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="Upper_Krust" data-source="post: 818730" data-attributes="member: 326">Hi there bwgwl! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />...and exactly what percentage legitamizes this hypocrisy?You are making the assumption that everyone who buys FR products is a 'follower'. I assure you that isn't the case. Obviously there are many people buying the FR material to supplement their own campaigns, rather than Not at all. As I have mentioned previously the ELH is primarily a generic progression, it would be quite easy to outline any material unique to the ELH within a monster description.But surely constituting 5-10% of D&D campaigns should mean something in generic products where they are trying to generate widespread interest. We have already established above that Mourns friend who didn't buy the Races of Faerun book it had a single epic reference was a doofus, you are advocating the same sort of lunacy.I don't agree. It would be simplicity itself to briefly explain a handful of epic feats or the effects of an epic spell (as a spell-like ability) within a monsters description. True, if that was the single target.I still say 5-10% of campaigns could easily be adjudicated the same amount of material in overtly generic books without hurting anyone...except Mourns friend.The 11 epic monsters (assuming CR 29 or better = epic) in the Tome of Horrors certainly didn't do that book any harm at all!</blockquote>

Verification