Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Skerrit 10-17-06, 09:48 PM	I have posted the Draft A of v1.1 of the Campaign Standards to the Files section of the COWSXendrikExpeditions and rpgaxenex yahoogroups. Please download it, have a look, and then make any comments on THIS THREAD. Try to limit your comments to typos, rules you think are missing, or things that don't make sense. If you wish a rule was different, please make sure you say why. Constructive critism is helpful. Whining will be ignored. If any of the Moderators see this thread, pleas make it Sticky. Greg Marks Cabal of Shadows FM
Skerrit 10-17-06, 10:18 PM	I have added the file to the http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rpgapreviews yahoogroup as well.
DBlizzard 10-17-06, 10:32 PM	I'm still going over it for errors. One thing confuses me, however. What's the point of having books listed in the Restricted List? They aren't allowed (by being listed as an allowed book), so why bother to list them as restricted. I suspect this is going to lead to arguments by some that items books not listed as restricted are automatically usable. For example, someone may try to use a feat from the Complete Mage.
Skerrit 10-17-06, 10:44 PM	Its purpose was more along the lines of saying we aren't using this book at all; so don't expect to see it in a story object or campaign card. Books not on this list but aren't on the list at the beginning of the CS might see use on a card or story object.
Lightblade 10-17-06, 11:57 PM	Dragon above clerics must choose one of Air, Good, Protection, and Weather, in addition to a non-restricted SC domain. Weather is from the Complete Divine, while all the rest are PHB. The SC's version of the weather domain is called Windstorm, and grants some pretty potent spells (binding winds, arc of lightning, etc). I think weather should be ommitted or replaced with an appopriate PHB domain.
Lightblade 10-18-06, 12:06 AM	Page, 10, consumable items: "When you buy (but not craft) a wand..." This is in contradiction to Page 7, which states that you may craft a wand with 10 charges. Since page 7's text is newer, that's probably correct.
Lightblade 10-18-06, 12:11 AM	Page 11: Alternate Shifter Trait costs 1 expansion slot. Contrast to bottom of box on page 5, which says they are free.
Lightblade 10-18-06, 12:22 AM	Page 15: Symbionts are restricted. Any exception for Half-Dalkyr?
Skerrit 10-18-06, 12:31 AM	Yes, Half-Daelkyr unlock the Daelkyr symbiotes; as does anyone with the plant or element cards unlock the symbiotes on those cards.
The_Jester 10-18-06, 12:32 AM	(This would be alot easier if one could cut-n-paste) Page 13 "Master Inquisitive (ESC): XXX" I think there's supposed to be more there...
The_Jester 10-18-06, 12:38 AM	Page 15, the mundane items restricted list. It only lists Renaissance Weapons but not modern era or futuristic weapons (I play this weekend, grenades here I come!).
Lightblade 10-18-06, 01:02 AM	Page 15, the mundane items restricted list. It only lists Renaissance Weapons but not modern era or futuristic weapons (I play this weekend, grenades here I come!). Thankfully, they don't have prices, and therefore are unpurchasable. The DMG says they should be treated as artifacts, so they can be excluded with that clause, as well.
The_Jester 10-18-06, 01:08 AM	Yeah, I'm just being a bit of a dick. :D It should still be written for clarity's sake so a DM doesn't add a couple in a DM's Mark. You can't buy them but you can have them used against you or pry them from the cold-dead hands of an enemy.
haferka 10-18-06, 01:10 AM	"Power Link" psionic item from Magic of Eberron.. needs to be restricted... without errata.. it allows a psion to manifest powers FAR beyond their level... or you could just change the item description.. add the word "NOT" where it states that the item "does <insert> allow spending more points than manifestor levels." I have reported the problem numerous times.. they know it is a mistake.. but have thus far failed to print any errata.
haferka 10-18-06, 01:13 AM	What about allowing "Psionic Artificer" from magic of eberron... I have not seen anything for or against allowing the class. FYI: It is basicly just artificer, with psionic powers instead of magic spells. Also, would the Warforged Artificer racial levels work with "Psionic Artificer"? {provided that you are a psiforged}
oreztes 10-18-06, 02:01 AM	No more player vs. player in Cabal? Just out of morbid curiosity, what events exactly lead up to that particular decision? I ask because I'm left wondering how, exactly, one is expected to resolve conflict, when say... one Obscura is supposed to kill an NPC your Obscura is supposed to escort/protect? What can you do to stop them? Ask nicely? Somehow I don't think that'll work when the attacker is following orders. Removing the player vs. player aspect of CoS is a horrible idea which should be reversed IMO. I personally think it was fine when it was just subdual/nonlethal damage. At least then, there was a way to stop someone from doing something counterproductive to your Obscura's goal. [Edited to sound less hostile.]
jeffpicard 10-18-06, 02:49 AM	Bases classes as expansion items? Does this mean that Anyone can spend 3 of their expansion slots and play a psionic character? (somewhat weakens the cards that allow this, but not totally, those cards still grant access to all of the XP psionic classes and prestige classes, as well as the feats, which is probably a greater benefit of the cards) Suggestion, if that is true allow characters with cards allowing access to all nonrestricted classes from the XP to spen only 1 (maybe 2?) expansion slots on a bas class from Complete Psionic. Also in this regard, the rules on multiclassing only taslk about classes allowed by a CARD to be part of your choice at 1st level, and even mention that other base classes are limited (which agrees with my first note) does this mean that if one chooses at 1st level to spend their first 3 slots on a psionic, incarnum, or phbII or other non-restricted base class they still cannot make it one of their favoured classes? Paladin Mounts: is it intentional to override a Talenta Halfling's default dinosaur mount(as per the ECS)? since they can purchase the mount at normal costs (which are comparable to horse costs) it would make sense to allow them to call a clawfoot Expansion Lists: Powers may need to be called out as addable, though the spell entry should cover them. Even if it's not the intention from my first post, those with cards will still need to use expansion slots to unlock powers from Complete Psionic, Magic of Eberron, etc Item Properties should probably also be called out for similar reasons The Cabal of Shadows special of making Restricted Evil classes limited instead is now spelled out in the Restricted lists, perhaps it should be only there to avoid confusion Dragonmarked: Nowhere is thjis expresly called out as restricted, a character from the other 3 factions looks to be able to be a member of the house without the card.... BUT the feats are still restricted, so it could only be done for flavour only? Fastplay Taking one for the team: "seclect a character slot (either the default or the non-default) to apply the death to..." we only have One slot...
JJeff 10-18-06, 04:15 AM	Minor mistake: Pg 5 - Repair Package They are called XX of Repair XX damage, not XX of Repair XX Wounds
Lightblade 10-18-06, 09:12 AM	No more player vs. player in Cabal? ... Removing the player vs. player aspect of CoS ... [Edited to sound less hostile.] Oreztes, PVP was NEVER in the campaign. Read some of Skerrit's forum posts for the in faction and out of faction explanation. If you want to make a case for allowing PVP (which would have to go all the way to the level of the RPGA general rules, mind you), start a new thread. Since this is not a change to the campaign standards, the discussion doesn't belong here.
Lightblade 10-18-06, 09:26 AM	The whole "what you can do with your expansion slots" is probably worth a discussion in itself. Cleric Domains: who would use expansion slots to unlock a cleric domain? If you worship a standard diety, you have PHB/ECS. If you have the Dragon Above, you get one SC + one PHB. Does the Dragon Above cleric need to unlock the SC domain? In any case, you have a set of domains available, and i don't see how you could aquire a domain that you unlocked. (Maybe with a PrC, but that's a stretch). The clause about unlocking the weapon unlocks the feat... Perhaps it should be the other way around, since feats cost more to unlock. For example, compare a drow unlocking the Drow Scorpion chain and getting Drow Skirmisher feat unlocked for free, versus the the Hobgoblin needing to pay more to unlock his Darguun Mauler feat. Also, it seems less unbalancing if a feat unlocks many weapons than if a weapon unlocks many feats.
heirodule 10-18-06, 09:37 AM	Information needed about which special PrC prerequisites can be met by things the GM just notes on your record, and which ones require a story object. Like Death Delver just requires coming back from below 0 hp. But Catalcysm Mage requires a dream from a dusk hag. Can a DM mark cover that, if not specified? And what of the catalclysm mage personal prophecy? (Can you tell I'm very interested in cataclysm mages?)
Shadowed Intent 10-18-06, 10:22 AM	On page 12, under Spending Action Points and Campaign Cards. The 2nd sentence of the 2nd paragraph states, "When a general Campaign Card goes into your discard pile, you many no longer benefit from the special benefits that card grants, including its action value." I believe the word many should be may.
Butterface 10-18-06, 10:25 AM	Drugs (any source) are listed as a restricted mundane item. I think this should be a limited item for Cabal of Shadows. Sure, it's evil and twisted, thus it fits right in. One player in my Cabal of Shadows group has a background as a corrupter, and he used drugs to weaken people that he wanted to manipulate. I can't think of much that's more evil than that! If you're going to allow Assassin (someone who's profession is murder), why not drugs? Edit: Drug use is a part of Eberron. The Sharn City of Towers sourcebook lists all the rules and effects (including addiction) for several types, including Absentia, Dragon's blood, and Dreamlily.
Guie 10-18-06, 10:37 AM	Pg 4 , Alt Class Feature ... Unlocking alternate class features cost a single expansion slot. Pg 11 , Table CS 7 ... Alternate class ability cost 2 .
JondolarSage 10-18-06, 10:49 AM	Oreztes, PVP was NEVER in the campaign. Read some of Skerrit's forum posts for the in faction and out of faction explanation. If you want to make a case for allowing PVP (which would have to go all the way to the level of the RPGA general rules, mind you), start a new thread. Since this is not a change to the campaign standards, the discussion doesn't belong here. Lightblade (or Skerrit), could you please link or quote the post where non-lethal damage dealt to another player is expressly forbidden and the reasoning behind it, as I have just spent the past hour trying to find such a reference and could not. In fact, I came across several posts from Skerrit that explained, in great detail, what forms of player vs player combat were allowed. Further, as player vs player combat is not specifically prohibited in version 1.0 of the campaign standards, this is a change that should be discussed, for it greatly affects Cabal of Shadows characters, and, to a lesser extent, all factions participating in one of the Expeditions such as Well of Woe. As Oreztes stated, how exactly is one supposed to complete a listed mission when there is another player who has been ordered to take actions that would prevent that (such as one playing trying to kill an NPC the other player has been charged with returning alive). I believe an explaination of this decision is in order, whether it takes place here or in another thread. [Edited for spelling and grammar]
Lightblade 10-18-06, 11:10 AM	My mistake; i meant to state that attacking a fellow PC for lethal damage was a big no-no. As for nonletal/grappling/restraining, that's something that deserved discussion as to the intent of the PVP passage. Once again, that discussion should probably happen in a new thread.
Skerrit 10-18-06, 11:15 AM	What about allowing "Psionic Artificer" from magic of eberron... I have not seen anything for or against allowing the class. FYI: It is basicly just artificer, with psionic powers instead of magic spells. Also, would the Warforged Artificer racial levels work with "Psionic Artificer"? {provided that you are a psiforged} If something isn't listed as being restricted, its in.
ceregon 10-18-06, 11:18 AM	The Faiths of Eberron Book is not listed in the Optional Materials section on page 2 with all of the other Eberron books, but it is listed in Notations on Campaign Cards.
Skerrit 10-18-06, 11:19 AM	No more player vs. player in Cabal? Just out of morbid curiosity, what events exactly lead up to that particular decision? I ask because I'm left wondering how, exactly, one is expected to resolve conflict, when say... one Obscura is supposed to kill an NPC your Obscura is supposed to escort/protect? What can you do to stop them? Ask nicely? Somehow I don't think that'll work when the attacker is following orders. [Edited to sound less hostile.] COS PCs have never been allowed direct combat. This question was answered in the first few days of the campaign on the old forums. All the PCs are effectively made men in the mob. If you kill another made man, you are executed as soon as the mod ends, and you body is destroyed to prevent any coming back from the dead. Now, of course "arranging" the death, arrest, inconvienance, or attack of a fellow PC by NPCs is allowed. As is not helping a downed ally, or simply arranging things to be tactically disadvantageous for your "ally" are perfectly allowed. If you have let things devolve into PC vs. PC combat, you have already failed in your "secret mission."
Skerrit 10-18-06, 11:27 AM	Lightblade (or Skerrit), could you please link or quote the post where non-lethal damage dealt to another player is expressly forbidden and the reasoning behind it, That rather lengthy post was lost during the conversion to the new forums. I will note that there is nothing wrong with grappling or restraining another PC in some way. Just actually attacking them is forbidden. I will make some edits to the PvP section to clarify a bit.
Skerrit 10-18-06, 11:30 AM	The Faiths of Eberron Book is not listed in the Optional Materials section on page 2 with all of the other Eberron books, but it is listed in Notations on Campaign Cards. Correct. The FMs hope to have some info on this book (and complete mage) by the final release; but as of yet, none of us have these books.
Frobi-Wan Kenobi 10-18-06, 12:20 PM	While I'm glad to see that the Artificer isn't as nerfed as it was I'd like to suggest that if the factionmasters still feel that they need to change one of the fundamental abilities of the Artificer class then caster level equaling ranks in UMD -3 should be changed to just simply caster level is equal to Artificer level. Using ranks just leave the door open for multi-class artificers to exploit the rule. I'll again say that the way that the Eberron Campaign Setting uses Artificer level +2 simply to determine if an Artificer means the Caster Level requirement is not unbalanced as written.
NightSonX 10-18-06, 02:24 PM	That rather lengthy post was lost during the conversion to the new forums. I will note that there is nothing wrong with grappling or restraining another PC in some way. Just actually attacking them is forbidden. I will make some edits to the PvP section to clarify a bit. Does this include the generic non-lethal that was allowed before? Or has that gone the way of the buffalo?
oreztes 10-18-06, 03:10 PM	Sorry about the confusion in my previous post. By "PvP" I meant non-lethal damage. To me, intentionally targetting another player with any spell, ability, or attack that's normally reserved for enemies/NPCs is PvP, but I can see where there might be confusion. I know there's no killing teammates. I was just inquiring about knocking them out. But yes, maybe this issue does deserve its own thead.
jeffpicard 10-18-06, 03:46 PM	The clause about unlocking the weapon unlocks the feat... Perhaps it should be the other way around, since feats cost more to unlock. For example, compare a drow unlocking the Drow Scorpion chain and getting Drow Skirmisher feat unlocked for free, versus the the Hobgoblin needing to pay more to unlock his Darguun Mauler feat. Also, it seems less unbalancing if a feat unlocks many weapons than if a weapon unlocks many feats. I'd argue that Drow Skirmisher does not require access to the Drow Spiked chain, or any of the other weapons it affects. the clause that unlocking the weapon also unlocks the feats is to be clear that you don't put weapon focus (drow spiked chain), weapon specialization (drow spiked chain) etc on your list. In any case a clearer statement about what is really meant might be useful there, with an example such as the drow spiked chain and the connections there.
bronzmonkee 10-18-06, 04:01 PM	In the Restricted section, Evil PrC's are restricted with the exception that they are limited for CoS. The Ur-Priest is then listed as restricted. You should spell out whether that is an exception to the exception, or not. :D
bronzmonkee 10-18-06, 04:10 PM	The price quoted for Cold Iron ammunition is wrong. It should be 10 GP for 20 arrows, rather than 10 GP for 1 arrow.
bronzmonkee 10-18-06, 04:18 PM	On page 7 of the draft, it says that characters can buy adamantine equipment. Is this in error or as designed? You should clarify how a character gains access to equipment made of adamantine and mithral. Does the character have to use one expansion slot per item, or a single slot gaining access to "adamantine". Likewise for mithral or any other special materials. For example, if I wanted an adamantine sword and adamantine armour for my character, how many slots would it cost?
Lightblade 10-18-06, 04:27 PM	On page 7 of the draft, it says that characters can buy adamantine equipment. Is this in error or as designed? You should clarify how a character gains access to equipment made of adamantine and mithral. Does the character have to use one expansion slot per item, or a single slot gaining access to "adamantine". Likewise for mithral or any other special materials. For example, if I wanted an adamantine sword and adamantine armour for my character, how many slots would it cost? Adamantine, mithril, and any materials in the ECS are already unlocked. The bit about adamantine being available makes it unlimited. Basically, as I understand it, you can buy adamantine items above the item gp cap so long as they are not magical/otherwise limited and you have enough gold to do so. Mithril is limited but unlocked, so a mithril shirt would have to fall under the GP cap before you could buy it, although you need not spend expansion slots. At least, that's how i understand it.
jeffpicard 10-18-06, 05:23 PM	the later pages have Alchemical silver, cold iron and darkwood weapons aa the only things expressly designated as unlimited from the DMG, putting adamantine and mithril as limited (but not locked) thus you shouldn't need to put them on an expansion list, but you will need to wait until they are within the GP limit for limited items (given the sheer cost of adamantine weapons, this isn't really a huge drawback) which part is correct so we can be consistent Oddly why is improved familiar designated as "limited" on page 10? Limited has no real meaning here,the feat doesn't cost money, but it would prevent someone from taking it at first level... which the feat itself does by only going down to 3rd level
Sieylianna 10-18-06, 05:50 PM	COS PCs have never been allowed direct combat. This question was answered in the first few days of the campaign on the old forums. All the PCs are effectively made men in the mob. If you kill another made man, you are executed as soon as the mod ends, and you body is destroyed to prevent any coming back from the dead. Now, of course "arranging" the death, arrest, inconvienance, or attack of a fellow PC by NPCs is allowed. As is not helping a downed ally, or simply arranging things to be tactically disadvantageous for your "ally" are perfectly allowed. If you have let things devolve into PC vs. PC combat, you have already failed in your "secret mission." What about the Profane Lifeleech feat from Libris Mortis? It damages friends, foes and bystanders. Ed
Grantor 10-18-06, 06:32 PM	Page 11: Alternate Shifter Trait costs 1 expansion slot. Contrast to bottom of box on page 5, which says they are free. The alternate shifters are extremely limited on first level shifter traits. I would suggest also unlocking the matched 'X Elite' feat from the Races of Eberron when you unlock an alternate shifter trait. Otherwise they only qualify for Healing Factor and Shifter Ferocity, and then only with a 13 in the required ability score. Compare to basic shifter traits bearers, which can use their first expansion slot to open their matching Elite feat (if needed), as well as Shifter Magnetism and Shifter Instincts. That's five choices compared to two. Or three and none if you lack the right 13 score.
RLRapp 10-18-06, 09:46 PM	Any chance you could post the draft to these boards?
togapika 10-18-06, 09:59 PM	The Vassal of Bahamut prestige class (Book of Exalted Deeds) was not listed as not allowed, so what would my Covenant of Light Favored Soul have to do to be able to take it?
pedr 10-18-06, 10:25 PM	Any chance you could post the draft to these boards?I don't think the boards have a file attachment option. The easiest way to get them is to subscribe to this Yahoo! Group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rpgaxenex/ It might require you to create a Yahoo! account but that's quick, easy and free. You might also have to wait until your membership is authorised - I can't remember what the settings are for that group.
Butterface 10-19-06, 12:19 PM	Drugs (any source) are listed as a restricted mundane item. I think this should be a limited item for Cabal of Shadows. Sure, it's evil and twisted, thus it fits right in. One player in my Cabal of Shadows group has a background as a corrupter, and he used drugs to weaken people that he wanted to manipulate. I can't think of much that's more evil than that! If you're going to allow Assassin (someone who's profession is murder), why not drugs? Edit: Drug use is a part of Eberron. The Sharn City of Towers sourcebook lists all the rules and effects (including addiction) for several types, including Absentia, Dragon's blood, and Dreamlily. I was afraid this might have gotten lost in the discussion of PvP that ensued. ;)
stryker99 10-19-06, 12:24 PM	While I'm glad to see that the Artificer isn't as nerfed as it was I'd like to suggest that if the factionmasters still feel that they need to change one of the fundamental abilities of the Artificer class then caster level equaling ranks in UMD -3 should be changed to just simply caster level is equal to Artificer level. Using ranks just leave the door open for multi-class artificers to exploit the rule. I'll again say that the way that the Eberron Campaign Setting uses Artificer level +2 simply to determine if an Artificer means the Caster Level requirement is not unbalanced as written. That won't work because ranks in UMD are important for artificer crafting. In Xen'drik this rule replaces the normal UMD checks for crafting. Instead of rolling UMD checks you simply have to meet this new requirement for this campaign. This rule will prevent artificers from not putting any ranks in UMD and crafting tons of items. Nothing in the campaign standards says the Artificer level +2 rule from the ECS is ignored, the UMD -3 rule is simply an ADDITIONAL rule (at least that's how I interpreted it). In light of this confusion, the campaign doc should probably clarify that the Artificer level +2 from the ECS still applies in addition to the campaign rule of UMD -3. Edit: Fix spelling errors.
Frobi-Wan Kenobi 10-19-06, 02:44 PM	That won't work because ranks in UMD are important for artificer crafting. In Xen'drik this rule replaces the normal UMD checks for crafting. Instead of rolling UMD checks you simply have to meet this new requirement for this campaign. This rule will prevent artificers from not putting any ranks in UMD and crafting tons of items. Nothing in the campaign standards says the Artificer level +2 rule from the ECS is ignored, the UMD -3 rule is simply an ADDITIONAL rule (at least that's how I interpreted it). In light of this confusion, the campaign doc should probably clarify that the Artificer level +2 from the ECS still applies in addition to the campaign rule of UMD -3. Edit: Fix spelling errors. Actually, the ruling that you are referring to where the Artificer's UMD rolls automatically succeed doesn't appear to be in the XenEx CS. It was in the MoH CS (page 8 under Item Creation Feats) where it also states that Artificers MUST maintain maximum ranks in UMD. I assumed that had transfered over to XenEx but haven't found it. An example of why it wouldn't work as written is a Artificer 1/Bard 6 with 10 ranks of UMD. Under the draft CS this would allow the Artificer to create CL 7th Scrolls.
WolfStar76 10-19-06, 03:29 PM	There's still no rule set forth for Coin on Hand, though our borrowed character sheets from MoH have a Coin on Hand listing, additionally, the modules occasionally have listing for things like bribes and other uses that make mention of the PCs tossing around spending money. Then again, I was trying to read the draft at work while doing other things, so I may have simply missed this. {EDIT} On a loosely related note, would it be possible to get our own character sheets to coincide with the new campaign standards when they're ready?
bronzmonkee 10-19-06, 06:02 PM	I know that alchemical equipment costs five times as much. However, the rules are unclear about other mundane equipment that could conceivably be consumed during the course of an adventure (oil, rations, healing kits, etc). Could you please add a section that explicitly states whether such mundane equipment costs extra or not.
Grantor 10-19-06, 06:43 PM	I know that alchemical equipment costs five times as much. However, the rules are unclear about other mundane equipment that could conceivably be consumed during the course of an adventure (oil, rations, healing kits, etc). Could you please add a section that explicitly states whether such mundane equipment costs extra or not. It's true that the examples in the document always list magical items. But I don't think it is confusing that mundane items also count since all of the sections that talk about campaign costs being five times greater than published costs are refering to just "Comsumable Items". An example, the very first time the term is used in the document: "Because equipment is reset between adventure rounds, consumable items cost more than the costs in D&D books." I don't think that is unclear, especially with the table of costs displaying normal arrows along with the alchemical stuff. But, in the page 10 paragraph, headed with "Consumable Items", it would be nice to list a mundane item (e.g. disguise kit) in the list of magic item examples, just to be crystal clear.
haferka 10-19-06, 11:23 PM	That won't work because ranks in UMD are important for artificer crafting. In Xen'drik this rule replaces the normal UMD checks for crafting. Instead of rolling UMD checks you simply have to meet this new requirement for this campaign. This rule will prevent artificers from not putting any ranks in UMD and crafting tons of items. Nothing in the campaign standards says the Artificer level +2 rule from the ECS is ignored, the UMD -3 rule is simply an ADDITIONAL rule (at least that's how I interpreted it). In light of this confusion, the campaign doc should probably clarify that the Artificer level +2 from the ECS still applies in addition to the campaign rule of UMD -3. Edit: Fix spelling errors. Actually, why not allow the artificer to craft items without UMD... in most cases he will simply not be able to use them... There is a huge difference between creating something and using it... look at mundane items as an example... sword... craft(weaponsmithing)... creates a masterwork weapon... but without BA and/or proficiency it is virtually useless in the crafters hands.
haferka 10-20-06, 12:58 AM	The CS states that "Bonus Feats" from any class you have unlocked also unlock those feats... so you can choose them with the class feature. Does this mean that a Fighter can use his bonus Feats to choose "Fighter Bonus Feats" from other books? like complete warrior?
tilloch 10-20-06, 01:17 AM	Was it your intention that the Psionic (or Incarnum for that matter) classes be "locked" instead of "restricted"? I have not had time to really analyze every line of the new C.S., but it appears that if I pay my three expansion slots I can be an Elven Psion if I want. Was that the intent of the factionmasters? Maybe just some missing verbage? What about the "Eastern" Base Classes. Shouldn't they be "restricted" as well? Not that I wouldn't mind being a warforged scout ninja. Tilloch Future Gnoll Psychic Warrior (?)
haferka 10-20-06, 02:06 AM	Was it your intention that the Psionic (or Incarnum for that matter) classes be "locked" instead of "restricted"? I have not had time to really analyze every line of the new C.S., but it appears that if I pay my three expansion slots I can be an Elven Psion if I want. Was that the intent of the factionmasters? Maybe just some missing verbage? What about the "Eastern" Base Classes. Shouldn't they be "restricted" as well? Not that I wouldn't mind being a warforged scout ninja. Tilloch Future Gnoll Psychic Warrior (?) I would agree.. that the psionic classes SHOULD remain restricted for all non-psionic races. This could potentially create a massive # of psionic characters... A couple levels of Psychic Warrior for Expansion + Practiced Manifestor = 2 size category increase for every front line fighter... Changeling Egoist, Shifter Wilder & Kalashtar Psion should be the ONLY limited race/class combos for Psionics without using cards. Choosing ANY psionic class by ANY method should then change expanded psionics content from Restricted to Limited... (also make a note that updated powers from Complete Psionics are the most current errata)
arscott 10-20-06, 05:32 AM	That won't work because ranks in UMD are important for artificer crafting. In Xen'drik this rule replaces the normal UMD checks for crafting. Instead of rolling UMD checks you simply have to meet this new requirement for this campaign. This rule will prevent artificers from not putting any ranks in UMD and crafting tons of items. Nothing in the campaign standards says the Artificer level +2 rule from the ECS is ignored, the UMD -3 rule is simply an ADDITIONAL rule (at least that's how I interpreted it). In light of this confusion, the campaign doc should probably clarify that the Artificer level +2 from the ECS still applies in addition to the campaign rule of UMD -3. Edit: Fix spelling errors. But doesn't the UMD -3 effectively bypass the Artificer level requirement in the case of single class casters? UMD - 3 is never going to exceed character level.
arscott 10-20-06, 06:02 AM	A few questions: Now that psionic classes are freely available, is there any particular reason to keep the Kalashtar restricted? After all, they're a core Eberron race. Why do you have to select your alternate class feature or racial substitution class for the class you take at first level? I don't really get the reason behind this.
stryker99 10-20-06, 09:59 AM	Actually, the ruling that you are referring to where the Artificer's UMD rolls automatically succeed doesn't appear to be in the XenEx CS. It was in the MoH CS (page 8 under Item Creation Feats) where it also states that Artificers MUST maintain maximum ranks in UMD. I assumed that had transfered over to XenEx but haven't found it. I took the Xen'drik ruling to imply that the rolls are automatically successful if you meet the UMD requirement. You are correct, this needs to be clarified in the document. An example of why it wouldn't work as written is a Artificer 1/Bard 6 with 10 ranks of UMD. Under the draft CS this would allow the Artificer to create CL 7th Scrolls. That char could create CL6 bard scrolls OR CL1 artificer scrolls. The artificer crafting rules already limit artificer items to actual CL = artificer level, though for prerequesite purposes only you can craft items as if your artificer level were two levels higher. So, for example, your first level artificer could craft CL1 scrolls of 2nd level spells. The UMD-3 campaign rule does not mean you can ignore the normal rules of item crafting in the artificer class description. But doesn't the UMD -3 effectively bypass the Artificer level requirement in the case of single class casters? UMD - 3 is never going to exceed character level. Oops, you're right. The standards still state "ranks" not total UMD. This should DEFINITELY be changed to total. An artificer with high charisma, Skill Focus (UMD) (or other skill bonus feats) and synergies should get the benefit of that Cha/feat(s)/synergy. They most certainly would if they were rolling the UMD checks for crafting. This should be changed in the standards.
Skerrit 10-20-06, 10:11 AM	The CS states that "Bonus Feats" from any class you have unlocked also unlock those feats... so you can choose them with the class feature. Does this mean that a Fighter can use his bonus Feats to choose "Fighter Bonus Feats" from other books? like complete warrior? No. That means if a pclass specifically names a feat you get as a class feature, you get access. If a class says you get a generic bonus feat (or chosen from a big list some of which are unlimited and some of which are limited) you may only choose an unlimited feat unless you use expansion slots. I will make a note to clarify this.
Skerrit 10-20-06, 10:14 AM	Was it your intention that the Psionic (or Incarnum for that matter) classes be "locked" instead of "restricted"? What about the "Eastern" Base Classes. Shouldn't they be "restricted" as well? Not that I wouldn't mind being a warforged scout ninja. Yes, the EXCS is correct. Eberron product and novels has long been showing all races to be psionic, or for that matter to be ninjas and the like. All those things are limited, but can be unlocked with expansion slots.
Skerrit 10-20-06, 10:17 AM	Now that psionic classes are freely available, is there any particular reason to keep the Kalashtar restricted? After all, they're a core Eberron race. That's a good point. Non-psionic classed kalashtars should prolly be freely available. Why do you have to select your alternate class feature or racial substitution class for the class you take at first level? I don't really get the reason behind this. The thinking is two fold. If you wants to be "special" and take these alternate abilites, it makes you commit to that right away. Also, and more importantly, if you can only take it at first level, you can't 20 of them. That means if you sit a table, you may have some differences, but a judge still knows a little of what your PC brings.
Randall Montgomery 10-20-06, 10:53 AM	That's a good point. Non-psionic classed kalashtars should prolly be freely available. Would this mean that you no longer have to use People of Mind, Matter, and Radiance to take Psionic classes for Kalashtars, but instead would just take a Kalashtar and put the base Psionic class on your 1st-level expansion slot? I would really love this, because I'm about to take a Kalashtar Monk/Cleric/Sacred Fist, and having the extra 3 action points from not needing to use the card would be great!
Randall Montgomery 10-20-06, 10:59 AM	But doesn't the UMD -3 effectively bypass the Artificer level requirement in the case of single class casters? UMD - 3 is never going to exceed character level. Yes it does, but what about the case of multi-class casters? I can tell you, the way it's worded now, my Warforged Fighter 4/Artificer 6/Spellcarved Soldier 1 I play in MoH would become totally broken with the rule as it is now because he would be able to craft CL11 items, whereas under the current MoH rules he can only craft CL8 items. I really don't think linking a Artificers crafting prereq caster level to ranks in UMD is a good idea at all, it should just be done by the normal Artificer level + 2 as written in the ECS. All this tinkering around with it is just creating more holes.
waynemarkstubbs 10-20-06, 11:13 AM	OK, can someone clarify exactly what is unlocked when you use your expansion slots to unlock a base class from the XPH? Say I unlock Psychic Warrior. They have a number of bonus feats that can be taken from the Fighter Bonus Feats or Psionic Feats. Does this mean: 1) I can only take PHB Fighter Bonus Feats here. If I want to take a Psionic Feat I have to unlock each one separately. 2) Psionic Feats are unlocked, but I can only take then any time I get a Psychic Warrior bonus feat. 3) Psionic Feats are unlocked, and I can take them any time I could take a feat. The draft CS says something along the lines of "all associated bonus feats are unlocked" but I'm unclear as to what exactly this means.
Grantor 10-20-06, 12:03 PM	OK, can someone clarify exactly what is unlocked when you use your expansion slots to unlock a base class from the XPH? Say I unlock Psychic Warrior. They have a number of bonus feats that can be taken from the Fighter Bonus Feats or Psionic Feats. Does this mean: 1) I can only take PHB Fighter Bonus Feats here. If I want to take a Psionic Feat I have to unlock each one separately. The draft CS says something along the lines of "all associated bonus feats are unlocked" but I'm unclear as to what exactly this means. If a locked feat is specifically called out in a class that you have unlocked, then it is unlocked as well. If you are selecting from a list, you may only choose the unlocked feats, although you have the option of using an expansion slot to unlock one of the feats on the list, if you really want to. That means if a [prestige] class specifically names a feat you get as a class feature, you get access. If a class says you get a generic bonus feat (or chosen from a big list some of which are unlimited and some of which are limited) you may only choose an unlimited feat unless you use expansion slots. This is why the Kalashtar creation card is still useful. Unlocking a base class from the XPH is not going to get you far. Certainly you are going to want to take psionic feats, and possibly some psionic items; at one expansion slot each! (For that matter, it would be the same unlocking a base class from the Magic of Incarnum).
jeffpicard 10-20-06, 12:43 PM	No. That means if a pclass specifically names a feat you get as a class feature, you get access. If a class says you get a generic bonus feat (or chosen from a big list some of which are unlimited and some of which are limited) you may only choose an unlimited feat unless you use expansion slots. I will make a note to clarify this. Note, please use consistency in language limited and unlimited are both "available" to players, LOCKED feats are what something needs to grant access to. And if the ENTIRE list is locked?, I didn't think much about this the other day but Psion grants a bonus Psionic, metapsionic, or psionic item creation feat at 1st and every x5 level. since all of those are locked, would this grant the ability to take those without putting them on the expansion list... Would(/could or should even) this be limited to such feats from the XPH? Psychic Warriors also get bonus feats at several levels either Psionic feats or one designated as a fighter bonus feat. Would this list thus include both locked and unlocked feats forcing a player to only pick something not locked? As for unlocking the entire class list of spells, would this only apply to the list as printed In the same book? Leaving Psionic characters, incarnum users and other unusual magic form users in about the same boat as PHB spellcasters (a psion should only be able to take powers from the XPH without spending the slots, like a wizard can only learn spells form the phb without spending the same slots)
Randall Montgomery 10-20-06, 01:16 PM	No. That means if a pclass specifically names a feat you get as a class feature, you get access. If a class says you get a generic bonus feat (or chosen from a big list some of which are unlimited and some of which are limited) you may only choose an unlimited feat unless you use expansion slots. I will make a note to clarify this. Ok, but what about this. For my example Kalashtar Monk, I'm going to take the Kalashtar racial substitution levels, which take up my first two expansion slots. However, the second sub level gives you ANY Psionic feat as a bonus. If I'm not using the Kalashtar unlock card, I would then not be able to take ANY bonus feat, because they would all still be locked until I can put one on my expansion list at 3rd level. How would something like this be handled? Is it even the same, since it's a Racial Sub level and not a PrC. My suggestion in a situation like this would be to allow the player to select one feat from their list, which is then considered unlocked for that character, and the remaining feats would remain locked until placed on the expansion list or gained on a card. I realize this is probably putting the cart before the horse, since Kalashtar are still restricted without the card, but since the topic is out I wanted to try to hammer some things out so they don't sideswipe the campaing later.
bertman4 10-20-06, 04:13 PM	Yes, the EXCS is correct. Eberron product and novels has long been showing all races to be psionic, or for that matter to be ninjas and the like. All those things are limited, but can be unlocked with expansion slots. I really, really, disklike this move. I think it's a bad idea. Psionics is hard enough to judge when there is one person at the table. I've only judged one table of XE so far and there just happened to be a psion at the table. Fortunatley he was an experienced player and had the Expanded Psionics Handbook with him (I forgot mine at home). It worked out well once I looked up his powers BECAUSE I had read XPH and knew many of the rules. By opening psionics to everybody, this pretty much requires that the judge own a copy of XPH and know it so he can make calls during the game. At low levels this might not be that big of a deal but at mid levels, it's going to make a huge difference. If you've been on the receiving end of Primal Fear followed up by augmented Mind Thrust, you know what I mean. If half the party can do things like that, I shudder to think what the modules are going to be like. Just because the Eberron products and novels (which are non-canon anyway) have psionics up the ying-yang doesn't mean this campaign has to have psionics all over the place. We use different methods for action points. Artificers have been modified. Consumables cost more. Why can't you leave psionics to the realm of Kalashtars and those few special campaign cards (Changeling Egoist, Shifter Wilder, Psi-forged)? As I said in the beginning, I think it's a really, really bad idea. Bertman
Randall Montgomery 10-20-06, 04:26 PM	While the novels, ect. are not cannon, they are based directly off the ideas of the setting itself, and Psionics is simply a big part of Eberron. It makes sense it should have a larger part in the campaign, and I think it's about time Psionics was more accessable in a D&D campaign. While it is something that some judges may not be familiar with, the basic system has been around since 3.0 and for the most part is really simple. Just remember the number 1 rule, max. PP spent per power = manifester level, and probably 90% of the problems people have had with Psionics disappear. Although, to appease those judges who like to have a stronger grasp of the material but either don't have the time or ability to check out the XPH, maybe it might be a good idea to resurrect the old Psionics primer that was supposed to be created for MoH. I'm sure there would be plenty of support from the community in creating it (I'll volenteer to write up a copy), and it would add more justification to giving Psionics a larger place in Xendrik. PS - I would hope any player playing a Psionic character would have a copy of the XPH with him, because the standards flat-out say you must have the rule books for anything your character uses. If a person came to a table with a Psionic character and didn't have the XPH, they shouldn't be suprised if the judge disallows them from playing. That's really not a good excuse for not giving Psionics the larger role in the campaign I feel they deserve.
Gurrangatch 10-20-06, 04:55 PM	The Faiths of Eberron Book is not listed in the Optional Materials section on page 2 with all of the other Eberron books, but it is listed in Notations on Campaign Cards. Correct. The FMs hope to have some info on this book (and complete mage) by the final release; but as of yet, none of us have these books. I had a more specific question about the Faiths of Eberron book. For this question I'm going to assume that the book is allowed and everything in it is allowed as Limited since that is the case with the other Eberron books (barring some items on the restricted list). Since Faiths of Eberron has new domain lists for the Eberron gods can a cleric of those gods choose freely from the updated domain lists or must he unlock each one for his deity. For instance if I wanted to make a cleric that worshipped the Sovereign Host as a pantheon could I choose from any of the domains listed there without having to unlock ones that would normally be limited? I think this would be a fair interpretation because the new domain lists don't change the portfolio of the gods. This would be similar to the ruling that if a class specifically calls out the ability to use something that would normally be limited you can still use it.
Marcus Majarra 10-21-06, 01:39 AM	I have a small issue with the drafts as they are written: On undeath and deathlessness. The draft states that no character can ever become undead or deathless. My peeve here is that I've got this nifty Sand Swimmer of Menechtarun card that unlocks the Walker in the Waste PrC (from Sandstorm) for which the level 10 perk is becoming a dry lich (i.e. an undead). This is the character I play in the Cabal of Shadows (and it doesn't even require an evil alignment). Does this mean that there's no point for me to take the 10th level in the PrC?
Frobi-Wan Kenobi 10-21-06, 02:46 AM	I have a small issue with the drafts as they are written: On undeath and deathlessness. The draft states that no character can ever become undead or deathless. My peeve here is that I've got this nifty Sand Swimmer of Menechtarun card that unlocks the Walker in the Waste PrC (from Sandstorm) for which the level 10 perk is becoming a dry lich (i.e. an undead). This is the character I play in the Cabal of Shadows (and it doesn't even require an evil alignment). Does this mean that there's no point for me to take the 10th level in the PrC? Considering that you'll need to be at 5th to enter the class (unless you can unlock both the Thirst and Sand domain at first level) I wouldn't be too worried about not being able to become a Dry Lich. Rob
Gurrangatch 10-21-06, 04:57 AM	I also have a question about the motivation of changing the expansion slot system. I think that increasing the number of things you can buy with expansion slots is a good idea (especially being able to open psionic classes) but increasing the cost for puting things on the list is a bad idea. For instance, extra cost for feats is really a bummer, if you're playing a fighter and get a feat at least every two levels you quickly find many feats from books such as Complete Warrior that you would like to take, however at 2 expansion slots per level you're really limited in the way you can get them. This is the only source of customization for a fighter and without this access many fighters quickly become boring to play and similar to any other fighter. Also, I remember there being a thread earlier (I can't find it now, that seems to happen often on these forums) with someone mentioning the steep price of one spell/expansion slot and faction master replying that a system was being put in place to help this situation. It seems to me that the new system adds nothing good to the game and only senselessly limits people's options
haferka 10-21-06, 10:21 AM	I also have a question about the motivation of changing the expansion slot system. I think that increasing the number of things you can buy with expansion slots is a good idea (especially being able to open psionic classes) but increasing the cost for puting things on the list is a bad idea. For instance, extra cost for feats is really a bummer, if you're playing a fighter and get a feat at least every two levels you quickly find many feats from books such as Complete Warrior that you would like to take, however at 2 expansion slots per level you're really limited in the way you can get them. This is the only source of customization for a fighter and without this access many fighters quickly become boring to play and similar to any other fighter. Also, I remember there being a thread earlier (I can't find it now, that seems to happen often on these forums) with someone mentioning the steep price of one spell/expansion slot and faction master replying that a system was being put in place to help this situation. It seems to me that the new system adds nothing good to the game and only senselessly limits people's options Perhaps if you built in a "discount" for unlocking features that are secondary sources for existing class abilities. Ex. Allow anyone with "Fighter bonus feats" class ability to to reduce the unlock cost for those feats from alternate sources (complete warrior).
Gurrangatch 10-21-06, 02:40 PM	I don't think it's neccessary to increase the cost, in expansion slots, of any rules item except base classes, racial subsitution levels and alternate class abilities. It dramatically limits the available options for players, more than I think was expected. Say you wanted to take a prestige class from a secondary source that requires feats from the same source, suddenly that prestige class is costing you alot more than the initial three expansion slots (an already high price) this means that many characters will just pass it by because there are other items they may have wanted access to as well. Another item, why should cleric domains cost any expansion slots at all, cleric get two domains at first level, if someone wants to play a cleric of the dragon above why punish them for that choice? In any campaign, especially one with this format (having many semi-independent groups of players and DMs) it is neccessary to restrict access to some rules items. That's what the restricted list is for. Why make access to the limited rules items more restricted?
Marcus Majarra 10-21-06, 06:31 PM	Considering that you'll need to be at 5th to enter the class (unless you can unlock both the Thirst and Sand domain at first level) I wouldn't be too worried about not being able to become a Dry Lich. Rob Actually, I only need to unlock the Sand domain at first level to enter the PrC at level 4. There is already a 2nd-level spell from the Thirst domain on the cleric spell list. And level 13 is reasonable for the campaign, in about 1 year (perhaps a bit more). If push comes to shove, I can always switch to my other character idea as soon as Complete Mage is authorized material: Gnome Illusionist -> Master Specialist -> Shadowcraft Mage
EberronMoses 10-21-06, 09:07 PM	i may just be overlooking something but it doesn't mention the Book of Exalted Deeds or Vile Darkness. What is the RPGA'S stance on these books. I'd just like to hear some official say. I don't really care about the Book of Exalted Deeds. I don't really care about Vile Darkness that much but if it goes legal I'm going ot be a Diabolist. It'll just need some adjudication for Demons/Devils in Eberron.
Hellcast 10-22-06, 01:28 AM	I was expecting to see some insight on the use windwright capatain in XE, it isn't in the restricted list so I assume we can use the class as it is? I'm saying this for a Blackwheel character.
Frobi-Wan Kenobi 10-22-06, 03:06 AM	Actually, I only need to unlock the Sand domain at first level to enter the PrC at level 4. There is already a 2nd-level spell from the Thirst domain on the cleric spell list. And level 13 is reasonable for the campaign, in about 1 year (perhaps a bit more). If push comes to shove, I can always switch to my other character idea as soon as Complete Mage is authorized material: Gnome Illusionist -> Master Specialist -> Shadowcraft Mage I didn't check to see if any were on the cleric list - good catch. Rob
Frobi-Wan Kenobi 10-22-06, 03:07 AM	I was expecting to see some insight on the use windwright capatain in XE, it isn't in the restricted list so I assume we can use the class as it is? I'm saying this for a Blackwheel character. I hope so that's what Captain Cid d'Lyrandar is headed for. Rob
bronzmonkee 10-22-06, 09:22 AM	If a character has Scribe Scroll and spends an expansion slot to gain access to a locked spell (such as Lesser Vigour), can that character scribe scrolls of that spell as well? Or would it cost another expansion slot to do so? How about brewing potions or crafting wands?
bronzmonkee 10-22-06, 09:46 AM	On a related note, can a character without crafting feats spend an expansion slot to acquire access to a scroll, potion or wand that does not exist in a published source, but is legal to craft. For example, a Potion of Fist of Stone.
Frobi-Wan Kenobi 10-22-06, 12:56 PM	On a related note, can a character without crafting feats spend an expansion slot to acquire access to a scroll, potion or wand that does not exist in a published source, but is legal to craft. For example, a Potion of Fist of Stone. Fist of Stone isn't a "legal" potion as you put it as the range of the spell is personal. Rob
Frobi-Wan Kenobi 10-22-06, 01:09 PM	If a character has Scribe Scroll and spends an expansion slot to gain access to a locked spell (such as Lesser Vigour), can that character scribe scrolls of that spell as well? Or would it cost another expansion slot to do so? How about brewing potions or crafting wands? I can't seem to locate any line that states items must appear in a published book to be crafted so this may allow for Wands of Scorching Ray as well as a PC to do what you used as an example above. However, in the case of a PC that couldn't craft items themselves and would have to place the item and not the spell on their expansion list I'd say no since they couldn't list the source that the item came from.
Tarvok 10-22-06, 01:26 PM	I've only judged one table of XE so far and there just happened to be a psion at the table. Fortunatley he was an experienced player and had the Expanded Psionics Handbook with him (I forgot mine at home).Bertman Can't characters and/or specific character features already be disallowed if the player doesn't have the book the feature comes from on hand? I would think this factor, alone, is a sufficient limiting factor when it comes to psionics. Inexperienced players probably haven't bought the book yet, and thus can't play. If they have, they probably know how to play it right.
Tarvok 10-22-06, 01:39 PM	I would like to see the term "Equipment Value" clarified under "Select Equipment." I'm pretty sure one can figure it out when one reads the changes to the Craft and Profession skills (10 gp x ranks), but it doesn't seem obvious enough to me. To make sure I've got it right, as a rogue, I start out with 240 GP = 200 gp base + (4 ranks x 10 gp/rank).
Marcus Majarra 10-22-06, 01:43 PM	I noticed something I can't quite figure out in the deity substitution for PrCs: The Champion of Corellon Larethian has a substitue deity "Dalan Rae," yet I can't find this deity in any of my Eberron sourcebooks. Perhaps the Campaign Standards should expand on the available deities and their domains (this is also useful if we are to include the deities and cults presented in Faiths of Eberron). As a side-note on domains, while Faiths of Eberron has expanded on available domains for each deity (barring a certain few that weren't retained from the Player's Guide to Eberron, such as the Silver Flame cults), it doesn't do so beyond the scope of of the corebooks, the ECS, the Spell Compendium and the (unavailable) Book of Vile Darkness. Is there any way to unlock domains from other sources? If so, how do we determine if our cleric (or other eligible participant) can take the domain? In my example above, I was thinking about taking the Sand domain with my Asherati Cleric from the Cabal, but I don't see any Eberron deity having Sand as one of its domains.
ajpopp 10-22-06, 03:28 PM	All right, I haven't thought through all the ramifications of my suggestion...but I'll make it anyway. And it is: Get rid of locked, unlocked and expasion lists. Restrict things that are game-imbalanced or faction specific. Leave everything else available. Here's why: As a DM of RPGA games, the exceptions and exceptions to the exceptions are getting way too complex. There's too much checking and verifying lists and cards and books. Just stick with the rule: If a spell, feat, PrC, etc. is not in a primary source, the player must have the book or a copy of the pertinent sections. It allows maximum flexibility/creativity for players. If something isn't game-breaking, why limit it at all? If it's game-breaking, it's restricted and that's it. Maybe forgotten in all this are new players. The more complex the CS, the more daunting it is to join in the campaign. Don't believe me? Just try recruiting some new players and explaining the campaign rules to them in 15 minutes. Let's make XE easily accessible to new players. Isn't this a major reason for the campaign (correct me if I'm mistaken)? The Factionmasters could spend more time writing adventures and plots, and less adjudicating how expansion slots ought to be used. I want these guys writing stories. We all want these guys writing stories. Return to common sense. If you play a psychic warrior, you get access to psioninc feats, for example (there are many other examples). Just step outside the situation for a second--limiting players' options by forcing them to use expansion slots just doesn't align with the principles of the campaign--options, balance, accessibility, fun. So I vote for simplification. I love the modifications (from MoH) to crafting items. I love the factions. I love the variety of characters. I don't love trying to bring new players in. Let's stop the madness. ;) Al
Gurrangatch 10-22-06, 03:38 PM	Around where I live it's pretty much assumed that you can only buy/craft items that are listed on a chart somewhere. I think that may be left over from Living Greyhawk where I think that was the case (I'm not sure, I never played LG). Although I would be thrilled to hear that I can make scrolls and wands at increased caster levels I think that it would need some kind of adjudication to prevent people from making some of the janky custom wondrous items that are allowed by the rules. Maybe just state in the CS that a potion/psionic tattoo, scroll/power stone, or wand/dorje can be bought/crafted at a higher caster level, with the appropriate increase in cost, if you already have unlimited access to that item. Or better yet, just include in the CS the base price formula for potions/psionic tattoos, scroll/power stones, and wands/dorjes so that if you have access to a spell you can craft the appropriate item at whatever caster level you want. People who couldn't craft items would still be limited to buying whatever unlimited items they had access to at whatever caster level they wanted, but not "custom" potions/tatoos, etc.
Gurrangatch 10-22-06, 03:43 PM	ajpopp, you may be on the right track. At the game store where I play we have Friday night RPGA games and this last Friday we had to have three tables (we're pretty excited about that). Most of these people are new, only six people are experienced players and of those, three were DMing. There were 11 new players, all of them highschoolers, and we had quite a "fun" time explaining the CS to them. CS 1.0 is even less complex than CS 1.1 Daft A as well. I can only imagine their confusion and frustration as they increase in level and realize that through ignorance of the full ramification of their expansion choices they are unable to play the character they planned on making. Edit: Spelling and grammar errors
ispq 10-23-06, 06:49 AM	My vote on magical item accessibility is to only allow items that are listed in the books. Allowing any sort of custom magic item creation, even if it seems innocous at first, leads only to madness and heresy. I am only slightly exaggerating the risks involved in custom magical item creation, as I'm sure many DM's can attest to. If you are allowing some limited form of custom magical item creation I'm playing an Artificer in Cabal of Shadows.
Fiery_Fighter_Drake 10-23-06, 07:08 AM	I need something clarified. One of the special Favored Enemies of an Elf Ranger who has taken Elf Ranger Substituiton Levels is "Servants of Lolth". This includes drow, driders and monstrous spiders of all sizes. What I need to know is how this translates into Eberron since the drow worship a different deity, Vulkoor, who is a scorpion-god rather then Lolth, who is a spider-goddess.
smerwin29 10-23-06, 10:42 AM	We are going to be shutting down the CS discussion soon, so we can go back and make the changes, add whatever needs to be added, etc. If you have any other questions and comments, make them ASAP. Thanks, Shawn Crimson Codex Guy
smerwin29 10-23-06, 11:03 AM	At the game store where I play we have Friday night RPGA games and this last Friday we had to have three tables (we're pretty excited about that). Most of these people are new, only six people are experienced players and of those, three were DMing. There were 11 new players, all of them highschoolers, and we had quite a "fun" time explaining the CS to them. CS 1.0 is even less complex than CS 1.1 Daft A as well. I can only imagine their confusion and frustration as they increase in level and realize that through ignorance of the full ramification of their expansion choices they are unable to play the character they planned on making. I know I will regret doing this, but I am still young enough to be foolish--or so says my wife. I do understand and sympathize with this, as I do with the calls to "simplify" the CS. As anyone who has ever run a long-term campaign knows, balance is so important. I've been running campaigns since 1st Edition AD&D as a wee lad, and nothing destroys a campaign faster than a lack of balance. Finding balance is not an easy task, and splatbooks being published at the rate of 1 every 14 days or so doesn't make it any easier. There is no way we are going to please everyone. In the same post we see people begging us to limit sources to make the campaign simpler, then we see someone telling us to put NO limits on sources to make the campaign simpler. The fact is, the simplest way to deal with it would be to make the only allowable books the PHB, DMG, MM, and ECS. But that doesn't sell books, and that doesn't let the players play with all the toys they want. (But it would make some players happy.) On the other hand, we could just make things unlimited. This doesn't work either. Mark of Heroes tables I witnessed proved that, with some tables dying horribly in the first encounter of an adventure and complaining how unfair it was, then the next table cakewalking the entire adventure and complaining how boring it was. It's the same discussion that has been going on since the Living and D&D Campaigns models were introduced. The idea of the Expansion Slots is to compromise. It recognizes that people want to try different things and use those books they bought. On the other hand, it recognizes that given unlimited reign with the incredibly vast amount of new content available, people are going to find broken combinations. Our goal is to limit access to broken combinations while still allowing access to different things. We actually did playtests to see what systems led to outrageous combinations and what let in just enough content to make unique characters without getting out of control. And that's where we are now. So we know not everyone is going to be happy. We know that getting new players to understand the rules might take a lot of work--we are in the same boat. But this is the access system we are going to be using. Comments, of course, are welcome. Give it two years and let us know how it works for you as players, as DMs, as Senior DMs. When the next D&D Campaign comes around, they can learn from our experiment and tweak the system. Thanks for playing! Shawn Crimson Codex Guy
Skerrit 10-23-06, 12:22 PM	i may just be overlooking something but it doesn't mention the Book of Exalted Deeds or Vile Darkness. What is the RPGA'S stance on these books. I'd just like to hear some official say. I don't really care about the Book of Exalted Deeds. I don't really care about Vile Darkness that much but if it goes legal I'm going ot be a Diabolist. It'll just need some adjudication for Demons/Devils in Eberron. The are not on the is list of books that you can choose from at the beginning of the XECS, but they are also not completely banned. This means that you might see access to some rules items from those books via story objects and player's reward cards, but you will not see them as something you can just take rules items from without documentation.
Grantor 10-23-06, 02:15 PM	I WANT some limits. I want there to be a set of rules that characters have to abide by. I don't want each character to need five books by the time they are 10th level. I want some character concepts, not a party full of gishes. I want creation cards to be given as rewards. I like that some means still remains to dip into a book, perhaps by using three expansion slots to take a level or two of Wilder, but if I want to focus on that uncommon character type, I should pull out a card and have it start off my stack. Also, while the rules get complicated as the characters get to be higher level, there is little to confuse a starting player. There is no way I would try explaining how your character develops over time to someone just starting their first RPGA campaign. Let's get started playing! What do you want your first level character to be? I don't like presenting choices that are uninteresting and actually block characters from choices. I like choices that keep a character in the same book. So if a player has unlocked a class from a book for three slots, why not unlock a single locked feat from the same book at the same time? If a player wants to be a Dreamsight shifter, why not unlock Dreamsight Elite shifter trait at the same time? Otherwise, it is very difficult to choose these characters, even when following a concept instead of a optimization. I think the concerns about unlocking a class with a [select from the following list] bonus feat feature demonstrate some valid concerns. But I feel that creation cards also allow the faction masters to put forward some campaign-themed concepts that bundle classes, races, feats and items and making everything open to selection would destroy the value of the reward cards. Right now you can play ANY class from the source books. True, you can't play any seven classes (21 expansion slots), but I don't believe that encouraging that fits the tone of the Eberron setting. You can choose any thing, which fits the freedom, but you actually have to settle on a choice, not making characters that require a library of books to adjudicate. Well, those are my thoughts.
DBlizzard 10-23-06, 05:07 PM	I WANT some limits. I want there to be a set of rules that characters have to abide by. I don't want each character to need five books by the time they are 10th level. I want some character concepts, not a party full of gishes. Yes, also don't forget the poor DM who might not be familiar with all gazillion books WotC has released. Every book added is another group of DMs who decide not to run the campaign because of what he might encounter and have to deal with. I want creation cards to be given as rewards. Good point. Allowing everything severely limits the value of expansion & creation cards (they the campaign standards already hurt, but requiring you to lose extra action points when using them; compared to MoH).
Butterface 10-23-06, 05:27 PM	The more options the better. It doesn't matter if a DM doesn't have every book ever published; if a player wants to use material from one of these other books, they must have that material available for the DM to peruse. More options means varied party compositions, which lends itself to a more interesting game overall. It also sells more books for WotC, which is important. I say it's important because this is a free service WotC provides, but they're not doing it just to put out cool, free adventures for the public to play in. I don't want some WotC guy to say, "Dang, why do we even do RPGA? The rules don't even encourage exposure of players to the books we put out. Ah well, time to pull the plug on XE, maybe for something that actually showcases the books we put alot of money into creating." I, for one, enjoy the wealth of options that are available, and see this as a move in the right direction. I like people having weird, off-the-wall characters. There are so many varied, interesting players out there, it's really sad when you have a table with 3 duskblades because they're so excited the class was finally unlocked for play.
Kelvane 10-23-06, 07:25 PM	I see in the Gnoll faq it says a gnoll figures action points by class level, if this is the same for all level adjusted races can this be clairified. Also is there any hope for a E.V. bonus for ranks in slight of hand, My C.o.S. rogue would really like to suppliment his income (one can never have to much coin after all).
quizboy 10-23-06, 07:46 PM	I'm not sure if this will be unbalanced, but what about allowing an acceptible expanded book via expansion slots? If books can be on the restricted lists, then why couldn't they be listed as expansions? Of course, I'd expect the expansion slot cost to be high, but it would solve the issue with psions wanting access to psionic feats and stuff, incarnates wanting access to their feats and items, and fighters wanting access to complete warrior. This should only unlock items in a book that could normally be unlocked (not those requiring campaign documentation or those that are not allowed). --Steven
arscott 10-23-06, 09:52 PM	The thinking is two fold. If you wants to be "special" and take these alternate abilites, it makes you commit to that right away. Also, and more importantly, if you can only take it at first level, you can't 20 of them. That means if you sit a table, you may have some differences, but a judge still knows a little of what your PC brings. I understand why alternate class features require you to spend your first-level expansion slot. They're powerful and defining features. And they can be pretty powerful--I had a shapeshifting gnoll druid decimate half of an EL 4 encounter in the first few rounds of combat in my DM's Mark. What I don't understand is why they can only use that 1st-level unlock to unlock features for the class they took at 1st-level. Why can't someone take their first level in paladin, but unlock the alternate class features for bard? Or take their first level in ranger, but unlock the racial substitution levels for rogue? It doesn't seem like this is going to be any more imbalancing than taking the levels of the alternate featured/substituted class first, but If you're playing a paladin who wants a bit of bard for that extra bit of inspiring leadership, or a halfling archer who wants a level or two of rogue for extra sneakiness, taking those dip classes first kinda violates your character concept.
DBlizzard 10-23-06, 11:29 PM	The more options the better. It doesn't matter if a DM doesn't have every book ever published; if a player wants to use material from one of these other books, they must have that material available for the DM to peruse. And if every player is using 5-6 different sources you have a potential 30 different things for a DM to peruse before a session. Not to mention that you can't get a feel for things like the Magic of Incarnum by perusing it before a session (legal through a campaign card and the Crimson Codex faction, and apparently anyone who wants to use an expansion slot). The more I look at this, the more I realize that I'll probably stop running the campaign if someone shows up trying to use MoI (and maybe a few other study intensive books).
tilloch 10-24-06, 12:54 AM	I was looking at the Walker in the Waste class for one of my Xen'drik characters and noticed the Create Salt Mummy (Su) ability has very little info. Is there a cost associated with the creation ritual? Is there a limit to how many I can have? How long does it take to create one? Can I show up to a table having already created one? 10? 100? 1000? Maybe a little blurb in the new CS regarding this ability is in order. Tilloch
Gurrangatch 10-24-06, 01:35 AM	I know that Faiths of Eberron isn't technically allowed yet but hopefully it will be added to the secondary source list in the future. I have a character idea where I wanted to take levels in the Sovereign Speaker prestige class, however, with the CS 1.1 that class can become rediculously high priced in terms of expansion slots. Three for the class and then when I pick up extra domains I have to spend two extra if they are not from the PHB. So, if I choose two domains from the SPC that means the prestige class will cost 7 expansion slots. This is kinda the same problem that the fighter has with the increases cost of feats from secondary sources. Shouldn't domains that are on your gods class list be unlocked for free? Besides all that, the domains in the SPC aren't even unbalanced compared with the Magic domain in the good old PHB.
Sieylianna 10-24-06, 08:10 AM	The more I look at this, the more I realize that I'll probably stop running the campaign if someone shows up trying to use MoI (and maybe a few other study intensive books). I agree. I also disagree with the idea that expanding the number of options will lead to a broader range of characters. In numeric terms perhaps, but percentage-wise, you're going to have 80% of the PCs using 20% of the options. Ed
Randall Montgomery 10-24-06, 10:58 AM	I have a question and a comment. Since the DMG and ECS are core sources, do you have to unlock the prestige classes in them by placing them on the expansion list, or are they free to take? Personally, I think the 3 slot cost for classes and prestige classes isn't too bad. However, I do disagree with the cost for feats and spells. I think it would make much more sense to have feats cost the standard 1 slot (right now, you're equating a single feat with a non-standard cleric domain, which has a feat built-in, and with racial substitution levels, which give multiple feats and abilities), and I think spells should be staggard by what level they are, with each level costing 1/3 slot. For example, 3 level 1 spells would cost 1 slot, 3 level 2 spells would cost 2 slots, and a level 3 spell would cost 1 slot, and so on. This way, the cost is balanced against how powerful the spells are. It's a little more complicated this way, but I think it's a lot more fair to spellcasters.
GenerallyUnique 10-24-06, 11:26 AM	I had a question about the prestige classes from core sources as well. I know most Prestige Classes require that you be level five, but not all of them are like that. I know of at least one from the ECS (Master Inquisitive) that you can take as early as level four, with the listed prereqs, but as the game is, you can't unlock it until level five, and take it until level six. I was hoping we could change this, since it seems like so many adventures will center around investigative types. Also, in the section where it talks about expansion slots and such, I would like clear cut definitions of just what a stack slot and an expansion slot, etc., are. As it's written right now, if you don't understand it immediately(which I didn't until someone explained it to me) it's really, really hard to get the hang of. A nice list of everything you can use expansion slots on, and which of them must be chosen at first level, would also be nice. I.e.: A consumable package: This costs your first and second level slots. A racial substitution level: This costs your first and second level slots. A feat that may only be taken at 1st level: This costs your first and second level slots. A spell: One slot, which first available at second level. Does this make sense?
Reylance 10-24-06, 04:41 PM	I think the description of "taking one for the team" needs to be clarified. I appreciate that you don't have to play one of four specific character classes, being able to play either a sorcerer or a wizard. As written, though, it appears one can take one for the team and play a wizard, even if the other five characters are sorcerers. Perhaps you could group the characters into roles? Fighters (barbarians, rangers, paladins, swashbucklers, knights) Wizards (sorcerers, warmages) Clerics (druids, favored souls) Rogues (scouts)
Skerrit 10-24-06, 09:13 PM	I had a question about the prestige classes from core sources as well. I know most Prestige Classes require that you be level five, but not all of them are like that. I know of at least one from the ECS (Master Inquisitive) that you can take as early as level four, with the listed prereqs, but as the game is, you can't unlock it until level five, and take it until level six. I was hoping we could change this, since it seems like so many adventures will center around investigative types. You do not have to be level 5 to unlock a pclass. You can do it at any time.
Tabiani 10-24-06, 10:42 PM	You do not have to be level 5 to unlock a pclass. You can do it at any time.Just remember it takes three expansion slots to unlock a prestige class. Yikes! A nice list of everything you can use expansion slots on, and which of them must be chosen at first level, would also be nice. A pretty nice start to what you want is at the bottom of page 11. What would you like added?
Fiery_Fighter_Drake 10-27-06, 01:11 PM	Would just like to repeat my question, since it doesn't seem to have been answered. I need something clarified. One of the special Favored Enemies of an Elf Ranger who has taken Elf Ranger Substituiton Levels is "Servants of Lolth". This includes drow, driders and monstrous spiders of all sizes. What I need to know is how this translates into Eberron since the drow worship a different deity, Vulkoor, who is a scorpion-god rather then Lolth, who is a spider-goddess.
Butterface 10-27-06, 01:50 PM	Would just like to repeat my question, since it doesn't seem to have been answered. I need something clarified. One of the special Favored Enemies of an Elf Ranger who has taken Elf Ranger Substituiton Levels is "Servants of Lolth". This includes drow, driders and monstrous spiders of all sizes. What I need to know is how this translates into Eberron since the drow worship a different deity, Vulkoor, who is a scorpion-god rather then Lolth, who is a spider-goddess. Probably "Servants of Vulkoor?" Drow, Scarrows (Scorpion driders), and monstrous scorpions of all sizes would be my guess, although I'm certainly no authority. But that's what I would do in my home game. http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/sx_gallery/98380.jpg
bronzmonkee 10-28-06, 06:56 PM	The new campaign standards need to explicitly spell out what happens to +1 LA characters in the following areas: - Level Gold Piece Limit - Action Points - Expansion Slots My preference would be for these to be based on the character's ECL, rather than on their hit dice.
haferka 10-29-06, 12:40 AM	Changlelings ... human and dopelganger ancestors... can you spell out in the Campaign standards if the Changlings qualify for these rule items... "Able Learner" Feat and "Chameleon" Prestige Class from "Races of Destiny" Both require Human or Dopleganger race.. so it makes sense that changlings should also be allowed...
Skole Morgenrood 10-29-06, 09:59 AM	Changlelings ... human and dopelganger ancestors... can you spell out in the Campaign standards if the Changlings qualify for these rule items... "Able Learner" Feat and "Chameleon" Prestige Class from "Races of Destiny" Yeah, that's one thing I really wanna know too. Also would really like it spelt out how and if it's possible to take the Psionic base classes from Complete Psionics.
Mherduwynn 10-29-06, 04:10 PM	This HAS already been answered in the Covenant of Light forum. Of course, that's the curse of sub-forums; it's hard to watch them all. :) Yes, Changelings qualify for the "Able Learner" feat and the "Chameleon" Prestige Class. In essense, you can assume that if a rules item can be taken by BOTH Humans and Dopplegangers and lists both specifically as prat of their requirements (like these do), a Changleling can also take them. Of course, they are still subject to being unlocked as expansion items if necessary. -August
quizboy 10-30-06, 11:02 AM	I was at a table this weekend, and a good question came up: When does a Half-Giant get their 1st stat bump? This won't matter for a while, but it might be good to spell it out in the Campaign Standards now. I'm sorry if this has been answered somewhere before, but I didn't see it in the forums. I also didn't see anything explicit in the CS. I cross posted this from it's own thread, but I thought it might be important to add to the CS. Also, would Gnolls/Assimar/Tieflings/Drow/Catfolk/Half-Giants/... get a feat at 3rd _class_ level or at 3000xp (2nd class level)? The Gnoll PC Faq in the draft CS specifically mentions that expansion slots and action points are only for _class_ levels, so that means that +1 LA characters don't get a 2nd expansion slot until 3000xp, right? If this is true, please place this in the CS in some place other than under the Gnoll PC FAQ. This applies to several other races as well, and has been missed by my local group. (Of course, it only exists currently in the CS draft, but still.) Thanks. --Steven <edit> above was answered in another thread. Thanks, Shawn! <close to the edit> P.S. BTW, any input on adding an allowed source book to the expansion list (for like 5 expansion slots)? That would help some classes out quite a bit (CW for fighters, CA for mages, ...).
haferka 10-30-06, 11:16 AM	This HAS already been answered in the Covenant of Light forum. Of course, that's the curse of sub-forums; it's hard to watch them all. :) Yes, Changelings qualify for the "Able Learner" feat and the "Chameleon" Prestige Class. In essense, you can assume that if a rules item can be taken by BOTH Humans and Dopplegangers and lists both specifically as prat of their requirements (like these do), a Changleling can also take them. Of course, they are still subject to being unlocked as expansion items if necessary. -August Perhaps this would be something nice to add to the end of the campaign standards... with all the other "flavor" changes for prestige classes.
Mherduwynn 10-30-06, 04:50 PM	We'll take that under consideration. Thanks.
lordtiberiusfoxx 10-31-06, 12:29 PM	If you can drop three expansion slots to unlock a base class, what prevents a player from doing so at first level? Will this be reflected in the new database? I will, on the other hand, say that this was an ingenious compromise. Requiring that a base class or prestige class swallow three slots, it means that the alternate base class will be the ONLY unlocked item for quite a while. So if you want to be a Ninja, go ahead. Everything else about you will be core. Creation and expansion cards are still useful. Creation cards can unlock a race or a 28 point character. Expansion cards unlock a list of stuff for only a one card slot (Yay for Pride of Breland!!!). Lord Tiberius Foxx
Istaran 11-06-06, 08:37 PM	Bump the expansion slots to 2 per level, and double the cost on base/prestige classes to 6 slots (making it still 3 levels worth). Then the 2 slots per feat works just fine. They won't be consuming 2/3 of your slots on a normal feat progression, leaving no room for spells or items. I generally play a spellcaster and a) there's not many feats in the PHB that seem worth the bother most of the time, and b) I -really- want to play with silly spells from the spell compendium and elsewhere. I was looking foreward to using Benign Transposition and Greater Slide until the feat price-hike hit. Now if I want to have some nice feats and maybe a PrC I am basically restricted to the PHB for spell lists for the life of my character. Wee.. At its core, the expansion slot system is an awesome idea, but the price hike in the CS1.1 draft is just too crippling.
shivafang 11-10-06, 12:46 AM	It doesn't seem like this is going to be any more imbalancing than taking the levels of the alternate featured/substituted class first, but If you're playing a paladin who wants a bit of bard for that extra bit of inspiring leadership, or a halfling archer who wants a level or two of rogue for extra sneakiness, taking those dip classes first kinda violates your character concept. Er... You can't actually be a Paladin/Bard. Paladins have to be Lawful and Bards cannot be Lawful. Kinda dosn't work. But your argument stands for similar ideas. A few thoughts on the various discussions; * The creation level for Artificers should be Artificer Level +2 OR UMD -1, whichever is lower (UMD -1 instead of UMD-3 because otherwise Artificers would be essentially limited to Artificer Level, instead of Artificer Level +2 in the ECS, unless they splash 2 levels into something else). This way, Artificers still need UMD to craft, and you can't splash 1 level of Artificer to craft high-level items. I believe this best reflects the intent of the rules. * Unlocking a Prestige Class should unlock all the feats, domains or other rules that it requires to take (though, make a clear exception for races!). This way, people who are building for a PrC could take the PrC as their first level expansion and start building from the get-go, and PrCs that require many many feats not in the books becomes less artificially restrictive. * Make it clear what 'bonus feats' means. Right now it can be interpreted that Fighters can take any fighter feats from all the books (yay!) and that Wizards can take any meta-magic feats they want, without expanion slots. This might be the intent (and actually, I hope it is) but from the discussion in this thread it's obviously not clear (a lot of people are complaining aobut the cost of expansion slots for feats on fighters). Also make it clear weather or not they only get this access when taking it as a bonus feat, or if they can do it at any feat slot. Can my Fighter 1/Knight 5 have Combat Focus at level 1 and Combat Defense at level 6 without extra slots? just my .02
Lightblade 11-10-06, 02:11 AM	Er... You can't actually be a Paladin/Bard. Paladins have to be Lawful and Bards cannot be Lawful. Kinda dosn't work. But your argument stands for similar ideas. Devoted Performer, from Complete Adventurer, allows a bard to be lawful.
BobD716 11-10-06, 01:49 PM	Has this question been answered? :confused: [QUOTE=Randall Montgomery]I have a question .... Since the DMG and ECS are core sources, do you have to unlock the prestige classes in them by placing them on the expansion list, or are they free to take?
smerwin29 11-10-06, 02:15 PM	Free to take, I am fairly sure.
Skerrit 11-12-06, 10:41 AM	Has this question been answered? :confused: [QUOTE=Randall Montgomery]I have a question .... Since the DMG and ECS are core sources, do you have to unlock the prestige classes in them by placing them on the expansion list, or are they free to take? They are all free to take, unless specifically restricted; such as evil pclasses for non-Cabal PCs.
Kelvane 11-13-06, 05:51 PM	Is there a estimate on when the standards will go up?
Mherduwynn 11-13-06, 08:27 PM	The Campaign Standards are going through a final edit now and will be posted as soon as possible. We anticpate that it will be made available on the website for public consumption next week. We wanted to release the CS before GenCon SoCal but the practicalities of people already in transit to that convention and the general confusion of people trying to incorporate the new rules into their characters gave us pause. It was decided that a release just after the convention would be better for both the event and the campaign in general. -August
Mherduwynn 11-13-06, 08:28 PM	Thread Closed
Mherduwynn 11-13-06, 08:31 PM	*** THREAD CLOSED *** The factionmasters would like to thanks all of you for your participation in this matter. It is important to us that you the Players feel empowered in this campaign and that your opinions and feedback really do matter. To that end, we did something the RPGA has never tried before - a public vetting of the Campaign Standards and incorporation of your commentary. To that end, I would have to say this has been a rousing success! Thank you all again. -August
Skerrit 11-20-06, 09:40 AM	Just a heads up, the XECS 1.1 is officially done, PDFed, and sent to HQ. It should be up once the HQ guys get back from SoCal (I believe many of them are actually traveling today.) After it hits the WOTC site, I suspect it will also appear mirrored on several of the yahoogroups as well. Thanks for all your suggestions. They were very helpful in getting a full working version of the rules.