So you could play DM #1's MYRE1-1 and then you could also play DM #2's MYRE1-1 with the same character. You could even play DM #1's *other* MYRE1-1 with the same character, assuming she wrote more than one. You just can't play the same adventure over and over again with the same character.
Yes, I realize that someone will wordsmith the above statement and say that as long as you change a single character in the adventure text (such as replacing "a" with "an") then you have technically created a "unique" adventure. If someone really wants to sit there and pencil-whip a character through the same My Realms adventure 25 times and then triumphantly declare that they've beaten the system, well, I guess all I can say is shine on, you crazy diamond.
Yes, I realize that someone will wordsmith the above statement and say that as long as you change a single character in the adventure text (such as replacing "a" with "an") then you have technically created a "unique" adventure. If someone really wants to sit there and pencil-whip a character through the same My Realms adventure 25 times and then triumphantly declare that they've beaten the system, well, I guess all I can say is shine on, you crazy diamond.
Hardly. If you really want to go that way, you might as well book existing adventures and get more varied and higher level rewards for the same efford ;)
The My Realms adventure is an LFR adventure, so it follows the replay rules for the campaign. Additionally, a character may play MYRE1-1 multiple times, as long as the adventure is different each time. Each unique adventure created using the packet is considered a different adventure for purposes of the replay rule.
So you could play DM #1's MYRE1-1 and then you could also play DM #2's MYRE1-1 with the same character. You could even play DM #1's *other* MYRE1-1 with the same character, assuming she wrote more than one. You just can't play the same adventure over and over again with the same character.
Yes, I realize that someone will wordsmith the above statement and say that as long as you change a single character in the adventure text (such as replacing "a" with "an") then you have technically created a "unique" adventure. If someone really wants to sit there and pencil-whip a character through the same My Realms adventure 25 times and then triumphantly declare that they've beaten the system, well, I guess all I can say is shine on, you crazy diamond.
I must say that's pretty cool. Using this, you could use Myre adventures to run an LFR home campaign if you want.
I must say that's pretty cool. Using this, you could use Myre adventures to run an LFR home campaign if you want.
Though, you'd be limited to giving the specific treasure bundles in MYRE 1-1 each time (until the PCs got to 4th level) wouldn't you?
- You can't distribute your version to another DM, player, or organizer. At most, you can have one co-developer of your version, at which point, both of you would be allowed to DM it.
- You can't use it to re-skin an existing LFR adventure.
- You can't use it to create a multi-table experience (i.e., an Interactive or Battle Interactive). It's specifically meant for one table of 4-6 players plus one DM.
- You can't alter the play experience from a standard LFR-style D&D adventure. (The example that's given: "For example, you couldn’t create a “battle royale” player-versus-player gladiatorial arena (although you could have the PCs fight NPCs in such an arena).")
However, it does sound like you could run your version of it as part of a public event: "When you design your adventure, design it for a four-hour time slot for 4-6 players—this is especially true if you are running it as part of a public event."
The treasure bundle info is pretty interesting, though posting it would probably be a spoiler. Let's just say that Elder_Basilisk's idea of using these to run an entire campaign is at least a bit more feasible than I thought it would be.
Show
does the dm choose an item and use that specific item as a treasure bundle, or is it that the player's choice of an item is the actual bundle?
does the dm choose an item and use that specific item as a treasure bundle, or is it that the player's choice of an item is the actual bundle?
maybe i'm just not getting it due to severe lack of sleep at the moment, but i have a question about the treasure bundles
No worries, I'll put it in a spoiler block.
Show
There's really only one treasure bundle:
"Any magic item from the Player’s Handbook series (Player’s Handbook, Player’s Handbook 2, etc.) of the PC’s level or lower."
The only other options are the standard "more gold" and a potion of healing.
"Any magic item from the Player’s Handbook series (Player’s Handbook, Player’s Handbook 2, etc.) of the PC’s level or lower."
The only other options are the standard "more gold" and a potion of healing.
thanks.
maybe i'm just not getting it due to severe lack of sleep at the moment, but i have a question about the treasure bundles:
Here's what it looks like based on the wording:
Show
Based on the wording, it's the latter: the player gets to choose.
Here's what it looks like based on the wording:ShowBased on the wording, it's the latter: the player gets to choose.
Just tossing some ideas out because it seems like this has a lot of potential.
Re: the suggestion that you could run a home campaign as an LFR campaign using nothing but My Realms adventures: Sure, you could do that. The replay rules allow the players to play MYRE1-1 multiple times and as long as each adventure is different, the characters can play nothing but MYRE adventures if that is what the players and DM want to do. Obviously, at the moment, since only MYRE1-1 is available and it is only for levels 1-4, you would have to transition back to the regular LFR adventures when the characters reached 5th level. You might also want to run some other adventures in order to get a bit more variety in treasure bundles. Plus we like to think that the "regular" LFR adventures are not completely without merit.
But there is nothing stopping a group from playing nothing but My Realms adventures if they prefer to do so, as long as they follow the CCG and other campaign rules.Re: the suggestion that an author could create a multi-round My Realms adventure by simply running MYRE1-1 several times in a row, that would be fine. Each "round" (slot) needs to be a separate logsheet entry with its own award of treasure and XP, though. You can construct a whole series of adventures if you want. We included the generic story objects with the idea that some people might like to write an adventure and run it several times at a convention and then write a sequel and run that at another convention weeks or months later, using the story objects to keep up with who played the first part. That said, you aren't required to use the story objects -- they're completely optional.
Keith
They are MM2 monsters, so it is more like a 'free monster stats if you don't have the book'.
Btw I would be interested yo hear if anyone actually uses the plothooks, and which.
Gomez
As Sean mentioned, my only issue with running nothing but MYRE adventures as a "home game" of LFR is that the players will never have any treasure above their level. You'd have to play some of the regular LFR mods to stay within the treasure curve the system assumes.
They'd also get to cherry-pick their items, so it's a bit of a wash. I have players upset that they're still stuck with a +1 Rod.
FWIW, 4e D&D essentially assumes that players do get to pick their items. It's LFR that's the oddball here.
Then again, it also assumes much lower number of magic items and a much lower average level, from what I can tell.
As Sean mentioned, my only issue with running nothing but MYRE adventures as a "home game" of LFR is that the players will never have any treasure above their level. You'd have to play some of the regular LFR mods to stay within the treasure curve the system assumes.
If you were running a kind of LFR home game, it would probably be easy to work in a published mod every level or two, especially with a bit of DM empowerment. Choose the right ones for your party and the rewards issues would be pretty well sorted. Some of them would be suitable as side quests (Dale 1-2 and Imp 1-4 seem pretty well suited to be an adventure that happens while you are on your way to something else and are also two of the better LFR mods). Others mods could be expanded into a larger story through DME. The story of Spec 1-1 could easily handle a session or three of play in between when you get the hook and when you meet your contact in Zhentil Keep and could pretty easily handle one or two mods worth of play in escaping. Likewise, the setting of Corm 1-2 has enough potential that you could fit a half-dozen MYRE mods in between the hook and the first xp granting encounter and another half dozen after the end of the mod. Now doing that kind of thing with major quest mods could be a challenge (if I were doing it personally, I would just arrange for the players to return to Daggerdale at some point later in the story and complete the rest of the Dale 1-2 quest).
If you were running a kind of LFR home game, it would probably be easy to work in a published mod every level or two, especially with a bit of DM empowerment. Choose the right ones for your party and the rewards issues would be pretty well sorted.
I agree, that's pretty much what you'd have to do.
Then again, it also assumes much lower number of magic items and a much lower average level, from what I can tell.
It actually assume that 5 players over the course of a level will find 4 magic items ranging in level from 1-4 levels above their party level. So
"During the course of gaining that level, expect a group of five characters to acquire four magic items ranging in level from one to four levels above the party level."
So one character sits out getting a magic item per level. (this is hoem game obviously) In LFR we're above the curve because we get 1/level instead of 4 every 5 levels.
I know many LFR players who disdain +1 found items entirely because it's easy to have a +2 amulet of protection at 2nd, +2 vicious weapon at 3rd, etc.
After all, it is established canon that El had access to both earth, Oerth, and Krynn right?
Hmm...maybe hanging on to all those LG mods wasn't a waste after all...
After all, it is established canon that El had access to both earth, Oerth, and Krynn right?
If you're referring to the old series of articles in Dragon magazine, written by Ed Greenwood, in which Elminster, Mordenkainen, and Dalamar(?) would meet on "neutral ground" (that being Ed Greenwood's house)...I'm not entirely certain that those are stricly considered to be canonical.
So one character sits out getting a magic item per level. (this is hoem game obviously) In LFR we're above the curve because we get 1/level instead of 4 every 5 levels.
Assuming that players take all of their treasure bundles and retain the items.
If players do not take all of their bundles--either because they are saving them for the high level treasure in late-game or because they are simply trying to keep 1-2 slots open, they will be around the same place as the core curve. (For my part, I try to keep a bundle slot or two open for my characters so that they will not be in a situation where the perfect item for them shows up in a mod but they have to pass it up because they have already maxed out their bundles).
Likewise, if players take high level items and then sell them for cash when it becomes usable, they end up with slightly fewer high level items than the standard game assumes. (If we assume that they sell the items at the first moment possible, this results in the character acquiring an item of their level -1). The only time that this strategy will result in a higher item level than the core rules assume is in the time before the characters are high enough level to sell the items and loan them out to higher level characters at their tables.
So,while the bundle system would theoretically yield a higher availability of magic items than the core rules assume, it often does not work out that way in practice.
So,while the bundle system would theoretically yield a higher availability of magic items than the core rules assume, it often does not work out that way in practice.
True, true. I should have prefaced that with "theoretically."
@Keithric: You are correct, the LFR system makes it easier to "game" the system, but in practice it seems very few do so. Between playing online, at cons, and local game days I haven't personally seen anyone game the system. (above and beyond finding what items might be in what mod so they can work on getting the best items for their PC, and those people are few and far between in my experience as well). Now granted, this is personal experience and so the sample isn't necessarily indicative of the LFR player base as a whole, yet it's decent cross section of different play styles. I don't think a lot of players are willing to sacrifice a found item slot just to get an item that's higher level because it's higher level. That doesn't mean it's good for them. Nor to grab a higher level item just to sell it and have the gold for an item 5 levels lower. Not saying there isn't someone out there who would, I just haven't seen it in practice.
I know this was all a big fear at the start of the campaign, but I think at this point it has turned out to be fairly unfounded.
- You can't distribute your version to another DM, player, or organizer. At most, you can have one co-developer of your version, at which point, both of you would be allowed to DM it.
As far as I can see this is the weak point of the system.
Why are we not allowed to share the modules?
The only essential difference between MyRE is we don't get paid to write a MyRE adventure.
So why are we prohibited from sharing them?
As far as I can see this is the weak point of the system.
Why are we not allowed to share the modules?
The only essential difference between MyRE is we don't get paid to write a MyRE adventure.
So why are we prohibited from sharing them?
Because they dont go thru the same process of editing and other processes to make sure the module fits within the canon etc. Just my guess
Remember, it isn't just gamers & DMs involved with LFR, it is the book publishing part of the company, along with the corporate legal department.
This will give them an excuse to take those sites down.
Ultimately its a silly idea if people want to trade MYRA or have multiple people run them at a con WOTC employees are not going to swarm the place from helicopters with parachuting lawyers.
If you allow people to develop your product outside any agreement and distribute it to whoever they want over any media or worse sell it, well you've pretty given up your rights.
They hope that by strictly limiting it and preventing distribution that they will retain their rights.
Not sure what their lawyers thought about MYRA. =)
I just feel bad they didn't let author's pick the items and story awards within a standard guideline.
Really, if you want to play 'My Realms' exclusively, then you should probably not play LFR - you should play a home campaign.
My Realms adventures are not there to replace LFR adventures, but to supplement them.
Gomez
Yeah.. because you know playing "cannon" makes so much sense in the face of us writing out on modules as we wish.
Others have hit the nail on the head on this issue. It mostly has to do with misrepresentation for official Wizards content. We need to balance a reasonable amount of control over our official material with the desire to let DMs have some creative freedom to make their group's LFR experience more personal. My Realms adventures are that compromise.
As gomeztoo points out, My Realms adventures are intended to supplement the LFR campaign, not supplant it. I think we've found a great tool here - providing a fertile ground for creativity while still keeping the officially released adventures as a focal point for the campaign.
So it's a legal thing, and it's also probably an issue where they don't want anyone to mistake it for an official LFR mod.
In LFR we're above the curve because we get 1/level instead of 4 every 5 levels.
This is a myth, albeit one that the campaign staff continue to repeat.
It is true that LFR PCs gain 1 found magic item per level; considering us ahead of the curve solely on that basis requires us to willfully ignore every other facet of the treasure distribution system.
- Core assumes that a group of 5 finds 4 magic items, plus enough gold for two equal level magic items.
To be fair, this varies from level band to level band, but since the amount of gold has been trending consistently down over the bands, this undercuts the entire argument that LFR is more generous than core.
- Core assumes that items can be distributed from PC to PC.
In a core game, when your ranger finds a +3 bow, he passes his +2 bow to the fighter (even melee types need a backup ranged weapon). In LFR, the ranger sells his +2 bow and gets 360 gp back, while the fighter has to spend 1,800 gp if he wants one, for a net loss to the party of 1,440 gp.
- The big one: Core assumes that the DM picks out the items for the party; LFR treasure is essentially random.
To compare the two, let's assume that the LFR PC eventually spends all of his gold on items, and the core PC gets all of the gold on levels he doesn't get an item and buys items with it.
The core PC ends up with items of levels:
3, 4*, 4*, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9*, 9*, 10, 11, 12--asterisked items are freely picked out by you, the rest are specifically picked for you by your DM.
The LFR PC always takes an item of level+3 and so ends up with items of levels:
4, 5, 5*, 6, 6*, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13--asterisked items are freely picked out by you, the rest are chosen from a list of items that appeal to the widest array of players.
Which PC is better off is largely based on how close you are to an average weapon-wielding PC who doesn't really care what item they get as long as it's the right power level.
And, of course, the Level+3 assumption may not be correct. If the LFR PC is taking Level+2 items, the comparison will be more like:
Core: 3, 4*, 4*, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9*, 9*, 10, 11, 12 (non-asterisked items chosen by your DM specifically for you)
LFR: 3, 4, 5*, 5, 6*, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 (non-asterisked items chosen from list of lowest common denominator items)
... in which case the LFR PC fares even more poorly.
If your position is that a human fighter with a longsword and shield fares better in LFR than core, I can't argue with that, but there's a lengthy line of other races and classes that would say that the issue is a lot more complex than the total number of items found.
It is also odd to compare the gold output to level 10, since that same PC gained the same amount of gold at level 9, which I suspect is going to be higher then the typical value. It becomes even more skewered when people play up, and might actually find that same amount of gold at level 8 and even 7. I think that if you would truly look at the average gold income it probably is about right. Chris Tulach definitely made some extensive calculations in that regard.
Finally, in theory it would be level +4 in LFR and not level +3. Although we are paying a bit more attention to downplay that +4 indeed to +3 to bring it more on par with core.
My guess is its a defense wotc will have when people start doing it and underground sites for trading MYRA pop up on the internet, which we all know will happen.
Firstly WotC doesn't have an IP claim over module design, only over FR IP material.
WotC has also given rights to limited use of 4E IP as outlined in the GSL.
So what we have is a situation where I cannot tell you what encounters I used and what the basic plot of my module might be - all of which I can do quite legally by including the relevant boilerplate where appropriate. I just have to not name any FR things and its done. But if I do this, you cannot use it for MyRealms...
As gomeztoo points out, My Realms adventures are intended to supplement the LFR campaign, not supplant it. I think we've found a great tool here - providing a fertile ground for creativity while still keeping the officially released adventures as a focal point for the campaign.
But supplant it they can, the only thing to do is space them out by tier each 6 months or so from now and stop producing new modules for the relevant tier at the same time.
With the advent of MyRealms 1-4 there is no reason to produce new 1-4 mods, until after the level 30 mods are released in 2 years time.
With the advent of MyRealms 1-4 there is no reason to produce new 1-4 mods, until after the level 30 mods are released in 2 years time.
no reason at all... except for continuing established regional storylines and beginning new ones. not to mention those dms who don't wish to write every adventure for their lfr campaign.
there are limits to what any of us should be doing with MYRE plots. it's a nice sandbox, but it still has some borders. and to paraphrase what some of the admins have brought up in the forums before, if it gets misused, it will simply go away.
Begining new ones, that is a fair enough statement, but are there also not restrictions on the number of mods a region is allowed to produce?
It is also odd to compare the gold output to level 10, since that same PC gained the same amount of gold at level 9, which I suspect is going to be higher then the typical value.
No.
A group of five 9th level PCs is expected to find 8400 gp; in LFR, they find 8000. A group of five 8th level PCs is expected to find 6800 gp; in LFR, they find 5750.
PCs gain more gold than they should at low levels (until about 6th level), but it steadily decreases over the level bands. It is entirely possible, I suppose, that the progression will reverse itself in paragon, giving us above-average gold in the lower level bands.
Have the standard rewards for paragon adventures been released yet?
Chris Tulach definitely made some extensive calculations in that regard.
I would assume he has, though I'd love for him to share, since I don't think anyone has been able to figure out how the standard gold reward numbers were generated.
Finally, in theory it would be level +4 in LFR and not level +3. Although we are paying a bit more attention to downplay that +4 indeed to +3 to bring it more on par with core.
In theory, it could be Level+4. On average, it's likely to be closer to Level+3 or even +2. Implement-users would enjoy moving to either theory or average, because in practice, where they live, it's closer to Level+0.
Most PCs I have met actually kept their lower level items (except weapons, implements, neck slots and armor) and they do hand them out to their fellow PCs at the table. That might be a local thing though... Furthermore, more often then not, PCs in core groups do sell items which everybody already has (armor, neck slot items) or nobody else can use (implements, some weapon enhancements).
It is also odd to compare the gold output to level 10, since that same PC gained the same amount of gold at level 9, which I suspect is going to be higher then the typical value. It becomes even more skewered when people play up, and might actually find that same amount of gold at level 8 and even 7. I think that if you would truly look at the average gold income it probably is about right. Chris Tulach definitely made some extensive calculations in that regard.
Finally, in theory it would be level +4 in LFR and not level +3. Although we are paying a bit more attention to downplay that +4 indeed to +3 to bring it more on par with core.
I have seen a lot of PCs keeping old items to use as hand-me downs. But it only very very rarely works out to the advantage of the parties they are in. The reason for this follows:
1. Most players end up with roughly similar equipment in their main slots. In cases where there are differences, I have never seen them be more than +1. Since the character who kept his +2 sword as a hand-me-out item when he got a +3 sword will only have a +2 sword to give out, it won't improve his allies unless they for some reason kept their +1 sword until they were playing 7-10 mods.
So, that's how the main slots work. I've only seen it be helpful twice.
It actually works a little better if you transfered the +2 enhancement to a backup weapon like a javalin--odds are good that, if your main weapon is +1 better than your party member's, your backup weapon is also +1 better than his. So if he is better able to use a javalin, you can give it to him and help him out marginally. But only very marginally. When my cleric got to carry the bard's +2 vicious javalin around is the only time I've seen that happen.
It can also work if your item has a better property or power than your ally's item has. For instance, a lot of characters pick up +2 amulet's of protection. So, when I played Spec 1-2, I was able to loan out my +2 cloak of resistance. Of course, the daily power wasn't used so it didn't matter.
2. The other essential equipment is rarely upgraded. Now that iron armbands of power exist, for instance, there is little market for bracers of mighty striking. So characters generally don't have spare boots/belts/bracers/etc. Either the item is good for the character, in which case it isn't upgraded, or it is not good for the character in which case it isn't selected.
The place I see the most useful item-sharing is when characters have acquired bundles that they can't yet use. "I've got a +3 amulet of resolution that I can't use until next level/I've got this helm of heroes that I can't sell until next level; do you want to use it this mod?"
In practice, it has an almost negligible effect on the party's efficiency.
In a home game style party, things might well be different. Characters might cycle through items more often (if you have a +2 magic sword and you find a +2 dragonslayer, in a home game, you take the +2 dragonslayer sword. In LFR, otoh, you don't waste a bundle on such a minor improvement--if it's not +1 better than what you've got, you generally don't bother). Likewise, since you can make permanent improvements to other characters in a home game, the strength cleric might benefit from the paladin's old holy symbol. It's not worth buying one for himself, but it IS useful to have it.
Fun story in that one too, using by half elf dilletante power, the sorcerer blast 3 fire thingy, I managed to crit the orc fighter using the +2 viscious bastard sword as my implement, that was entertaining, yay for only rolling 6 extra damage on 2d12 but it was funny popping him for 21 dmg.
1. Most players end up with roughly similar equipment in their main slots. In cases where there are differences, I have never seen them be more than +1. Since the character who kept his +2 sword as a hand-me-out item when he got a +3 sword will only have a +2 sword to give out, it won't improve his allies unless they for some reason kept their +1 sword until they were playing 7-10 mods.
I specifically excluded weapons, implements, armor and neck slot items.
2. The other essential equipment is rarely upgraded. Now that iron armbands of power exist, for instance, there is little market for bracers of mighty striking. So characters generally don't have spare boots/belts/bracers/etc. Either the item is good for the character, in which case it isn't upgraded, or it is not good for the character in which case it isn't selected.
Might be something local where players run around with low level boots, belts and helms as well as high level stuff. They might not horde item slots.
In a home game style party, things might well be different. Characters might cycle through items more often (if you have a +2 magic sword and you find a +2 dragonslayer, in a home game, you take the +2 dragonslayer sword. In LFR, otoh, you don't waste a bundle on such a minor improvement--if it's not +1 better than what you've got, you generally don't bother). Likewise, since you can make permanent improvements to other characters in a home game, the strength cleric might benefit from the paladin's old holy symbol. It's not worth buying one for himself, but it IS useful to have it.
Is that the fault of LFR or the players? In a home campaign you find 4 items per 5 levels, but it is never specifically stated you have 1 item slot per level. So why be so shy in LFR about using a slot for a better weapon? The problem I am seeing is that people horde their slots, always hoping for the ultimate item, rarely taking just a good one even though in a home game (the ones I play in anyway) they don't get more then 1 or 2 perfect choice items anyway either.
The problem I am seeing is that people horde their slots, always hoping for the ultimate item, rarely taking just a good one even though in a home game (the ones I play in anyway) they don't get more then 1 or 2 perfect choice items anyway either.
Personally, I find that hoarding happens sometimes just because of what you find, not a deliberate plan.
My cleric is level 9, and has 7 found items (including some +1 -> +2 upgrades). My barbarian is level 8 and has 8 found items. My wizard, however, is level 9 and has exactly 3 found items (power jewel, +2 armor, and +2 neck slot - I bought my own +1 implement and then upgraded it to +2 with gold).
By contrast, my 5th level Wizard has 2 found (+2 implement, +1 amulet of resolution), 1 bought (+1 robeof eyes, and has taken plenty of rituals), my 3rd level barbarian has 2 found (+2 Vicious Execution axe, +1 Armor of Resistance)and 1 bought (+1 Amulet of health). My second level rogue hasnt taken anythign yet.
So all of them have open slots to take anythign that would seem either useful or interesting, it just comes down to taste. It hasn't been done through any pre-planned desire to "horde" slots.
My cleric, on the other hand, is 8th with 7 slots filled. Whether it's because good items come along more often for melee characters, or I was injudicious about early item choices, or just plain luck, I'm not sure.
These days I tend to 'hoard' early slots with new characters - I'll never pick a +1 item as a bundle, given the ease of availability of +2 items in 4-7 mods. I expect with most characters I'll either 'skip-over' an enhancement level with either armor or neckslot items, or just use gold to upgrade to save bundles. After all, if you use a slot for each +item at each tier, that's 18 slots, so only 12 picks to fill all your other slots. Even if you're not looking for the 'ultimate' item, 12 picks for 30 levels isn't many. Found slots are a rare commodity, and you don't want to waste one on a piece of crap.
Is that the fault of LFR or the players? In a home campaign you find 4 items per 5 levels, but it is never specifically stated you have 1 item slot per level. So why be so shy in LFR about using a slot for a better weapon? The problem I am seeing is that people horde their slots, always hoping for the ultimate item, rarely taking just a good one even though in a home game (the ones I play in anyway) they don't get more then 1 or 2 perfect choice items anyway either.
Mostly because except for a few specific cases--a tiefling with a flaming weapon, a stormsoul genasi with a lightning weapon, an inspiring warlord or thaneborn barbarian with a vanguard weapon, etc-- higher level +x weapons aren't really any better than +x magic weapons. Bloodclaw and reckless might also be cases where a +x weapon of Y is appreciably better than a +x magic weapon, but in general, the properties and abilities offered by weapons are not worth much of anything. Certainly not worth enough to give up some gold and spend a bundle on.
In armor, you have the opposite problem. Some armors (dwarven, black iron, resistance, deathcut) are extremely useful--in fact so much so that trading your +1 black iron scale for +2 magic scale (or +2 scale of worthlessness) is not an obvious upgrade. (The same is true for neck-slot items). So, in those cases, you upgrade less frequently not because you want the first +x item you can get, but rather because a +(x+1) item is not an upgrade over +x unless it has a very good property.
Now there still might be a case for upgrading +1 weapons if it were not for two facts:
1. Good +1 equipment (or +2 equipment in some cases) is just as easily available as weak +1 equipment. Only a fool will take +1 delver's scale when he could wait until the next mod and get +1 black iron armor or +2 dwarven armor for the same cost. Therefore, there is no market for weak +1 equipment in found item slots.
2. +1 magic equipment is about the only thing that is both useful and affordable. At the end of your second module, you can probably buy a +1 magic sword or wand if that is your thing. (Or, more likely, +1 magic armor/neck slot because you picked up the same +2 magic or vicious weapon that everyone else did).
So, there is no doubly no reason to spend a found magic item slot on weak +1 equipment. Good +1 or +2 equipment is readily available at the same cost as the weak +1 equipment. And if it's a matter of wanting something now, simply buying magic +1 is easy, affordable, and is very nearly as effective as weak +1 stuff. (Seriously, how often is that +1 delver's armor going to be noticeably better than +1 magic armor anyway? Once every three modules? If that. Once within six levels is closer to the truth if my experience is any guide).
It's not really a matter of hording slots--though I still maintain that one is foolish to not keep at least one slot open. Rather, it's a matter of the item design being such that once you get a +x weapon, there aren't appreciable upgrades until you hit +(x+1) and that once you get armor or a neck slot with a good property, there aren't appreciable upgrades until you can get +(x+1) with that same or a similar property.
In a home game, the magic item economy works much differently. That +2 dragonslayer sword may only be an extremely marginal improvement over a +2 magic sword, but it is a marginal improvement and nothing in the game has an appreciable sales price, you might as well take the improvement you can get--even if it is miniscule. There is no opportunity cost. Thus I would expect much more frequent turnover of magic items in a home game than in LFR where the opportunity cost of marginal improvements is significant--and make no mistake, the cost is significant in LFR.
For my part, I have found that my characters who made ill-considered use of their found item slots have regretted it for five levels or so because if they replace an item that isn't performing up to expectations with a found item slot, they can expect to be forced to pass up an item that is actually useful:
Character #1. Dwarf ranger. 4th level with three slots spent. Of course, two of those slots were wasted. He's got +2 vicious craghammer, +1 lightning craghammer, and a +1 frost craghammer (later transfer enhancemented to a javalin). He bought +1 magic chainmail.
The first item he took as found was the frost hammer because I thought, "who knows how common weapons will be in LFR." Big mistake. Weapons show up all the time. The second was the +1 lightning hammer--at the time, I didn't realize that +2 items were available. The third was the +2 vicious hammer because the character has trouble hitting and I needed to make up for past mistakes. I haven't seen another item worth having since he hit 4th level, but he has had to pass on one or two useful items (including a +2 magic weapon) at 2nd and 3rd level because he didn't have a slot for it.
Character #2 human cleric. 11th level. His first item was actually a +1 cloak of resistance. Since then he's picked up +2 vicious fullblade, +2 dwarven scale, +1 surge/veteran's scale armor, helm of battle, +2 cloak of resistance, +3 periapt of wisdom, healer's sash, keoghtom's ointment, and after Spec 1-2, a +3 magic fullblade. He also bought a +2 magic holy symbol, a +1 magic sword, bracers of mighty striking (at the start of the mod where he could have taken them as a bundle--ouch!) and +1 magic scale armor during his early levels.
He kept his +2 cloak of resistance and the +1 veteran's armor around but neither have proved appreciably useful for handing out. He is also down to just one found item slot remaining without any duplication or unnecessary upgrades. That leads me to believe that he would have had to pass up items that he actually wanted if he had wasted found item slots on trivial upgrades.
Character #3 eladrin warlord (now 8). Iron armbands of power, +1 delver's armor, +2 magic greatspear, +3 magic greatspear, +2 cloak of elvenkind, +2 deathcut hide armor, helm of heroes, boots of the fencing master. He also bought a +1 magic longsword and IIRC a +1 cloak of resistance. As with character number 1, this character serves to illustrate that magic items slots do not come by very frequently. Had he not foolishly selected the +1 delver's armor or the +2 cloak of elvenkind, he would not now be faced with a situation where I want to avoid playing any mods with worthwhile treasure bundles until he hits level 9 or 10.
Character #4, 5 (only played a few times--not much instructive there)
Character #6. Level 9 inspiring warlord. +2 magic sword, +1 black iron scale, +2 black iron scale, helm of heroes, coif of mindiron, +2 amulet of no regrets (or something else that turned out not to be as useful as I anticipated). Bought iron armbands of power, +1 brooch of shielding, upgraded +2 magic sword to +2 vanguard. I did a bit better with this character than with #1 or #3 and have not had to pass up any good items for lack of found item slots. I may well regret buying the coif of mindiron (which I have loaned out on occasion), but on the whole, she is doing fairly well. That is because she hasn't made any minor upgrades, skipped the +1 level for weapons and neck slot and bought her iron armbands with cash.
Character #7. Level 8 warlock. +1 wand vampiric embrace. +2 wand of eldritch rain, +2 veteran's armor, +2 cloak of resistance, belt of sacrifice, ebony fly. (purchased items: bracers of the perfect shot, eagle eye goggles, gloves of piercing, +1 orb of inevitable continuance)
This character is a good illustration of the challenges faced by impliment using characters. Since he is a multiclass wizard/warlock, he has to use a wand in order to have it work on all his powers. He did not find a +2 wand until 7th level and then it is, for all intents and purposes, a +2 magic wand since he is a Constitution focused warlock rather than Charisma focused warlock rendering the already weak eldritch rain power worthless. So, he has a few open slots and he needs them--for miscellaneous items that might catch his fancy like the ebony fly or for the time he actually stumbles across a magic wand that he wants. If he does find one, it will probably be 2-4 levels before he sees another so he has to be prepared to jump.
Other characters: still too low-level to be instructive.
My warlock/wizard MC is level 10 now, and has seen precisely one +2 wand (which he took - and eldritch rain is really crappy as a daily magic item power, even as a feylock!) and no +3 implements of any kind at all. Meanwhile +2 weapons appear practically every other mod from 4-7 level onwards.
As I understand the rules, it would be legal and within RAI to have several authors create My Realms adventures which are related to each other, and so long as they are the DM of their respective portion, run that at a small public event. That would give the local convention a UNIQUE LFR adventure, perhaps multiple rounds, or parts in length, assuming the DMs are willing to write the adventure (and then DM it). Just don't distribute to other DMs (beyond a possible second co-author/DM).
Keith
Hi Keith. Would it then be possible to author a series of 4-5 modules for an event to do a similar style game as what the last 3-Rivers Con had for Living City where in essence the whole room were to work together through their perspective modules to accomplish a grand outcome. In the case of 3-rivers, it was to beat back the Raksasha at the end and remove the floating citadel from Raven's Bluff?
I wouldn't see why not. however, the kicker is they'd have to be written by 4-5 different people since you can't write one and hand it off to someone else to run. You cold have fewer authors if you co-authored (1 othe rperson only), but still... the logistics of getting multiple people to write mods would be a nightmare. Just ask the admins!
I'm working with a couple of fellow DMs to write an interconnected series of MYREs that we would offer at a local con, with each of us running "our" MYRE in order.
I wouldn't see why not. however, the kicker is they'd have to be written by 4-5 different people since you can't write one and hand it off to someone else to run. You cold have fewer authors if you co-authored (1 othe rperson only), but still... the logistics of getting multiple people to write mods would be a nightmare. Just ask the admins!
It depends upon the level of writing needed both in general and from the second author--and on how much standardization you are willing to put into the individual elements.
Level of writing. For a MYRE, mod, the back of a napkin is sufficient space for all the writing you absolutely need. Obviously non-MM creatures require more work if they are templated or you don't want to have to level them up or down on the fly (and despite the insistence of 4e boosters, I don't think that it is particularly easy to "just add two levels to it" on the fly--it's very easy to forget the +2 to hit or the extra 16 hp, etc) Additionally, you might want more writing for a complex skill encounter and such (especially if you want to modify the mechanics of your skill encounter in order to avoid the many and debilitating flaws of the DMG skill challenge mechanics). But the basics of a mod could be written down on the back of a napkin:
Encounter 1: calm the mob (level 3 complexity 1 skill challenge).
Encounter 2: Orcs attack: Eye of Gruumsch and orc beserkers (=# PCs-1, level up or down as appropriate).
Encounter 3: Lost in the woods skill challenge. Level 3, complexity 2.
Encounter 4: Goblins attack: Goblin hexer and goblin skullcleavers (=#PCs-1, level up or down as appropriate).
Encounter 5: Still lost in the woods. Skill challenge. Whatever level and complexity is necessary to use up the remaining xp budget.
Everything is from the monster manual or the DMG, maps can be improvised on the spot or assembled at random from available terrain. And it all fits on the back of a napkin. It may not be a good mod, but it's likely to be as good as half the published LFR mods.
Now, if you are willing to live with that level of detail in the writing, a simple outline for the collaberating DMs--something like:
Encounter 1: calm the mob (level 3 complexity 1 skill challenge). After you stop them from lynching the accused (and inevitably innocent--when was the last time any NPC was actually able to identify a guilty party in any LFR mod?) villager, the elders explain that their cattle have been disappearing. The PCs go to the location of the latest attack:
Encounter 2: Humanoid attack. Level 3 (5 high tier) encounter with orcs.
After the fight, the PCs track the monsters to their camp:
Encounter 3: Lost in the woods skill challenge. Level 3, complexity 2.
After successfully tracking the monsters and facing the challenge of the woods the PCs encounter the main force of bad guys
Encounter 4: More orcs inhabiting a fortified camp Level 4 (6 high tier) encounter.
The co-author has to supply all of the box text, combat encounters, and maps, but that's pretty easy to do at a minimal level (a decent DM could probably wing everything except the combat encounters which could be put together from the MM five minutes before running the mod) and the people willing to put more effort into it aren't going to make it more difficult for you. Thus it is legitimately a co-authorship (at least it it's written down--I think any criteria for co-authorship would require that both authors have a copy of a complete mod (which may or may not have box text, but should have encounters filled in and some semblance of a map) but allows all of the authors to do their work with a minimum of coordination.
Going a bit further, if you anticipate working with mulitple co-authors, you might want to create a bestiary of uniquely leveled or templated monsters that can be used to make sure that the various mods in the series cohere. They won't all be used in every mod, but if the broken fist orc beserker sub-chief (really an orc warlord NPC with the battle champion template from the DMG) shows up in several of them and the broken fist orc commandos (orc rogue NPCs) show up in several of them, they will establish a sense of continuity that makes the broken fist orc tribe different from other orcs that the PCs may have fought and enables "level 3 encounter with orcs" to have more variety than you would get just using the monster manual entries.
The primary challenge that I see with this kind of approach is that the campaign leadership seems to be dead set against anything that might come close to remotely resembling old style interactives. And while, there would be no mega-tables, switching tables, or direct interaction from one table to another, running a series of related MYRE mods where the later ones were written to be contingent upon the events of the first series of mods might well trip their "interactive radar" and cause them to quash the entire MYRE experiment for fear that someone somewhere might use coordinated MYRE to create a new kind of interactive--or something that feels interactive enough to trigger their fury. Even the illusion of interactivity might be too much for them. (By this I mean something where you figure that you have made the results of each module in the series are sufficiently predictable that you can write "someone else did XYZ, and that reveals ABC to you" ahead of time in the confidence that only a complete group of morons could fail to accomplish XYZ and the morons would have to try). About the only way I can think to keep it off their quash list would be to not run the modules simultaneously (and preferably not at a con) and to make sure that you don't start co-operatively writing any of the second series of modules until you know what happend in the first series.
My Realms adventures are intended to supplement the LFR campaign, not supplant it. I think we've found a great tool here - providing a fertile ground for creativity while still keeping the officially released adventures as a focal point for the campaign.
Quick question on the MYRE adventures - would the fact that one was run for a group or two be beneficial if the author wanted to submit it to Wizards of the Coast? To expand on that thought: say I were to make a MYRE 1-1 adventure that was a huge hit with the players, and so I run it again with a new set of players, who also love it. If I were to submit the synopsis to WotC with the information that it has been played, would it help in consideration of the submission? If the adventure were to be turned into an actual module, there is the minor problem of the players that participated in the MYRE version going through it again, but an honest MYRE would only affect a small, local group of players in this way.
there is the minor problem of the players that participated in the MYRE version going through it again, but an honest MYRE would only affect a small, local group of players in this way.
It would only be a problem if they went throught it with the same set of characters. And it is somewhat unlikely that the characters would still be of a level to participate in it after the amount of time that would be necessary to go through the submission and editing process.
Quick question on the MYRE adventures - would the fact that one was run for a group or two be beneficial if the author wanted to submit it to Wizards of the Coast? To expand on that thought: say I were to make a MYRE 1-1 adventure that was a huge hit with the players, and so I run it again with a new set of players, who also love it. If I were to submit the synopsis to WotC with the information that it has been played, would it help in consideration of the submission? If the adventure were to be turned into an actual module, there is the minor problem of the players that participated in the MYRE version going through it again, but an honest MYRE would only affect a small, local group of players in this way.
I assume you mean submit to LFR admins (either respective regional Writing Director, or a Global Admin) as WotC does not directly deal with authors for LFR (other than on the contract).
Hard to have a general answer because there are a couple of potential drawbacks.
1. If you based an My Realms adventure on the plot hook we provided, we cannot use that in a published LFR adventure...ever. A clear line was drawn.
2. The more tailored a My Realms adventure is for your local home group, which is the primary intent of that offering, the less viable it will be for general play interest.
3. In any case, just like when an author has a plot they want to write on, does it work with that region's story arc, or what the global is doing. Now, more than to date, we are assigned specific level bands by quarter; it is not totally up to the individual Writing Directors. So even if it is a dandy H3 adventure, if I have don't have H3 adventure to produce in 2010, then not in that year.
It might be a useful sample of your skill as an author though.
Keith
Or would that be something that people couldn't speak about.Keith