Show
Encounter 2
XXX / XXX XP
[...]
Maximum Possible Experience (not including Major Quest)
2240 / 3200 XP
Major Quest Reward
PCs who gained the story award CORE29 from this adventure, and also possess either story award CORE19 from CORE1-10 or CORE24 from CORE1-12 have completed a major quest.
These PCs (and only these PCs) gain an additional 700 / 1000 XP and 400 / 700 GP. They also gain access to Bundle G / H.
XXX / XXX XP
[...]
Maximum Possible Experience (not including Major Quest)
2240 / 3200 XP
Major Quest Reward
PCs who gained the story award CORE29 from this adventure, and also possess either story award CORE19 from CORE1-10 or CORE24 from CORE1-12 have completed a major quest.
These PCs (and only these PCs) gain an additional 700 / 1000 XP and 400 / 700 GP. They also gain access to Bundle G / H.
This came up a long time ago. If I remember correctly it was deduced that major quest XP is actually needed to correct the overly generous gold in the LFR campaign.
It may seem like punishment but it's more like a poorly implemented math fix.
This came up a long time ago. If I remember correctly it was deduced that major quest XP is actually needed to correct the overly generous gold in the LFR campaign.It may seem like punishment but it's more like a poorly implemented math fix.
Then I'm sure we can devise a better solution than a "poorly implemented math fix".
Actually, the answer seems pretty straightforward.But I think we're getting off-topic... I believe the main topic of this thread was to suggest that we can do better when it comes to major quest awards. It needn't even be a gold/item award as far as I'm concerned.
Some formatting like what is being done with "In Slumber Remain" task opportunities would do the trick - - set off to the side as a specific "extra" for those who have completed the Major Quest.
It is not a math fix. It is the core rules. You get a major quest once every 9 encounters.
I take it based on this that you don't agree we can do better? That we shouldn't do more to adapt the core rules to the unique constraints of a world-wide non-linear campaign?
That's fine. It is true that we can stop here and say "We've done good enough -- it's confusing to some DMs, it feels more like a penalty than a reward, but we can't do everything."
It is not a math fix. It is the core rules. You get a major quest once every 9 encounters.
Eh, only kind of. And certainly not the way LFR has implemented them.
How often do you get a major quest reward?
"The experience point numbers in the game are built so that characters complete eight to ten encounters for every level they gain. In practice, that’s six to eight encounters, one major quest, and one minor quest per character in the party."
DMG, p. 121
DMG, p. 121
I play with people who, when they earn quest rewards, ask to not have the extra XP because it throws off their gold/XP ratio. That's not my view, but a reward shouldn't be a bad thing.
I think it's more the aspect of losing chances to play the character more than anything else that makes it feel like a penalty.
I play with people who, when they earn quest rewards, ask to not have the extra XP because it throws off their gold/XP ratio. That's not my view, but a reward shouldn't be a bad thing.
This came up a long time ago. If I remember correctly it was deduced that major quest XP is actually needed to correct the overly generous gold in the LFR campaign.
IIRC it was also stated by the official campaign stuff that you can not take less XP than you would have gained (which is not limited to quest rewards, but also applies to normal XP). You always have to take full XP
That's fine. It is true that we can stop here and say "We've done good enough -- it's confusing to some DMs, it feels more like a penalty than a reward, but we can't do everything."
I did not reply to the OP, merely to the person saying major quest was a math fix. I never said anything about not being open to suggestions to do it differently. We are always open to suggestions on how to improve the campaign.
I play with people who, when they earn quest rewards, ask to not have the extra XP because it throws off their gold/XP ratio. That's not my view, but a reward shouldn't be a bad thing.
I think it's more the aspect of losing chances to play the character more than anything else that makes it feel like a penalty.
Sorry. I remembered some people not wanting the xp, and some people complaining about the rewards getting them less gold; and I must have gotten them mixed up. But you're right, without many 14-17 mods out yet, getting paragon quest rewards does make your character unplayable faster.
I play with people who, when they earn quest rewards, ask to not have the extra XP because it throws off their gold/XP ratio. That's not my view, but a reward shouldn't be a bad thing.
I think it's more the aspect of losing chances to play the character more than anything else that makes it feel like a penalty.
Sorry. I remembered some people not wanting the xp, and some people complaining about the rewards getting them less gold; and I must have gotten them mixed up. But you're right, without many 14-17 mods out yet, getting paragon quest rewards does make your character unplayable faster.
I know I've said both in jest, so that might be what you're referring to.
My poor wizard, who's essentially skipping a mod due to major quest rewards...
* amount of XP not including Major Quest
* additional amount of XP when you complete the Major Quest
* which Story Awards you need to possess in order to complete the Major Quest, and whether you need all of them or some of them (in other words, is it a Boolean AND or a Boolean OR)
* which treasure bundles become available if and only if you completed the Major Quest
bgibbons' example was a good one and I would be happy with something like that.