Rule of Three 20/6/11

[Colmarr]

Here.

Pretty funny that he refers to "1st to 20th level campaigns". Let the conspiracy theories commence!

 

[Zaran]

Here.

Pretty funny that he refers to "1st to 20th level campaigns". Let the conspiracy theories commence!

As what seems to be more and more common I was disappointed in their answer. Both adventure paths were made before their big changes to monsters. I'm not even sure we can still buy those old modules.

If we are to depend on Dungeon for new adventures they should be more extensive than what I've seen. Those short adventures are not bad but they should be in addition to bigger module type adventures.

 

[Siberys]

While I'm pleased about the new Eye on Eberron articles, I'd still like a bit more support for my favorite setting...

 

[Riastlin]

Here.

Pretty funny that he refers to "1st to 20th level campaigns". Let the conspiracy theories commence!

He did state though that they were looking to do some shorter campaign arcs. This actually meshes with the earlier announcement of an upcoming epic campaign arc as well.

What I also think may well happen is that we won't see an arc that covers 20 levels of play, but we may still see 5 - 10 level arcs in all tiers. One of the common things with SOW from the SOW forum on the WotC site is that a lot of the games ended before even getting to paragon, and there was certainly a lot less discussion of the post-heroic tier modules. Some of this was due to the quality of the mods getting better once they hit paragon tier (imho), but a lot had to do with campaigns fizzling as well. It could well be that they simply think they can get more bang for their buck with shorter story arcs that can be folded into most any campaign. I sort of see these as being similar to some of the arcs they discuss in DMG 2, Plane Above, Underdark, etc. Most of those are really fleshed out for one tier, though can be spread across all three if need be.

 

[Mummolus]

I'm betting they got the first question months ago (as in, when Ro3 first started) and held onto it knowing they could say "We are!" if they published it now.

That said, I had wondered if the Keith Baker article was a one-shot or regular. I'm glad it'll be regular.

 

[Aegeri]

1st to 20th eh? I'd make a sarcastic remark here, but what is the point? Wizards have made it pretty clear for a while epic is considered unimportant. I wouldn't be surprised to see paragon tier go the same way.

 

[The Little Raven]

He was talking about the H-P-E series, which simply means the 20th was a typo and should have been 30th.

 

[ppaladin123]

He was talking about the H-P-E series, which simply means the 20th was a typo and should have been 30th.

Certainly, but for those who have clamored for more epic tier support, the typo looks almost like a Freudian slip.

 

[wedgeski]

Certainly, but for those who have clamored for more epic tier support, the typo looks almost like a Freudian slip.

We're jumping to conclusions based on typo's now? Good gravy.

 

[catastrophic]

It's just a typo, relax. It's not as if they're being coy about the issues with epic tier. If anything, they've been pretty up front about what they're thinking about the problem.

However, I did notice that their mention of "Zarash’ak" carries an oddly positioned apostrophe. Typo? Overuse of wierd naming conventions? Or, clear evidence that they intend to destroy the entire Ebberon campaigin setting by overwriting the source material with random punctuation?!!?