An Introduction to Dungeons & Dragons: Part II Dungeon Mastering Styles

(White Dwarf #24)

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’.

Psionics is different . . . And that’s putting it rather mildly

(Dragon #78)

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.

Half-Orcs

(Dragon #62)

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.

The elven point of view

(Dragon #60)

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 halfling point of view

(Dragon #59)

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.

The dwarven point of view

(Dragon #58)

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.

An introduction to Dungeons & Dragons - Part IV: Fighters and Thieves

(White Dwarf #26)

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.

Arms at the Ready

(White Dwarf #31 & #33)

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.

Stop, Thief!!

(White Dwarf #45)

This short article by Marcus L. Rowland unpacks the thief's toolkit.

What’s it about?

Marcus examines each item in the kit, discussing its weight, size, and potential use as an improvised weapon. He assigns the entire toolkit a weight of 12.4 lbs, filling a gap in AD&D rules, and categorizes specialized tools based on their use, such as burglary tools like crowbars and trap detection tools like hand drills.

The article offers some rules for having the right tool; it increases the thief skill by a d10%. In his example a noisy floor (-5% to move silent) is negated by a thief wearing oversocks (the thief in the example rolling >5 on his d10). Simple and useful enough for players to make the effort while not overpowered. Marcus mentions rolling 00 on a check involving tools indicates a tool breaks, imposing a -5% on future checks until the tool is replaced. 

Anything insightful?

• Thieves' tools are finally given weight - 12.4 lb!
• Useful if you want to get granular.
• Rules for handling the perfect tool for the job.

Should I share this with my players? 

Yes. Initially, the rules for the perfect tool felt confusing as I think they are poorly explained, but it 'clicked' on a second read. They give substance to thieves tools and are simple to implement. The article is concise, fleshes out the thief and deserves a place on the ‘best of’ list.

Underestimating Druids (is a bad practice)

(Dragon #119)

Carl Sargent, co-author of The Enemy Within, explores Druids in AD&D. Is his advice worth sharing?

What’s it about?

Druids are often overlooked, seen as weaker clerics, with their strict Neutral alignment a dealbreaker for some. Carl counters this by highlighting their fast advancement, more spells and faster spell progression, and utility as backup fighters with spells like animal friendship and speak with animals. The lack of healing spells is overcome upon reaching 2nd level. They are better healers than clerics gaining cure serious wounds at 20k xp instead of 55k for clerics. 

Carl advises taking speak with animals and animal friendship early to recruit a war dog—good advice I’ve followed. He explains a reliable level 1 spell load: detect poison, detect snares and pits, faerie fire, and speak with animals. For level 2, he highlights and explains heat metal, slow poison, and charm person or mammal as standouts. Druids gain key spells much earlier than clerics: neutralize poison at 4k XP compared to 55k XP for clerics.

At level 3, Carl emphasizes the power of recruiting stronger animals like bears or lions, which can overshadow fighters. He provides thoughts on the cyclical nature of 'balance' to help work around the strict alignment restriction and justify the adventuring druid.  Finally, he highlights the druid’s high Charisma and its uses.

Any new insights?

• Druids fight - vicariously through pets, outperforming fighters from level 1 with war dogs and level 3 with bears.
• You hit those key spells faster than clerics and can heal just fine if you can make it to level 2.

Should I share this with my players? 

Yes. This is a clear, practical, well explained 'how to play a druid' guide written by someone who has clearly done so with success. It inspired me to give one a go. This makes the ‘best of’ list.

Bandits!

(Dragon #63)

Roger E. Moore and Thomas Armstrong bring us a fighter-thief hybrid with plenty of outdoors skills, available to humans, half-orcs and half-elves. Being useful outdoors is great but does the Bandit pull its weight underground?

What does a bandit get?

• Fighter Subclass. All the fighter goodies including multiple attacks. Limited to chainmail and medium weapons (no polearms or two-handed swords).
• Surprise = Best Scout. 4-in-6 chance to surprise enemies and only a 1-in-6 chance to be surprised—making them exceptional party scouts. This is their standout feature. Elves and halflings also have a 4-in-6 surprise chance but must sneak 90 feet ahead of the group and wear light armor to do so. Bandits have no restrictions on their surprise chance.
• Climbing. Can climb walls like a thief of equal level, though heavier armor imposes penalties (best check Thieves Table II in UA).

The Downside

• Outdoor skills. Abilities like hiding, trapfinding, tracking, and covering tracks are limited to outdoor use. While tracking and covering tracks have decent success rates, the others are unreliable at early levels and rarely useful in dungeon-focused games.

Why add the class? 

Even in dungeon-heavy campaigns, the Bandit excels as a scout. They will surprise your foe and prevent your group being ambushed. They are hardy enough to handle frontline combat just fine. Does the game need a sneakier, less durable, but easier-to-qualify ranger without alignment restrictions? Maybe. For now, it tentatively earns a spot on the "best of" list.

And now, the psionicist

(Dragon #78)

I’m one of the rare fans of psionics. In my current game, there’s a psionic ranger who didn’t hit the magic 100 attack power needed to psionically blast normals—a shame. The odds of being psionic and having enough power to regularly impact the game are slim. However, this class guarantees a psionic character and a chance to explore the subsystem.

What does a Psionicist get?

• Odd HP. Starts with a d10 for hit dice, decreasing to d4 by level 7. This feels like a gimmick—just use d6 throughout.
• Psionic Blast. Your psionic power points increase as you level. By level 5, you’ll likely have enough power points to mind blast normals.
• More Psionic Powers. Begin with a minor discipline, gaining additional minor, major, and even grand disciplines (at level 11) as you advance.
• Repeatable Spells. Disciplines act as reusable spells fueled by the psionicists' substantial pool of power points.
• Expanded Disciplines. Well-designed, scalable, and fun without feeling broken.

The Downside

• Can't fight & Easy to Hit. No armor or shields leaves you as vulnerable as a magic-user.
• Unclear Discipline Acquisition. The process for acquiring starting and leveling-up disciplines is not adequately described. It seems you randomly get your initial discipline but can choose new ones from level 2 onward.
• Clunky Psionic Combat. As written, psionic combat each segment is unplayable. A single combat round at the top of the turn, as suggested by Huso, is more practical. That said, psionic combat is so rare it might never come up.

Why add the class? 
The psionicist captures the 1970s zeitgeist of psionics and provides a way to fully engage with the psionics system. Be sure to read the psionics-focused Sage Advice from the same issue—it clears up much of psionics messiness. The psionicist makes the ‘best of’ list.

The Necromancer

(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.