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="bwgwl" data-source="post: 819550" data-attributes="member: 3876">hey there!hey, i'm one of them -- i own a handful of FR books and i've never gamed (and probably never will) in the Realms. i still don't see it as hypocrisy though -- it's the difference between specific support for a specific setting vs generic support useful for all (or most) campaigns. i don't mind the Red Wizard PrC taking up space in the FRCS even though i don't ever plan on using that organization in my homebrew. i would be annoyed by some ELH-specific monsters, prestige classes taking up space in an otherwise-generic book. not because i don't ever want to see epic-level material (i do own the ELH) but because i think that space would be better served by material useful to a larger percentage of the gaming community.a book only has a limited amount of space in it. every page devoted to a subject useful to only a small handful of the market means a page that is not useful to the rest of the market. in order to sell books, WOTC panders to the majority. that's the best decision for them as a publishing company because it sells the most books.i am not adverse to seeing books that are entirely epic-based. i'm not against epic level adventuring at all, i just don't think it should be mixed into otherwise generic books that don't assume the existence or use of the ELH.actually, this would be even worse than just putting in the monster "naked." now, instead of a half-a-page of a monster's stats that most people will never use, we've got a half-a-page of stats and another half-a-page of supplemental material to support the monster. and the people who actually would use this monster already own the ELH and thus already have a copy of these rules. it just makes even more wasted space.i don't think so. wouldn't the best way to generate interest be to spend those pages discussing things useful to the other 90% of the gaming community?actually, i don't follow the connection. how would what i'm describing be the same thing?however, like Mourn describes, where do you draw the line? should every generic sourcebook devote 10% of its material to epic campaigns, another 10% to psionic campaigns, another 10% to low-magic campaigns, another 10% to Oriental Adventures campaigns, another 10% to planar campaigns, etc... after a while, there's nothing generic left.for better or worse, there is a generic, standard way the most campaigns run. in order to sell enough books, WOTC needs to focus its books on these types of campaigns.ah. see, i don't consider them "epic" monsters in the same way as i've been using the term above. those monsters do have a rather high CR, but they don't require the ELH to use. there is nothing in their stat blocks that derives from the ELH. what i was talking about is material that can only be understood when referenced to the ELH. that is a whole other animal entirely.and FWIW, i personally was disappointed seeing all those unique high-CR fiends in the ToH. i've never run a D&D campaign that used the standard "Great Wheel" cosmology, and i've never run a campaign where those beings existed. so they were wasted space for me. however, in this, i'm guessing i'm in the minority.</blockquote>

Verification