Search results

I am not sure what the difference between those would be, besides maybe the inclusion of pre-gens.

Well, sure, if your "modules" are all campaign length adventure. But that is actually a selling point for high level adventures: players that want to keep playing those characters can.

Huh. This is not my experience at all. I think it is more common for the GM to pick a module that fits the campaign in play, based mostly on the level of the PCs.

One note: while I really like having the Open Lock DC right there on the map, the circled number kept making me look for a legend or room list. I wonder if you could use a different shape -- a lock shape even. Or if it is a Force Open (Strength) check, a door shape? Just a weird thought.

Watch for whiplash! That's quite the genre shift.

You could do a West Marches that way pretty easily.

I think typically in linear campaigns, milestones are level ups between chapters. But you can do a sandbox with XP milestones for specific accomplishments.

They are integrated into the setting and are a fundamental part of it. That is why they are in the Eberron core book. Right. Dragonborn and Tieflings were not PHB races when Eberron was created. That is literally the whole point of the discussion.

Having a "homeland" is not the only way to "accommodate and integrate" them into the setting. Shifters, for example, are deeply integrated into Eberron, as are changelings. Both the kalashtar and the warforged have homelands.

It depends on your goal. I agree that if "telling a story" is the goal, then counting XP is not really the right tool for that job. I mean, a "story" as such always emerges from play, but only in retrospect when doing things like dungeon crawling for loot, etc. But if things like set piece...

Your interpretation that it is punishment for "stupid" decisions is what is off. I did not mean to imply that at all. In the theoretical scenario, the players decided to do a thing in the world, and the world reacts. That is neither stupidity nor punishment.

I am not sure how that leads to the idea of punitive viking hat GMing, but okay.

That is a strange interpretation of what I said.

I love stuff like this. Not only does it show that the players are invested in the game, it gives me all kinds of opportunities to bring on the wandering monsters and rival adventuring groups. So you are going to make a hell of a racket and spend a week clearing out the copper piping? Cool. In...

Or it is a way of simply not actually integrating Goliaths into the setting. These FR books gave WotC an opportunity to make FR a fully current D&D setting snd it sounds like they squandered it. So not only do you not have a new setting, you don't have an old setting that actually reflects D&D...

Between this thread and the high level adventure thread i started, I want to make some stuff happen just to prove it can be done.

I guess that is one of the inherent benefits of xp for gold or other concrete, non-combat rewards. If it is worthwhile for players to farm random encounters for xp, they will.

See, in those situations, the juice isn't (or shouldn't be) worth the squeeze. You spend all this time and energy and (most importantly) noise shooting bats and all you have done is gain 7 XP and given me multiple encounter rolls. Congrats?

Yeah, that is definitely a thing, especially with modern D&D and similar.

Just to be clear, I am not arguing that you can't integrate dragonborn or tie flings or goliaths or whatever into FR or Eberron. I am just saying it would be easier and cooler to just build a setting that fundamentally incorporates all those things. I get that people like FR. Great. Yay. But...