Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Swiftbrook 02-21-06, 10:29 PM	Just looked at a portion of the new LGCS 5.0. The people involved completely ignored the concerns raised several posters regarding training animal companions. I could not find a single word changed from the draft document on this issue. They created thier own rules (very poor rules IMO) about trip attack and tricks, did not clear up anything about animal trained to wear barding. They completely failed at their job IMO. Read over the posts. Player after player expressed their opinion that the section needed to be reworked. I don't recall a single poster who said not to make a change. The wording was broken and it wasn't fixed. There were several opinions on how to change it but everyone agreed that it needed to be changed. What was the point to having the draft document out there for feedback if you weren't even going to listen? It was a waste of our time! Note: I double checked the CoC and I don't think I violated it's spirit or rule. I appologize and will withdraw my comments if I have crossed a line. That is not my intention. I'm just trying to communicate my complete frustration with the process. -Swiftbrook
JohnduBois 02-21-06, 10:46 PM	It was mentioned in a different thread that many things that Sam thought were going to be in the revised LGCS (like updated websites and upgrading vests of resistance) were left out, and that there may be a revised version coming out shortly after WF. This may also address the Polymorph concerns (in concert with a Dispel Confusion that Chris Tulach already said would be coming out) Also, I noted a few things that were discussed on these boards having an impact on the LGCS. For example, that MASSIVE DMM:Quicken thread led to nightsticks being banned from the campaign, and they added a list of domains that is similar to the ones for spells, prestige classes, and feats. Also, don't forget the comments by players that they responded to in the initial draft, such as Warmage spell availability. Does the new LGCS have all the clarification I want? No. Did it at least address review comments by the players? I think it did.
paigeoliver 02-21-06, 11:15 PM	aa
vvincent 02-22-06, 08:29 AM	<Edited by vvincent>
gog 02-22-06, 01:13 PM	Well the triads get to comment on the LGCS very early in the process, that is usually when player concerns get inserted. You are right that very few new things are added from the player comments directly. If you have concerns the best way to get them in the LGCS will be to contact your triad and let them know. Though when it comes to crafting mundane items I wouldn't bother, after 5 years I'm pretty sure that's a dead issue. I pretty much agree with you. I saw the discussion period as nothing but a little dog and pony show. I have only been playing since November, but even seen the very beginning it has been painfully obvious that all decisions concerning Living Greyhawk are largely made without any player input at all. I also noticed that absolutely none of the unclear areas of the LGCS saw any revision at all, although I didn't expect them to.
Samwise 02-22-06, 05:47 PM	Just to clarify: The note about some last minute edits not being included came from Chris Tulach and was passed along to the Keoland regional Yahoo group by one of our Triad, and then repeated here by me. I don't have any information about what will be included beyond those two specifically noted things.