Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Piuro 02-10-07, 03:57 PM	I know we have a lot of threads on specific issues, but I think our overall feelings of this update need to be adressed. While some people may have pet peeves with specific issues, they may like the overall feel of the changes, and I think it's important for future debate within the circle to know how we feel on the whole picture. Personally, I'm not ammused, I think the overall changes subtract too much from the uniqueness of the game. Its getting to the point that the circle might as well say "Here are five characters you can choose from. Give him a name and describe what he looks like." Its not possible to balance a living campaign, and with each attempt a little of what makes LG special dies. Just my opinion, anyone else?
Britt 02-10-07, 04:03 PM	How is taking away about 10 rules options while granting access to hundreds more at the same time equal limiting uniqueness?
Gyro_LC 02-10-07, 04:10 PM	I love the changes to the LGCS. Sure a few things had to go, but so many more items have been opened. I really don't see how you can say there are only five playable types. My girlfriend, however, who plays a druid is really disappointed with the Wild Shape changes and is pretty much quitting LG.
Piuro 02-10-07, 04:28 PM	Okay, I might have been exaggerating a wee metric ton on the five types, I just feel that iconic abilities are being restricted in exchange for new minor ones. Either way, my opinion is just that, my opinion. Getting as many people's responces as possible is more relevent.
pedr 02-10-07, 04:37 PM	I think these revisions are being made in a very real attempt to make the campaign work better. They'll probably succeed - the only issue I have any real problem with is the APL+3 limit - as an organiser of a somewhat diverse local group this might cause some problems, though I'm not quite sure yet. It'll certainly add another level of complexity to my job, which I'm not looking forward to! All the other things I'm happy with - the new options and re-training are great, I never played a druid or polymorpher, and while I did use DSP and had a planned DMM (Quicken) build, I recognise that they're overpowered and won't seriously miss them. All in all, great work (just please rethink that APL restriction - I've hardly heard anyone say they think it's a good rule!)
trollbill 02-10-07, 05:25 PM	I am 90% happy (or at least neutral) with most of the changes. I think it the new LGCS is a definite improvement over the old one. As far as the 10% I am unhappy about...well, I have 90% to keep me happy, so I won't worry overly about it. Well, except for the fact that the new LGCS COMPLETELY RUINS THE GAME by not adding Dragonheart Mage and the new Draconic feats from Races of the Dragon and Dragon Magic. But I might be a litle biased on that last bit. :D
Azerin 02-10-07, 05:59 PM	I think many of the changes, while painful, are what has been needed for many years. I still think there are loopholes that need to be closed, but I think everything taken away was done so to better speed up the game; hopefully this will allow authors to write less-time-consuming fights. I naturally think some things are being unneccessarily killed in this "power gamer slaughter" of a LGCS (like DSP), but given a "yes" or "no" vote on whether this will be good for the campaign, I'd definately say "yes" (despite being slaughtered). Oh and I have immense respect for Britt, who managed to handle these boards without loosing his cool; way to go man. I dunno how you did it, but everything seems civil, in the least (unlike similar publishes in video games...) -Jeremy Jordan
Britt 02-10-07, 06:04 PM	Oh and I have immense respect for Britt, who managed to handle these boards without loosing his cool; way to go man. I dunno how you did it, but everything seems civil, in the least (unlike similar publishes in video games...) Thanks, though I can tell I'm starting to get testy. I'm glad this is only going to be going for another day, because by then I'm going to be snapping at people left and right.
Timlagor 02-10-07, 06:04 PM	Definitely happy overall. Specifically: * All the new stuff is great! * DMM had to go * I'd have kept DSP but only just * I'd have preferred to keep the Poly/Wildshape as is but there are very strong arguments for the changes. * Much more compact and concise LGCS * Crafting +2 rule... fair enough but I still think we should have Crafting Access to stuff on our MIL! (just because the IC nonsense of it irks me) * All the new stuff is great! Oh and Metamagic Rods should be craftable without AR access too! (like wands;)) EDIT: and major kudos to Britt for his communication.
amnuxoll 02-10-07, 06:11 PM	I am delighted. I am particularly happy about the banning of polymorph, the removal of DMM, closing the xp "penalty" loophole and the general shortening and simplifying of the whole document. I'm also rather happy about the crafting fixes, retraining, the new base classes (again they will need testing), the new Open items from PHB2, CM and CS. It's clear the Circle invested a lot of time thinking about what would and would not work well in LG and their decisions appear to be sound. They also clearly thought about the "cost" of adding these things to the campaing in terms of learning curves. These all feel like good decisions that add depth to the campaign at minimal cost. I'm sure a few bugs will need to be worked out and it's possible that one of these is a big mistake but I doubt it. I'm slightly positive (or at least neutral) about everything else. The sole exception: The third level rule. I'm *slightly* disappointed about that. I think that the change will make things easier for regular players at the expense of newbies. But I have no facts to back that opinion up other than lots of personal experience with new players. So, I'm willing to stick it out and see how well it goes. My score: 9 out of 10. :AMN:
Mithreinmaethor 02-10-07, 06:18 PM	Love the new LGCS. I just want to be able to Rebuild my 1st ever LG character that is a mutt character and not of much use :)
Timlagor 02-10-07, 06:30 PM	Oh yeah: I'm ecstatic to see the back of the 3rd level rule that was such a pain to explain to new players. (thanks for the reminder anmuxoll)
Mattastrophic 02-10-07, 06:47 PM	Honestly, at first I was mostly happy about the new LGCS, with its rewritten, precise overhaul... but the way Britt and the circle have been handling this discussion over the past few days makes me fear for the continued safety of the campaign. Simply removing elements of the game instead of actually addressing the perceived problems does not solve the problems, it only ignores them. And standing behind a shield of "It's Core rules, we can't change them," that is a dodgy, cop-out excuse. No, I'm not rage-quitting LG. But I already am dialing back my participation now that I can see the downward spiral the current Circle is taking us on. An additional degree of separation from the campaign will make its certain demise easier to stomach. -Matt
Timlagor 02-10-07, 07:18 PM	You've misinterpreted their answer. In some instances they are saying "That is a Core rule that we cannot change". What they mean is that RPGA/WotC/Hasbro has told them they can't change that (only the NDA may preclude them saying so which is probably the source of the confusion). Britt has made a phenomenal effort to respond comprehensively and politely to every issue raised here. Criticising him on that score is rather silly and we won't thank you for it if you persuade him it's not worth the effort.
ranagrande 02-10-07, 07:38 PM	Overall, I am very pleased with the new LGCS. I especially like seeing the removal of the Third Level Rule, the expanded Open access, the new rules for crafting, and the allowance of NPC classes. Most of the things I disagree with, such as keeping Blasphemy/Dictum/Holy Word/Word of Chaos, not entirely eliminating the multiclass penalty, and not clarifying that pesky "trained for war" trait, Steven Conforti stated that the Circle wanted to do the right thing but was not allowed to. That makes me lose respect for Wizards of the Coast, but I can understand the rulings given the circumstances. I don't particularly like the recently proposed changes to Cohorts, but I'll post my concerns in that separate thread. The Circle mentioned early on that it wouldn't happen this time, so I'm not disappointed in not seeing it yet, but Kobolds do still need to become a playable race. :P Once again, I am pleased overall. Good work.
Piuro 02-10-07, 07:45 PM	Allright, looking back I think I overreacted with certain things. I guess I would feel generally positive, its just a few stupid (In my opinion) things that hold me from looking forward to this change too much. The elimination of polymorph drastically changes the nature of the game for PCs in many cases, especially spellcasters. There was working varient in place, and I hadn't seen anyone any problems with it in particular. Oh, and I hadn't realized about the APL + 3 thing. Right, one more level and I might as well not try to get friends to play in the RPGA. Overall, cautiously positive, but i've got to agree with Mattastrophic on a bunch of his points. Solve problems, dont elminate fun parts of the game because some ******* with his brain wired for numbers decides to have a field day.
Sieylianna 02-10-07, 09:50 PM	Overall, I mostly agree with the changes. I'm very unhappy with the druid wild shape changes, but I think they are offering the most generous rebuild to date (since ability scores can be changed). I can see the APL +3 change causing issues, particularly if a player is sent out late to a 5-person table which forces one or more existing players to leave for a different table. I also know that I've run at least one module where none of the PCs received full XP because of the disparate levels and I'd rather have the table go off than leave multiple people without a game. Ed
scon40 02-10-07, 10:12 PM	I can see the downward spiral the current Circle is taking us on. An additional degree of separation from the campaign will make its certain demise easier to stomach. With every update, we hear this tired old refrain. And with every year, the play numbers increase. You are entitled to your opinion, but I am very confident in the changes we made this year and in each previous year that I have been on the Circle. We only change that which we feel will improve play of the game. We avoid making changes for the sake of change. If we can do without a change, we do so.
JohnduBois 02-10-07, 11:26 PM	I'm very pleased with the new LGCS. I think that a couple rules options that had to go did, very few rules options stayed that didn't (I've been persuaded on Delay Death and acknowledge that there's no good way to get rid of Marshall). Most importantly, Britt and the rest did a FANTASTIC job cutting out the crap. Now I'm willing to print out the LGCS, as it's shorter than a mod. The only change that I see as negative is the change to the APL+3 rule; I don't think that this rule accomplishes too much for game balance, and will lead to a significant increase in the APL being fudged on the ARs, even by typically "honest" judges. I'm still holding out on the Beguiler spell list, too - I think there should be a "thumbs up" on opening their entire spell list to them.
Britt 02-10-07, 11:40 PM	Now I'm willing to print out the LGCS, as it's shorter than a mod. It's not shorter than my mods ;)
Chris_Collins 02-10-07, 11:41 PM	BIG thumbs up to Britt and the rest of his partners in the circle for all they've done. Personally I think the APL +3 rule is great---rather than complain people should have more characters to be ready for any circumstance (much like a good adventurer should have a healthy dose of dispensables...). Nicking Alter self seriously hurts my 2 main PC's, but I agree completely with it. I will adjust, and possibly utilize the retrain rules (this is a great option, thank you), and move on... and enjoy the NUMEROUS new feats open to choose from (something I've hardly heard mention of). Removing the 3rd level rule was brilliant. My only suggestion (and it may sound like an echo in this thread): The Beguiler should have access to all of his spells, and we need to expand the Healers spell list selection, or the 2 classes are 'not really' valid options for survival in LG. By this I mean things get dangerous quite often (and more so now with some of the broken elements nerfed!), and these classes handicapped don't stand up to other options (will be underpowered and overlooked like Swashbuckler is past 3rd level, etc). Thanks, Chris C
mendahu 02-11-07, 12:21 AM	I'm quite satisfied with a lot of what the new LGCS is doing. It was in desperate need of a re-write (not the frankenstein of addendums it was last year), so the concise change is a breath of fresh air. As for new changes, some I like and some I don't. I like: -Removal of polymorph/shapechange/alter self. These spells, though tons of fun, are WAY to hard to balance. -PHB II stuff; this book is one of the better edited and well-thought out of the most recent splat books. -Open/Closed thing; though I know that the core mechanic of the access types didn't actually change, its a lot easier to deliver to new people now. -Cohorts; thank you for removing ARs, 1/2 XP/GP, etc. etc. SO much easier. -Retraining; So many cases in this campaign create regrettable choices in builds; this gives us a legitimate way to fix it instead of just fudging your character sheet (which I've seen done). -Open access to basic magic items; now we can stop cluttering every AR with +1 vest of resistance, and +4 headband of intellect, etc. etc. -Crafting limitations (CL+2 rule); Even though I'm a crafter, it was way too good. I have sooooo much crap. Don't like: -3rd level rule removal; It was nice to be able to tell new players "just stick to the PHB". I'll still be telling them that, but I'm worried that modules will become more challenging at lower levels to account for this, and new players will have a hard time surviving until they learn and understand the access system and branch out. -Wild shape errata; Druids got the SHAFT, but there's nothing you can do about that. -NPC classes; there's no need for them, as no NPC class offers long term options that best PC classes, so all it does is give an easy way out of skill rank requirements for harder prestige classes. There's NO reason to take warrior or commoner. Overall though, I'm down with the update. Thanks for all your hard work, Circle folk. -Jake Robins Edmonton, AB
Piuro 02-11-07, 12:28 AM	-NPC classes; there's no need for them, as no NPC class offers long term options that best PC classes, so all it does is give an easy way out of skill rank requirements for harder prestige classes. There's NO reason to take warrior or commoner. I dont know, theres plenty of potential to have fun with an aristocrat...
Maesto 02-11-07, 01:25 AM	Your mods, Britt? I heard that you gave instructions to the Perrenland triad to keep their mods shorter than 40 pages ;-) I think the new updates are positive on the whole. I don't blame anybody for introducing the errata, only WotC. I'm surprised that alter self is going to tell the truth, but on the whole, I think it's a great update. Two thumbs up! Cheers, Jolyon
copper_wyrmling 02-11-07, 02:05 AM	Overall, I'm delighted with this LGCS update. I'm impressed by the amount of work that must have gone into rewriting it: it really does read like an entirely new version, rather than some new clauses tacked onto the existing document. As well as being aesthetically satisfying, the conciseness makes it a lot easier to check for rules quickly, as well as cheaper to print :) Above all, I'm happy about the retraining rules. I get very attached to my PCs: I don't want to make a new character just so I can try out an option that was perfect for one of my existing ones. The retraining rules solve pretty much all my complaints with the access system, but I never thought we'd get them in LG: again, thank you to the Circle for allowing them. All the new goodies from CM + CS + PH2 look like a lot of fun as well (although :weep: no amount of retraining will let my L11 sorcerer get five levels of spellwarp sniper before retirement, but eh, I'll do it in the high-level campaign), and retraining means that we actually have a chance to play with some of them with existing PCs :) On crafting: my cleric just took her first MIC feat, so I was a bit nervous when I heard that big changes to the MIC rules were being mooted. But the changes seem fair and reasonable: I don't feel like my cleric was unfairly disadvantaged, and it's nice to see that one of the problems that caused her to take the feat - that is, only having found access to a +4 periapt of Wisdom twice in her 15-level career (both times, it was Adventure access), and never a +6 version - has now been removed, so my lower-level PCs don't need to worry about it. Losing the +2 caster level rule makes CWI less of a necessity for casters, and the expansion of Open access levels the playing field a lot, although being able to regain lost access and the cost savings still make crafting feats very good. On polymorph, DMM and DSP: I didn't mind these options being in the campaign, but I didn't use them with my own PCs (for various reasons), and I really don't mourn their passing (although of course I feel sorry for friends who used them heavily). I wish that Holy Word et al could've been banned, but I understand the issues with the alignment domains and the half-fiend / half-celestial templates. I'm glad about the third-level rule going, I'm slightly annoyed about the APL+3 rule but no big deal, and I'm looking forward to seeing beguilers, knights and healers in play :) It's also been great to see Circle members - Britt in particular, but Steve and Pieter as well (I think I have the names matched up with the aliases correctly) - discussing the issues that people have raised on the boards, and I think there've actually been a few changes as a result of those discussions, which is nice. All in all, :cloud9:, and :cheer: for Britt and the rest of the Circle.
billytea 02-11-07, 02:06 AM	I'm surprised that alter self is going to tell the truth Apparently Jack Bauer was in charge of the interrogation. I'm very positive about the new LGCS. It shows a lot of thoughtful attention. I don't agree with everything, but it leaves me with a lot of confidence in the direction the Circle is taking. Kudos too to Piuro for starting this thread. Most of the conversation on the LGCS naturally has to revolve around criticisms and possible amendments, it's good to have an overall temperature check too.
sibyl 02-11-07, 11:47 AM	I don't mind the new LGCS at all, and I am very happy with Britt and the rest being open and communicative about them (to the extent Wizards allows :P ). I really like the opening up of item access, the retraining options, and the removal of the 3rd level rule. I agree the Beguiler spell list should be Open. As the player of a Druid, I can live with the new Wildshape rules. I do see that divorcing CON from hitpoints is going to cause a lot of problems - just the discussion on the LG Druids list alone is giving me a headache. :rolleyes: I'm not sure if there could be a clarification or not about how the new rules fit in with other CON changes like buffing spells or stat damaging attacks. As for me, I'm taking Occam's Razor to the situation and going with the simplest interpretation. Finally, thank you for all your hard work.
sir_lune 02-11-07, 12:52 PM	I 'm rather pleased with the new LGCS, overall you guys have done a huge amount of work to make it more player-friendly. I still find some rulings a little bit extreme (DSP, new polymorph rules) even if I never used them as a player or a judge, but the resizing, and the new format for feats and spells is welcomed, as the new rules for Item Creation (although I will never be able to do my gem of seeing now:D )
Japangirl 02-11-07, 04:44 PM	Overall I've been very happy with the LGCS changes. I have my things I'm not terribly happy about, of course, but those are in separate threads. The new opening of access: the jillions of new feats and PrCs and other fun options is great and makes me very very happy. I need a rebuild for my rogue! *beg* She must become a dread wraith halfling Dread Pirate-with-parrot-familiar capable of doing 6 Con and 12 Str per round to the BBEG, or if not sneak-attackable at least the 12 Str!
garyjohnson 02-11-07, 06:50 PM	Hi, all. Things I particularly like: the LGCS is a much shorter document the open/closed terminology the expanded magic item access the inclusion of the retraining rules the removal of the 3rd level rule the changes to using skills after adventures Things I'm concerned about, but don't particularly dislike: the changes to the paperwork for cohorts (I'm worried it's now harder for DMs to monitor players looking for exploits, such as cohorts not using up consumables because they don't have an MIL or cohorts receiving an AR benefit despite not playing that adventure with the PC) the apparent decrease in form-changing magic spells (characters who only know a few spells of each level can't easily take all the "turn into a specific creature" spells - at least my bard still has a hat of disguise for sneaking into the humanoid-of-the-module camp) the APL+3 rule (it prevents players who are less focussed on the tactical mini-game and more focussed on in-character interaction and storylines having fun together with their preferred characters) Things I particularly dislike: Nothing, really. Cheers, Gary Johnson
Cardinal Teplin 02-13-07, 11:46 AM	Overall I like the new doc. It's much much shorter than in previous years, which is an heroic effort in and of itself. The layout also seems much improved. I applaud the removal of the 3rd level rule, which although it served a purpose, was more trouble than benefit. I'm also glad that various options that were banned, were banned, particularly some of the clerical divine insight and divine metamagic. I don't think divine spellpower necessarily deserved the chop, because the holy word et al issue may carry on in other forms, but it strikes me as no bad thing. Communication is also much much better than it has been in previous years. Britt in particular has been very active (and very restrained) in his dealings with the wider community. The bad? Consulation was very good for existing issues, but new changes only came up for discussion once the new draft was out, and could see what they were, some 5 days before the deadline. This meant that none of the new rules were effectively up for review at all, which is a shame because they've historically been the most controvertial. Accepting the polymorph changes was a shame, since I felt that the Circle had put a great deal of effort into a version of the rules that's actually superior to what we have now. However I can well believe Circle didn't have much choice on this one, and even if they did, I can see that it may be better in the long run to follow the WOTC lead. (even when I don't like it) The two decisions I really didn't understand, and felt were strange. 1) Banning Master of Many Forms - surely with all the changes to polymorph, this p-class was hit with a major nerf bat. Adding that to the existing controls in place, banning it seemed... unecessary. 2) The APL +3 rule. This one is going to hurt small clubs and cons, where it can be hard to muster legal tables. Particularly towards the end of the year, when the people who can play each mod, and the characters with available TUs don't drop into handy APL groups. I'm thinking specifically of Dragonmeet, London_gamers, and the new club being formed in Reading in an attempt to replace Hidden Fortress. While I can sympathise the idea of providing judges with all the weapons at their disposal to deal with potential problems, we're way more short of organisers than judges. Bottom line, it's going to hurt my attempts to promote LG. Overall, a good job that was well done. In general, the game is getting better. (Now if you'll excuse me, my 14th level MoMFs and I are going to go sulk for a bit.) H
Dominick 02-13-07, 01:18 PM	I like the new LGCS, a little worried about the evil ruling, and how different jusges are going to be inconsistant. Not happy about the wildshape losing my Wis bonus from a Periapt. I love the new access. Will a form be released for rebuid for druids?
Timlagor 02-13-07, 02:23 PM	I like the new LGCS, a little worried about the evil ruling, and how different jusges are going to be inconsistant. It's right back to where it was before the "all [evil] spells are evil acts" DC afaics.
Piuro 02-13-07, 03:15 PM	Because negative energy is evil. That makes so much sense. Hey everyone, deathwatch kills the soul!
Arvagor 02-13-07, 05:03 PM	Hmm... It'll be interesting now if the latest Sage Advice (in the latest Dragon) makes it into the FAQ... It says that negative energy is not inherently evil. ... "Even the ubiquitous inflict spells aren't "evil" spells."
paigeoliver 02-14-07, 01:58 AM	Overall I am quite happy with the new LGCS. High points include. Removal of the 3rd level rule. Addition of the Healer base class. The Daring Outlaw feat from complete scoundrel. One of my friends actually called me on the phone about this on because I had a halfling rogue/swashbuckler that was pretty worthless. The slightly better cohort rules. The removal of the "can't spend 50 percent of your cohort gold on one item" rule was very wise. As it was before low level cohorts basically couldn't buy anything. Nicer basic access. The shorter length of the document. I for one am thrilled about the APL+3 rule. I don't believe it will make tables harder to make, it will simply force those players that refuse to play their lower level characters, or who refuse to start lower level characters to do so. The problem of "making tables" is firmly in the hands of the longtime players, new players cannot pull high level characters out of there rear ends, but longtime players have little excuse for not having any characters less than 10th level AND expecting to play them at APL 2 rather than just making a 1st level character. Low points. I am not happy with the XP penalty = GP penalty, although I was very happy at how quickly Britt answered my request related to them. I would have like to see some new prestige class options available from books other than complete scoundrel. Once you take away the complete scoundrel prestige classes that were added you are basically staring at a prestige class list almost identical to the 595 LGCS. I would like a REASON to use my copies of Frostburn, Stormwrack, and Sandstorm (and cruddy heat endurance feats in the Bright Sands story arc were not a reason).
gomeztoo 02-14-07, 07:29 AM	It's not shorter than my mods ;) My mods are bigger than yours :D Anyway, my impression is positive. I'd have preferred an APL+4 rule (slightly more play opportunities), and special missions allowable to be run out of region, and druid rebuilds seems a bit too generous imo. A pity we didn't get access to Aristocrat, and I still think Dragon Disciple requirements are awkwardly worded. But those are little things. We get a nice comrpehsinsive short LGCS with a lot more options and no PHBII Master's Touch spell (phew), so I'm happy. Now, if you excuse me, I' have to rebuild my druid and dump that crummy Sandwalker feat (Hmm. Should I take up Crafting?).
Bogjob 02-14-07, 07:38 AM	On the whole very happy with the new LGCS especially the opening of magic item access, as a few others have said kudos to Britt for not losing his cool over some real 'toys out of the pram' comments from people. Only one thing irked me and that was Hewards Handbag, after years of playing I finally got access to one last month and now everyone can buy one :doh:
Donald_Cannith 02-14-07, 10:51 AM	I personally lik the new LGCS. After discussing the issues I had , i came to the realization that all of my quarrels are with Wiards and not the Circle. So rock on Britt and maybe one day Wizards will answer all of our questions...
Trollios 02-14-07, 11:02 AM	Overall, I think there are some good changes. Some changes that hurt my characters but i don't mind so much. The only rule I really don't like is the APL+3, and that's just because it hurts players that want to do complete series with one character. If my character is level 10 when part 3 comes around, I NEED to find an APL 8 table or I will never get to do this part of the series, and considering I only have 1 gaming group in my area, that's a possibility. For the most part, good jobe, I do like the more concise LGCS. now can we do a rebuild, because I'd love to play a knight?
katrick 02-14-07, 09:59 PM	what happened to the Arms and Equipment Guide? Are these items no longer LG Open lots of meta-orgs give access katrick
garyjohnson 02-14-07, 10:06 PM	what happened to the Arms and Equipment Guide? Are these items no longer LG Open lots of meta-orgs give access katrick If the items aren't listed as closed, and you have documentation (such as a metaorg AR) that opens the item to your PC, your PC has access. Hope this helps, Gary Johnson
Simpi 02-15-07, 12:24 AM	If the items aren't listed as closed, and you have documentation (such as a metaorg AR) that opens the item to your PC, your PC has access. Personally I feel that opening up this much item access was a mistake. 1) Triads should have some say on what kind of items are suitable for the region. For example, how likely it is that PCs in Naerie for example (a country in sub-tropical climate) would have straight access to Frostburn items. 2) It removes much of the appeal of MO and essentially forces Triads to do a complete overhaul of them as much of the items which were previously controlled, are now out there in the open, aside from Arms & Equipment Guide stuff. Sampo Haarlaa Naerie Triad
Morgen 02-15-07, 12:43 AM	I'm just happy that all the modifications to the LGCS I suggested were made. Now my Landless Noble Aristocrat will be properly funded, and I can use my Races of the Dragon for my draconic feat using sorcerer and we here in the Shield Lands can enjoy being Landless Nobles to start with! I (think) I'm responcible for us getting sooo much extra access to the Races of the Dragon (which we already had, but still!) Though still no Kobolds...
ranagrande 02-15-07, 12:48 AM	I'm just happy that all the modifications to the LGCS I suggested were made. Now my Landless Noble Aristocrat will be properly funded, and I can use my Races of the Dragon for my draconic feat using sorcerer and we here in the Shield Lands can enjoy being Landless Nobles to start with! I (think) I'm responcible for us getting sooo much extra access to the Races of the Dragon (which we already had, but still!) Though still no Kobolds... Your Landless Noble Aristocrat is all set, except for sad the fact that NPC classes are once again prohibited. And I knew I wasn't the only one to miss the Kobolds. :P
Arvagor 02-15-07, 03:20 AM	2) It removes much of the appeal of MO and essentially forces Triads to do a complete overhaul of them as much of the items which were previously controlled, are now out there in the open, aside from Arms & Equipment Guide stuff.The only thing that's "out there" are weapons and some armor. There's still a significant number of mundane items that still require special access to obtain. You could also give out free weapons/armor, or discounts (up to the limited amounts per meta-org) to encourage a particular item's use... We have a few MOs in our region that don't give out any items, yet they are still very popular and contribute to the development of the region.
gomeztoo 02-15-07, 03:28 AM	Personally I feel that opening up this much item access was a mistake. The access is only to (mostly exotic) weapons and armor, so people can plan for exotic weapon use. I checked and I have to redesign none of the metaregional MOs due to this. A few regional MOs I designed give access, but they have many other benefits, so changes would be minimal (though I leave that upt o the local Triad). If your MOs hinge so much on giving access to these items that they are now useless, then I'm sorry to say that you designed them wrong. Personally I'm happy my main can now get her self some extra silly stuff, as that's just her thing.
Sieylianna 02-15-07, 08:00 AM	The only thing that's "out there" are weapons and some armor. There's still a significant number of mundane items that still require special access to obtain. You could also give out free weapons/armor, or discounts (up to the limited amounts per meta-org) to encourage a particular item's use... I think this change is a good thing because it will hopefully lead to more access to NONC prestige classes. I reviewed 70 odd AR's for my 12th level druid last night for ideas about the rebuild and she only has access to one NONC prestige class (Sacred Purifier). Ed
Simpi 02-15-07, 10:15 AM	If your MOs hinge so much on giving access to these items that they are now useless, then I'm sorry to say that you designed them wrong. Well, thanks a lot for message which at the same time ridicules our MOs and regional Triad while answering none of my legitimate concerns. No, they do not depend on any one of those items that are now available (though of course there are plenty of those) but this is more about regional flavor. Why would our region have to offer access to Suglin for example if Triad thinks it's not a suitable item for the region? Can we issue regional ruling on what items can be bought in our regionals? Sampo Haarlaa Naerie Triad
gomeztoo 02-15-07, 11:57 AM	Well, thanks a lot for message which at the same time ridicules our MOs and regional Triad while answering none of my legitimate concerns. I wasn't ridiculing your MOs. I was ridiculing your statement that it removes much of the appeal of MO and essentially forces Triads to do a complete overhaul of them. Especially the forces statment. And that IS an answer to one of your questions. Can we issue regional ruling on what items can be bought in our regionals? Likely, but I don't see why you would want to burden the DM with lots of miniature rules. It won't stop PCs from buying them in other scenarios if they wish to. I also don't see the problem with ergiuonal flavor. Weapon access doesn't define regional flavor that much. That is done through scenarios. PCs are 'different' anyway. If they wield odd weapons that sets them apart, but not much more that 'being a PC' allready does. So I would advise against it. It definitely won't be happening in metaregionals.
jstorrie 02-15-07, 01:50 PM	I can only think of one splat weapon that could be regionally inappropriate - the Scorpion Claws from Sandstorm. Everything else is pretty much climate-neutral. A suglin is just a big scythe made out of bones. I could see access to that coming from nearly any region of the world. Even if you're in a mostly civilized region, there's always the possibility of taking one from some orc raider or whatever. Even the ice-chucker is technically just a javelin gun.
Gelth 02-19-07, 11:59 PM	It's not shorter than my mods ;) I have a mod, just retired from play, at 15 pages. Including title page, statblocks, and everything. APLs 2-12. Name: KET5-03 The Missing. Joke: What's missing? The rest of the module. --Penn, Ket Triad