game. This suggests that Roger influenced the immunity to mind-affecting powers that was part of the 2e kit, and arguably the Barbarian class from 3e onwards.
• Improved weapon throwing: While in Battle Lust, you can throw weapons at double the normal rate. Throwing 4 daggers a round with a high strength could cause serious damage. Range penalties will matter here.

The Downside 

• Rubbish AC. Restricted to leather armor and shields, with no magical options. Expect to be hit often.
• Battle Lust. Forces you to fight to the death unless continued combat is obviously futile (e.g., fighting gargoyles with non-magical weapons). This removes tactical options for both the player and the party.

Why add the class? 

If you want a faithful adaptation of the Monster Manual Berserker, this class is it. It’s a very simple class and while the extra attacks are strong, the lack of armor and inability to retreat makes this class unplayable.

I think Roger Moore has a good grasp of the game and his articles tend to reflect this. I’ve included this class in my “articles worth salvaging” list because a jaded player of mine wanted to give them a go. White Dwarf classes were intended to be played where Dragon magazine took seriously their claim that these were NPC classes only. Unfortunately, the Jester skews heavily NPC.

What does the Jester get?

• HP & Saves: same as a thief
• Climb sheer surfaces: starts at 75%.
• Pick pockets: as a thief two levels lower, means it wont see use, not that this skill gets used often even by characters that are good at it.
• Insults: Lower enemy morale by 10%. A neat sounding ability that has marginal use.
• Catch thrown objects: starts at a high 81% chance but seldom comes into play.
• Ventriloquism at will: limited to 10 feet, but its unlimited use invites creative and potentially class-defining shenanigans.
• Fast leveling: 1100 xp for level 2. On par with the XP requirements of a thief with dex 16 so not broken.
• Spells: sparse, joke themed selection only starting at level 2.

The Downside

It’s a thief subclass. I’d argue the strongest ability the thief brings is trap detection (as a dwarf or gnome) and scouting (as an elf or halfling). The Jester does neither of these.

I’ve seen the class in play, and it’s just OK. Ventriloquism and fast leveling stand out as its main features. However, fast leveling comes with the drawback of high training costs, leaving the party broke. Overall, I’d prefer to play a thief.

Lew’s series is aimed at beginners. Is it good advice, and does it offer something for veteran DMs?

What’s it about?

Lew points out the DM sets the game’s tone and outlines styles on a spectrum: simulation, wargame, absurd, and novel. He advises players to seek a different DM if their style doesn’t suit them.

He dismisses simulationists, arguing D&D is fundamentally a wargame. Absurd elements, creatures like “spelling bees”, are fine in moderation. Most games fall between wargame and absurd.

Lew criticizes the novel style, where the DM narrates a story, since players become passive participants—though it may suit passive groups. Players tend to prefer frequent combat with occasional puzzles to keep things varied.

He stresses balancing risk and reward. His low-risk/reward approach, where veteran players rarely lose characters and level after 10 adventures, feels too slow for me. Lew claims the game isn’t built for 10th+ level play, becoming too complicated, but works best from levels 3-6, the old “sweet spot.” I think 10+ level play is viable.

The DM’s job, Lew argues, is to provide many meaningful choices, allowing skilled players to improve their odds of survival. He advises DMs to be neutral judges, not "gods" demanding the players entertain them, and to avoid attachment to creations, as they’re meant to be defeated. Finally, he encourages DMs to stick to their chosen style once they've worked it out.

Anything insightful?

• Most games blend wargame and absurd—sounds like my game.
• Players favor combat over puzzles.
• Work out your risk / reward ratio.
• Focus on giving players many meaningful choices.

Is this a keeper?  

Yes - Lew gets it. His points on risk/reward, player choice, and the DM as a neutral judge are essential lessons. Rejecting novel play, avoiding excess simulation, and reining in absurdity is good advice. This joins the ‘best of’.

Dragon #78 is the psionic issue and in this article Arthur Collins outlines psionics and their mechanics.

What’s it about?

Arthur explains that psionics originate from the mind, unlike magic, which draws power from the multiverse. He highlights the randomness of psionics—their availability, level, and chance of acquisition—justifying their placement in the appendix. He controversially allows all characters, regardless of race, a chance at psionics.

Mechanics are detailed, starting with Attack and Defense strength. When powers cost points, they are evenly deducted from Attack and Defense, even splitting into half-points if needed. If one is depleted, the other compensates, requiring extra bookkeeping.

Defense modes cost points per round or until a psionic attack occurs. Collins redefines "level of mastery" from the PHB unworkable version to: "The level of mastery equals the number of experience levels the character has gained while possessing the discipline, starting at the level when it was first acquired."

In psionic combat, either side can trance, allowing attacks every segment. Non-trance psionics can perform other actions but are limited to defense modes only. Trancing is like spellcasting—no move or attack, and ongoing powers are disrupted if damaged. A trancing psionic can use a defense mode and either a power or an attack mode. Against non-psionics, psionics act like spells, resolving alongside missile fire. To streamline gameplay, Arthur suggests dividing psionic combat into five segments at the start and end of the round instead of going segment by segment.

Anything insightful?

• How to deduct power costs from Attack and Defence.
• Workable definition of “level of mastery”.
• Guidance for psionic combat.

Should I share this with my players? 

Only if they have psionic characters. This article clarifies psionics and for that makes the ‘best of’ list.

Roger wraps up his exploration of PHB races with half-orcs, focusing on orc society and how half-orcs fit in. This approach makes this article already more useful than his piece on half-elves.

What’s it about?

Orcs are social Darwinists, where only the strong and clever thrive. They must survive in harsh environments, forcing the weak into servitude or eliminating them to preserve resources. Friendship and love are seen as weaknesses to exploit.  Orcs are made this way by their gods. Orc tribes eternally war with other tribes for food and territory. 

Orc women are relegated to childbearing and maintaining the cave, which feels uninspired. Orcs live entirely in the present, with no concern for the future. Half-orcs often excel in orc bands, using their intelligence to rise to leadership positions. 

The article also touches on orc religion, their relationships with other humanoids, and their enmity with elves—rooted in their oppositional natures (short life vs. long life, short-term vs. long-term views). Personally, Corellon shooting out Gruumsh’s eye feels like a more compelling basis for their grudge, especially given the active role orc gods play in the lives of their tribes.

Anything insightful?

• The "survival of the fittest" and short-term mindset make orcs distinct from other PHB races.
• Smart half-orcs as the leader of orc bands is a good idea.

Should I share this with my players?  

Yes. Approaching half-orcs through an orcish lens makes for compelling characters. This is making the ‘best of’ list.

Roger Moore explores elves, straying further than usual from Tolkien-inspired depictions. Again he tries to blend the PHB, MM and DMG rules into the elven story with mixed results.

What’s it about?

Elves are defined by their 1,600-year lifespan, witnessing civilizations rise and fall. Time is irrelevant to them—there’s no need to rush. They accept death as a natural part of life and are unfazed by the mortality of others. 

The article stumbles when it tries to rationalize game mechanics into the world, like linking a ghoul’s paralysis to fear of death and contrasting that with elves’ lack of such fear - hence their immunity. However, it does highlight their cautious nature, shaped by their long lives and the inability to be raised from the dead. To counter boredom that comes with their long age, elves embrace a frivolous, chaotic demeanor that aligns with their broad alignment.

Moore abandons Tolkien further when discussing elven leadership. Elves follow leaders only if they respect their knowledge in a specific area, resulting in disorganized governance. Elven kings or queens might exist but likely as powerless figureheads. The article also describes their unique "sleep," and notes that Corellon, their creator god, is seen by some as male and others female—possibly the origin of the androgynous elf trope.

Anything insightful?

• Building an entire cultural perspective around elves’ long lifespans is smart.
• The chaotic government/leadership feels unique and alignment appropriate.
• Could this be the origin of the androgynous elf trope?

Should I share this with my players? 

Yes. Like other “point of view” articles, it fills gaps left by the PHB. It’s on the ‘best of’ list. Plus, the Errol Otus art is amazing!

***

The half-elven point of view article in this same issue is a miss for me. Its brief (one page), as half-elves take their cues from either the human or elf society they are raised in, they have none of their own. The society stuff is the heart of the other articles and its absence hurts. There's nothing here to help my players get a feel for what makes half-elves distinct.

Roger Moore credits Master of Middle Earth as a source for fleshing out the races in his "Point of View" articles. Are his halflings just hobbits?

What’s it about?

Roger weaves rules into lore while exploring halfling society. Fun fact: they’re called halflings because they’re half the size of humans. With a favorable racial reaction table, they get along with everyone, which explains their survival in a harsh world—they have strong allies. If you know the Shire, you’ll recognize much of the halfling lore: peaceful farmers with the occasional misfit adventurer, often thieves due to their natural stealth. 

However, Roger struggles to reconcile the idyllic Shire-like halflings with their game mechanics as woodland stealth snipers. The "take no prisoners" 1–4 surprise rules and +3 to hit with bows & slings feel at odds with their community-minded, pastoral lifestyle. 

Anything insightful?

• More justification for halflings’ +3 to hit with bows and slings.
• Halflings struggle to take prisoners because they’re too short to subdue them properly.

Should I share this with my players? 

Yes. This article, along with the dwarf article and probably the other "Point of View" pieces, belongs on the "best of" list. They provide missing context to players and supplement the PHB’s sparse race descriptions. While Moore leans more toward Tolkien than Gygax might prefer, it’s no secret Tolkien heavily inspired the core races and the game itself.

Roger Moore delves into dwarven psychology and society, though much of it will feel familiar if you know The Lord of the Rings or D&D lore.

What’s it saying?

Roger explores dwarven life so you can better get in their heads. He explains that two-thirds of dwarves are male, and most don’t marry. Dwarves have a strong work ethic and find happiness in their labor. Marriage ends adventuring careers, as it’s seen as abandoning family duties. Surplus males often turn to adventuring or war, likened to “going Viking.” 

Dwarf society is portrayed as suspicious, materialistic, and fiercely protective of wealth, killing pickpockets. They are vengeful and hold grudges. The god Moradin, father of the dwarfs, forged them from the earth which is why they feel an affinity to being underground. Roger also describes funeral rites and weaves scattered rules from the PHB, MM, and DMG into cohesive lore.

Anything insightful?

• The male-to-female ratio as a plausible reason for dwarves to take up the axe and go adventuring.

Should I share this with my players? 

Yes. It consolidates the bits of dwarf lore scattered in the rules and could help bring the Lawful Good dwarven mindset to the table. While not groundbreaking, it’s an enjoyable read, though not quite worthy of the “best of” list edit: I changed my mind - this article supplements the PHB race descriptions perfectly and belongs on the 'best of' list.

The fourth entry in Lew’s series explores Fighters and Thieves. Without the distraction of spells, I hoped for practical advice—and Lew delivers.

What’s it about?

Lew grimly notes fighters are often casualties. He envisions a 12-person party with five fighters: 2-3 up front (preferably dwarves) and bow-wielders behind them. Elf fighters are described as rare, and the strongest low-level fighters pointed out as multi-classed. He recommends proficiency in swords (for better odds of finding magic ones), bows, and military picks for armor penetration. His advice is practical: avoid reckless fights, engage when the odds are in your favor, and maximize party's attacks while minimizing foes - solid tactics like spear ranks and fighting in corridors. Lew has a few words about the monk but mislabels them as a fighter subclasses - I find them to be thieves for much of the game.

For thieves, Lew stresses their poor combat ability and advises beginners to choose demi-human thieves for the skill points and infravision—essential for scouting the dark. He warns against party theft and highlights useful roles: invisible scouts, magic-user eliminators via a back-stab, and trap specialists, emphasizing positioning when tackling traps. He recommends avoiding over-reliance on Move Silent or Hide in Shadows and suggests securing invisibility early on. His weapon recommendations (longsword and daggers or darts) are practical. Sadly, assassins receive only a brief mention with no advice.

Anything insightful?

• Dwarves leading with bow-users behind.
• Fight only when the odds favor you and maximizing attacks while minimizing the enemies.
• Practical weapon picks for both classes.

Should I share this with my players? 

Yes. The focused advice on Fighters and Thieves is ideal for beginners and a solid refresher for veterans. This article earns a spot on the “best of” list.

Lew combines the Weapon vs. AC charts with attack matrices to create a streamlined weapon table for each weapon.

What’s it about?

This idea addresses a common issue: many players avoid using Weapon vs. AC tables because they’re cumbersome and slow play. The dauntingly large tables often feel like more trouble than they’re worth. Lew’s solution simplifies this by letting you use your standard THAC0 for unarmored monsters and referencing his weapon handout for armored foes.

However, there are errors: the battle axe vs. AC 3 is incorrect, as is the footman’s military pick. Lew decides to stagger the non-fighter classes, grouping them in a way that doesn’t align with AD&D attack matrices. I get why he staggered them (to smooth attack progression) but its a deviation from the DMG. I'm puzzled as to why he didn't stagger the fighter levels, particularly as the DMG suggests it as an option. This gave me a reason to create my own version that closely follows the rules as written.

Anything insightful?

A clever, simple way to integrate Weapon vs. AC. There’s no excuse not to use it now.

Should I share this with my players? 

Yes. I even created my own Arms at the Ready sheets, adding a THAC0 entry for unarmored monsters and including details like damage, speed, length, weight, space required, and cost. I also adjusted the class lines to align with AD&D combat matrices. This is a clever idea that improves the game and deserve a spot on the "best of" list.

***

I decided to make my own Arms at the Ready sheets and include THACO (for when you are attacking monsters without armour) as well as adding in the rest of the weapon details (damage, SF, cost, enc., length, RoF etc). Should be everything you need, at least for the most commonly used weapons. Let me know if you spot any errors or if you find these useful.