Serious inquiries only please - 100th level adventure hook and module in development

[Sage]

Thanks, but it's basically just the plot we agreed on back on page 3 or so.
Phew, these pages are long...

I didn't read the plot

I hope you don't mean reaching level 100 through play. That's... 6.25 years of playing by WotC's generous DMG assumptions. Highly unlikely.

No, just the concept of characters that haven't been suddenly boosted, but made it all the way.

Patience, young man, patience! [Of course now you'll tell me you're twice my age, but hey...]

I'm 18 and just started university

 

[Yair]

I'm 18 and just started university

Ahh, those lost days of youth, ere I frolicked in th sun....
What subject?
I'm a 29 years old physicist-wannabe, trying to steam up resolve to seriously start my PhD thesis in physical chemistry (on quantum thermodynamics).

 

[DM-Rocco]

Sorry I've been a while. I've kept up with the thread but I haven't finished my character yet -- maybe by Saturday?

I like the campaign gloss. It reads pretty well, though a little heavy-handed on the DMing suggestions (perhaps rightfully so).

What versions of feats are we using? The versions in the ELH/original 3.5 SRD, or the versions reprinted later? For example, Armor Skin was knocked down to +1 in some supplement (Complete Warrior?)... do we use it as +2 or +1? Likewise for other modified feats.

I suggest using feats that are modified for 3.5, to keep things on the same page. However, if you think a feat was improperly toned down, post it here and let's have a look at it.

 

[Sage]

What subject?
I'm a 29 years old physicist-wannabe, trying to steam up resolve to seriously start my PhD thesis in physical chemistry (on quantum thermodynamics).

Sociology, but it was very close to being physics as I'm a hawk at physics haven't had much about termodynamics though, and practically nothing about quantumn mechanics.
I'm planning on studying physics when I'm seventy or something

 

[DM-Rocco]

Using anything beyond the listed sources will result in the users needing to have these sources to play - which is something we wish to avoid. I strongly suggest keeping to the feats as listed in the SRD/ELH.

DM-Rocco:
I must confess I am not very pleased with the introduction. I just don't see how it is relevant to the storyline we agreed on - IIRC, the characters were in fact sent by the gods to climb on the Spire at level 20 as the initial scene, they were certainly not the god's opponents.
I don't mind playing god's opponents at all, but this is just not the storyline we agreed on. If you want to change the storyline to "Beyond God and Devil" (a la "beyond good and evil"), I would be very happy to explore this theme. But it needs to be stated and a storyline worked out.
I also am not sure that our characters can take on gods one-on-one. If using the Faiths & Pantheon stats, I'm pretty sure we can't - I'll work on that and keep you posted.

As for the mechanical technicalities, I would order the explanations the other way around.

Here is my version of your text. It's more formal, I'm afraid - that's just my style of writing. But note how I ordered it differently, I think the order in my version is better (then again, I have been known to err).

QUOTE]


This is not the plot line that I listed, it is just a quick filler section and a DM background check. I followed the Dungeon Magazine format where they give e very brief description and then DM need to know information (which will be longer once you guys firgure out Epic spell rules and guidelines). The introduction is the next part, where I get into the story behind the story.

I did step a bit ahead of myself and lay down a slightly different way of looking at why we have 100th level characters. I like the starting out at 20th level and having the magical event at the top of the spire grant 100th level status, but everyone seemed to forget that since no one proposed 20th level versions of their characters. So I winged it and added a small section explaining why you would not simply become a God instead.

I don't care either way. I haven't read everything you wrote here, I am at the tail end of work. I'll go through it all a bit more when I get home.

Also, we never truely agreed on anything. I proposed a storyline that involved everyones ideas and, hmm, who was that, someone reworked the same thing and called it his own. After that, everyone got into character creation and forgot the plot. I'm just trying to get things beyound character creation.

That being said, I like my plot that involved everyones ideas but I am really easy to get a long with and don't mind hearing what others want. I haven't flushed everything out so now is the time if you have things that you want to add or exclude. Little things can be added at anytime, but the main plot, chapter-by-chapter, have to have a outline or we will never get anywhere.

So, I'll have to look back to the first few posts to get the feel again for the plots and post them here again so we can go over them.

But as to what I posted the other day, aside from the man versus god thing, that is just all standard module filler.

 

[Sage]

What versions of feats are we using? The versions in the ELH/original 3.5 SRD, or the versions reprinted later? For example, Armor Skin was knocked down to +1 in some supplement (Complete Warrior?)... do we use it as +2 or +1? Likewise for other modified feats.

The version in my srd says +1 and there are no mentions of changes to the feat in errata, so they must've included the change when they added the epic sections to the SRD; way before Complete Warrior. I think we should use +1.
Curiously, there's no mention of this in the update booklet :\

 

[Yair]

I followed the Dungeon Magazine format where they give e very brief description and then DM need to know information (which will be longer once you guys firgure out Epic spell rules and guidelines). The introduction is the next part, where I get into the story behind the story. ...

Also, we never truely agreed on anything. I proposed a storyline that involved everyones ideas and, hmm, who was that, someone reworked the same thing and called it his own. After that, everyone got into character creation and forgot the plot. I'm just trying to get things beyound character creation.

I am not trying to work against you here, you are right that we should be starting to work on the storyline now that the characters are nearing (?) completion.
I was trying to offer my suggestions on how to improve the text you provided, but that doesn't mean I don't appreciate the text or thank you for posting it. My criticism revolves around two points:
- I found the flavor text in the begining to be counter to the spirit of the storyline we discussed, as I remembered it. You're right that it's been a long time, I may be remembering wrongly.
- I agree that the DM need-to-know information should be presented after the flavor text, but I think it should be presented in a slightly different order. If you'll read my post, you'll see that it's mainly just a reordering of your content. (I've made some slight changes, but mainly it's your rules in a different order.)
I've also changed the language to be less personal, following the Dragon writing guidelines (which I assume apply to Dungeon?). I'm not at all confident that this is the right tone to take.

I'm currently thinking on the prelude, amongst other things. I think it should be set in Sigil, with the goal being finding a way to reach the top of the Spire. Some politics with the Factions should be in order, perhaps an intervention by the Lady of Pain, and some epic and sound way of reaching the top of the spire should be found at the end.
I'm not sure who the enemies could be, in this scenario.
Setting it in Sigil and making it a politicaly-based adventure would allow to stretch the prelude section, making it applicable across many character levels.
Sage, being a planescape fan, might have a better approach to doing this.

 

[CRGreathouse]

The version in my srd says +1 and there are no mentions of changes to the feat in errata, so they must've included the change when they added the epic sections to the SRD; way before Complete Warrior. I think we should use +1.
Curiously, there's no mention of this in the update booklet :\

As I recall, the original epic SRD was 3.5 but had Armor Skin at +2. It was later modified without fanfare to change several feats, including Epic Toughness and Armor Skin.

At +1 Armor Skin is useless; at +2 I probably wouldn't take it, but I'd consider it if I had extra feats.

 

[Yair]

At +1 Armor Skin is useless; at +2 I probably wouldn't take it, but I'd consider it if I had extra feats.

It must be +1, or else it would outpace Prowess. Attack and Defense must be balanced. At least, that's what behind the change, I think.

 

[DM-Rocco]

Ahh, those lost days of youth, ere I frolicked in th sun....
What subject?
I'm a 29 years old physicist-wannabe, trying to steam up resolve to seriously start my PhD thesis in physical chemistry (on quantum thermodynamics).

34 year old graphic designer with a itch in my crawl to be a writer