Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 3879843" data-attributes="member: 22779">Really?  I could slap Here There Be Monsters into Ravenloft?  Without any problem?  I don't think so.  How about Planescape?  Whizbang - what you are saying runs counter to what Paizo has been saying for years - that setting specific modules are no different than generics.  They've repeatedly stated that this isn't true.  Sure, you can put any module into FR or Greyhawk, but, that's because those are vanilla settings.  Try putting a standard generic Dungeon adventure into Spelljammer.As to setting books giving me more work - yes they do.  With a pure homebrew, while I do have to create some of the background material, I only have to create what I need.  With a published book, assuming I'm actually going to use it, not only do I have to make all the adventures, but, I also have to make sure that those adventures fit within the canon established within the setting book.  In other words, I'm working for two masters instead of one.Unless the DI is going to publish a Hell of a lot more than 3 modules a month, you're dreaming if you think these one off settings will get module support.  'Cos it's not 3 modules, it's 2 since WOTC's already stated they are going to do Adventure Paths.  Figure on 24 modules/year, 5 FR, 5 Eberron, 10 generic, that leaves 4 extra modules.  You MIGHT get one module/year supporting a one off setting book.  Whoopee.  That's not support, that's barely a scrap.</blockquote>

Verification