Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Bob_the_Theurge 12-19-06, 11:08 AM	Since the LGCS Review is coming up soon, I might as well ask now: is there any chance that this year, the censorhammer will not come down, and we might be able to discuss making certain feats/items/etc not-so-restricted from player usage? There are some things I'd like to use, that are certainly not unbalanced, that seem to be "npc only" or similar for no ascertainable good reason.
kenobi65 12-19-06, 11:22 AM	I may be mistaken, but I seem to recall that the issue last time was that the decisions on core/limited/restricted had already been made before the review process...which is why discussion of such was forbidden. If there are things that you strongly feel should be changed, it seems that the more productive approach would be to bring them up to your Triad POC before that final open review period. A well-reasoned argument there may have more weight; after all, the changes that get made to the LGCS are based on what the Circle and the Triads see and hear from the player base during the year. Just my 2 coppers' worth.
Bob_the_Theurge 12-19-06, 11:29 AM	I may be mistaken, but I seem to recall that the issue last time was that the decisions on core/limited/restricted had already been made before the review process...which is why discussion of such was forbidden. If there are things that you strongly feel should be changed, it seems that the more productive approach would be to bring them up to your Triad POC before that final open review period. A well-reasoned argument there may have more weight; after all, the changes that get made to the LGCS are based on what the Circle and the Triads see and hear from the player base during the year. Just my 2 coppers' worth. Bringing them to the triad? We've already done so. Our triad response is "that's something that the circle would have to deal with." So I want to know before we get started, from the Circle: do we get to bring forth these questions this year, or is it going to be yet another year where the "review" is just a rubber-stamping setup?
clik_ml 12-19-06, 11:43 AM	There are some things I'd like to use, that are certainly not unbalanced, that seem to be "npc only" or similar for no ascertainable good reason. Really? I don't see a lot of that going on for the NPC only list. Some things are NPC only, I suspect, simply to keep from overloading the judges with alternate rule mechanics (which can be made managable when in the confines of an NPC with tactics and such spelled out already)... and of course evil stuff is generally NPC only. Likewise there are plenty of feats and classes that are for races that are not LG-valid. The only stuff I can see on the NPC list that seems a little questionable are a couple feats, Centaur Trample (on account of there being desert centaurs out there) and Fling Ally. Everything else seems pretty reasonable to me.
kenobi65 12-19-06, 11:50 AM	Bringing them to the triad? We've already done so. Our triad response is "that's something that the circle would have to deal with." My understanding is part of the Triad's job is supposed to be to consult with their Circle reps on what rules need changing. Hmm.
Britt 12-19-06, 11:51 AM	We usually don't allow discussions of what should be core, what should be limited, etc, during the LGCS review. There will not be significant changes moving more stuff to core or more stuff away from core. If you have specific things you are curious about, I might be able to entertain some discussion of it now, but it will be up to time and how much you ask :p In general, allowing such discussion during the LGCS review is just a bad idea and takes focus away from everything else.
Bob_the_Theurge 12-19-06, 12:07 PM	Really? I don't see a lot of that going on for the NPC only list. Some things are NPC only, I suspect, simply to keep from overloading the judges with alternate rule mechanics (which can be made managable when in the confines of an NPC with tactics and such spelled out already)... and of course evil stuff is generally NPC only. Likewise there are plenty of feats and classes that are for races that are not LG-valid. The only stuff I can see on the NPC list that seems a little questionable are a couple feats, Centaur Trample (on account of there being desert centaurs out there) and Fling Ally. Everything else seems pretty reasonable to me. Awesome Blow Centaur Trample Fling Ally/Fling Enemy Improved Natural Armor Improved Natural Attack Multiattack Wingover Those are a few that come to mind, mostly because we have a few PRC's such as Wildrunner and Dragon Disciple that grant things like natural armor and natural attacks (DD even specifically mentions DD characters taking Multiattack to get full use of their new abilities) and the Centaur class floating around in the campaign. One at a time: Awesome Blow - prerequisites make it difficult to reach anyways, except for Centaurs, but there are Centaur builds that could get there. Has interesting potential. Centaur Trample - made for them Fling Ally/Fling Enemy - don't have the SRD around to give this a full going-over right now Improved Natural Armor - there are a decent number of PrC's that grant natural armor and that could benefit from this, but as a mere 1-point armor bump, there's no way to call this overpowered. Improved Natural Attack - bumps the die type of a single chosen natural attack up. Much like weapon focus, except it improves damage; plus, the usual level of the bump is very similar (on average) to Weapon Specialization, which is Core. Multiattack - A few PRC's grant natural attacks, as well as Centaurs just getting these for free. Those that do usually list taking Multiattack as a recommended method for improving the class's effectiveness. Wingover - For those few PrC's that grant flight abilities, this isn't a bad idea. Now, none of these are overpowered. Actually, I think Improved Natural Armor is relatively underpowered, as there are other ways to bump armor up that are much more effective. Still, they're all listed as "NPC Only", which has the ironic twist of making them available to many cohort builds while cutting them off from the player characters. I personally think the "NPC Only" list should be much less long, focusing on just those things that are actually broken in the hands of players (the recent spell put on that list for instance) but that the writers are going to want to have around to potentially work with.
Bob_the_Theurge 12-19-06, 12:12 PM	We usually don't allow discussions of what should be core, what should be limited, etc, during the LGCS review. There will not be significant changes moving more stuff to core or more stuff away from core. If you have specific things you are curious about, I might be able to entertain some discussion of it now, but it will be up to time and how much you ask :p In general, allowing such discussion during the LGCS review is just a bad idea and takes focus away from everything else. Well then, Review hasn't started yet, so feel free to respond to my post above.
Britt 12-19-06, 12:40 PM	Ahh, you're talking about the animal or monster feats. Those are already on our list to discuss. I won't promise they are changing, but they are being discussed. As to why they were NPC Only to begin with, I really don't know.
Lord Yod 12-19-06, 03:40 PM	These would be nice to have on the Core and/or Limited lists: Ability Focus: Currently there's only 2-3 ways for a hexblade to bump his save DC, and this'd be nice to have. I don't think it's overpowered, as they only get a few curses at most per day. There aren't too many other effects that this would work with; I think only the bard Fascinate/Suggestion and the (limited) mindbender enchantments. Oh, and Stunning Fist. Flyby Attack/Hover: Some PrC's give wings, and there are other ways to get a fly speed. Usually these are tactically unsound choices, but the option would be nice.
solbergb 12-19-06, 04:33 PM	My guess on why the monster manual feats are on the NPC only list is pretty much that they're in the Monster Manual and not somewhere else. I hope the Circle does review them and let some of them into the game. It's weird that a wizard can get multiattack by alter-self into a troglodyte and getting the racial feat but the bear warrior can not, just to name one such situation. (ok yeah, I play a monk and would love to take improved natural attack at level 15. Am I a bad person...?)
Britt 12-19-06, 04:50 PM	Improved Natural Attack won't help your monk abilities, since natural attacks <> unarmed attacks.
Howie23 12-19-06, 05:09 PM	Improved Natural Attack won't help your monk abilities, since natural attacks <> unarmed attacks. Q: Can a monk take Improved Natural Attack (Monster Manual, page 304) to improve his unarmed strike? A: Yes. As stated on page 41 of the Player’s Handbook, a monk’s unarmed strike “is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either” which includes feats such as Improved Natural Attack. (11/22/06 FAQ, p. 22) David
Britt 12-19-06, 05:54 PM	Consider me corrected then, though I don't know if I like the answer ;)
clannagh 12-19-06, 06:07 PM	Consider me corrected then, though I don't know if I like the answer ;) ... considering the same document also allows monks to combine flurry of blows with two weapon fighting .. As far as the original topic goes I would like to see the silly "druids cannot buy metal barding for companions " nonsense sorted out one way or the other. The current situation where its left to the personal philosophical view of Druids held by the table DM is unacceptable. It really does not matter which way the decision goes byt we need one. While we are at it maybe a clarification of what barding animals are proficient with would be nice. On a separate note .. I would like to vote for Natural Bond being made core .. its effect is limited by the PC's level so its not as if it can be used to power up straight druids.
Britt 12-19-06, 06:11 PM	We can't make a ruling on whether druids can give their animal companions metal armor, as that would be making up a rule that doesn't exist, either way. The armor proficiency question is simple: without war training, they aren't proficient with any armor. If they don't have feats and don't have a class that gives them proficiency, they have none.
solbergb 12-19-06, 06:11 PM	Improved Natural Attack won't help your monk abilities, since natural attacks <> unarmed attacks. That's how I felt Britt - but he actually had an interesting reason and a reason that doesn't violate the true statement that the two things are not the same. Treating a feat as an "effect" what he said is that it works for monks but not for other shlubs with improved unarmed strike - for the same reason both greater magic weapon and greater magic fang work for monks, but only the latter works on normal unarmed strikes It was a different argument than the usual ones I saw. It actually changed my opinion, once I thought about it.
kenobi65 12-19-06, 08:26 PM	The armor proficiency question is simple: without war training, they aren't proficient with any armor. If they don't have feats and don't have a class that gives them proficiency, they have none. There's another thorny one for you, then, Britt. "Trained for war." 1) Which animals are assumed to automatically be "trained for war"? 2) What does it take to train an animal "for war" if it isn't already? I don't think the answer to either is clear, but, obviously, there are decisions a player has to make that revolve around the answers.
Britt 12-19-06, 08:32 PM	1) Which animals are assumed to automatically be "trained for war"? 2) What does it take to train an animal "for war" if it isn't already? ETV and expect it to remain that way :)
Howie23 12-19-06, 08:39 PM	ETV and expect it to remain that way Is there a reason why this is being left intentionally unresolved? Is it seen as being outside of the scope of the campaign's architects for some reason? Is there disagreement about it that can't be resolved? Is there desire to actually have it as an unresovled issue? David
Britt 12-19-06, 08:40 PM	We do not issue rulings on game mechanics unless they have specific problems in a Living campaign environment. This is not something fundamentally related to a Living campaign, so we will not issue a ruling on it.
Howie23 12-19-06, 08:46 PM	We do not issue rulings on game mechanics unless they have specific problems in a Living campaign environment. This is not something fundamentally related to a Living campaign, so we will not issue a ruling on it. Except that this is an issue that is created by the Living campaign environment. The LGCS's treatment of animals changes what an animal is like when purchased. When Customer Service is asked about this, they defer to the DM. Circle is the DM for this issue. David
Britt 12-19-06, 08:59 PM	AFAIK, the LGCS doesn't change anything about animals. Even if WotC CS says that the DM is supposed to make the ruling, that doesn't mean it's a ruling that is inherently necessary due to the structure of a Living Campaign system. They are basically just saying they don't know and you should ask your DM.
Arvagor 12-19-06, 09:27 PM	Here's the problem. The Circle has already said -- via the LGCS, page 40 -- "For the riding dog, you may either pick two extra tricks or use these two trick slots to make the dog trained to use a trip attack (as specified in the riding dog entry in the Monster Manual v.3.5)." Technically speaking, that's not what the MM says -- it says, "If trained for war, these animals can make trip attacks just as wolves do (see the Wolf entry)." The natural assumption then is that, at least for riding dogs, taking the attack trick twice == trained for war All I think we're asking is, does the same thing apply to other animals, i.e., does attack x2 = trained for war? What's the distinction between making this (already existing) ruling, and making up a rule?
solbergb 12-19-06, 10:02 PM	I agree. I think the existing LGCS is worse than no ruling at all. The latter would let judges decide what trained for war means, which isn't really very good, but at least is the default. The LGCS ruling makes up a houserule only for riding dogs which may or may not be intended to apply to other animals. Why not just say it the way it is: Warhorses and riding dogs are trained for war, because their statblocks assume they are. There is no way in LG for any other animal to become trained for war. What's wrong with that? That's the situation we're in today, because nobody dares to assume that any other animal is trained for war and no judge feels comfortable making that ruling because the LGCS kinda sorta talks about this but doesn't finish the job of defining it. We all know the rules don't say how you train an animal for war. All they say is that animals trained for war are on the equipment list. If the powers that be won't let you define it further, just say it and be done with it. Just say "it can't be done unless you buy one already trained from PHB equipment list". That's better than the current situation, and indeed has precedent in things like the polymorph rules which say "all legal forms are in the monster manual".
clannagh 12-20-06, 01:15 AM	I agree. I think the existing LGCS is worse than no ruling at all. The latter would let judges decide what trained for war means, which isn't really very good, but at least is the default. The LGCS ruling makes up a houserule only for riding dogs which may or may not be intended to apply to other animals. Why not just say it the way it is: Warhorses and riding dogs are trained for war, because their statblocks assume they are. There is no way in LG for any other animal to become trained for war. What's wrong with that? That's the situation we're in today, because nobody dares to assume that any other animal is trained for war and no judge feels comfortable making that ruling because the LGCS kinda sorta talks about this but doesn't finish the job of defining it. We all know the rules don't say how you train an animal for war. All they say is that animals trained for war are on the equipment list. If the powers that be won't let you define it further, just say it and be done with it. Just say "it can't be done unless you buy one already trained from PHB equipment list". That's better than the current situation, and indeed has precedent in things like the polymorph rules which say "all legal forms are in the monster manual". the other round about argument is that .. 1. From Handle Animal Skill in PHB .... "Warhorses and riding dogs are already trained to bear riders into combat, and they don’t require any additional training for this purpose." 2. From Animal Type .. Monster Manual 3.5 ... "Proficient with no armor unless trained for war." # 1. states they require no extra training which implies trained for war and # 2. implies that if trained for war means they ARE proficient Subject to table variation :)
kenobi65 12-20-06, 10:35 AM	# 1. states they require no extra training which implies trained for war and # 2. implies that if trained for war means they ARE proficient Subject to table variation :) And, indeed, there's the problem...you've got two "implies" in there. :(
amnuxoll 12-20-06, 02:42 PM	AFAIK, the LGCS doesn't change anything about animals. Even if WotC CS says that the DM is supposed to make the ruling, that doesn't mean it's a ruling that is inherently necessary due to the structure of a Living Campaign system. They are basically just saying they don't know and you should ask your DM. Britt: I have to disagree on this one. The LGCS has made rulings on areas that are unspecific before. They've even modified existing core rules (e.g., crafting pearls of power). I think the LGCS' rules on how animals gain tricks is already affecting the "discussions" that disrupt board traffic on a semi-annual basis. The fact that standard boilerplate asks weak APL 2 parties to bring riding dogs means that players are placed in the face of this issue regularly. And there is a general and constant clamor from the players for some sort of ruling on this. Whatever clarification the Circle could make on this would be welcome and I think it could be done without contradicting anything in the core rules. This is a place where ideology is running smack dab into practicality. I urge you folks to reconsider. :AMN:
Howie23 12-20-06, 02:53 PM	AFAIK, the LGCS doesn't change anything about animals. I'll address this under separate cover. Even if WotC CS says that the DM is supposed to make the ruling, that doesn't mean it's a ruling that is inherently necessary due to the structure of a Living Campaign system. They are basically just saying they don't know and you should ask your DM. I understand the distinction that you are making. You are distinguishing between conditions in which any DM would need to make a ruling (and which Circle is declining to make), vs. conditions that are inherent to the Living Campaign system. This widespread issue repeatedly comes up because the application of the foundation principles regarding what Circle will or will not rule on are, paradoxically, at odds with the goals of the campaign, in this case. The goal of the campaign is to create a coherent playing environment with a widely distributed scope of play. The LGCS talks about expanding the traditional home play group to a world with thousands of players. Circle has established that it is not making rulings on the question of DnD rules. Such questions are deferred to Customer Service for guidance, and obtain the force of authority via publication in the FAQ. In the case where there is no such answer currently available, the default condition is that table variation will exist, and that this is deemed to be satisfactory. Effectively, Circle is delegating DM authority on such matter to the table judges. In contrast, Circle will make rulings on matters that result particularly from the nature of the Living Campaign system. The rules system is outside the scope of this. What is in the scope of this is material within the LGCS, the application of resource acquisition and tracking system, the rule items that are introduced within the campaign, etc. I get it. I understand that Circle has taken the position of decentralizing authority to the table judges. In the case where this involves tactical decisions at the table, all is well. Players adapt to the varieties of when they can draw a weapon as a free action, what they can draw, etc. These are single session variables and have a stylistic influence on the gaming session only, for the most part. In the case of WotC's reply referring to the DM: this isn't a rep saying, "Gee, I don't know." Rather, they are saying, "That isn't covered by the rules. In cases where it isn't covered by the rules, it's up to the DM." Circle has deferred to WotC as a rules issue, WotC has deferred to the DM. The DM for LG is Circle; Circle has decentralized such authority to the session judges, so it's up to the session judges. There are certainly benefits to giving authority to the judges, but this leaves us with the problematic aspect of decentralizing authority to the session judges. The rules system assumes that there is a consistent relationship between the DM and the player regarding character development. The Living Campaign system bridges the variance that is inherent in a system of multiple judges by establishing a fundamental level of consistency; it defines the DM's position on this matter. The LGCS is the house rules of "what's allowed in my/our/the campaign." The LGCS defines what characters can consistently bring to the table. In the case of animals, the problem is that there are a wide variety of core character concepts that depend on a that consistent relationship between the DM and the player in order to negotiate the gap in the rules associated with dealing with animals. The nature of the Living Campaign system is that such consistency as there is derives from the LGCS. Ultimately, the irony is that that, in a campaign with the goal of achieving the coherence of a home play group amongst thousands of players, Circle refrains from making a ruling in this matter, with the result of ensuring inconsistency. David
Howie23 12-20-06, 04:10 PM	AFAIK, the LGCS doesn't change anything about animals. The LGCS changes what animals are like when they are purchased and the options associated with how they are trained. This is a conservative view, and probably represents the most restrictive view that a player might see. It is also the view I believe that I am obliged to adopt when judging, and that which any player aware of the situation should adopt when designing characters under the current environment to avoid table variance. So, I’d be happy to see Circle rulings on those elements that are within the bounds of what is inherent to the Living Campaign system that might loosen the bounds of what is restrictive. Citations available. The Player’s Handbook states that warhorses and riding dogs are trained to bear riders into combat; they have been trained, when purchased, with the Combat Riding purpose (six tricks). The LGCS establishes that all domesticated animals come with three tricks; under the LGCS, warhorses and riding dogs are not purchased trained for the Combat Riding purpose (they can’t have the requisite six tricks). The Player’s Handbook allows animals to be trained for a purpose using a single skill check. The LGCS permits training for single tricks only. Under the LGCS, it is not clear if an animal can ever be trained for a purpose without campaign documentation. In the core rules, a riding dog is purchased with the Combat Riding purpose (six tricks). If that animal is trained for war (an undefined term), it can trip. Under the LGCS, a riding dog can be trained to trip using two trick slots for the trip ability. Under the LGCS, a riding dog can never be purchased with the Combat Riding purpose without campaign documentation. Under the LGCS, if it could be obtained or trained with the Combat Riding purpose (such as by campaign documentation), it could not also be trained to trip (a total of eight trick slots), as the animal can have a maximum of six trick slots. Animal Companions excepted, of course. In the core rules, a horse is a suitable mount. Per the LGCS, you cannot buy a riding horse. Rather, per the LGCS, a horse can have at most two tricks in addition to attack. By the core rules, a horse trained for the purpose of Riding has three tricks that exclude attack (come, heel, and stay). In the core rules, you can hire someone to train your animals. Per the LGCS, you cannot do so without campaign documentation. A 15th level mounted knight, maybe with noble titles, must train his own horse. To have a Combat Trained mount in LG without campaign documentation, you must be able to train it yourself with multiple Handle Animal checks of DC15 and DC20. Repeating checks that fail is an unavailable option to players who play on-line only, as you must play a regional scenario before trying again. Note that a trained hireling (unavailable in LG without campaign documentation) would start at 2.1 gp/week, or a maximum of 12.6 gp to train a Combat Riding mount at starting wages. David
Morgen 12-20-06, 04:31 PM	There is actually a trained-for-war template for animals. The Monster Manual 2 has a template called "Warbeast." That's how you give animals and the like armor proffs and make them trained for war. Though good luck getting access to that anywhere. Beyond that what else would you people really want from saying smething is trained for war? They gave the riding dog two free tricks if it can't make a trip attack otherwise it can do that for free. Warhorses already know combat riding pre-installed...
Mithreinmaethor 12-20-06, 05:11 PM	If you look at the differences between the wartrained animals and their standard counterparts they almost look like they follow this template. This would be a good template to make available for use. Since the rules for training the animals will make alot of people not even want to try. Domesticated animal = 2 months to train (DC 20) Wild Animal = reared for 1 year (DC 15+HD of creature) + 2 months (DC 20+HD of creature) Magical Beast = reared for 1 year (DC 20+HD of creature) + 2 months to train (DC 25+HD of creature) Vermin can not be reared or trained. So if people are willing to spend approx 60 TU's to train a wild animal or magical beast then hey maybe the circle should let them. I mean if you want to take your character out of the loop for over a year to do it then more power to you.
Japangirl 12-20-06, 05:18 PM	And animal companions? How would they acquire the warbeast template? I would guess the domesticated animal time, but that is not obvious from your listing.
Mithreinmaethor 12-20-06, 06:23 PM	(Pg 35 PHB) A druid’s companion is completely typical for its kind. (Pg 75 PHB) Handle Animal - A druid or ranger gains a +4 circumstance bonus on Handle Animal checks involving her animal companion. In addition, a druid’s or ranger’s animal companion knows one or more bonus tricks, which don’t count against the normal limit on tricks known and don’t require any training time or Handle Animal checks to teach. So the Druid/Ranger would get bonuses to its handle animal checks to rear and train the animal to be a warbeast. And the creature would still benefit from the advancement due to being an animal companion. So a < 10th level Druid could have a Warbeast Rhinoceros (pg 219 MM II) that he has a link to and can share spells with. Ride it and put armor on it etc etc etc. At 10th and beyond it hits its 1st advancement etc. So as a Druid 15th you would have a Warbeast Rhino with the +4 HD, +2 Natural Armor, +2 to Str & Dex, 3 Bonus Tricks, Evasion and Devotion. Just a funny note. Beware the 15th level Gnome Druid on his Warbeast Wolverine in Mithril Plate Bardiing all buffed up :) And animal companions? How would they acquire the warbeast template? I would guess the domesticated animal time, but that is not obvious from your listing.
MeinVT 12-22-06, 12:12 AM	The LGCS changes what animals are like when they are purchased and the options associated with how they are trained. ... The Player’s Handbook states that warhorses and riding dogs are trained to bear riders into combat; they have been trained, when purchased, with the Combat Riding purpose (six tricks). The LGCS establishes that all domesticated animals come with three tricks; under the LGCS, warhorses and riding dogs are not purchased trained for the Combat Riding purpose (they can’t have the requisite six tricks). Actually the LGCS states that all animals start with attack. It doesn't state they don't start with the other tricks the PHB might also say they start with. I've definitely seen judges rule that the Player's Handbook is the relevant source and riding dogs do indeed start with the full Combat Riding suite (clearly the proper ruling in my mind). Also the LGCS says riding dogs get two "bonus" tricks, but doesn't say what they are added to. I've never seen someone argue a riding dog should get 8 generic tricks, but it could be interpreted to allow for the Combat Riding suite, plus the extra attack trick to get trip attacks. Unless the Circle believes that under the rules as written it is impossible for a Riding Dog to be both be trained for Combat Riding and also be Trained for War, then your conservative interpretation of the rules actually has the effect of changing the rules significantly. My above "bonus" trick interpretation at least has the effect of allowing you to develop a creature that is clearly implied to be legal by the source books. In summary, not only does the LGCS current document change the core rules and fail to clarify the situation well, I don't believe it even says what the authors intended it to say. In my mind the key issue that most people want answered is: Can my pet/mount be trained to do X? (Presumably yes, if X is part of the Core rules such as trained for a task, as the Circle has stated they aren't changing core rules) How do I do that training? (Players should be able to hire others or expend TUs themselves. It is no different than making/buying magic items. If a player wants to expend multiple TUs to try and train for a purpose, why shouldn't this be allowed?) The trained for war issue is a bit stickier, and I understand. But it still seems like there should be a way to give some guidance on how it works in the world of Greyhawk without stepping on toes.
jhorred 12-29-06, 06:39 PM	Britt, If anything the whole animal bit of the LGCS needs a good going over. I've not really ever used animal stuff much (but I'm going to build a halfling paladin with riding dog) but from what I've seen here the LGCS is at odds with the Core rules. Saying the Circle won't make a ruling on some of the animal stuff is odd because they already have with what's in the LGCS. If anything I'm glad that the LGCS does include the option to use a riding dog for a paladin mount as opposed to a Warpony for small characters.