Post/Author/DateTime	Post
WotC_Mel 02-07-07, 05:44 PM	The Living Greyhawk campaign allows players to inspect their main rules document, the Living Greyhawk Campaign Sourcebook (or LGCS), before it goes live in the campaign. For a short time, discussion commences on a draft version of the document allowing players to voice their feedback regarding the LGCS. Download a draft copy of the Living Greyhawk Campaign Sourcebook for 597 CY from the Campaign Documents section of the Living Greyhawk welcome page (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=lg/welcome). Discussion continues until the end of the day Sunday, February 11, 2007. After this time, the Circle will consider alterations for the final LCGS based on your input. The final draft is scheduled for release prior to D&D Experience. For complete instructions about participating in this draft discussion visit http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=lg/lgcn/20070207a. T'he Living Greyhawk Circle
LachlarlanIII 02-07-07, 05:54 PM	When will we actually get our hands on the Draft? I have already been to the welcome page and it isn't listed yet. Speak of the devil, just showed up.
LachlarlanIII 02-07-07, 06:14 PM	The first big change I notice is that there is no longer a differentiation between Core/Limited/NPC/Restricted access. Instead there is simply Closed and Open access. I'm curious as to why this part of the LGCS was changed. Also, Divine Metamagic has been made Closed. Not that that's a bad thing IMO, but many PC clerics have the feat. Will they get a feat refund for both DMM and the metamagic feat they chose to make it worthwhile?
Eric Anondson 02-07-07, 06:16 PM	p. 27: Shield Lands should have access to Landless Nobility as a regional feat. Dragon Magazine #315 and #319 both say the Shield Lands are a region with access. Plus, a few Shield Lands metaorgs are already assuming that LGCS 596 was in error on excluding the Shield Lands from the list of regions with access to Landless Nobility.
Britt 02-07-07, 06:18 PM	Tentative new Glossary for LGCS: http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=789084 Tentative new Leadership text for LGCS: http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=789085 Tentative new Retraining text for LGCS: http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=789093 Change list (most of it). I'll update as I collect more of the details of changes over the past two or three weeks. Agreed for LGCS: -Reword/reformat, integrate FAQs, instant FAQs, clarifications, errata, and Dispel Confusion, where possible -Add Adapted terminology -Incorporate Greyhawk Ruins text; remove BoBS text -Update Campaign Card list -Move access lists to Appendices -Open/Closed terminology replaces Core/Limited/NPC/Restricted -Animal feats Open -Insightful Reflexes removed from Open list -DMM/DSP Closed -Healer, Beguiler, and Knight Open -All P2 feats Open except: Arcane Thesis, Companion Spellbond, Fade Into Violence, Robilar's Gambit, Steadfast Determination, Trophy Collector, Profane Aura, Sacred Purification -No new Open spells from new books -Expanded magic item and exotic weapon Open access. -P2 Retraining available at each level for 4 TUs and (100gp x new level) -Equal xp/gp penalty %, maximum of 50% xp loss -Update glossary and contacts -Magic item upgrading rewritten -Remove 3rd level rule -Special Missions changed to one/character/year -Restriction of stregth bows to +4 removed -Remove LG-News list -+2 CL rule for MIC gone -Polymorph rules changed to new rules, druids get a rebuild - see DC -Animals clarified somewhat (no, no "trained for war" clarification) -Ring of animal friendship no longer closed -Clarified item access and next three ARs -Added St. Cuthbert and Wee Jas changes -Updated Languages list -Consolidated Nonadventuring Activity rules -Simplified Charity of Friends and Raise/Resurrect alternate payments -Cohorts changed to elite array, unless stats listed -Evil acts rewritten -CM CS Feats/PrCs - more detailed list to come In process: -Finish Chapter 6 and Glossary -More detailed Table of Contents -Finish internal discussions on a few rules options -Implement something into Charity of Friends for lost spellbooks Not changing for or being added to LGCS: -PrC minimum # of levels -Racial Substitution Levels (Author/Triad use) -Alternative Class Features (Author/Triad use) -binding winds, wraith strike, orb spells -Celestial Scion, Sculpt Spell, guild feats from D2 -Arcane Heirophant, Marshal, Radiant Servant, Ninja, Samurai, Archivist, Warlock -MO rules -Tome of Magic, Tome of Battle, Dragon Magic -Playable races -Skill Tricks ======================================== ============================ Lists of changed access, thanks to Ken Jenks: LGCS 597 draft Table Analysis: Closed Base Classes http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=787833 LGCS 597 draft Table Analysis: Open Base Classes http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=787832 === LGCS 597 draft Table Analysis: Closed Domains http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=787842 LGCS 597 draft Table Analysis: Open Domains http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=787840 === LGCS 597 draft Table Analysis: Closed Feats http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=787837 LGCS 597 draft Table Analysis: Open Feats http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=787835 === LGCS 597 draft Table Analysis: Closed Prestige Classes http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=787849 LGCS 597 draft Table Analysis: Open Prestige Classes http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=787846 === LGCS 597 draft Table Analysis: Closed Spells http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=787845 LGCS 597 draft Table Analysis: Open Spells http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=787843 === LGCS 597 draft Table Analysis: Closed Items http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=787828 LGCS 597 draft Table Analysis: Open Items http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=787826
Britt 02-07-07, 06:19 PM	The Dispel Confusion, coming out sometime today hopefully, addresses the polymorph and DMM/DSP changes.
Bob_the_Theurge 02-07-07, 06:20 PM	Suggestion: Page 13 - Repairing items: "PCs may repair another PC’s item; the repairer pays the XP and TU cost; either PC may pay the GP cost." Change to: "PCs may repair another PC's item; the repairer pays the XP and TU cost, but all PC's at the table are allowed to contribute GP for the repair." This would make it more fair if someone's item gets sundered and allow the rest of the table to chip in for the repair the same way they can chip in for a Raise (page 11).
Britt 02-07-07, 06:21 PM	Remember, this is a draft. A few of the items we are still discussing internally, so you might see a few changes when the final LGCS comes out. A few things have been fixed on my copy since the draft was mailed in as well. And, of course, some things could change based on comments here.
SirApropos 02-07-07, 06:23 PM	So is the base class Duskblade Open or Closed because it is not mentioned anywhere that I could see initially?
Mommy was an Orc 02-07-07, 06:25 PM	If a Complete Scoundrel PrC gains a bonus skill trick, what happens?
Britt 02-07-07, 06:25 PM	Duskblade is what we've been calling NONC (Non-Open/Non-Closed), thanks to Will Dover for the acronym. It's effectively Limited, but the Limited terminology is gone. You may see access someday, but don't bet on it.
Britt 02-07-07, 06:25 PM	None of the Skill Trick PrCs from CS are being included in the LGCS. We may deal with that ruleset later, but not for now.
Eric Anondson 02-07-07, 06:26 PM	The first big change I notice is that there is no longer a differentiation between Core/Limited/NPC/Restricted access. Instead there is simply Closed and Open access. I'm curious as to why this part of the LGCS was changed.It looks like simplicity of design. It seems all four categories are still in effect there. There are two types of Closed listings. Ones available for authors to give to NPCs and those not available. I would guess that the category of "Limited" is still around in all but name. In other words, it is covered under this on page 9. "New Rulebooks As new books are published, more rules options will be introduced into the campaign. Until new books are included in this document, you must obtain other campaign documentation, such as on ARs or through metaorgs, to use rules options from the new books." I hope this is what would cover, for instance, access to spells my PCs have earned which are not either Open or Closed.
Alma 02-07-07, 06:29 PM	do existing cohorts require a rebuild?
Britt 02-07-07, 06:30 PM	do existing cohorts require a rebuild? If their stats are not given on the AR, you must use the elite array for your cohort's stats. This applies to all cohorts, new or old.
Alma 02-07-07, 06:31 PM	do i have the option to take a diffrent feat then?
Britt 02-07-07, 06:33 PM	do i have the option to take a diffrent feat then? You can use the Retraining option when you level.
Bob_the_Theurge 02-07-07, 06:33 PM	moved down below to comprehensive reply.
Bob_the_Theurge 02-07-07, 06:34 PM	You can use the Retraining option when you level. And if we're already level 15? We're just hosed? We have a feat that's now "closed" and just lose the slot?
Alma 02-07-07, 06:35 PM	You can use the Retraining option when you level. :mad: :raincloud :pbbbtt: :censored: :headexplo :tantrum:
Britt 02-07-07, 06:36 PM	Bob, pay attention to the quote threads. Alma was asking about Leadership. DMM/DSP is clarified in the Dispel Confusion.
Japangirl 02-07-07, 06:40 PM	Why is Insightful Reflexes being banned, out of curiousity?
Britt 02-07-07, 06:42 PM	Why is Insightful Reflexes being banned, out of curiousity? Its effects were out of proportion with the opportunity cost of a feat. We didn't all agree that it was so bad that it needed to be Closed, but we were able to agree that it at least shouldn't be Open.
copper_wyrmling 02-07-07, 06:42 PM	Copied from the other thread... Britt, do you want all discussion on this thread, or do you want people to make separate threads? There's an apparent incomplete sentence on p.14: "New spells must either be Open access for your PC." (This would make sense if "either" was removed, but was it intended to say more?) Yay! Rebuild options! I do have a minor question and suggestion regarding implementation of these, but will leave it until I finish reading. My suggestion on Planar Ally didn't get taken up. Ah well. Ooh. Unseen Seer and Spellwarp Sniper are open. I think some of my PC builds just changed kinda dramatically (although one of them is probably a high-level campaign rebuild, at this stage). And the Luck feats are open! (at least some of them) Oh, my Wild Mage wants Magical Fortune...
Bob_the_Theurge 02-07-07, 06:44 PM	-Animal feats Open -Cohorts changed to elite array, unless stats listed -Healer, Beguiler, and Knight Open -Expanded magic item and exotic weapon Open access. -P2 Retraining available at each level for 4 TUs and (100gp x new level) -Equal xp/gp penalty %, maximum of 50% xp loss -Remove 3rd level rule -Special Missions changed to one/character/year These are all good things. -Animals clarified somewhat (no, no "trained for war" clarification) Without that clarification, what's the point? -Magic item upgrading rewritten Alright, I suppose - combined with the newer, more open item access this is relatively reasonable. -+2 CL rule for MIC gone This doesn't help much at all. Access is already haphazard. -DMM/DSP Closed If you can explain what was so broken about them, I'm all ears. Keep in mind that I've seen caster level 28 nonsense out of advanced monsters in modules, so DSP isn't anything compared to that. Divine Metamagic, without Nighsticks, wasn't a problem either. There'd better be a good reason for this one. -Polymorph rules changed to new rules, druids get a rebuild - see DC Didn't we go through this LAST year? This is boneheaded, wrongheaded, idiotic, and damaging to the campaign. We had it worked out the right way before WotC stuck their noses in, there's no reason to do this to the players.
Britt 02-07-07, 06:45 PM	Copied from the other thread... Britt, do you want all discussion on this thread, or do you want people to make separate threads? There's an apparent incomplete sentence on p.14: "New spells must either be Open access for your PC." (This would make sense if "either" was removed, but was it intended to say more?) Yay! Rebuild options! I do have a minor question and suggestion regarding implementation of these, but will leave it until I finish reading. My suggestion on Planar Ally didn't get taken up. Ah well. Ooh. Unseen Seer and Spellwarp Sniper are open. I think some of my PC builds just changed kinda dramatically (although one of them is probably a high-level campaign rebuild, at this stage). And the Luck feats are open! (at least some of them) Oh, my Wild Mage wants Magical Fortune... Questions, clarifications, and the like should go here. If you want to go into a detailed discussion of something, start a new thread. Note that it's Retraining options, not Rebuilding. Fixed the extra 'either', thanks.
Britt 02-07-07, 06:47 PM	These are all good things. Without that clarification, what's the point? Alright, I suppose - combined with the newer, more open item access this is relatively reasonable. This doesn't help much at all. Access is already haphazard. If you can explain what was so broken about them, I'm all ears. Keep in mind that I've seen caster level 28 nonsense out of advanced monsters in modules, so DSP isn't anything compared to that. Divine Metamagic, without Nighsticks, wasn't a problem either. There'd better be a good reason for this one. Didn't we go through this LAST year? This is boneheaded, wrongheaded, idiotic, and damaging to the campaign. We had it worked out the right way before WotC stuck their noses in, there's no reason to do this to the players. Keep it civil, Bob. Animals were clarified on how many tricks they get and what tricks they can select. "Trained for war" is outside our domain. If you want to talk about DMM/DSP, start a thread and I'm sure the entire debate will be rehashed...again. LG is a core campaign, so the closer we can stick to the Core rules, the better. That's one of the main reasons for changing to the polymorph errata. We didn't do it last year because it came out at the wrong time for an LGCS inclusion and it was too big of a change to do at any other time.
Bob_the_Theurge 02-07-07, 06:49 PM	You can use the Retraining option when you level. If this is the case, all current 15th-level characters should be offered the chance to do so once upon publication of the new LGCS.
Japangirl 02-07-07, 06:50 PM	Do druids have to train their animal companions or do they come with all their tricks when you call them? Ie, if a druid has an animal companion that has 2 Int (6 tricks + any bonuses) does the druid have to spend 6 TUs over the course of 6 mods to train it, or does s/he just get to pick 6 tricks that the animal knows?
Bob_the_Theurge 02-07-07, 06:52 PM	Keep it civil, Bob. Animals were clarified on how many tricks they get and what tricks they can select. "Trained for war" is outside our domain. If you want to talk about DMM/DSP, start a thread and I'm sure the entire debate will be rehashed...again. LG is a core campaign, so the closer we can stick to the Core rules, the better. That's one of the main reasons for changing to the polymorph errata. We didn't do it last year because it came out at the wrong time for an LGCS inclusion and it was too big of a change to do at any other time. Official answer from WotC is that "trained for war" is a DM call. YOU, THE CIRCLE are the campaign DM as such. You issue rulings on things like that all over the place, to keep trying to dodge this one is just hurting the campaign. Re: Polymorph and DMM/DSP, the change doesn't help anything, it hurts the campaign. DMM/DSP was rehashed over and over last year and the result was to get rid of the real problem, which was Nightsticks allowing essentially unlimited turning checks. "LG is a core campaign" - sure, but the reason that LG didn't follow the Polymorph idiocy was that we'd already fixed the problem better, with our own campaign restrictions. The "Polymorph Errata" was created because WotC couldn't be bothered to do anything better with their broken on-again-off-again noncampaigns like Xendrik and MoH. This doesn't help, it hurts, the campaign. That ought to be enough reason not to something so plainly pointless.
Mortepierre 02-07-07, 06:53 PM	Just to make sure I understood this correctly. If something is non-open & non-closed BUT we have access to it on a pre-597 AR, do we still have access now? Also, THANK YOU!!! (for removing the 3rd lvl rule, that is)
NightSonX 02-07-07, 06:53 PM	-+2 CL rule for MIC gone I may have missed it, but I can't seem to find the rule that states caster level is counted as a prereq for magical item creation. Was that removed and now matches the ruling in the FAQ?
Britt 02-07-07, 06:53 PM	Do druids have to train their animal companions or do they come with all their tricks when you call them? Ie, if a druid has an animal companion that has 2 Int (6 tricks + any bonuses) does the druid have to spend 6 TUs over the course of 6 mods to train it, or does s/he just get to pick 6 tricks that the animal knows? "Purchased animals come with one trick per point of INT. Animal companions come with the maximum number of tricks allowed by their INT." The rules for further training are for when the animal does not have its maximum tricks, which an animal companion always will have.
Britt 02-07-07, 06:54 PM	I may have missed it, but I can't seem to find the rule that states caster level is counted as a prereq for magical item creation. Was that removed and now matches the ruling in the FAQ? If you can't find something, use the Core rules (DMG Errata in this case).
Japangirl 02-07-07, 06:54 PM	"Purchased animals come with one trick per point of INT. Animal companions come with the maximum number of tricks allowed by their INT." The rules for further training are for when the animal does not have its maximum tricks, which an animal companion always will have. I am just blind, thanks.
Britt 02-07-07, 06:55 PM	Just to make sure I understood this correctly. If something is non-open & non-closed BUT we have access to it on a pre-597 AR, do we still have access now? Also, THANK YOU!!! (for removing the 3rd lvl rule, that is) Access on an AR (as long as the item is not Closed now) effectively Opens the rules option for you.
Britt 02-07-07, 06:56 PM	Official answer from WotC is that "trained for war" is a DM call. YOU, THE CIRCLE are the campaign DM as such. You issue rulings on things like that all over the place, to keep trying to dodge this one is just hurting the campaign. Re: Polymorph and DMM/DSP, the change doesn't help anything, it hurts the campaign. DMM/DSP was rehashed over and over last year and the result was to get rid of the real problem, which was Nightsticks allowing essentially unlimited turning checks. "LG is a core campaign" - sure, but the reason that LG didn't follow the Polymorph idiocy was that we'd already fixed the problem better, with our own campaign restrictions. The "Polymorph Errata" was created because WotC couldn't be bothered to do anything better with their broken on-again-off-again noncampaigns like Xendrik and MoH. This doesn't help, it hurts, the campaign. That ought to be enough reason not to something so plainly pointless. Last warning: keep it civil, Bob. As I said before, if you want an in depth discussion, start a different thread.
NightSonX 02-07-07, 06:59 PM	If you can't find something, use the Core rules (DMG Errata in this case). I found nothing of the sort in there. The reason I ask is because the 596 CS had a sidebar adressing this exactly, and it's now missing. I was wondering if this was intentional.
copper_wyrmling 02-07-07, 06:59 PM	Okay, quick question on retraining. First, thanks very very very much to the Circle for allowing it :cloud9: When do you spend the TUs and gold for the retraining option? I assume the default answer is "on the AR that you level", i.e. where the box saying "gained a level" is ticked. Would it be possible to allow PCs to also spend the TUs/gold on their next AR after levelling (i.e. they must declare it at the start of that game, which is the first time they would be playing the PC again after levelling), to allow people some time to read up on new spell/feat/PrC options they may have access to from the AR that levelled them? Again, thanks for all the work :cheer:
pedr 02-07-07, 07:00 PM	Not 100% sure, but on page 11, Raising the Dead, the draft reads: "You must spend 5 or 10 TUs and pay a minimum of 2500 or 5000 GP, respectively". When I first read that I didn't link it to raise dead or resurrection. If you mean: you must spend at least 2,500gp and 5TUs for raise dead and at least 5,000gp and 10TUs for resurrection, it would be more clear to say so! (Is this the kind of comment you want in this thread?)
Bob_the_Theurge 02-07-07, 07:01 PM	I may have missed it, but I can't seem to find the rule that states caster level is counted as a prereq for magical item creation. Was that removed and now matches the ruling in the FAQ? What he means by "+2 caster level rule" was the rule that, if you were 2 levels higher level than the caster level of something in the DMG, you could craft it without having actually seen it on an AR. It sucks to see that go.
Bob_the_Theurge 02-07-07, 07:05 PM	As I said before, if you want an in depth discussion, start a different thread. As soon as I read the DC you claim is coming, I will start such a thread. You're invited to be a part of it, too. This is going to screw over a number of casters in my area both of the cleric and druid types; I think it's safe to say Druids will just about vanish completely from the campaign, especially when they have the Wisdom to just respec to Cleric anyways.
Bob_the_Theurge 02-07-07, 07:06 PM	Not 100% sure, but on page 11, Raising the Dead, the draft reads: "You must spend 5 or 10 TUs and pay a minimum of 2500 or 5000 GP, respectively". When I first read that I didn't link it to raise dead or resurrection. If you mean: you must spend at least 2,500gp and 5TUs for raise dead and at least 5,000gp and 10TUs for resurrection, it would be more clear to say so! (Is this the kind of comment you want in this thread?) Excellent catch, Pedr.
CdrcJsn 02-07-07, 07:06 PM	I just noticed that both versions of Sacred Healing (CD and PHBII) were included in the open feats list. Just wondering if this was intentional (I'm assuming yes, since both feats do very different things).
Aremedis 02-07-07, 07:08 PM	As soon as I read the DC you claim is coming, I will start such a thread. You're invited to be a part of it, too. This is going to screw over a number of casters in my area both of the cleric and druid types; I think it's safe to say Druids will just about vanish completely from the campaign, especially when they have the Wisdom to just respec to Cleric anyways. Except that retraining does not allow for trading out class levels, only feats, skillpoints, and class features (for alternate class abilities). trading out class levels is rebuilding, which imho, should be allowed only in special missions.
mowaca 02-07-07, 07:18 PM	Open access to 700gp scrolls of reincarnate according to table 7-24...balances out the 250gp enlarge person potions I guess.
SirApropos 02-07-07, 07:26 PM	None of the Skill Trick PrCs from CS are being included in the LGCS. We may deal with that ruleset later, but not for now. Magical Trickster is listed in the Closed section for PrC's. Just thought I'd mention it since you said none of them were being addressed at this time and it may be from an earlier draft.
NightSonX 02-07-07, 07:26 PM	I found nothing of the sort in there. The reason I ask is because the 596 CS had a sidebar adressing this exactly, and it's now missing. I was wondering if this was intentional. A second thing to note...is the reduced casting level requirements for pearls for power are now missing. So either, caster level is no longer a prereq OR pearls are no longer craftable, which again may be purposeful.
Howie23 02-07-07, 07:28 PM	If you can't find something, use the Core rules (DMG Errata in this case). To expand on this: DMG Errata eliminates CL as a prereq most of the time. CL+2 is gone, but so is CL all together for most items. David
pedr 02-07-07, 07:28 PM	Open access to 700gp scrolls of reincarnate according to table 7-24...balances out the 250gp enlarge person potions I guess.I believe that the latest printing of the DMG has that at the correct price (1,700gp?). As we use the latest printing of the DMG in the campaign, we use the correct price for scrolls of reincarnate. Now, how on earth we're meant to know that something is altered in a new printing when the changes aren't made available in an errata document, I don't know. It is, however, the rule!
copper_wyrmling 02-07-07, 07:28 PM	Britt, just to clarify intent: working off the DMG errata + FAQ, are we now using the rule that caster level is NOT a prerequisite for crafting? That is, if a PC can cast the requisite spells and has seen access to an item, they can craft it by paying the appropriate TU/gold/XP cost?
SirApropos 02-07-07, 07:29 PM	Under "Learning New Arcane Spells" pg 14 It states "New Spells must either be Open access for your PC." So you have a similar "either"/or problem here as well.
Howie23 02-07-07, 07:29 PM	Britt: The MIC change references items found section. It does not reference the items in the open purchase lists. Is this oversite, or does a crafter need to find a headband+2 on an AR in order to craft it instead of buy it? David
NightSonX 02-07-07, 07:31 PM	To expand on this: DMG Errata eliminates CL as a prereq most of the time. CL+2 is gone, but so is CL all together for most items. David Huzzah, n00b points for me...I read the errata 3 times and missed it every time. Thanks
Britt 02-07-07, 07:31 PM	Copper: You must spend the gold/TU when you level, but you have until the next time you play to make your selections. Pedr: I will clarify the payments for raise dead/resurrect. CdrcJsn: I will check on Sacred Healing Mowaca: that price is obviously in error. Apropos: That was Closed because of the abilities of the class. Even if we allow skill tricks, Magical Trickster won't be playable.
Britt 02-07-07, 07:33 PM	Howie: I'll try to find a way to phrase crafting better.
mowaca 02-07-07, 07:38 PM	I believe that the latest printing of the DMG has that at the correct price (1,700gp?). As we use the latest printing of the DMG in the campaign, we use the correct price for scrolls of reincarnate. Now, how on earth we're meant to know that something is altered in a new printing when the changes aren't made available in an errata document, I don't know. It is, however, the rule! Hmm...I'll find a newer copy and check the magic item tables. The SRD has it incorrectly and that's just a rtf document. You'd think WoTC would update that one too. Magic Items IV (Scrolls, Staffs, and Wands) (788k RTF) (http://www.wizards.com/d20/files/v35/MagicItemsIV.rtf)
Howie23 02-07-07, 07:39 PM	Howie: I'll try to find a way to phrase crafting better. If I'm understanding, concept is: If an item is open, PC can craft if meets prereqs. If is on LGCS list, is Open. If is in Items Found (at appropriate APL): is Open. CL as prereq now matches DMG errata. That correct? David
SirApropos 02-07-07, 07:40 PM	Pg 20 LG FAQ. Q: If my deity’s favored weapon is exotic and I have the War domain, do I gain that exotic weapon proficiency? A: No. If a deity's favored weapon has both a martial and exotic version you do gain the martial version, such as with the bastard sword or the dwarven waraxe. This may be a good place to clear up which proficiency Favored Souls, who also have Deity's with Exotic favored weapons, get. You could phrase it like this. "If my deity's favored weapon is exotic and I am a Favored Soul or have the War Domain, do I gain that exotic weapon proficiency?"
Britt 02-07-07, 07:41 PM	Mowaca: The leather-bound DMG has it as 1,700 GP. Howie: Correct, except gaining access from a favor effectively opens something as well, and you can't craft from favors. I will be coming up with something to cover this.
Britt 02-07-07, 07:42 PM	Apropos: Favored souls do not have the same problem, as they do not list Martial Weapon Proficiency; they just say you are proficient with your deity's favored weapon.
SirApropos 02-07-07, 07:43 PM	Pg 19 LG FAQ Q: Can I use new skill rules as presented in the Complete and Races series of books? A: Yes, subject to GM approval. You must provide the book to show the rule to your GM. Does this mean Skill Tricks from Complete Scoundrel are subject to DM approval?
pedr 02-07-07, 07:44 PM	To expand on this: DMG Errata eliminates CL as a prereq most of the time. CL+2 is gone, but so is CL all together for most items.This sort of reminds me of last year's half-gold for playing down alteration - a change by removal which wasn't flagged. It would really really really help if Britt could state explicitly that a) caster level is no longer a pre-requisite for crafting unless the item description actually states it and b) that high CL never permits crafting of NONC items which you haven't found access to.
Britt 02-07-07, 07:45 PM	Apropos: no, skill tricks are not included in that. I will try to find a better way to word it.
mowaca 02-07-07, 07:46 PM	Britt answered my question. Makes me wonder what other stealth changes are in the leather bound DMG...
pedr 02-07-07, 07:55 PM	I agree, but that's not what the LGCS says.Yes it is. Page 9, col 2: Reprinted Rules Options: "LG uses the most recent printing of rules options from any of the books listed at the beginning of this chapter." The most recent printing of the DMG lists the price at 1,700 so the campaign price is 1,700. Obviously this is far from ideal, but it is WotC's fault for not actually issuing an errata, not the RPGA or the Circle's fault. A clarification in the LGCS might be helpful, though!
qstor 02-07-07, 07:57 PM	"-Polymorph rules changed to new rules, druids get a rebuild - see DC" What about the PrC like Beastmaster can we lose those levels? thanks Mike
Britt 02-07-07, 07:57 PM	Yes it is. Page 9, col 2: Reprinted Rules Options: "LG uses the most recent printing of rules options from any of the books listed at the beginning of this chapter." The most recent printing of the DMG lists the price at 1,700 so the campaign price is 1,700. Obviously this is far from ideal, but it is WotC's fault for not actually issuing an errata, not the RPGA or the Circle's fault. A clarification in the LGCS might be helpful, though! Already done. Thanks for pointing it out.
Seera 02-07-07, 07:58 PM	Pg 1, Para 2, Line 1 "This document updated periodically, usually once a year, near the date for D&D eXPerience." Recommended Change: "This document is updated periodically. . . " Charlie S
copper_wyrmling 02-07-07, 07:58 PM	Copper: You must spend the gold/TU when you level, but you have until the next time you play to make your selections. I was thinking of the case where you get access to a cool-looking new feat and are unsure as to whether or not you want to take it (and may not even have the relevant book to hand). I guess in that situation you either pay 4 TUs and the required gold preemptively, in case you might want it, or you let it pass and wait until the next time you gain a level - I'm okay with that approach, but I also don't see a potential problem with delaying it until the next AR, so long as the costs and feat change are documented (okay, it would let people level in their last mod of the year and then spend TUs from the next year on retraining, but is that really a big problem?) Maybe I'm missing something obvious. Britt, does the leather-bound DMG by any chance have scrolls of align weapon in the scroll table?
Britt 02-07-07, 07:59 PM	"-Polymorph rules changed to new rules, druids get a rebuild - see DC" What about the PrC like Beastmaster can we lose those levels? That's all covered in the Dispel Confusion, which I'm guessing will be published around midnight Pacific time.
Jon_N 02-07-07, 08:00 PM	Britt, I have a question about cohorts: From the DMG "Leadership Score: A character's Leadership score equals his level plus any Charisma modifier. [...] Regardless of the character's Leadership score, he can't recruit a cohort of his level or higher." This indicates that a cohort can be of a level equal to one less than the PC's level. As far as the LGCS goes, this isn't a problem WRT p12, but on page 13, it says under level loss and cohorts, "if you lose enough levels to put you less than two levels above your cohort, your cohort cannot adventure with you until you are at least two levels above your cohort". With the level reset of cohorts under page 12, this two level difference makes for some really strange practice. - My PC is level 8 and has a level 7 cohort (due to a REALLY high charisma score). - He suffers level loss and goes back to level 7. - His cohort stays at home until he levels (which is fine and perfectly understandable under any circumstance). - He gains enough XP to get to level 8. He has levelled to level 8, and regardless of whether you recalculate his cohort's level or not (under advancement rules), it's still going to be level 7. Yet page 13 says that his cohort still stays home. Why would his cohort not come back into service when he was happy to before? Further more, when my PC gets to level 9 (and the cohort is level 7), does he then calculate the new leadership score and get a level 8 cohort, or does the cohort stay at level 7 until my PC gets to level 10 (whereby the cohort suddenly gains two levels). I think that this could all be fixed by changing the wording on page 13 "Level loss and cohorts" and simply say that "If you lose enough levels to put you at a level equal or lower than your cohort, you cohort cannot adventure with you until you are at least one level above your cohort". There may be reasons why you wish to have the two level discrepancy with cohorts, but it can make for strange and confusing maths and logic. Just my 2c. Cheers Jon.
Britt 02-07-07, 08:01 PM	Charlie: Fixed, thanks. Copper: It would cause confusion on whether you had the TUs (as you pointed out) or GP available when you leveled. Can you spend GP you gain in the next adventure? What about TUs you gained over the new year? It's more clear to just limit it to the AR where you level.
just_be_glad_now 02-07-07, 08:03 PM	Noticable error: Wingover and Winged Warrior are listed as closed spells, as well as open feats. It probably makes sense to remove them from closed spells, since they are not spells. Specific concerns: Please clarify the equipment resizing statement. If you intend to overwrite various spells that allow equipment to be maintained, this should be spelled out explicitly. If you are keeping the rules as they are with respect to enlarge person for example, this should be clarifed since the blanket statement "Equipment does not resize" would overwrite these spells for LG currently. Please consider expanding "lost on another plane" to simply lost, as there are parts of the material plane where it would be possible to be lost, unless your intent is specifically to avoid providing this option for the material plane locations. Please consider adding rods to the list of items that can be repaired, currently their exclusion from the list of permanent items seems strange. It appears that Baleful Polymorph remains core. Is that intentional? The below are possibly already considered in upcoming D Confusion, but: Please specify how to handle NPCs and monsters based upon the Alter self tree when they are in modules. Better yet, make them NPC only/available to authors so the judges don't have to deal with this mess. Similarly, Tattooed Monk and Bear Warrior reference Alter Self and Polymorph as integral parts of the PrC, but remain core. How these should be handled is also unclear. If I notice anything else, I'll post.
GenghisBob 02-07-07, 08:06 PM	Any percentage penalty to XP gained is accompanied by an equal percentage penalty to GP gained. For example, a PC suffering a 40% loss of XP from multiclassing also suffers a 40% loss of GP gained. Are PCs affected by this new penalty able to swap out classes? other than by taking levels in a class at new levels? Retraining does not seem to help. Also i have a Cohort MoMF - I assume next time i level I can either remove the Leadership feat via Retraining, or I can rebuild the Cohort now?
Maesto 02-07-07, 08:06 PM	I'm sorry if this has already been said, I can't be stuffed reading through the 70+ posts already here to figure stuff out... In the retraining options, you may want to say if the alternate class features or the racial substitution levels are available, as they are listed in the PHB2. Cheers, Jolyon P.S. Overall, looks good to me!
Britt 02-07-07, 08:07 PM	Jon: I need an exact quote so I can compare. My leatherbound DMG has the two level disparity rule. And no, scrolls of align weapon are not in the leatherbound DMG.
SirApropos 02-07-07, 08:12 PM	Pg 10 Presitge Class Clarifications You may want to add Wild Soul from Complete Mage to the list because of its special requirement. Similar to Contemplative and Sacred Exorcist.
welbybumpus 02-07-07, 08:13 PM	All around good work, so far. Keep it up. Two points, however: 1) Because of the following rule: All base classes, prestige classes, feats, spells, and domains from the core rulebooks (PH, DMG, MM) are considered Open unless specifically noted otherwise in Appendix 4. I can elect to play an adept, expert, warrior--or even a commoner! Is this the intent? Not that it does the campaign much harm to allow these classes, IMO, and they may even be advantageous for certain builds. 2) There is no longer any mention (that I could find) of the rule that LG does not use variant rules from the core books. This is likely an oversight, but it may be intentional to empower DMs to use variant rules that they see fit (scaling death by massive damage rules based on size, for example). I'm sure I'll have other points, but I wanted to get some initial thoughts in to beat the real rush of comments. Thanks, Ron
Britt 02-07-07, 08:13 PM	Noticable error: Wingover and Winged Warrior are listed as closed spells, as well as open feats. It probably makes sense to remove them from closed spells, since they are not spells. Specific concerns: Please clarify the equipment resizing statement. If you intend to overwrite various spells that allow equipment to be maintained, this should be spelled out explicitly. If you are keeping the rules as they are with respect to enlarge person for example, this should be clarifed since the blanket statement "Equipment does not resize" would overwrite these spells for LG currently. Please consider expanding "lost on another plane" to simply lost, as there are parts of the material plane where it would be possible to be lost, unless your intent is specifically to avoid providing this option for the material plane locations. Please consider adding rods to the list of items that can be repaired, currently their exclusion from the list of permanent items seems strange. It appears that Baleful Polymorph remains core. Is that intentional? The below are possibly already considered in upcoming D Confusion, but: Please specify how to handle NPCs and monsters based upon the Alter self tree when they are in modules. Better yet, make them NPC only/available to authors so the judges don't have to deal with this mess. Similarly, Tattooed Monk and Bear Warrior reference Alter Self and Polymorph as integral parts of the PrC, but remain core. How these should be handled is also unclear. If I notice anything else, I'll post. Clarified equipment resizing Rods are not repairable per the Core rules Baleful poly was erratad to not be an issue.
Jon_N 02-07-07, 08:13 PM	Jon: I need an exact quote so I can compare. My leatherbound DMG has the two level disparity rule. I got mine from the SRD I had on my PC. I just downloaded the latest version and it has changed to refelct the two level disparity. Can probably ignore that one as it's obviously been updated since. (I don't actually have a PC with the leadership feat anyway, so it makes no difference to me directly). Cheers, Jon.
Britt 02-07-07, 08:14 PM	Any percentage penalty to XP gained is accompanied by an equal percentage penalty to GP gained. For example, a PC suffering a 40% loss of XP from multiclassing also suffers a 40% loss of GP gained. Are PCs affected by this new penalty able to swap out classes? other than by taking levels in a class at new levels? Retraining does not seem to help. Also i have a Cohort MoMF - I assume next time i level I can either remove the Leadership feat via Retraining, or I can rebuild the Cohort now? No, you do not get to change out levels. You are not being penalized, rather you are losing a benefit you should have never had. In LG, an XP penalty is a boon as it quickly changes your XP:GP curve. This just fixes that. You would have to rebuild your cohort to make him legal.
Britt 02-07-07, 08:16 PM	2) There is no longer any mention (that I could find) of the rule that LG does not use variant rules from the core books. This is likely an oversight, but it may be intentional to empower DMs to use variant rules that they see fit (scaling death by massive damage rules based on size, for example). Page 3 under Campaign Rules.
welbybumpus 02-07-07, 08:21 PM	Page 3 under Campaign Rules. Ah, thank you. The new format makes it a little harder to find things, but I like it a lot better. The slimming down of the LGCS is really going to lower one of the high barriers to entry in this game. Good work. Ron
pedr 02-07-07, 08:27 PM	Is there a reason that living off the wild changed from 4 ranks in survival to 5 ranks in survival? Admittedly the risk is quite significant at 1st level, but there doesn't seem to be a significant problem with first level PCs attempting to live off the wild if they've invested fully in survival.
Britt 02-07-07, 08:28 PM	Is there a reason that living off the wild changed from 4 ranks in survival to 5 ranks in survival? Admittedly the risk is quite significant at 1st level, but there doesn't seem to be a significant problem with first level PCs attempting to live off the wild if they've invested fully in survival. Every other bonus from ranks in a skill is based on 5; 4 was an oddity.
Seera 02-07-07, 08:32 PM	Pg 1, Topic: Living Greyhawk, Para 1 & 2 - Possible extraneous wording in regard to the unavailability of the LG Gazetteer. Para 1 - “The newest incarnation of this setting can be found in the LIVING GREYHAWK Gazetteer. While this book is out of print, you can still find it at some local hobby shops or through several online bookstores.” Para 2 – “The LIVING GREYHAWK Gazetteer, now out of print but still available from some book stores or online, contains a thorough description of the LG world.” Can be left as written, but can be edited. --- Pg 2, Topic: Adventure Types, Para 1, Ln 3-4 - Formatting may cause confusion or inability to find information “Regionals and metaregionals may not be run outside their region or metaregion, respectively, for any reason . . . “ Recommend inserting a space prior to this statement or differentiating it from the Metaregional to emphasis that it is Regional and Metaregional, rather than attached solely to the Metaregional Modules. --- Charlie S
copper_wyrmling 02-07-07, 08:32 PM	Charlie: Fixed, thanks. Copper: It would cause confusion on whether you had the TUs (as you pointed out) or GP available when you leveled. Can you spend GP you gain in the next adventure? What about TUs you gained over the new year? It's more clear to just limit it to the AR where you level. Last comment and then I'll be quiet on this: we do the same thing with MIC, basing it on the gold / XP available at the start of a game, not the end. I guess what I'm asking is "is there a significant reason to say that people level at the end of a game rather than the beginning of the next game?", since I believe there's a significant benefit in letting people have more time to look at their options. I can accept your judgement that it would cause problems, and it's not a huge issue (I probably shouldn't be trying to retrain three feats in my PC's last three levels anyway), but I thought it was worth raising. Thanks for your patience. For everyone's reference, here's a summary of the new open/closed PrCs from CM and CS: Open PrCs: Cloaked Dancer (CS) Combat Trapsmith (CS) Fortune's Friend (CS) Gray Guard (CS) Holy Scourge (CM) Lyric Thaumaturge (CM) Mountebank (CS) Nightmare Spinner (CM) Spellwarp Sniper (CS) Unseen Seer (CM) Wild Soul (CM) Closed PrCs: Abjurant Champion (CM) Magical Trickster (CS) Malconvoker (CM) Master Specialist (CM) Ultimate Magus (CM) Please correct if I missed any.
GenghisBob 02-07-07, 08:32 PM	No, you do not get to change out levels. You are not being penalized, rather you are losing a benefit you should have never had. In LG, an XP penalty is a boon as it quickly changes your XP:GP curve. This just fixes that. I never saw it as a benefit, but i do now see it as being penalized, i would have weighed up the GP loss against the benifts of the class array before taking it. GB
Eric Anondson 02-07-07, 08:33 PM	I got mine from the SRD I had on my PC. I just downloaded the latest version and it has changed to refelct the two level disparity. Can probably ignore that one as it's obviously been updated since. I think your SRD is faulty. I have three different SRD's and none of them have that language. All of them say this: "Cohort Level: The character can attract a cohort of up to this level. Regardless of a character’s Leadership score, he can only recruit a cohort who is two or more levels lower than himself." Which is in fact the precise language in the DMG 3.5 I have on my desk in front of me.
Eric Anondson 02-07-07, 08:35 PM	Every other bonus from ranks in a skill is based on 5; 4 was an oddity.But with 4 ranks it was possible with a 1st level character. 5 ranks makes only possible with 2nd level characters and higher.
Britt 02-07-07, 08:36 PM	I'm off to eat dinner. I'll be back to post more in about 1.5 hours. Be good while I'm away!
Mattastrophic 02-07-07, 08:40 PM	I noticed one oversight that WILL cause a lot of grief, especially at cons: Page 1 - Average Party Levels: "If you are more than three levels higher than the APL at which the adventure is being played, you cannot participate." This rule, if it is maintained, will lead to this scenario: Let's say we're at a con. A 6, 6, 8, and 10 sit down to play. They average to 7.5, they can play APL 8 and everyone's happy. If a 2nd sits down at the table (and yes, I have seen this sort of thing happen)... we now have a 2, 6, 6, 8, and 10. They average to APL 6.4, and the 10 just got booted from the table by the 2nd. This is completely unfair. We cannot give low-level characters the ability to eject higher-level characters from the table. In the past, the 10 could play down to 6, take half, and grumble a bit, but to remove him completely?!? Unfair. -Matt
yorkus 02-07-07, 08:45 PM	Hey Britt Two thumbs up on the LGCS Just one thing. You have alowed items from tables in the Complete and Race books in Apendix 4 Access. Are you considering makeing tables from the Arms and Equipment Guide open too? Or are there weapons and equipment that aren't suitable for LG? Tell you what though, it would be awesome to finally co-ordinate my wardrobe specifically. Thanks Britt and well done
Haro 02-07-07, 08:53 PM	This is completely unfair. We cannot give low-level characters the ability to eject higher-level characters from the table. In the past, the 10 could play down to 6, take half, and grumble a bit, but to remove him completely?!? Unfair. -Matt I think it's unfair to every other player who would like a challenge to have a 10th level character in an APL 6 game. It becomes a situation where one PC is the star and has 3-5 cheerleaders. I've played in a few of these situations and every person not playing the high level PC hated it. Even the other guy got to the point where he wasn't enjoying the ease of the game... I sympathise with the few genuine bad spots this will put players in at cons but I feel that needing to apply extra care when assigning tables is the lesser evil. :) Joe
Seera 02-07-07, 08:56 PM	Hmm . . . another interesting item that I have to comment on between actually editing. "All players must use an official LG character sheet available at www.wizards.com/lg." Interesting news for all of us who use Heroforge and other character sheets. Charlie S
Jon_N 02-07-07, 08:59 PM	I think it's unfair to every other player who would like a challenge to have a 10th level character in an APL 6 game. It becomes a situation where one PC is the star and has 3-5 cheerleaders. It is, but prior to the 2nd level PC joining in, the party would have been challenged at APL 8. Also, because you can't turf people from the table, assume I have the 2nd level PC. I also have a 8th level PC, but choose NOT to take that PC because I'm an unfriendly sort of chap (I don't know, maybe my 8th level is an Asharati and I don't want to risk playing a module set underwater or something). My actions mean that I get to play the game at an APL I want, but end up getting another player ejected. With the RPGA rules as they are, the other players can't actually choose to eject me because I'm doing nothing wrong. I can see the point of ensuring games are challenging, but I think that ensuring that all players have the same opportunity to play the game is far more important.
Paradox1 02-07-07, 09:00 PM	First thanks for getting document posted and responding to questions. This is realted to High Lvl option .. few quick comments Pg 2 (HL-Rules) It mentions about suing material listed in chapter five of the LGCS .. I think with the new LGCS that reference should be chapter 4. Pg 2 (HL-Rules) terms of access to stuff .. "not listed as NPC only or restricted is now considered open" .. does that mean now things not falling into either "open" or "closed" would be accessible? ie. Havoc Mage from MHB. David O'Connor
TroyEsq 02-07-07, 09:04 PM	Kudos to all on the draft. A few comments: I understand the rationale for allowing magic items to be crafted from items found but not from items that you have been favored with. Basically, to paraphrase, you need to have held it in your hot little hands to craft one. What if you already own a magic item that you bought from a Favor and you now want to craft another? If being able to study the magic item is the rationale behind whether or not you can craft another, it only makes sense that you should be able to craft another of something that you already own. And, for a simpler question/comment: Is "Reincarnate" intentionally missing from the list of NPC spells? It should be included.
Haro 02-07-07, 09:08 PM	It is, but prior to the 2nd level PC joining in, the party would have been challenged at APL 8. Also, because you can't turf people from the table, assume I have the 2nd level PC. I also have a 8th level PC, but choose NOT to take that PC because I'm an unfriendly sort of chap (I don't know, maybe my 8th level is an Asharati and I don't want to risk playing a module set underwater or something). My actions mean that I get to play the game at an APL I want, but end up getting another player ejected. With the RPGA rules as they are, the other players can't actually choose to eject me because I'm doing nothing wrong. I can see the point of ensuring games are challenging, but I think that ensuring that all players have the same opportunity to play the game is far more important. That sounds fair. Unfortunately 'apply common sense' probably won't make this version of the LGCS. :P The only other way to do it would be to bump lower level PCs equally with higher. We've all played with enough newbies with 1st level PCs at the table to make that unfeasable imho. Tricky situation! Joe
pedr 02-07-07, 09:09 PM	Hmm . . . another interesting item that I have to comment on between actually editing. "All players must use an official LG character sheet available at www.wizards.com/lg." Interesting news for all of us who use Heroforge and other character sheets.This text was, functionally, already in the LGCS. Page 9 of the 596 version: "You can find a PDF version of this sheet on the Downloads page of the LIVING GREYHAWK campaign website (www.wizards.com/lg). To help GMs facilitate play, all players must use this character sheet. It makes it easier for the DM to find what he is looking for when needed. With your character sheet printed and your Player’s Handbook v.3.5 ready, continue to step one." Now, as Heroforge prints out a character sheet that's practically identical on the front and very similar on the back then I don't imagine anyone questioning Heroforge sheets. User-designed sheets, however, can be a problem if a DM wants to check something and has to spend time working out where that person put the information.
copper_wyrmling 02-07-07, 09:13 PM	There is an odd entry in the Closed spells list: "Lesser Spell, Greater" (SpC). Was this supposed to be "Spell Matrix, Greater" and somebody cut out the wrong word? I'm a little surprised that the chromatic draconic heritage feats are still limited, while Fiendish Heritage is Open. Was that intentional? Also, I quickly made a consolidated list of all the new Open and Closed feats from CM and CS. The Open lists take up far too much space (message me if you want them), but the Closed list is (all from Complete Mage): Dimensional Jaunt Fey Legacy Fiendish Legacy Fiendish Power Insightful Divination Residual Magic Summon Elemental
Reska 02-07-07, 09:13 PM	One more simple question that is probably apparent but I'm missing it: Is this draft (and the copy to follow) legal for DDXP? Specifically, for those of us judging modules there? I'd like to be sure before going next week, so that I'm not thrown surprises by either the players, or any other judges....
Jon_N 02-07-07, 09:15 PM	Quick question Britt. I am curious as to why Polymorph and Alter Self have been removed from the campaign completely rather than using the errata that was published back in 2006. Polymorph seems to be an integral part of the whole "feel" of D&D (IMO) and think that it should be included in the campaign even if the "broken" bits are toned way back. Curious as to why they're being eliminated completely.
Seera 02-07-07, 09:16 PM	This text was, functionally, already in the LGCS. Page 9 of the 596 version: "You can find a PDF version of this sheet on the Downloads page of the LIVING GREYHAWK campaign website (www.wizards.com/lg). To help GMs facilitate play, all players must use this character sheet. It makes it easier for the DM to find what he is looking for when needed. With your character sheet printed and your Player’s Handbook v.3.5 ready, continue to step one." Ah ha. I had never looked that closely at the previous LGCS to see that particular clause. Just adding to the paranoia. . . Charlie S
GenghisBob 02-07-07, 09:20 PM	Lots of good stuff, in the end. Good on the 3rd level rule removal. Good on the Retraining. Good on lots of clarification. Good news to see new classess inlcuded. Not so sure about some of the previous core feats beign classed closed. I would dearly have liked to see skill tricks implemented.
Eric Anondson 02-07-07, 09:35 PM	I am curious as to why Polymorph and Alter Self have been removed from the campaign completely rather than using the errata that was published back in 2006.Britt already addressed this in this post (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=11419093&postcount=27) earlier in the thread.LG is a core campaign, so the closer we can stick to the Core rules, the better. That's one of the main reasons for changing to the polymorph errata. We didn't do it last year because it came out at the wrong time for an LGCS inclusion and it was too big of a change to do at any other time.
redmachined 02-07-07, 09:36 PM	A few things that may help: 1. Allow a cohort rebuild to address the nerfing of cohorts from 22 point buy to elite array. Alternately, allow the PC to take a different feat for free without a retrain. 2. Allow a single character level retrain in a PC's lifetime, either from PrC to standard character level or from one PrC to another existing PrC. Also, make it so a player can only do so once per year (meaning one class retrain per player per year, and only one level retrain per character lifetime). 3. DUSKBLAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADE ;_; 4. Was it absolutely necessary to close Ultimate Magus?
Seera 02-07-07, 09:42 PM	Pg 2, Topic: Other Activities, Bullet Point 4, Ln 1 - Grammatical Error “Special Missions: These adventures address a many purposes, from meeting special in-game requirements for prestige classes to going back to a dungeon to finish off an evil cleric.” Edit out “a” or edit appropriately. --- Pg 16, Topic: Benefits from Non-Adventuring Activity - Sleight of Hand failure check fails to mention if the PC is aiming for a specific DC prior to failure, or whether a Sleight of Hand check only fails if you roll less that a DC 10 total. “When using Sleight of Hand, if you fail the check by 5 or more, you must succeed at a Bluff check of equal DC or be imprisoned for 4 additional TUs”
Eric Anondson 02-07-07, 09:44 PM	A few things that may help: 1. Allow a cohort rebuild to address the nerfing of cohorts from 22 point buy to elite array.I wouldn't call it a nerfing. My highest level character's cohort abilities will end up staying the same in 5 stats and improving by 2 in the 6th. :)
nighthawk_au 02-07-07, 09:46 PM	Hi Britt Just want to clarify this whole Open/Closed business, if something is not on the Open list, does that mean it is not accessible period, or does it mean that it is only accessible via a Cert or Meta-org etc, similar to the old Limited access John E
MichaelTLH 02-07-07, 09:46 PM	Cohort Question: My cohort says it is "typical of it's kind" on it's AR and when I created him, I used the stats as presented in the Monster Manual (as I was told to when I asked for clarification). Must I now use the "Elite Array"?
JJeff 02-07-07, 09:54 PM	Hi Britt Just want to clarify this whole Open/Closed business, if something is not on the Open list, does that mean it is not accessible period, or does it mean that it is only accessible via a Cert or Meta-org etc, similar to the old Limited access John E I believe it is in the NONC (Not Open/Not Closed) catergory that is currently either under discussion by the LGCS people or, as you said, needs access. This is implied in the post by Britt here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=11418794&postcount=11) on Duskblades
pedr 02-07-07, 09:55 PM	Page 19, col 2, question on cantrips. The 596 LGCS notes that 'Repair Minor Damage' appears in a wizard's spellbook when the wizard reaches third level. The new ruling changes that so wizards only have the PH cantrips. Not that it is exceedingly important (unless warforged suddenly appear in LG!!), but 1) must wizards now remove 'Repair Minor Damage' from their spellbooks and 2) how can a wizard get to scribe that spell (and any other Open cantrip, if there are any)?
pedr 02-07-07, 10:00 PM	Oops, double post and a couple of very boring notes: Hayden Smith has recently resigned from the Onnwal triad. Our temporary POC is Thomas Ralph (same email address) but I believe we're trying to recruit someone else to the position. Secondly, Paizo doesn't appear to have Dragon #315 available to download, only #319. It looks as if issues are only put for download once they've sold out of hard-copies, so it might be that time will make the statement in the draft true!
ShinAkuma2 02-07-07, 10:03 PM	Ok, so Alter Self is no longer in the campaign. The Tattooed Monk has a tattoo that mimics Alter Self (indeed, it's a more powerful version of the spell). Shouldn't there be a note in the PrC section saying that the Chameleon tattoo is not a legal choice? *please tell me I'm wrong and I won't have to walk around with a dead tattoo*
Jon_N 02-07-07, 10:05 PM	Britt already addressed this in this post (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=11419093&postcount=27) earlier in the thread. I did see that (LG is a core campaign, so the closer we can stick to the Core rules, the better. That's one of the main reasons for changing to the polymorph errata.) I certainly see no issue with changing to the polymorph errata, I'm just curious as to why it's now closed off completely. Was it a case of even the errata'd version being too powerful for the campaign?
ragecage79 02-07-07, 10:07 PM	Ok, so Alter Self is no longer in the campaign. The Tattooed Monk has a tattoo that mimics Alter Self (indeed, it's a more powerful version of the spell). Shouldn't there be a note in the PrC section saying that the Chameleon tattoo is not a legal choice? *please tell me I'm wrong and I won't have to walk around with a dead tattoo* I believe that, worst case scenario, you could retrain the class ability to acquire a different tattoo.
redmachined 02-07-07, 10:08 PM	I wouldn't call it a nerfing. My highest level character's cohort abilities will end up staying the same in 5 stats and improving by 2 in the 6th. :) I call it nerfed because you don't really have much of a choice in the build of your character anymore.
pedr 02-07-07, 10:09 PM	I did see that (LG is a core campaign, so the closer we can stick to the Core rules, the better. That's one of the main reasons for changing to the polymorph errata.) I certainly see no issue with changing to the polymorph errata, I'm just curious as to why it's now closed off completely. Was it a case of even the errata'd version being too powerful for the campaign? Because essentially the 2006 errata were accompanied by a suggestion/recommendation that DMs consider removing the Alter Self/Polymorph spells, as the RPGA did from Mark of Heroes (and, then, Xen'drik Expeditions) I've never had to really deal with them in a major way so I don't fully understand the issues, but the realisation of R&D seemed to be that no matter how much they tweaked them they couldn't make them balanced so they're trying to create replacements.
Seera 02-07-07, 10:10 PM	Last one for the night . . . Pg 34, Topic: Closed Spells - Feats appear in the spell section “ Surge of Malevolence (HH) … Tainted Fury (HH) … Veteran Knowledge (HB) … Willing Deformity (HH) Winged Warrior (RW)* Wingover (MM)* “ --- Charlie S "Goodnight, and Good Luck"
copper_wyrmling 02-07-07, 10:13 PM	Because essentially the 2006 errata were accompanied by a suggestion/recommendation that DMs consider removing the Alter Self/Polymorph spells, as the RPGA did from Mark of Heroes (and, then, Xen'drik Expeditions) I've never had to really deal with them in a major way so I don't fully understand the issues, but the realisation of R&D seemed to be that no matter how much they tweaked them they couldn't make them balanced so they're trying to create replacements. The errata didn't change polymorph, they changed a lot of other abilities that were originally based off polymorph (generally making them based off alternate form instead, iirc), in order to facilitate the removal of polymorph from the game. LG has just followed the path recommended by the errata.
JJeff 02-07-07, 10:14 PM	Just asking, flame me even if I missed a post above on this, but when is the LCGS 597 changes legal? If I am running games over this weekend or something, do i enforce these new changes or wait till they are officially released. Can i run games based on Britt's earlier post on what's definately in and what definately out, since those are definate and not pending discussion?
Aremedis 02-07-07, 10:16 PM	Concerning the Expanded Feat Options from Dragons #315 and #319 could we get a direct link to the download in the LGCS .pdf instead of a link to the paizo front page? I have been unable to find a download for the particular articles, only links to purchase digital copies of back issues, and #315 isn't even available as a digital back issue.
Aremedis 02-07-07, 10:17 PM	Just asking, flame me even if I missed a post above on this, but when is the LCGS 597 changes legal? If I am running games over this weekend or something, do i enforce these new changes or wait till they are officially released. Can i run games based on Britt's earlier post on what's definately in and what definately out, since those are definate and not pending discussion? If I understand correctly, the new LGCS becomes active when the first slot at DDXP starts.
Lomiat 02-07-07, 10:18 PM	I imagine that I'll see what issues the new Dispel Confusion addresses once it comes out. In the meantime, if it doesn't address the following issues, how are they to be handled? 1) PC already has the feat Insightful Reflexes. It's not Closed, nor is it any longer Open. Does the PC lose the feat? 2) PC crafted an item to which he/she doesn't have AR access (by way of the old "caster level +2" rule). Does the PC lose the item? What happens to the gold? I'm disappointed by some of the new adjustments, but I understand the rationale behind them. In the meantime, I appreciate the responses we're getting to our feedback.
szwanger 02-07-07, 10:19 PM	My character has Insightful Reflexes. It's not Closed, so the FAQ entry on p. 19 doesn't directly apply, but it's not Open either, so am I required to replace it? Furthermore: p. 19: "If a rules option is restricted, you will be allowed to change it for free, using the rules for Retraining or Rebuilding in the PH2." -- "restricted" should probably be changed to "Closed." Or if "restricted" means something other than "Closed", that should be made explicit. -- does "for free" mean it isn't necessary to spend TU? (The PH2 requires spending time for all retraining.) -- do I have to wait until I gain a new level to replace feats that are now Closed? (Obviously I don't get to use Closed feats in the meantime.) Two other comments: Does the Open Access on p. 26 include upgrades, or only items bought outright? Is it possible to change the page numbers in the final document so the PDF page number matches the printed page number? Currently, if I ask my computer to print out just page 18, I end up with a piece of paper that says "page 16".
pedr 02-07-07, 10:19 PM	Just asking, flame me even if I missed a post above on this, but when is the LCGS 597 changes legal? If I am running games over this weekend or something, do i enforce these new changes or wait till they are officially released. Can i run games based on Britt's earlier post on what's definately in and what definately out, since those are definate and not pending discussion?You've not really missed a post ... we're in a sort of twilight phase here as we've seen the direction the new rules are going in but are still currently under the old rules. This is just a draft. The current rules are still the 596 rules. There'll almost certainly be an announcement when the new rules come into effect, and it will probably be just before D&D XP starts in a week's time. So no Beguilers yet, and you can currently still use DSP, polymorph etc. Just be thinking about what you want to replace them with when they go :)
Britt 02-07-07, 10:19 PM	Just one thing. You have alowed items from tables in the Complete and Race books in Apendix 4 Access. Are you considering makeing tables from the Arms and Equipment Guide open too? Or are there weapons and equipment that aren't suitable for LG? Tell you what though, it would be awesome to finally co-ordinate my wardrobe specifically. Nope, no AE access in the LGCS. It's a 3.0 book, so we avoid it when possible.
yorkus 02-07-07, 10:21 PM	Sorry to post again Improved multiattack open or closed? And things like Ability Focus, does this only apply to animals or can they be now taken by PC's? Lastly, nothing feat wise from the races of the dragon? Thanks again
GenghisBob 02-07-07, 10:22 PM	Concerning the Expanded Feat Options from Dragons #315 and #319 could we get a direct link to the download in the LGCS .pdf instead of a link to the paizo front page? I have been unable to find a download for the particular articles, only links to purchase digital copies of back issues, and #315 isn't even available as a digital back issue. I belive Pazio dont do digital back issues until the paper copies are sold out. GB
Britt 02-07-07, 10:23 PM	Hmm . . . another interesting item that I have to comment on between actually editing. "All players must use an official LG character sheet available at www.wizards.com/lg." Interesting news for all of us who use Heroforge and other character sheets. That's always been in the LGCS. I don't think you're suddenly going to have a string of judges denying you the option to use your Heroforge character sheet. It's mainly there for situations where someone uses a wacky format or a napkin (like I've done before), so the judge can legitimately say 'no.'
_metz_ 02-07-07, 10:23 PM	I would like an explanation if possible why the Dread Pirate Prestige class isn't open. 1. It is not a power class by any means. 2. There is no training requirement, or organisational issues with the actual rules of the prestige class. 3. It requires a lot of skill points and two feats as well as a 10,000 gold item, very difficult to acheive in time to qualify. 4. It is largely a roleplaying class. So why has the LGCS gone and slapped AR restiriction access on to it in a ddition? also this AR access is NOT clarified? by purchasing a ship can a DM write I now qualify on the AR? This is a pet peeve of mine as it seems to be punishing a roleplaying class that one has to build towards, while other powerful classes are all core. I am happy if it is 'limited' but I would like to know WHY this has been ruled as such. Flame away if necessary. BUt this really grinds my gears, its got nothign to do with optimising, but purely roleplaying, and additional restrictions on already extremely specialsed ones is kinda infuriating.
Lord_Kay 02-07-07, 10:23 PM	My main issue with the new standards is the removal of the spells Alter Self and Polymorph from the open list. These spells are the bread and butter for nearly all transmuters. I find it hard to believe that the spells were pulled. I think it is because of these spells that many people wish to play wizards, especially transmuters. I think its just a bad idea to cut off a great source of flexability. Who else is with me? Mike D.
Britt 02-07-07, 10:24 PM	Kudos to all on the draft. A few comments: I understand the rationale for allowing magic items to be crafted from items found but not from items that you have been favored with. Basically, to paraphrase, you need to have held it in your hot little hands to craft one. What if you already own a magic item that you bought from a Favor and you now want to craft another? If being able to study the magic item is the rationale behind whether or not you can craft another, it only makes sense that you should be able to craft another of something that you already own. And, for a simpler question/comment: Is "Reincarnate" intentionally missing from the list of NPC spells? It should be included. We will not be adding more crafting access. The current state is actually the minimum change we considered. Reincarnate has never been on the list. I really don't know the reasoning why.
Arvagor 02-07-07, 10:31 PM	So why has the LGCS gone and slapped AR restiriction access on to it in a ddition? also this AR access is NOT clarified? by purchasing a ship can a DM write I now qualify on the AR?In the last LGCS (596 CY edition), Dread Pirate was not Core access, yet not Restricted, and had a requirement that you had to choose the path of an "honorable pirate". In the new draft LGCS, Dread Pirate is not Open access, yet not Closed, and has a requirement that you must choose the path of an "honorable pirate". Not sure what the complaint is or should be, since it really has been this way since March of last year?
Howie23 02-07-07, 10:36 PM	Check the respectively relationships in Raise Dead. They look like they are reversed.
Britt 02-07-07, 10:37 PM	Pg 2, Topic: Other Activities, Bullet Point 4, Ln 1 - Grammatical Error “Special Missions: These adventures address a many purposes, from meeting special in-game requirements for prestige classes to going back to a dungeon to finish off an evil cleric.” Edit out “a” or edit appropriately. --- Pg 16, Topic: Benefits from Non-Adventuring Activity - Sleight of Hand failure check fails to mention if the PC is aiming for a specific DC prior to failure, or whether a Sleight of Hand check only fails if you roll less that a DC 10 total. “When using Sleight of Hand, if you fail the check by 5 or more, you must succeed at a Bluff check of equal DC or be imprisoned for 4 additional TUs” Fixed. You must pick your DC before you roll on all Nonadventuring Activities.
Lomiat 02-07-07, 10:40 PM	Any guide for DMs as to what they should do when they run mods featuring Closed feats/spells/etc.? Do they let the PCs walk all over encounters that were -- at one point -- meant to be difficult? (This isn't necessarily an all-bad thing.) Or do they substitute things? I know the LGCS is meant for the players, but is there going to be a similar document for Triad, authors, DMs -- and so forth -- that might address similar concerns?
Britt 02-07-07, 10:40 PM	The new LGCS will go live on February 15th. The final version will be posted probably on the 14th.
Britt 02-07-07, 10:41 PM	For those that don't know, the "polymorph" errata changed almost everything except polymorph. They took out all ties to that spell and recommended that poly, alter self, poly any object, and shapechange be removed from campaigns.
Britt 02-07-07, 10:43 PM	Improved multiattack open or closed? And things like Ability Focus, does this only apply to animals or can they be now taken by PC's? Lastly, nothing feat wise from the races of the dragon? Thanks again Improved Multiattack is not listed, so it is NONC (Not Open, Not Closed). You have to find access somewhere. The other feats don't say anything about restriction to animals, so if you qualify, you can take them. No Races of the Dragon.
amnuxoll 02-07-07, 10:43 PM	Am I correct in seeing that the special exception to the caster level 17th requirement for crafting pearls of power is no longer in place? (I sure hope so.) Kudos on an excellent document here. I can find only a few things that I quibble with and far more that are right on the money. The new organization is great too. I know you're going to get complaints about polymorph, DMM and DSP. I wanted to add my congratulations to you for removing those obviously broken items from the campaign. :AMN:
Britt 02-07-07, 10:44 PM	If you took something that is no longer Open but is also not Closed (like Insightful Reflexes), you can still keep it. Same for magic items that were crafted under old rules. These rules are not retroactive unless they say so or it was something you shouldn't have been able to do in the first place, like buying a strand of prayer beads for 25,800.
Samwise 02-07-07, 10:44 PM	I've noticed some missing feats and spells: Natural Bond (CAd) Baleful Transposition (SpC) Benign Transposition (SpC) I expect there are a few more. And by: -No new Open spells from new books what qualifies as a "new" book?
Reska 02-07-07, 10:45 PM	Am I correct in seeing that the special exception to the caster level 17th requirement for crafting pearls of power is no longer in place? (I sure hope so.) :AMN: No....what you're seeing is that ALL caster level requirements (except explicitly mentioned on the item) are gone. Heck...it also means that you can craft Pearls of Power 9 at level 3....not...that you would.
Britt 02-07-07, 10:47 PM	I've noticed some missing feats and spells: Natural Bond (CAd) Baleful Transposition (SpC) Benign Transposition (SpC) I expect there are a few more. And by: what qualifies as a "new" book? Those weren't in the last LGCS either. That means we didn't add any spells to the Open list from books that are new, like since the last LGCS.
szwanger 02-07-07, 10:49 PM	If you took something that is no longer Open but is also not Closed (like Insightful Reflexes), you can still keep it. Same for magic items that were crafted under old rules. These rules are not retroactive unless they say so Thanks for clarifying -- it might be a good idea for the LGCS to say that explicitly.
copper_wyrmling 02-07-07, 10:50 PM	I've noticed some missing feats and spells: Natural Bond (CAd) Baleful Transposition (SpC) Benign Transposition (SpC) I expect these are all NONC, since they were Limited before. And crafting pearls of power still requires access, since they're not on the Open list. Actually wait, I do have a question. I don't see the old exception allowing crafting of cheap DMG items (<2500gp) without access. Is that intentional?
XLR8DMadness 02-07-07, 10:51 PM	No....what you're seeing is that ALL caster level requirements (except explicitly mentioned on the item) are gone. Heck...it also means that you can craft Pearls of Power 9 at level 3....not...that you would. Actually, you couldn't, as the requirements for making a Pearl of Power is being able to cast a spell of the appropriate level.
ranagrande 02-07-07, 10:51 PM	Improved Multiattack is not listed, so it is NONC (Not Open, Not Closed). You have to find access somewhere. The other feats don't say anything about restriction to animals, so if you qualify, you can take them. Improved Multiattack is not listed, but it is from the Monster Manual. Doesn't that make it Open, thanks to this line near the beginning of Chapter 4? "All base classes, prestige classes, feats, spells, and domains from the core rulebooks (PH, DMG, MM) are considered Open unless specifically noted otherwise in Appendix 4."
_m_ 02-07-07, 10:52 PM	Is there going to be a review at any stage of the few 'Tome of Magic' classes being played? Specifically, the fact that flicker is heinously overpowered. What I mean is, since they are not being addressed in the lgcs, it seems that they won't be looked at much, and hence imperfections may go unnoticed.
redmachined 02-07-07, 10:53 PM	So bar none, are we EVER going to get access to Duskblade? This limbo thing isn't exactly fair; if we're never going to, please list it as Closed. Otherwise that gives a LOT of false hope to the thousands of players who would like to have a duskblade in LG. edit: That being said, if you're going to allow Knight and Beguiler, you may as well add Duskblade. Alternately, you could always close ALL the PHB2 classes for being too powerful, AS WELL AS Hexblade, because those curses and whatnot being evil, etc. etc. All are more powerful than the core base classes... come to think of it, nearly all of the expanded base classes (Warmage, Swashbuckler, etc.) are more powerful, so why not ban them all? Methodology and reasoning can go both ways :\
Reska 02-07-07, 10:54 PM	Actually, you couldn't, as the requirements for making a Pearl of Power is being able to cast a spell of the appropriate level. Okay...so....I embellished....fie on you for pointing out my insecurities....:)
pedr 02-07-07, 10:56 PM	Improved Multiattack is not listed, so it is NONC (Not Open, Not Closed).My initial reply here was based on the belief that Improved Multiattack was in the MM, which it isn't (at least not my copy!) My point that there's no way to designate something in the Core books as NONC remains - though that might be by design, not by accident.
evilaustintom 02-07-07, 10:59 PM	For those that don't know, the "polymorph" errata changed almost everything except polymorph. They took out all ties to that spell and recommended that poly, alter self, poly any object, and shapechange be removed from campaigns. I just thought I'd respond to the LG rules change, making Master of Many Forms and the polymorph tree of spells "Closed". Between my now 18th level HL wizard who constantly shares Shapechange with his familiar, and my 15th level Master of Many Forms...while I am sad to see the versatility of these spells and classes go, I completely understand the campaign change, and I support it. Good call. Tom Thowe
Samwise 02-07-07, 11:01 PM	Those weren't in the last LGCS either. Right. So what does that make their status, NONC? Perhaps that should be included in the breakdown. If it isn't Open or Closed you might get access to it, but that is the only way you can take it. That means we didn't add any spells to the Open list from books that are new, like since the last LGCS. So checking the product release schedule: Cityscape Complete Mage Complete Scoundrel Dragon Magic Dungeonscape FC I: Hordes of the Abyss FC II: Tyrants of the Nine Hells MM IV PHB II Races of the Dragon Tome of Battle: The Book of Nine Swords Tome of Magic: Pact, Shadow, and Truename Magic Which is mostly to confirm the list. There is one problem though - the Beguiler has 19 spells that appear in the PHB II. As a full spell list access class like the Warmage, that is going to take a small but noticeable bite out of the class. Can these be made Open for the Beguiler class only, like the Warmage feats?
Britt 02-07-07, 11:01 PM	Improved Multiattack is not listed, but it is from the Monster Manual. Doesn't that make it Open, thanks to this line near the beginning of Chapter 4? Which MM are you looking at? It's not in my copy.
amnuxoll 02-07-07, 11:03 PM	In the Open List for feats "Kai Shout" should be "Kiai Shout"
Britt 02-07-07, 11:04 PM	Right. So what does that make their status, NONC? Perhaps that should be included in the breakdown. If it isn't Open or Closed you might get access to it, but that is the only way you can take it. <snip> There is one problem though - the Beguiler has 19 spells that appear in the PHB II. As a full spell list access class like the Warmage, that is going to take a small but noticeable bite out of the class. Can these be made Open for the Beguiler class only, like the Warmage feats? 1. This should cover what you want "Until new books are included in this document, you must obtain other campaign documentation, such as on ARs or through metaorgs, to use rules options from the new books." 2. Beguiler's spell list is on my list to deal with.
Britt 02-07-07, 11:05 PM	In the Open List for feats "Kai Shout" should be "Kiai Shout" Fixed and reordered. Thanks.
copper_wyrmling 02-07-07, 11:05 PM	That's not actually what the text says. As Copper Wyrmling says in another thread, the enabling text at the start of Ch4 reads: "All base classes, prestige classes, feats, spells, and domains from the core rulebooks (PH, DMG, MM) are considered Open unless specifically noted otherwise in Appendix 4." So as currently worded, Improved Natural Attack (and Assassin, as also noted in that other thread) are Open, not NONC. There doesn't seem to be a way in the Open/Closed terminology to leave something from a Core book NONC. I checked the current LGCS, looking for NPC-Only and Restricted classes that aren't currently listed as Closed. Assassin and Blackguard appear to be the only ones overlooked.
Britt 02-07-07, 11:06 PM	Good call. Tom Thowe Wow, and I was worried you in particular were going to call and yell at me! That's a relief :)
Britt 02-07-07, 11:06 PM	I checked the current LGCS, looking for NPC-Only and Restricted classes that aren't currently listed as Closed. Assassin and Blackguard appear to be the only ones overlooked. You have to be evil to take those classes. You can't be an evil PC in LG, so you could never qualify for those classes.
copper_wyrmling 02-07-07, 11:08 PM	You have to be evil to take those classes. You can't be an evil PC in LG, so you could never qualify for those classes. Okay, it was just a consistency issue: other classes with required Evil alignment (e.g. Ur-Priest) are on the Closed list, so I assumed it was an oversight. Also, as someone noted on that other thread, Loremaster doesn't need to be listed as an Open prestige class, as it's from the DMG. EDIT: Putting the classes on the Closed list with the "For use by authors" symbol would at least serve the purpose of informing players what they may be facing, although I assume there's a separate authors' document where it's made clear that they can use assassins and blackguards.
Reska 02-07-07, 11:09 PM	Which MM are you looking at? It's not in my copy. It's actually in the Draconimicon, Epic Level Handbook, and Savage Species....just so people know.
dkay807 02-07-07, 11:09 PM	I'll echo the many others that have praised these LGCS changes. Bravo. One suggestion - and I'm sad to see no one else raising a voice regarding this: Has there been any discussion regarding adding Dervish and Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil to the Closed list? I'll save everyone from the debate as to why - needless to say that I'm sure the Circle is well aware of the effect that these two PrCs have on the rules of the game. ~Dave
GenghisBob 02-07-07, 11:10 PM	post removed
Arvagor 02-07-07, 11:15 PM	Deleted
Reska 02-07-07, 11:19 PM	Britt, I think this becomes an issue when you take into account page 9: This means that one could reasonably argue that because 'Improved Multiattack' is not specifically excluded anywhere, that it could freely be taken. (This could also be used, as someone else has pointed out, to rationalize taking levels in Expert, Warrior, etc.) I'm not sure of a good solution, other than removing the above paragraph from page 9, or else limiting it to the PHB only, which would allow for all the appropriate feats, spells, and domains, ala That way, you could then put Adept, Aristocrat, Commoner, Expert, and Warrior in the "Closed Base Classes" list. Except, that Improved Multiattack isn't a MM feat. Improved Natural Attack is, though.
Samwise 02-07-07, 11:21 PM	1. This should cover what you want "Until new books are included in this document, you must obtain other campaign documentation, such as on ARs or through metaorgs, to use rules options from the new books." Not really. Those are from two books (Complete Adventurer and Spell Compendium) included in the list of books in the document, but not listed as Open or Closed. You've got a third category there: Open Closed Non-Open, Non-Closed (and Non-Listed) Other Books Not Listed just makes it four. The category exists, you should explain it. Otherwise I expect you'll get questions about things like those, and Duskblade, repeatedly. 2. Beguiler's spell list is on my list to deal with. Cool beans.
TroyEsq 02-07-07, 11:23 PM	We will not be adding more crafting access. The current state is actually the minimum change we considered. Speaking of which, probably left over from an earlier draft: Page 14, first sentence of "Upgrading Magic Items" section: Currently reads: "You may upgrade the abilities of some magic items if you own the lesser item and have access to purchase the greater item." Probably should read: "You may upgrade the abilities of some magic items if you own the lesser item and have the ability to create the the greater item under the Creating Magic Items rules set forth above." Reincarnate has never been on the list. I really don't know the reasoning why. Intentional omission or long-standing oversight? If the latter, take the opportunity to include it now?
Britt 02-07-07, 11:26 PM	Not really. Those are from two books (Complete Adventurer and Spell Compendium) included in the list of books in the document, but not listed as Open or Closed. You've got a third category there: Open Closed Non-Open, Non-Closed (and Non-Listed) Other Books Not Listed just makes it four. The category exists, you should explain it. Otherwise I expect you'll get questions about things like those, and Duskblade, repeatedly. Except part of the reason for getting rid of Limited terminology is to take focus away from it. To paraphrase an old adage, when you name something you give it power. By naming it, you point it out, call attention to it, and make people focus on it. That means people start clamoring for Limited items because the class exists, so they are meant to gain access. It's supposed to be a reward, not an entitlement. With the new system there is Open, Closed, and anything else you better not count on. It's not perfect, but it's psychologically better to get rid of the terminology. It's also better for rules so people aren't tempted to refer to the group.
Jon_N 02-07-07, 11:26 PM	For those that don't know, the "polymorph" errata changed almost everything except polymorph. They took out all ties to that spell and recommended that poly, alter self, poly any object, and shapechange be removed from campaigns. Cool. Thanks for the update. Another quick question (yes, we seem to be full of them today): In the "open items" access table on p26 it lists +1 to +5 enhancment bonus and stat boost items without a plus. I take it that this means we can purchase Belts of Giant Strength (for example) or +4 swords without the need for favours, etc? Also, given AE is listed as one of the source books on page 9, is it possible to have some of the more mundane items available for purchase from that without needing access (such as hacksaws, fishing tackles, fur hats, various spices, etc)?
Britt 02-07-07, 11:27 PM	Speaking of which, probably left over from an earlier draft: Page 14, first sentence of "Upgrading Magic Items" section: Currently reads: "You may upgrade the abilities of some magic items if you own the lesser item and have access to purchase the greater item." Probably should read: "You may upgrade the abilities of some magic items if you own the lesser item and have the ability to create the the greater item under the Creating Magic Items rules set forth above." No, that's intentional. If you own something and have access to purchase the greater item, you can upgrade it. Crafting spells out how to upgrade using crafting. This covers non-crafters. I really don't know on reincarnate.
Britt 02-07-07, 11:29 PM	Cool. Thanks for the update. Another quick question (yes, we seem to be full of them today): In the "open items" access table on p26 it lists +1 to +5 enhancment bonus and stat boost items without a plus. I take it that this means we can purchase Belts of Giant Strength (for example) or +4 swords without the need for favours, etc? Also, given AE is listed as one of the source books on page 9, is it possible to have some of the more mundane items available for purchase from that without needing access (such as hacksaws, fishing tackles, fur hats, various spices, etc)? Yes, you can get belts +4 and +6. No on the AE access.
Mattastrophic 02-07-07, 11:31 PM	I noticed one oversight that WILL cause a lot of grief, especially at cons: Page 1 - Average Party Levels: "If you are more than three levels higher than the APL at which the adventure is being played, you cannot participate." This rule, if it is maintained, will lead to this scenario: Let's say we're at a con. A 6, 6, 8, and 10 sit down to play. They average to 7.5, they can play APL 8 and everyone's happy. If a 2nd sits down at the table (and yes, I have seen this sort of thing happen)... we now have a 2, 6, 6, 8, and 10. They average to APL 6.4, and the 10 just got booted from the table by the 2nd. This is completely unfair. We cannot give low-level characters the ability to eject higher-level characters from the table. In the past, the 10 could play down to 6, take half, and grumble a bit, but to remove him completely?!? Unfair. -Matt Any chance we can get any word on fixing this?
Drezden 02-07-07, 11:31 PM	I don't think this was an error. I think the Circle intends to let non-crafters upgrade items much more easily than in the past - to close the gap between crafters and non-crafters. So a BDF who has a Belt of Strength +4 can now - under the new draft rules - pay the 20,000 gp and upgrade to a Belt +6 without any special AR favor, since all of the stat items are core access. Daren Speaking of which, probably left over from an earlier draft: Page 14, first sentence of "Upgrading Magic Items" section: Currently reads: "You may upgrade the abilities of some magic items if you own the lesser item and have access to purchase the greater item." Probably should read: "You may upgrade the abilities of some magic items if you own the lesser item and have the ability to create the the greater item under the Creating Magic Items rules set forth above."
ranagrande 02-07-07, 11:34 PM	Which MM are you looking at? It's not in my copy. Yeah, it's not in mine either... I was getting it mixed up with something else. :P On a related topic, are NPC classes Open now?
Master_Bushido_Mark 02-07-07, 11:35 PM	Open Items All items are of an appropriate size for your PC, unless explicitly stated otherwise (small for halflings, medium for dwarves, large for centaurs). Anything in the PH from the following tables: o Table 7-3: Trade Goods o Table 7-5: Weapons o Table 7-6: Armor and Shields, including small, medium, and large nonhumanoid armor and barding. o Table 7-8: Goods and Services; see Chapter Five for details on NPC spellcasting. The following items and materials: o Any DMG item with a market price of 750 GP or less from Tables 7-17, 7-23, 7-24, and 7-26. o +1 to +5 enhancement bonuses for weapons, armor, and shields o Amulet of health (DMG) o Amulet of mighty fists (DMG) o Amulet of natural armor (DMG) o Belt of giant strength (DMG) o Boccob’s blessed book (DMG) o Bracers of armor (DMG) o Cloak of charisma (DMG) o Cloak of resistance (DMG) o Gauntlets of ogre power (DMG) o Gloves of dexterity (DMG) o Headband of intellect (DMG) o Heward’s handy haversack (DMG) o Periapt of wisdom (DMG) o Ring of protection (DMG) o Vest of resistance (CAr) o Alchemical silver (DMG) o Cold iron (DMG) Items from the following sources: o Complete Adventurer Table 4-1 o Complete Warrior Table 4-6 o Frostburn Table 4-1 o Races of the Dragon Colored Metal (no cost) o Races of Stone Tables 7-1 and 7-2 o Races of the Wild Table 7-1 o Sandstorm Tables 4-1 and 4-2 o Stormwrack Tables 5-4 and 5-5 Wow, you guys have really unlocked Core Access, which is cool. I especially like the opening of direct weapon, armor and shield enhancements from +1 to up to a +5 direct enhancement. Especially since I just spent my last direct enhancement favor to bump my Fighter/Cleric's armor to a solid +3 Mithril Chain Shirt. And now, I can just keep going to a +5 w/o the pain-in-the-arse digging through ARs for access. I also must give you kudos for cutting down the LGCS from a weight-trainer's dream of a hefty 70-some-odd-pages to a more realistic and readable 37. Much respect given. It seems that you guys at Wizards were getting too preachy with your infinitessimal pages of rules, and now have gone through it with a weed trimmer and cut away the unnecessary weeds and edges, and made it a slim and beautiful looking document. A testiment to rules-lawyering while being a single sit-down, bed-side read. Cool, Mark
Britt 02-07-07, 11:35 PM	Any chance we can get any word on fixing this? I will bring up the topic again, but we all agreed that we wanted it to be 3 above the APL played. 3 above the max APL really has no benefit. At that point, you might as well just get rid of the rule.
Arvagor 02-07-07, 11:37 PM	No, that's intentional. If you own something and have access to purchase the greater item, you can upgrade it. Crafting spells out how to upgrade using crafting. This covers non-crafters.Not trying to further convolute things, but does "access to purchase" literally mean I must still be able to purchase it? Meaning, if I have gloves of dexterity +2 and I receive Adventure access to purchase gloves of dexterity +4, can I still upgrade the gloves +2 after the Adventure access to purchase has run out (e.g., 10 adventures later)? Or must I upgrade them within 3 adventures of finding the gloves +4? I'm cool either way; the latter still gives a slight advantage to casters with crafting feats, but they're sacrificing a feat still so I'm OK with that...
Britt 02-07-07, 11:38 PM	[EXCERPT] I also must give you kudos for cutting down the LGCS from a weight-trainer's dream of a hefty 70-some-odd-pages to a more realistic and readable 37. Much respect given. It seems that you guys at Wizards were getting too preachy with your infinitessimal pages of rules, and now have gone through it with a weed trimmer and cut away the unnecessary weeds and edges, and made it a slim and beautiful looking document. A testiment to rules-lawyering while being a single sit-down, bed-side read. Thanks :) As many of my friends can attest, I was quite proud of myself for every page I cut. I was originally shooting for 50, then 40 became more realistic. When I got to 39, I didn't think any more would come out, but as I edited, two more pages went away without even trying. I could honestly probably do better if I went back through it another time for another few weeks, but I don't have the time or energy :p Maybe next year!
Reska 02-07-07, 11:38 PM	Not trying to further convolute things, but does "access to purchase" literally mean I must still be able to purchase it? Meaning, if I have gloves of dexterity +2 and I receive Adventure access to purchase gloves of dexterity +4, can I still upgrade the gloves +2 after the Adventure access to purchase has run out (e.g., 10 adventures later)? Or must I upgrade them within 3 adventures of finding the gloves +4? I'm cool either way; the latter still gives a slight advantage to casters with crafting feats, but they're sacrificing a feat still so I'm OK with that... In your example, it doesn't matter. Gloves of Dex +2-+6 are open access.
Britt 02-07-07, 11:39 PM	Not trying to further convolute things, but does "access to purchase" literally mean I must still be able to purchase it? Meaning, if I have gloves of dexterity +2 and I receive Adventure access to purchase gloves of dexterity +4, can I still upgrade the gloves +2 after the Adventure access to purchase has run out (e.g., 10 adventures later)? Or must I upgrade them within 3 adventures of finding the gloves +4? I'm cool either way; the latter still gives a slight advantage to casters with crafting feats, but they're sacrificing a feat still so I'm OK with that... Yes, you must be able to purchase the upgrade. Crafters do have an advantage, but for the staples, the Open items list covers most things.
TroyEsq 02-07-07, 11:41 PM	This covers non-crafters. Understood now. I thought it was contradicting the previous passage. Not sure that it needs to be clarified, but it did confuse me. How about: "If you do not have magic item crafting abilities, you may upgrade the abilities of some magic items if you own the lesser item and have access to purchase the greater item."
Samwise 02-07-07, 11:42 PM	Except part of the reason for getting rid of Limited terminology is to take focus away from it. To paraphrase an old adage, when you name something you give it power. By naming it, you point it out, call attention to it, and make people focus on it. That means people start clamoring for Limited items because the class exists, so they are meant to gain access. It's supposed to be a reward, not an entitlement. With the new system there is Open, Closed, and anything else you better not count on. It's not perfect, but it's psychologically better to get rid of the terminology. It's also better for rules so people aren't tempted to refer to the group. Except . . . All these feats, spells, classes, and prestige classes already have names, whether they are given a category with a name or not. Which means you already have people clamoring for them. And when they go looking for it, they won't find it listed as Open, they won't find it listed as Closed, they just won't find it listed at all. So some will ask where it is, and some will just assume it is Open because it is from a book listed as an available source. This is more likely because of the specific statement about material from other new books requiring campaign documentation. If you really don't want to have a "Limited" list, then add something like: "and anything from any of the books included above not specified as Open or Closed" to the paragraph on New Rulebooks. Related: I'm not sure if has been mentioned, but Substitution Levels are included in the PHB II section on Retraining. Without a specific statement that PCs can not use them, a direct reading could easily infer that they are freely available. (As the section says you "may use any Retraining option" from that section.)
Drezden 02-07-07, 11:47 PM	Britt, Under the new crafting rules are crafters permitted to craft items on the new Core item list (without having separate access through ARs)? If they are not, then crafters will quickly lose the ability to craft stat items and other items on the core item list, as they will no longer appear on ARs (since they are now universally available). Thanks, Daren
Arvagor 02-07-07, 11:48 PM	In your example, it doesn't matter. Gloves of Dex +2-+6 are open access. Work with me here :P Allright, substitute something not open:[...]if I have a +1 mithral shirt and I receive Adventure access to purchase a +1 slick mithral shirt, can I still upgrade the shirt after the Adventure access to purchase has run out (e.g., 10 adventures later)? Or must I upgrade it within 3 adventures of finding the slick shirt? Related... If I have a +1 slick mithral shirt, and I find access to +1 shadow mithral shirt, can I add the shadow ability to my mithral shirt? What if I find access to +1 shadow full plate -- could I still add shadow to my shirt? Edit: Britt answered the first, but the second is still a valid question, IMO.
JamesMaissen 02-07-07, 11:48 PM	I will bring up the topic again, but we all agreed that we wanted it to be 3 above the APL played. 3 above the max APL really has no benefit. At that point, you might as well just get rid of the rule. Why not change the rule to be that one cannot be outside of 3 levels from the APL played at? (in both directions not just being too high a level) That way you could remove the entire 1/2 xp/gold rule entirely. It seems to cause more stress and angst than solve any problems directly. To me it seems worse for a 2nd level character to play at APL 14, get 3300gp for tagging along than it does for a 10th level character to walk a party through APL 6. The former seems more problematic in that it creates longer term problems. -James
Britt 02-07-07, 11:49 PM	Britt, Under the new crafting rules are crafters permitted to craft items on the new Core item list (without having separate access through ARs)? If they are not, then crafters will quickly lose the ability to craft stat items and other items on the core item list, as they will no longer appear on ARs (since they are now universally available). Thanks, Daren They will be able to in the final version.
haferka 02-07-07, 11:49 PM	Non-Adventuring Activity ======================== After any adventure, you may attempt to make money over the cap by immediately spending 1 TU and making a check using one of the following skills: Craft, Perform, Profession, Sleight of Hand, or Tumble. You may only spend 1 TU per adventure this way. You do not have to pay lifestyle costs for a TU spent in this way. You must declare what DC you are trying to meet or exceed before making the skill roll. If you succeed at the check, you gain the listed GP. You may not take 20. When using Sleight of Hand, if you fail the check by 5 or more, you must succeed at a Bluff check of equal DC or be imprisoned for 4 additional TUs. DC 15: 2d6 GP DC 20: 2d10 GP DC 25: 1d6 PP DC 30: 1d8 PP DC 35: 1d10 PP DC 40: 2d6 PP DC 45: 2d8 PP DC 50: 2d10 PP ======================== GOOD: -Allowing it after any adventure -Standardized reward based on DC (any skill) -Take 10 is allowed -Decent gp reward.. BAD: -Sleight of Hand requires an additional bluff check.. with the risk of loosing 4 additional TUs (and it does NOT make any more gp than they person using craft) SOLUTION: ======================== After any adventure, you may attempt to make money over the cap by immediately spending 1 TU and making a check using one of the activities listed below. You do not have to pay lifestyle costs for a TU spent in this way. You may only spend 1 TU per adventure this way. You do not have to pay lifestyle costs for a TU spent in this way. You must declare what DC you are trying to meet or exceed before making the skill roll. If you succeed at the check, you gain the listed GP. You may not take 20. DC 15: 2d6 GP DC 20: 2d10 GP DC 25: 1d6 PP DC 30: 1d8 PP DC 35: 1d10 PP DC 40: 2d6 PP DC 45: 2d8 PP DC 50: 2d10 PP Activities: Artisian: You can practice your trade and make a decent living. You must own a set of artisan’s tools in order to practice a craft skill or have a place of business to practice a profession skill. This activity requires a successful craft or profession check. Craft Illicit Goods*: You can create contraband and sell it on the black market. This requires a Craft check, and a secondary Sense Motive check. Craft Item: You can practice your trade to create an item for youself. You must have access to purchase that item. Gold earned is recorded on the AR, but can NOT be used for any purpose other than purchasing that item. This activity can be repeated with a -5 cummulative penalty for as long as you succeed at the check, or until you have earned enophe to purchase the item. You must pay the difference between this reward and the items cost. Craft Repair: You can repair broken mundane items. This process functions exactly like Craft Item above, but you only need to earn half the items normal gp cost. Only items broken in the current adventure can be repaired. Entertain: You find the best place to practice your art for both coin and admiration (usually the most prosperous or cultured settlement in your region). This activity requires a successful perform or tumble check. If you exceed the DC by 10 or more you are called back for a second performance. Spend an additional TU an make a second roll with a -10 penalty. Pick Pocket*: Taking wealth from those you meet: that’s how you make your money. Every good pickpocket knows that the best scores come consistently to those who watch, wait, and then strike when the time is right. This activity requires a successful sleight of hand check, and a hide check to avoid the law. *Illicit Activities: All Illicit activities have risks. These activities require a seperate skill check to avoid those risks. Failing to succeed in this secondary check results in zero reward, and the a loss of 2 TUs per TU spent on the initial activity. Illicit activities give you a 50% higher reward. ======================== This is system could easily be expanded to allow additional "activities"... Metaorgs might give you access to "activities" like: Mugging*: You corner wayward travelers in dark allies demanding money. This activity requires a successful Intimidate check, and a Disguise check to avoid the law. Adventures might also give players the option to perform special "activities" after the mod.. Minning, Gemcutting, etc.. with a slightly higher benifit than what is listed in the LGCS.
billytea 02-07-07, 11:50 PM	Nice job, this is a great improvement in clarity and usability. I have one nitpick: in the list of bits of Australia included in Ratik, it lists "Capital Territory". It's the Australian Capital Territory. If ever someone's looking to shorten it, it becomes the A.C.T., not the Capital Territory. Cheers William
Arvagor 02-07-07, 11:51 PM	Thanks :) As many of my friends can attest, I was quite proud of myself for every page I cut. I was originally shooting for 50, then 40 became more realistic. When I got to 39, I didn't think any more would come out, but as I edited, two more pages went away without even trying.3-column lists using smaller fonts in the Appendices doesn't hurt either. ;)
Britt 02-07-07, 11:51 PM	Related... If I have a +1 slick mithral shirt, and I find access to +1 shadow mithral shirt, can I add the shadow ability to my mithral shirt? What if I find access to +1 shadow full plate -- could I still add shadow to my shirt? Currently, no. You would have to find an exact upgrade of your item or a favor allowing an upgrade. This is actually an intended benefit of crafting by the core rules: being able to put whatever you want on anything (as opposed to the unintended benefits of crafting in LG :/)
copper_wyrmling 02-07-07, 11:51 PM	Just checking that an earlier post was noticed: One of the spells on the Closed list is "Lesser Spell, Greater". I strongly suspect this should be "Spell Matrix, Greater".
Britt 02-07-07, 11:54 PM	Nice job, this is a great improvement in clarity and usability. I have one nitpick: in the list of bits of Australia included in Ratik, it lists "Capital Territory". It's the Australian Capital Territory. If ever someone's looking to shorten it, it becomes the A.C.T., not the Capital Territory. Changed to ACT, thanks. I just copied that off the WotC site, so I should inform someone that it's wrong :)
King Kashue 02-07-07, 11:54 PM	I will bring up the topic again, but we all agreed that we wanted it to be 3 above the APL played. 3 above the max APL really has no benefit. At that point, you might as well just get rid of the rule. A possible solution would be having a "3 below APL played" as well...So in that scenario, the Level 2 Character couldn't effectively jettison the Level 10 Character from the APL 8 by forcing it down to APL 6...Since the "no benefit from 3 above" can reasonably be flipped to a "no contribution from 3 below" idea... Edit: Someone asked this before me...Damn my deliberative composition!
Britt 02-07-07, 11:54 PM	3-column lists using smaller fonts in the Appendices doesn't hurt either. ;) Darn straight! You don't need that much legibility when you're not reading it straight through! :)
Howie23 02-07-07, 11:55 PM	Evil Acts: I'm not trying to rehash the entire discussion, but I'm of the opinion that the LGCS should reflect the recent DC. Otherwise, we have a subsequent rules document that does not reflect what has gone before. David
uncawes 02-07-07, 11:56 PM	I noticed one oversight that WILL cause a lot of grief, especially at cons: Page 1 - Average Party Levels: "If you are more than three levels higher than the APL at which the adventure is being played, you cannot participate." This rule, if it is maintained, will lead to this scenario: Let's say we're at a con. A 6, 6, 8, and 10 sit down to play. They average to 7.5, they can play APL 8 and everyone's happy. If a 2nd sits down at the table (and yes, I have seen this sort of thing happen)... we now have a 2, 6, 6, 8, and 10. They average to APL 6.4, and the 10 just got booted from the table by the 2nd. This is completely unfair. We cannot give low-level characters the ability to eject higher-level characters from the table. In the past, the 10 could play down to 6, take half, and grumble a bit, but to remove him completely?!? Unfair. -Matt <deleted cos I was looking at older versions (grrr)> Whether it's fair is a complex - and I agree with you 100% that it's not. But equally, as Joe posted, it's not fun to sit back and watch one PC who's overpowered for the APL just cream through everything. Well, I guess it could be fun for some people, but I've only met one and he's the one with the overpowered PC. Wes
redmachined 02-07-07, 11:58 PM	Nice job, this is a great improvement in clarity and usability. I have one nitpick: in the list of bits of Australia included in Ratik, it lists "Capital Territory". It's the Australian Capital Territory. If ever someone's looking to shorten it, it becomes the A.C.T., not the Capital Territory. Hey, we here in Arizona call it "that god-forsaken sunblasted hellhole", but you don't see US whining, do you? just joking around :D
uncawes 02-07-07, 11:58 PM	Changed to ACT, thanks. I just copied that off the WotC site, so I should inform someone that it's wrong :) I already did - at least twice. :D
Haro 02-07-07, 11:59 PM	[EXCERPT] [I] It seems that you guys at Wizards were getting too preachy with your infinitessimal pages of rules, and now have gone through it with a weed trimmer and cut away the unnecessary weeds and edges, and made it a slim and beautiful looking document. Cool, Mark Hey Mark, great post. I hadn't realised just how much had been made 'open' access. On your above quote, it's likely just a typo but I think it's important to identify Wizards and the Circle as very different entities. Most people know this, however it is a minor but important distinction. Joe
pedr 02-07-07, 11:59 PM	The 10th level guy can't play down to APL 6 now - unless the mod goes to at least APL 12. Yes he can. A 10th level character can play any module which supports APL 8, under the current rules. This is a significant change - though given how many people seem convinced there is a 'no more than four levels' rule, I think it must be a return to a rule which existed before I started playing at the end of Year 3. It's a sensible rule, though it may well have unintended consequences and so perhaps it needs to be thought through some more.
redmachined 02-08-07, 12:00 AM	I'm going to post this every half hour until it is acknowledged: CLARIFY THAT STAT BUMP ITEMS CAN GO BEYOND +2.
pedr 02-08-07, 12:02 AM	I'm going to post this every half hour until it is acknowledged: CLARIFY THAT STAT BUMP ITEMS CAN GO BEYOND +2.Clarified here: http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=11422178&postcount=176
Howie23 02-08-07, 12:03 AM	deleted
Britt 02-08-07, 12:03 AM	I'm going to post this every half hour until it is acknowledged: CLARIFY THAT STAT BUMP ITEMS CAN GO BEYOND +2. And if you do, I'll make sure your posting rights get suspended. Spamming is not the way to get my attention. Read the posts above; I've already answered your question.
Stormydoom 02-08-07, 12:04 AM	With the retraining rules from PHB2, can you use the rule multiple times when you level up. eg When you level up spend 12tu's and 300gp x new lvl to change 3 Feats/Class Features/Languages/Skills/Spells?
Britt 02-08-07, 12:06 AM	With the retraining rules from PHB2, can you use the rule multiple times when you level up. eg When you level up spend 12tu's and 300gp x new lvl to change 3 Feats/Class Features/Languages/Skills/Spells? The Retraining rules in the PH2 say that you can only do one each time you level.
trollbill 02-08-07, 12:08 AM	I noticed that you are allowed colored armor from Races of the Dragon, but Races of the Dragon is not listed in the source materials used. There is also no mention of anything else from Races of the Dragon, which make me wonder why you bother including this one thing (though I won't mind seeing Dragonheart Mage show up).
Arvagor 02-08-07, 12:08 AM	This is a significant change - though given how many people seem convinced there is a 'no more than four levels' rule, I think it must be a return to a rule which existed before I started playing at the end of Year 3.The rule exists in the boilerplate at the beginning of every module: Furthermore, a PC who is four or more levels higher than the highest APL supported by the adventure may not play the adventure.
Britt 02-08-07, 12:11 AM	I noticed that you are allowed colored armor from Races of the Dragon, but Races of the Dragon is not listed in the source materials used. There is also no mention of anything else from Races of the Dragon, which make me wonder why you bother including this one thing (though I won't mind seeing Dragonheart Mage show up). It's included for roleplay flavor, as it has absolutely no mechanical benefit. I really don't want to add RDr to the list, as then people will start asking for stuff from it more often, but I guess I have to :( oh wait, that's for feats, spells, classes, and PrCs; it doesn't reference items. Score!
redmachined 02-08-07, 12:13 AM	And if you do, I'll make sure your posting rights get suspended. Spamming is not the way to get my attention. Read the posts above; I've already answered your question. Clarify it in the LGCS itself. I know at least 20 infinite rules-lawyers that would argue about this literally for months unless this is clarified that +2, +4, and +6 stat bump items can be purchased at core access.
uncawes 02-08-07, 12:14 AM	My first reaction to this update is "wow!". A lot of bad stuff gone, and many clarifications. Great job, Britt. Two comments on things. 1. Removal of the BoBS material is a little premature. There are BoBS mods that don't retire until the end of this year, so the material should stay until at least the 598 LGCS imo. Possibly even longer - I'll contact Britt off list to explain the reasoning there. 2. Delay Death should, imo, be on the Closed list. It's the one thing that I can see getting authors looking for ways around. Every group of bad guys will have an invisible sorcerer who has at least as many Dispel Magics as the party could have Delay Deaths. Or, worse, the bad guys will have "save or die" options in every mod to defeat this spell. And anyone can roll a "1" on a save. Or, the bad guys will start targetting the cleric rather than the bdf, and then wait for the spell to run its course. There are other ways that authors could go after parties who use Delay Death, none of them are going to be much fun for a party that doesn't have it. They probably won't be much fun for a party that does have it.
magebeast 02-08-07, 12:14 AM	Clarify it in the LGCS itself. I know at least 20 infinite rules-lawyers that would argue about this literally for months unless this is clarified that +2, +4, and +6 stat bump items can be purchased at core access. Why? It says you can buy a cloak of charisma. If you examine the cloak of charisma description in the DMG, all three variations are listed under it. If they are arguing it, they should learn to read.
Ancillary 02-08-07, 12:15 AM	I was a little surprised that all those books came out and we got 0 new Open spells. I know spells equal power, but since both types of casters got weakened some new toys seems like a reasonable consolation prize.
garyjohnson 02-08-07, 12:15 AM	Ok, so Alter Self is no longer in the campaign. The Tattooed Monk has a tattoo that mimics Alter Self (indeed, it's a more powerful version of the spell). Shouldn't there be a note in the PrC section saying that the Chameleon tattoo is not a legal choice? Maybe the LGCS could include a statement for the Tattooed Monk and the Bear Warrior that the alter self stuff should reference the Alternate form errata for the MM instead? That way there may be less need for a rebuild/retraining option, and PCs who take the feats in the future don't need to refer back to the upcoming Dispel Confusion article or another source to figure out how to implement the restrictions on alter self introduced by the LGCS? Cheers, Gary Johnson
CaiasWard 02-08-07, 12:15 AM	Excellent Work, from what I have read so far. Can we get a clarification on those of us who lost Polymorph Any Object from the Trickery Domain? We need a new spell to replace it. I'd recommend Maze, myself, since it fits thematically with the domain. Excellent call on the Cohort Elite Array, although I am disappointed I have to reset my cohort every time I level. Can we get access to Permanency for Crafting purposes only? Some of us want to craft our own Carpets of Flying. :) Thanks, Caias Ward
pedr 02-08-07, 12:16 AM	The rule exists in the boilerplate at the beginning of every module:Yes, I know the rule that is in the boilerplate text. That's the rule I'm applying. That's not the rule that I hear people wondering about. By the current rules, a level 10 PC can play at APL 2 if he finds three 1st level characters to play with and the module supports APL 8 or higher. The only modules a 10th level PC cannot play are ones which only have APLs 2-6. Currently, calculated APL has nothing whatsoever to do with who can or cannot play the adventure, and that is what it seems the circle wants to change.
trollbill 02-08-07, 12:17 AM	It's included for roleplay flavor, as it has absolutely no mechanical benefit. I really don't want to add RDr to the list, as then people will start asking for stuff from it more often, but I guess I have to :( oh wait, that's for feats, spells, classes, and PrCs; it doesn't reference items. Score! :rofl:
JamesMaissen 02-08-07, 12:19 AM	A little off topic (mea culpa) but I think that the game would benefit from a separate character creation primer as a downloadable file. And if so then referencing it in the LGCS would be useful. This could be something that new players can focus on to build a new character (and even include fastplay characters, character sheets, MILs, etc) without having to read through the entire LGCS (though it's admitted much shorter and more readable now). -James
Britt 02-08-07, 12:21 AM	A little off topic (mea culpa) but I think that the game would benefit from a separate character creation primer as a downloadable file. And if so then referencing it in the LGCS would be useful. This could be something that new players can focus on to build a new character (and even include fastplay characters, character sheets, MILs, etc) without having to read through the entire LGCS (though it's admitted much shorter and more readable now). I believe something like that is in development somewhere, but I don't have any details, so I wouldn't be able to put anything in the LGCS.
Britt 02-08-07, 12:24 AM	Can we get a clarification on those of us who lost Polymorph Any Object from the Trickery Domain? We need a new spell to replace it. I'd recommend Maze, myself, since it fits thematically with the domain. Excellent call on the Cohort Elite Array, although I am disappointed I have to reset my cohort every time I level. Can we get access to Permanency for Crafting purposes only? Some of us want to craft our own Carpets of Flying. :) I'm looking into Poly any Object/Domain spells. I'll look into permanency, but I doubt anything will change for it. I'm also looking into the bear warrior/tattooed monk issue. There are no new Open spells because, honestly, we didn't have time to review all the spells. That would have taken at least as long as all the other work we did combined. There are a ton of Open spells already and the others can now be given as rewards. Finally, you don't need access to spells to plan builds. Builds using exotic weapons and armor, feats, and classes are all very dependent on having access when you level.
JJeff 02-08-07, 12:26 AM	Just clarifying what I see in the LGCS: Is it (A): Any and Adventure access - No changes Meta-regional & Regional access - available when in region/metaregion or after 3 adventures when not in region/metaregion Core access - available when in core, core specials and adapted or after 3 adventures in any specific region or (B): Any and Adventure access - No changes Meta-regional & Regional access - available when in region/metaregion after 3 adventures Core access - available when in core, core specials and adapted after 3 adventures Meaning that i can only buy regional meta regional and core items 3 adventures after I see them on an AR
King Kashue 02-08-07, 12:28 AM	Maybe the LGCS could include a statement for the Tattooed Monk and the Bear Warrior that the alter self stuff should reference the Alternate form errata for the MM instead? As a note, the Bear Warrior class doesn't reference Alter Self, only the Tattooed monk does. The Bear Warrior class references polymorph, but only for one specific and limited form. The Polymorph spell is problematic because of it's variety and room for manipulation and exploitation (and is being eliminated because of that). The Bear Warrior class has no variety and no flexibility (there is only one form and it's explicit in it's effects). I don't know what the circle will decide with the class, but changing it to reference alternative form not only moves away from the core rules (which is something they wish to avoid) but actually makes the rules for the class more complicated (which is something else they're hoping to avoid)...
Ancillary 02-08-07, 12:29 AM	I think adding the exotic armors and weapons as core was a stroke of genius. Now we are much more likely to see characters running around with tigerskull clubs, etc. My only regret is that my high level having harpoons is no longer nearly as cool.
Reska 02-08-07, 12:30 AM	The way I read it, the access hasn't changed...except that Regional/Metaregional/Core have an added amount of access (3 Adventures after the one where access was granted) on top of the original access.... but I could be wrong.
Britt 02-08-07, 12:31 AM	Just clarifying what I see in the LGCS: Is it (A): or (B): I'm sorry, but I don't understand your shorthand. Neither one seems correct.
Reska 02-08-07, 12:32 AM	I'm sorry, but I don't understand your shorthand. Neither one seems correct. Is mine?
_metz_ 02-08-07, 12:32 AM	In the last LGCS (596 CY edition), Dread Pirate was not Core access, yet not Restricted, and had a requirement that you had to choose the path of an "honorable pirate". In the new draft LGCS, Dread Pirate is not Open access, yet not Closed, and has a requirement that you must choose the path of an "honorable pirate". Not sure what the complaint is or should be, since it really has been this way since March of last year? I am referring to actual access to the class. It implies that there is something in addition to these two that are required, are you saying as long as Ipick honorable, have the prereqs, I qualify? As that is not what I have been told. I have been told I need an AR saying 'Qualifies for the dread pirate Prestige Class" as this is waht has been getting up my nose, as the LGCS only mentions that you choose to be honorable. I could be barking up the wrong tree and already have access, but I have seen a retired mod that actually gave 'access' to it. Hence the confusion that I want clarified in the new LGCS, as it wasn't adequate in the old one. THAT is the complaint. Youassume the new one changed something to something I wasn't satisfied with, instead of just simply not being satisfied with it in both forms :)
Britt 02-08-07, 12:33 AM	Is mine? Yes; yours is correct.
Reska 02-08-07, 12:34 AM	Yes; yours is correct. Woo! I'm correct!
Britt 02-08-07, 12:35 AM	Dread Pirate is not an Open PrC, and never has been. You need to find access to it, meet the prereqs, and choose Honorable Pirate. The fact that it isn't Open probably has nothing to do with power or anything like that, but like Spymaster, the review of that time only included PrCs that were already Core.
JamesMaissen 02-08-07, 12:36 AM	Could you clarify for me the crafting section for upgrading magical items? For example could I take a +1 chain shirt and add fire resistance to it? So far upgrades seem to include improving a +1 chain shirt with fire resistance to a +1 chain shirt with improved fire resistance, but not adding a new resistance to it. Am I reading it wrong? -James
jhorred 02-08-07, 12:37 AM	Pg 2, Topic: Adventure Types, Para 1, Ln 3-4 - Formatting may cause confusion or inability to find information “Regionals and metaregionals may not be run outside their region or metaregion, respectively, for any reason . . . “ Recommend inserting a space prior to this statement or differentiating it from the Metaregional to emphasis that it is Regional and Metaregional, rather than attached solely to the Metaregional Modules. Charlie S I would recommend moving that bit the beginning or the end of the list of types of mods. That way it doesn't appear as part of the metaregional listing. No, you do not get to change out levels. You are not being penalized, rather you are losing a benefit you should have never had. In LG, an XP penalty is a boon as it quickly changes your XP:GP curve. This just fixes that. I never saw it as a benefit, but i do now see it as being penalized, i would have weighed up the GP loss against the benifts of the class array before taking it. GB You may not of have seen it as a benefit, but I can guarantee that other players have abused this to slow their character's career and delay/avoid retirement. One player admitted to me that he was intending on gaining a 100% penalty. I only wish I knew the guys name to report him to the triad. I noticed one oversight that WILL cause a lot of grief, especially at cons: Page 1 - Average Party Levels: "If you are more than three levels higher than the APL at which the adventure is being played, you cannot participate." This rule, if it is maintained, will lead to this scenario: Let's say we're at a con. A 6, 6, 8, and 10 sit down to play. They average to 7.5, they can play APL 8 and everyone's happy. If a 2nd sits down at the table (and yes, I have seen this sort of thing happen)... we now have a 2, 6, 6, 8, and 10. They average to APL 6.4, and the 10 just got booted from the table by the 2nd. This is completely unfair. We cannot give low-level characters the ability to eject higher-level characters from the table. In the past, the 10 could play down to 6, take half, and grumble a bit, but to remove him completely?!? Unfair. -Matt Personally I like the new guidelines. IMHO, if the 10th level guy was there first then I'd say the 2nd level guy couldn't play as it'd result in another players removal from the table. The both have equal right to play and I think that first come first serve has it's place here. Hmm . . . another interesting item that I have to comment on between actually editing. "All players must use an official LG character sheet available at www.wizards.com/lg." Interesting news for all of us who use Heroforge and other character sheets. Charlie S Or those who've invested a small fortune in the old Etools. Quick question Britt. I am curious as to why Polymorph and Alter Self have been removed from the campaign completely rather than using the errata that was published back in 2006. Polymorph seems to be an integral part of the whole "feel" of D&D (IMO) and think that it should be included in the campaign even if the "broken" bits are toned way back. Curious as to why they're being eliminated completely. Even though I've been on the receiving end of the polymorphy goodness, I'm kinda glad to see this go. Polymorph is a very powerful spell. I just feel a little bad for a friend of mine who just crafted a wand of polymorph. Any chance he can just convert the wand to a different spell with the same number of remaining charges? (As opposed to taking the XP hit on the polymorph crafting and then again to craft a new wand to replace it.)
JJeff 02-08-07, 12:38 AM	Darn... failed my Craft (Question) check. I'm sorry but that means that all access is the same as before but now you can buy regional and meta regional after a core module as long as it is 3 adventures after you got access and vice versa? Craft (Question) check 1d20
SirApropos 02-08-07, 12:39 AM	Britt said: There are no new Open spells because, honestly, we didn't have time to review all the spells. That would have taken at least as long as all the other work we did combined. There are a ton of Open spells already and the others can now be given as rewards. Just a few you may want to look at for the Closed Spell list from Complete Scoundrel before access is given on an AR. Create Fetch - Similacrum like spell with way too much rules text Siphon - Basically turns Wands/Staffs into charged Pearls of Power/Magica Memento Wand Modulation - Right Wand for the Job in a spell
RedKnightofKet 02-08-07, 12:41 AM	Okay, I have a dwarven cleric with the War domain. As a dwarf, he treats the Dwarven War Axe (DWA) as a martial weapon. Normally, a DWA is only a martial weapon when wielded in two hands. Does this mean I am proficient and apply WF in both uses? Or is only in its base martial form (two-handed)?
Bob_the_Theurge 02-08-07, 12:43 AM	Except that retraining does not allow for trading out class levels, only feats, skillpoints, and class features (for alternate class abilities). trading out class levels is rebuilding, which imho, should be allowed only in special missions. You missed the part where Britt said: All Druids will be granted a Rebuild.
JamesMaissen 02-08-07, 12:44 AM	For item repair, would items that had been destroyed by acid by recoverable? Assuming of course that the party is able to loot/recover whatever there is to recover. Likewise could players have their characters combine their efforts to enable such repairs? For example if players A & B had the relevant craft feat but multiple accesses were needed could they work together to repair the item as per normal core rules? Could player C supply castings of spells needed? -James
Reylance 02-08-07, 12:46 AM	Metaregional Access: To clarify, if I have access to an item with frequency "Metaregion: VTF," I can buy it after any VTF metaregional, Zeif regional, Verbobonc regional, Veluna regional, Tusmit regional, Ket regional, Ekbir regional, or Dyvers regional? Crafting items: Is it still allowed to craft armor enhancements on bracers, using the AEG rules? We see bracers with enhancements on them occasionally. Learning new spells: "wizards may attempt to add to their spellbooks as many new arcane spells as they have wizard caster levels"; to clarify, you mean the number of levels of the Wizard class, the number of levels that count towards spellcasting ability, or the caster level? A Ftr2/Wiz4/Spellsword1 with Practiced Spellcaster counts as 4, 5, or 7 levels? Since most polymorph spells are banned, did you mean to leave the Minor Shapeshift feat open? How much of a bribe to move Abjurant Champion to the Open list? Just name a charity and an amount....
redgamer 02-08-07, 12:47 AM	Page 16 New spells must either be open access for your PC. superfuous 'either' I think.
TroyEsq 02-08-07, 12:49 AM	Understood now. I thought it was contradicting the previous passage. Not sure that it needs to be clarified, but it did confuse me. How about: "If you do not have magic item crafting abilities, you may upgrade the abilities of some magic items if you own the lesser item and have access to purchase the greater item." Oh, and follow-up. By specifying "magic items" can be upgraded, the new language seems to eliminate the ability to add a magical enhancement bonus to an existing masterwork weapon/armor/shield. Intentional?
Synecdoche 02-08-07, 12:50 AM	Re Access Edit: oops, this topic was clarified multiple times while I was formulating my post ... I'll leave the suggestion tho' ... Rephrase Regional Access on page 6 as follows for clarity: "Regional: May be purchased only after the next three adventures or after any regional adventures set in the region(s) that appears on this AR." Similar considerations apply to the descriptions of Metaregional and Core access.
Bob_the_Theurge 02-08-07, 12:51 AM	My main issue with the new standards is the removal of the spells Alter Self and Polymorph from the open list. These spells are the bread and butter for nearly all transmuters. I find it hard to believe that the spells were pulled. I think it is because of these spells that many people wish to play wizards, especially transmuters. I think its just a bad idea to cut off a great source of flexability. Who else is with me? Mike D. I'll be posting more (in a new thread) on this as soon as the supposedly-forthcoming Dispel Confusion on the matter comes up. Frankly, I think this is a repulsive thing to do to the campaign. We already had things fixed far better than WotC's kludgy errata nonsense, our campaign has worked just fine with no reported problems using our Polymorph restrictions for the past few years. The fact that WotC couldn't do something so simple and decided to take a hacking axe to the books in order to remove it from their Cheeserron settings doesn't mean we should suffer for their screwup. Last year's Circle recognized this, and why this year's didn't I can't understand unless there's some back-door threats from WotC we don't know about.
Reska 02-08-07, 12:53 AM	Page 6 re Access "Regional: May be purchased only after the next three adventures and after regional adventures set in the region(s) that appears on this AR." It is not clear if this means that items marked regional access may be purchased: (1) after the next three adventures of any type, or after any adventure set in the same region; or (2) after the next three adventures which next adventures are set in the same region. Assuming that (1) is meant, it should probably be rephrased as follows: "Regional: May be purchased only after the next three adventures or after any regional adventures set in the region(s) that appears on this AR." Similar considerations apply to the descriptions of Metaregional and Core access. Since Britt said I was correct....I shall use this example. You play a mod in the Duchy of Geoff. On it you gain access to a Mithral Chain Shirt (Regional). You have from this AR and the next 3 AR's to purchase it...no matter what those other AR's are. On top of that, you can purchase the item after any Regional mod in the Duchy of Geoff. So, in essence, it's increasing the access. The same goes for Metaregional and Core. Britt said so!
JamesMaissen 02-08-07, 12:54 AM	The items usable by animals. Is that supposed to mean slotted items, or all items? For example some items work merely by possessing them, would these not work for animals? -James
magebeast 02-08-07, 12:55 AM	The fact that WotC couldn't do something so simple and decided to take a hacking axe to the books in order to remove it from their Cheeserron settings doesn't mean we should suffer for their screwup. Last year's Circle recognized this, and why this year's didn't I can't understand unless there's some back-door threats from WotC we don't know about. You are seriously like a broken record. Last year's Poly errata took place like two weeks after the LGCS had been released. They didn't want to do ANOTHER release of the LGCS so soon and so they hastily did a dispel confusion to address the issue without changing things too much. Now they have the option of taking the time and fully addressing it, and they're doing so.
copper_wyrmling 02-08-07, 12:57 AM	Finally, you don't need access to spells to plan builds. Builds using exotic weapons and armor, feats, and classes are all very dependent on having access when you level. Eh... just a note, this is valid for wizards / warmages / clerics / druids, but not so much for sorcerers / bards / favored souls. To a great extent, spell selection = build for spontaneous casters, and their spell selection depends on level-based access just as much as a fighter's feats do. I do understand the problem of not having enough time to review the spells (after going through the feat lists, I'm impressed you had time to review all of them), and I'm not complaining about them not being included, but please do remember that wizards, clerics and druids aren't the only casters in the game :P
Britt 02-08-07, 12:57 AM	For item repair, would items that had been destroyed by acid by recoverable? Assuming of course that the party is able to loot/recover whatever there is to recover. Likewise could players have their characters combine their efforts to enable such repairs? For example if players A & B had the relevant craft feat but multiple accesses were needed could they work together to repair the item as per normal core rules? Could player C supply castings of spells needed? I think what can be repaired is covered in the Core rules somewhere, but I can't remember where right now. LG does not allow cooperative crafting in any way.
bitznarf 02-08-07, 12:57 AM	I'll be posting more (in a new thread) on this as soon as the supposedly-forthcoming Dispel Confusion on the matter comes up. Frankly, I think this is a repulsive thing to do to the campaign. We already had things fixed far better than WotC's kludgy errata nonsense, our campaign has worked just fine with no reported problems using our Polymorph restrictions for the past few years. The fact that WotC couldn't do something so simple and decided to take a hacking axe to the books in order to remove it from their Cheeserron settings doesn't mean we should suffer for their screwup. Last year's Circle recognized this, and why this year's didn't I can't understand unless there's some back-door threats from WotC we don't know about. /me wonders if Bob took Increased Paranoia as a bonus feat at some point...
Half_Fiendish_Tarrasque 02-08-07, 12:57 AM	Copper: You must spend the gold/TU when you level, but you have until the next time you play to make your selections. You may want to include something to handle the situation where the 4 TU takes a PC to -1 or -4 for the Year. HFToL
Britt 02-08-07, 12:58 AM	Eh... just a note, this is valid for wizards / warmages / clerics / druids, but not so much for sorcerers / bards / favored souls. To a great extent, spell selection = build for spontaneous casters, and their spell selection depends on level-based access just as much as a fighter's feats do. I do understand the problem of not having enough time to review the spells (after going through the feat lists, I'm impressed you had time to review all of them), and I'm not complaining about them not being included, but please do remember that wizards, clerics and druids aren't the only casters in the game :P The spontaneous casters have class abilities that let them swap out spells at later dates. Combined with Retraining, they can switch to a new spell when they get access. The others aren't as easy.
JamesMaissen 02-08-07, 12:59 AM	A small note: the potion of mage armor is at caster level 2, thus it lasts for 2 hours and not just 1. Btb is there a reason that the price of the +2 longsword is listed while the others are not? In general I like when prices are listed (as sometimes you don't have time to look up the item and knowing that the price is high or cheap is quite helpful) but if that's the case a FAQ answer on how to deal with errors or conflicts would be nice. -James PS: kudos on putting class/level under the line to encourage it's inclusion.
Britt 02-08-07, 01:00 AM	Metaregional Access: To clarify, if I have access to an item with frequency "Metaregion: VTF," I can buy it after any VTF metaregional, Zeif regional, Verbobonc regional, Veluna regional, Tusmit regional, Ket regional, Ekbir regional, or Dyvers regional? Crafting items: Is it still allowed to craft armor enhancements on bracers, using the AEG rules? We see bracers with enhancements on them occasionally. Learning new spells: "wizards may attempt to add to their spellbooks as many new arcane spells as they have wizard caster levels"; to clarify, you mean the number of levels of the Wizard class, the number of levels that count towards spellcasting ability, or the caster level? A Ftr2/Wiz4/Spellsword1 with Practiced Spellcaster counts as 4, 5, or 7 levels? Since most polymorph spells are banned, did you mean to leave the Minor Shapeshift feat open? How much of a bribe to move Abjurant Champion to the Open list? Just name a charity and an amount.... 1. Yes. 2. Yes, if you have access. You can't do it without access though. 3. Their caster level as a wizard. 4. Yes, it does not have the same problems as polymorph.
Bob_the_Theurge 02-08-07, 01:02 AM	2. Delay Death should, imo, be on the Closed list. It's the one thing that I can see getting authors looking for ways around. Every group of bad guys will have an invisible sorcerer who has at least as many Dispel Magics as the party could have Delay Deaths. Or, worse, the bad guys will have "save or die" options in every mod to defeat this spell. And anyone can roll a "1" on a save. Or, the bad guys will start targetting the cleric rather than the bdf, and then wait for the spell to run its course. There are other ways that authors could go after parties who use Delay Death, none of them are going to be much fun for a party that doesn't have it. They probably won't be much fun for a party that does have it. I disagree completely. Delay Death fixes a basic problem in the system, that of damage and level not even remotely scaling with the HP "unconscious" window. At low levels, if you get hit, you drop to negatives. At high levels, if you get hit, chances are it's by a cheesed out broken monster that did 1d8 + 500 damage or some other nasty cheese, and Delay Death is the only thing that stands behind a 100% TPK rate in LG's later modules and everyone packing it in and going home.
Britt 02-08-07, 01:04 AM	Troy: I'll try to clarify that. Bob: Knock it off. HFToL: I'll add something about that. You can't apply 'of Legend' to a half-fiend, since it's then an outsider. ;) James: My policy is to always include price if there is any calculation required (if the price for that exact item is not listed in a book), and to never include price if the price is listed in a book. This avoids conflict between AR and book.
Britt 02-08-07, 01:05 AM	We've discussed delay death in great detail and it is not moving to Closed.
Bob_the_Theurge 02-08-07, 01:07 AM	You are seriously like a broken record. Last year's Poly errata took place like two weeks after the LGCS had been released. They didn't want to do ANOTHER release of the LGCS so soon and so they hastily did a dispel confusion to address the issue without changing things too much. Now they have the option of taking the time and fully addressing it, and they're doing so. I'm stating that I'm not satisfied with it, and I'm obviously not the only one who thinks that this is the wrong choice. But as I said earlier, that will be for another thread and discussion is waiting until the Dispel Confusion that Britt promised gets posted so that we can actually see and debate the Circle's points on the matter.
Reylance 02-08-07, 01:07 AM	3. Their caster level as a wizard. That statement is ambiguous; thus, I provided an example in my original question: A Ftr2/Wiz4/Spellsword1 with Practiced Spellcaster. This character has the spellcasting ability of a 5th level wizard with a caster level of 7. So do you mean the former or the latter? I've been using the latter, but if that's wrong, please let me know.
JamesMaissen 02-08-07, 01:07 AM	Just a suggestion to remove the LG rule that breaks up Knowledge Local into multiple knowledges. The whole point of 3.5 was to consolidate the knowledges and this is simply unneeded. The arguement for doing it can be applied to most other knowledges. But mainly it's a variant from core rules and doesn't seem to accomplish much but degrade the use of the skill for those who have it as a class skill. -James
Half_Fiendish_Tarrasque 02-08-07, 01:07 AM	You are not being penalized, rather you are losing a benefit you should have never had. In LG, an XP penalty is a boon as it quickly changes your XP:GP curve. This just fixes that. How is this different in D&D played outside of LG? This is just how the system works. I'm afraid that this is penalizing players/PCs. It is being implemented because of a flaw in the campaign model of XP/GP rewards and because it is easier to implement the penalty to PCs than address the flaw in the campaign. HFToL
Britt 02-08-07, 01:08 AM	Just a suggestion to remove the LG rule that breaks up Knowledge Local into multiple knowledges. The whole point of 3.5 was to consolidate the knowledges and this is simply unneeded. The arguement for doing it can be applied to most other knowledges. But mainly it's a variant from core rules and doesn't seem to accomplish much but degrade the use of the skill for those who have it as a class skill. -James Already discussed internally and not changing.
Evanta 02-08-07, 01:09 AM	Ok, I will try not to moan and groan about the fact that Divine Spellpower has been banned. It was a good decision, admittedly. But... my cleric was set-up to abuse it, now there's a lot of stuff like Extra Turning and my Glory Domain and my stats layout that no longer makes any sense now that it got banned. I can't pay for the retrain costs cuz I'm in RhoD, can I humbly request that characters who have the banned feats be allowed a free retrain or 2? aside from the retooling.
Reska 02-08-07, 01:09 AM	Just a suggestion to remove the LG rule that breaks up Knowledge Local into multiple knowledges. The whole point of 3.5 was to consolidate the knowledges and this is simply unneeded. The arguement for doing it can be applied to most other knowledges. But mainly it's a variant from core rules and doesn't seem to accomplish much but degrade the use of the skill for those who have it as a class skill. -James You think that's bad? Try being asked to make a "Knowledge (law)" check....
Britt 02-08-07, 01:10 AM	That statement is ambiguous; thus, I provided an example in my original question: A Ftr2/Wiz4/Spellsword1 with Practiced Spellcaster. This character has the spellcasting ability of a 5th level wizard with a caster level of 7. So do you mean the former or the latter? I've been using the latter, but if that's wrong, please let me know. I phrased it as clearly as I could. Your caster level as a wizard. You said you have a caster level of 7, so it would be 7. I honestly don't know how to make that any clearer.
Bob_the_Theurge 02-08-07, 01:10 AM	The spontaneous casters have class abilities that let them swap out spells at later dates. Combined with Retraining, they can switch to a new spell when they get access. The others aren't as easy. Oftentimes, though, spell access is given in a form that says a favor will "teach" the spell to a Wizard or scribe it into their spellbook. This leaves Sorcerors out of the equation, since they must wait until leveling to switch and are unlikely to level on that very AR. The fix is to state that Sorcerors may "Learn" a spell at one point (get it notated on an AR) and hold it in reserve to "take" until they level and/or level and respec. I'm still not sure all this rampant respeccing is going to be good for the campaign...
JJeff 02-08-07, 01:11 AM	Since Britt said I was correct....I shall use this example. You play a mod in the Duchy of Geoff. On it you gain access to a Mithral Chain Shirt (Regional). You have from this AR and the next 3 AR's to purchase it...no matter what those other AR's are. On top of that, you can purchase the item after any Regional mod in the Duchy of Geoff. So, in essence, it's increasing the access. The same goes for Metaregional and Core. Britt said so! Oh... so it's new regional = old regional + adventure. Ok, got it. Thought the AFTER in the regional meant after you finished 3 ARs then you could buy it. Meaning new regional = old regional - adventure.
Britt 02-08-07, 01:13 AM	How is this different in D&D played outside of LG? This is just how the system works. I'm afraid that this is penalizing players/PCs. It is being implemented because of a flaw in the campaign model of XP/GP rewards and because it is easier to implement the penalty to PCs than address the flaw in the campaign. HFToL It's not a flaw in the campaign model, but an emergent problem of crafting in the campaign model. The only ways to fix it are not feasible, such as scrapping the APL system or inventing arcane tracking systems. XP Penalties are intended to be a penalty. In the LG system, they are not; they are a boon as you quickly have far more GP value than your level should allow, even taking into account the intended benefits of crafting. The best solution is to make equal GP losses for XP losses, which keeps the GP:XP ratio perfect.
Half_Fiendish_Tarrasque 02-08-07, 01:14 AM	I just thought I'd respond to the LG rules change, making Master of Many Forms and the polymorph tree of spells "Closed". Between my now 18th level HL wizard who constantly shares Shapechange with his familiar, and my 15th level Master of Many Forms...while I am sad to see the versatility of these spells and classes go, I completely understand the campaign change, and I support it. Good call. Typical. The child that has played with a toy long enough that it isn't exciting for them anymore doesn't miss it so much when it is lost or taken away. It's the ones that just started playing with the toy, or in this case the ones that are about to start playing with it, that miss them the most. Just an observation from someone who games and works with kids. HFToL
Reylance 02-08-07, 01:17 AM	I phrased it as clearly as I could. Your caster level as a wizard. You said you have a caster level of 7, so it would be 7. I honestly don't know how to make that any clearer. Thanks for the clarification. I bring up the topic because I've seen discussion (can't remember if it's FAQ, LG-specific, or both) that says a prestige class with prerequisite "Arcane caster level X" isn't met by Y<X level of the class and Practiced Spellcaster. In other words, a Mnk2/Pal2/Sor1 with Practiced Spellcaster does not meet the prerequisite ("Arcane Caster Level 3rd") for Enlightened Fist.
elframrpga 02-08-07, 01:18 AM	Pg12. Does this mean that a PC that has a 80% multi-class penalty would have a 50% XP penalty but retain the 80% GP penalty or would both penalties be only the 50% max?
Maesto 02-08-07, 01:18 AM	In the part about wizards learning new spells, you might want to add that any spells learnt because you've just levelled don't count towards the caster level part. Cheers, Jolyon
Britt 02-08-07, 01:19 AM	Pg12. Does this mean that a PC that has a 80% multi-class penalty would have a 50% XP penalty but retain the 80% GP penalty or would both penalties be only the 50% max? 50% for both.
Britt 02-08-07, 01:22 AM	Thanks for the clarification. I bring up the topic because I've seen discussion (can't remember if it's FAQ, LG-specific, or both) that says a prestige class with prerequisite "Arcane caster level X" isn't met by Y<X level of the class and Practiced Spellcaster. In other words, a Mnk2/Pal2/Sor1 with Practiced Spellcaster does not meet the prerequisite ("Arcane Caster Level 3rd") for Enlightened Fist. Yeah, that's referring to "Spellcaster level X", rather than "Caster Level X". We are going for Caster Level.
Half_Fiendish_Tarrasque 02-08-07, 01:22 AM	It's not a flaw in the campaign model, but an emergent problem of crafting in the campaign model. I'm sorry, Britt. I could have sworn that I was posting a reply about the new GP penalty being applied to characters with unbalanced levels. I apologize if I misunderstood or replied using the wrong quote message to formulate my reply. HFToL
Britt 02-08-07, 01:22 AM	Britt has a headache. Britt is going to go edit a mod now and then maybe play WoW for a bit. I'll catch up on the messages before I go to sleep.
Bob_the_Theurge 02-08-07, 01:23 AM	Ok, I will try not to moan and groan about the fact that Divine Spellpower has been banned. It was a good decision, admittedly. I'm not so sure. I've yet to see a valid argument - beyond the question of spells like Holy Word/Blasphemy - as to where Divine Spellpower is really all that powerful. Advance a Hezrou (CR 11) by three CR's in hit dice and throw it at a "technically" EL+2 fight (CR 14 against APL 12). Watch the TPK from the CL 20th Blasphemy / Unholy Blight. Yes, technically speaking, Holy Word can be used to the same effect. But it still can; drop in a Bard, Ioun Stone or Crack Bead, or a number of other things and you're still at high enough caster level to throw it around. What is Divine Spellpower's actual effect? It raises the caster level of a spell. Maximum of a +4 bump, but variable. That means a couple more dice on a Flame Strike, an extra +1 bonus to a magic weapon or magic vestment spell, a couple extra hours duration on some long buff, or perhaps the ability to pop a curse the required a ridiculous caster-level remove curse spell to get rid of. Not overwhelming by any means. The major cheese for Divine Spellpower was already removed from the campaign when Nightsticks were banned, stopping people from having functionally unlimited uses per day. We know that mod writers are going to keep writing in "curses" that have excessively high caster level requirements to get fixed, and the fact remains that Divine Spellpower was one method by which good characters set themselves up to help others out by removing said curses when Interactive time came around. As for Divine Metamagic, I can see possibly the logic here, though I think it should have been moved to NONC rather than outright banned. It's no worse than the Sudden feats (which are NONC), especially since it requires two feats in order to set up (the DMM feat and the Metamagic it's attached to).
Britt 02-08-07, 01:23 AM	I'm sorry, Britt. I could have sworn that I was posting a reply about the new GP penalty being applied to characters with unbalanced levels. I apologize if I misunderstood or replied using the wrong quote message to formulate my reply. HFToL Actually, you were. I screwed that up. Change all the crafting references to multiclass penalties :)
RichardWeimer 02-08-07, 01:24 AM	Was the Dwarven Defender PrC accidentally removed from the "Open" list, or purposely taken away from it? My son is about to get his first level of this class, after working up the Pre-Reqs, and I would like to know if he now needs to get access via an AR to qualify for it. Thanks.
Britt 02-08-07, 01:25 AM	All items in the Core books (PH, DMG, MM) are Open unless specifically stated otherwise.
Reska 02-08-07, 01:25 AM	Was the Dwarven Defender PrC accidentally removed from the "Open" list, or purposely taken away from it? My son is about to get his first level of this class, after working up the Pre-Reqs, and I would like to know if he now needs to get access via an AR to qualify for it. Thanks. It's Auto-open (DMG PrC's are Open..except when they're not).
Reska 02-08-07, 01:26 AM	Britt has a headache. Britt is going to go edit a mod now and then maybe play WoW for a bit. I'll catch up on the messages before I go to sleep. Just...no "Knowledge (fuzzy bunnies)" in the mod....unless it gives access to take that skill. Cause, you know, it'll go well with my "Profession (Taxidermy)" that I've had since...oh...year 1 or 2? Of course...you Close Trophy Collector anyway.
CdrcJsn 02-08-07, 01:26 AM	I second the idea behind having the Trickery domain 8th level spell "Polymorph Any Object" change to Maze. Fits the domain's flavor. Otto's Dance is also another good substitute. I earlier brought up a question regarding a feat from CD that has the same name in PHBII, but the PHBII version has a very different effect (Sacred Healing). I also noticed the same problem with a spell, Master's Touch. In the SpC, it's a 1st level spell that grants access to proficiency in a single item. In the PHBII, it's a 2nd level spell that grants a bonus to a single skill check. Are these the same feat/spell that just got changed in effect or do they just have the same name by coincidence?
JamesMaissen 02-08-07, 01:31 AM	A few things: Instead of 20 normal steel arrows and bolts, how about 20 normal pieces of ammunition? That then includes slings and shurikens and the like. Very minor I grant you, but perhaps just a testament to the good job that you've done that I'm down to that already. Also as far as arbitrary questions go: why equate 1 crafting TU to 5 days instead of say 7? Must one staple MICs to ARs? Is it sufficient to keep them with ARs? Sadly staples will make things harder to keep bound together. On that note, is there anything that can be done to lesson the amount of paper ARs that we attach to each character? Oh in the animal companion section it seems to imply that one cannot get a new companion during the module. I'm assuming that this is not the case, correct? Which spell foci need to be recorded on one's MIL? Just planar forks? Think that's all I have, great work! -James
Bob_the_Theurge 02-08-07, 01:32 AM	I second the idea behind having the Trickery domain 8th level spell "Polymorph Any Object" change to Maze. Fits the domain's flavor. Otto's Dance is also another good substitute. I earlier brought up a question regarding a feat from CD that has the same name in PHBII, but the PHBII version has a very different effect (Sacred Healing). I also noticed the same problem with a spell, Master's Touch. In the SpC, it's a 1st level spell that grants access to proficiency in a single item. In the PHBII, it's a 2nd level spell that grants a bonus to a single skill check. Are these the same feat/spell that just got changed in effect or do they just have the same name by coincidence? My guess is that they are the same name by coincidence, given how different they are; there are a good number of namespace collisions in various 3.5 books due to multiple writers working on different sources for WotC and an editing process that doesn't catch a lot of it. But as to which is "valid", or whether we have to delineate which is used by tagging the book name onto the end... dunno. That's a Britt question.
Reska 02-08-07, 01:42 AM	Under Open Feats: Augment Healing and Flash Frost Spell don't have a book designation.
elframrpga 02-08-07, 01:43 AM	Pg14. New spells must either be Open access for your PC. Either what?
Gyro_LC 02-08-07, 01:50 AM	It seems a PC can take a Magic Item Creation feat, make his goodies, and then retrain his Creation feat away. That seems very abusable.
JJeff 02-08-07, 01:51 AM	Pg14. New spells must either be Open access for your PC. Either what? It's a typo by them. Britt has already noted and acknowledged this error. It seems a PC can take a Magic Item Creation feat, make his goodies, and then retrain his Creation feat away. That seems very abusable. Not really since you can only retrain once per level gain and it costs 4TU and 100 * level gp. So at Level 6 I take a Craft feat, I'll have to wait till I become Level 7, retrain it out and pay TU and gold. All so that I can get an item which I can just buy off the market? Or am i missing some broken abusable trick?
Eric Anondson 02-08-07, 01:54 AM	Very simple. With the PHB2 rules on retraining available, I suggest making a spot available under Play Notes at the top of the AR for checking off whether a character has retrained, and leave a blank line for writing which sort. Maybe right after Gained A Level put Retrained _______
MatBlack 02-08-07, 01:59 AM	retraining and prestige class/feat selection: if i use the retraining option, do i retrain before the new class level is gained (as makes sense), or after. specifically, when you gain a level, can you retrain to gain admittance to a prestige class (or qualify for a feat) and then take that as your new level? non-adventuring activity clarification: can you Take 10 on the Bluff check to avoid imprisonment? extra TUs and upkeep: a niggling point, perhaps, but it would be nice to have a central list of what does and does not require upkeep payment for TUs: namely things like Meta-Org TU requirements, crafting TUs, non-adventuring TUs, imprisonment TUs, etc. i know that most of these are covered in seperate areas, but having them all in one location would be a lot less confusing and time-consuming. all in all, though, an awesome job all around!
ChristopherGood172 02-08-07, 02:01 AM	I am not sure if I should start a new thread for this or post it here so I will start here. I want to thank the circle for allowing the Healer base class. I never understood why it was not allowed in the first place. With that said, I want to know if there will be any expansions made to the classes spell list? The SpC lists instructions for home games for doing so but will we get anything added in the campaign? There are things in SpC and other books that should really be on the Healer's spell list (Delay Death for starters). Just wondering if this can be handled in the LGCS or a Dispell confusion. Thank you kindly.
Bob_the_Theurge 02-08-07, 02:13 AM	I am not sure if I should start a new thread for this or post it here so I will start here. I want to thank the circle for allowing the Healer base class. I never understood why it was not allowed in the first place. With that said, I want to know if there will be any expansions made to the classes spell list? The SpC lists instructions for home games for doing so but will we get anything added in the campaign? There are things in SpC and other books that should really be on the Healer's spell list (Delay Death for starters). Just wondering if this can be handled in the LGCS or a Dispell confusion. Thank you kindly. Seconded. The Healer class is a good class but it falls short due to its being the first book of its kind out (Minis Handbook predates the Complete series and everything else). I'd say that at least the Vigor line of spells should be added to their class list, since they are Open access Conjuration(healing) spells. Possibly other healing-type or protection-type spells as well.
Eric Anondson 02-08-07, 02:13 AM	Might as well move the Complete Mage reserve feat Minor Shapeshift to the closed listing. From the description: Benefit: As long as you have a polymorph spell of 4th level or higher available to cast, you can ... Maybe it doesn't need to be moved to Closed because the 5th level spell baleful polymorph is still Open, and other polymorph subschool spells in Complete Mage and PHB2 are NONC. ... Just an open thought. *shrug*
MikeJS 02-08-07, 02:17 AM	"...Items from the following sources: o Complete Adventurer Table 4-1 o Complete Warrior Table 4-6 o Frostburn Table 4-1 o Races of the Dragon Colored Metal (no cost) o Races of Stone Tables 7-1 and 7-2 o Races of the Wild Table 7-1 o Sandstorm Tables 4-1 and 4-2 o Stormwrack Tables 5-4 and 5-5..." I suspect that this list meant to include Races of the Wild table 7-2 (armor), given that the armor tables from all the other splatbooks are included. If you wish to prevent open access to mithral, it's easy enough to indicate so as an exception; otherwise, very expensive heavy armors from Races of Stone are available open-access. Suggested additions of mundane equipment: * Frostburn 4-2 (gear) * Complete Arcane 5-1 (spellbooks) * Complete Adventurer 4-5 (tools and skill kits) * Complete Scoundrel 5-2 (surprise weapons) * Races of the Wild 7-3 (gear) * Races of Stone 7-4 (miscellaneous gear) * Sandstorm 4-3 (wasteland gear) * Sandstorm 4-4 (mounts) * Sandstorm 4-5 (vehicles) * Stormwrack (?...don't have that one) Also suggest open access to all table-listed alchemical items and splash-weapons costing 750gp or less (seeing as bona-fide magical potions and scrolls are openly available at that gold-piece amount). Heck: Why not anything listed in a core book costing 750 or less? Restricting these items, but allowing open access to +6 stat items, is like being permitted to buy a new Cadillac while simultaneously being denied access to the gumball machine in the dealer's lobby.
TheBlackFlail 02-08-07, 02:21 AM	I noted something that leaped out at me as highly abusable. The charity of friends clause update, plus crafting of expendable items. Now you can craft and use buckets and buckets of expendable items, and use the charity of friends to give yourself a new supply of gold, with which to craft more and more expendable items, to use up, to be able to invoke the charity of friends clause to replenish your gold, to... Recursive loops are bad. P.S. Why oh why did Ultimate Magus have to go (and Master Specialist, for that matter)?
Bob_the_Theurge 02-08-07, 02:25 AM	I noted something that leaped out at me as highly abusable. The charity of friends clause update, plus crafting of expendable items. Now you can craft and use buckets and buckets of expendable items, and use the charity of friends to give yourself a new supply of gold, with which to craft more and more expendable items, to use up, to be able to invoke the charity of friends clause to replenish your gold, to... Recursive loops are bad. P.S. Why oh why did Ultimate Magus have to go (and Master Specialist, for that matter)? You'd have to run entirely without anything but consumable items to make it work. I think you'd have problems once you started reaching higher levels. Plus, you'll not have the TU's to play that much if you do that.
jhorred 02-08-07, 02:27 AM	I noted something that leaped out at me as highly abusable. The charity of friends clause update, plus crafting of expendable items. Now you can craft and use buckets and buckets of expendable items, and use the charity of friends to give yourself a new supply of gold, with which to craft more and more expendable items, to use up, to be able to invoke the charity of friends clause to replenish your gold, to... Recursive loops are bad. P.S. Why oh why did Ultimate Magus have to go (and Master Specialist, for that matter)? I think the charity of friends rule is a good thing. Personally I think that it'd be alot of work to abuse the system like you suggest. Granted I'm sure that someone out there would be willing to do that, but I don't see the benefit being all that great. I for one was hoping that Master Specialist would at least end up on the NONC list. It's the only PrC I can see taking for my wizard.
zoinks69 02-08-07, 02:30 AM	2 things that struck me upon first glance: 1. How would I handle a case where my PC gained limited access with a built in cost to something that is now "open". For instance: My cleric used a special mission to gain access to Contemplative. According to the AR, I have to tithe 10% gold earned for every AR since. So a. can I reasonably now drop that tithe (and if so, should I insert some sort of documentation)? and b. any chance at a refund :) I wouldn't expect it, but you know someone else would ask if I didn't. 2. Mighty composite longbows -- is access now "open" (+x instead of the old +4 without documentation)?
frupton 02-08-07, 02:33 AM	To clarify -- you can take 10 on a nonadventuring activity skill check?
uncawes 02-08-07, 02:36 AM	Ok, I will try not to moan and groan about the fact that Divine Spellpower has been banned. It was a good decision, admittedly. But... my cleric was set-up to abuse it, now there's a lot of stuff like Extra Turning and my Glory Domain and my stats layout that no longer makes any sense now that it got banned. I can't pay for the retrain costs cuz I'm in RhoD, can I humbly request that characters who have the banned feats be allowed a free retrain or 2? aside from the retooling. Sure the Extra Turning and Glroy Domain still make sense. You still get to turn the bad guys more times - and there's been a lot of undead in mods of late. And you still get the bonuses from the Glory Domain when you turn. It may not be the reason you went that way, but both these things still work. Having asked when the very first conversion happened about a specific thing that specifically affected my daughter's primary (it was the Awaken spell) and being told by the Circle at the time "we sympathise but if we make an exception for her it will be the thin edge of the wedge, so "no"" - and having seen requests for specific exceptions turned down every time since, I wouldn't hold your breath for any kind of exception this time. Unless of course everyone gets to do another rebuild - and it looks pretty plain the Circle is doing everything they can to avoid that (good thing too, imo).
SDouek 02-08-07, 02:44 AM	I just don't get it for Divine Spell power, if the feat is so powerful in conjunction with holy word / blasphemy and the rest of the options of spells are ok why not just ban the use of the spell. Sol
Dragon9 02-08-07, 02:45 AM	A little late to the discussion, but one thing that struck me... there's no more limited access? What about stuff that was previously limited? Just access to it if it shows up on AR?
MikeJS 02-08-07, 02:45 AM	I note racial domains (elf,dwarf,halfling,gnome) are still closed, despite being about as innocuous as all get-out. ...any particular reason? If the reason is that no god on the deities document -- which has promised version 2.1 in a "few days" for almost a full year now -- lists them, I hereby propose that all deities whose followers are exclusively of a particular race have their domain list amended to include that particular race's domain.
Eric Anondson 02-08-07, 02:48 AM	An 8th-level wild soul (out of Complete Mage) grants the character the ability to summon seelie ally from the Book of Exalted Deeds, the leskylor. Plus, at 10th level the wild soul can summon seelie ally to bring a three-headed leskylor. Possible that some clarification regarding class features that explicitly reference its abilities to a book not in listed the LGCS.
MatBlack 02-08-07, 02:50 AM	Might as well move the Complete Mage reserve feat Minor Shapeshift to the closed listing. From the description: Benefit: As long as you have a polymorph spell of 4th level or higher available to cast, you can ... Maybe it doesn't need to be moved to Closed because the 5th level spell baleful polymorph is still Open, and other polymorph subschool spells in Complete Mage and PHB2 are NONC. ... Just an open thought. *shrug* i think the fact that most of the the post-polymorph debacle spells are NONC is why the feat made the open list. i have a feeling we'll see more of the polymorph subschool moved to the open list when they actually have time to review all the new spells, whether it's Year 8, or an upcoming DC.
Bob_the_Theurge 02-08-07, 02:51 AM	I just don't get it for Divine Spell power, if the feat is so powerful in conjunction with holy word / blasphemy and the rest of the options of spells are ok why not just ban the use of the spell. Sol I can't speak for them, but the likely answer will be because Holy Word/blasphemy/etc are "in the PHB" and the Circle doesn't have "the authority" to ban things from the PHB. Despite precedent to the contrary in Disjunction, Permanency, and other things of that sort. And I agree. I think banning DSP - rather than the spells which are the real problem - is a silly solution, because we still have other ways to jack a caster level up and Holy Word/Blasphemy will still be the subject of the "cold war" between mod writers and players. Meanwhile, it doesn't address the fact that it just became that much harder to fix a curse that some overeager mod writer wrote requiring a caster level of 16 or higher to break.
MikeJS 02-08-07, 02:58 AM	I can't speak for them, but the likely answer will be because Holy Word/blasphemy/etc are "in the PHB" and the Circle doesn't have "the authority" to ban things from the PHB. Despite precedent to the contrary in Disjunction, Permanency, and other things of that sort."...of that sort" to also include Alter Self and Polymorph!
King Kashue 02-08-07, 03:13 AM	2. Mighty composite longbows -- is access now "open" (+x instead of the old +4 without documentation)? Just a note, there is no such thing as "mighty" in 3.5. All composite bows have strength allowances (the base level being +0). That's just terminology, it's still a good question :D My question: If a character already knows Rhopan, do they now lose it? Or is it a "if you have it you keep it" (as many of the things mentioned so far)?
King Kashue 02-08-07, 03:19 AM	I can't speak for them, but the likely answer will be because Holy Word/blasphemy/etc are "in the PHB" and the Circle doesn't have "the authority" to ban things from the PHB. Despite precedent to the contrary in Disjunction, Permanency, and other things of that sort. You can't speak for them...but you will anyway? And it's interesting that what you chose to say "on their behalf" just happens to be something you disagree with, thus allowing you yet another little rant...
sylvermyst 02-08-07, 03:25 AM	Linked Perception (PHB2) is on neither the open spell list nor the closed spell list.
Eric Anondson 02-08-07, 03:27 AM	Linked Perception (PHB2) is on neither the open spell list nor the closed spell list.That is a feature, not a flaw. There are many spells, feats, etc. which are on neither list. :)
sylvermyst 02-08-07, 03:32 AM	That is a feature, not a flaw. There are many spells, feats, etc. which are on neither list. :) Ah, my bad. I'm afraid I haven't read the whole thread yet: I should do that before I make any more stupid comments. :embarrass
Britt 02-08-07, 03:34 AM	Yes you can take 10 on nonadventuring activities, per the Core rules for those skills. There is no limit on STR bonus for composite bows. One of the new books (PH2?) introduced the polymorph subschool, which is what the feat refers to. Rhopan is covered in the DC, albeit misspelled by yours truly. While Contemplative is Open (it was before, I believe), there is still a special prereq. I believe that is what your special AR is giving you and what you're paying the tithe for. Trying to take advantage of the Charity of Friends would be a very bad idea. You'd constantly be functioning at 50% of the wealth you should have. I'll talk to the others about adding spells to the Healer spell list, but don't hold your breath. Mundane items from non-core books aren't included and won't be included because you don't need access to a tree tent to plan your character build, but you do need access to that exotic weapon. As it was, people rarely if ever built characters around exotic weapons since they didn't know if they'd ever be able to find them. DMM and DSP represent two types of effects that we are trying to keep a close eye on: free metamagic applications and CL bumps. These aren't always a bad thing, but they raise immediate warning flags. Those two types of effects have caused serious problems in the past and will likely continue to do so in the future. I'm going to bed now. I'll try to get caught up in the morning, but I'm supposed to play disc golf at 11, so that gives me about 7 hours of sleep + 1 hour to catch up on posts.
MikeJS 02-08-07, 04:29 AM	Mundane items from non-core books aren't included and won't be includedThat answers most of my questions from a previous page, but I'm still wondering if Races of the Wild armor table 7-2's omission is error or intentional given that the armor tables from all the other books are now Open. (Thistledown, sweet thistledown, you taunt me mercilessly from the discount-rack, but I remain forbidden to purchase you and enchant you with Fortification to keep my damned wizard alive.)
Lupo 02-08-07, 04:37 AM	While Contemplative is Open (it was before, I believe), there is still a special prereq. I believe that is what your special AR is giving you and what you're paying the tithe for. p. 12 of the draft: • Contemplative: This class requires campaign documentation, such as an AR entry or metaorg. add a sentence that such a documentation is specific for the noted deity. one of the pops-up-every-second-week question on any list/discussion forum is: "does the access count for any god?" p. 37: in the listing of open prestige classes indicate all those with special requirements with an asterisk (*) I'll talk to the others about adding spells to the Healer spell list, but don't hold your breath. is the same happening to the warmages evocation spell list? to get more than "floating disk"? DMM and DSP represent two types of effects that we are trying to keep a close eye on: free metamagic applications and CL bumps. These aren't always a bad thing, but they raise immediate warning flags. Those two types of effects have caused serious problems in the past and will likely continue to do so in the future. the FAQ about "practiced spellcaster" in conjunction with "wild mage" essentially gives the same effect, a sure level bump to the caster so is "practiced spellcaster" removed next????? i was really hoping the LG campaign would just go on without the errata on alter self etc. at least my druid isn't one of the wildshapers or dumped physical stats builds BUT including the errata and still ban the "bite of you-name-it" from SpC is definitely annoying for druids. no more "alter self" and "polymorph" will simply destroy some melee caster builds who relied upon trog form etc. but also will take away a versatile utility spell for arcanists to get gills or wings or the like. no more option for CWI with +2 levels seriously hurts, so please authors include all kind of "useful" wonderous items, and be creative, i hope i don't see the same 20 "standard" items over and over again. ciao martin m.
Mortepierre 02-08-07, 04:53 AM	Britt, The Expanded Feat Options table on page 27 doesn't list the domain of Greyhawk. If I am not mistaken, people will soon be able to generate new PC for that region to play the GH Ruins mods. Which feats from Dragon #315/319 are open to natives?
uncawes 02-08-07, 07:23 AM	Having (finally) looked at the Polymorph errata, and the wild shape errata, neither my teenage daughter nor I can figure out how druids are being nerfed. And if they're not being nerfed, why do they get a rebuild. Fwiw, teenage daughter has a Drd 18, Drd9/BM1 and a Drd 1 following in their illustrious footsteps. And she can't see how any of them are being disadvantaged. Could someone who thinks it's a problem explain it in little words (but politely) please? :confused:
Mortepierre 02-08-07, 07:36 AM	I suspect it has to do with the fact that Wildshape is treated as a special version of Alternate Form and that one of the changes to the latter states: Apply any changed physical ability score modifiers in all appropriate areas with one exception: the creature retains the hit points of its original form despite any change to its Constitution A lot of druids apparently elected to have a low Con score because they would then spend their days in the shape of a creature with a high Con score and enjoy a significant boost to their hit points. I knew personally a druid who spent whole adventures as a black bear. With the change, it still means a boost to their Fort. save but not to their hit points anymore. Ergo, those druids become squishy.
gomeztoo 02-08-07, 07:42 AM	I noticed one oversight that WILL cause a lot of grief, especially at cons: "If you are more than three levels higher than the APL at which the adventure is being played, you cannot participate." You could change it to: "If you are more than three levels higher or lower than the APL at which the adventure is being played, you cannot participate." That at least would be fair both ways.
uncawes 02-08-07, 08:03 AM	I suspect it has to do with the fact that Wildshape is treated as a special version of Alternate Form and that one of the changes to the latter states: A lot of druids apparently elected to have a low Con score because they would then spend their days in the shape of a creature with a high Con score and enjoy a significant boost to their hit points. I knew personally a druid who spent whole adventures as a black bear. With the change, it still means a boost to their Fort. save but not to their hit points anymore. Ergo, those druids become squishy. But they'd have to survive to 5th level with that low CON score in order for that plan to work. Thanks for the insight though - at least now the reasoning is more clear.
cycloptic_squirrel 02-08-07, 08:04 AM	I noticed one oversight that WILL cause a lot of grief, especially at cons: Page 1 - Average Party Levels: "If you are more than three levels higher than the APL at which the adventure is being played, you cannot participate." This rule, if it is maintained, will lead to this scenario: Let's say we're at a con. A 6, 6, 8, and 10 sit down to play. They average to 7.5, they can play APL 8 and everyone's happy. If a 2nd sits down at the table (and yes, I have seen this sort of thing happen)... we now have a 2, 6, 6, 8, and 10. They average to APL 6.4, and the 10 just got booted from the table by the 2nd. This is completely unfair. We cannot give low-level characters the ability to eject higher-level characters from the table. In the past, the 10 could play down to 6, take half, and grumble a bit, but to remove him completely?!? Unfair. -Matt How about a non-standard solution? i.e. Have the guy with a 10 'roll' up a new bard or archer or something. If he's level 10 without a secondary, it's about time he got one anyway. Far from an ideal, but everyone plays. Or try and find the level 2 guy a different table, explain that he will have a high chance of death at APL 6 since no one can afford to protect him since there are effectively only 3 characters contributing. Or better yet... the level ten guy just buys half a dozen doggies or some other such nonsense to boost the APL to seven and choose APL 8.
afbeer 02-08-07, 08:07 AM	There are no restricted rules items. But the term 'restricted' is still used. appendix 1 page 19 of the draft lower right corner last question I can only imagine a glossary entry for that term in order to say that it it old verbage for 'closed'. Yours afbeer
dkay807 02-08-07, 08:15 AM	[QUOTE=Reylance;11422836}How much of a bribe to move Abjurant Champion to the Open list? Just name a charity and an amount....[/QUOTE] Please no. I was so thrilled to see that PrC on the Closed list where it clearly belongs.
Mommy was an Orc 02-08-07, 08:22 AM	no more option for CWI with +2 levels seriously hurts, so please authors include all kind of "useful" wonderous items, and be creative, i hope i don't see the same 20 "standard" items over and over again. That's actually a great thing - it makes a lot harder to cherry pick some of the more broken special items while opening up stat items to be crafted. My Bard has Memento Magic access, so now I don't have to ask whether or not I can craft them or not. And wow, is 9th ever going to be a powerhouse level for my Bard - retrain a feat out, gain two feats back, craft a +4 Charisma Cloak. Upgrade my Vest of Resistance, too.
dkay807 02-08-07, 08:24 AM	It's not a flaw in the campaign model, but an emergent problem of crafting in the campaign model. The only ways to fix it are not feasible, such as scrapping the APL system or inventing arcane tracking systems. XP Penalties are intended to be a penalty. In the LG system, they are not; they are a boon as you quickly have far more GP value than your level should allow, even taking into account the intended benefits of crafting. The best solution is to make equal GP losses for XP losses, which keeps the GP:XP ratio perfect. Wait, I may have missed something here. Do PCs lose additional GP for crafting now?
CSHunt68 02-08-07, 08:29 AM	I just don't get it for Divine Spell power, if the feat is so powerful in conjunction with holy word / blasphemy and the rest of the options of spells are ok why not just ban the use of the spell. Sol I agree entirely. Frankly, I think making DMM Closed was also unnecessary.
CSHunt68 02-08-07, 08:34 AM	I can't speak for them, but the likely answer will be because Holy Word/blasphemy/etc are "in the PHB" and the Circle doesn't have "the authority" to ban things from the PHB. Despite precedent to the contrary in Disjunction, Permanency, and other things of that sort. Huh? "The Circle doesn't have the authority to ban things from the PHB, except those things they've already banned from the PHB." ... ? That make any sense? ;) And I agree. I think banning DSP - rather than the spells which are the real problem - is a silly solution, because we still have other ways to jack a caster level up and Holy Word/Blasphemy will still be the subject of the "cold war" between mod writers and players. Meanwhile, it doesn't address the fact that it just became that much harder to fix a curse that some overeager mod writer wrote requiring a caster level of 16 or higher to break. Yup.
dkay807 02-08-07, 08:36 AM	That's actually a great thing - it makes a lot harder to cherry pick some of the more broken special items while opening up stat items to be crafted. My Bard has Memento Magic access, so now I don't have to ask whether or not I can craft them or not. And wow, is 9th ever going to be a powerhouse level for my Bard - retrain a feat out, gain two feats back, craft a +4 Charisma Cloak. Upgrade my Vest of Resistance, too. I actually have a question about this. The Caster Level for Memento Magic is 17th as was for Pearls of Power before the errata. Is there any chance this is changing as well for crafters?
kegdrainer 02-08-07, 08:38 AM	Glad to see the changes in the LGCS and I am sure the players with archers are jumping up and down for joy since they can now get the arrows from RoW. However, does that mean that items that are race specific and are not a LG race are also allowed (Footspike, Goliath Greathammer, etc.)? (Cant wait to see the latest DC)
cycloptic_squirrel 02-08-07, 08:40 AM	I actually have a question about this. The Caster Level for Memento Magic is 17th as was for Pearls of Power before the errata. Is there any chance this is changing as well for crafters? Caster level is no longer a requirement. Unless the item description says so. So if you have acess, you can cast it. :)
pedr 02-08-07, 08:44 AM	...
w00tness 02-08-07, 08:51 AM	First off, Kudo's to the work. It can never be said enough. I only quickly glanced at it (and damn you can glance quickly now that it's not that much anymore), but what I like is the 'updated' AR. Explicitly showing that classes & levels needs to be filled is good. Better is that there's now a line which shows *what* level you gained. This gives 3 things 1) now that 'previous level' is logged, could we just remove the entire 'level and classes' part ? From the 'previous level' we can now track the character's level when the character dies (and thus loses a level), so it's auditable, and gives a bit of space for those gnomes with names of 'Weeblebottem Frotherdrinker Wippsdiddle MerryLong"... 2) "was reincarnated" should probably include a 'into what' line... even if it's hard to fill in due to space, it *does* imply that it needs to be filled in, which I think it should. Or it should have a 'race' specified somewhere (which might be better for tracking, but overkill). 3) Might it be worth considering making an "initial" AR, in which you do the stats, starting gold + bought equipment, etc. ? I'm aware that this might make starting a new character a bit trickier. However, it *does* make sense when you have AR's all trackable to the previous ones, but not having a special case for an AR where there is *no* previous one. From an audit point, it still means that characters can change race and stats whenever they want to (of course, so can ranks and feats, but...). I'm aware the last one is a 'big one', but from a conceptual point of view it makes sense. Keep up the good work! Koos
MikeJS 02-08-07, 08:55 AM	3) Might it be worth considering making an "initial" AR, in which you do the stats, starting gold + bought equipment, etc.?I'm lost: How is this differant than merely observing which AR is marked #1?
pedr 02-08-07, 08:58 AM	A lot of people don't record their initial purchases on their first AR, reasoning that it's a record of what they buy during/after the adventure, not before it. I don't think I've been consistent in that either - some of my characters have a random 'starting gold' on AR 1 and no record of what they actually started the adventure with, equipment-wise. One or two others I think I put the starting gold in the relevant box on the AR and recorded everything. I'm not sure which is the more correct/better way to do it, and this suggestion would make this clear.
awroe 02-08-07, 09:02 AM	Regarding Survival and Living off the wild Every other bonus from ranks in a skill is based on 5; 4 was an oddity. Except this is an LG-specific rule rather than a skill bonus. The main problem with requiring five ranks is that first level druids can no-longer live off the wild, even though they can frequently get a +10 modifier to auto-make the roll. All druids now have to be civilized for a few adventures. Having all PHB open except those stated otherwise is going to be confusing - I still have to check Appendix 4 to see if it is available, but I now have to remember that a subset of all feats that are not on the Open list are in fact open. I'd be much clearer for new players if everything that was open was on the open list. Riding dogs and trip - as far as I can see, the rule on this has been removed - are we back to 'they have trip if the DM decides they are trained-for-war', or did I miss something? Mostly, however, I think that the new draft is a vast improvement. Keep up the good work.
Majoru Oakheart 02-08-07, 09:06 AM	I'll be posting more (in a new thread) on this as soon as the supposedly-forthcoming Dispel Confusion on the matter comes up. Frankly, I think this is a repulsive thing to do to the campaign. We already had things fixed far better than WotC's kludgy errata nonsense, our campaign has worked just fine with no reported problems using our Polymorph restrictions for the past few years. I'll admit that I was one of the people fighting to see this happen. I saw many, many druids with an 8 con who stayed wildshaped all day long. That's just abusive. I saw many druids who claimed they got to keep ALL of their equipment while wildshaped and had an ac of 40 because of it. That's broken too. The day I saw a sorcerer cast polymorph into an Annis Hag and share it and all of his buff spells with his familiar and the play 2 Annis Hags for every combat in a mod, well that just took the cake. He made everyone in the group feel next to useless because he had a better AC and did more damage than the fighters in the group while still having a near full compliment of sorcerer spells. I'm not sure how you are saying that we "fixed" Polymorph or Wildshape. We didn't do anything to it at all. We just didn't use the errata. Now we are using the errata so that Druids now have to spend points in their Con score so that they have hit points and they don't get to use all of their equipment in wildshape so they don't have way too high ACs. I'm already planning on making a druid who will use wildshape on a fairly regular basis, and I don't feel hurt by the errata at all. WOTC's article on why they issued the errata is very correct. It is impossible to balance a spell or ability with so many options. If you factor in every possible creature you can change into, every piece of equipment your character might own, the table variation on what melds into you and what doesn't, plus what spell effects you might have on you....well, it's impossible to tell what effect the spell will have on you. One time it may increase your AC by 2 and lower your to hit by one, the next time it might increase your AC by 20, your to hit by 20 and your damage by 20. Plus, when new books come out, it only increases the possibilities. If you remove the number of options, however, you increase the balance of an ability or spell since you can more accurately predict what effect it will have. Thus, if you remove equipment as a factor from wildshape, you can simply look at the list of animals to see if any of them are too powerful to change into. Polymorph, however, can't be fixed since it allows you to change into too many things. So, it needs to be removed. Chris Wachal POC - Ket Triad
Southernskies 02-08-07, 09:08 AM	Page Numbering: I've noticed this in Adventures as well. The page numbering has not been set up to "Continue from Previous Section". This has resulted in the PDF and page numbering not matching up. The following is all in PDF page numbers as a result. pg6. Languages "Ancient Flan and Flan... ...Ancient Suloise." The last sentance of this paragraph is either redundant or saying you need campaign documentation. Its a lot clearer to delete that sentance due to the paragraph structure. Pg7. Retraining I would suggest that Retraining also include rules for voluntary alignment changes. In a home game the DM can watch/penalise/enforce alignment shifts. In LG, there are a large number of ex-Monk/Barbarians out there that claim "roleplay" as the reason for the shift and no GM to enforce/watch it. Pg17 Item Clarifications: "Equipment does not resize" Taken literally, this means that a simple enlarge person spell suddenly removes items not specifically listed (which overrides PH rules). Used offensively, a BBEG is suddenly reduced to only his weapons and maybe an Amulet of Natural Armor. Much more efficient than having to disarm/sunder/targetted dispel or otherwise chew through their equipment.
Reylance 02-08-07, 09:58 AM	I would like to humbly request that Alter Self be removed from the Closed list. Of all the polymorph spells, this one has the least rules baggage. There's not a lot you can do with a 5 HD or less humanoid. There's a reason why the spell is termed Arcane Barkskin: because that's all it's used for.
Bob_the_Theurge 02-08-07, 10:09 AM	Huh? "The Circle doesn't have the authority to ban things from the PHB, except those things they've already banned from the PHB." ... ? That make any sense? ;) That has been a boilerplate Circle response to questions on why certain DMG/PHB things are not banned in the past, yes.
CSHunt68 02-08-07, 10:30 AM	Yeah, I know. I was just pointing out the subtle failure of that line of defense. ;)
Beowulfe 02-08-07, 10:31 AM	If a player chooses to use the retrain option, is there a limitation on feats that can be changed? Specifically, can players change crafting feats or remove leadership? If so, is there any penalty or conditions?
arpster 02-08-07, 10:34 AM	I for one have no problems with the changes to the Wildshaping that a Druid has. I built my character to be a wildshaping druid. Took took the feats: extra wildshape and fast wild shape. I did not know about the Con adjustments when wildshaping till someone told me at a convention. As far as I know you did not get to add in your AC to the animal form you changed into AC. I got wild for my armor so i can keep it fro my druid so not sure if it was possible the other way. Anyway good job on the new LGCS. Can you put out word to the mod writers and Triads that divine casters would like access to some on the NONC spells. I see arcane casters getting access to them via favors and spellbooks but have yet to see any for "Your god grants you access to". thanks Mel
LachlarlanIII 02-08-07, 10:34 AM	Sorry if this has been asked already. The Open Items section on page 28 lists the stat boost items as their base forms. Just to clarify; does this make all variants, +2-+6, of those items available from the get-go, or do we still need AR access for the +4-+6 versions? Same question for Bracers of AC, Vests/Cloaks of Resistance, so on so forth. Thanks!
trollbill 02-08-07, 10:38 AM	Oftentimes, though, spell access is given in a form that says a favor will "teach" the spell to a Wizard or scribe it into their spellbook. This leaves Sorcerors out of the equation, since they must wait until leveling to switch and are unlikely to level on that very AR. The fix is to state that Sorcerors may "Learn" a spell at one point (get it notated on an AR) and hold it in reserve to "take" until they level and/or level and respec. I'm still not sure all this rampant respeccing is going to be good for the campaign... No, the solution is for mod authors to quit using such Wizard-centric terminology in the favors that give you access to new spells. I agree its a problem. It has been very frustrating to play a Sorcerer and watch no less than 3 ARs with limited spell access be unavailable to me because the authors only allowed access via copying into books. I just think its a far better solution to have mod writers get off their Wizard-centric attitudes and realize there are other classes out there that want access to NONC spells. Though that now makes me wonder that, since I can gain access to a spell by owning a spellbook with the spell in it, if I can actually buy a spellbook and copy spells into it (even though I can't prepare spells out of it). Thus giving me access. I don't recall seeing anything that prohibit non-wizards from writing spells into spellbooks. You only need a successful spellcraft check to do it. Hmmm....:plotting:
Mommy was an Orc 02-08-07, 10:39 AM	I for one have no problems with the changes to the Wildshaping that a Druid has. I built my character to be a wildshaping druid. Took took the feats: extra wildshape and fast wild shape. I did not know about the Con adjustments when wildshaping till someone told me at a convention. That's the problem for some characters - they took an 8 Constitution with the expectation they'd always be in a form with a higher Constitution. I don't think the Circle has much sympathy for that. Guess it ought to be interesting to see how much the rebuild allows statwise.
arpster 02-08-07, 10:39 AM	LacharlanIII: You have access to all of them. +2 thru +6
Lupo 02-08-07, 10:41 AM	Having (finally) looked at the Polymorph errata, and the wild shape errata, neither my teenage daughter nor I can figure out how druids are being nerfed. And if they're not being nerfed, why do they get a rebuild. Fwiw, teenage daughter has a Drd 18, Drd9/BM1 and a Drd 1 following in their illustrious footsteps. And she can't see how any of them are being disadvantaged. Could someone who thinks it's a problem explain it in little words (but politely) please? :confused: HP don't change (ok, as some have mentioned CON 6 druids should never have been in the campaign;)) more important TYPE does not change, a druid in animal form is just wearing a costume, none of the spells that work on an animal would affect him. (and when they first issued the "errata" they had not even thought of wildshaping into a shark, as a druid would drown for not changing to "aquatic", even now with this fixed, an aquatic druid - ok, only NPC possible - will die quickly and horrible when changed into a land animal:() all equipment - even usable items for an animal, i.e. neck slot, cloak and unslotted items - meld into the new form and cease to function. as the campaign has moved all "bite of the you-name-it" to "closed" there is not even a slightest chance for a druid to keep up while in wildshape. if that is not "nerving till plutonization" i don't know :mad: . ciao martin m.
Gelth 02-08-07, 10:44 AM	Failing to use erratta for the core books is not an option. Aside from the issue of WotC likely not allowing it for any length of time, there's the issue that books are being reprinted with the erratta. I don't want to have someone turn up with a freshly-purchased rulebook at a game and have to tell them, "No sorry, that's not how it works. We use the old rules, that aren't documented anywhere. Your book is wrong." The erratta is out there, therefore we use it. I do know, however, that now that Polymorph is gone I'll be a lot happier giving out access to the replacement spells, that turn you into a specific form. They are cool and flavourful, and importantly are balanced. --Penn, Ket Triad
Bob_the_Theurge 02-08-07, 10:45 AM	HP don't change (ok, as some have mentioned CON 6 druids should never have been in the campaign;)) more important TYPE does not change, a druid in animal form is just wearing a costume, none of the spells that work on an animal would affect him. (and when they first issued the "errata" they had not even thought of wildshaping into a shark, as a druid would drown for not changing to "aquatic", even now with this fixed, an aquatic druid - ok, only NPC possible - will die quickly and horrible when changed into a land animal:() all equipment - even usable items for an animal, i.e. neck slot, cloak and unslotted items - meld into the new form and cease to function. as the campaign has moved all "bite of the you-name-it" to "closed" there is not even a slightest chance for a druid to keep up while in wildshape. if that is not "nerving till plutonization" i don't know :mad: . ciao martin m. I've created a thread for this topic, please contribute: http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=787690 I'm not going to wait for WotC's webguy to get the DC up any more. It we wait too long, the LGCS will pop up without discussion, it's already less than a week away.
LachlarlanIII 02-08-07, 10:48 AM	Sorry again if this has already been asked. Dragon Disciple is on the NONC list. Are we still allowed to take Good dragon types without having AR access as page 10 indicates or do we require access for even those types? Thanks!
darrell_uk 02-08-07, 10:48 AM	To the Circle and the Triad members involved in the rewrite, many thanks on a good job. I have a few questions/thoughts which don't appear to have been covered in the previous 340 or so posts though... When calculation character wealth for charity of friends or similar you use the full market value of items. If you crafted that item yourself it (generally)only costs you half of that value. Therefore crafting artificially inflates your wealth. Most cohorts will require a change to their stats due to the change from a point build to the use of the elite array. Will some form of AR be created to cover this "conversion"? Page 12, Evil Acts, it probably worth reiterating that casting a spell with the [Evil] descriptor is an evil act. Page 15, Item Clarifications limits which items resize, is this meant to over-ride individual spell descriptions? For instance enlarge person specifically says that armour and clothing resize. If it is meant to over-ride, could clothing (at least) and armour be added to the list please? I have seen the LGCS, the errata, and this list be used to confirm both sides of the arguement as to whether or not caster level is a requisit for item creation. Some form of concrete statement probably needs to be made by the Circle. All stat' boosting items (it appears) can now be slowly upgraded from +2 to +4 and so on. However the STR booster stands out from the others as the item actually changes when it mooves from +2 to +4 (gauntlets to belt). Does this mean that this specific advancement cannot be made? That's me done for now, thanks for all the hard work Britt, hope you managed to sleep well. :)
dkay807 02-08-07, 10:52 AM	I would like to humbly request that Alter Self be removed from the Closed list. Of all the polymorph spells, this one has the least rules baggage. There's not a lot you can do with a 5 HD or less humanoid. There's a reason why the spell is termed Arcane Barkskin: because that's all it's used for. I Completely disagree. I think it was a long time coming for Alter Self to become "Closed." Alter Self was never intended to be an "arcane barkskin" and it took a lot away from Druids. When every character capable of casting 2nd level arcane spells is casting it to achieve an AC higher than that of the party's tank... you know that something is wrong.
Mythrasus 02-08-07, 11:07 AM	Some interesting points... I agree with the request that a character can not play a module if he is more than 3 levels above or below the table apl. What I would also like to see is the removal of Add 1 if 6 players, or better yet allow a table to play down an APL should all agree. This has worked for other living campaigns and will help at conventions where the last few players get thrown on a table and are not suited to the APL for various reasons..
pedr 02-08-07, 11:11 AM	Sorry again if this has already been asked. Dragon Disciple is on the NONC list. Are we still allowed to take Good dragon types without having AR access as page 10 indicates or do we require access for even those types? Thanks!Unless something from the PH, DMG or MM is Closed, it's Open. It's slightly confusing as some Open rules items from those sources are listed but they don't have to be!
Bob_the_Theurge 02-08-07, 11:14 AM	I Completely disagree. I think it was a long time coming for Alter Self to become "Closed." Alter Self was never intended to be an "arcane barkskin" and it took a lot away from Druids. When every character capable of casting 2nd level arcane spells is casting it to achieve an AC higher than that of the party's tank... you know that something is wrong. If they're wasting time getting that high with round-per-level buffs, what are they not doing? That's right. They're not contributing to the fight. It's not broken. You just never used it in combat or saw the "Wizard" waste 3 rounds buffing up while the fighter bled hit points like a sieve.
szwanger 02-08-07, 11:24 AM	If they're wasting time getting that high with round-per-level buffs, Alter Self lasts 10 minutes per level, just like Barkskin.
Periac 02-08-07, 11:32 AM	First, congrats to the good LGCS, second just some minor input: - delete Loremaster from the open PrC list (could confuse people) - maybe make upgrading magic items available to all PCs, not just spell casters (who still get it at half price). - will we see access to Master Specialist one day, or that's it being closed? - with the changes to druid - I have an Asherati druid and gave up centaur - now with the revamp option, might there be the option for Sandstorm characters to get a centaur instead (would be a nice move and affect only few players) and drop the Asherati?
MikeJS 02-08-07, 11:38 AM	...on whether or not lances can be used two-handed while mounted.
heirodule 02-08-07, 11:42 AM	1. Nice job 2. If you already have a NONC item, can you craft more of them, if you have no granted access (I made Pearls of Power before: can I make more?) 2.a: what if you have granted access from a favor, and you made one? Can you craft more? 3. Is access to a PoP 1st level different from a PoP 3rd? Same item with a different 'plus' or different items? 4. I was THIS close to getting to the CL for a PoP 4. Now I can't? 5. So you can sit down with a MIC sheet just before a Core Special and get the item made now? That right? 6. PoPs seems like such a basic 'utility' item for wizards that I'd argue they should be OPEN like Boccobs Books (a new one) or +2 to +5 weapons and armor. The fighters don't need access to get better at what they do, but the wizards do? 7. I'm glad to hear I don't have to sit around with my Insightful Reflexes as a dead feat choice until I can level and retrain. But people who have Closed stuff do? Why? That seems needlessly harsh. Also, does that mean if you had a closed feat from one book, you now HAVE to buy a PHB2 to know how to retrain the feat? 8. CLOSE Summon Dire Hawk, or at least don't make it open. It should NOT last that long...
Britt 02-08-07, 11:46 AM	You can't craft from favors unless the favor specifically says so. PoP will not be added to the Open items list. You always crafted before adventures. The Retrain from an item that gets closed is immediate, not when you level. This has been clarified in my copy.
w00tness 02-08-07, 11:51 AM	I'm lost: How is this differant than merely observing which AR is marked #1? As said, it could then *also* hold your stats, your race, and your starting equipment (and the gold you've got left when you start your first adventure) These aren't logged anywhere, and I can imagine stats and race to be pretty important. Although this might make some introduction modules a bit tricky...
dkay807 02-08-07, 11:53 AM	If they're wasting time getting that high with round-per-level buffs, what are they not doing? That's right. They're not contributing to the fight. It's not broken. You just never used it in combat or saw the "Wizard" waste 3 rounds buffing up while the fighter bled hit points like a sieve. This should probably be taken to a different forum but... It lasts 10 minutes per level. A 12th level caster with a rod of lesser extend can make it last for 4 hours. One pearl of power 2nd level and you can cast it twice for 8 hours... etc. 7,000 gold for +6 natural armor bonus to AC all the time is... amazing.
dkay807 02-08-07, 11:56 AM	7. I'm glad to hear I don't have to sit around with my Insightful Reflexes as a dead feat choice until I can level and retrain. But people who have Closed stuff do? Why? That seems needlessly harsh. Also, does that mean if you had a closed feat from one book, you now HAVE to buy a PHB2 to know how to retrain the feat? 8. CLOSE Summon Dire Hawk, or at least don't make it open. It should NOT last that long... As Britt has already stated... if you already had a NONC Feat/Spell/Etc. prior to the release of the LGCS 7.0, you may retain it.
heirodule 02-08-07, 11:58 AM	2. If you already have a NONC item, can you craft more of them, if you have no granted access (I made Pearls of Power before: can I make more?) 2.a: what if you have granted access from a favor, and you made one? Can you craft more? What about if I HAVE one of the items already?
MikeJS 02-08-07, 11:58 AM	As said, it could then *also* hold your stats, your race, and your starting equipment (and the gold you've got left when you start your first adventure) These aren't logged anywhere, and I can imagine stats and race to be pretty important. Although this might make some introduction modules a bit tricky...Not really... "You have 500 feet of silk rope and two grappling hooks? Lemme see if you paid for that....right after I visit the Little Boys Room."
Britt 02-08-07, 11:59 AM	What about if I HAVE one of the items already? You must have found it in the Items Found section of an AR or it must be on the Open Items list in Appendix 4. Having one is not a means of qualifying for crafting.
Bob_the_Theurge 02-08-07, 12:04 PM	This should probably be taken to a different forum but... It lasts 10 minutes per level. A 12th level caster with a rod of lesser extend can make it last for 4 hours. One pearl of power 2nd level and you can cast it twice for 8 hours... etc. 7,000 gold for +6 natural armor bonus to AC all the time is... amazing. And when you can't normally wear armor at all and you're talking about total AC 25-28 at APL 10 (base 10, +3 Dex, +4 Shield, +4 Mage Armor, +6 natural armor, possibly a ring of prot or amulet of natural armor though that neck slot ought to be a CON amulet), it's not so amazing; most of the tanks are at 34+ and the "guideline" is usually that AC should be APL+20.
dkay807 02-08-07, 12:14 PM	And when you can't normally wear armor at all and you're talking about total AC 25-28 at APL 10 (base 10, +3 Dex, +4 Shield, +4 Mage Armor, +6 natural armor, possibly a ring of prot or amulet of natural armor though that neck slot ought to be a CON amulet), it's not so amazing; most of the tanks are at 34+ and the "guideline" is usually that AC should be APL+20. Taken off this forum. Let's focus on the LGCS now.
Gelth 02-08-07, 12:25 PM	I apologise, I got sucked into trying to refute others' arguements. Not appropriate here. --Penn, Ket Triad
Bob_the_Theurge 02-08-07, 12:26 PM	Taken off this forum. Let's focus on the LGCS now. Well, this IS a LGCS change... feel free to post in the thread I started on the matter (though I note you haven't bothered to yet).
chin_god 02-08-07, 12:33 PM	Ok Britt...a couple of Q's for you. Everyone keep your answers to yourself. On page 15 of the draft someone mentioned about size changes to equipment and asked if that applied to things like enlarge person (changing how those spells normally work). Well this also will apply to the wild shape ability that is part of the Polymorph errata (which I assume we are using). According to the change in wild shape everything melds and becomes non-functionable. However (yes I know it should be obvious that that would take precedence) the blurb on pg 15 will provide an avenue of rules wrangling one way or the other since if weapons are unaffected and amulets and cloaks resize according to that; thus someone is going into say ... a dire ape would argue that the cloak and amulet should stay on. So in the final version address this as either the way I read it which is *this does not apply to druids and the spells enlarge person ... * or something like the other reading *this is a slight change to the wild shape ability* or something like that. I only state this because clarity prevents retardedness at a con. THe Ok'ie misplaced in GA. Sean
dkay807 02-08-07, 12:36 PM	Well, this IS a LGCS change... feel free to post in the thread I started on the matter (though I note you haven't bothered to yet). Fair enough. Here's where I am coming from: There has been growing concern regarding the power balance of arcane hybrid fighters vs. non-spellcasting melee fighters. A number of functions including but not limited to Arcane Strike (feat), Alter Self (spell), Spellsword (PrC), Eldritch Knight (PrC) and Dragonskin (spell) have given arcane hybrid fighters a real edge over their non-spellcasting counterparts by enabling them to overcome their typical shortcomings. If you take a look at all of those abilities mentioned above, only one stands out as having VERY easy requirements (enough that Bards can use it and Paladins can UMD a scroll of it), providing a benefit clearly not originally intended for the ability. Besides which, a spell so good that nearly anybody capable of replicating it runs around as a Troglodyte 24/7 is lame and goes against the spirit of the rules in my opinion. I'll let people fill in the blanks and come to their own conclusions here. Needless to say, there is a reason why Abjurant Champion is CLOSED and why Duskblade is NONC. I'm surprised Duskblade isn't CLOSED either.
Britt 02-08-07, 12:48 PM	So in the final version address this as either the way I read it which is *this does not apply to druids and the spells enlarge person ... * or something like the other reading *this is a slight change to the wild shape ability* or something like that. I only state this because clarity prevents retardedness at a con. Clarified in my copy.
w00tness 02-08-07, 12:51 PM	Dunno if they're mentioned (couldn't find 'm so far)... Chapter 2: 6)hit points "half the maximum value for your new class +1 +con modifier" is clear, no need for +/1 con modifier (as I think I'll play a grey elf wizard with con 6 and do --2 == +2 gladly) 7) Skills: Change: "You cannot take ranks in knowledge(local), but must pick a subset of either a metaregion, or Core.All regionals and metaregionals use the knowledge subset for their metaregion (So while in Keoland, use Knowledge local[SV MR]). All cores use knowledge(local core). If you do not have ranks in the needed subset, you cannot roll the appropriate knowledge(local) check" Chapter 5 Tricks: It's unclear whether an animal which already has its maximum number of tricks can be taught more. if not: "Once per adventure, by spending 1 TU and succeeding on the Handle Animal check, you can teach an animal which still has enough tricks left one extra trick" Experience penalties: I get the idea behind stacking the gold and XP penalties, however, consider the following: Gary the Gnome, Fighter 3, rog1, cleric1,wiz1,barbarian 1 sits down at an APL 10 table (or 4, whatever). He's part of a church which means tithing 10%, and also of a trading metaorg, which means tithing 10%. Now we get a pretty complicated calculation, in which gary first pays off 50% of his gold due to APL, and then an additional 10% (20% of the remaining 50) due to tithes, and finally another 20% (50% of the remaining 40) due to multiclassing. For XP, he is left with 25% of the total. That takes a bit of thinking. What I suggest is simply capping xp and gold loss to 50%, period. No tricky calculations. If you tithe 20% of your income, and also have 50% xp penalty(whatever the reason), you thus in total will never lose more then 50% of your income. I know it's being nice to those who severly multiclass *and* play out of APL, but it's not something I'll see happen soon. For those who are willing to take multiclass penalties so they have a 'free' tithe, they're taking penalties as is, and still stay in line with the gold/xp ratio (ok, barring the access the tithe could bring). Or, something like that. could make it a lot easier. Regards, Koos
gomeztoo 02-08-07, 01:02 PM	Now we get a pretty complicated calculation, in which gary first pays off 50% of his gold due to APL, and then an additional 10% (20% of the remaining 50) due to tithes, and finally another 20% (50% of the remaining 40) due to multiclassing. For XP, he is left with 25% of the total. I think it goes like this: Say the goldcap is 1000 gp - Gary would normally get 50% gold (500 gp) - He now has to deduct 20% of that amount. 20% of 500 = 100, leaving 400 gp. The 400 gp is put in 'gp gained' - He now tithes 10% (40 gp) to his church (I normally add this in the items bought section). I.o.w I think tithes, which are costs, go last, and don't dtermien what uyou get, but what you are left with (I hope that makes sense).
chin_god 02-08-07, 01:11 PM	Clarified in my copy. Thanks for answering.
Bob_the_Theurge 02-08-07, 01:11 PM	Britt, Didn't see a response to my query: can we change the Repair rules so that anyone at the table, rather than just a player who's doing the Repair work for another player with a MIC feat, can contribute to the gold cost for a repair in the same way they currently can contribute to the gold cost for a Raise/Resurrection? I think this would be better, because it's the Fighters who are really going to be hit heavily with this, and losing your main weapon is much akin to a character death. I'd certainly pitch in a few thousand GP for the repair if my table's fighter got his weapon sundered during combat. Just asking on the status of this one.
david_w_baker 02-08-07, 01:12 PM	One suggestion is to go through this compilation of Circle Rulings and decide if each one ought to be incorporated into the LGCS. http://www.theocracyofthepale.com/gamerules/circle_rulings.html David
Britt 02-08-07, 01:14 PM	Didn't see a response to my query: can we change the Repair rules so that anyone at the table, rather than just a player who's doing the Repair work for another player with a MIC feat, can contribute to the gold cost for a repair in the same way they currently can contribute to the gold cost for a Raise/Resurrection? Changed in my copy.
MichaelTLH 02-08-07, 01:18 PM	Bumped because I'm still confused. :) Cohort Question: My cohort says it is "typical of it's kind" on it's AR and when I created him, I used the stats as presented in the Monster Manual (as I was told to when I asked for clarification). Must I now use the "Elite Array"?
Britt 02-08-07, 01:23 PM	Bumped because I'm still confused. :) Ask your issuing Triad what they meant (or Circle if it's a Core). If they meant the standard for the race, use those.
trollbill 02-08-07, 01:54 PM	Any chance we can get an exception to the Wild Shape ability that allows slotted items that can be worn in the three slots allowed for animals to NOT meld when you Wild Shape? It would prevent confusion and strange tricks to avoid losing prepared spells when an Amulet of Wisdom is either melded, or removed, then placed back on the druid (either way you lose the prepared spells).
ranagrande 02-08-07, 01:54 PM	Are NPC classes legal for characters to take now?
Dominick 02-08-07, 01:58 PM	Any chance we can get an exception to the Wild Shape ability that allows slotted items that can be worn in the three slots allowed for animals to NOT meld when you Wild Shape? It would prevent confusion and strange tricks to avoid losing prepared spells when an Amulet of Wisdom is either melded, or removed, then placed back on the druid (either way you lose the prepared spells). This allows wisdom bonus from the Periapt to be retained in wildshape. Thanks Bill!
kenobi65 02-08-07, 02:11 PM	Are NPC classes legal for characters to take now? Doesn't look like it. But, there's a potential confusing point here. On page 4, under Character Creation - Classes: You may choose any base class from Open Base Classes in Appendix 4. However, Appendix 4 only lists the non-PH classes. As this is written, the PH base classes aren't allowed! I'm assuming that the intent was to allow all the PH classes, as well as those from other sources in Appendix 4. Either change the wording on page 4, or explicitly include all the PH classes in Appendix 4.
Golorious 02-08-07, 02:13 PM	First off Britt you have done some excellent work! I like the whole open closed thing good job! I tried to read all of the posts but I failed. I'm sure I missed some and I'm confused on a few things. So here are the two issues I found. First Issue from the draft "You can craft any item for which you meet the crafting prerequisites and which you have ever had access to purchase in the Items Found section of any AR." Is caster level still a prerequisite? How do we craft Pearls of power, I don't see that text in the LGCS this time around which allowed for casting at levels other than 17. Same with the shadow orbs and magic mementos or whatever they were. Same with meta-magic rods, and well lots of other things potentially too. Second Issue Cohorts -- This is an improvement and thank you for that. My last question regarding them is this. Why not make it simple and anything that is open for the leader is open for the Cohort? This would include prestige classes, feats and equipment that may normally be NONC but the leader has received access to in previous AR's. Just like their equipment access is currently. With the new wording they obviously have access to all open prestige classes but nothing other then items that is NONC. Thanks
Bob_the_Theurge 02-08-07, 02:15 PM	Do we have a reasoning on how the Reserve feats slipped by?
Britt 02-08-07, 02:16 PM	However, Appendix 4 only lists the non-PH classes. As this is written, the PH base classes aren't allowed! I'm assuming that the intent was to allow all the PH classes, as well as those from other sources in Appendix 4. Either change the wording on page 4, or explicitly include all the PH classes in Appendix 4. From chapter 4: All base classes, prestige classes, feats, spells, and domains from the core rulebooks (PH, DMG, MM) are considered Open unless specifically noted otherwise in Appendix 4. I'll see if I can find a way to clarify that.
Britt 02-08-07, 02:17 PM	Is caster level still a prerequisite? How do we craft Pearls of power, I don't see that text in the LGCS this time around which allowed for casting at levels other than 17. Same with the shadow orbs and magic mementos or whatever they were. Same with meta-magic rods, and well lots of other things potentially too. Second Issue Cohorts -- This is an improvement and thank you for that. My last question regarding them is this. Why not make it simple and anything that is open for the leader is open for the Cohort? This would include prestige classes, feats and equipment that may normally be NONC but the leader has received access to in previous AR's. Just like their equipment access is currently. With the new wording they obviously have access to all open prestige classes but nothing other then items that is NONC. 1. Use the core rules: DMG Errata in this case. 2. I doubt anything else will change for Leadership, but I'll look into it.
kenobi65 02-08-07, 02:18 PM	From chapter 4: All base classes, prestige classes, feats, spells, and domains from the core rulebooks (PH, DMG, MM) are considered Open unless specifically noted otherwise in Appendix 4. I'll see if I can find a way to clarify that. Ahh, I see that now. At that point, it does seem to imply that the NPC classes from the DMG are open to PCs now, and that might need clarification, as well. Thanks, Britt!
Britt 02-08-07, 02:18 PM	Do we have a reasoning on how the Reserve feats slipped by? We talked about them and agreed that they were not problematic. They are mainly useful in resource intensive situations, which LG does not usually have. In LG, you are usually better off blowing your big spells rather than saving them and doing something minor in comparison.
Bob_the_Theurge 02-08-07, 02:23 PM	We talked about them and agreed that they were not problematic. They are mainly useful in resource intensive situations, which LG does not usually have. In LG, you are usually better off blowing your big spells rather than saving them and doing something minor in comparison. I'm not so sure on the ones that allow move-action/swift-action abilities just for holding on to a spell of whatever slot, really. Those are "Something Minor" and still being able to cast a standard-action spell every round too. I'm not as opposed to this as I am the banning of DSP and Polymorph, but I'm going to open up another thread, some of the reserve feats need a closer look.
LachlarlanIII 02-08-07, 02:28 PM	Ahh, I see that now. At that point, it does seem to imply that the NPC classes from the DMG are open to PCs now, and that might need clarification, as well. Thanks, Britt! Agreed! Since the NPC base classes are listed in the DMG, not shown on the Closed access section, and per the oft quoted line on page 9 of the draft they are permitted. If this is not intended, a change would be in order methinks. *gears up to play a full 15th level Commoner*
Britt 02-08-07, 02:30 PM	Agreed! Since the NPC base classes are listed in the DMG, not shown on the Closed access section, and per the oft quoted line on page 9 of the draft they are permitted. If this is not intended, a change would be in order methinks. *gears up to play a full 15th level Commoner* The change was not intended, but I don't see a problem with it either. I will talk with the others about it.
Gelth 02-08-07, 02:35 PM	Is caster level still a prerequisite? How do we craft Pearls of power, I don't see that text in the LGCS this time around which allowed for casting at levels other than 17. Same with the shadow orbs and magic mementos or whatever they were. Same with meta-magic rods, and well lots of other things potentially too. Caster level is not a prerequisite for item crafting, unles specified for the item. This is per the DMG erratta or the FAQ, and as the LGCS no longer contradicts it, it now applies. --Penn, Ket Triad
LachlarlanIII 02-08-07, 02:38 PM	The change was not intended, but I don't see a problem with it either. I will talk with the others about it. I believe the problem lies in the Aristocrat class. If I remember correctly, Aristocrats begin with 8d6x10gp. With all starting characters beginning with max gp for their class, I can see many players starting up Aristocrats just to get 480gp at first level. They have good class skills, good skill point progression and good will saves. Not to mention proficiency with all simple and martial weapons and proficiency with light, medium, and heavy armor and shields.
Britt 02-08-07, 02:43 PM	I believe the problem lies in the Aristocrat class. If I remember correctly, Aristocrats begin with 8d6x10gp. With all starting characters beginning with max gp for their class, I can see many players starting up Aristocrats just to get 480gp at first level. They have good class skills, good skill point progression and good will saves. Not to mention proficiency with all simple and martial weapons and proficiency with light, medium, and heavy armor and shields. Do you really think people would sacrifice a level with no BAB or spellcasting to get 240 gp? I doubt it, personally.
ranagrande 02-08-07, 02:50 PM	Do you really think people would sacrifice a level with no BAB or spellcasting to get 240 gp? I doubt it, personally. I highly doubt that any of the NPC classes would ever see much use, but I think it would be kinda fun to have them as options.
SDouek 02-08-07, 02:58 PM	I can't speak for them, but the likely answer will be because Holy Word/blasphemy/etc are "in the PHB" and the Circle doesn't have "the authority" to ban things from the PHB. Despite precedent to the contrary in Disjunction, Permanency, and other things of that sort. And I agree. I think banning DSP - rather than the spells which are the real problem - is a silly solution, because we still have other ways to jack a caster level up and Holy Word/Blasphemy will still be the subject of the "cold war" between mod writers and players. Meanwhile, it doesn't address the fact that it just became that much harder to fix a curse that some overeager mod writer wrote requiring a caster level of 16 or higher to break. But there are plenty of spells that are banned and changed in the PHB. And if you are not going to allow the players to use the feat why let the NPC use it. There will always be a GM out there that will look at the feats and then use for instance DS to jack up his clerics blasphemy. So according to the LGCS rules PC can not abuse the power, (not that I agree with them calling it abuse) but NPC can abuse the power. Where is the logic. Sol
Mattastrophic 02-08-07, 02:59 PM	All right, I've taken a perusal of this thread, and it's about time to weigh in on the mistake that's being made by Closing Polymorph, Alter Self, etc. I'll start with a Triad quote: The day I saw a sorcerer cast polymorph into an Annis Hag and share it and all of his buff spells with his familiar and the play 2 Annis Hags for every combat in a mod, well that just took the cake. He made everyone in the group feel next to useless because he had a better AC and did more damage than the fighters in the group while still having a near full compliment of sorcerer spells. I cannot possibly believe this to be true. This sorcerer is at half BAB, with merely 25 Str ('mere' because that's as high as it goes for him unless he buffs EVEN MORE), max of three claws and a bite while under Haste. Since he had a full compliment of sorcerer spells, I will assume that he did not cast Tenser's Transformation. In order to have a second Annis Hag, he would also have to have a Medium-sized or larger familiar, which means he would have to have invested a feat slot on Improved Familiar, further expending resources. Even if he actually did cast Polymorph every combat, what we have is a very bad Sorcerer. Why? Look at what he's not casting. No Wall of Force, no Evard's Black Tentacles, not even a spike-damage Orb to take out the enemy spellcaster. We have a caster spending a round becoming a Half-BAB Fighter. I will even speak from my own experiences. My own Wizard constantly has Contingency active, keyed to cast Polymorph taking the form War Troll (which I have access to) when he shouts the phrase "You will die!" He has Quickened Enlarge Person memorized, so he can keep his equipment, mainly including his longsword, which he casts Extended Greater Magic Weapon on to make +3. The sorcerer in the above example isn't keeping any equipment. He also has Tenser's Transformation memorized, because I'm sorry, but even War Troll is not going to save a BAB of +5. If I wish, he can cast Quickened Enlarge Person, shout "You will die," then cast Tenser's Transformation, click his Boots of Speed, move into position and draw his longsword. His full-attack sequence becomes +26/+26/+21/+16, bite at +24, doing 2d6+21 damage, 1d8+12 on the bite. Each hit requires a DC 27 Fort save to resist being dazed for one round. His AC becomes 35, and he has 174 hp, plus False Life. Sounds scary, right? Too broken for a Wizard, right? "Wow, Polymorph is too good," right? I have never used this tactic. Assuming all those attacks hit, that's 1d8+8d6+96, averages to 122 points/round. Meanwhile, the Fighter has had two rounds, or at least five attacks (charge attack + full-attack), all having to deal at least 25 points, which as we all know, is not very hard for a 12th-level fighter-type. More importantly, I have shed my role at the table and spent a bunch of resources in order to make an attempt at mimicking a Fighter. Even more importantly, I am not casting Wall of Force, or Arc Lightning, or Quickened Benign Transposition, or a slew of other much more useful spells. And not just in the first round, but the entire combat. And this is the extreme example of the "brokenness of Polymorph" according to WotC. Notice how they even cite War Troll in their grand announcement (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20060216a). But I am digressing, on to the main point... If a wizard, or a druid, or a cleric (or a sorcerer, etc...) wants to spend gobs of resources to mimic a fighter, is there something inherently wrong with that? Is there some unwritten rule that wizards and druids are not allowed to join melee? Because that's the rule that's suddenly being enforced here. The sorcerer in the example, assuming he is built for Polymorph, is taking a roundabout method towards doing exactly what Fighters do, and that's melee. And last time I checked, D&D wasn't about restricting people's options and forcing all of us into particular roles. Yes, Living Greyhawk had the "Polymorph Problem," as WotC called it, under control, by limiting our forms to the MM, thus elminating WotC's complaint that every new book makes the spell more powerful. Our choices in 99% of cases don't change, (my own case being one of the 1%) so what's the problem? It sounds like the concept of an arcane spellcaster with an AC and a to-hit roll is too scary to stomach. Just the mere concept, regardless of whether or not it actually happens in play. Not only that, but it even sounds like a Druid with hit points is too scary as well! Once again, last time I played D&D it wasn't about forcing anyone into any one role; if a Wizard or a Druid wants to go into melee, he is allowed to! But apparently, they're not. Which is exactly why the decision is wrong: Restricting character choices is wrong. If this rule goes through, then this campaign is saying that only fighters are allowed to do melee, and wizards are only allowed to stand in the back. D&D is not about character classes and forcing them into certain roles; it's about building your character the way you want to. -Matt
LachlarlanIII 02-08-07, 03:01 PM	But there are plenty of spells that are banned and changed in the PHB. And if you are not going to allow the players to use the feat why let the NPC use it. There will always be a GM out there that will look at the feats and then use for instance DS to jack up his clerics blasphemy. So according to the LGCS rules PC can not abuse the power, (not that I agree with them calling it abuse) but NPC can abuse the power. Where is the logic. Sol DSP and DMM aren't available for anyone, whether it's for NPCs or PCs. Neither feat has a dagger next to it, so they are basically banned from the campaign.
Timlagor 02-08-07, 03:03 PM	You must have found it in the Items Found section of an AR or it must be on the Open Items list in Appendix 4. Having one is not a means of qualifying for crafting. I understand that this is the case. Please could you explain why? It just seems crazy to me that you can craft something you picked up once five years ago but not something you have in your haversack and use every day. I can see that there might be some desire to keep crafters in check but I really don't think it would make a big difference: by definition anything you are crafting multiples of can't be *that* oerth-shattering but it does offend my sensibilities :raincloud (sorry if I missed the explanation elsewhere)
Britt 02-08-07, 03:03 PM	Which is exactly why the decision is wrong: Restricting character choices is wrong. If this rule goes through, then this campaign is saying that only fighters are allowed to do melee, and wizards are only allowed to stand in the back. D&D is not about character classes and forcing them into certain roles; it's about building your character the way you want to. No, this campaign is saying "we use the Core rules whenever possible." The polymorph errata are the Core rules. Whether you agree with the reasoning for the errata is irrelevant to the fact that they are errata. D&D is not only about building your character the way you want to. Even the amount of D&D that is about that is still subject to the rules, and these are the rules. Arguing about whether the errata should have happened is most likely not going to convince the Circle of anything. If you want to convince us not to do this, you have to somehow show that these errata are not Core rules, which isn't going to happen.
deltadave 02-08-07, 03:08 PM	The change was not intended, but I don't see a problem with it either. I will talk with the others about it. I thought that the NPC classes were, by definition, for NPC's (gasp!)....
Britt 02-08-07, 03:08 PM	I understand that this is the case. Please could you explain why? It just seems crazy to me that you can craft something you picked up once five years ago but not something you have in your haversack and use every day. I can see that there might be some desire to keep crafters in check but I really don't think it would make a big difference: by definition anything you are crafting multiples of can't be *that* oerth-shattering but it does offend my sensibilities :raincloud (sorry if I missed the explanation elsewhere) You didn't miss it, at least not explicitly stated. MIC in LG is a problem in that it doesn't have the same effects as the core rules intend. It quickly throws the GP:XP curves out of whack, further than intended by the benefit of cheap equipment the feats are intended to provide. There are a few ways we can address this (and a few we can't use). One of those is to reduce the number of times crafting can be used. Getting rid of the CL+2 rule is one way we are doing that. You were never able to craft copies of items from favors or based on owning an item. Since we want to reduce the MIC impact, we are definitely not going to increase the opportunities to craft. Trust me, this is the least of the changes we considered to MIC. We'll be keeping an eye on it and we may limit it even further or change how it works in the future, if it is necessary.
JamesMaissen 02-08-07, 03:16 PM	You must have found it in the Items Found section of an AR or it must be on the Open Items list in Appendix 4. Having one is not a means of qualifying for crafting. I'm reading it correctly that one would not need access to an item in order to repair or have it repaired, right? Some of the questions that are coming up here with frequency probably would merit inclusion either into a FAQ, a Dispel Confusion, or other form rather than expanding the basic text. I really like the idea of the LGCS being streamlined; great job! However, a separate document easing us into some of these changes might be in order to avoid prolonged confusion in this transition, James PS: It would be nice to avoid the sillyness of gear, when shapechanging, melding when it could otherwise be worn by both forms.
Britt 02-08-07, 03:19 PM	I'm reading it correctly that one would not need access to an item in order to repair or have it repaired, right? Some of the questions that are coming up here with frequency probably would merit inclusion either into a FAQ, a Dispel Confusion, or other form rather than expanding the basic text. I really like the idea of the LGCS being streamlined; great job! However, a separate document easing us into some of these changes might be in order to avoid prolonged confusion in this transition, James PS: It would be nice to avoid the sillyness of gear, when shapechanging, melding when it could otherwise be worn by both forms. 1. Correct 2. I will look at expanding the FAQ when the draft discussion is over. 3. That is a core rules issue, so we won't be addressing that.
Mattastrophic 02-08-07, 03:20 PM	It's not Core rules, because there is no errata!!! Removing Polymorph, Alter Self, etc is a houserule! The only reference to the Polymorph spell itself is in a Design and Development (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20060216a) article, which we all know is not Core rules. I will even quote it: "The latest errata doesn’t seek to “fix” polymorph. Instead, it seeks to end polymorph’s stranglehold on other elements of the game—from class features (the druid’s wild shape) to related spells (animal shapes, baleful polymorph) to the many monsters who use powers based on the same effect (such as the succubus and yuan-ti)—by revising those elements so that they can function without referring to the problematic polymorph spell. This means that players and DMs who don’t mind their spellcasters using the polymorph spell can continue to use it as written in their home games, but the number of times they come across the spell in other aspects of the game will greatly diminish." All the errata does is change Wildshape, Baleful Polymorph, A Thousand Faces, and Animal Shapes, Alternate Form, and Change Shape so that they won't reference Polymorph. Never does it do anything to change or remove Polymorph. Yes, the errata is Core rules. The errata does not remove Polymorph, Alter Self, etc; thus, the removal of Polymorph, Alter Self, etc. is not Core rules. -Matt If you want to convince us not to do this, you have to somehow show that these errata are not Core rules, which isn't going to happen.
trollbill 02-08-07, 03:20 PM	I'm kinda curious. Why is it my sorcerer can have Feindish Heritage, but not an evil Draconic Heritage?
Britt 02-08-07, 03:28 PM	It's not Core rules, because there is no errata!!! Removing Polymorph, Alter Self, etc is a houserule! You are correct that removing those three spells and MoMF is not in the errata. However, all the other changes are. We can debate those four items if you want, but in a different thread.
Bob_the_Theurge 02-08-07, 03:28 PM	removing my own comment
pneumatik 02-08-07, 03:28 PM	I highly doubt that any of the NPC classes would ever see much use, but I think it would be kinda fun to have them as options. I believe the expert allows you to choose any six skills to be class skills. It might be worth it for some difficult pclass builds. I can't think of any off the top of my head, though, and I haven't seen expert used on the CharOpt board, so it might not actually be a big deal.
Timlagor 02-08-07, 03:28 PM	You didn't miss it, at least not explicitly stated. MIC in LG is a problem in that it doesn't have the same effects as the core rules intend. It quickly throws the GP:XP curves out of whack, further than intended by the benefit of cheap equipment the feats are intended to provide. There are a few ways we can address this (and a few we can't use). One of those is to reduce the number of times crafting can be used. Getting rid of the CL+2 rule is one way we are doing that. You were never able to craft copies of items from favors or based on owning an item. Since we want to reduce the MIC impact, we are definitely not going to increase the opportunities to craft. Trust me, this is the least of the changes we considered to MIC. We'll be keeping an eye on it and we may limit it even further or change how it works in the future, if it is necessary. I can see your point and fully accept the CL+2 rule going. ..but I still think that allowing MIC of items on one's MIL would have a trivial impact while removing a fairly major 'doubletake factor'. I'd be interested to know what other measures were contemplated/discussed for this. Such considerations should bear in mind that the traditional requirement that people keep their crafting feats will be much more onerous if you do make major changes (which would of course move LG waway from the Core RAW). [Not sure how wise it would be to mention them here and now though.. could you send me a pm if you're willing to share?]
LachlarlanIII 02-08-07, 03:31 PM	I believe the expert allows you to choose any six skills to be class skills. It might be worth it for some difficult pclass builds. I can't think of any off the top of my head, though, and I haven't seen expert used on the CharOpt board, so it might not actually be a big deal. It's any 10 skills to be class skills and 6+Int skill points per level.
Gelth 02-08-07, 03:32 PM	Far as I know, you'll now be able to swap out crafting feats when you level, for some cash and TUs. If you don't want the crafting feat any more, don't keep it. --Penn, Ket Triad
Timlagor 02-08-07, 03:34 PM	Several of the FAQ entries are questions that are simply not covered in the main part of the document. Please could you give serious thought to moving them out of this section and putting them in the main chapters. An FAQ is a useful format for clarifying questions that are essentially covered already and making them crystal clear but should not be necessary reading for someone who believes they understan the rules already (espcially if it's also in an Appendix).
ranagrande 02-08-07, 03:35 PM	I believe the expert allows you to choose any six skills to be class skills. It might be worth it for some difficult pclass builds. I can't think of any off the top of my head, though, and I haven't seen expert used on the CharOpt board, so it might not actually be a big deal. It allows you to choose ten, and that's really the only one I can see ever being used as well. However, with Bard, Beguiler, Ranger, Rogue, and Scout, you should be able to find the combination that you need. There might be some crazy combination that Expert is good for, but there are a lot of penalties involved in taking it.
Timlagor 02-08-07, 03:36 PM	I believe the expert allows you to choose any six skills to be class skills. It might be worth it for some difficult pclass builds. I can't think of any off the top of my head, though, and I haven't seen expert used on the CharOpt board, so it might not actually be a big deal. CharOpt has Able Learner. I can imagine people wanting expert or aristocrat for a particular combination of proficiency and/or skills but I can't imagine it having serious implications for balance -they'll go into the 'quirky builds' rather than the 'power builds'
Timlagor 02-08-07, 03:39 PM	Far as I know, you'll now be able to swap out crafting feats when you level, for some cash and TUs. If you don't want the crafting feat any more, don't keep it. --Penn, Ket Triad Good point! I'd just got so used to seeing the conversion rules requiring people to keep them ;) Personally I like having crafting in the campaign. I wouldn't be devastated by it's disappearance but I would consider it a shame and systems like Xen'Drik's are a poor substitute for our current one imo.
Britt 02-08-07, 03:39 PM	Several of the FAQ entries are questions that are simply not covered in the main part of the document. Please could you give serious thought to moving them out of this section and putting them in the main chapters. An FAQ is a useful format for clarifying questions that are essentially covered already and making them crystal clear but should not be necessary reading for someone who believes they understan the rules already (espcially if it's also in an Appendix). Could you point out which ones and how they could be concisely moved into the text? I already did that to most of them that I could see logically applying in the text.
Britt 02-08-07, 03:40 PM	As for what else we considered for MIC, I'd rather not start debates on something that isn't an issue. We can bring it up after the LGCS is done, but for now, I'd rather avoid it :)
Jon_N 02-08-07, 03:40 PM	I highly doubt that any of the NPC classes would ever see much use, but I think it would be kinda fun to have them as options. Agreed. I'm sure that a lot of people would probably take at least one PC with an NPC class, but at the same time, they're really doing damage to their build at later levels. It's kind of like a built in auto-nerf :) End of the day, I think the NPC classes are good and should be included in the campaign as generally allowable classes. What they do allow for is the fighter who rose from commoner status (yes, assuming he can get to second level with the 6 hit points or so he has at first level :)) - or the adept who decided to become a wizard after getting himself into hot water one too many times. It's the stuff that epic fantasy novels are made of, yet we seem to expect everyone to start their career as a seasoned adventurer. Another :thumbsup: (vote) for allowing these into the game.
Dominick 02-08-07, 03:41 PM	The reason why we can't allow the wisdom bonus from a Periapt to be retained in wildshape, is because that would be an errata on an errata? I like the new LGCS, this one thing would be annoying. EDIT: NM NM No, they do not get those slots. The new text says: Equipment does not automatically resize unless specifically stated otherwise by the effect. If you change size and the effect does not state what happens to your items, only items in the following slots continue to function normally: cloak, amulet/brooch, and weapons. All other items either fall off or are absorbed into your new form and cease to function.
XLR8DMadness 02-08-07, 04:00 PM	The reason why we can't allow the wisdom bonus from a Periapt to be retained in wildshape, is because that would be an errata on an errata? I like the new LGCS, this one thing would be annoying. EDIT: NM NM No, they do not get those slots. The new text says: Equipment does not automatically resize unless specifically stated otherwise by the effect. If you change size and the effect does not state what happens to your items, only items in the following slots continue to function normally: cloak, amulet/brooch, and weapons. All other items either fall off or are absorbed into your new form and cease to function. I wish it was like that, but he went on to say that Wildshape specifically tells you what happens to your equipment. So no keeping the periapt for the wildshapers still.
Howie23 02-08-07, 04:10 PM	Can we get a specific reference to availability of masterwork items for all of the open access stuff (arms/armor/shields). David
Timlagor 02-08-07, 04:28 PM	Could you point out which ones and how they could be concisely moved into the text? I already did that to most of them that I could see logically applying in the text. I'll have a go ...but not right now. I did have a couple in mind but haven't really thought about how to fit them in earlier. I did notice that the FAQ section is a lot shorter and since I haven't said it yet: you're doing a fantastic job!
uncawes 02-08-07, 04:29 PM	That's the problem for some characters - they took an 8 Constitution with the expectation they'd always be in a form with a higher Constitution. I don't think the Circle has much sympathy for that. Guess it ought to be interesting to see how much the rebuild allows statwise. How did they expect to survive to 5th level where they could wildshape? Having played a bard with 8 CON, who died three times before making it to 8th - and 10 CON - it's hard to see how there wasn't a fairly high mortality rate along this path.
LachlarlanIII 02-08-07, 04:45 PM	How did they expect to survive to 5th level where they could wildshape? Having played a bard with 8 CON, who died three times before making it to 8th - and 10 CON - it's hard to see how there wasn't a fairly high mortality rate along this path. They stood in the back while their animal companion did all the dirty work. I know someone with an 8 Con druid and if I recall correctly, that's how he survived until 5th.
Mommy was an Orc 02-08-07, 04:45 PM	How did they expect to survive to 5th level where they could wildshape? Having played a bard with 8 CON, who died three times before making it to 8th - and 10 CON - it's hard to see how there wasn't a fairly high mortality rate along this path. They likely had a 16 Int or so and an 18 Wisdom. With maxxed out Spot/Listen scores, they're hard to surprise. And most of the people trying such a thing are your tactical specialist power gamers - it might be dangerous, but they've still got Grey Elf Wizard hit points.
Swiftbrook 02-08-07, 04:55 PM	15 pages in 23 hours :cool: I would like to see all characters allowed one (1) retraining option, preferably free, to be taken on their first AR following the release of the LGCS. -Swiftbrook
Crazy Boro 02-08-07, 05:11 PM	Any chance of expanding the Healer spell list? They were in an early book and I think there was an entry about adding spells to the list in possibly the Spell Compendium. Offhand, I think the vigor line of spells, healing lorecall, restful sleep, and delay death would be good choices. Not sure of any other good choices as I don't have my books handy.
tcarpenterjr 02-08-07, 05:21 PM	Regarding the % of xp loss equals a corresponing % of gold loss ruleing for those who multiclass. I feel this is unnecessary and seems to be an arbitrary punishment. The Players Handbook is clear regarding the xp loss and makes no provision for further punishment regarding gold loss as well. I would like to see the Players Handbook ruleing left as is and not modified in this instance. Please reconsider.Thank you, however, for streamling the LGCS. Less to print out, easier to find things is good. Tom
King Kashue 02-08-07, 05:27 PM	Regarding the % of xp loss equals a corresponing % of gold loss ruleing for those who multiclass. I feel this is unnecessary and seems to be an arbitrary punishment. The Players Handbook is clear regarding the xp loss and makes no provision for further punishment regarding gold loss as well. I would like to see the Players Handbook ruleing left as is and not modified in this instance. Please reconsider.Thank you, however, for streamling the LGCS. Less to print out, easier to find things is good. Tom Except there is no "Players Handbook Ruling" on gold, one way or the other, because home campaigns don't give out gold in the same manner as LG. The reasoning has already been explained, in that there are people intentionally incurring XP penalties so that their character can out run the normal XP/GP curve, and put themselves at an advantage vs. other characters that level. I've talked with several people who are doing this, or are planning to do it. It's a legitimate problem and a perfectly reasonable and effective solution.
David Argall 02-08-07, 05:46 PM	"-Restriction of stregth bows to +4 removed" I can't seem to find this change in the LGCS. Can you point me to it? Alternately, can you just stick to PH rules and leave strength bows at +4? It is not a needed change, and indeed can produce some very broken PCs. Strength bows are also poorly priced, at 100 per point, while just about everything else increases the price by the square. So a +10 bow would cost only 1000 gp instead of 10,000. So if you do open the gates here, you should increase the price.
Britt 02-08-07, 05:48 PM	"-Restriction of stregth bows to +4 removed" I can't seem to find this change in the LGCS. Can you point me to it? Alternately, can you just stick to PH rules and leave strength bows at +4? It is not a needed change, and indeed can produce some very broken PCs. Strength bows are also poorly priced, at 100 per point, while just about everything else increases the price by the square. So a +10 bow would cost only 1000 gp instead of 10,000. So if you do open the gates here, you should increase the price. The rule is there by omission. The rules in the PH allow for any STR of bow to be made, not just to +4. The restriction was an LG creation based on ambiguity in 3.0 regarding whether anything higher than +4 existed. That ambiguity was removed in 3.5.
Divine Dwarf 02-08-07, 05:51 PM	[QUOTE=Bob_the_Theurge;11419043] "If you can explain what was so broken about them, I'm all ears. Keep in mind that I've seen caster level 28 nonsense out of advanced monsters in modules, so DSP isn't anything compared to that. Divine Metamagic, without Nighsticks, wasn't a problem either. There'd better be a good reason for this one." i've read this one before. Here's your answer: Cleric 13. Good Domain. Bead of Karma. Orange Ioun Stone. Casts Holy Word, using Divine Spellpower. Has the improved turning feat, a circlet of persuasion, and cloak of charisma. Gonna bump it 4 or 5 levels. Cleric 13 casts Holy Word at 22nd level. All monsters Up to caster level -5: Paralyzed, blinded, deafened So this guy playing at APL 12 -> EL +3 = 15. so basically, unless these are undead (where CR is usually 1/2 hit dice) or have really high SR (over 30 at apl 12??) this guy BLOWS AWAY FINAL COMBAT with 1 spell, Game oVER!!! IF they are undead, he's an RSoP turning at 18th (circlet, improved turning) and blows them up with greater turning. either way, a cheesed out RSoP with 3 feats blows up every combat. Throw in Domain Spontaneity and he gets 2 holy words or more... i won't even talk about Divine meta-magic. Right after they did away with 3.0 Haste allowing 2 spells per round, they introduce divine metamagic and allow it right back in. Cleric 1 human, 2 feats - Extra Turning and ? silly
Bob_the_Theurge 02-08-07, 05:57 PM	[QUOTE=Bob_the_Theurge;11419043]"If you can explain what was so broken about them, I'm all ears. Keep in mind that I've seen caster level 28 nonsense out of advanced monsters in modules, so DSP isn't anything compared to that. Divine Metamagic, without Nighsticks, wasn't a problem either. There'd better be a good reason for this one." i've read this one before. Here's your answer: Cleric 13. Good Domain. Bead of Karma. Orange Ioun Stone. Casts Holy Word, using Divine Spellpower. Has the improved turning feat, a circlet of persuasion, and cloak of charisma. Gonna bump it 4 or 5 levels. Cleric 13 casts Holy Word at 22nd level. You just proved my point. The "Problem" of Divine Spellpower isn't Divine Spellpower, it's the ridiculously broken Holy Word spell that allows an autokill with no save based on caster level. And you don't even know how the feat works: DSP tops out at a max of +4. Holy Word, Dictum, Word of Chaos, and Blasphemy - which are all basically the same spell just for each alignment set - are the only spells in the entirety of D&D that see this kind of a behavior. That's not the fault of the DSP feat, or even of caster level, it's a problem in the bad game design that created these broken spells.
garyjohnson 02-08-07, 06:02 PM	Do you really think people would sacrifice a level with no BAB or spellcasting to get 240 gp? I doubt it, personally. I expect most people who take an aristocrat level would do so for the RP benefit of being able to say, "Look, I really am an aristocrat! I have a level in it!" :) Cheers, Gary Johnson
King Kashue 02-08-07, 06:04 PM	And you don't even know how the feat works: DSP tops out at a max of +4. You're always so dismissive of others... Should we dismiss you so quickly when you demonstrate you don't know how improved familiar works, or state that druid's wildshape can be dispelled (as you have in two other threads)? Do you realize how caustic you are, or is it that you congenitally incapable of conducting a civil conversation? I actually agree with you in this instance, but your rhetorical style is so off-putting that you lose much of the persuasiveness of your reasoning...
Britt 02-08-07, 06:06 PM	Update: "trained for war" will not be addressed by the LGCS. No, I can't tell you why. Complain if you want, but it won't do anyone any good. :)
Bob_the_Theurge 02-08-07, 06:10 PM	I expect most people who take an aristocrat level would do so for the RP benefit of being able to say, "Look, I really am an aristocrat! I have a level in it!" :) Cheers, Gary Johnson People take roleplaying skills (Perform: Eating Contest) for the same reasons :)
Eric Anondson 02-08-07, 06:12 PM	You're always so dismissive of others... Should we dismiss you so quickly when you demonstrate you don't know how improved familiar works, or state that druid's wildshape can be dispelled (as you have in two other threads)? Do you realize how caustic you are, or is it that you congenitally incapable of conducting a civil conversation? I actually agree with you in this instance, but your rhetorical style is so off-putting that you lose much of the persuasiveness of your reasoning...He enjoys grievance theater and performance anger. He's not arguing to convince, but to bludgeon with righteous disgruntlement. Just don't get him peeved, or else HULK SMASH! :D
ragecage79 02-08-07, 06:13 PM	[QUOTE=Divine Dwarf;11430016] And you don't even know how the feat works: DSP tops out at a max of +4. Jeez, kinda venomous. I think he was including the bead in the calculation.
rook1138 02-08-07, 06:15 PM	[QUOTE=Divine Dwarf;11430016] And you don't even know how the feat works: DSP tops out at a max of +4. That's actually a point of debate, depending on how one reads several items and how they interact with turning/turning results/DSP. Some specifically say they increase the final result, thus being able to push it beyond the +4 inherent with the turning table in the PHB. Such items include the sacred enhancement from BoED, which increases the result by +2 or 3 (which some even argue stacks with itself if one has a sacred armor AND a sacred shield since they are "different sources", but I won't get into that one yet). Possibly the Phylactery of Undead Turning, but that's questionable at best. Sacred armor alone brings it to basically a +6 or 7 to caster level (since maxing your check to getting the max result on a 1 isn't really that difficult at the mid to high levels if you really try for it.) Mix in extra turning, and you are looking at +6 or 7 CL to 10-12 spells per day. Beeds of Karma just make the problem worse (but luckily, the price on those is a LOT higher than listed in my DMG, so at least thats good). I don't really care what the spell is, be it Blasphemy, Holy Word, GMW, Magic Vestments, Dismissal, Greater Dispel Magic, Blade Barrier, or whatever. Because the feat is poorly worded, when used in conjunction with other poorly worded options, it becomes obscene. These conditions generally result if something being banned from the campaign, especially since we can't generally change them. Most people I play with that have it have been using it have pretty much been EXPECTING it to be removed at some point (and many are surprised it took this long). Matt T - Not an official post Pale Triad BAN GLITTERDUST!
Gyro_LC 02-08-07, 06:23 PM	Update: "trained for war" will not be addressed by the LGCS. No, I can't tell you why. Complain if you want, but it won't do anyone any good. :) Oh no! Don't tell me Complete Animal is coming out soon! :P
Britt 02-08-07, 06:28 PM	Oh no! Don't tell me Complete Animal is coming out soon! :P No, that's too broad of a category. It's actually Complete Riding Dog. Another update or two: We are leaning towards mindblank to replay poly any object. We are leaning towards removing the metallic only restrictions on the draconic feats.
Bob_the_Theurge 02-08-07, 06:34 PM	He enjoys grievance theater and performance anger. He's not arguing to convince, but to bludgeon with righteous disgruntlement. Just don't get him peeved, or else HULK SMASH! :D /me takes out a stick and a hotdog and starts cooking it on the glow of the flame...
CaiasWard 02-08-07, 06:57 PM	http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=787791 Hoping to get this looked at (as a separate thread). Just my views on equipment for cohorts and the 're-equipping' of them each level being awkward, as well as some solutions that are equitable.
copper_wyrmling 02-08-07, 07:10 PM	That's actually a point of debate, depending on how one reads several items and how they interact with turning/turning results/DSP. Some specifically say they increase the final result, thus being able to push it beyond the +4 inherent with the turning table in the PHB. Such items include the sacred enhancement from BoED, which increases the result by +2 or 3 (which some even argue stacks with itself if one has a sacred armor AND a sacred shield since they are "different sources", but I won't get into that one yet). Possibly the Phylactery of Undead Turning, but that's questionable at best. Sacred armor alone brings it to basically a +6 or 7 to caster level (since maxing your check to getting the max result on a 1 isn't really that difficult at the mid to high levels if you really try for it.) :teach: I'm pretty sure that this is wrong. The Sacred armor enhancement "increases the owner's effective level for the turning check by +2". But Divine Spellpower does not replace your caster level with your effective turning level, or the max HD you can turn: it applies "the result of the turning check as a modifier to your caster level". That only makes sense at all if what they mean by "the result of the turning check" is the number between -4 and +4 in the table on PHB p.159 (which, conveniently, is titled "Turning Check Result"), which is completely independent of the turner's level. Sacred doesn't do anything to the turning check result, it just increases the base level that you would normally apply the check result to, but DSP requires you to apply the check result to a completely different number (your caster level). Thus, they do not synergize... I still think DSP was too good, but I don't think this is a good argument against it :) Pale Triad BAN GLITTERDUST! No! Ban Sculpt instead! Please! ... then I'd get to retrain it for free rather than spending 4 TUs to do it :weep:
Fell_Logic 02-08-07, 07:19 PM	This new LGCS looks good. Many thanks to the circle for listening to some of the more frequent player remarks. The new access rules look very nice indeed. A question: The crafting rules state that charged items are always created with full charges. On a couple of occasions, I've seen access to partially charged items. Does this qualify as access to create the fully charged version? (I believe the answer should be yes, but I'm not entirely sure) Also, as a consistency issue, Wu Jen is Closed access. As such, all the Wu Jen only spells in Complete Arcane were restricted in previous versions of the LGCS, and remain Closed in this LGCS. While lacking access to Wu Jen makes the status of their spells a non-issue (unless scrolls fall into the hands of characters with significant UMD), for consistency, can we either remove the spells from the Closed list, or add the following items (all from Complete Mage) Spells: Arboreal Transformation Elemental Eye Rain of Spines Storm of Needles Transcend Mortality Feats: Defending Spirit Elemental Adept Hasty Spirit Vengeful Spirit
Britt 02-08-07, 07:27 PM	Update: We likely are leaving the APL+3 rule as we have it in the draft. We are likely leaving access to the NPC classes in. I'm taking a break now and maybe a nap. Dinner doesn't sound bad either.
Necrochaos 02-08-07, 07:33 PM	Question on weapons and armor. So do I have access to all weapon and armor enhancements in the DMG? Or can I only have access to base +1-+5 weapons? Also, if I buy a +1 weapon (say a longsword), can I later upgrade the weapon to flaming and only pay the difference between that +1 and +2 or do I have to sell the +1 weapon and pay full price for the +2 weapon? I'm a little slow, so please be kind
CdrcJsn 02-08-07, 07:47 PM	No, that's too broad of a category. It's actually Complete Riding Dog. LOL!:D But I'd still buy it...:P
DuctShuiTengu 02-08-07, 08:59 PM	Okay, 4 things: Love the new format. Was slightly confusing at first, but once I figured out the NONC stuff, it was pretty easy to understand (though I will second the suggestion that the LGCS at least mention the existance of such a category). I know this was asked before, but I missed the answer (or maybe there wasn't one): the tables for both weapons and armor were included from Races of Stone, Sandstorm, and Stormwrack, but only the weapons from Races of the Wild (Frostburn, Complete Adventurer, and Complete Warrior have no new armors). Was this an oversight, or are they intentionally being excluded from the increased levels of open access. (p.s. love that we're no-longer having to cross our fingers and pray for access to these things). I think I know the answer to this, but since I didn't see it covered... are racial substitution levels and alternate class features still Closed? (Something to consider for next time if you don't want to add this much extra work this late. And the rules for retraining would mean that people wouldn't get blocked from being able to use them by having already taken that level) Might I suggest that, in place of the current alignment restrictions on Dragon Disciples, using something akin to the rules for acceptable alignments for divine spell-casters who follow a deity of a given alignment? (I.E. Gold Dragon Disciples must be LG, NG, or LN. And if they become CG, they can't advance as a DD anymore) the current restrictions against ever voluntarily changing your alignment (even to one that's still allowed for your type of dragon) seems a bit clunky and heavy-handed. Edit: added a 4th item.
Arvagor 02-08-07, 09:05 PM	Love the new format. Was slightly confusing at first, but once I figured out the NONC stuff, it was pretty easy to understand (though I will second the suggestion that the LGCS at least mention the existance of such a category)."NONC" is not the category you are looking for... :emp:
muttoo 02-08-07, 09:10 PM	> Languages Is Undercommon supposed to be NONC? > Spell Clarifications > If a spell increases your size and another spell tries to > increase your size again, that portion of the spell fails So if a supernatural ability increases your size, does that stack with the size increase from a spell? > Familiars > If a familiar is dismissed or dies and is > not raised, the master must spend 53 TUs in adventures or > metaorgs before being able to summon another. After the second January 1 after the death, the master should also be able to summon another. > Beguilers I wouldn’t have allowed them at all, so feel free to keep all their new spells limited. That would also greatly reduce the amount of text needed to add an NPC beguiler to a module. Suggestion for writers’ guidelines: if there’s more than one NPC Beguiler in a module, they should be working against each other.
MikeJS 02-08-07, 09:19 PM	http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=11427963#post11423947I agree with Matt. (And furthermore: Most of these allegedly cheesed-out "monster gishes" would be fragged by an NPC full-caster who sticks to spells, or, for that matter, an Enlightened Fist with 14s in most stats who picks up Arcane Disciple for the Competition domain for casting Divine Power. If'n ya wanna talk fun n' games here....I'll shish-ke-bob 'em with a halfling paladin/outrider on a wardog charging with a swizzle-stick for 3d6+UnChristlyGobs. Or the Reckless Rage centaur "archer" with Brutal Throw. Little old granny cleric of Pelor who casts Righteous Might and clobbers with a Spiked greatclub after flipping the Strength domain switch. Painted-by-numbers EWM spiked-chain full-BAB/2hPA tripper. Or....[fill in the blank with your favorite munchkin].) There are a virtually unlimited number of ways to build Stinko Cheese in this game; anything that stands out in broad daylight waiting to be targeted by maximized ray spells is far from the worst possible.
chadp 02-08-07, 09:36 PM	I know this was asked before, but I missed the answer (or maybe there wasn't one): the tables for both weapons and armor were included from Races of Stone, Sandstorm, and Stormwrack, but only the weapons from Races of the Wild (Frostburn, Complete Adventurer, and Complete Warrior have no new armors). Was this an oversight, or are they intentionally being excluded from the increased levels of open access. The Circle has deliberately avoided access to armor with 0% arcane spell failure in the past, so I would expect to see Thistledown et al removed even if the Armor table were added. If you'd like to make a case for including the list, I recommend being clear on whether or not you want access to things like Thistledown and Leafweave. I further recommend that you not waste too much time on arguments asking for Thistledown and the like. :-) That's just my opinion, though.
MikeJS 02-08-07, 09:48 PM	You're always so dismissive of others...Do you realize how caustic you are, or is it that you congenitally incapable of conducting a civil conversation?This is known as "pouring gasoline on the flames", a seemingly calculated attempt to create more of what one purports to not want. I dislike seeing it more than the initial flame.
ragecage79 02-08-07, 09:53 PM	This is known as "pouring gasoline on the flames", a seemingly calculated attempt to create more of what one purports to not want. I dislike seeing it more than the initial flame. Hi, Pot, this is what's known as the kettle. ;)
david_w_baker 02-08-07, 09:57 PM	This is known as "pouring gasoline on the flames", a seemingly calculated attempt to create more of what one purports to not want. I dislike seeing it more than the initial flame. Does this observation apply to your own post? David
Trollios 02-08-07, 10:02 PM	I have one small request, can we either go back to three lists, or take everything that is "NONC" and make it either Open or Closed. Because something can only be open or closed, there is no third option. Also, as someone who is just a casual D&D player, the whole if it's not here it's limited thing was immensely annoying. and I find the new Open/Closed/NONC even moreso because it just confuses the issue. Say I'm interested in being a Duskblade. Well it's not in the closed list, so I can play one. But it's not in the open list, so I can't play one. In fact it's not mentioned at all, but I know Duskblade is in PH2 which is an allowed source. And it says there are 2 categories, open and closed, and no mention of this third "NONC" category. So if I'm interested in playing, I don't know whether I can play a Duskblade or not. Please make it more new player friendly. And, I'm really upset to be losing DMM, but I can understand. I think some areas with a limited number of players (unfortunately like here in WPB) will be really hurt by the no playing down ruling. frequently we have groups where a players has either his level 10 or a level 3, which kind of screws you if everyone else is around 4 or 5 for a APL 6 mod.
markjsb 02-08-07, 10:05 PM	[QUOTE=LachlarlanIII;11418666]. Also, Divine Metamagic has been made Closed.QUOTE] I want my Divine Metamagic.:weep: Thank you and good night.
MikeJS 02-08-07, 10:07 PM	The Circle has deliberately avoided access to armor with 0% arcane spell failure in the past, so I would expect to see Thistledown et al removed even if the Armor table were added. I don't follow the reasoning -- until this year, ALL splatbook armors were limited access, so there's no way to tell whether TC "deliberately" has it in for Thistledown as opposed to any other armor (unless you have some inside skuttlebutt you'd like to share). There are also a lot of non-caster elves and halflings who can easily push a 30 DEX without breaking a sweat -- Thistledown is literatally the only armor they can wear.If you'd like to make a case for including the list, I recommend being clear on whether or not you want access to things like Thistledown and Leafweave.I suspect the real reason table RotW 7-2 isn't listed is because it contains some mithril armors. Opening 7-2 items costing less than 1000gp solves that problem.
ragecage79 02-08-07, 10:09 PM	I have one small request, can we either go back to three lists, or take everything that is "NONC" and make it either Open or Closed. Because something can only be open or closed, there is no third option. Also, as someone who is just a casual D&D player, the whole if it's not here it's restricted thing was immensely annoying. and I find the new Open/Closed/NONC even moreso because it just confuses the issue. Say I'm interested in being a Duskblade. Well it's not in the closed list, so I can play one. But it's not in the open list, so I can't play one. In fact it's not mentioned at all, but I know Duskblade is in PH2 which is an allowed source. And it says there are 2 categories, open and closed, and no mention of this third "NONC" category. So if I'm interested in playing, I don't know whether I can play a Duskblade or not. Please make it more new player friendly. It may be helpful to think of the new classifications in relation to the old ones. It's really pretty much the same. Open=Core, NONC=Limited, and Closed=Restricted/NPC Only. In the old LGCS, the limited spells/PrCs/feats weren't listed either, so if it wasn't on the list you needed AR access. That's what cleared up the confusion for me.
Trollios 02-08-07, 10:17 PM	It may be helpful to think of the new classifications in relation to the old ones. It's really pretty much the same. Open=Core, NONC=Limited, and Closed=Restricted/NPC Only. In the old LGCS, the limited spells/PrCs/feats weren't listed either, so if it wasn't on the list you needed AR access. That's what cleared up the confusion for me. I understand that's the idea behind it, but in the LGCS it says The rules options in this document are divided into two types of access: • Open: A PC may take advantage of Open rules items if it meets all the prerequisites. • Closed: A PC may not take advantage of any rules item listed as Closed, ever. It doesn't give a third option. Why not just put them as closed with a DM only option for now, and if they change their mind (like healer) they then put them in open. Imagine I'm writing a mod, going by the LGCS, can I make an NPC duskblade? There's no answer either way, leading to confusion and regional variation on something that really shouldn't, at least in my opinion.
MikeJS 02-08-07, 10:18 PM	Does this observation apply to your own post? -- David(Oh, why not? It's like the cast-of-dozens pie-fight at the end of "The Shaggy DA" (Disney version) now. *splat!* Mmm...butterscotch.)
ragecage79 02-08-07, 10:30 PM	I understand that's the idea behind it, but in the LGCS it says It doesn't give a third option. Why not just put them as closed with a DM only option for now, and if they change their mind (like healer) they then put them in open. Imagine I'm writing a mod, going by the LGCS, can I make an NPC duskblade? There's no answer either way, leading to confusion and regional variation on something that really shouldn't, at least in my opinion. There's no variation. You can make a duskblade PC if you have AR access and you can make a duskblade NPC whenever. The idea behind not listing every new spell/PrC/feat is that this way the access from new books can be added to AR's right away and it doesn't require as much revision. If they had to list everything and periodically re-evaluate which ones to switch and add, it would be terribly time consuming and inconvenient. Revising rules documents, like this one, is a fairly elaborate process. Heck, I was only partially involved in my regions meta-org reorganization and I thought that was a headache. :P On a related note, my heart and thanks go out to Britt and the gang for putting this together.
Morgen 02-08-07, 10:35 PM	I hope this doesn’t get buried. Let Kobolds...erm...no, that isn't it. Oh, yes! The Landless Noble feat! The entry says: Landless Nobility and Celestial Scion (House Cranden): Replace the first sentence under “Benefits” with the following: You begin play with more gold than normal for your class. Beguilers, fighters, hexblades, knights, paladins, rangers, and swashbucklers begin with 100 extra GP; clerics, favored souls, marshals, rogues, and scouts begin with 75 extra GP; barbarians, bards, healers, sorcerers, warmages, and wizards begin with 50 extra GP; druids begin with 25 extra GP. Monks do not gain any extra gold by virtue of this feat. Please don't forget to add in the NPC classes to this list too please! I have every intention of playing them if your going to allow them, and it makes a lot of sense for the region I'm hiding in to take that feat with my new Shield Lands character.
GrahamWills 02-08-07, 10:38 PM	I don't understand what people are confused about with the tri-state OPEN/CLOSED/NONC labelings. If you are looking at what X's are available to you, then you look only at the OPEN list and what you have access to. If you have access to it, check that it's not on the CLOSED list and you are done. The closed list's only real purpose (for players) is to override AR's. I basically never both looking at it; it's only there in case an old AR lets me have access to Alter Self ...
sir evets 02-08-07, 10:46 PM	Charity of Friends rule pg13 This is confusing for the average player. You need to explain WHY CoF is available and how to use it in real life. Death:Equipement pg 13 This rule is just plain silly. Why shouldn't pcs be able to use another pc's equipement? Isn't that a group decission? What happens when the pc dies? Some magical hand comes down and takes everything? Steve Kendall Pale
Britt 02-08-07, 10:46 PM	The Circle has deliberately avoided access to armor with 0% arcane spell failure in the past, so I would expect to see Thistledown et al removed even if the Armor table were added. If you'd like to make a case for including the list, I recommend being clear on whether or not you want access to things like Thistledown and Leafweave. I further recommend that you not waste too much time on arguments asking for Thistledown and the like. :-) That's just my opinion, though. It's intentionally left off because it has a lot of special material armors on it. The other charts do not. The charts that are being granted are not intended to grant more access to special materials, but rather to exotic items that you need access to before you will ever build a character around them.
King Kashue 02-08-07, 10:47 PM	This is known as "pouring gasoline on the flames", a seemingly calculated attempt to create more of what one purports to not want. I dislike seeing it more than the initial flame. I have no delusions that a comment of mine is going to change Bob's behavior (if repeated warnings from Britt and other circle members hasn't, why would mine be different)... I was just finding humor in the fact that Bob was so quick to jump on someone else understanding a rule, when at least two of his own lengthy rants involve misunderstandings of rules far more central to his argument than the one in question in his post... Further question (follow up to my Rhopan question), would it be possible to list the "core languages"? The clarification of the various flan/ancient flan/ur-flan, ancient baklunish/baklunish, etc. issues is wonderful, but could a list be added in general to explicate what languages are and aren't a part of the campaign (since the webpage that did so previously is no longer on the LG site)?
Britt 02-08-07, 10:48 PM	Charity of Friends rule pg13 This is confusing for the average player. You need to explain WHY CoF is available and how to use it in real life. Death:Equipement pg 13 This rule is just plain silly. Why shouldn't pcs be able to use another pc's equipement? Isn't that a group decission? What happens when the pc dies? Some magical hand comes down and takes everything? 1. We don't need to explain why things happen in character. This is a rules document. Explaining why and being conversational is why the last version was 78 pages long. 2. No, the gnomes take it. This has always been the rule.
Britt 02-08-07, 10:48 PM	No more talk on whether someone is trolling, flaming, or being a pot or a kettle. That thread is dead; move on.
Reska 02-08-07, 10:48 PM	(Oh, why not? It's like the cast-of-dozens pie-fight at the end of "The Shaggy DA" (Disney version) now. *splat!* Mmm...butterscotch.) Weren't all "The Shaggy DA" movies Disney versions anyway?
Britt 02-08-07, 10:50 PM	Further question (follow up to my Rhopan question), would it be possible to list the "core languages"? The clarification of the various flan/ancient flan/ur-flan, ancient baklunish/baklunish, etc. issues is wonderful, but could a list be added in general to explicate what languages are and aren't a part of the campaign (since the webpage that did so previously is no longer on the LG site)? I believe that is a complete list of Greyhawk languages, when added to the normal PH ones. There are a few other racial languages, but they aren't Open and are exceedingly rare, like Gol'kaa and monster languages.
Britt 02-08-07, 10:50 PM	Weren't all "The Shaggy DA" movies Disney versions anyway? This has NOTHING to do with the LGCS. This thread is for LGCS Draft Discussion.
Britt 02-08-07, 10:53 PM	It doesn't give a third option. Why not just put them as closed with a DM only option for now, and if they change their mind (like healer) they then put them in open. Imagine I'm writing a mod, going by the LGCS, can I make an NPC duskblade? There's no answer either way, leading to confusion and regional variation on something that really shouldn't, at least in my opinion. As has been discussed ad nauseum in other threads in the past, this cannot be done. There is far too much content to list everything that is published by WotC. All you need to know as a player is what you have access to and what you will never have access to. Nothing else matters to a player, as anything else is not guaranteed and should not be counted on at all. Anything else can be taken advantage of IF it comes along, but has no purpose in character planning. There will not be a list of other rules options besides Open and Closed. Consider that topic dead.
JCP 02-08-07, 10:53 PM	One question I haven't seen addressed as yet (and this thread is pretty long so I apologize if I missed it) is what happens with the Tattooed Monk regarding the chameleon tattoo. That tattoo says a character can use an alter self effect once per day per tattoo and it lasts an hour per level. Now that alter self is Closed, what is the effect? A) A Tattooed Monk cannot take that tatoo because alter self is closed or B) It is a class feature and effect that emulates a spell and not the spell so a TM can take that Tattoo.
sir evets 02-08-07, 10:55 PM	XP Penalties pg 14 (12) Combining XP lost due to multiclassing with GP? Why not just ban or limit multiclassing all together instead of this cheap rule? If you are going to penalize the player, do so directly instead of doing it this way.
Britt 02-08-07, 10:56 PM	Question on weapons and armor. So do I have access to all weapon and armor enhancements in the DMG? Or can I only have access to base +1-+5 weapons? Also, if I buy a +1 weapon (say a longsword), can I later upgrade the weapon to flaming and only pay the difference between that +1 and +2 or do I have to sell the +1 weapon and pay full price for the +2 weapon? Flaming is an enchantment, not an enhancement. Only the numbers are an enhancement bonus. So you have access to +1 to +5 numbers, but not flaming. If you get a favor that allows upgrading to flaming, or if you have a +1 longsword and find a +1 flaming longsword, you can pay to upgrade to a +1 flaming longsword. Note: If you had a +1 holy longsword and found a +1 flaming longsword, you could not upgrade to a +1 flaming holy longsword, as you do not have access to purchase that. You could also not upgrade a +1 greatsword to a +1 flaming greatsword, as you don't have access to that either, only a +1 flaming longsword.
Britt 02-08-07, 10:57 PM	One question I haven't seen addressed as yet (and this thread is pretty long so I apologize if I missed it) is what happens with the Tattooed Monk regarding the chameleon tattoo. That tattoo says a character can use an alter self effect once per day per tattoo and it lasts an hour per level. Now that alter self is Closed, what is the effect? A) A Tattooed Monk cannot take that tatoo because alter self is closed or B) It is a class feature and effect that emulates a spell and not the spell so a TM can take that Tattoo. We're discussing it. We will likely say that the tattoo is Closed and you can't take it. If you have it already, you have to change it for a different tattoo.
sir evets 02-08-07, 10:58 PM	2. No, the gnomes take it. This has always been the rule.[/QUOTE] :D I always knew they were evil.
asthyril 02-08-07, 11:01 PM	I would personally like to see wild mage become a core prestige class so (in cases like myself) you would not have to build for it and just hope.
arpster 02-08-07, 11:02 PM	2. No, the gnomes take it. This has always been the rule. :D I always knew they were evil.[/QUOTE] See Gnomes should be a Closed Race. j/k couldn't resist Mel
dulgar 02-08-07, 11:11 PM	I'm fine with the removal of Alter Self. However, a potion of Alter Self was one of the only ways for a centaur to gain access to certain parts of many mods. Any chance a simple potion of 'Centaur to Medium Humanoid' could be added for all those nasty medium-sized spiral staircases and ladders? :) Thanks, Aaron
Jon_N 02-08-07, 11:16 PM	2. No, the gnomes take it. This has always been the rule. The only problem that I have with this can cause some REALLY strange behaviour. My PC lends your PC a Vest of Resistance +2. I also have a Vest of Resistance +3 which I prefer to use myself. You're wearing my Vest, but during combat, I die. Don't even make it past the second round. Under the old ruling, it was pretty much assumed that you'd at least be able to finish the combat wearing the vest and that you couldn't keep it after the combat was over (the section was titled "no wills" rather than "equipment" so that ruling could be seen as logical). This one could have GMs strip characters of gear mid combat and really screw them. Given PCs will usually only die during a combat, is there some way that the wording of this could be changed to allow gear to be used by the dead PC's friend until the end of the combat the PC died in?
Jon_N 02-08-07, 11:17 PM	I'm fine with the removal of Alter Self. However, a potion of Alter Self was one of the only ways for a centaur to gain access to certain parts of many mods. Any chance a simple potion of 'Centaur to Medium Humanoid' could be added for all those nasty medium-sized spiral staircases and ladders? Solution is to get rid of Centaurs. They aren't in the LGCS now anyway... :D <ducks and runs for cover>
JamesMaissen 02-08-07, 11:21 PM	I'm fine with the removal of Alter Self. However, a potion of Alter Self was one of the only ways for a centaur to gain access to certain parts of many mods. Any chance a simple potion of 'Centaur to Medium Humanoid' could be added for all those nasty medium-sized spiral staircases and ladders? :) Thanks, Aaron Potion of Alter Self is not a legal potion. There are rules for what spells can be made into potions and personal spells cannot be. It does put a crimp in my plans for tattoo'd monk with my centaur to get around this same problem but c'est la vie. -James PS: I really wish that we would be able to purchase any legal potion of spells that were open to us. If nothing else it would illuminate which potions are legal and which aren't rather than relying upon an incomplete list of random items to blindly choose from (worse that obviously weren't changed since 3.0.. potion of enlarge person, HEIGHTENED wand of ray of enfeeblement! et al.).
sir evets 02-08-07, 11:23 PM	Item Clarifications pg 17 (15) Equipment does not resize. Are you saying that a cleric that cast Rightious Might no longer has his armour or shield? Isn't that against the PHB rules or is there an errata I haven't heard about yet?
MikeJS 02-08-07, 11:24 PM	Can we get a specific reference to availability of masterwork items for all of the open access stuff (arms/armor/shields).--What he said.I would like to see all characters allowed one (1) retraining option, preferably free, to be taken on their first AR following the release of the LGCS.It's actually been two years since the last conversion -- I think now's a good a time as any for another (two years being the approximate interval so far).i won't even talk about Divine meta-magic. Right after they did away with 3.0 Haste allowing 2 spells per round, they introduce divine metamagic and allow it right back in. Cleric 1 human, 2 feats - Extra Turning and ? sillyDMM:Q isn't even the worst of it -- try DMM:Maximize on an Empowered Flamestrike. Yikes. DMM:Reach on a Harm is just as bad.Death:Equipement pg 13 -- This rule is just plain silly. Why shouldn't pcs be able to use another pc's equipement? Isn't that a group decission? What happens when the pc dies? Some magical hand comes down and takes everything?This ruling will introduce ridiculous weirditties like equipment passed around at the beginning of the adventure suddenly going *poof!* literally as you're holding it the split-second somebody hits -10. For instance, the barbarian is using the CritterBane martial weapon the cleric bought; the cleric gets splattered just before the barb's init. Queue confused half-orc..... -- I confess to being dense, as I can't understand what logic is behind the issuance of the ruling at all: If six PCs using six PCs' worth of equipment is fine, how does five PCs using six PCs's worth of equipment while hauling around a dead body become a problem worthy of a rules-kludge? Are the players of dead (temporarily) characters habitually complaining about what happens to their stuff?
amnuxoll 02-08-07, 11:27 PM	Update: "trained for war" will not be addressed by the LGCS. No, I can't tell you why. Complain if you want, but it won't do anyone any good. :) Can you tell us why you can't tell us why? :AMN:
sir evets 02-08-07, 11:31 PM	The Benifits from Nonadventuring Activity pg 17-18 (15-16) needs to be enlarged ;) and are you now allowing these activities outside of regional mods?
tvknight415 02-08-07, 11:32 PM	Update: We likely are leaving the APL+3 rule as we have it in the draft. What happens to gamedays who offers an APL 6-12 mod, and a player only brings a 14th level character to play it (it's part of a story arc their PC is playing in), and three other players show up with level 6 characters (and that's the highest level they have)? By the new standard, the 14th can't play at all (APL would be 8), and he can't really create a 1st level character (since it would probably be suicide for both his new character as well as the other three players). I've seen this type of situation in the past at our gamedays. It's tough enough to have to tell a player that they can't play a mod they drove 125 miles to play because two other people who signed up online didn't show. But now, you have to tell a player that they can't play because enough players showed to make a table, but they don't have compatible levels.
JamesMaissen 02-08-07, 11:50 PM	If there is a choice in APL that a party could play and one would deny certain characters from playing is that acceptable? Or would such a table be forced to play up? For example a 14th, two 10ths, and 3 8th level characters sit down to a table. They add up to 58 levels which is 10th on average plus 1 for the full table makes this 11 so they could play 12th or 10th. In the first case they can elect to bump the 14th level player and deny himm the opportunity to play. In the second case half the table will be taking xp and gold penalties (and well as likely PC deaths). I think this needs a little more thought. Perhaps it's already recieved it and I'm missing something, but this seems like a can of worms, James
Eric Anondson 02-08-07, 11:53 PM	I've seen this type of situation in the past at our gamedays. It's tough enough to have to tell a player that they can't play a mod they drove 125 miles to play because two other people who signed up online didn't show. But now, you have to tell a player that they can't play because enough players showed to make a table, but they don't have compatible levels.This will indeed suck. When I was on the triad in the Shield Lands a few years back my only outlet to play was to drive from the Twin Cities to La Crosse, WI, to play at the game days organized by Eric B. and others at DROW (Dedicated Roleplayers of Wisconsin). That let me get in at least the Highfolk mods, back home, come convention time I was part of putting them on so I almost never got to play Cores either. Were this in place back then...
GorTeX 02-08-07, 11:56 PM	Flaming is an enchantment, not an enhancement. Only the numbers are an enhancement bonus. So you have access to +1 to +5 numbers, but not flaming. If you get a favor that allows upgrading to flaming, or if you have a +1 longsword and find a +1 flaming longsword, you can pay to upgrade to a +1 flaming longsword. Note: If you had a +1 holy longsword and found a +1 flaming longsword, you could not upgrade to a +1 flaming holy longsword, as you do not have access to purchase that. You could also not upgrade a +1 greatsword to a +1 flaming greatsword, as you don't have access to that either, only a +1 flaming longsword. Just to clarify a little. This is only for paying an NPC to upgrade your equipment correct If you use Craft Arms&armor, then finding a +1 Holy Longsword allows you to add Holy to any weapon you craft, correct?
Britt 02-09-07, 12:01 AM	Just to clarify a little. This is only for paying an NPC to upgrade your equipment correct If you use Craft Arms&armor, then finding a +1 Holy Longsword allows you to add Holy to any weapon you craft, correct? Correct.
Loremistress 02-09-07, 12:06 AM	Any chance we could get Newfoundland added to the provinces included in the region Ket? Right now it's been left off the list (although it is listed on the official Ket site), and I suspect the few LGers that are there would probably like to be able to play Ket mods. Regards, Lisa Liscoumb
JamesMaissen 02-09-07, 12:13 AM	Just to clarify a little. This is only for paying an NPC to upgrade your equipment correct If you use Craft Arms&armor, then finding a +1 Holy Longsword allows you to add Holy to any weapon you craft, correct? Correct. Then as a small suggestion in the examples of upgrades in MIC could you add something like 'adding Holy to a +1 longsword' as all the current examples are improving existing abilities rather than adding new ones. -James
cycloptic_squirrel 02-09-07, 12:21 AM	What about an option of hiring someone to train an animal a trick? Under current open access, I can't purchase barding for my tiny familiar, any chance this can change? Again, draft looks great!
redgamer 02-09-07, 12:25 AM	I'm sure this happens a few places besides the one I noticed but a few people have access to pixie cohorts. Pixies have polymorph as a spell like ability. (self only so its not actually abusive) What's the fix?
Britt 02-09-07, 12:33 AM	I'm sure this happens a few places besides the one I noticed but a few people have access to pixie cohorts. Pixies have polymorph as a spell like ability. (self only so its not actually abusive) What's the fix? Those types of things are addressed by the MM errata.
MikeJS 02-09-07, 12:37 AM	What happens to gamedays who offers an APL 6-12 mod, and a player only brings a 14th level character to play it (it's part of a story arc their PC is playing in), and three other players show up with level 6 characters (and that's the highest level they have)? <snip>For example a 14th, two 10ths, and 3 8th level characters sit down to a table. They add up to 58 levels which is 10th on average plus 1 for the full table makes this 11 so they could play 12th or 10th. In the first case they can elect to bump the 14th level player and deny himm the opportunity to play. In the second case half the table will be taking xp and gold penalties (and well as likely PC deaths). In both of these situations I'm seeing a player with a 14th-level PC who brings no backup characters, and whose character who is going to utterly destroy the mod playing two full APLs down, leading to the nobody-else-is-having-any-fun scenerio which brought on the ruling in the first place. Nobody other than himself is "denying him the opportunity to play".
Gwumph 02-09-07, 12:39 AM	WOW I can't believe this thread has gone on for 17 pages and this is my first comment. Britt: great job!! So happy you are an Iuz Meta-region Circle guy.... Makes all those people from other Mea-regions jealous :) Only 1 point: Scrolls & Potions List The current one is so old is make my grandmother look young!! We have had over a dozen new books, hundreds of new spells and yet the potion & scroll list had not changed since day 1. With common core spells, such as lesser vigor and others, there is no-way to buy this spell as a scroll it just doesn't make sense. Here is my suggestion (at the risk of adding half a page) -State that all core spells are available to be bought as a Scroll or Potion as long as they conform with current brew potion/scribe scroll rules and would cost 750gp or less as standard buying price -Then in a concise manner post the rules below that statement. For me this seems the most obvious point to be updated and it fits well with this new open/close policy Regards Gwumph
Gyro_LC 02-09-07, 12:41 AM	In both of these situations I'm seeing a player with a 14th-level PC who brings no backup characters, and whose character who is going to utterly destroy the mod playing two full APLs down, leading to the nobody-else-is-having-any-fun scenerio which brought on the ruling in the first place. -- If you're taking a 3hr road-trip to game, bring your back-up characters. All of them. Not everyone has multiple characters. There are players around here that for the longest time only had level 12+ characters.
Britt 02-09-07, 12:56 AM	-State that all core spells are available to be bought as a Scroll or Potion as long as they conform with current brew potion/scribe scroll rules and would cost 750gp or less as standard buying price Sorry, we won't be adding to that list. That is the most access we agree is appropriate for those types of things. If there were tables of scrolls and potions in other books, we might consider it, but only then.
JamesMaissen 02-09-07, 01:07 AM	Sorry, we won't be adding to that list. That is the most access we agree is appropriate for those types of things. If there were tables of scrolls and potions in other books, we might consider it, but only then. There are in some of them, complete adventurer for example. But what is the appeal of relying upon static tables? And if you must have a static list, why not control this list directly? As it stands this distinction only skews the difference in spells, and thereby all those that rely upon them (Wizards in what they choose as they level for their spellbook, sorcerers for spellsknown, etc). -James
billytea 02-09-07, 01:08 AM	Sorry, we won't be adding to that list. That is the most access we agree is appropriate for those types of things. If there were tables of scrolls and potions in other books, we might consider it, but only then. Remind me, when's the Magic Item Compendium out? :P
Britt 02-09-07, 01:12 AM	Next month :)
Bold 02-09-07, 01:18 AM	Update: "trained for war" will not be addressed by the LGCS. No, I can't tell you why. Complain if you want, but it won't do anyone any good. :) and then: No, that's too broad of a category. It's actually Complete Riding Dog. Hey, I don't think he was joking! Okay, I'm going to pre-order Complete Riding Dog just for the official clarification on "trained for war"! :D Seriously though, the new LGCS is an impressive work, Britt! A major overhaul like this must've taken a wagonload of time, and it's much appreciated. Not to mention your willingness to communicate with the players--and subject yourself to the abuse of a few! And to contribute something to the thread: I think the more detail you can include in the Table of Contents (a work still in progress), the better. Or maybe have an Index at the back, unless that would be too difficult to do with the shifting page numbers? Anything which would help people find info faster would be great. I keep pressing CTRL+F on paper copies of the old LGCS, but it never quite works... ;)
cycloptic_squirrel 02-09-07, 01:19 AM	Advanced apologies, I think you adressed this already, but I can't locate it. I got the impression from your primer that no new spells will move to the open list (I'm assuming due to understandable time constraints). Will there be an update at some time in the future and if so is there an estimate of when?
Britt 02-09-07, 01:29 AM	Advanced apologies, I think you adressed this already, but I can't locate it. I got the impression from your primer that no new spells will move to the open list (I'm assuming due to understandable time constraints). Will there be an update at some time in the future and if so is there an estimate of when? Maybe and no.
cycloptic_squirrel 02-09-07, 01:37 AM	*tries not to get hopes up* thanks for the straight answers (regarding this and eveything else as well :) )
MikeJS 02-09-07, 01:37 AM	Not everyone has multiple characters. There are players around here that for the longest time only had level 12+ characters.Whose fault is that? I have characters for every APL from 2 to 10, and am quick to advance one instead of another if a "gap" is pending and threatens leaving me with fewer choices. If there's an actual game problem at all, it's a writer problem of story-arcs broken up into a dozen modules which almost guarantee making it difficult to play all of them with the same PC in the correct order. -- but even so, you've nearly two years to line them up. (I like the increasingly common idea of compressing giant arcs into fewer but larger multi-slot modules.)
copper_wyrmling 02-09-07, 01:56 AM	In both of these situations I'm seeing a player with a 14th-level PC who brings no backup characters, and whose character who is going to utterly destroy the mod playing two full APLs down, leading to the nobody-else-is-having-any-fun scenerio which brought on the ruling in the first place. Nobody other than himself is "denying him the opportunity to play". Just a note: I was in this situation at my first convention in Bissel (after moving from Australia) - I turned up with a L14, a L11 who was down to 1TU, a L4, and a L2. At mustering, I asked to play the L14 if possible, since she had a gazillion TUs left, and it had quickly become apparent that she wasn't going to get a lot of play in the Boston area where I actually live. First slot, I ended up on an APL 10 table of a min-APL-10 module where I think the levels went 6,8,9,10,14. I was worried about this issue, and I offered to pull out if they wanted me to, but they wanted a cleric and the GM said that it was a very tough scenario, so I played. We had a blast :) (and no, that wasn't just me, the other players thanked me afterwards) In the first encounter I mostly just buffed and healed people and let them have fun; the second encounter got detected in advance by our wonderful rogue and nobody wanted to run through it, including the GM (lots and lots of monsters with icky hard-to-remember special abilities), so we worked out a cunning plan involving Holy Word and invisible PCs sneaking around with Silence to prevent civilian casualties ;) And then the third encounter was EL-15 and involved a CR-14 advanced cadaver collector, so the rest of the party unchained the NPC captives (well, except for the guy who got spiked and delay-death'ed) while my cleric fought it solo. It was a little annoying to get only about 500XP and 1000gp for taking down an equal-CR monster essentially on my own (although the wizard's Grease spell was very helpful, once he finally remembered he had it about four rounds into the fight ;) ), but we had fun, and I think the others were all pretty happy that I'd been on the table. It does disappoint me a little that the new LGCS will eliminate tables like these. I can't imagine many people wanting to play down that far, with the xp/gp penalties so steep. I doubt it'll be a huge issue since I think that APL 10 table was the only time I've ever played four levels or more out of APL, but it will hamper some tables that could otherwise be very enjoyable for all involved.
Gwumph 02-09-07, 02:08 AM	Britt As was stated earlier and not trying to be super picky but..... The complete Adventure has Tables 4.7, 4.8, 4.9, 4.10 which could fit nicely into page 26 right after the first bullet point for following item and materials. All are static lists and meet current requirements. Also you might want to change the wording on that bullet point "Any DMG item with a market price of 750 GP or less from Tables 7-17, 7-23, 7-24, and 7-26." to "Any DMG item that is Open with a market price......" Gwumph
SDouek 02-09-07, 02:11 AM	[QUOTE=Bob_the_Theurge;11419043] "If you can explain what was so broken about them, I'm all ears. Keep in mind that I've seen caster level 28 nonsense out of advanced monsters in modules, so DSP isn't anything compared to that. Divine Metamagic, without Nighsticks, wasn't a problem either. There'd better be a good reason for this one." i've read this one before. Here's your answer: Cleric 13. Good Domain. Bead of Karma. Orange Ioun Stone. Casts Holy Word, using Divine Spellpower. Has the improved turning feat, a circlet of persuasion, and cloak of charisma. Gonna bump it 4 or 5 levels. Cleric 13 casts Holy Word at 22nd level. All monsters Up to caster level -5: Paralyzed, blinded, deafened So this guy playing at APL 12 -> EL +3 = 15. so basically, unless these are undead (where CR is usually 1/2 hit dice) or have really high SR (over 30 at apl 12??) this guy BLOWS AWAY FINAL COMBAT with 1 spell, Game oVER!!! IF they are undead, he's an RSoP turning at 18th (circlet, improved turning) and blows them up with greater turning. either way, a cheesed out RSoP with 3 feats blows up every combat. Throw in Domain Spontaneity and he gets 2 holy words or more... i won't even talk about Divine meta-magic. Right after they did away with 3.0 Haste allowing 2 spells per round, they introduce divine metamagic and allow it right back in. Cleric 1 human, 2 feats - Extra Turning and ? silly So get rid of holy word and it's ilk and leave my beloved DS alone please.
firestar80 02-09-07, 02:22 AM	Can we get a clarification about if using poison (milked from an animal companion) is an evil act? Is there any Hope of get Coordinated Shot of Heroes of Battle and Natural Bond as Open?
zoinks69 02-09-07, 02:26 AM	"3.0 Haste allowing 2 spells per round" Only 2? Add Quicken for 3/round :) But this is completely off-topic...
paigeoliver 02-09-07, 02:44 AM	The multiclass XP/GP penalty doesn't work over the long-term. Adding a GP penalty equal to the XP penalty for multiclass characters does not balance out either. Here is why. Upkeep, consumable items, and any other costs unrelated to purchasing permanent items. Lets say 2 characters play at APL 6. One has no XP penalty, the other has a 50 percent XP penalty. Both characters spend 100 GP on rich lifestyle for the module, both drink a 50 GP potion of healing and burn up a pair of 25 GP scrolls. Meaning it cost both characters 200 GP just to play the module. At the end of that module the character with no XP penalty is ahead 700 GP and 900 XP. At the end of the same module the character with the XP penalty is ahead 250 GP and 450 XP. The half gold rule not only doesn't make any logical sense (in any format it is used in the game, from interactives, to playing up, to playing down, to its new found link to XP penalties), but it doesn't work correctly, because it ends up being far less than half gold once you subtract the general costs of a successful mission. I would suggest simply replacing that whole bit on XP penalties with the following. "The Living Greyhawk campaign does not use the rules on experience point penalties for multiclassing." Or at the very minimum I would allow existing experience point penalty characters to be rebuilt to remove the penalties. A lot of existing experience point characters would become fairly worthless with the addition of this new rule, and will be nearly impossible to extricate from their existing penalties without some sort of rebuild. Imagine say a character who is 5th/1st/1st with none of them being favored classes. It would take the character until 13th level to get rid of the experience point penalty, and in that time they would actually fall far behind their companions because of the multiplying effect of consumable costs, upkeep costs, and other assorted costs. Using experience point penalties for multiclassing just doesn't seem to serve the campaign in any fashion. It didn't serve the campaign when multiclass characters effectively got "more money", it doesn't serve the campaign in the "Whee, I am avoiding retirement" aspect, nor does it serve the campaign now. Please either remove experience penalties altogether, or allow a rebuild of existing XP penalty characters. The experience point penalty characters that currently exist were created under one set of rules, and now those rules have changed immensely, leaving a lot of characters with XP penalties stuck with characters that will now be unviable for the rest of their careers.
gomeztoo 02-09-07, 03:01 AM	We are leaning towards removing the metallic only restrictions on the draconic feats. Can we also relax the alignment requirement for metallic dragon disciples? It is an awkward rule that you can't change alignment once you are a dragon disciple (even if one doesn't roleplay according to ones alignment). I don't have problems with penalizing (i.e. restricting access to further levels), but the current system as worded goes pretty much against how alignment works for any other class (including paladin, monk, or any prClass that demands a certain alignment). Those all allow for changing alignment.
Orbin 02-09-07, 03:30 AM	Hello, in the LGCS it states: "Equipment does not resize. If you change size, only items in the following slots continue to function normally: cloak, amulet/brooch, and weapons. All other items either fall off or are absorbed into your new form and cease to function." Was it intentional to exclude armour? If a wizard casts enlarge person on a fighter, does their armour fall off? Orbin
King Kashue 02-09-07, 04:15 AM	I believe that is a complete list of Greyhawk languages, when added to the normal PH ones. Looking back over it, you are absolutely right, I thought there were some missing... Well then, another capital job :D (Seriously, the new LCGS is impressively efficient)
King Kashue 02-09-07, 04:20 AM	Hello, in the LGCS it states: "Equipment does not resize. If you change size, only items in the following slots continue to function normally: cloak, amulet/brooch, and weapons. All other items either fall off or are absorbed into your new form and cease to function." Was it intentional to exclude armour? If a wizard casts enlarge person on a fighter, does their armour fall off? Orbin That's if you change size through a means that doesn't state what happens (most likely, wild shape)... Enlarge Person explicitly states that equipment resizes with the individual...
Morgen 02-09-07, 04:22 AM	People use Divine Spell power to force up almost all the spells they cast actually. Mostly buff spells but the odd holy word and dictum do come up. It's an effective tactic but don't make it sound like people aren’t getting daily +5 greater magic weapon'd and almost undispellable at-APL buffs. Karma Beads+DSP=Win. :) Don't forget to add the NPC classes to the Landless Noble's feat clarification! Please please! Oh, and much more importantly if we're using the Wizards rule on errata and clarifications, the Draconic Heritage feats should list the Races of the Dragon and not the Complete Arcane as their source, as the rules from Wizards state that the latest printing is always the correct rule source for anything. Just wanted to point out all these: Draconic Breath (CAr) [Metallic] Draconic Claw (CAr) Draconic Flight (CAr) Draconic Heritage (CAr) [Metallic] Draconic Legacy (CAr) [Metallic] Draconic Power (CAr) [Metallic] Draconic Presence (CAr) Draconic Resistance (CAr) [Metallic] Draconic Skin (CAr) Should be: Draconic Breath (RDr) [Metallic] Draconic Claw (RDr) Draconic Flight (RDr) Draconic Heritage (RDr) [Metallic] Draconic Legacy (RDr) [Metallic] Draconic Power (RDr) [Metallic] Draconic Presence (RDr) Draconic Resistance (RDr) [Metallic] Draconic Skin (RDr) Plus you might want to consider adding in the other three, as they are good compliments to people who love to play the dragon sorcerer! Draconic Arcane Grace, Draconic Persuasion, and Draconic Presence are all moderately powerless feats that people could enjoy wasting a slot on. Bolding used to draw attention, nothing else. I'm assuming RDr would be good for Races of the Dragon, I didn't really see it listen. I hope I made a good point about the need to keep current as was done with the Spell Compendium. Just making sure things are fixed before the editting is done! :)
MikeJS 02-09-07, 04:24 AM	(Post abortion!)
sparklegrimjaws 02-09-07, 08:11 AM	HEY BRITT You just said no more flames or trolling YET you deliberately mention that after a PC death Gnomes take their equipment. My 15th level Gnome Purveyor of Fine and Currently Not Being Used Goods Resembles that remark. Thank you for the compliment. I will now set up a special web site for all regions to use - simply report your PC death, your equipment and gold and I'll take it from there (literally) :D
scon40 02-09-07, 08:25 AM	The multiclass XP/GP penalty doesn't work over the long-term. Adding a GP penalty equal to the XP penalty for multiclass characters does not balance out either. I would suggest simply replacing that whole bit on XP penalties with the following. "The Living Greyhawk campaign does not use the rules on experience point penalties for multiclassing." 1. Removing the xp penalty is not an option. We can't change the basic DnD rules that way (we already looked into it). 2. It does balance out over the long haul, at least much closer than anything else does. We've run the numbers and compared the results to the xp/gp curve over a character's lifespan. Trust us, it works out pretty darn well. 3. It's not intended as a punishment. It's there for game balance.
Mommy was an Orc 02-09-07, 08:38 AM	Please either remove experience penalties altogether, or allow a rebuild of existing XP penalty characters. The experience point penalty characters that currently exist were created under one set of rules, and now those rules have changed immensely, leaving a lot of characters with XP penalties stuck with characters that will now be unviable for the rest of their careers. I think there's two problems here: Most people who took a long-term XP penalty knew what they were doing - they were exploiting a loophole in the APL system, a very well known loophole. Mechanical metagaming like that always gets taken away at some point. The people who are 'stuck' with such characters have been gaining excess gold ever since they took the penalty. They've got a cushion. Some people might not have much of one because they just did it, but a lot of those people are either at the point where they're just trying to delay retirement or where they can fix it by taking levels in something else.
paigeoliver 02-09-07, 08:41 AM	I don't understand the part about not being able to change the basic D&D rules, because the rule itself DOES change the basic D&D rules in setting a 50 percent cap. Would there be a possibility of perhaps a lower cap then, or at least some sort of retraining for existing XP penalty characters. This is going to effect a lot of them way more than it will affect the average druid. 1. Removing the xp penalty is not an option. We can't change the basic DnD rules that way (we already looked into it). 2. It does balance out over the long haul, at least much closer than anything else does. We've run the numbers and compared the results to the xp/gp curve over a character's lifespan. Trust us, it works out pretty darn well. 3. It's not intended as a punishment. It's there for game balance.
Bob_the_Theurge 02-09-07, 09:09 AM	People use Divine Spell power to force up almost all the spells they cast actually. That's a distortion at best and an outright mischaracterization at worst. Mostly buff spells but the odd holy word and dictum do come up. It's an effective tactic but don't make it sound like people aren’t getting daily +5 greater magic weapon'd and almost undispellable at-APL buffs. Karma Beads+DSP=Win. :) "Daily +5 greater magic weapon" - doesn't stack with normally magic gear. You're burning a 4th level spell to give a fighter a +1 or +2 bonus usually. This is not a major concern. I've seen enough CL 20+ Greater Dispelling Screens and Antimagic Fields to make the second half of your statement a lie, too.
Bob_the_Theurge 02-09-07, 09:11 AM	1. Removing the xp penalty is not an option. We can't change the basic DnD rules that way (we already looked into it). But we can change the basic DnD rules by adding another penalty to it? *Error Logic Failure* 2. It does balance out over the long haul, at least much closer than anything else does. We've run the numbers and compared the results to the xp/gp curve over a character's lifespan. Trust us, it works out pretty darn well. I agree with this argument (and with adding the GP penalty) much more than the first, which was an obvious cop-out. 3. It's not intended as a punishment. It's there for game balance.Completely agreed!
TWG_Prometheus 02-09-07, 09:13 AM	From page 2 lower left column: "Sale of any LG campaign certificate, or trade contrary to the certificate trading rules, will be penalized..." Can we apply the same language to purchasing said certificates as well as selling them?
Trollios 02-09-07, 09:23 AM	Not everyone has multiple characters. There are players around here that for the longest time only had level 12+ characters. I just want to add another story to the arguments against not playing down. Recently I went to an interactive, the interactive was set up to have APL 2, APL 4 APL 6 APL 8 APL 10 APL 12 and APL14 tables, so everyone could play APL 14 table had 6 players, APL12 table had six players APL10 had 6. There was only 1 level 8 character at the interactive. the next highest were 2 level 5s , then APL 2 had 6 players, APL 4 had 5 players. If the APL8 could not have played the APL 4 table, she could have created a new character, but that would have bumped a level 2 player to the APL4 table, that we had a hard time getting through even with the APL 8. And sometimes it's hard to make sure you can cover every APL, I rarely go to conventions. I work during most local gamedays. Do you think I'd prefer to play my one level 7 character and push them further towards glory every time I get to play than have to switch out, while my level 7 just sits there not using TUs. I understand you're trying to stop a small number of players that take advantage of the rules as they are, I just think you're hurting casual players with them.
Madfox11 02-09-07, 09:25 AM	But we can change the basic DnD rules by adding another penalty to it? *Error Logic Failure* Actually, the whole way how gold is treated is a deviation from the core rules and one made necessary due to the nature of the Living Campaign. We are already removing gold as others have point out by simply dropping everything above the cap. The XP penalty is a core game mechanic, the gp penalty is not.
Trollios 02-09-07, 09:29 AM	As has been discussed ad nauseum in other threads in the past, this cannot be done. There is far too much content to list everything that is published by WotC. All you need to know as a player is what you have access to and what you will never have access to. Nothing else matters to a player, as anything else is not guaranteed and should not be counted on at all. Anything else can be taken advantage of IF it comes along, but has no purpose in character planning. There will not be a list of other rules options besides Open and Closed. Consider that topic dead. There should at least be language in the LGCS that says that some items that appear on neither list, these rules items are not regularly available for character use but may be made available through ARs or favors. Right now it says there are 2 categories, open or closed, with no explanation for if something doesn't fall into one of those 2 categories.
dkay807 02-09-07, 09:30 AM	1. Removing the xp penalty is not an option. We can't change the basic DnD rules that way (we already looked into it). 2. It does balance out over the long haul, at least much closer than anything else does. We've run the numbers and compared the results to the xp/gp curve over a character's lifespan. Trust us, it works out pretty darn well. 3. It's not intended as a punishment. It's there for game balance. I love when Conforti crawls out of his cave and tells everyone what's what. I think this new rule is brilliant. It makes me sick when I see PCs that have a 60% XP penalty and are clearly proud of it. Once, some guy was forced onto my table who had a 100% XP penalty (this was back in Year 4). It made me want to vomit.
Zareba 02-09-07, 09:41 AM	You need to add a list of NONC sources for the sake of the High Level Campaign e.g. some spells/feats/prestige classes are listed as closed for Heroes of Battle and Heroes of Horror, but not all. If these books are not accessible at all you would not need to list these as closed, therefore the others are NONC. In the High Level game we get access to NONC, so it needs listing for us retired types. Thanks, Andrew H
solbergb 02-09-07, 09:54 AM	To Steve and Britt - thank you for responding to the Trained for War part of my post. I will stop asking now, since you've clearly stated that you can't answer. I'm disappointed in the answer, but hope this means that once NDA's are relased a good Dispel Confusion will take care of it someday. Can I get an answer to the rest of my post on whether it is feasible to expand the access for animal-slot items to small, med and large for all characters? ======================================== ====================== Posted from a thread - but figure if I want it addressed I should put it here. Animals are allowed to have necklace and cloak slots Open Access, however, is limited to the size of the PC except for barding. Can we extend the "any sm/med/large" access for barding to include necklaces and cloaks? Our animal companions and bonded mounts need their amulet of health and cloak of resistance! This will also help the size-changing shapeshifters some, with the option to purchase additional equipment of their "other" size that will work in those forms. Edit/Delete Message
Timlagor 02-09-07, 10:10 AM	Britt's said he won't be making a call on "trained for war" and also that he won't explain why ...he also said that "complete riding dog" would be release soon but I think there may have been just a hint of ongue in his cheek on that one.
scon40 02-09-07, 10:18 AM	Ah..and please please PLEASE address the trained for war thing. PLEASE make a LG specific call. There are no rules. None. Just implications. We can't. Britt has said this already. We cannot address it. Not allowed. We already checked on this. It's not a choice we are making; it's the choice we were given.
scon40 02-09-07, 10:18 AM	You need to add a list of NONC sources for the sake of the High Level Campaign e.g. some spells/feats/prestige classes are listed as closed for Heroes of Battle and Heroes of Horror, but not all. If these books are not accessible at all you would not need to list these as closed, therefore the others are NONC. In the High Level game we get access to NONC, so it needs listing for us retired types. Thanks, Andrew H It will be addressed in a revision to the HL rules, not in the LGCS.
scon40 02-09-07, 10:21 AM	But we can change the basic DnD rules by adding another penalty to it? *Error Logic Failure* I agree with this argument (and with adding the GP penalty) much more than the first, which was an obvious cop-out. Completely agreed! It's not a cop out. Read what I wrote again. And this time take a few seconds to actually comprehend it. The Logic Failure Error is on your side. Hint - I didn't say what you and others said I said. Read it again.
Timlagor 02-09-07, 10:34 AM	In case you're still having trouble I think the crucial words in SC's post are "that way". (i.e. WotC said removing the xp penalty wasn't an option)
NeSoDak 02-09-07, 10:36 AM	I was unable to find if this was previously addressed. Under "Item Clarifications" on page 15, it says, "Equipment does not resize. If you change size, only items in the following slots continue to function normally: cloak, amulet/brooch, and weapons. All other items are either fall off or are absorbed into the new form and cease to function." So does this mean that when a wizard casts Enlarge Person on my tank fighter, that his shield and armor cease to function? This may not be the spirit of what is written, but it is what is written. That seems a little stringent on fighter types. That doesn't seem to blend with the actual D&D core rules. I guess what I'm looking for here is to either say, yes this is the way it is, or change the wording so that it better clarifies when you lose those other items and when you keep them. I can see it now, the tank fighter that relies on their strength/size to put out the damage tells the wizard to keep that Enlarge Person stick away from them, because they don't want to tank their AC.
Zareba 02-09-07, 10:37 AM	Fine but will this come out at the same time? i.e. I've redesigned my character but HB is not listed. What do I do if I play a game before the HL revision? Thanks, Andrew H
Reylance 02-09-07, 10:56 AM	We are leaning towards removing the metallic only restrictions on the draconic feats. Woo hoo! After her next adventure, I'll be retraining my sorceress to get the red dragon heritage she should have had to start! Unless, of course, you allow that change for free? (Hint, hint, beg, plead, open Alter Self, please?)
LachlarlanIII 02-09-07, 10:59 AM	I was unable to find if this was previously addressed. Under "Item Clarifications" on page 15, it says, "Equipment does not resize. If you change size, only items in the following slots continue to function normally: cloak, amulet/brooch, and weapons. All other items are either fall off or are absorbed into the new form and cease to function." So does this mean that when a wizard casts Enlarge Person on my tank fighter, that his shield and armor cease to function? This may not be the spirit of what is written, but it is what is written. That seems a little stringent on fighter types. That doesn't seem to blend with the actual D&D core rules. I guess what I'm looking for here is to either say, yes this is the way it is, or change the wording so that it better clarifies when you lose those other items and when you keep them. I can see it now, the tank fighter that relies on their strength/size to put out the damage tells the wizard to keep that Enlarge Person stick away from them, because they don't want to tank their AC. No because Enlarge Person specifically states equipment resizes to match the new size of the character. I believe the clarification was for characters that began as a certain size and somehow, through uncertain means, became a different size. A human becoming a halfling through reincarnation for example.
sibyl 02-09-07, 11:00 AM	So does this mean that when a wizard casts Enlarge Person on my tank fighter, that his shield and armor cease to function? . Enlarge Person (the spell) specifically says armor etc. resize, so that is a specific spell-based exception to the general rule. Your fighter is safe. Well, mostly.
afbeer 02-09-07, 01:26 PM	We can't. Britt has said this already. We cannot address it. Not allowed. We already checked on this. It's not a choice we are making; it's the choice we were given. This choice is given by the agreement between RPGA and WotC on how to run this campaign? namely RPGA Living Greyhawk administration only changes D&D rules as they need changing due to the nature of the campaign. Or some different clause? Are you prohibited by NDA to say why it cannot be addressed?
Morgen 02-09-07, 01:45 PM	That's a distortion at best and an outright mischaracterization at worst. "Daily +5 greater magic weapon" - doesn't stack with normally magic gear. You're burning a 4th level spell to give a fighter a +1 or +2 bonus usually. This is not a major concern. I've seen enough CL 20+ Greater Dispelling Screens and Antimagic Fields to make the second half of your statement a lie, too. Antimagic doens't dispell anything. Wow, you really /are/ a jerk. :eek: People do magic weapon all the time because there are enough people are running around with +1 or +2 weapon that's spec'ed out with about 4 or 5 adjectives, so to them your adding +3/4 to hit and +3/4 to damage as well as letting them roll tons of d6's cause they actually find their mark. The more bonus to hit a fighter has with a two-hander allows for more power attacking, etc. Magic Vestimate is another example. +10 to your AC for two lower level spells. Hey, you've got PoP3? How about +10 AC to everyone whose got a shield? Yay! Flame strikes, Spike Stones, Spell Resistance, Spell Resistance (Mass), and the list goes on. Nothing better then SR 34 for the whole party, is there? Nothing you say is going to get it unClosed, and if you somehow think that it's only being used on like four spells your living in some kind of delusion. It's Living Greyhawk. Clerics have tons of turning attempts a day that they'll never use, so the loss of a turning attempt isn't at all a penalty to them. The feat is getting too powerful. Go buy yourself some damn karma beads if you’re that worried about it. Life goes on without divine spell power. People have been playing Dungeons and Dragons without it for over 30 years. Sorry to everyone else about this post, but I can't tollerate that kind of an attitude.
Bob_the_Theurge 02-09-07, 02:07 PM	Antimagic doens't dispell anything. All spells and magical items fail to function in an antimagic field, as do supernatural abilities. I've seen, and been in, entire areas the size of an Entangle or boxed-in temples that were filled to the brim with Antimagic Field. No curing allowed, no magic weapons, no nothing. Basically, 3/4 of the party gets to sit back and go Full Defensive and wait for the fighters to manage to roll a 20 and connect on their to-hit roll on the DR5/adamantine enemy. Wow, you really /are/ a jerk. Flame, meet hotdog. Hotdog, flame. Hotdog, meet mustard, ketchup, and bun. Mmmmmmm.... People do magic weapon all the time because there are enough people are running around with +1 or +2 weapon that's spec'ed out with about 4 or 5 adjectives, so to them your adding +3/4 to hit and +3/4 to damage as well as letting them roll tons of d6's cause they actually find their mark. Maybe in your region, where the triad sees access and favors as if it were trick-or-treating. Not in mine. Don't punish my region because your triad can't control themselves. The more bonus to hit a fighter has with a two-hander allows for more power attacking, etc. Magic Vestimate is another example. +10 to your AC for two lower level spells. Presuming you were wearing no armor whatsoever? And strap on a shield? Oops, even the lightest shield has spell failure unless it's mithral buckler, and you need access to those, which I've never seen in 4 years and 6 region's modules... Hey, you've got PoP3? Hey, you've got access to a 9000GP item? How about +10 AC to everyone whose got a shield? And how, precisely, are you coming to THIS erroneous bit of math? Yay! Flame strikes, Spike Stones, Spell Resistance, Spell Resistance (Mass), and the list goes on. Nothing better then SR 34 for the whole party, is there? Precisely how many turning attempts do you have per day? Or did you spend EVERY SINGLE FREAKING FEAT on Extra Turning? Nothing you say is going to get it unClosed, and if you somehow think that it's only being used on like four spells your living in some kind of delusion. It's Living Greyhawk. Clerics have tons of turning attempts a day that they'll never use, so the loss of a turning attempt isn't at all a penalty to them. The feat is getting too powerful. No, it's not. You just have caster envy, which is the problem of most of the people who think DSP is somehow overpowered. Go buy yourself some damn karma beads if you’re that worried about it. Life goes on without divine spell power. People have been playing Dungeons and Dragons without it for over 30 years. Sorry to everyone else about this post, but I can't tollerate that kind of an attitude. You're the one with a bad attitude.
Bob_the_Theurge 02-09-07, 02:25 PM	This choice is given by the agreement between RPGA and WotC on how to run this campaign? namely RPGA Living Greyhawk administration only changes D&D rules as they need changing due to the nature of the campaign. Or some different clause? Are you prohibited by NDA to say why it cannot be addressed? Quite probable it's because of some new book that's on the docket that will finally address this, so yeah, NDA.
TroyEsq 02-09-07, 02:30 PM	A few more questions/clarifications: First: Is it intended that a PC can retrain out of a MIC feat that they've used to manufacture equipment for themself? The philosophy in previous LGCS versions is that you had to keep your MIC feat regardless. Second (left over from prior LGCS draft): Under 2nd paragraph of "Advancement" subsection the "Leadership" section (page 12), it reads: "Each time . . . . If the cohort's current equipment value is greater than his new GP total, he loses any extra." He loses extra what? He loses extra gold (i.e., he can keep equipment valued above his new GP total) or he loses extra equipment that puts him above the new gp total? (This last question is left over from the previous draft, but hadn't caught my attention until recently.)
Britt 02-09-07, 02:37 PM	Last warning, especially to people that have been warned before: No more flames or trolling in this thread. If you aren't discussing the text of the LGCS Draft, go somewhere else. Debating whether DSP is broken is not discussing the text of the LGCS Draft; it's debating the power of a rules option; take it elsewhere. No snipes or anything of the like. Seriously, I mean it.
Britt 02-09-07, 02:38 PM	A few more questions/clarifications: First: Is it intended that a PC can retrain out of a MIC feat that they've used to manufacture equipment for themself? The philosophy in previous LGCS versions is that you had to keep your MIC feat regardless. Second (left over from prior LGCS draft): Under 2nd paragraph of "Advancement" subsection the "Leadership" section (page 12), it reads: "Each time . . . . If the cohort's current equipment value is greater than his new GP total, he loses any extra." He loses extra what? He loses extra gold (i.e., he can keep equipment valued above his new GP total) or he loses extra equipment that puts him above the new gp total? (This last question is left over from the previous draft, but hadn't caught my attention until recently.) 1. We're discussing it. 2. Extra GP. I'll be looking at simplifying cohorts, but I doubt it will happen in this draft.
Sieylianna 02-09-07, 02:40 PM	Character creation - class - Are there any evil deities who do not have the evil domain? What about Wastri? Ed
Britt 02-09-07, 02:42 PM	Character creation - class - Are there any evil deities who do not have the evil domain? What about Wastri? Ed I think only Evil deities have the Evil domain.
TroyEsq 02-09-07, 02:59 PM	2. Extra GP. I'll be looking at simplifying cohorts, but I doubt it will happen in this draft. Can you add the phrase "gold on hand" or something similar to the end of the relevant sentence please?
gomeztoo 02-09-07, 03:01 PM	Bumping this to prevent it getting lost in the flamewar : If we relax the draconic feats, can we also relax the alignment requirement for metallic dragon disciples? As it is worded now, it goes against how alignment works for any other class (including paladin, monk, or any prClass that demands a certain alignment). Those all allow for changing alignment (youi just loose access/abilities). The current wording means I can't change alignment even if I don't roleplay it. My proposal is to make the alignment requirements work like a monk: if you change alignment, you loose access to further leveling in the PrClass.
Howie23 02-09-07, 03:02 PM	MIC needs field for CL. With CL prereq gone and the DMG errata/FAQ in force, we need a revision to the MIC. Items now have a variable CL, based upon the caster creating them. This becomes important for dispel magic and similar. David
LachlarlanIII 02-09-07, 03:04 PM	Bumping this to prevent it getting lost in the flamewar : If we relax the draconic feats, can we also relax the alignment requirement for metallic dragon disciples? As it is worded now, it goes against how alignment works for any other class (including paladin, monk, or any prClass that demands a certain alignment). Those all allow for changing alignment (youi just loose access/abilities). The current wording means I can't change alignment even if I don't roleplay it. My proposal is to make the alignment requirements work like a monk: if you change alignment, you loose access to further leveling in the PrClass. I like this idea. Especially since the DD PrC makes no mention of being a particular alignment.
Britt 02-09-07, 03:06 PM	I like this idea. Especially since the DD PrC makes no mention of being a particular alignment. Half-Dragon Template: Alignment - Same as the dragon variety.
LachlarlanIII 02-09-07, 03:10 PM	Half-Dragon Template: Alignment - Same as the dragon variety. Yes, except Dragon Disciples don't become Half-Dragons until 10th level. Also, by that token, there can't be any Lawful Neutral or Chaotic Neutral Dragon Disciples as there aren't any LN or CN dragon types available for DD.
gomeztoo 02-09-07, 03:16 PM	Half-Dragon Template: Alignment - Same as the dragon variety. Yes, but it doesn't apply to the prestige class. And if I have campaign documentation I can use a different alignment (there are enough good red DDs out there). Anyway, this is not about whether an alignment restriction makes sense (it does). This is about the rule being wacky. As it is, I can make a LG DD and roleplay him CN. The DM can't call me on it. Well, dock xp, maybe, but that seems to be a boon nowadays. He can't tell me I need to shape up or change alignment and loose my powers/access. That is possible with monk and/or paladin, IIRC. Using the system I propose you penalize people for changing alignment (without campaign documentation), but prevent a strange situation where alignment turns into an unmodifiable smudge on a char sheet.
getrider 02-09-07, 03:17 PM	The PHB2 is not listed as open unless otherwise stated, but I do not see almost any spells listed in the open spell list. The beguiler class only has the 'Whelm" family of spells to do damage with and I was wondering it was intentional or an oversight that these spells were left off the list. Robert
Bob_the_Theurge 02-09-07, 03:39 PM	Bumping this to prevent it getting lost in the flamewar : If we relax the draconic feats, can we also relax the alignment requirement for metallic dragon disciples? As it is worded now, it goes against how alignment works for any other class (including paladin, monk, or any prClass that demands a certain alignment). Those all allow for changing alignment (youi just loose access/abilities). The current wording means I can't change alignment even if I don't roleplay it. My proposal is to make the alignment requirements work like a monk: if you change alignment, you loose access to further leveling in the PrClass. All that the class says on the matter is: "The player chooses a dragon variety when taking the first level in this prestige class." It says nothing about alignment or anything else. The only requirements to enter the class are the ability to spontaneously cast Arcane spells, 8 ranks in Knowledge:Arcane, and the ability to speak Draconic. Why does LG further restrict this at all? This seems like "altering the core rules" that we're not supposed to be doing. The class does not mention alignment, or any penalty for changing alignment, anywhere. A Lawful Good sorceror whose great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather was a CE Red Dragon is perfectly justified in choosing Red as his dragon type for this PrC. And it's not like the class is all that overly powerful anyways, they completely lose advancement as a spellcaster and their skills list isn't that hot either. Edit to Britt: This is a discussion of the LGCS draft, because it's the LGCS that currently adds the additional restrictions to the DD class. If you request we start an exterior thread instead on this topic I will be happy to do so.
dg8672 02-09-07, 03:41 PM	I have one question... 1 - Has there been a clarification whether retraining includes the Racial Substitution and/or Alternate Class Abilities? the Retraining section of PHB2 lists both of these as options, but neither has been mentioned in regards to LG. and one point to add... 2. The GP/XP penalty - While I understand the reason for it, it IS punishing some players. I have played two adventures (and considering how big LG is, Im sure there are more) where the PC is FORCED to take a level in a class they had no intention of taking - I have seen it happen to two different people I know. In both respects, the character was suddenly taking an XP penalty due to something completely out of their control. If you're going to institute this penalty, can a written addendum be included to exclude those who gain an XP penalty due to an in-game effect/curse, etc? It's one thing to make a 11th level druid take a level of sorcerer and force a 10% xp penalty on them. Its quite another to take 10% of their gold away as well.
malenthor 02-09-07, 03:42 PM	Antimagic doens't dispell anything. Wow, you really /are/ a jerk. :eek: People do magic weapon all the time because there are enough people are running around with +1 or +2 weapon that's spec'ed out with about 4 or 5 adjectives, so to them your adding +3/4 to hit and +3/4 to damage as well as letting them roll tons of d6's cause they actually find their mark. The more bonus to hit a fighter has with a two-hander allows for more power attacking, etc. I don't know where you are, but around here, there aren't people running around with those kinds of items. The 15th level spirited charging paladin in our group still operates with a +1 lance and a +2 shock bastard sword. The 15th level bard has a Sunblade true enough, but it can't be enhanced further by the rules. The 15th level monk (non-PA) has a +1 holy, evil outsider bane (one end)/+1 defending staff (other end), which gets the GMW on the defending end every time. Perhaps you should do an audit and ensure that those are legal weapons before you worry about everyone having the same issues around the campaign And by the way, your characterization is the epitome of the pot calling the kettle black. Magic Vestimate is another example. +10 to your AC for two lower level spells. Hey, you've got PoP3? How about +10 AC to everyone whose got a shield? Yay! Flame strikes, Spike Stones, Spell Resistance, Spell Resistance (Mass), and the list goes on. Nothing better then SR 34 for the whole party, is there?. I've yet to see access to a PoP 3 with my 15th level cleric. No one I know locally has one to my knowledge aside from a couple of arcane types who crafted theirs for more fireballs each day. As for SR34 for the entire party; I tried Mass SR once on our party. Ya, it was fun to walk through the BBEG's blade barrier without taking a scratch, but it sure sucked when the 12th level cleric in the group tried to heal someone, or even when my cleric tried to heal people mid-combat. Perhaps you weren't aware of the rules and how the spell functions. My 15th level cleric has DSP. She has 6 turns a day. She would typically cast 2-3 Magic Vestments with it and 1-2 GMW's, consistently leaving 1-2 turns for combat. In combat, it was always used to punch through tough SR, either the bad guys or the party Tattooed Monk's (SR25) in order to heal him. I only once cast Holy Word and never used DSP in conjunction with it. She does not have a bead of karma. But somehow, due to people like you, DSP has been banned. Fabulous. Yet one more rules item that was given and taken away. That, moreso than DSP or DMM (which I did not have), or Divine Insight, or anything else that has now been removed, is the cause of frustration for my group. Sorry to everyone else about this post, but I can't tollerate that kind of an attitude. Yours is just as bad. For the record, I think this LGCS stinks. I could care less about all the cool new candy that has been spilled (open access to more items, classes, etc). The fact that things continually get taken away, even basic stuff like alter self, is driving our group from the campaign. And the two biggest complaints I had about the old LGCS were exacerbated even worse by this one. The cohorts situation was not fixed in any realistic manner. In point of fact, the only reason my cohort wasn't screwed by the elite array "solution" is the fact that the character had an odd stat bump for being higher than 12th level already. But by far the worst decision has been the "no more than 3 levels above apl of play rule". That alone means that I will not be attending any more cons. If I can't choose what character to play in what mod, I'm not paying to support the campaign. Also, because I wouldn't dare tell someone else that they couldn't play a preferred character, tonight's local event will be the last thing I organize for LG in the Vancouver area as well. This LGCS is forcing us to contemplate whether or not our group will be continuing with LG at all. I'd put the odds at less than 50% right now. And yes, for the record, I do have a number of PC's of varying levels (1, 2, 4, 7, 13, cohort 13, and 15). The long and short of it is, that despite the increased communication, which is appreciated even by me, this LGCS has finally caused me to lose pretty much all respect for the way the Circle is handling the campaign. After 6 years of play, I'm tired of the have this/we'll take it away attitude of the PTB. Much better to be working from just the 3 core books than to have this kind of hassle with character consistency and lack of value placed in the play of players. Let the judges control the game, and people find the judges they like to run the game for them. Darryl Langley, BC
Half_Fiendish_Tarrasque 02-09-07, 03:44 PM	...LG is a core campaign, so the closer we can stick to the Core rules, the better. That's one of the main reasons for changing to the polymorph errata. We didn't do it last year because it came out at the wrong time for an LGCS inclusion and it was too big of a change to do at any other time. Gosh, it would have been nice if the intent to remove them in one year's time had been explicitly stated in the LAST LGCS!!! It would have saved the me the trouble of playing a now hopeless character for a whole year when I could have retired that PC then and there (before becoming emtionally attached to it) and concentrated on a new PC. It would have saved many others from creating NEW PCs in the last year only to see the next campaign standard *****slap them into toadies for kobolds and gully dwarves! Has anyone considered how this change is going to reduce the value of monks? I've yet to see a monk played effectively at mid to high level without the benefit of the polymorph family of spells. I imagine it can be done, I'm just saying I haven't seen it managed in 7+ years of DnD 3.0 gaming. Even more dire is this thought...has anyone considered how this is going to completely neuter monk/sorcerer / monk/wizard (i.e. Enlightened Fists) PCs? They are going to be hurt every bit as much as Druids. Why should Druids (divine alter/poly melee combatants) get rebuilds but 'Enlightened Fists' (arcane alter/poly melee combatants) don't? Druids actually have more tools outside of Wildshape -- which they STILL have, I'll point out -- than 'Enlightened Fists' have outside of shape-altered melee -- which is being denied to them entirely! Just to be clear, I'm not saying that the spells should stay. That ship has sailed, and maybe it is time for that. (I happen to disagree: the time for it is when the family of spells has been replaced by a full complement of new CORE spells from the Polymorph subschool, or in other words, when the spells and the game mechanic are replaced, NOT removed) I am concerned about the manner in which it is being handled, and the lack of redress for PCs -- other than Druids -- that were completely dependent upon these spells (or nearly so) to have any role in an LG party. As things stand, these PCs will be a liability in any party they populate, simply adding to the total levels and comtributing virtually nothing. I personally know three players of 'Enlightened Fist' PCs and all of them are seriously talking about retiring their PCs before a L1 Warrior Orc permanently and embarassingly gives them a one-way ticket to the hereafter. If these PCs aren't explicitly going to be offered a rebuild in the LGCS then the LGCS should offer Triads to offer rebuilds to PCs that they deem are rendered hopeless by the removal of their polymorph aresenal. That's pretty much all I'll say about this topic, unless I recall another niche of PCs that are handed their pink slips by this particular campaign change. Thanks for your time and effort slogging through all these messages. You're a better man than I (I lost motivation after the first dozen pages or so). He who was once known as "HFToL" will henceforth be known as "PHFT" -- (Britt made the valid and insightful observation that "-oL" is not legal to add to "HF-". Since my goal was to be silly-ridiculous and broken, but NOT illegal, we'll suck it up and add "P-" (Paragon) instead. Is that more or less silly-ridiculous/broken?) :eek: ;) :P
malenthor 02-09-07, 03:45 PM	double post - removed second one
sibyl 02-09-07, 03:45 PM	(deleted)
Britt 02-09-07, 03:46 PM	I don't understand. How can a module *force* you to take levels in a class you don't want? I have had various options made available that weren't useful unless I took a certain class, but I didn't have to take those options or the class. :confused: Is this about the LGCS?
kjenks 02-09-07, 03:47 PM	Page 7: "If you buy more than five items, use the back of the AR and make a note to 'see the back.'" -- There are only five lines in this section, so this should read, "If you buy more than four items..." That way, the four items go on lines 1-4 and the "see the back" note goes on line 5.
kjenks 02-09-07, 03:50 PM	Page 4: "Touv are detailed in Appendix 3." -- The Glossary is a strange place for this. Perhaps this can just refer to the Touv description on page 9.
gomeztoo 02-09-07, 03:50 PM	Again: my issue is NOT with the alignment restriction on Dragon Disciple, which is not a Core cahange', and which the Circle has the right to add as the campaign's DMs, but with the way it is phrased, which 'locks' alignment in a way that no other class does. It is a very strange rule, and would work better within the rules as a normal alignment requirement like a Prestige Classes such as, say, Church Inquisitor.
Britt 02-09-07, 03:50 PM	Gosh, it would have been nice if the intent to remove them in one year's time had been explicitly stated in the LAST LGCS!!! It would have saved the me the trouble of playing a now hopeless character for a whole year when I could have retired that PC then and there (before becoming emtionally attached to it) and concentrated on a new PC. It would have saved many others from creating NEW PCs in the last year only to see the next campaign standard *****slap them into toadies for kobolds and gully dwarves! Has anyone considered how this change is going to reduce the value of monks? I've yet to see a monk played effectively at mid to high level without the benefit of the polymorph family of spells. I imagine it can be done, I'm just saying I haven't seen it managed in 7+ years of DnD 3.0 gaming. Even more dire is this thought...has anyone considered how this is going to completely neuter monk/sorcerer / monk/wizard (i.e. Enlightened Fists) PCs? They are going to be hurt every bit as much as Druids. Why should Druids (divine alter/poly melee combatants) get rebuilds but 'Enlightened Fists' (arcane alter/poly melee combatants) don't? Druids actually have more tools outside of Wildshape -- which they STILL have, I'll point out -- than 'Enlightened Fists' have outside of shape-altered melee -- which is being denied to them entirely! Just to be clear, I'm not saying that the spells should stay. That ship has sailed, and maybe it is time for that. (I happen to disagree: the time for it is when the family of spells has been replaced by a full complement of new CORE spells from the Polymorph subschool, or in other words, when the spells and the game mechanic are replaced, NOT removed) I am concerned about the manner in which it is being handled, and the lack of redress for PCs -- other than Druids -- that were completely dependent upon these spells (or nearly so) to have any role in an LG party. As things stand, these PCs will be a liability in any party they populate, simply adding to the total levels and comtributing virtually nothing. I personally know three players of 'Enlightened Fist' PCs and all of them are seriously talking about retiring their PCs before a L1 Warrior Orc permanently and embarassingly gives them a one-way ticket to the hereafter. If these PCs aren't explicitly going to be offered a rebuild in the LGCS then the LGCS should offer Triads to offer rebuilds to PCs that they deem are rendered hopeless by the removal of their polymorph aresenal. That's pretty much all I'll say about this topic, unless I recall another niche of PCs that are handed their pink slips by this particular campaign change. Thanks for your time and effort slogging through all these messages. You're a better man than I (I lost motivation after the first dozen pages or so). He who was once known as "HFToL" will henceforth be known as "PHFT" -- (Britt made the valid and insightful observation that "-oL" is not legal to add to "HF-". Since my goal was to be silly-ridiculous and broken, but NOT illegal, we'll suck it up and add "P-" (Paragon) instead. Is that more or less silly-ridiculous/broken?) :eek: ;) :P 1. It wasn't definite at the time that the Circle would switch, but it wasn't ruled out either. The timing ruled it out for THAT LGCS, but not this one. Observations lead us to make the change in this LGCS. 2. Yes it was considered and is one of the reasons it is being removed. The benefit granted is out of line with the cost, along with the other problems. 3. I played an enlightened fist and didn't use the poly spells at all. 4. Triads do have that power, based on the DC.
sibyl 02-09-07, 03:53 PM	Is this about the LGCS? I'm just trying to understand the person's example about why the GP penalty is bad. So, yes? Never mind, I'll PM the guy.
Half_Fiendish_Tarrasque 02-09-07, 03:53 PM	As a note, the Bear Warrior class doesn't reference Alter Self, only the Tattooed monk does. The Bear Warrior class references polymorph, but only for one specific and limited form. The Polymorph spell is problematic because of it's variety and room for manipulation and exploitation (and is being eliminated because of that). The Bear Warrior class has no variety and no flexibility (there is only one form and it's explicit in it's effects). I don't know what the circle will decide with the class, but changing it to reference alternative form not only moves away from the core rules (which is something they wish to avoid) but actually makes the rules for the class more complicated (which is something else they're hoping to avoid)... Please excuse me if this issue has been raised already (I am woefully behind in reading both site sources of questions/complaints/suggestions/eratta/yadayadayada) but I'd rather it get mentioned n-times s.t. n > 0. (ask a mathie...) Since I still can't find the DC on the WotC/RPGA pages, I'll point out that most non-Druid Warshapers will have a P-Class for which they can no longer qualify. Will they, and other non-Druid 'shapers' be offered a rebuild, or are they stuck with just the HD/hp, skills, attack and save bonuses of a featureless non-class? For Druid Warshapers, are WarSh abilities going to apply as an overlay for the new Wildshape or is this P-Class gone too? Thanks much. PHFT
NeSoDak 02-09-07, 03:54 PM	No because Enlarge Person specifically states equipment resizes to match the new size of the character. I believe the clarification was for characters that began as a certain size and somehow, through uncertain means, became a different size. A human becoming a halfling through reincarnation for example. Enlarge Person (the spell) specifically says armor etc. resize, so that is a specific spell-based exception to the general rule. Your fighter is safe. Well, mostly. I understand what both of you are saying, however, as in anywhere else in the LGCS, the LGCS rules are applied after all other rules. If this was not the case then you could ignore all the spell specific rules items, or any other changes the LGCS makes to existing rules. Therefore, if you change in size, you lose the use of all that equipment. Am I being petty about this? Maybe, but you know you will run into it at a table somewhere if it isn't better defined. Just look at evil acts as an example.
Britt 02-09-07, 03:56 PM	I understand what both of you are saying, however, as in anywhere else in the LGCS, the LGCS rules are applied after all other rules. If this was not the case then you could ignore all the spell specific rules items, or any other changes the LGCS makes to existing rules. Therefore, if you change in size, you lose the use of all that equipment. Am I being petty about this? Maybe, but you know you will run into it at a table somewhere if it isn't better defined. Just look at evil acts as an example. I've stated that it has been clarified in my draft.
Britt 02-09-07, 03:57 PM	Please excuse me if this issue has been raised already (I am woefully behind in reading both site sources of questions/complaints/suggestions/eratta/yadayadayada) but I'd rather it get mentioned n-times s.t. n > 0. (ask a mathie...) Since I still can't find the DC on the WotC/RPGA pages, I'll point out that most non-Druid Warshapers will have a P-Class for which they can no longer qualify. Will they, and other non-Druid 'shapers' be offered a rebuild, or are they stuck with just the HD/hp, skills, attack and save bonuses of a featureless non-class? For Druid Warshapers, are WarSh abilities going to apply as an overlay for the new Wildshape or is this P-Class gone too? The DC text is in this forum in a different thread. Yes, Triads have some room to deem that someone gets a rebuild, but it will be rare, if at all.
MikeJS 02-09-07, 03:59 PM	LGCS 597: Close Holy Word (et al) please http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=11438267
JamesMaissen 02-09-07, 04:21 PM	Actually, the whole way how gold is treated is a deviation from the core rules and one made necessary due to the nature of the Living Campaign. We are already removing gold as others have point out by simply dropping everything above the cap. The XP penalty is a core game mechanic, the gp penalty is not. 1. Multiclassing Penalties. First and foremost it's good to address this issue of 'abuse' and that it seems to be effecting people means that it is doing it's job. I did have a question as to what is allowed and what is not allowed for the Circle to do in this respect. I have my guesses, but it would be nice to hear directly for certain. The LGCS is limiting XP penalties to 50%, so it is evident that this rule can in fact be changed. Is this a figure that had to go through WOTC to be approved? If so and assuming that this is the smallest amount that they would allow it to be cap'd at then I think that we can all understand this. I'm guess that to be the case. However, hearing directly what is the case will make this easier on those affected one way or the other. 2. Cohorts. On the subject of xp/gold loss I would say that I would like Cohort rules to finally update to 3.5 rules from 3.0 rules on the fraction of XP that they recieve. Could we do something instead of tracking cohort wealth? Perhaps simply have cohorts start with 0 gold? That way one need not worry about them using too many consumables and the like. 3. APL range. It would be nice to remove the whole 1/2xp/gold issue. This adds problems to mustering and has players decide to play at APLs that they would otherwise NOT choose. If we are going to say that certain people cannot play mods based upon PCs at the table then we should do so both ways. While a 14th level playing APL 10 might steal the show, the 2nd level playing APL 14 not only isn't there he is unbalanced for all future tables at which he plays. Baring denying them play opportunities, perhaps simply capping xp/gold by the LOWER of level and APL the mod is played at? This way if I bring my 2nd level character into an APL 14 mod I don't walk away with 3300gp. The campaign is fairly strict on the range of gold value each character should reasonably have and this is a way around that which is easily fixed. 4. Are there any thoughts to alter XP charging spells? The cap on how much can be spent there is a bandaid fix at best. Are we still stuck with it for the forseeable future, or are there some posibilities? 5. Kudos on taking more charge in this area. Both in looking to address XP penalties and by expanding on Charity of Friends to put a lower cap on character wealth range. -James
firestar80 02-09-07, 04:22 PM	sorry for the double post but i did not have the time last night to write more. Can we get a clarification about if using poison (milked from an animal companion) is an evil act? As far as I see it a short list of evil act is need as a guideline. For example Poison use is gained by evil class Blackguard but using poison is never stated as an evil act in this 3ed or higher. So is using poison evil? Is there any Hope of get Coordinated Shot of Heroes of Battle and Natural Bond as Open? And the addition specifically of Coordinated Shot will help archer that continually get screwed by other player running in the way of their shots. I don't see why it is not open on list. I is fair and balanced, all it show is the character skill in timing on a system of fighting with a group like other group specific feats. and I have never seen access in an mod
SirApropos 02-09-07, 04:24 PM	I kept up to date on most of these discussions and would like to address one thing concerning MIC for Potions. You may want to consider one restriction so you don't end up with a lot of people abusing the Brew Potion feat. Several spells are meant to only be usable by the spellcaster casting the spell but if you can make any spell into a potion then anyone at a table with a Potion Brewer can then get that effect that was intended for casters only. (i.e Potion of Shield.) It also doesn't make much sense that you can now make Potions of Fireball. Consider adding the following to the MIC section under potions. "Only spells that target one or more creatures may be made into potions. You may not make potions of spells that have a range of Personal, such as shield." This way any new potions that are created through MIC will conform to the lists in the DMG. This would also allow you to remove Potion of Shield as a Closed Item as by definition it is not craftable.
Britt 02-09-07, 04:27 PM	I kept up to date on most of these discussions and would like to address one thing concerning MIC for Potions. You may want to consider one restriction so you don't end up with a lot of people abusing the Brew Potion feat. Several spells are meant to only be usable by the spellcaster casting the spell but if you can make any spell into a potion then anyone at a table with a Potion Brewer can then get that effect that was intended for casters only. (i.e Potion of Shield.) It also doesn't make much sense that you can now make Potions of Fireball. Consider adding the following to the MIC section under potions. "Only spells that target one or more creatures may be made into potions. You may not make potions of spells that have a range of Personal, such as shield." This way any new potions that are created through MIC will conform to the lists in the DMG. This would also allow you to remove Potion of Shield as a Closed Item as by definition it is not craftable. The DMG rules for potions keep that from happening. The MIC rules reference the crafting rules in the DMG.
Britt 02-09-07, 04:28 PM	sorry for the double post but i did not have the time last night to write more. And the addition specifically of Coordinated Shot will help archer that continually get screwed by other player running in the way of their shots. I don't see why it is not open on list. I is fair and balanced, all it show is the character skill in timing on a system of fighting with a group like other group specific feats. and I have never seen access in an mod I don't remember a specific Core ruling on poison. It will be up to the DM to judge, per the new Evil Acts rules. We are not adding any new items from other books.
JamesMaissen 02-09-07, 04:30 PM	I kept up to date on most of these discussions and would like to address one thing concerning MIC for Potions. You may want to consider one restriction so you don't end up with a lot of people abusing the Brew Potion feat. Several spells are meant to only be usable by the spellcaster casting the spell but if you can make any spell into a potion then anyone at a table with a Potion Brewer can then get that effect that was intended for casters only. (i.e Potion of Shield.) It also doesn't make much sense that you can now make Potions of Fireball. Consider adding the following to the MIC section under potions. "Only spells that target one or more creatures may be made into potions. You may not make potions of spells that have a range of Personal, such as shield." This way any new potions that are created through MIC will conform to the lists in the DMG. This would also allow you to remove Potion of Shield as a Closed Item as by definition it is not craftable. Potions of Shield are not legal potions under core rules. The entry in 'banning' them is redundant in that fashion (and imho should be removed). A general note/reminder that core rules are in effect and then a clear statement where they are being overridden might be a very good thing to have in the LGCS. This has already come up with items changing size, and is likely to continue to occur ad infinitum. I don't know if that's the best way to handle it, but it's one way to be clear. -James
Mithreinmaethor 02-09-07, 04:50 PM	I still want to know if the Beguilers will be given access to their PHB II spells as per the Warmage before them ?
Britt 02-09-07, 04:53 PM	Update: Newfoundland is part of Ket and the list has been fixed to address this. Alter Self (and the other poly spells) is staying Closed. Mindblank is replacing poly any object for Trickery. Jack Bauer just killed someone. Chromatic restriction on draconic feats is being dropped. Chameleon Tattoo for Tattooed Monk is Closed. NPC Classes are staying legal. Jack Bauer just killed someone else. Sudden metamagic feats aren't changing. We're still discussing various other topics. Oh, and Jack Bauer just killed someone else.
sadiawolf 02-09-07, 04:53 PM	Hi Britt! Could you point me to where your updated draft is posted? Thanks! -Mike
Alpha_Nerd 02-09-07, 04:56 PM	I'm assuming since polymorph is out so it baleful polymorph. In that case, how are those poor druids suppose to be able to craft wild armor :(
haferka 02-09-07, 05:05 PM	Slight of Hand has a secondary bluff roll and a higher TU cost (when you fail).. but the reward is exactly the same as all other non-adventuring activities... is this intentional? why?
Mithreinmaethor 02-09-07, 05:06 PM	Oh I see dont want to answer my question. Well when some fat guy walks up and kicks ya in the shin at a convention its gonna be me Britt :)
Britt 02-09-07, 05:23 PM	"We're still discussing various other topics." My draft is not posted anywhere; it's on my laptop :) Sleight of Hand is intentional.
tapelib 02-09-07, 05:30 PM	Greetings, those of the Circle reading these posts. Thank you for the time you spend on this subject important to alot of people. Here is my question/suggestion. To expand on an earlier post, can you please Open the spells in the PHBII listed on the beguiler spell list for Beguiler PC's [a new PHB II base class], like you did for the Sudden Feats for a Warmage? This would not artificially limit a new base class, and yet not open the PHBII spells to all the other arcane casters. As the spells are listed in the same book, there is no problem having the information about them if you play a Beguiler. Ed Tostanoski III RPGA 841191
MikeJS 02-09-07, 05:34 PM	For the record, I think this LGCS stinks. I could care less about all the cool new candy that has been spilled (open access to more items, classes, etc). The fact that things continually get taken away, even basic stuff like alter self, is driving our group from the campaign. And the two biggest complaints I had about the old LGCS were exacerbated even worse by this one. The cohorts situation was not fixed in any realistic manner. In point of fact, the only reason my cohort wasn't screwed by the elite array "solution" is the fact that the character had an odd stat bump for being higher than 12th level already. But by far the worst decision has been the "no more than 3 levels above apl of play rule". That alone means that I will not be attending any more cons. If I can't choose what character to play in what mod, I'm not paying to support the campaign. Also, because I wouldn't dare tell someone else that they couldn't play a preferred character, tonight's local event will be the last thing I organize for LG in the Vancouver area as well. This LGCS is forcing us to contemplate whether or not our group will be continuing with LG at all. I'd put the odds at less than 50% right now. And yes, for the record, I do have a number of PC's of varying levels (1, 2, 4, 7, 13, cohort 13, and 15). The long and short of it is, that despite the increased communication, which is appreciated even by me, this LGCS has finally caused me to lose pretty much all respect for the way the Circle is handling the campaign...<snip>...Darryl Langley, BCThese are very severe criticisms from an organizer, and I think that some or all of the issues in question need to be reconsidered: * Gold/XP (unmentioned by Darryl): This one I have the least problem with, as I agree that modular-systems and home-gaming have completely different requirements. * DSP (unmentioned by Darryl): Close Holy Word (et al) instead. (Closing both would at least make sense; closing DSP but not HW -- doesn't.) * Cohorts: No comment (I've little experience with them). * Alter Self: If trogs are abused, simply limit forms to PC-legal races. (My 4th-level halfling bard never turned into a trog with it or got any combat utility out of it -- but it was the most fun toy in his OoC limited bag of bard tricks.) * APLs: Despite some of my previous comments in the thread, I don't think wildly over/under tables are abusive, let alone a campaign problem. (If they ever are a problem, it's usually a player problem -- and an inconsiderate player will remain one regardless of which PC he's playing.) I agree that, unlike all the other changes, this new rule will activity prevent many four-person tables from legally forming at all, and that's not good in the least.
Vorlonkosh 02-09-07, 05:40 PM	Attention Britt: The Intro/Flavor Text for the Nyrond Meta-region in the Contacts section is ummmmmmmmm well Inaccurate/out-of-date. Prince Sewarndt (spits) has been deposed and dead since Labor Day weekend of 2005. I think its high time we updated that information..(basically you need to remove and replace all instances referrring to tehe Nyrond Imperium wiht Kingdon of Nyrond as well). Also, it wouldnt hurt to acknowledge the recent ascension of teh new Countess of Urnst (Rachel Duncombe), who replaces the dead Contessa Gellor. Those two things are very significant in that Meta-Region Thanks for your time!
Mortepierre 02-09-07, 05:46 PM	Even more dire is this thought...has anyone considered how this is going to completely neuter monk/sorcerer / monk/wizard (i.e. Enlightened Fists) PCs? Could you please explain in what way? I may have missed something here but those two combo still have access to all their spells, apart from those based on shape-alteration. Are you implying that an Enlightened Fist that can't change shape isn't worth its salt anymore?
solbergb 02-09-07, 05:51 PM	Yeah...like enlarge, blade of flame, critical strike, fist of stone, blah blah blah. Defensively, blur, displacement, mirror image etc. You don't need troglodyte form to be a light infantry gish. (who plays a monk12/wiz1 and am very satisfied with my puny wizard spells, even with my wand of alter-self recalled and turned back into cash)
MikeJS 02-09-07, 05:53 PM	Could you please explain in what way? I may have missed something here but those two combo still have access to all their spells, apart from those based on shape-alteration. Are you implying that an Enlightened Fist that can't change shape isn't worth its salt anymore?Awhile back on the Yahoo char discussion list, I built a gnome EF who could do a 50pt punch. I hadn't even considered Polymorph during the exercise.
Britt 02-09-07, 05:59 PM	No more talk on EF here, please. Take it to another thread if you want to discuss it further.
MikeJS 02-09-07, 06:05 PM	Will there be another draft issued?
dougemes 02-09-07, 06:11 PM	Two topics: Re: LGCS 597: Warlock Author only http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=788014 -- Ive listed a couple of ways that warlock's are not appropriate for authors to use, haven't seen any circle comments on the thread since I posted. Please consider this a request to review that thread. For the record, I believe its probably a better idea to close warlocks completely. Re: Dismissed Familiars http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=787628 Specifically post#5 in the thread: http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=11425794&postcount=5 -- I would like to see the circle clarify the rule from DMG page 200 "Changes to the rules on familiars in the Player’s Handbook are completely under the DM’s control" Please reconsider the 53 tu option for dismissed / improved familiars. It is not in the spirit of the game. Give casters who want to beef up the familiar a chance to actually play with the familiar the same year. Sincerely, Doug Emes RPGA 830837
Britt 02-09-07, 06:22 PM	Will there be another draft issued? Likely not, as the webmaster doesn't work weekends, I'm sure. I haven't finished everything to be able to send it to him in time to get it up today. So while it might be possible to get one posted on Monday, that won't do much good since draft discussion will be over.
EdGruberman 02-09-07, 06:22 PM	I would like you to rethink "Any percentage penalty to XP gained is accompanied by an equal percentage penalty to GP gained." I agree that there is a problem with the XP/GP balance becoming out of balance, but this solution does not fix that problem. I think the best way to fix the problem is to create a table with the max GP per level. That way all the causes of the problem are fixed with one easy rule. Other thing that can cause the problem include: dying and being raised at high level, excessive crafting, always playing at the highest APL that you can without penalty and special items that were given in the early campaign at no cost to the character that have increased in value significantly. There is also the problem of having to little GP for your level. I don't expect this to be fixed in this LGCS but one solution would be to allow characters to use TUs "working" to get to a minimum GP for there level. This would allow you to remove the charity of friends rule from the game. Than you for all of the work you have done for the campaign. David Parker
King Kashue 02-09-07, 06:28 PM	Chameleon Tattoo for Tattooed Monk is Closed. Just to throw the bear warrior question back in the ring. And also to bring up the fact that the Bear Warrior class shares none of the Polymorph issues (since it's one form and you don't actually gain physical stats, merely a bonus to your existing stats)...However, if it is changed to be in line with the alternative form ability (instead of polymorph), the bear warrior will remain a humanoid, and thus will be open to enlarge person... That means instead of animal growth (a 5th level spell) being needed to buff the Bear Warrior, instead, a 1st level spell (that is far more common) is all that is needed. It would actually be a buff to the class. Now, since I play a Bear Warrior, I'm perfectly happy with that buff happening, but just to mention it since it crossed my mind, and may not have come up in discussion :D
Jenner2057 02-09-07, 06:32 PM	First thanks to all for the hard work getting this document out! Great job to all! My only complaint is the APL+3 max character level. I think it’s a bad idea. If I pay money to go to a con, and I sign up for a mod advertised as "APL 2-8 (character levels: 1-11)" I should be able to show up with any character from level 1 to 11. I *shouldn't* have to worry about what levels the rest of the table is playing. Do I accept that I may have to take half xp/gp? You betcha. But that's something I've learned to accept with LG. However, I'm sure that I'll be able to play as long as there are 4 players and a judge. Whether I have other playable characters or not is irrelevant; I should be able to play the character I want as long as he falls in the advertised levels of the mod. I'm also not buying the "characters of too high level ruin the fun for the rest of the table." I've played with some high level characters playing way down and had a blast. I've also had WAY more mods ruined by super-cheesed characters playing "at table APL" and breaking encounter after encounter so that the rest of the party had nothing to do. As had already been mentioned, it's a player problem and one not likely to be solved by limiting who can play the mod. For that matter, if there is going to be a limit on the max level a character can be in relation to the APL played, I’d like to see a minimum level as well. Frankly, I’m FAR more tired of seeing 1st and 2nd level characters tagging along on an APL 14 adventure. Inevitably, the DM will metagame and not even hold the low level characters as viable targets and they end up getting free half xp and gp for showing up and doing absolutely nothing. Thanks for listening and just my 2 cents.
Thane Goldstone IV 02-09-07, 06:33 PM	The DC text is in this forum in a different thread. Yes, Triads have some room to deem that someone gets a rebuild, but it will be rare, if at all. Britt, from the above I infer that you are saying that Warshapers are stuck with their class levels, with no swapout allowed unless they also had 1 or more levels of Druid? It sounds like it would be a bit more fair to perhaps allow such a character to swap warshaper levels for more levels of *any class s/he already has*. That way, a wiz8/warshaper4 simply becomes a wiz 12, and is quite playable. Such a ruling prevents the player from having a full rebuild, in that s/he was already a wizard. (or perhaps a Sorceror) Such a kindness could be further limited to only replacing warshaper levels with "any class you have a level in, that can be found in the PHB" to prevent new cheese via Prestige Classes.
David Argall 02-09-07, 06:58 PM	I'll argue too for the cost of a dead or dismissed familiar being less than 53 TU. 53 TU is about 1/3 of the player career. I grant there are a number of players who manage to use every TU, but for many players, even if fairly active, the PC may not use more than 20 TU a year. That is making this about triple the core rules penalty. The suggestion of the 2nd January keeps the penalty simple to administer and not too much different that the core rules.
rook1138 02-09-07, 07:09 PM	I'll argue too for the cost of a dead or dismissed familiar being less than 53 TU. 53 TU is about 1/3 of the player career. I grant there are a number of players who manage to use every TU, but for many players, even if fairly active, the PC may not use more than 20 TU a year. That is making this about triple the core rules penalty. The suggestion of the 2nd January keeps the penalty simple to administer and not too much different that the core rules. I think either 53 TUs or 1 full calendar year from the date of the AR in which the familiar was killed/dismissed. Picking a static date is a little wonky, since it can be closer to 2 years for a lot of people. Just going off the AR date, which is already required to be put on there, would seem like a much easier mechanic. Matt T Pale Triad - not official post
muttoo 02-09-07, 07:35 PM	I think either 53 TUs or 1 full calendar year from the date of the AR in which the familiar was killed/dismissed. Picking a static date is a little wonky, since it can be closer to 2 years for a lot of people. Just going off the AR date, which is already required to be put on there, would seem like a much easier mechanic. I assume that PCs don't go into time-stop for the TUs that they don't get played in, so if the second January is used, a year of game time has actually passed. However, if a year of real time is used, then a year of game time is not guaranteed to have passed. In fact, very little game time may have passed.
rook1138 02-09-07, 07:53 PM	I assume that PCs don't go into time-stop for the TUs that they don't get played in, so if the second January is used, a year of game time has actually passed. However, if a year of real time is used, then a year of game time is not guaranteed to have passed. In fact, very little game time may have passed. I have seen several favors and such that expired after 1 year of real time, so was basing my post on that observation. Seeing as how I don't have a wizard PC with a familiar, I don't really care either way, but was noting that basing it on the 2nd january could basically mean almost 2 years have passed (say, feb1st is when you dismiss), which is a long time and really sucks for some. But I'm cool with the 2nd january as well if we want to include a RL timeline as well besides just TUs... Matt T Pale Triad - not an official post
solbergb 02-09-07, 08:36 PM	Hm...I hit edit instead of reply. Thanks for responding on the wartrained thing. I should have read the rest of the thread. Could I get a response to my main query, which was....can the size limitations on open access be broadened on at least the cloaks and necklaces? As it is you can't buy anything but barding for your mount, which is guaranteed to be a different size than you. There is also some weirdness with cohorts that aren't the same size as the master. This also means shapeshifting PC's could perhaps buy two sets of gear, one for their different size form and one that melds with them.
magebeast 02-09-07, 09:11 PM	Could I get a response to my main query, which was....can the size limitations on open access be broadened on at least the cloaks and necklaces? These things are not size-specific.
gm_dug 02-09-07, 09:33 PM	If this is the case, all current 15th-level characters should be offered the chance to do so once upon publication of the new LGCS. If you were to do this - why would you not give it to everyone? (To keep the playing field level for all)
Timlagor 02-09-07, 09:38 PM	What book is the Jack Bauer PrC in? (if it can kill enemies that quickly shouldn't it be closed?) It occurs to me that the biggest consequence of the APL+3 rule may be that more tables issue ARs with different APLs for different people on them*. Not sure that's a valid reason not to do it (and it may not even be true; certainly some tables will be changed by this rule) but I thought it worth mentioning. * I haven't actually seen this but I'm pretty sure it's already happened somewhere and it's certainly been thought of.
firestar80 02-09-07, 10:57 PM	Has the circle explored the idea of a "Special Effect Log" similar to a MIL. It would make a clear account of effect from AR's and what AR the effect was lost on. Please also group FAQ with topic headers
blood_kite 02-09-07, 11:10 PM	I suppose I'll ask this since I haven't seen it stated explicitly so far. I know that when a druid wildshapes into the form of an animal that all his gear melds into his new form and becomes nonfunctional. But does a druid then gain the magic item slots that an animal has according to Chapter 5, Animals & Magical Beasts, Magic Items?
Britt 02-09-07, 11:14 PM	FAQ topic headers were taken out because it's only 1.5 pages now. It's not long enough to need topic headers. That would be like having a table of contents on a two page document.
JamesMaissen 02-09-07, 11:37 PM	FAQ topic headers were taken out because it's only 1.5 pages now. It's not long enough to need topic headers. That would be like having a table of contents on a two page document. Just a thought.. but as invariably people seem to cycle through the same set of questions in response to the new LGCS, perhaps these would make for a decent section in the FAQ? Also a few of the layover Q/As seem bothersome to me (perhaps simply because I'm used to the old more verbose LGCS): Question: Re: Weaponlike spells Answer: is it you 'may' or you 'should'? That is, is it "Yes, the campaign uses these rules", or "you may elect to use them should you desire." Question: Re: Cantrips in Spellbook. Answer: Should it be all open cantrips now rather than just the PhB ones? Question: Re: Spellcomponents and MILs Answer: It says only if it requires campaign documentation. (ie access for planar forks)... does this include the focus for leomund's chest? In the LGCS it says it must be on the MIL, but what serves as documentation for access for it in that case, or is it in error? Question: Re: Domain Access Answer- you gain access. Perhaps it might be a good place to make note that some domains have changed spells in LG? and Question: Re: Copying spells into a spellbook Answer doesn't reference any need for access to non-open spells. Should there be any? Thanks, and great work, James
hiltonjohn 02-10-07, 12:01 AM	Folks; There is a medieval dictum to the effect that "old laws are always the best laws." With this in mind, I must say that ANY change to the rules of the campaign is, on balance, a BAD IDEA (TM). Such changes tend to alienate the more experienced members of the LG community -- especially those who organize and run games. This being said, I have two particular concerns: 1. In this edition, you cannot play if you are more than three levels over the APL the table is being played at. This rule works VERY well in places like Chicago. In my area, however, we may have to drive 500 km to play a mod -- literally. This rule will make it exceedingly difficult for people to play the same character for mods in a series. This loses continuity of storyline -- which is critical if LG is to be more than a collection of episodic adventures. Seriously, this is a BIG issue. 2. If the LGCS removes someone's feat or spell, the LGCS should offer an immediate remedy. By insisting on the use of the Retraining option, we are effectively penalizing random people for multiple TUs and a fair pile of GP, as well as removing an established character feature. That's adding insult to injury. Moreover, it is a change to the way that the LGCS has handled such changes in the past -- a bad idea in any case. Allow anyone who is losing a spell, feat, and suchlike, the opportunity to immediately fix it. Fair is fair. Pax, John HOB
Britt 02-10-07, 12:03 AM	Question: Re: Weaponlike spells Answer: is it you 'may' or you 'should'? That is, is it "Yes, the campaign uses these rules", or "you may elect to use them should you desire." Question: Re: Cantrips in Spellbook. Answer: Should it be all open cantrips now rather than just the PhB ones? Question: Re: Spellcomponents and MILs Answer: It says only if it requires campaign documentation. (ie access for planar forks)... does this include the focus for leomund's chest? In the LGCS it says it must be on the MIL, but what serves as documentation for access for it in that case, or is it in error? Question: Re: Domain Access Answer- you gain access. Perhaps it might be a good place to make note that some domains have changed spells in LG? and Question: Re: Copying spells into a spellbook Answer doesn't reference any need for access to non-open spells. Should there be any? 1. It is may. We don't want to require someone to have the CAr. It is a benefit to the player they may use if they wish. 2. Nope, we don't intend to give them access to every Open cantrip. Imagine how many pages that would take in a spellbook. 3. That's a focus, not a component. But I've clarified it on my end just in case. 4. Hmm, not sure, but I'll think about it.
Britt 02-10-07, 12:04 AM	2. If the LGCS removes someone's feat or spell, the LGCS should offer an immediate remedy. By insisting on the use of the Retraining option, we are effectively penalizing random people for multiple TUs and a fair pile of GP, as well as removing an established character feature. That's adding insult to injury. Moreover, it is a change to the way that the LGCS has handled such changes in the past -- a bad idea in any case. Allow anyone who is losing a spell, feat, and suchlike, the opportunity to immediately fix it. Fair is fair. This has been clarified in my copy. It is immediate and free.
Half_Fiendish_Tarrasque 02-10-07, 12:13 AM	Regarding the GP penalty being applied... I personally don't think that anything needs to be done about this. If people are abusing the system in order to avoid retirement deal with those people/characters individually. IMHO, there's no reason to punish players/mutt-PCs because of a few (or even sizable minority that are) bad apples. And make no mistake... it more than offsets any perceived 'advantage' being gained by the penalty. It actually hurts. With the proposed increase to Adventure level access, PCs that are multi-classed with unbalanced classes that are unfavored (MUCUs) are particularly hurt by a GP penalty as they are approximately 20% less likely to be able to save up and purchase items within 3 ARs. Also, the cost of death is likewise more difficult to pay for. However, since I believe in proposing alternatives rather than simply shouting "no fair" here are some alternatives to the proposal in the LGCS draft. 1. Eliminate the XP hit entirely! If the concern is maintaining the XP/GP ratio and eliminating any 'benefit' MUCUs might receive from the XP penalty, then removing the XP penalty is the simplest and most elegant solution. This levels the playing field without prejudice. It's not as though LG calculates encounter XP by the DMG rules, (i.e. 30xp/EL, scenario XP capped at (1/2 APL * 250) + 225 xp ) so arbitrarilly giving all PCs the same XP regardless of their class components is LESS of a departure from Core Rules than applying a GP penalty. (Frankly, applying a GP penalty on top of the forced mechanic of a scenario gold cap and 'all items must be sold' is extremely harsh and radically different than the Core Rules.) 2. Borrow a rule from the RPGA's D&D Campaigns, and allow PCs to declare one extra favored class. This may be enough to tease out the cheaters from the incidentals. 3. If option #2 is too complicated, then adjust all XP & GP penalties down by 20%, i.e. the first unbalanced level is free! In other words, if a MUCU PC only has one unbalanced class, there's no penalty; 2 unbalanced classes is penalized 20-20, 3 unbalanced classes 40-40, etc. This should be enough to block any benefit realized by cheaters without hurting the incidentals. 4. If a GP penalty is absolutely necessary, make it 1 GP per XP. Since LG Experience increases linearly by APL, and thus the XP penalty, and the GP penalty should as increase linearly as well. 5. If none of the above are palatable... Halve the XP penalty per unbalanced class to 10% and cap it 40%; impose a GP penalty of half that (5%/class) and also cap the GP penalty at 40%. This means that heavily unbalanced PCs (presumably those belonging to cheaters) will still be hit by 40-40, while incedental/accidental MUCUs will be less hurt and deviate less from the standard LG rewards. 6. If none of the above are palatable... Keep the XP penalty at 20%/class, capped at 40%. Halve the GP penalty to 10%/class, also capped at 40%. This is similar to the previous option but reaches cap faster. 7. Offer PCs that would be affected by the new 20-20 rule a Triad approved rebuild. This should prevent abuse of the rebuild system. If preferred, this can be handled through the Special Mission system, or require a special AR to document the change(s). 8. Allow PCs that would be affected by the new 20-20 rule to use the rebuild option as outlined in the PHB2. This would be handled at a one per/level rate, just like retraining. As a protection against abuse, the rebuild may only be used to eliminate the penalties in the most efficient manner, and not simply because the player no longer wants a class. By extension, i.e. as a consequence, this can never be used to rebuild a Prestige Class as they never contribute to XP penalties. If preferred, this can require the use of a special AR to document the change. That's all I have at the moment and should be more than enough to think about. Surely there is something in there that can be used. Thanks for reading all the way to the bottom. PHFT
hiltonjohn 02-10-07, 12:20 AM	This has been clarified in my copy. It is immediate and free. Excellent! Thanks!
hiltonjohn 02-10-07, 12:21 AM	Folks; 1. In this edition, you cannot play if you are more than three levels over the APL the table is being played at. This rule works VERY well in places like Chicago. In my area, however, we may have to drive 500 km to play a mod -- literally. This rule will make it exceedingly difficult for people to play the same character for mods in a series. This loses continuity of storyline -- which is critical if LG is to be more than a collection of episodic adventures. Seriously, this is a BIG issue. Can we add an exception for this circumstance?
Britt 02-10-07, 12:27 AM	We're talking about the APL+3 rule, again...again. No promises though, as we all were pretty settled on the decision for both of the last two discussions on the topic. We're just discussing it again due to all the comments. The XP/GP % penalties will 90% sure not be changing. We are all very happy with the rule.
Britt 02-10-07, 12:46 AM	My first post here (4th in the thread) has been updated with links to Ken's compiled access changes.
morganwolf 02-10-07, 12:55 AM	I would like to indicate that druids while having wildshape and being able to handle themselves in that capacity not all of us druids are the wildshaping kind. I and several others are spellcasting druids yet it seems that until druids get to level 5 and up they have limited damage spells unlike wizards/sorcerer's/clerics/warmages etc..., Is it possible to allow some of the other druid spells from SPC to be allowed as OPEN so that druids have at least some damage they can do like scorching ray for mage types especially: SPLINTERBOLT SALTRAY FROSTBREATH HEARTFIRE
Britt 02-10-07, 12:59 AM	We won't be adding more Open spells at this point unless it is required to make something else function properly.
zoinks69 02-10-07, 01:08 AM	Apologies if this was covered earlier. I've tried to keep up with the posts and may just have missed it. Question: Are the "Alternative Class Features" (from PHB2) going to be allowed? If so, would they fall under an available Retraining option? For instance, a Radiant Servant of Pelor (not me, mind you) might like the alternate feature for clerics, but how would they go about getting it?
William_of_Marner 02-10-07, 01:13 AM	Britt, just to clarify intent: working off the DMG errata + FAQ, are we now using the rule that caster level is NOT a prerequisite for crafting? That is, if a PC can cast the requisite spells and has seen access to an item, they can craft it by paying the appropriate TU/gold/XP cost? This hasn't been answered. AFAICS, that's the intent, because that's what the most recent FAQ /says/, and we're coming into line with the latest rulings whereever possible. The fact that the FAQ seems to rewrite a paragraph of the DMG is besides the point :) From my DMG, page 215, top of the right-hand column: ... the creator's caster level must be as high as the item's caster level (and prerequisites may effectively put a higher minimum on the creator's level) From the FAQ (Main35FAQv12202006a.pdf) , page 45, half-way down the right-hand column: Unless stated specifically, items never have a minimum caster level as a prerequisite (the "CL" entry is the default caster level of the item, not a requirement for creation). A third-level wizard with Craft Wonderous Item could create a Harp of Charming (even though he's not high enough level to cast Suggestion, a prerequisite for creation), as long as he had access to the Suggestion spell during creation (such as from an item or another character). (nb: Harp of Charming has CL5)
Sieylianna 02-10-07, 01:21 AM	Although I have complained bitterly over the druid wildshape changes, I have to admit that the proposed rebuild option seems reasonably fair (I think there are some items which you should be able to resell w/o contacting the triad). Overall, the document looks good. I've been pushing for the DMM/DSP restriction for years and think the GP penalty for multi-classing is a great idea. Most of the MoMF's I've seen in action ignored the restrictions on creature type, so it's probably a good idea. Improving access for non-crafters is another welcome change. My only other comment is that it would be nice to see a one-time free retraining for each PC when this is released. In my case, I have about 10 PCs and I'd really like to retrain them all now, instead of having it spread out over the next year or so. Ed
Grakarg 02-10-07, 01:42 AM	1) Since Duskblade and Dragon Shaman are NONC, will local triads be allowed to give access through org, mods, and special missions? 2) I noticed that all of the 'reserve' feats from Complete Mage are open. I suggest that these be moved to 'closed'. Feat allows a wizard to load up on all utility spells and still have an effective attack "spell" all day long. This infringes upon the class roles of sorcerers and warmages (already underrepresented). However, I can see that they might be a great feat set to add to a home campaign. 3) I'm disappointed Ultimate Magus is 'Closed'. The PrC is the first PRC to offer spell progression for dual classed arcanists, a build I've wanted to make since 3.0 first came out. I don't see how the class can unbalance gameplay, especially since the main ability of the class is a wide selection of spells, and spell access is already controlled in the LGCS. Plus, in order to get lots of utility (lots of spells per day), you have to level up the character, unlike the open access to reserve feats- which let you blast away all day long.
frupton 02-10-07, 02:28 AM	Non-adventuring activity: If you have to name a target DC before you roll and get 0 if you miss that DC, nobody is going to roll. Everybody is going to take 10. Example: Suppose you have 20 ranks in Profession(Cheesemaker). You can say you are aiming for DC 30, take 10, and succeed 100% of the time. If instead you roll the die, there is no DC you can name that gives you more expected gold than this. The high ones you will miss too often, and the low ones give less gold than DC 30. This is essentially true regardless of how many ranks you have in Profession (Cheesemaker). Removing the rule that requires you to name the DC in advance will encourage people to roll the die, generally without significantly changing the expected amount of gold earned compared to taking 10.
MikeJS 02-10-07, 04:02 AM	For that matter, if there is going to be a limit on the max level a character can be in relation to the APL played, I’d like to see a minimum level as well. Frankly, I’m FAR more tired of seeing 1st and 2nd level characters tagging along on an APL 14 adventure. Inevitably, the DM will metagame and not even hold the low level characters as viable targets and they end up getting free half xp and gp for showing up and doing absolutely nothing.Well, that's not really a campaign problem if a particular DM is soft-balling; and once again there's the "How do we make a legal 4-player table?" problem.
pedr 02-10-07, 07:27 AM	This hasn't been answered. AFAICS, that's the intent, because that's what the most recent FAQ /says/, and we're coming into line with the latest rulings whereever possible. The fact that the FAQ seems to rewrite a paragraph of the DMG is besides the point :) From my DMG, page 215, top of the right-hand column: From the FAQ (Main35FAQv12202006a.pdf) , page 45, half-way down the right-hand column: (nb: Harp of Charming has CL5)It's not the FAQ which changes that paragraph, but the DMG errata. Caster Level Dungeon Master’s Guide, page 215 Problem: The last two sentences in the section on Caster Level are ambiguous and potentially misleading. Solution: Replace with this text: For other magic items, the caster level is determined by the creator. The minimum caster level is that which is needed to meet the prerequisites given. By the D&D rules, CL is not a prerequisite to casting, merely an aid to DMs who assign treasure by rolling on a table and want to know the CL of a particular randomly assigned magic item without having to both work out what the minimum could be and then invent the CL that it was actually crafted at. LG decided, probably for historic reasons, that it would continue to use that rule, but it has now been removed.
JamesMaissen 02-10-07, 07:58 AM	I was wondering if opening up different sized mundane items could be open for discussion for the LGCS? 1. The math of the damage vs the penalty for using a different sized weapon with Monkey Grip makes this less than ideal especially when one considers the feat cost. 2. In the case of mundane items we're talking about items that 1st level commoners could craft, so making them rare by exclusion seems silly. 3. There are issues where characters will wish to purchase items of other size (for mounts, cohorts, to hand off to other characters, etc). It seems a strange restriction to have for the campaign as I'm not sure what it accomplishes by it's inclusion. Thanks for your time, James
Bardach 02-10-07, 08:08 AM	Yes, you can get belts +4 and +6. No on the AE access. Do we also get access to the different levels of Rings of protection, Cloak/vest of resistance? A sentance is needed to clirify what levels are meant
berpo 02-10-07, 08:14 AM	I'm sorry to extend an already really long thread but I have something I'm not sure to understand well. (sorry I'm better in french) For the crafting CL requirement that will be gone. Does that mean that If I take the craft rod feat, I can craft them at lvl 12 if I can buy them on my AR ? Same thing for the perl ? Thanks for helping me on that point. Marc, Tusman rider.
pedr 02-10-07, 08:32 AM	Do we also get access to the different levels of Rings of protection, Cloak/vest of resistance? A sentance is needed to clirify what levels are meantThe guiding principle of this draft of the LGCS seems to be to remove anything that is unneccessary, including 'legacy' explanations of things which have changed but now follow the core rules. The LGCS works exactly as written. It says that rings of protection are Open access, the DMG lists rings of protection at +1 to +5, therefore rings of protection up to +5 are Open access. Similarly with the removal of the 'CL is a prerequisite for crafting' variation. As the LGCS doesn't stipulate an extra prerequisite, the core rules, which now do not have that requirement, is followed. It's removing all of these explanations that has reduced the document to such a managable size. Yes, it makes the learning curve for current players slightly steeper (I'm sure we'll see this question asked and answered many many times over the next few months!) but it makes it considerably more accessible for new players. And it makes the LGCS cheaper to print!
Swiftbrook 02-10-07, 08:42 AM	Change list (most of it). 1) P2 Retraining available at each level for 4 TUs and (100gp x new level) 2) Special Missions changed to one/character/year 3) Animals clarified somewhat (no, no "trained for war" clarification) 1) Just a formatting note. I would rewrite this as "... each level for (100 gp x new level) and 4 TUs." Rational, someone will start asking is the 4 TU x the new level. A simple change in the order it is written will eliminate any confusion. 2) I would like to see this changed to you may only apply (or may only be approved for) one special mission per year. Rational: waiting for the special mission to be written has nothing to do with character time. 3) Whis you would do this in a DC soon. -Swiftbrook
Timlagor 02-10-07, 09:14 AM	I'd like to see a DC or similar alongside the LGCs release to reiterate all the things that people keep asking about that are no longer LG restrictions. It wouldn't really be appropraite to put them in the wonderfully trimmed FAQ but it's clear that these questions will keep coming up and there will therefore inevitably be Judges who won't believe the restrictions have gone. (pointing them here might work but it's not acually 'official' and nor is it easy to find the relevant comments) Something official saying: - yes you can buy Bows with higher than +4Str rating - Yes you can buy Ring of Prot +5 etc - Yes you can craft items without the relevant CL (unless pecified otherwise) - etc. would be extremely useful. Seems like exactly what DC is for to me. It would be nice if such questions could be included in a DC (either the one that hasn't been posted yet or a new one) at the time of the LGCS release but March would be ok.
kjenks 02-10-07, 09:33 AM	I'd like to see a DC or similar alongside the LGCs release to reiterate all the things that people keep asking about that are no longer LG restrictions. It wouldn't really be appropraite to put them in the wonderfully trimmed FAQ but it's clear that these questions will keep coming up and there will therefore inevitably be Judges who won't believe the restrictions have gone. (pointing them here might work but it's not acually 'official' and nor is it easy to find the relevant comments) Something official saying: - yes you can buy Bows with higher than +4Str rating - Yes you can buy Ring of Prot +5 etc - Yes you can craft items without the relevant CL (unless pecified otherwise) - etc. would be extremely useful. Seems like exactly what DC is for to me. It would be nice if such questions could be included in a DC (either the one that hasn't been posted yet or a new one) at the time of the LGCS release but March would be ok. I'm working on an unofficial version of this. I already started with an analysis of the tables. When I get time, I'll go through the rest of the sections. But right now, I have a convention to run and a Core to finish. So it will be a little while until I get to this.
darrell_uk 02-10-07, 10:28 AM	The very last sentence under Cohort Advancement (page 12(14)) reads; "If he gains GP from this adjustment, the GP can be used only on permanent magic items." Is this meant to rule out spending it on mundane items, upgrading current items, or just keeping the cash? Because as currently written it does?
Drezden 02-10-07, 10:56 AM	I don't like the APL+3 rule either. I can see it causing problems at conventions or at the end of the year when some characters are out of TUs and therefore some players are less flexible with character choice. I hope the Circle doesn't implement this rule. However, if the Circle is intent on issuing some rule in this regard, then why not change it from more than APL+3 to more than APL+4. This would give people a little more breathing room and would still accomplish some of what the Circle wanted. Thanks, Daren
noncompliant 02-10-07, 11:34 AM	We're talking about the APL+3 rule, again...again. No promises though, as we all were pretty settled on the decision for both of the last two discussions on the topic. We're just discussing it again due to all the comments. The XP/GP % penalties will 90% sure not be changing. We are all very happy with the rule. i thought the object of the lgcs was to keep players interested in being able to play the game regardless of what characters they have generated. by going away from the boiler plate that's been in place ever since 3.0 edition by limiting players to use PC'S within three levels of what the APL of that table was calculated just creates more problems than it solves for everyone involved by doing the following: a: it'll make it harder for players to form a table of PC'S in order to play a scenario of a continuing storyline. b: the lower level PC'S will benefit more than the others while not always contributing a fair amount of the interaction involved in any scenario. c: the mid to high level PC'S will be challenged two fold, by the encounter while trying to keep the lower level PC'S alive at the same time. overall, this won't stop players from being able to play up an APL, nor directly solve the xp / gp curve problem. by keeping the boiler plate as it is, and then changing the GP & XP earned to not exceed the lesser of either the GP & XP earned at the APL of the table, or the PC's level rounded down to the minimum of APL 2. in this way, each PC will earn what will be considered a comprehensive amount in consideration to what the average PC could contribute in the scenario. furthermore, the multi-classing penalties would be more effectively useful by this method of advancement versus the current method that's being used.
noncompliant 02-10-07, 11:50 AM	after reading the dc on wild shape changes, the rebuild option is fair enough. however, the statement in the altered forms reference needs clarification on what hit points remain when using the ability. if pc's wild shape while wearing equipment that boosts their stats, wouldn't these modifiers go away if the items involved are melded into the new form? also, wouldn't the magical boost to con & hit points go away if that item was melded into the new form as well?
Azerin 02-10-07, 12:35 PM	There should at least be language in the LGCS that says that some items that appear on neither list, these rules items are not regularly available for character use but may be made available through ARs or favors. Right now it says there are 2 categories, open or closed, with no explanation for if something doesn't fall into one of those 2 categories. I didn't actually see this replied-to, and its important that it doesn't fall through the cracks. I've had three different people that I've discussed the new LGCS with tell me that "Anything not closed is open", in one way or another, as they haven't read the boards. Its important to note "Anything not from a core source or listed here is still limited access (or NONC or whatever you're going to clarify it as), and requires campaign documentation to use." Err whatever, I dunno I've turned down any chance I've had to write because I'm not a pensmith, you get my point. And if I just missed the response, sorry for the unneccessary post.
TWG_Prometheus 02-10-07, 01:24 PM	I was just reading through the Upgrades for magic items section (page 14) and I noticed that all examples of upgrades were from a lesser ability to a greater one of the same type, as in acid resistance to improved acid resistance. The text also stated that 'If the difference between two magic items is merely an improvement in the basic abilities of the item, it is considered an upgrade.' How does this work with adding entirely new abilities to an item, such as in adding the Frost weapon enhancement to a +2 Merciful weapon, for instance? Can you add silent moves to the quoted +3 slick light fortification mithril chain shirt since it is a standard item or could you only add +4 and +5 enhancements, improved slick, greater slick, moderate fortification and heavy fortification? This is a fairly common practice with Create Magic Arms and Armor, but just for further clarification, could you make an Amulet of Wisdom +2 and Health +2? (I doubt this one is the case, but again...just to check)
EdGruberman 02-10-07, 01:24 PM	Nice job on the new LGCS, I especially like the open access for the magic items. Here are a few things I would like to see changed: Playing down more then more then three levels. I don’t like rules that limit play opportunity, I would like to see an option that would allow a player to play down. Maybe you could bestow negative levels on the PC for the adventure and give the DM the option of removing equipment. Campaign Documentation I don’t think LG uses “certificates” anymore and does not have “certificate trading rules”. If it is referring to the year one certificates this paragraph can be removed. If it is referring to ARs or something else it should be reworded. Familiar Loss I think the TUs should be from any TUs spent not just adventuring or metaorgs. Experience/GP Penalties I think the GP/Level balance would be better handled by using Table 5-1 Character Wealth by level. If your wealth is more then twice (or 1.5 times) that listed in Table 5-1 Character Wealth then you have an encounter with the tax collector. There is a similar rule for Charity of friends so I think the rule would be easy to implement. Lycanthropy I think this can be removed from the campaign for the same reason as polymorph. Alter self Ed Gruberman will miss turning into a Locathah (chameleon tattoo) and swimming (100ft speed) in the Nyr Dyv, or blending in with the enemy to do some reconnaissance. He will lose sleep (ocean tattoo) over it if he can’t do a free retrain.:weep: Reincarnate I think this would be easier if you just replaced the table 1:NPC 2-9: Hill dwarf 10-13:Mountain dwarf 26-42:NPC …
Majoru Oakheart 02-10-07, 01:28 PM	1) Since Duskblade and Dragon Shaman are NONC, will local triads be allowed to give access through org, mods, and special missions? Yes, it does. 2) I noticed that all of the 'reserve' feats from Complete Mage are open. I suggest that these be moved to 'closed'. Feat allows a wizard to load up on all utility spells and still have an effective attack "spell" all day long. This infringes upon the class roles of sorcerers and warmages (already underrepresented). However, I can see that they might be a great feat set to add to a home campaign. We've discussed this at length. I maintain that when you are 7th level, the ability to do 4d6 fire damage to a 5ft radius at a range of 30ft infinite times per day is not overpowering compared to the 7th level warmages ability to cast 6 or more 7d6+4 20ft radius fire damage at 400ft range. The Complete Mage explains this fairly well. Most combats in D&D last 2-4 rounds. If you have 3 actions per battle and 2 battles a day then if you can cast 6 fireballs it might as well be infinite. Also, if you are casting your utility spells during the 3 actions per battle, you aren't doing the 4d6 points of damage. They are alright spells, but not anywhere near broken. Chris Wachal POC - Ket Triad
mlund 02-10-07, 01:34 PM	Apologies if this was covered earlier. I've tried to keep up with the posts and may just have missed it. Question: Are the "Alternative Class Features" (from PHB2) going to be allowed? If so, would they fall under an available Retraining option? For instance, a Radiant Servant of Pelor (not me, mind you) might like the alternate feature for clerics, but how would they go about getting it? It ain't Open. It ain't Closes. It is Not Open, Not Closed. I've already seen at least one AR grant access to PHB2 Alternate Class Features. - Marty Lund
blood_kite 02-10-07, 02:04 PM	I hate to be a broken record, but can we get confirmation that a wildshaped druid has the same magic item slots as an animal?
chesspiece 02-10-07, 02:31 PM	Do Introductory Adventures, Interactives, and Special Missions count as Adventurers? They aren’t listed under Adventure Types (pg 1-2). This is important for the purposes of MIC, benefits from non-adventuring activity, regaining familiars, etc. Languages (pg 4) Shouldn’t Baklunish be Ancient Baklunish and Suloise be Ancient Suloise in the ‘Open for all PCs’ list of languages (since these are the Canon names for those languages)? Or else you should say Baklunish and Suloise in the most prominent languages list (if these are now the ‘proper’ names). Class (pg 4) “You may choose any base class from Open Base Classes in Appendix 4.” Or the PHB / DMG! ;) Since page 9 makes NPC classes (Adept) Open, this means that PCs have Open Access to a spell list with Heal as a level 5 spell. This means that Limited Wish can create a Heal. (“Duplicate any other spell of 5th level or lower, provided the spell is not of a school prohibited to you.”) If you do not intend to allow this, please exclude NPC classes and state that they are for authors only. Or make a LG ruling regarding Limited Wish & spell lists. Rulebooks (pg 9) PH2 and CS are not in alphabetical order. Repairing Magic Items (pg 13) In the FAQ (pg 20), it sounds like overcap GPs (during that adventure or the next 3) can be spent on a repair – yes? Non-adventuring activity (pg 15-16) says after any adventure but under Skills (pg 4) says after regional adventuers for earning GPs. If you do away with calling the DC before rolling (as was suggested previously), you could prohibit Sleight of Hand from Taking 10 (without a class feature) and that a roll of 1 leads to the bluff check... Pg 16 Sanctioned Benefits. Shouldn’t there be some explanation / note for the cards that have 2 different versions (Second Wind & Bane of My Enemies IIRC)? Please explain that these can be used in LG without needing to spend the action point. Or maybe just refer to the RPGA site for Promo card wording. FAQ (pg 20) What about the DC text for copying limited / NONC spells & buying the access source (scroll / spellbook) if applicable? Should this be reprinted in the LGCS? IMHO, there shouldn’t be a good reason to reread past DCs for rules text if you have the LGCS in front of you. Maybe there could be a separate FAQ for the LGCS? Can you please clarify in the FAQ / DC that old benefits applying to Core items now apply to Open items? (i.e. a metaorg that gives access to Core spells) Now that CL isn’t a prereq for MIC, what is the CL of items that I CWI? If my CL is lower than the DMG item, does the item still DMG default or do I need to record & track the CL that I crafted it at? Similarly if my CL is higher than DMG default. Can this affect the price / properties of Wonderous Items (i.e. boots of speed, # rounds = 10, CL 10)? P.S. Thanks for the review period, the discussions / Circle feedback, and the tightest LGCS to date. :cool:
Platinum 02-10-07, 03:14 PM	My druid is almost L15. I know 2 other druids at about the same level locally as well as lots of mid level ones. The proposed rules are crippling our PCs! 1) My biggest complaint is that all the druid buff spells I like target animals ONLY, and in a new form: squid/owl/shambling-mound/etc., I'm still a humanoid now and none of those spells affect me! (Does that mean I can now use a belt, vest, helm, boots, rings, ...etc in animal form???) 2) All three of us L14ish druids have a +6 periapt/Wisdom that will need to be removed before changing, and per the FAQ, loose a dozen high-level spells in the process. (Please post a work-around if you have one.) 3) I have animal barding that I wear, and when the duration of the wild shape is about to run-out (or I need a few hp) I change into the same type of animal. This would cause my barding, amulet, and cloak to be lost! -A
Britt 02-10-07, 03:17 PM	My first post in this thread (4th in the thread) has been updated with links to updated text for the LGCS.
Gyro_LC 02-10-07, 03:19 PM	Can I suggest that if MIC feats are prohibited from being retrained (or have a steeper retraining fee), that an exception be made for MIC feats that haven't been used yet?
Britt 02-10-07, 03:50 PM	We are likely making the following spells Open: aspect of the icy hunter (CM) dreaded form of the eye tyrant (CM) form of the threefold beast (CM) shape of the hellspawned stalker (CM) unyielding form of inevitable death (CM) trollshape (PH2)
thorinXXX 02-10-07, 04:14 PM	Can you change the way APL is figured? The easiest way is simply to divide the total levels in the party by 6. GP and XP are already divided by 6, and the encounters already assume a full table of 6.
gomeztoo 02-10-07, 04:17 PM	Did it get clarified if Special Missons can be played out of region? I couldn't find it.
Britt 02-10-07, 04:19 PM	Special Missions are regional adventures. You can play them as an out-of-region character, but a BDK Special Mission cannot be played in the YEO.
gomeztoo 02-10-07, 04:22 PM	So that means I can never play a Special Mission then. Ah well.
darrell_uk 02-10-07, 04:25 PM	Have a couple of problems with the new version of the Cohort rules. I have posted my comments on the new thread.
Timlagor 02-10-07, 05:01 PM	Open Closed Ajar ..so much better than Noncy.
Mortepierre 02-10-07, 05:48 PM	My druid is almost L15. 2) All three of us L14ish druids have a +6 periapt/Wisdom that will need to be removed before changing, and per the FAQ, loose a dozen high-level spells in the process. Assuming a 16 Wis at 1st lvl. 3 x +1 (lvl 4, 8, and 12) -> base 19 Wis +6 (periapt) = 25 Wis Without the periapt, you lose 1 spell of lvl 1 to 3 and 1 spell of lvl 5 to 7 (total: 6 spells). That hardly qualifies as "a dozen high-level spells". Let's not get overboard with our complaints, please. It weakens them in the eyes of the Circle. As a spellcaster myself, I can understand your frustration about this but let's try to remain level-headed.
Platinum 02-10-07, 06:39 PM	I started with an 18 Wis at level 1 and bought a tome of Wis +1 (at L13)... plus the usual +1 per 4 levels gives me a 28 Wis at L15 with the item (22 w/o). The difference being: 0/1/0/1/1/1/-/1/1/na I thus lose a 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 7th, and an 8th. :weep: (Only a half-dozen, but still, that's about 1 encounter's worth of spells.) Assuming a 16 Wis at 1st lvl. 3 x +1 (lvl 4, 8, and 12) -> base 19 Wis +6 (periapt) = 25 Wis Without the periapt, you lose 1 spell of lvl 1 to 3 and 1 spell of lvl 5 to 7 (total: 6 spells). That hardly qualifies as "a dozen high-level spells". Let's not get overboard with our complaints, please. It weakens them in the eyes of the Circle. As a spellcaster myself, I can understand your frustration about this but let's try to remain level-headed.
darrell_uk 02-10-07, 07:15 PM	Is it explicitly spelled out in the rules anywhere what happens if you put a stat boosting item back on? The FAQ covers it with regard taking it off before all spells are cast, (loose the extra slots it gave you, subtracting first from uncast spells) but I can see nothing about putting it back on later. It does say that wearing it whilst preparing the spells (or any equivalent for spontaneous casters) is what is important...
Timlagor 02-10-07, 07:52 PM	It is not explicitly covered afaik but the most common inference is that you only gain blanked spell slots (if anything) until you reach your normal replenishment point (dawn for most casters).
Bogjob 02-10-07, 08:06 PM	Is Stormcaster an Open or Closed PrC ?
amnuxoll 02-10-07, 08:34 PM	We are likely making the following spells Open: aspect of the icy hunter (CM) dreaded form of the eye tyrant (CM) form of the threefold beast (CM) shape of the hellspawned stalker (CM) unyielding form of inevitable death (CM) trollshape (PH2) This sounds like fun! :) It's a shame WotC hasn't published any 2nd level polymorph-subschool spells that could slip right into the void on my barbarian/sorcerer's spell list that will be left by Alter Self. Is there some 2nd level spell that's comparable (and balanced!) that anyone knows of that we might talk Britt into adding to this list? :AMN:
Platinum 02-10-07, 08:43 PM	Great question. Maybe the next dispel confusion could make the ruling that: YOU REGAIN THE SPELLS YOU LOST WHEN YOU REMOVED THE ITEM. That sure would take some of the sting out of these new rule changes. Is it explicitly spelled out in the rules anywhere what happens if you put a stat boosting item back on? The FAQ covers it with regard taking it off before all spells are cast, (loose the extra slots it gave you, subtracting first from uncast spells) but I can see nothing about putting it back on later. It does say that wearing it whilst preparing the spells (or any equivalent for spontaneous casters) is what is important...
Half_Fiendish_Tarrasque 02-10-07, 09:00 PM	What? PHFT agreeing with the Circle? [QUOTE=Divine Dwarf;11430016] You just proved my point. The "Problem" of Divine Spellpower isn't Divine Spellpower, it's the ridiculously broken Holy Word spell that allows an autokill with no save based on caster level. <snip> Holy Word, Dictum, Word of Chaos, and Blasphemy - which are all basically the same spell just for each alignment set - are the only spells in the entirety of D&D that see this kind of a behavior. That's not the fault of the DSP feat, or even of caster level, it's a problem in the bad game design that created these broken spells. As much as I agree with BtT regarding the 'Alignment Domain' spell monstrosities being more of a problem than DSP, I can't support the position. :shocked: The REAL problem with DSP is that it provides HUGE relative gains at VERY low level. With the removal of the "L3 Rule", it is now available for starting characters and the problem is that much worse. If a L1 Cleric with the Fire domain casts a DSP'ed Burning Hands, he could possibly make a 1d4 damage spell become a 5d4 damage spell! That quintuples the damage! Compare that to a L13 Cleric with the Fire domain casting Fire Storm. 17d6 instead of 13d6 is not really that problematic (~30% increase in damage). Or a L11 Cleric throwing a 150hp Harm instead of 110hp (~35% boost). Or a L9 Cleric throwing a 13d6 Flame Strike instead of 9d6 (~45% boost). Or a L6 Cleric throwing a 5d8 Searing Light instead of 3d8 (~65% boost). Surely you can see the problem here. The broken-ness of DSP is inversely related to caster level. So, I've got to side with the Circle here. DSP has to go -- just hope for a similar feat to show up that scales properly instead of the inappropriate backward nature of DSP. FWIW, I will have to replace this feat for my L10 cleric and scratch it off the list of feats to take for my Radiant Servant (so many turn attempts with nowhere to go). She was also planning on taking DMM for Rapid Spell and/or Quicken Spell, so I REALLY need to rework my plans for her! I'm hoping that Nightsticks will (eventually) make a return now that the broken feats that made the Circle ban them are themselves out of the campaign. (Not likely for CY597, but maybe CY598?) PHFT
Hinausauto 02-10-07, 09:17 PM	Good work! Ongoing changes are generally good and indeed needed. I also want to thank you for making LGCS much more simpler than it was. Now you might get it right without absurd high intelligence check. :) I just read the Tentative New Retraining Text for LGCS – thread and were as confused as were the rest of the mortals. This ringed my alarm bell on following subject. Because LG is international you can't assume that everybody understand everything that they read in English. When there are sentences and contents that are hard native English speakers understand they will surely cause havoc to non-native English speakers. So please make your wording as absolutely crystal clear as you can because it will save us lot of trouble if the future (we can actually play instead arguing about the rules). I also want to point out that ongoing changes favours mostly fighting classes and the spell casters are being powered down. Increased feat selection, new crafting rules, no new spells and banned spells & meta magic (dsp+dmm for GOOD reason) all favours fighting classes over spell casters. This leads me to ask you to consider to open some new spells on next LGCS. I'm also quite concerned about leaving out that +2 cl crafting rule. This is because some classes and builds rely on magic items much more than others. Its not about the money you save when you craft. Instead its about that you loose guaranteed item access. Also magic item accesses are varying a lot among regions so without the +2cl rule crafting feats benefit will be much more random than before. Also are you going to enforce somehow dipping among fighting classes in the future? I have noticed that brb 1/ftr x +extra rage is bit too common build. If some build is too common it might tell something about being overpowered...
Half_Fiendish_Tarrasque 02-10-07, 09:44 PM	Oh no! Don't tell me Complete Animal is coming out soon! :P No, that's too broad of a category. It's actually Complete Riding Dog. Professor Bohring steps up to the podium with a serious look on his face. This is no laughing matter! Every monster type must be examined in complete detail, not only for the benefit of the serious hunter/adventurer, but to bleed every last penny out of DnD 3.5 -- which benefits the player by delaying the release of DnD 4.0! Furthermore, as a monster type book, it will most assuredly NOT be given a title that begins with 'Complete', an appelation reserved for texts that increase the number of available options for character building. Nay, it will have a suitably pompous title, like Linnean Menagerie, which has the added advantage of triplicating the obvious abbreviation/acronym 'LM' already called for by Libris Mortis and Lords of Madness. Professor Bohring leaves the podium muttering to himself, upset that he was forced to leave his ivory tower. PHFT, trying to inject some levity into this serious and sometimes confrontational thread :P
amnuxoll 02-10-07, 10:10 PM	Professor Bohring leaves the podium muttering to himself, upset that he was forced to leave his ivory tower. As someone who is this close to finally getting his own little cubicle in the ivory tower I can't help but feel I'm being mocked. This is coming right out of your final grade, Mr. Tarrasque! ;) :AMN:
tsalla 02-11-07, 12:18 AM	It ain't Open. It ain't Closes. It is Not Open, Not Closed. ... - Marty Lund I think there has been enough confusion on this that the category should be mentioned/defined along with Open and Closed. I could live with "NONC" ("Not Open, Not Closed" or "Neither Open Nor Closed"), but would prefer something like "Earned". Earned: A PC may not take advantage of Earned rules items without access granted via campaign documentation (such as an AR). All other prerequisites must still be met. By default, any rules items not specifically listed as Open or Closed must be Earned. - Trevor Salla
Half_Fiendish_Tarrasque 02-11-07, 12:42 AM	I think there's two problems here: Most people who took a long-term XP penalty knew what they were doing - they were exploiting a loophole in the APL system, a very well known loophole. Mechanical metagaming like that always gets taken away at some point. Balderdash! First of all, I'm going to propose that 50% of PCs with an XP penalty took it for OTHER reasons. One such reason is playing a non-favored class concept for a non-human PC race -- if the PC had been human, the XP penalty would disappear. Also, since most racially favored classes are the best or one of the best fits for their talents playing a non-favored class concept is merely interesting and not cheese-weaseling. Furthermore, not everyone is a member of a character optimization group or infinite monkeys or what have you, and characterizing ALL people as such is foolish. Even assuming that all players are sophisticated enough to have realized that they were getting a benefit beyond flavour or beyond the class-synergies themselves is unwise. The people who are 'stuck' with such characters have been gaining excess gold ever since they took the penalty. They've got a cushion. Some people might not have much of one because they just did it, but a lot of those people are either at the point where they're just trying to delay retirement or where they can fix it by taking levels in something else. Hunh? So the character that JUST leveled in December or January and instituted a new XP penalty either: has built up a cushion, is retiring, or can fix the problem simply by taking a level or two of something else? Do you read your posts before you hit send? What you propose is the worst form of oversimplification and stereotyping. case in point... an Elf Paladin 9 / Fighter 1 Are they on the brink of retiring and trying to delay it, did they build up a cushion since they added the Ftr 1 to the Pal 9, or can they take a level or two of something to make it go away? (FACT: they took the level of Ftr to get an immediate feat and entry into a P-class 2 levels sooner) case 2... Scabland Half-Orc Cleric 4 / Ranger 1 Are they on the brink of retiring and trying to delay it, did they build up a cushion since they added the Rgr 1 to the Clrl 4, or can they take a level or two of something to make it go away? (FACT: they took the level of Rgr to buy 8 ranks in Survival for entry into Lord of The Tides.) Yes, they can take 2 more levels of ranger, but this makes this path to the P-class pointless. Under the new rules you had better believe that the build would have been Scabland Half-Orc Cleric 6 / Barbarian 1, which gets into the P-class at the same time as the proposed solution, but bypasses the further erosion of wealth by 20%. I don't understand the part about not being able to change the basic D&D rules, because the rule itself DOES change the basic D&D rules in setting a 50 percent cap. Would there be a possibility of perhaps a lower cap then...? No, please don't! In fact, if the only thing the Circle is willing to contemplate is the cap on XP/GP penalties, please raise it to 80%, 90% or even 100%! Raising the cap shows that the Circle is interested in trying to counterbalance the cheese weasel end of the spectrum as well as the casual, innocent and/or incedental XP penalties. Lowering it shows that they don't care about CWs and are protecting them from the full effect of their cheating folly, while doing nothing to protect the honest-to-goodness innocent and unwitting transgressors. So much for justice or balance if this is the case. Please note that this position assumes that anyone that assumed a 60+% XP penalty did know what they were doing regarding the LG-specific penalty-***-benefit XP penalty. This isn't a perfectly safe assumption, but it is FAR safer than the blind, vanilla blanket statement quoted above. PHFT
Arvagor 02-11-07, 12:58 AM	I think there has been enough confusion on this that the category should be mentioned/defined along with Open and Closed. I could live with "NONC" ("Not Open, Not Closed" or "Neither Open Nor Closed"), but would prefer something like "Earned".No, No, NO! :banghead: WHY is this so difficult for people??? If something is Open, you can take it; if it's Closed, you can't. And if you don't see it in either list, then it effectively DOESN'T EXIST!!! (And I don't care if you fight a duskblade, or somebody uses the ooze puppet spell against you; is still doesn't exist). If you get access to something that you didn't have access to before, well guess what? That item/feat/spell/whatever is now "Open" for you -- it's just that simple... :rant:
MikeJS 02-11-07, 01:58 AM	3) I have animal barding that I wear, and when the duration of the wild shape is about to run-out (or I need a few hp) I change into the same type of animal. This would cause my barding, amulet, and cloak to be lost!I agree that the new changes make it a complete pain in the arse to play a wildshaping druid: There WILL be contast confusion regarding what is and what isn't legal, and I can already see the resulting table-variation and frazzled nerves unless an associated FAQ is release in tandem with the changes.
noncompliant 02-11-07, 02:33 AM	Folks; There is a medieval dictum to the effect that "old laws are always the best laws." With this in mind, I must say that ANY change to the rules of the campaign is, on balance, a BAD IDEA (TM). Such changes tend to alienate the more experienced members of the LG community -- especially those who organize and run games. This being said, I have two particular concerns: 1. In this edition, you cannot play if you are more than three levels over the APL the table is being played at. This rule works VERY well in places like Chicago. In my area, however, we may have to drive 500 km to play a mod -- literally. This rule will make it exceedingly difficult for people to play the same character for mods in a series. This loses continuity of storyline -- which is critical if LG is to be more than a collection of episodic adventures. Seriously, this is a BIG issue. 2. If the LGCS removes someone's feat or spell, the LGCS should offer an immediate remedy. By insisting on the use of the Retraining option, we are effectively penalizing random people for multiple TUs and a fair pile of GP, as well as removing an established character feature. That's adding insult to injury. Moreover, it is a change to the way that the LGCS has handled such changes in the past -- a bad idea in any case. Allow anyone who is losing a spell, feat, and suchlike, the opportunity to immediately fix it. Fair is fair. Pax, John HOB i disagree about those players in chicago. the differences in pc levels are less likely to be more than 3 levels from the formed APL of the table, but there is the occasional misfit that won't get to play if these rules are adapted sorry brit,but i hate to see statements that ain't completely true being posted.
noncompliant 02-11-07, 03:21 AM	Balderdash! First of all, I'm going to propose that 50% of PCs with an XP penalty took it for OTHER reasons. One such reason is playing a non-favored class concept for a non-human PC race -- if the PC had been human, the XP penalty would disappear. Also, since most racially favored classes are the best or one of the best fits for their talents playing a non-favored class concept is merely interesting and not cheese-weaseling. Furthermore, not everyone is a member of a character optimization group or infinite monkeys or what have you, and characterizing ALL people as such is foolish. Even assuming that all players are sophisticated enough to have realized that they were getting a benefit beyond flavour or beyond the class-synergies themselves is unwise. Hunh? So the character that JUST leveled in December or January and instituted a new XP penalty either: has built up a cushion, is retiring, or can fix the problem simply by taking a level or two of something else? Do you read your posts before you hit send? What you propose is the worst form of oversimplification and stereotyping. case in point... an Elf Paladin 9 / Fighter 1 Are they on the brink of retiring and trying to delay it, did they build up a cushion since they added the Ftr 1 to the Pal 9, or can they take a level or two of something to make it go away? (FACT: they took the level of Ftr to get an immediate feat and entry into a P-class 2 levels sooner) case 2... Scabland Half-Orc Cleric 4 / Ranger 1 Are they on the brink of retiring and trying to delay it, did they build up a cushion since they added the Rgr 1 to the Clrl 4, or can they take a level or two of something to make it go away? (FACT: they took the level of Rgr to buy 8 ranks in Survival for entry into Lord of The Tides.) Yes, they can take 2 more levels of ranger, but this makes this path to the P-class pointless. Under the new rules you had better believe that the build would have been Scabland Half-Orc Cleric 6 / Barbarian 1, which gets into the P-class at the same time as the proposed solution, but bypasses the further erosion of wealth by 20%. No, please don't! In fact, if the only thing the Circle is willing to contemplate is the cap on XP/GP penalties, please raise it to 80%, 90% or even 100%! Raising the cap shows that the Circle is interested in trying to counterbalance the cheese weasel end of the spectrum as well as the casual, innocent and/or incedental XP penalties. Lowering it shows that they don't care about CWs and are protecting them from the full effect of their cheating folly, while doing nothing to protect the honest-to-goodness innocent and unwitting transgressors. So much for justice or balance if this is the case. Please note that this position assumes that anyone that assumed a 60+% XP penalty did know what they were doing regarding the LG-specific penalty-***-benefit XP penalty. This isn't a perfectly safe assumption, but it is FAR safer than the blind, vanilla blanket statement quoted above. PHFT the players that are really abusing the multi-classing penalty are those that are taking 60% by the time they've reached sixth level, and putting a 50% penalty cap is being too generous. limiting it to 20% without any other penalties involved will take away the advantages of what this causes.
kjenks 02-11-07, 03:29 AM	Since we're required to put classes and levels on every AR, it sure would be nice if the space for that were larger. Multiclass characters have a hard time here. Gnomes have a hard time, too, since there's a relatively small space on the AR for character name and classes/levels. My annoying gnome, Delphinius P. Spindlebottom, Esq., SS Sorcerer 1/Favored Soul 1/Warmage 1/SS Druid 1, has real trouble fitting all of that into the tiny little blank. (Many people don't know that we're required to put classes and levels on every AR. If you're surprised, please don't post a reply here just to say you're surprised.)
Master_Bushido_Mark 02-11-07, 03:43 AM	Since we're required to put classes and levels on every AR, it sure would be nice if the space for that were larger. Multiclass characters have a hard time here. Gnomes have a hard time, too, since there's a relatively small space on the AR for character name and classes/levels. My annoying gnome, Delphinius P. Spindlebottom, Esq., SS Sorcerer 1/Favored Soul 1/Warmage 1/SS Druid 1, has real trouble fitting all of that into the tiny little blank. (Many people don't know that we're required to put classes and levels on every AR. If you're surprised, please don't post a reply here just to say you're surprised.) Abbreviate (i.e. Src 1/FS 1/Wrmg 1/Drd 1), it seems easy enough. Or just write, refer to character sheet. Or, a simplified abbreviation such as Multicaster 4. Mark
frupton 02-11-07, 04:24 AM	Abbreviate (i.e. Src 1/FS 1/Wrmg 1/Drd 1), it seems easy enough. Or just write, refer to character sheet. Or, a simplified abbreviation such as Multicaster 4. Mark Abbreviating seems fine. The other two options appear inadequate. I believe the purpose of writing the char levels on the AR is so that someone doesn't take their 15th level druid and suddenly decide they'd rather be a 15th level paladin. Unless there's something on the AR that says what your class levels are, there's no audit trail for this type of "rebuild."
frupton 02-11-07, 04:27 AM	No, No, NO! :banghead: WHY is this so difficult for people??? If something is Open, you can take it; if it's Closed, you can't. And if you don't see it in either list, then it effectively DOESN'T EXIST!!! (And I don't care if you fight a duskblade, or somebody uses the ooze puppet spell against you; is still doesn't exist). So if I encounter what appears to be a duskblade, I should attempt to disbelieve? :hides:
Jon_N 02-11-07, 07:13 AM	Hi Britt Quick question: Can you assist another PC with their survival checks to live off the wild. Given it's an LG campaign rule, it's probably best addressed here rather than via the sage, etc. I can see both sides of the argument. The side that I'm arguing for it more the "Don't eat those berries, they're poisonous. Eat these ones." etc. which would enable one PC to help another in surviving.
Jon_N 02-11-07, 07:33 AM	With regard to the XP/GP penalty, I am assuming that the worst penalty you can take is 75%? (Are they multiplied or combined using the original XP). If I'm playing out of APL (as an example I am playing at APL6 = 900XP) and have a (for example) 60% multiclassing penalty, do I take a penalty of (50% of 900XP = 450 and a further 50% of 450XP = 225) 75% or do I take 100% penalty and no XP or gold (50% of 900XP and another 50% of 900XP)? That then means that I am playing all risk and NO reward. As a suggestion with regard to XP/GP penalties, instead of complicating the maths as to which you apply first and which stacks with which, why not have a line that says something along the lines of: "Apply all XP and GP penalties to your PC. XP and GP penalties are limited to 50%. If you would lose more than 50% you instead lose 50%". IMO it would be simpler to make the whole penalty cap at 50% rather than the 75% (or 100%) it might otherwise be. It does mean that multiclass penalties are never a true penalty when you're playing out of APL, but you're also never going to be worse than an "extra" 25% of the original award anyway. Not only does it make the math simpler, it also means that you can't use it as an excuse to slow your PC's experience down drastically. Cheers, Jon.
LordMairsil 02-11-07, 07:37 AM	Can you change the way APL is figured? The easiest way is simply to divide the total levels in the party by 6. GP and XP are already divided by 6, and the encounters already assume a full table of 6. Very bad idea. That rule would make a table of two lvl 10 and two lvl 9 players APL 6 (38/6 = 6.33 = 6), meaning the lvl 10 players cannot even legally play (since they're more than 3 levels outside of APL)
amnuxoll 02-11-07, 08:05 AM	Since we're required to put classes and levels on every AR, it sure would be nice if the space for that were larger. Multiclass characters have a hard time here. Gnomes have a hard time, too, since there's a relatively small space on the AR for character name and classes/levels. My annoying gnome, Delphinius P. Spindlebottom, Esq., SS Sorcerer 1/Favored Soul 1/Warmage 1/SS Druid 1, has real trouble fitting all of that into the tiny little blank. (Many people don't know that we're required to put classes and levels on every AR. If you're surprised, please don't post a reply here just to say you're surprised.) You're telling me! It's already impossible for my character whose full name is Jonathan "Jack" Altradis and who is a fighter/ranger/barbarian/scout/sorcerer/occult slayer/order of the bow initiate. And he hasn't even taken his levels in highland stalker, pious templar, horizon walker and bloodhound yet... :AMN:
muttoo 02-11-07, 09:27 AM	Can you change the way APL is figured? The easiest way is simply to divide the total levels in the party by 6. GP and XP are already divided by 6, and the encounters already assume a full table of 6. To make this compatible with last year's unexpired modules, you should divide by 5, not 6. Divide by 4.5 for a 4-character table since every 2 extra levels gives the power of an extra PC. If the Circle wants to discourage 4-player tables, perhaps a 10% or 20% GP penalty might be a better way to do it. The IC reason could be that 4 PCs have fewer fence & merchant contacts. Added by edit: For a six player table, take the lower of divide-by-5 or divide-by-6-plus-1.
muttoo 02-11-07, 09:43 AM	Delphinius P. Spindlebottom, Esq., SS Sorcerer 1/Favored Soul 1/Warmage 1/SS Druid 1, has real trouble fitting all of that into the tiny little blank. Although there is sometimes a longer name on my table tent, for official AR purposes my PCs always have 1-word names.
mclark 02-11-07, 10:14 AM	If the new LGCS is going to nix Divine Metamagic, the characters with the feat should be allowed free changes to ALL related feats. Everyone I know who took Divine Metamagic took at least 2 associated feats: Extra Turning and a Metamagic Feat. The rule of practice has been to allow appropriate rebuilding when the rules are changed. Since Divine Metamagic is being nerfed, those who need to change their characters should not be punished by only allowing them the single feat change! Past precedents should be followed for all changes effected. Mitch Clark
Sieylianna 02-11-07, 11:30 AM	Hi Britt Quick question: Can you assist another PC with their survival checks to live off the wild. Given it's an LG campaign rule, it's probably best addressed here rather than via the sage, etc. I can see both sides of the argument. The side that I'm arguing for it more the "Don't eat those berries, they're poisonous. Eat these ones." etc. which would enable one PC to help another in surviving. However, there is no guarantee that the PCs were together during downtime. A lot of modules start out with the PCs separated or meeting by accident. Ed
Gyro_LC 02-11-07, 12:17 PM	If the new LGCS is going to nix Divine Metamagic, the characters with the feat should be allowed free changes to ALL related feats. Everyone I know who took Divine Metamagic took at least 2 associated feats: Extra Turning and a Metamagic Feat. The rule of practice has been to allow appropriate rebuilding when the rules are changed. Since Divine Metamagic is being nerfed, those who need to change their characters should not be punished by only allowing them the single feat change! Past precedents should be followed for all changes effected. Mitch Clark Both Extra Turning and metamagic are valid and useful feats. Plus, at your next level you can retrain the metamagic feat into a divine feat to make use of those extra turn attempts.
Julian_Tempest 02-11-07, 12:50 PM	Reincarnate I think this would be easier if you just replaced the table 1:NPC 2-9: Hill dwarf 10-13:Mountain dwarf 26-42:NPC … I propose adding a set of campaign-specific tables for this spell that would include all races legal in LG. Humans should have either a sub-table for all of their sub-races in LG or an entry in this new table for each sub-race. I also assert that another die should also be tossed to determine reincarnated gender. I don't see why a realistic Reincarnation would not include so many other creatures that exist within a world. I also think it sucks that a PC can be instantly retired by an unfortunate die toss. It just isn't very friendly. After all, so many spells get banned because they are considered broken because their use make other PCs feel inadequate (Divine Insight, Polymorph), right? So if a spell's unfriendliness is an excuse to ban it, why can't the unfriendliness excuse be used to improve or otherwise alter something? Reincarnate seems a prime candidate.
Julian_Tempest 02-11-07, 01:07 PM	I don't know if it's already been suggested, but I propose making 7 player tables legal. Yes, I realize that it gets kinda tough for a DM to run 7 players, but we've all seen the kinds of problems that arise at a convention when 7 people want to play a mod; too many for one table and not enough for two. We also know from experience that 7 player tables happen sometimes anyway. Why not simply make them legal? If 7 player tables were legal, then there'd never be a problem letting more than three players play.
Bold 02-11-07, 01:11 PM	And if you don't see it in either list, then it effectively DOESN'T EXIST!!! (And I don't care if you fight a duskblade, or somebody uses the ooze puppet spell against you; is still doesn't exist). Or rather, your character doesn't know anyone who can teach him the class, or properly show him the spell. The Circle's reasoning is sound: players should concentrate on the Open list, and don't worry about the rest (and certainly don't base your character concept on any of it, since there's no guarantee of it being unlocked for you). And hey, if something becomes Open for you as a result of a mod you play or a meta-org you join, then that's just gravy.
BJS 02-11-07, 01:12 PM	A request for clarification on upgrades: Supposing I have a +1 flaming long sword [8,315gp, from an AR] Can I then purchase an upgrade to make it a +2 flaming longsword at 10,000gp? As we have open access to "+1 to +5 enhancement bonuses for weapons, armor, and shields" However, I don't have access to purchase a +2 flaming longsword Great job Britt, btw. And I'm looking forwards to Complete Animal :-) [Did anyone else notice how the recent (unofficial) Rules of the Game didn't help either with Trained for War etc] I case you havn't been told, the POC for Onnwal is no longer Hayden Smith, and the post is currently being advertised. I've just figured out that taking a cohort with a 20/40/60/80/100% exp penalty is not a problem, as they level when you level ;-) You might like to add that casting a spell with the [Evil] descriptor counts as an evil action, as does using a device/scroll to cast one of these spells. Implying you may purchase a scroll of Inflict Critical Wounds [700gp], but your DM's going to report you if you actually use it. A clarification would also be good to know if it is possible to add spikes (etc) to an existing set of armour. Yes we have access to purchase +1 spiked armour, from the PH/DMG. And then what about open access non-core items? Eg Adding a Shield Sheath [RoS 7-2] to an existing +1 heavy steel shield for a mere 25gp. Is it actually possible to buy a MASTERWORK great crossbow [RoS 7-1]? It used to say "characters cannot purchase masterwork versions of weapons and armour not listed in the PH unless they are specifically names as masterwork on the adventure record". Appendix 4: Access says "...large for centaurs" shouldn't it read "...medium/large for centaurs" or "...large for centaurs (if appropriate)" I think that'll do, BJS
blood_kite 02-11-07, 01:47 PM	You might like to add that casting a spell with the [Evil] descriptor counts as an evil action, as does using a device/scroll to cast one of these spells. Implying you may purchase a scroll of Inflict Critical Wounds [700gp], but your DM's going to report you if you actually use it. I thought it already mentioned that, plus Inflict spells do not have the [Evil] descriptor. They're just necromancy spells that will get you jailed in parts of the Sheldomar.
pedr 02-11-07, 02:04 PM	But they do channel negative energy, which is mentioned as a specific evil act in the turning undead section of the PH. Many people are interpreting that as meaning that the inflict spells are, in fact, evil acts, but ones which good clerics are capable of performing, unlike the casting of [Evil] spells. We've had a long discussion on this already and probably don't need another one here :D
NSDataLore 02-11-07, 02:28 PM	I don't know if it's been discussed yet, but I wanted to ask the editors to include a more detailed explanation of the Retraining section. It's only a single paragraph. For example: Are characters allowed to retrain more than one character feature during a single retraining. If so, will the costs remain the same to retrain everything, will the character have to pay only more TUs, or only more money? (Obviously if you have to pay both costs again, the answer to the initial question is no.) Also on that same note, if you ARE allowed to retrain different features with only one payment of costs, is there a limit to the number of things you can retrain with one cost? It's never been mentioned in previous LGCS's, either, but since we'll be allowed to retrain now, are substitution levels from the Races series and Planar Handbook (as described in the PH2) allowed? I think that about covers my questions/concerns. [OOOOO]
tsalla 02-11-07, 02:44 PM	No, No, NO! :banghead: WHY is this so difficult for people??? If something is Open, you can take it; if it's Closed, you can't. And if you don't see it in either list, then it effectively DOESN'T EXIST!!! (And I don't care if you fight a duskblade, or somebody uses the ooze puppet spell against you; is still doesn't exist). If you get access to something that you didn't have access to before, well guess what? That item/feat/spell/whatever is now "Open" for you -- it's just that simple... :rant: Whoa! Got emoticons? ;) The reason it is difficult for people is because it is not stated in the document. You currently just have to infer it. And you can't just say it "doesn't exist", even if your character has no knowledge of it. After all, stuff in the "other" category is in the same books as the Open and Closed stuff, and as you say may be used against you. I totally get the concept, but it needs to be mentioned so it doesn't look like a third of the Spell Compendium, etc., was overlooked. And having a title for things in this unlisted category, such as Earned or NONC, while not absolutely necessary, just makes it easier to refer to. Something like that little paragraph in my last post is all I ask. Trevor
pedr 02-11-07, 03:03 PM	It says, and Britt might be reinforcing it again when he revises his draft, that players can make use of any Open rules item. You don't need to say any more than that - saying you can never use Closed items just makes it clear that they will never be available to players. To reiterate: the LGCS tells you what rules options you can use. It lists the ones which are open to everyone. Subsequent documentation will declare other things Open. What might be useful is a statement that things which players previously had access to because they were limited and they had been given access are now Open for their characters.
Howie23 02-11-07, 03:18 PM	I don't know if it's been discussed yet, but I wanted to ask the editors to include a more detailed explanation of the Retraining section. It's only a single paragraph. For example: Are characters allowed to retrain more than one character feature during a single retraining. The LGCS references retraining. Retraining then says how often and what you can do. You would not expect to retrain to take a non-Open feat; you should likewise not expect to retrain for non-Open racial substituion levels. The elimination of the text elements that said, "Yes, you can do what the book says," as well as the reduction of campaign-natured corner cases, is what has reduced a 70 page document to a 40 page document. David
Jon_N 02-11-07, 03:26 PM	I don't know if it's already been suggested, but I propose making 7 player tables legal. Yes, I realize that it gets kinda tough for a DM to run 7 players, but we've all seen the kinds of problems that arise at a convention when 7 people want to play a mod; too many for one table and not enough for two. We also know from experience that 7 player tables happen sometimes anyway. Why not simply make them legal? If 7 player tables were legal, then there'd never be a problem letting more than three players play. Problem is though, this is an RPGA rule, NOT an LG rule. For some reason, even though YOU might be happy to play with one table of 3 and one table of 4 (and take your chances), the RPGA says that you need to tell one player to go away should you have 7 people want to play a game.. Stupid rule (IMO), but one that LG probably has no option to overrule (and therefore not addressable by the LGCS).
Swiftbrook 02-11-07, 03:32 PM	Topic: APL +3 Cap. Disclamer: I have not read all 24 pages, so if this topic has been decided (or beaten to death) I appologize in advance. I don't like this and would like the old wording retained. Rational: It can be very hard to get a table organized to play a mod. A good class rounded table is even harder. I had a hard time finding a table for the GenCon Special at Indy this year. This is Indy were talking--lots of people. I have two characters, a 7th level and a 1st level. In now way did I want to play my 1st level in the Special. Many people I met wanted to play a specific character in the special. With the APL +3 cap, you futher limit the creation of tables. Also, I want to play my 8th level character (he bumped) in a series of mods. If the only table is APL 4, I'm out of luck. I can understand the rational, but I've also played at a table with (if I recall correctly) a 10, 8, 6, 4 & 4 at APL 6. It was a hard mod for everyone. I haven't seen the APL system abused. I think the APL +3 cap is not needed. Please remove the cap. -Swiftbrook
General Xy 02-11-07, 03:38 PM	Britt, I disagree with the decision to ban Alter Self and Polymorph. As previously mentioned, the official errata DID NOT remove these spells from the Player's Handbook. If you are going to go down this path, though, it seems quite unfair to not allow Open access to any of the Polymorph Subschool spells in the new books. The author of the original Design & Development article seems to clearly recognize that Alter Self and Polymorph must be replaced if they are to be banned. He writes: "Look for new spells that reproduce the iconic shapeshifting effect of polymorph without most of the headaches in future products such as Player’s Handbook II." Removing these spells from the game environment and not allowing any of the replacements that Wizards of the Coast has provided will entirely close off one of the basic game elements and unbalance the schools of magic. - General Xy
BJS 02-11-07, 03:41 PM	Can't it be an APL+4 cap instead? Thus ECL 12 and ECL4 can both play APL8 (for half xp/gp) (and ECL11 & ECL5) Yes, anything beyond this is a bit ridiculous BJS PS - Or it could be done so that EVERYONE gets half xp if the ECL 12 plays on an APL8, as obviously they had far too much help. :lightbulb
NotMousse 02-11-07, 03:43 PM	Just noticed this in the morning, and discussion closes tonight so please forgive me if this has been posted. Spell Focus Evil should be closed. Casting Evil spells is an evil act and makes NPCs of us all. So casting Evil spells well should be an NPC only (and thus closed) thing.
gomeztoo 02-11-07, 03:46 PM	Also, I want to play my 8th level character (he bumped) in a series of mods. If the only table is APL 4, I'm out of luck I know the feeling. With most of my friends' PCs tied up in Red Hand of Doom, I expect to find fewer tables at the proper APL for my main, especially at the gamedays I go to. I understand the rational, and support it, too, but a tiny bit of me would have wished it was APL +4.... so there is one extra APL available to play at.
pedr 02-11-07, 04:00 PM	Just noticed this in the morning, and discussion closes tonight so please forgive me if this has been posted. Spell Focus Evil should be closed. Casting Evil spells is an evil act and makes NPCs of us all. So casting Evil spells well should be an NPC only (and thus closed) thing.Casting evil spells doesn't automatically make you evil. Doing lots of and/or very serious evil acts is evidence that your PC has become evil, and being evil is prohibited.
NotMousse 02-11-07, 04:14 PM	Casting Evil spells is an evil act. Performing evil acts makes your character Evil. Evil characters are turned to NPCs. If you're advanced at casting Evil spells you've practiced evil deeds enough times to make your character Evil, and thus a NPC. Which is why I don't see why Spell Focus Evil is an Open feat.
NotMousse 02-11-07, 04:22 PM	I very much dislike that using Sleight of Hand to make money has been nerfed so badly. Robbing people is now less useful than sinking skill points into craft or Perform. As a Rogue you take the chance of being caught, losing TUs, and all the other ill effects of being a convicted criminal, and have even less chances to make money than any other skill (as being caught costs you TUs that could otherwise go towards making money). ... This statement isn't going to change anything, but I had to say it. This is less relevant now that Charity of Friends can be attempted up to 5 times a year, but really dashes the image of the Thief King made rich by daring raids against nobles' homes as a common blacksmith makes the same 'wage'.
King Kashue 02-11-07, 04:33 PM	Casting Evil spells is an evil act. Performing evil acts makes your character Evil. Evil characters are turned to NPCs. If you're advanced at casting Evil spells you've practiced evil deeds enough times to make your character Evil, and thus a NPC. Fortunately, that is not how the new LGCS reads, and that is not how it has been explicitly explained. According to the new LGCS (and this may be my most favorite part of the document, since it's been an issue at several tables I've played) DMs are not required to note every single evil spell cast, or every minor evil deed. DMs are required to "note the actions on the PC's AR, along with any surrounding or extenuating circumstance" only if the DM feels "their actions are significantly evil, either due to severity or quantity"... If a PC casts a few inflicts, or summons some fiendish sharks, Judges have the option of deciding that's okay (and for neutral characters, that such acts are in fact appropriate to their alignment)...But can immediately note it on the AR if the PC decides to intentionally throw a fireball into a crowded city street to get to an enemy...
Platinum 02-11-07, 04:34 PM	I think having a little more core access is nice in lew of the lack of item access via meta-orgs. However, I made an item-creation wizard (transmuter) because I never got access to any of the items I wanted …at least not with the character that wanted it (which is even more frustrating). For this reason, it is my view that requiring access for crafting ANYTHING is a big steamy load of otyugh droppings! Thank you for the opportunity to express my concerns.
Reylance 02-11-07, 04:43 PM	2) I noticed that all of the 'reserve' feats from Complete Mage are open. I suggest that these be moved to 'closed'. Feat allows a wizard to load up on all utility spells and still have an effective attack "spell" all day long. This infringes upon the class roles of sorcerers and warmages (already underrepresented). However, I can see that they might be a great feat set to add to a home campaign. I disagree. My impression of the reserve feats is that they're decidedly suboptimal. A reserve feat built off a 4th level+ spell might be as powerful as a 2nd level spell. In many cases, a primary wizard who uses such suboptimal spells all the time isn't helping his party as much as he should.
cycloptic_squirrel 02-11-07, 04:59 PM	but really dashes the image of the Thief King made rich by daring raids against nobles' homes as a common blacksmith makes the same 'wage'. Common? The same 'blacksmith', the grandmaster ironwrought to the high duke, project lead of the team that designed and crafted the 'teeth of Castle Korton' which happens to be one of the strongest and most envied portculluses in the kingdom, forger of one of the only three crowbars deemed strong enough for the storm king's toothpick, this same 'common blacksmith' wonders how a common street urchin can steal as much in a week as the incredible price he commands for his services. C'mon, it's about the ranks. If you've maxed out slight of hand, you're going to make about 10 times as much as common blacksmith. That's no reason a blacksmith can't become renowned and valued in his own right if he strives for it. If you want to claim you're some sort of bandit king, go for it. After all, a bandit has to have someone successful to steal from... I mean liberate their riches.;)
Reylance 02-11-07, 05:06 PM	I very much dislike that using Sleight of Hand to make money has been nerfed so badly. Robbing people is now less useful than sinking skill points into craft or Perform. As a Rogue you take the chance of being caught, losing TUs, and all the other ill effects of being a convicted criminal, and have even less chances to make money than any other skill (as being caught costs you TUs that could otherwise go towards making money). ... This statement isn't going to change anything, but I had to say it. This is less relevant now that Charity of Friends can be attempted up to 5 times a year, but really dashes the image of the Thief King made rich by daring raids against nobles' homes as a common blacksmith makes the same 'wage'. Britt, To balance the risk from using Sleight of Hand, perhaps the out-of-game section could allow the rewards for Sleight of Hand to be based on the DC five higher than the rewards for Perform/Craft/etc.?
Reylance 02-11-07, 05:07 PM	So that means I can never play a Special Mission then. Ah well. Why not? Can't you travel to the nearest region in which you can play (Ekbir) and do a special mission there?
frupton 02-11-07, 06:24 PM	Britt, To balance the risk from using Sleight of Hand, perhaps the out-of-game section could allow the rewards for Sleight of Hand to be based on the DC five higher than the rewards for Perform/Craft/etc.? There isn't going to be any risk. Everyone is going to take 10 on these checks, even on Perform and Craft, since you have to name a target DC on those now as well. The risk of earning 0 isn't worth it on any skill, regardless of the additional penalty on SoH for imprisonment for 4 TUs.
Mithreinmaethor 02-11-07, 06:37 PM	Britt Any word on the Beguilers spells ? And when will the final draft be available ?
Britt 02-11-07, 06:46 PM	Updates: Beguiler: All of the Beguiler’s spells are Open for the purposes of Beguiler spellcasting. Healer: Use the version of close wounds as presented in SpC; it is now a 2nd level spell. Remove revivify from the Healer’s spell list. Add the following spells from SpC to the Healer’s spell list at the designated levels. This does not Open the spells for the Healer; you must still find access to the spells before being able to cast them. 1st: Faith healing; stabilize; vigor, lesser 2nd: Close wounds; vigor, mass lesser 3rd: Positive energy aura; revenance; vigor 4th: Delay death; rejuvenation cocoon; vigor, greater 5th: Dance of the unicorn; stalwart pact; vigorous circle 6th: Energy immunity; restoration, mass 7th: Fortunate fate; renewal pact Alter self, permanency, and polymorph may be learned or cast only for use in Magic Item Creation. This is the only use for which these spells are not Closed. Leadership is staying about the same as it was in the original draft. Charity of Friends spellbook clause: If you are a wizard and have lost your spellbook(s), you may use Charity of Friends to gain a new copy. Your total character worth, not counting the new spellbook(s), must be no higher than ¼ the total for your level on Table 5-1: Character Wealth by Level from the DMG 135. You may sell any equipment or give up GP on hand to bring your total character worth, not counting spellbook(s), down to the prescribed value.
Mithreinmaethor 02-11-07, 06:57 PM	Ok thanks Britt. Your shins are safe for now :)
Furluge 02-11-07, 06:58 PM	First of all, real shame to hear about the Duskblades not being open. Was perhaps the most interesting class I've read about, ever. (Yes, I play a spellsword, quite possibly the most underpreforming class, ever.) Guess I'm not too surprised though, but it's a real shame. Second, your NONC problems can be easily resolved by including one clause that says, "All classes/feats/etc. that are not listed as open or closed fall into neither category, and may rarely have access granted to them on ARs."
copper_wyrmling 02-11-07, 07:00 PM	Updates: Beguiler: All of the Beguiler’s spells are Open for the purposes of Beguiler spellcasting. Healer: Use the version of close wounds as presented in SpC; it is now a 2nd level spell. Remove revivify from the Healer’s spell list. Add the following spells from SpC to the Healer’s spell list at the designated levels. This does not Open the spells for the Healer; you must still find access to the spells before being able to cast them. 1st: Faith healing; stabilize; vigor, lesser 2nd: Close wounds; vigor, mass lesser 3rd: Positive energy aura; revenance; vigor 4th: Delay death; rejuvenation cocoon; vigor, greater 5th: Dance of the unicorn; stalwart pact; vigorous circle 6th: Energy immunity; restoration, mass 7th: Fortunate fate; renewal pact Great! Thank you! Although... wow, Rejuvenating Cocoon at fourth level. Are you sure you want to give a Heal effect that early? (My cleric is already jealous of druids who get it at 5th ;) ) If so, then that's cool (I'm not going to complain about more healing for PCs), I just thought I'd mention it. Alter self, permanency, and polymorph may be learned or cast only for use in Magic Item Creation. This is the only use for which these spells are not Closed. May we purchase scrolls of these spells for use in MIC only, or not? I know several sorcerers with crafting feats who mostly rely on scrolls to get the requisite spells.
Britt 02-11-07, 07:09 PM	May we purchase scrolls of these spells for use in MIC only, or not? I know several sorcerers with crafting feats who mostly rely on scrolls to get the requisite spells. Unfortunately, no. Allowing purchase of scrolls of Closed spells could cause too much confusion.
copper_wyrmling 02-11-07, 07:17 PM	Ah, one more comment... no Healing Lorecall for the Healer spell list? It seems extremely appropriate (use ranks in Heal to replace caster level, fix minor status effects using normal healing spells). Do their other spells make it redundant? Insignia of Healing would be nice as well, although Mass Lesser Vigor at L2 makes it less important, I guess.
solbergb 02-11-07, 07:19 PM	Updates: Leadership is staying about the same as it was in the original draft. . Thanks for listening to us cohort-huggers whining on the other thread Britt :)
CaiasWard 02-11-07, 07:23 PM	Thanks for listening to us cohort-huggers whining on the other thread Britt :) Except for the gold piece value, which I still think is a massive mistake. But the Circle's call, despite compelling arguments to the contrary. Otherwise, it's all good. Thanks for the attention to the matter.
Mithreinmaethor 02-11-07, 07:24 PM	Thanks for listening to us cohort-huggers whining on the other thread Britt :) He might be saying as it was in the original 597 draft
Genghis Cohen 02-11-07, 07:26 PM	I've read the draft and I think that the Circle did a great job. After reading through the entire thread, I've got some areas of concern. 1) It would greatly help if we could use a second MIL that is tailored to scribe monkeys. How do you use just one MIL (according to the LGCS, you should only have one current MIL at a time) when you own 50 scrolls? The one created by Martin Mathes here (http://www-stud.uni-essen.de/~sl1506/web-lg/lg-index.htm) is perfect. 2) The Open/Closed issue will create a lot of confusion if the third unnamed category (which clearly exists) is not referenced in the LGCS. It only takes one sentence to accomplish this. Call it Limited, Earned, or NONC. It doesn't matter what you call it. If its not done now, it will be done next year after. Save yourselves the headache of answering the same questions over and over and over and over again during the coming year. 3) While I greatly appreciate the expanded access, I am concerned about the Colored metal from RotD at no extra cost (yeah, I know that this issue is trivial.) In the Flanaess, this should be rare. According to RotD, it costs at leats 10% more. I cringe when I think of a LG adventuring parties resembling 15 year old kids at anime conventions.
solbergb 02-11-07, 07:27 PM	He might be saying as it was in the original 597 draft That's what I mean. The original 597 draft was essentially the same as the 596 LGCS except for the elite array stat allocation. Then he proposed a rewrite that eliminated all AR tracking and impact with the view of simplifying the process, which caused howls of protest. (net net, cohorts are weaker AND less impacted by the events of the adventures they participate in, and most of the proposals to keep the new simplification but "fix" that are more complex than the status quo) So by reverting to the original draft, that's what I meant by listening to us. I'd like a bit more GP too, but I took leadership with the expectation of a gold-starved cohort. I'll settle for status quo. I could be wrong though.
russtaylor 02-11-07, 07:42 PM	My thoughts - * The level cap at any given APL: bad idea. The campaign has storylines, and there can often be harsh penalties for not playing through a series with a given character. An obvious example would be unremovable curses. This rule also, as others have pointed out, will cause tables at game days and other low-attendance events to outright fail. The most likely outcome is that people will ignore this rule, as they do many of the other less well-thought rules of the campaign (i.e. purchases being done only at the table) * Revivify really shouldn't be closed. This was a knee-jerk reaction some years back to the possibility of people being raised without level loss, without thinking of the implications involved in always having the spell prepared. Much like delay death, revivify makes the game more fun, at the price of resources being tied up in spell slots * Annoyed that Insightful Divination is closed, when most of the feats from Complete Mage made it in. If having a bonus to Initiative is too good, I suggest closing marshal in order to be consistent. 1 level of marshall on a cohort or high-charisma character is becoming extremely common. Insightful divination only helps the caster, not the whole table. * Please clarify that you are able to craft wands, potions, and scrolls of any spell you can cast, whether or not you have had access to buy them. I'm pretty sure that is what the section is meant to say, but the way the section is worded, there will be argument. * Please fix it so you can buy potions of enlarge person at the correct (50 gp) cost. This error is now years old, even if it is core :) Mostly pleased with the changes, though not most of the new "closed" items. Good call on opening up straight plus items and stat items - everyone needs them. Russ
Timlagor 02-11-07, 07:44 PM	[QUOTE=copper_wyrmling;11457964]Although... wow, Rejuvenating Cocoon at fourth level. Are you sure you want to give a Heal effect that early? (My cleric is already jealous of druids who get it at 5th ;) ) If so, then that's cool (I'm not going to complain about more healing for PCs), I just thought I'd mention it.[QUOTE] I can only conclude that you haven't really looked at the Healer Class :) The only option that the Circle seems to have to rectify it's appalling deficiencies is adding to the spell list and I'm delighted to see some serious healing power added there. I do think Insignia belongs there too but it doesn't really look necessary.
wooti 02-11-07, 08:16 PM	Updates: Beguiler: All of the Beguiler’s spells are Open for the purposes of Beguiler spellcasting. Healer: Use the version of close wounds as presented in SpC; it is now a 2nd level spell. Remove revivify from the Healer’s spell list. Add the following spells from SpC to the Healer’s spell list at the designated levels. This does not Open the spells for the Healer; you must still find access to the spells before being able to cast them. 1st: Faith healing; stabilize; vigor, lesser 2nd: Close wounds; vigor, mass lesser 3rd: Positive energy aura; revenance; vigor 4th: Delay death; rejuvenation cocoon; vigor, greater 5th: Dance of the unicorn; stalwart pact; vigorous circle 6th: Energy immunity; restoration, mass 7th: Fortunate fate; renewal pact Alter self, permanency, and polymorph may be learned or cast only for use in Magic Item Creation. This is the only use for which these spells are not Closed. Leadership is staying about the same as it was in the original draft. Charity of Friends spellbook clause: If you are a wizard and have lost your spellbook(s), you may use Charity of Friends to gain a new copy. Your total character worth, not counting the new spellbook(s), must be no higher than ¼ the total for your level on Table 5-1: Character Wealth by Level from the DMG 135. You may sell any equipment or give up GP on hand to bring your total character worth, not counting spellbook(s), down to the prescribed value. Thanks Britt all exclent additions, I partically like the permanency for MIC this was unplaned side affect I have been wanted fixed for a while. -Tim
wooti 02-11-07, 08:18 PM	Oh forgot to say in previous post, thanks for thinking of making "form of ..." type spells open while they are rather weak it is good to have something retrain polymorph too. -Tim
JJeff 02-11-07, 09:20 PM	Alter self, permanency, and polymorph may be learned or cast only for use in Magic Item Creation. This is the only use for which these spells are not Closed. Maybe I'm just thick, but shouldn't it be made clear that the usage of the spells for MIC should be specifically stated as not being allowed for the creating of scrolls and wands of the above spells? Else people will take Polymorph to make Polymorph wands since it seems that that's perfectly Legal. I know you still can't use the wand sicne you can't cast the spell legally, but some people may not get it that way...
David Argall 02-11-07, 09:27 PM	Non-adventuring activity: If you have to name a target DC before you roll and get 0 if you miss that DC, nobody is going to roll. Everybody is going to take 10. Example: Suppose you have 20 ranks in Profession(Cheesemaker). You can say you are aiming for DC 30, take 10, and succeed 100% of the time. If instead you roll the die, there is no DC you can name that gives you more expected gold than this. The high ones you will miss too often, and the low ones give less gold than DC 30. This is essentially true regardless of how many ranks you have in Profession (Cheesemaker). Not quite true. There is a big reward jump between DC20 and DC25, which means you are best off to shoot for DC25 and roll when you are +9, 11, 12, or 13 to the roll. However the system is also flawed by taking more time at the end of the mod when everybody is wanting to rush to the next adventure anyway. Better is a simple 1 roll system, where the PC gets whatever he rolls.
David Argall 02-11-07, 09:36 PM	Quote: Originally Posted by thorinXXX Can you change the way APL is figured? The easiest way is simply to divide the total levels in the party by 6. GP and XP are already divided by 6, and the encounters already assume a full table of 6. Very bad idea. That rule would make a table of two lvl 10 and two lvl 9 players APL 6 (38/6 = 6.33 = 6), meaning the lvl 10 players cannot even legally play (since they're more than 3 levels outside of APL) The current alternative is that we send these 38 levels against a module that is supposed to challenge 60 levels. That seems unlikely to work well either. However, it seems unlikely the Circle is going to make any changes here.
magebeast 02-11-07, 09:42 PM	Quote: The current alternative is that we send these 38 levels against a module that is supposed to challenge 60 levels. That seems unlikely to work well either. However, it seems unlikely the Circle is going to make any changes here. Encounter Levels are calculated on a party of 4 characters. There's a reason that groups of 6 receive that overall bump. On an unrelated note - the LGCS doesn't state whether or not you can use spell-type bonuses to increase your non-adventuring activity roll. I realize that it might be unusual, but bards at least can bump skill checks with the spell Improvisation. It only lasts rounds/level. Can I use this to affect the roll, or does it have to be something that I can keep up for x hours/day?
Liegelord 02-11-07, 09:54 PM	Not sure which thread this belongs in or if it has been addressed, Was it intentional to remove the previous FAQ for crafting Pearls of Power? This has been, in my opinion, a good addition in the previous LGCS and would be sad to see it go. Also, allowing all people to have use of the retraining immediately upon adoption of this LGCS may allow people that had DMM/DSP and additional feats tied up in Extra Turning to begin the 'rebuld' process a little earlier. On the whole, I like the new format and changes to simplicity. Simple is always better and a smaller document easier to reference. Thanks, Brian
David Argall 02-11-07, 09:54 PM	[I think either 53 TUs or 1 full calendar year from the date of the AR in which the familiar was killed/dismissed. Picking a static date is a little wonky, since it can be closer to 2 years for a lot of people. Just going off the AR date, which is already required to be put on there, would seem like a much easier mechanic. Matt T Pale Triad - not official post] I assume that PCs don't go into time-stop for the TUs that they don't get played in, so if the second January is used, a year of game time has actually passed. However, if a year of real time is used, then a year of game time is not guaranteed to have passed. In fact, very little game time may have passed. Our Core rule is a year and a day, which would round up to 53 weeks. However there is no guarantee the PC would be active at all during those weeks. Indeed, a generous DM in a home game might make the year pass almost instantly. So insisting on 53 TU is just increasing the penalty excessively. Now a year of real time does allow the possibility that the mage is hampered hardly at all, but as that can happen in a home game too, it is not clear this is a real problem we need to correct. In the normal case the PC will be hampered.
frupton 02-11-07, 10:21 PM	Not quite true. There is a big reward jump between DC20 and DC25, which means you are best off to shoot for DC25 and roll when you are +9, 11, 12, or 13 to the roll. However the system is also flawed by taking more time at the end of the mod when everybody is wanting to rush to the next adventure anyway. Better is a simple 1 roll system, where the PC gets whatever he rolls. Granted that my "never" is a shade too strong -- You are correct that there are a handful of situations where you rate to gain an extra 1-6 gp by rollling the die. The rest of the time, Take 10 has a mild to substantial advantage over making any roll.
Mystic_Wolf 02-11-07, 10:35 PM	Sorry if my comments are redundant with others, but i had time only to read 14 pages on 25 of this thread. This is from Draft version p19: "Q: One of my feats, spells, classes, or items was changed, clarified, or restricted. Can I replace it? A: If a rules option is restricted, you will be allowed to change it for free, using the rules for Retraining or Rebuilding in the PH2. If a rules option is changed or clarified, you may be given the same option, at the Circle’s discretion." Can you state "Circle’s discretion" for those points? 1st 20% xp penalty now mean 20% gold penalty. Yes, this could mean that orginaly, having xp penalty was an exploit in the rule and now you fix it. It's a good idea, but the rule still CHANGE. The rule were like that, and now it is changed to have a more balancing xp vs gold ratio. Suggestion: I know that you can't say that every PC with xp penalty can rebuit classes blindly, but I think that something can still be done. Something like: Human PCs may change base class level for other base class level they already have in order to eliminate xp penalty. Non-human PC may change base class level into their race's favored class in order to eliminate xp penalty. Having xp penalty was a choise when building characters and now the ruled changed. Some player made some wierd character building and counted on a beter xp/gp ratio to be playable. An other suggestion would be to allow PCs to have an extra favored class like they did in Eberon..... 2nd DMM, DSP A really good idea to close those. I just consider some Cleric having a hight charisma score to have more turn undead. It would be nice to those cleric to be able to redistribute those points to other stats. Druids got rebuilt for constitution, i think it's fair to let Clerics changing their charisma score. Other thing on that point, i have a 2nd level human cleric with extra turning feat, and quicken feat. I was at 35 xp from level 3, that mean 35xp from taking DMM quicken. That current version do not include this case into retooling. Is it possible to do something for all those characters with only the requisit for something that rules has changed?? (I remember my 4th level character with ranks in jump and with power attack feat when leap attack got banned... nothing for him at that time.) 3rd Beguilder spells. You just took time to read those spells and accepted to make those open for the beguilder. Why not make them open for all the PCs ???? You said earlyer that NONC spells are not suppose to be the center of charater's building. I agree, but if some of those spell exactly fit into character style, I just find it bad that we must wait an access to those spell. One of my character rely on mirror image. I hope to get access to "Mirror image, greater" soon. And yes, it's on the beguilder's spell list... 4th Nice to close Polymorph and alterself. They are still open for crafting, good. If i have one of those spell, does i get a retool for them? I mean, as they are open for crafting only, does i have the choice to retool them or not depending if I need them to craft? And for crafting them, you should mention crafting wonderous item only, because I'm sure you didn't mean to craft scrolls or potions of those spells. Finaly, i have a comment on the duskblade. I think the problem with this class is multiclassing it. I don't see any problem at my table with a duskblade 15 or a duskblade 5 dragon disciple 10. But i see a probleme with duskblade 1 and an infinite enumeration of other classes. The 1st level of Duskblade gives too much compare to other class, and this IS broken. I know you can't really do this, but i still suggest to open the duskblade without multiclassing. I mean, state that duskblade can not be taking with other base class. That is a good class, but alone, it's not that bad. If you don't do this, i suggest to close it. If you don't, the problem will still be there, and some obscure region will open it in meta orgs and there will be a lot of duskblade 1 on many character sheets. Making it NONC will just make the mulclassing problem apears and you will never see a pure duskblade because we do not have acces to it at character creation. Thank you for your time. You all made a very good job. Mystic_Wolf
clannagh 02-11-07, 11:03 PM	with regard to "lost on another plane" If the PC does not have a 1000 gp can it sell items ? What if the PC is somehow transported to another plane minus any money or equipment to sell ?
MikeJS 02-12-07, 12:30 AM	Suggestion: Delay implementation of any "3 levels from APL" rule changes for a later update. It doesn't have to be next year or anything, just a "v597.1" update. There's a great deal of concern over the proposed three-level rule, and opinion in the thread seems to lean strongly toward dislike. It would also enable incorporation of related topics, such as 7-player tables, and 3-players-with-cohort(s) tables.
clannagh 02-12-07, 12:38 AM	Suggestion: Delay implementation of any "3 levels from APL" rule changes for a later update. It doesn't have to be next year or anything, just a "v597.1" update. There's a great deal of concern over the proposed three-level rule, and opinion in the thread seems to lean strongly toward dislike. It would also enable incorporation of related topics, such as 7-player tables, and 3-players-with-cohort(s) tables. or just extend it to allow 4 levels instead of three the examples in the complaints are 10 playing 6 .. not 14 playing 2
Sieylianna 02-12-07, 02:18 AM	Suggestion: Delay implementation of any "3 levels from APL" rule changes for a later update. It doesn't have to be next year or anything, just a "v597.1" update. I am confused now whether it is 3 or more or more than 3 levels from the APL. If it's 3 or more, 15th level characters can't play APL 12 modules, which means their play opportunities will be tiny. Ed
Britt 02-12-07, 02:19 AM	I'm wrapping up final changes to my draft and sending the LGCS off to Tulach within an hour or two. Thanks all for the comments, suggestions, praise, and some of the criticisms ;) I expect the final draft to be up by 0:00 Wednesday morning, Pacific Time. I have also sent in an updated Dispel Confusion with several questions that have come up during the draft discussion. Closing comments: APL+3 is not changing. We talked about it on 4 different occasions, so you can believe we went over the possible issues. If it shows to be a problem as some people think it may, we will address it. DSP/DMM/Poly stuff are staying Closed. We discussed these issues and the comments brought up during draft discussion were primarily the ones we discussed pre-draft discussion. We did get together to talk about Alter Self again and decided to stick with that decision. We did add the new [Polymorph] subschool spells to the Open list to help ameliorate the change. Leadership changed back to the original draft version, with really only the Elite Array change from the 596 version. We wanted to simplify the system as many people requested, but the proposal had too many problems to fix in a short time and would require more time and discussion than we had at this point. We talked about cohort wealth and it is staying the same as previous years. The NONC class is not going to be named. I have added some text to help clarify confusion, but we are not going to name the class of items. I have gone into detail about why this was done and as much as some people dislike it, it really needed to be done. A few things were tweaked that I didn't discuss on the list, but they were all for the good, so I doubt you'll be complaining any about stealth nerfs :) There are other things I'd like to do to the LGCS, such as more glossary entries and an index, but I just don't have the time this year. Since the next revision won't be undergoing a heavy rewrite, I'm sure we'll have time to make other useful changes then. Batman has officially incapacitated this thread, but it is not dead; Batman doesn't kill. So, keep talking if you want, but it won't do any good really at this point :)
cycloptic_squirrel 02-12-07, 02:25 AM	Thanks Britt! While not thrilled about all of the outcomes, I can definitely say that the review was a positive experience and I think the new LGCS is a large improvement upon last year's. Job well done!
gomeztoo 02-12-07, 03:02 AM	Why not? Can't you travel to the nearest region in which you can play (Ekbir) and do a special mission there? I can't travel much, no. Last year I could visit France exactly once. I know there are triads that travel to other regions every other weekend, but I get one out-of-region trip a year, if I'm lucky. On top of that, what should I play in Ekbir? I have no Ekbir PCs, and teh Ekbir triad doesn't know my PCs or what they want. I can't see them catering the type of special missions I seek for, nor can I find a reason why my PCs would go there to seek it. We don't all travel, so we don't all get the same opportunities. Not playing regionals/metaregionals is a choice you make when you volunteer. But it still sucks.
frupton 02-12-07, 03:15 AM	Britt, Thanks very much to you and the rest of the Circle for all the work that went into the new LGCS, and the forum to air our grievances. Looking forward to a fun CY 597.
JamesMaissen 02-12-07, 12:39 PM	Britt, As everyone has said on multiple occasions, you've done a great job. The LGCS was in dire need of such an overhaul and you did wonders. Streamlining that meandering juggernaut was a herculean task that I can only imagine. To help the players through this transition phase, without undoing all your laborious efforts at trimming the document, perhaps a somewhat in depth Dispel Confusion that would address the Frequently brought up confusions that players had here with the draft would be in order? There you could expressly say that which older LG rules had been removed. Explain the new tone of the document and how it shouldn't be read as a tacked on snipits of the prior version, but rather a new document from scratch that's more based on Core rules being the default. If reading through all the posts each and every LGCS Draft has taught me anything (other than never set your Yahoo groups acct to individual emails) it would be that if one person raises a question then many others will have the same question (and will likely raise it in turn). Having a place for such FAQs whether its in the LGCS FAQ section or divested from the document entirely in a Dispel Confusion will mitigate (but not remove) this. I personally think it's best in a Dispel Confusion. That way the tone of the LGCS can be kept intact, while in the other document some things can be expressly laid out. Thanks for all the great work, James
Chris_L 02-12-07, 01:23 PM	Britt, Thanks very much to you and the rest of the Circle for all the work that went into the new LGCS, and the forum to air our grievances. Looking forward to a fun CY 597. Hear hear!
MikeJS 02-12-07, 04:22 PM	Closing comments: APL+3 is not changing. We talked about it on 4 different occasions, so you can believe we went over the possible issues. If it shows to be a problem as some people think it may, we will address it. Which basically means that a 4-person table consisting of a 10, 8, 7 and a 4 can't play. (But they will play -- they'll just circle the APL6 box of the 4th-level PC's cert while everybody else's is APL8, and he'll end up getting more xp/gold that he would have playing up to APL8 previously for half.)
Swiftbrook 02-12-07, 04:34 PM	Which basically means that a 4-person table consisting of a 10, 8, 7 and a 4 can't play. (But they will play -- they'll just circle the APL6 box of the 4th-level PC's cert while everybody else's is APL8, and he'll end up getting more xp/gold that he would have playing up to APL8 previously for half.) Average Party Level LG adventures are written for ranges of average party levels (APLs). APLs determine the level of challenges you face and rewards you receive. If you are more than two levels away from the APL at which the adventure is being played, you suffer a 50% penalty to GP and XP gained in the adventure. If you are more than three levels higher than the APL at which the adventure is being played, you cannot participate. They can play at APL 8. The level 4 just takes 1/2. The rules say the level 10 can't play down more than tree levels. The level 4, can play up 10 levels if he wants. 10 + 8 + 7 + 4 = 29 29 / 4 = 7.25 which can round up to APL 8 -Swiftbrook
ChristopherGood172 02-12-07, 10:25 PM	Updates: Healer: Use the version of close wounds as presented in SpC; it is now a 2nd level spell. Remove revivify from the Healer’s spell list. Add the following spells from SpC to the Healer’s spell list at the designated levels. This does not Open the spells for the Healer; you must still find access to the spells before being able to cast them. 1st: Faith healing; stabilize; vigor, lesser 2nd: Close wounds; vigor, mass lesser 3rd: Positive energy aura; revenance; vigor 4th: Delay death; rejuvenation cocoon; vigor, greater 5th: Dance of the unicorn; stalwart pact; vigorous circle 6th: Energy immunity; restoration, mass 7th: Fortunate fate; renewal pact I don't mean to be a bother... but a straight 15th level Healer (or a PrC that building healer spellcasting) with a wisdom of 18 can cast 8th level spells... any addition to that level? Thank you for adding spells by the way... this is a very good list.
Britt 02-12-07, 10:36 PM	I don't mean to be a bother... but a straight 15th level Healer (or a PrC that building healer spellcasting) with a wisdom of 18 can cast 8th level spells... any addition to that level? Thank you for adding spells by the way... this is a very good list. I didn't see anything at 8th or 9th level in the SpC that really popped out at me as appropriate for healers. That, and it will be a few years before this is an issue :)
clannagh 02-12-07, 11:50 PM	just a random thought .. not a big issue if you level up .. retrain then die and get raised do you: - keep the retraining and get to retrain again the next time you pass the level OR - lose the effect of the retraining becasue you lost the level you retrained OR - lose the option to retrain the second time because you already retrained once at that character level
jhorred 02-13-07, 12:35 AM	That's similar to the "wizard dying and what do you do about the spells he receives at each level?" issue. (Do you remove the spells from his book? If you don't, do you get more when you level again?) Personally, I took the more conservative route and didn't take a second pair of new spells....
Tahldrehlian 02-13-07, 11:21 AM	Just like to point out that Mountebanks get Alter Self at will for their Alter Ego ability... and Moutebank is Open.
Crazy Boro 02-13-07, 11:25 AM	Just like to point out that Mountebanks get Alter Self at will for their Alter Ego ability... and Moutebank is Open. I think it was already brought up before and was decided to be left open since it was limited to only 1 form.
Arvagor 02-13-07, 11:28 AM	Just like to point out that Mountebanks get Alter Self at will for their Alter Ego ability... and Moutebank is Open. No, they don't get alter self at will. They have an ability (Alter Ego) that works like alter self, but all they get to change is their appearance, and they are limited to no more than three Alter Egos at 9th level. So you can look like a trog all you want, but you still won't have the nat armor of a trog (which, I'll wager, is what a lot of people were planning on doing with the class)...
Tahldrehlian 02-13-07, 11:33 AM	No, they don't get alter self at will. They have an ability (Alter Ego) that works like alter self, but all they get to change is their appearance, and they are limited to no more than three Alter Egos at 9th level. So you can look like a trog all you want, but you still won't have the nat armor of a trog (which, I'll wager, is what a lot of people were planning on doing with the class)... True
TroyEsq 02-13-07, 12:30 PM	Two things about MIC upgrades that I brought up earlier that did not make it into the LGCS 597 final document: 1. You can no longer upgrade masterwork items. For example, a masterwork longsword can no longer be upgraded to a +1 weapon. The plain language restricts upgrades to items that were already magic items when the upgrade process begins. Relevant language: "PCs may upgrade the abilities of some magic items . . . ." 2. Casters with MIC cannot upgrade an existing item to an upgraded version that's Open. For example, a person with Craft Wondrous cannot upgrade a set of +2 Gloves of Dexterity to +4 Gloves of Dexterity unless +4 Gloves of Dexterity have appeared in the Items Found section of that PC's AR even though they can buy the upgraded version openly. The plain language requires that you must have had access to purchase the upgraded items in the Items Found section of the AR. Relevant language: "You may use MIC to upgrade an item if you meet the prerequisites to craft the upgraded item and you have ever had access to purchase the upgraded item in the Items Found section of any AR." The latter is troubling because, in theory, items that are Open access should not appear in the Items Found section of the AR. If those items don't appear in the Items Found section because they're Open, then PCs are never going to be able to upgrade to Open versions of items.
Britt 02-13-07, 12:41 PM	"You can craft any item for which you meet the crafting prerequisites and which either appears in Appendix 4: Open Items or you have ever had access to purchase in the Items Found section of any AR." The first was overlooked, but you can upgrade MW equipment.
TroyEsq 02-13-07, 12:50 PM	"You can craft any item for which you meet the crafting prerequisites and which either appears in Appendix 4: Open Items or you have ever had access to purchase in the Items Found section of any AR." But that's initial crafting; similar language is missing from the upgrade paragraph below. Plain language of the two sections adds up to that I can craft +4 Gloves of Dexterity from scratch, but I can't upgrade +2 Gloves to +4 Gloves.
Howie23 02-13-07, 12:52 PM	Metaregional Description: NMR, p. 24 This was brought up earlier, but it remains unchanged. The text for Nyrond, Prince Sewarndt, the coup, and missing royalty is obsolete for year 7. David
Howie23 02-13-07, 12:54 PM	Druid Rebuild: No Dispel Confusion Posted With multiple conventions this weekend, and the Dispel Confusion that addresses druids not being posted, should druids playing this weekend rebuild using the temporary Dispel Confusion, or do they need to wait until the official DC is posted? David
Britt 02-13-07, 01:01 PM	Use the temporary text. The only thing that changed is that it is more clear how to do stats and that you can do skills. The upgrading was overlooked but the intent was that you can. I'll address that in the March DC.
Britt 02-13-07, 01:01 PM	I forwarded the comment about the NMR description being out of date, but didn't get an update for the LGCS.
TroyEsq 02-13-07, 01:04 PM	The upgrading was overlooked but the intent was that you can. I'll address that in the March DC. Thanks, Britt.
Howie23 02-13-07, 01:28 PM	The upgrading was overlooked but the intent was that you can. I'll address that in the March DC. Can we get explicit masterwork availability of Appendix 4 items, as well, pls? It's clearly intended, but it eliminates a lot of funny logic. David
Britt 02-13-07, 01:40 PM	I know I added that in after comments. One sec and I'll get the quote. "All items may be of any size from Tiny to Large and of either normal or masterwork quality." "Q: If I gain access to an item, what size is it? Is it normal or masterwork quality? A: All items in the Items Found box of an AR are of an appropriate size for your PC, unless explicitly stated otherwise (small for halflings, medium for dwarves, large for centaurs). Their quality is what is specifically listed in the Items Found section of the AR. Items gained through metaorgs or favors may be of any size from Tiny to Large, unless specifically stated otherwise. Their quality may be either normal or masterwork."
Howie23 02-13-07, 01:44 PM	I know I added that in after comments. One sec and I'll get the quote. Oops. My oversight. Thanks. David
Alpha_Nerd 02-13-07, 01:45 PM	So, as a Medium creature if I got access to a spiked chain through a meta-org or favor it could be any size from tiny to large?
JamesMaissen 02-13-07, 02:12 PM	A: All items in the Items Found box of an AR are of an appropriate size for your PC, unless explicitly stated otherwise (small for halflings, medium for dwarves, large for centaurs). So a small character could not opt to purchase medium sized items either for loan to other players' characters or for a medium sized cohort for example? I know when my halfling warmage finds access to cheap but rare items that others could use I tend to take them with him.. I would very much like to continue the ability to do so as (imho) it encourages hightened teamwork, James
Britt 02-13-07, 02:26 PM	So, as a Medium creature if I got access to a spiked chain through a meta-org or favor it could be any size from tiny to large? Yes.
Britt 02-13-07, 02:26 PM	So a small character could not opt to purchase medium sized items either for loan to other players' characters or for a medium sized cohort for example? I know when my halfling warmage finds access to cheap but rare items that others could use I tend to take them with him.. I would very much like to continue the ability to do so as (imho) it encourages hightened teamwork, James Not from the Items Found section. Think of it as you find exactly what you find, we're just being nice and letting you have it in your size if you aren't the size of the monster.
Timlagor 02-13-07, 02:36 PM	But if your small character finds a medium item he is forced to take the small one instead.
Britt 02-13-07, 02:47 PM	But if your small character finds a medium item he is forced to take the small one instead. Would you rather be forced to take medium everytime?
haferka 02-13-07, 03:03 PM	Would you rather be forced to take medium everytime? That's the problem.. some people would. (those with monkey grip).. I am NOT one of those people.
Timlagor 02-13-07, 03:31 PM	Would you rather be forced to take medium everytime? I have no current plans for a small character :P
blood_kite 02-13-07, 03:36 PM	There are a few things I could not find mentioned in the new LGCS. Could any of these be confirmed please? 1. I could not find anything limiting a druid's wildshape ability to only creatures listed in the MM. In the LGCS 596 wildshape was linked to polymorph which was limited to the MM or AR access. Does this mean that a druid can wildshape into animals found in any Open source? I don't remember if there was anything good in the Races or Environment books. 2. Britt mentioned that the NPC classes in the DMG are considered Open. This would mean the adept's spell list is considered Open, correct? Wouldn't this mean that Limited Wish could be used to cast an adept's Heal? Seems like a very useful addition to Limited Wish.
Britt 02-13-07, 03:48 PM	1. I would say we are still intent on limiting it to MM forms. If you want justification, the monsters in other books are not mentioned anywhere in the LGCS, so you need campaign documentation to use them. 2. Yes, that should work.
wixlar 02-13-07, 06:10 PM	Hello all- New to the boards.... I agree with General Xy and the banning of Alter Self and Polymorph. (But of course I disagree with banning everything; since if the bad guys can buy it, why can't we. But I guess that is why we have home campaigns.) The level of disguising is needed in the game, hat of disguise can only do so much. At lease keep Alter Self since it is a lower level. Since I am new to the wizard and shape changing, maybe there are other spells out there that do about the same as Alter Self and Polymorph. Could I get a listing of those? Thanks for your time. Jonathon M. Johnson Colorado
Mithrus 02-13-07, 10:58 PM	Just curious, but why did the Runesmith (RS) PrC made the Closed list?
tsalla 02-13-07, 11:17 PM	The NONC class is not going to be named. I have added some text to help clarify confusion, but we are not going to name the class of items. I have gone into detail about why this was done and as much as some people dislike it, it really needed to be done. Thanks for the new verbage for Open and Closed, and the little paragraph above them! Now no name for a third category is needed. Actually, thanks for lots of things! But it's nice to see feedback considered and acted upon. Even when your solution was different from those proposed by myself and others, you explained your reasoning and took care to address the underlying issue. Cheers! Trevor Salla
Vamroc 02-14-07, 12:07 AM	"You can craft weapon and armor enchantments if you have had access to purchase any item that has those enchantments from the Items Found section of any AR". This is going to be a problem I just know it. What comes first the LGCS or the Mod. Because I have a number of "can't be crafted" items that suddenly under the new rules become items I can make. Don't get me wrong power gaming has it's place and can be fun. But when you have a whole table playing in that style the mods become boring and old really fast.
LordMairsil 02-14-07, 03:52 AM	This has probably been answered somewhere already, but what happens to spells in my spellbook that used to be open, but are now NONC? Kan I just keep them? The spell in question in this case is Master's Touch (SpC). There is another spell with the same name on the open list from the PH2, but it has no relation to the SpC spell. It also isn't the same level. If for some reason it is considered an upgrade of the old spell, even though it is completely different, do I have to pay the difference in scribing cost? Or can I opt to replace it with another legal 1st level spell? The same could be asked for Critical Strike (SpC), which isn't listed anymore. The quite different (CM) version is, and it's closed. Does that mean I should consider the CM version the 'new' version of the spell, and therefore replace it with a legal spell?
LordMairsil 02-14-07, 04:27 AM	Never mind, I just saw all of this is addressed in the LGCS 597 v7.0.1 version.
Timlagor 02-14-07, 11:04 AM	If you get to 7.0.2 for any reason I suggest that the retraining section have the word "already" added: "must already be Open for your PC".
Demon Gnome 02-14-07, 12:21 PM	Do purchased dogs with trip attacks still need to have 2 tricks spent to learn the trip or was this removed from this LGCS?
Howie23 02-14-07, 12:37 PM	Do purchased dogs with trip attacks still need to have 2 tricks spent to learn the trip or was this removed from this LGCS? Riding dogs no longer have the 2 trick trip option. Rather, they fall back on the Monster Manual description of tripping if trained for war. David
Tahldrehlian 02-14-07, 12:50 PM	Nevermind, It's already there. I'm just dumb.
Demon Gnome 02-14-07, 04:59 PM	Ok. What satisfies the condition 'trained for war'? Combat Riding Purpose, etc?
pedr 02-14-07, 05:12 PM	Ok. What satisfies the condition 'trained for war'? Combat Riding Purpose, etc?No one seems to know yet. Except perhaps people at WotC who may or may not have addressed this in the Rules Compendium (due later this year), or Britt and other circle members subject to NDAs. My view is that warhorses and riding dogs are, other things aren't. Probably :D
Howie23 02-14-07, 05:16 PM	Ok. What satisfies the condition 'trained for war'? Combat Riding Purpose, etc? It is undefined. Expect table variation. David
JJeff 02-14-07, 07:46 PM	Or wait for the much-talked-about Complete Riding Dog. Currently, when I'm judging, I only considert the warhorses to be trained for war.
kjenks 02-14-07, 08:43 PM	And when I'm judging, an animal is "trained for war" if it has the Attack trick.
Howie23 02-14-07, 09:02 PM	And when I'm judging, an animal is "trained for war" if it has the Attack trick. Attack chicken...proficient in full plate... :) David
kjenks 02-14-07, 09:05 PM	You got a problem with my chicken?
Timlagor 02-14-07, 09:19 PM	Or wait for the much-talked-about Complete Riding Dog. Currently, when I'm judging, I only considert the warhorses to be trained for war. So how does a Riding Dog qualify for it's extra trip at your table?
Howie23 02-14-07, 10:25 PM	You got a problem with my chicken? No, no problem with the chicken. That chicken looks like she could chase me around the room. Good thing she's encumbered. :) David
blood_kite 02-14-07, 10:33 PM	You got a problem with my chicken? It takes a tough man to make a tender chicken.
frupton 02-14-07, 10:47 PM	It takes a tough man to make a tender chicken. After we get Complete Riding Dog, we apparently are going to need "Complete Poultry."
RedKnightofKet 02-14-07, 11:00 PM	After we get Complete Riding Dog, we apparently are going to need "Complete Poultry." Isn't that a cookbook?
kjenks 02-15-07, 07:39 AM	FULL PLATE CHICKEN Tiny Animal Hit Dice: 1/4 d8 (1 hp) Initiative: +2 Speed: 5 ft. (1 square) Armor Class: 17 (+2 size, +1 Dex, +4 armor), touch 13, flat-footed 15 Base Attack/Grapple: +0/–13 Attack: Claws -2 melee (1d2–5) Full Attack: Claws -2 melee (1d2–5) Space/Reach: 2-1/2 ft./0 ft. Special Attacks: — Special Qualities: Low-light vision Saves: Fort +2, Ref +4, Will +2 Abilities: Str 1, Dex 15, Con 10, Int 2, Wis 14, Cha 6 Skills: Listen +3, Spot +5 Feats: Weapon Finesse Environment: Temperate forests Organization: Flock of 20 Challenge Rating: 1/6 Advancement: — Level Adjustment: — These white birds are about 1 foot long and have wingspans of about 3 feet. They combine both claws into a single attack. This particular chicken has a heavy load so it can't fly (normally 10 ft./clumsy) and it takes a -6 check penalty, which is already figured into attack rolls. Full plate armor for a tiny creature gives a +4 armor bonus to AC. The attack penalties offset the AC benefit, so the Challenge Rating has not been adjusted for its excessive wealth. Since the chicken can't take off its armor, it sleeps in it, so the chicken is automatically fatigued every day. It takes a –2 penalty on Strength and Dexterity and can’t charge or run. These penalties are not figured in to the stat block above. This chicken has the attack trick, per the Handle Animal skill. An animal trained for war is proficient in armor. Served with biscuits, gravy and black-eyed peas.
Lupo 02-15-07, 02:25 PM	FULL PLATE CHICKEN Tiny Animal Hit Dice: 1/4 d8 (1 hp) Initiative: +2 Speed: 5 ft. (1 square) Armor Class: 17 (+2 size, +1 Dex, +4 armor), touch 13, flat-footed 15 Base Attack/Grapple: +0/–13 Attack: Claws -2 melee (1d2–5) Full Attack: Claws -2 melee (1d2–5) Space/Reach: 2-1/2 ft./0 ft. Special Attacks: — Special Qualities: Low-light vision Saves: Fort +2, Ref +4, Will +2 Abilities: Str 1, Dex 15, Con 10, Int 2, Wis 14, Cha 6 Skills: Listen +3, Spot +5 Feats: Weapon Finesse Environment: Temperate forests Organization: Flock of 20 Challenge Rating: 1/6 Advancement: — Level Adjustment: — These white birds are about 1 foot long and have wingspans of about 3 feet. They combine both claws into a single attack. This particular chicken has a heavy load so it can't fly (normally 10 ft./clumsy) and it takes a -6 check penalty, which is already figured into attack rolls. Full plate armor for a tiny creature gives a +4 armor bonus to AC. The attack penalties offset the AC benefit, so the Challenge Rating has not been adjusted for its excessive wealth. Since the chicken can't take off its armor, it sleeps in it, so the chicken is automatically fatigued every day. It takes a –2 penalty on Strength and Dexterity and can’t charge or run. These penalties are not figured in to the stat block above. This chicken has the attack trick, per the Handle Animal skill. An animal trained for war is proficient in armor. Served with biscuits, gravy and black-eyed peas. cast a "heat metal" on the full plate, and make sure to pour half a bottle of wine - red wine prefered - into the tiny helmet after round four of the spell, this gives the meal its special flavor :) after round 7 just open the full plate with a standard tin opener :ayyyy!: dinner is ready :) ciao martin m.
solbergb 02-15-07, 02:49 PM	Or wait for the much-talked-about Complete Riding Dog. Currently, when I'm judging, I only considert the warhorses to be trained for war. Geez, not even warponies? Like warhorses they're both bred and trained differently. With me judging, warhorses, warponies and riding dogs, as all three are much stronger versions of the basic animal (heavy horse, pony, dog) in addition to whatever training they get. I aslo assume they have the combat riding package trained. But I'm just making stuff up. I can't figure out how we can purchase anything trained for a purpose in the current LGCS ruleset on non-bonded mounts.
cycloptic_squirrel 02-15-07, 07:20 PM	FULL PLATE CHICKEN I'm assuming these cost more than the standard 2 cp? Hmmm... makes me think. Instead of offering my two copper, as has become fashionable, I think I might prelude my opinions with, "Well, let me throw in my chicken." :D
Argentbard 02-19-07, 12:32 PM	I think it's unfair to every other player who would like a challenge to have a 10th level character in an APL 6 game. It becomes a situation where one PC is the star and has 3-5 cheerleaders. I've played in a few of these situations and every person not playing the high level PC hated it. Even the other guy got to the point where he wasn't enjoying the ease of the game... I sympathise with the few genuine bad spots this will put players in at cons but I feel that needing to apply extra care when assigning tables is the lesser evil. :) Joe I agree. There is nothing worse than running around after a high level character, just mopping up his leavings. This rule puts an end to that, and for that I thank the Circle. And in the example given previously: most players of a 10th level character have a lower level secondary or tertiary character. So your hypothetical player could just switch to that. Not as satisfying, no, but it would allow him to play. In my opinion, it should go the other way as well. It is just as annoying, as a player at a high-APL table, to have a low level spare tagging along. Honestly, there is nothing they can contribute to the adventure, except to be a liability. So my personal opinion is that the APL restriction should run both ways. Yes, that may make it difficult for tables at cons. But as a con organizer, I would say that just means more care has to be taken to: a) make sure table builds are a little more even, and b) make sure that people know that Module X being played in Slot Y is a High APL table only, and you must be this Level to ride...er, play. In the example given previously, the player with the 2nd level character could have then been politely directed to another lower level table, or simply told no. Just my two cents. Cheers! Brent
Argentbard 02-19-07, 12:50 PM	I noticed one oversight that WILL cause a lot of grief, especially at cons: Page 1 - Average Party Levels: "If you are more than three levels higher than the APL at which the adventure is being played, you cannot participate." This rule, if it is maintained, will lead to this scenario: Let's say we're at a con. A 6, 6, 8, and 10 sit down to play. They average to 7.5, they can play APL 8 and everyone's happy. If a 2nd sits down at the table (and yes, I have seen this sort of thing happen)... we now have a 2, 6, 6, 8, and 10. They average to APL 6.4, and the 10 just got booted from the table by the 2nd. This is completely unfair. We cannot give low-level characters the ability to eject higher-level characters from the table. In the past, the 10 could play down to 6, take half, and grumble a bit, but to remove him completely?!? Unfair. -Matt I replied to a later section of this thread, but I wanted to reply to the origional as well. Just a few things to consider: 1) Why does the 10 have to go? Why doesn't the DM simply suggest to the 2 that he/she find another table of a more appropriate level? 2) If for some reason the 2 is allowed to stay (blackmail pictures of the Senior GM, or something), then why can't the 10 switch over to a lower level secondary or tertiary character? Every player I know has them, so it is not unreasonable. Sure, not as satisfying as playing the big guy, but at least he/she would get to play. And at a balanced table, too. I've said it in another response, and I'll say it again here: In my opinion, the new rule is a good one, that doesn't go far enough. I think the APL restriction should go in both directions. It is just as annoying to have a low level tagalong at a high APL table, contributing nothing to the adventure, as it is to have a high level character being the "star" of a lower level table. Yes, it will make con scheduling difficult. But as a con organizer myself, honestly, deal with it. The goal with running gamedays/cons is to make sure that everyone has a good time. Not just the player that doesn't want to risk his precious high level character at high APL table, or the player trying to "XP cram" by taking half XP/GP by "sixth wheeling" at higher APL tables. Both of those scenarios detract from what should be the spirit of what this gameplay is about. In my humble opinion. Cheers! Brent
Japangirl 02-19-07, 01:09 PM	And there are also those of us who have sat at tables with highs because our low was below min-APL (APL 6 min mod, level 3 wiz and level 10 main) and the other three people who could play the mod were APL 6. Or who played high because playing on level meant the party was simply not strong enough to meet the minimum APL, so it was no one plays, or pull out the "star". These situations occur because the lower levels at the table ask for them to happen, not because I want to play my high all the time. Now those tables will not make, and four people will have an open slot at a Con or have to play something else than what they signed up for (if they can find another game). I see no problem with people playing far down, as long as everyone at the table didn't mind. As for low levels tagging along . . . I have fun if the party is otherwise strong enough to handle it and we all knew beforehand what was going on. We played a whole bunch of APL 12-14 tables recently with a level 7 ranger, it was awesome. He stayed out of the way, shot stuff occasionally, and even managed to get the last shot on a hezrou in one mod. It was like an underpowered cohort, except our friend got to play with us. Another example is Hellspike Prison, the ADP. We're planning on playing it at 12 with a fairly ridiculous party (13, 14, 14, 14 with 12 cohort) so we're bringing a person new to D&D along with his level 1 ranger. Our challenge in the mod is not to defeat it- we're pretty sure we're going to stomp the mod. Our challenge is to keep our new fragile companion alive through the entire thing and see him out the other side as the richest level two character ever. The APL rules as they are allow groups of friends with multiple different character levels to play together and enjoy themselves, which is the purpose of D&D.
Argentbard 02-19-07, 01:49 PM	I'll be posting more (in a new thread) on this as soon as the supposedly-forthcoming Dispel Confusion on the matter comes up. Frankly, I think this is a repulsive thing to do to the campaign. We already had things fixed far better than WotC's kludgy errata nonsense, our campaign has worked just fine with no reported problems using our Polymorph restrictions for the past few years. The fact that WotC couldn't do something so simple and decided to take a hacking axe to the books in order to remove it from their Cheeserron settings doesn't mean we should suffer for their screwup. Last year's Circle recognized this, and why this year's didn't I can't understand unless there's some back-door threats from WotC we don't know about. Wow. Bob, I challenge you to make a single post where you don't come off sounding ignorant and/or insulting. Seriously. Cheers! Brent
RedKnightofKet 02-19-07, 04:27 PM	What's the level 1 doing for upkeep? It's gonna be hard to afford all those TUs at that level.... And there are also those of us who have sat at tables with highs because our low was below min-APL (APL 6 min mod, level 3 wiz and level 10 main) and the other three people who could play the mod were APL 6. Or who played high because playing on level meant the party was simply not strong enough to meet the minimum APL, so it was no one plays, or pull out the "star". These situations occur because the lower levels at the table ask for them to happen, not because I want to play my high all the time. Now those tables will not make, and four people will have an open slot at a Con or have to play something else than what they signed up for (if they can find another game). I see no problem with people playing far down, as long as everyone at the table didn't mind. As for low levels tagging along . . . I have fun if the party is otherwise strong enough to handle it and we all knew beforehand what was going on. We played a whole bunch of APL 12-14 tables recently with a level 7 ranger, it was awesome. He stayed out of the way, shot stuff occasionally, and even managed to get the last shot on a hezrou in one mod. It was like an underpowered cohort, except our friend got to play with us. Another example is Hellspike Prison, the ADP. We're planning on playing it at 12 with a fairly ridiculous party (13, 14, 14, 14 with 12 cohort) so we're bringing a person new to D&D along with his level 1 ranger. Our challenge in the mod is not to defeat it- we're pretty sure we're going to stomp the mod. Our challenge is to keep our new fragile companion alive through the entire thing and see him out the other side as the richest level two character ever. The APL rules as they are allow groups of friends with multiple different character levels to play together and enjoy themselves, which is the purpose of D&D.
cycloptic_squirrel 02-19-07, 04:38 PM	What's the level 1 doing for upkeep? It's gonna be hard to afford all those TUs at that level.... Hmmm..... none could work. "All damage doesn't heal between modules!?! Oh noes!" The penalties don't feel quite strong enough for a mod of this length; some additional penalties would be nice, but I'm not sure it'd be a huge deal.
Timlagor 02-19-07, 08:04 PM	I think not wanting people to piggyback for ridiculously rich level 2 characters is the main argument for making this restriction apply downwards as well as up.
Argentbard 02-19-07, 09:20 PM	No more talk on whether someone is trolling, flaming, or being a pot or a kettle. That thread is dead; move on. My apologies to you Brit, then, for my one response made prior to reading this. Cheers! Brent
King Kashue 02-20-07, 02:22 AM	My apologies to you Brit, then, for my one response made prior to reading this. Cheers! Brent Yeah, the posts come so fast, it's kind of hard to keep up...I mean, it was posted a mere 11 days ago :D
Argentbard 02-20-07, 07:48 PM	Yeah, the posts come so fast, it's kind of hard to keep up...I mean, it was posted a mere 11 days ago :D For an old guy like me, still running on analog, 11 days whips by pretty fast! ;) No, just me breaking my own rule; read the entire thread through first, then respond. Saves a lot of hassle in the long run.
bitznarf 02-21-07, 12:27 AM	No, just me breaking my own rule; read the entire thread through first, then respond. Saves a lot of hassle in the long run. My own personal pet peeve here, people not reading an entire thread before responding, although to be fair, this thread is 28 pages long at this point.
King Kashue 02-21-07, 02:00 AM	My own personal pet peeve here, people not reading an entire thread before responding, although to be fair, this thread is 28 pages long at this point. Of course, if he had read the whole thing he would have caught the post that said "the discussion is over, the LGCS has been released" :D
Eric Anondson 02-21-07, 02:17 AM	Of course, if he had read the whole thing he would have caught the post that said "the discussion is over, the LGCS has been released" :DOr maybe even noticed that Bob_the_Theurge seems to have stopped posting for many days.
Gaelforcwynd 02-23-07, 11:32 AM	How come some feats which I gain access to through meta-orgs, such as Great Fervour, aren't listed in the LGCS documents?
kenobi65 02-23-07, 11:40 AM	How come some feats which I gain access to through meta-orgs, such as Great Fervour, aren't listed in the LGCS documents? Probably because they're "NONC" ("neither open nor closed"). The LCGS only lists two categories: Open and Closed. Open, you can use without any documentation or access. Closed, you can never take, and won't ever be offered via access. Everything else is in the NONC area, which used to be called "limited" -- i.e., you can use it, if you get access. And, the NONC items aren't specifically spelled out in the LGCS, because they fundamentally don't have to be, and because it means that any rules items (i.e., new books) that come out between now and the next LGCS update are automatically put in that NONC area.
Gaelforcwynd 02-23-07, 11:44 AM	Probably because they're "NONC" ("neither open nor closed"). The LCGS only lists two categories: Open and Closed. Open, you can use without any documentation or access. Closed, you can never take, and won't ever be offered via access. Everything else is in the NONC area, which used to be called "limited" -- i.e., you can use it, if you get access. And, the NONC items aren't specifically spelled out in the LGCS, because they fundamentally don't have to be, and because it means that any rules items (i.e., new books) that come out between now and the next LGCS update are automatically put in that NONC area. Okay cheers mate.
King Kashue 02-23-07, 08:27 PM	Probably because they're "NONC" ("neither open nor closed"). The LCGS only lists two categories: Open and Closed. Open, you can use without any documentation or access. Closed, you can never take, and won't ever be offered via access. Everything else is in the NONC area, which used to be called "limited" -- i.e., you can use it, if you get access. And, the NONC items aren't specifically spelled out in the LGCS, because they fundamentally don't have to be, and because it means that any rules items (i.e., new books) that come out between now and the next LGCS update are automatically put in that NONC area. People keep talking about NONC as a category, when it really isn't (and it seems to confuse folks still). The categories of "open" and "closed" are in relation to the PC, not the campaign. If something is not open to you, it's closed to you. It's as simple as a binary switch (it's either on or off, there is no inbetween)... Now, per the LGCS, some things are Open to everyone, and some things are closed to everyone. But there is no NONC when it comes to individual characters. Either it's open to you (through the LGCS or an AR) or it's closed, for a character, there is no NONC (there is also no spoon, but that's not this game).
bhale187 02-23-07, 08:40 PM	People keep talking about NONC as a category, when it really isn't (and it seems to confuse folks still). The categories of "open" and "closed" are in relation to the PC, not the campaign. If something is not open to you, it's closed to you. It's as simple as a binary switch (it's either on or off, there is no inbetween)... Now, per the LGCS, some things are Open to everyone, and some things are closed to everyone. But there is no NONC when it comes to individual characters. Either it's open to you (through the LGCS or an AR) or it's closed, for a character, there is no NONC (there is also no spoon, but that's not this game). So what would you call a feat, spell or PrC that is not on the open list but is available to characters who qualify through access granted by an AR?
Arvagor 02-23-07, 09:33 PM	So what would you call a feat, spell or PrC that is not on the open list but is available to characters who qualify through access granted by an AR?Said feat, spell, or PrC is now Open for that PC...
bhale187 02-23-07, 09:35 PM	NONC is just so much easier to type :P
King Kashue 02-23-07, 10:33 PM	NONC is just so much easier to type :P But it's not nonc. It's open. :P Nonc means "not open, not closed", some that is open clearly doesn't fit :D That's the point. For the campaign there may be some nebulous "nonc", but the "open" and "closed" categories actually apply to characters, not the campaign. And for a character, something is either open or closed, there is no middle ;) Just as a note, "The Nebulous Nonc" would make a great name for an gnome illusionist :D
Arvagor 02-23-07, 10:52 PM	NONC is just so much easier to type :P :confused: They both have four letters...