Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Steel_Wind" data-source="post: 2757764" data-attributes="member: 20741">Don’t get me wrong – I LOVE the Age of Worms. While I might get the Hardcover “just because”,  I’ve put a lot of time in to organizing my Dungeon articles and Online Supplements and Dragon companion articles.  So…the marginal utility of a hardcover (to me) is diminished.For those without all the relevant issues of Dungeon and Dragon – I can well appreciate the value.Dungeon has spent a lot of time researching their reader base and has come to the conclusion that the most popular setting for its readers is “None of the Above”.  Most Dungeon DMs have, hitherto, used dungeon adventures in a home brew setting. That said, after 27 years or never running a Greyhawk campaign – I set the AoW in Greyhawk. It’s been fun so far and I even went out and bought that o so collectible poster map of the 3E City of Greyhawk in LGJ#2.While I have never imagined myself as a fan of the FR setting, a lot of the FR material is well done and very flexible. While I expect another Greyhawk Campaign in a third AP – I wouldn’t be opposed to an Adventure Path set in the FR – against the Red Wizards of Thay or something similarly flexible, and relatively open and non-detailed.Conversion notes are just as good.Again - I’m not a FR fan and I can do without the whole Drizz’t /Underdark or Elminster thing.  But don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. There is a lot of interesting setting material in the FR that has barely been touched. Then again – the setting is not so important to me as the flavour of the AP itself.There are a lot of people who really like the Shackled City – but I’m not one of them. If Demons and planar adventures are your thing – I can well imagine why SCAP is to your liking.  But it’s MUCH too Planescapey for me and I never liked it. Sorry, not my cuppa.Age of Worms, on the other hand, is simply amazing. I love it. I agree with this completely.  I would really like to see interior art and dungeon design which suggests in the description of the encounter itself the suggested D&D mini. There should be a few provisos to this:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Try to limit the number of rares required – no more than 2 per adventure;</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Never require more than one rare type per encounter;</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Always try to focus the encounters upon commons and uncommons;</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">To the extent possible, skew to later D&D mini expansions and away from Harbinger </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> Include the suggested miniature in the monster’s stat block</li> </ul>I would REALLY like to see this sort of approach and I would think it would be an excellent way to sell minis on the Paizo site. Sell the minis required for the entire adventure in one box of minis. Poof. $30 for single minis - you got all you need for four or five sessions. To those opposed to this...ask yourself why? If you don’t want to use them  - then don’t.  There is nothing mandatory about such an approach. It simply makes it easier and more fun for those who DO enjoy using and collecting D&D miniatures to have all the minis match up straight down the line. Again – not my thing. I rather think the current AoW AP is ending up spending too much time on high level play as it is.  The problem with high level play is that saving throws begin to work against the party and there are a lot of death spells which will kill the player characters. I’d prefer to see more play focussed on 1st to 12th and less on 13th to 20th. I won’t run an epic adventure or campaign. 15th is pushing it with me as it stands. P.S. While I might buy a Paladin themed AP; I'd never buy a the PCs are evil campaign. Given the comments on this topic when it comes up on ENWorld every few months - way more agree with the "no evil PCs" rule here than do not.</blockquote>

Verification