Post/Author/DateTime	Post
honeynuggets 05-19-04, 02:05 PM	http://www.livingcity.net/pou/metagame-waywatchers.html In this fine butchering of a prestige class we have the Waywatcher MetaOrg (Windrider PrC) characters gaining access to the "special mount" Dire Wolf at 9th level via the Survival 12 ranks requirement. The official rules (p. 204 DMG) specify that mounts CR should be no more than 3 less than the character's level or no more than 4 less than the character's level if the mount can fly. This means that a 9th level character can have a CR 6 mount or a CR 5 flying mount. The Dire Wolf is a CR 3 mount. So essentially the meta-org does not allow for appropriately powerful mounts for the Waywatcher (Windrider PrC) A 6th level Paladin can select the Dire Wolf as a mount but not a 6th level Waywatcher(Windrider PrC)? Where is the consistency? It must be nice to ignore the official DnD balancing and just nerf whoever you want to. I sent emails before this meta-org was posted informing them of the obvious inconsistency with the rules but I got no response. I'm not saying LG nerfs everyone. Heck I have seen plenty of Fighters dole out around 100 points of damage per round at 9th level without a critical.
grey580 05-19-04, 03:40 PM	All I have to say about this is Welcome to the PoU and enjoy the smell of our regional flavor. mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...................... ..... stinky!
Steve_MND 05-19-04, 04:48 PM	Wow, Honeynuggets. How about this for an explanation: not all metagroups have to give the PC every little thing that they want. By the sound of it, being a member of this metaorg doesn't preclude you from gaining other mounts, so if you can find a more powerful mount elsewhere, knock yourself out. This metagroup basically says "Hey, if you can't find a fancy mount, here's at least something to tide you over." Unfortunately, it is this attitude of "give me everything I want" that has been largely responsible for the recent stripping of the metagroups in the campaign.
StevieS 05-19-04, 04:49 PM	Hey, you could always come to Onnwal and not have access at all. :) It's not like there arn't enough PrCs to choose from and if the regional flavour and/or story-arc only support smaller critters then more power to them for sticking to their guns and restricting it. :cool: Stevie Onnwal POC
StevieS 05-19-04, 04:51 PM	Yep and as most PrCs are designated 'core' it's even tougher to maintain coherant regional flavour. A shame. Originally posted by Steve_MND Unfortunately, it is this attitude of "give me everything I want" that has been largely responsible for the recent stripping of the metagroups in the campaign. [/B]
Steve_MND 05-19-04, 04:56 PM	Yep and as most PrCs are designated 'core' it's even tougher to maintain coherant regional flavour. A shame. Tell me about it... :( Steve M player of a character who had to jump through numerous hoops with his Triad to gain access to the Dragon Disciple PrC... before everybody and their brother was deemed eligible to take it...
Simpi 05-20-04, 01:37 AM	Not to mention that i've met people who oepnly say that they are going around the new '25 meta-org' restriction by stacking several together to get something like a 100 meta-orgs for their regions. With stacking I mean, make a single meta-org of say 'organised churchs' and put every single religion under it with different rules for each. Presto, 15 meta-orgs under a single name:mad:
Southernskies 05-20-04, 03:26 AM	Originally posted by Simpi Not to mention that i've met people who oepnly say that they are going around the new '25 meta-org' restriction by stacking several together to get something like a 100 meta-orgs for their regions. With stacking I mean, make a single meta-org of say 'organised churchs' and put every single religion under it with different rules for each. Presto, 15 meta-orgs under a single name:mad: Doesn't work. The Co6 laid down very clear guidelines about this. When one 593CY organisation counted as 57 meta-orgs under the new restrictions, you could hear the screaming when a lot of stuff disappeared last month as it got stripped.
WCrawford 05-20-04, 06:38 AM	Since I have not seen the Circle's "Super Secret" Meta-org document (why on earth must it be secret?? what do they have to hide??), I can only go by the things I've heard. It does seem to me that the Circle is trying their hardest to ruin this campaign. What on earth is the need to limit regions to 25 meta-orgs? Especially when they are limiting/removing item access and spell access. This makes very little sense to me. Now I had absolutely no problem with item/spell/PrC access in meta-orgs. IMO, the Circle could have squashed the biggest complaint (cherrypicking) by requiring that all meta-orgs have a residencey requirement. I have enough problems trying to recruit players into LG games without the Circle making rules that discourage people from having fun (level limits, meta-org limits, builder book access limits, ect). The way things are going, by the end of the year, there will be no more Living Greyhawk play in Nashville, TN or even within approx 100 miles. Well, at least there is still a huge intrest in Living Arcanis in the area. I'll still be able to play RPGA games for the forseeable future.
StevieS 05-20-04, 06:52 AM	As I understand it the two major complains were cherrypicking of meta-orgs and the disparity between regions. Some regions had whole reams of orgs and the benefits of those orgs were un-equal. At a large US regional event I saw three whole binders full of orgs offering access to loot that in Onnwal you'd never see except on an AR for example. So, I think, the idea was to make regions more equal in that we could all offer a set maximum number of orgs and the costs/benefits must balance as laid down in the meta-org document. I'd agree that all meta-orgs should be accessable to PCs with the home region as the org, this will be the case in Onnwal.
Simpi 05-20-04, 08:15 AM	Two comments. Wcrawford: I cannot believe what you say is true. As it stands, limits you indicate are very small. Before new LGCS biggest complaint was that 'region X does not offer prestige class Y' Now the limit is essentially gone, new magic items were made readily available, etc. which in my opinion is much greater blow to regional system than limiting meta-orgs. Actually i've met lots of people who think that Circle is way too generous as things are going. Even so, 25 is quite enough to get viable meta-orgs for very class type. It's just how you design them. If people want monty haul emta-orgs, i've seen plenty and can direct them there if they want to. Here in Splintered Suns we have meta-regional meta-orgs (4) that add up to 25 limit. Does any other region have them since as an idea they seem nice and ours are quite balanced. Limits: Level limit is 16, you're gonna reach that in how many years? I don't consider that ruining my fun. I agree that some of the new core classes would have suited LG, but as I said way back then, it's better to ban them all than allow some and then hear players demanding explanations. We did not get hexblades but on same vein we don't have to see samurais jumping around the Flanaess. Stevie: We will do the same thing in Naerie that only residents will be able to join the meta-org. If we are gonna have some limited PrCs (and definetly not nearly all of them, some regions will probably go to great lengths to get all limited PrCs so playersdon't feel 'offended') we don't want someone living thousands of miles away becoming one because he's region does not have it.
WCrawford 05-20-04, 09:06 AM	Originally posted by Simpi Wcrawford: I cannot believe what you say is true. As it stands, limits you indicate are very small. Before new LGCS biggest complaint was that 'region X does not offer prestige class Y' What specifically don't you believe is true? Limits of any type are limits and all these small limits add up. I myself will stop playing LG once my main character is forced to retire (unless I can't even organize a table first). In recent weeks, we have not been able to seat a full table. Later this year we will be losing additional players and won't be able to seat a legal table, and new players are not interested after reading the LGCS and seeing all the restrictions. In contrast, Living Arcanis can regularly seat 3+ full tables on any given game day. It may take time, but as I see it, LG is slowly dying. To be honest, I'm not sure how to fix it, but more limitations is not the answer.
Wavester 05-20-04, 09:13 AM	Originally posted by WCrawford It may take time, but as I see it, LG is slowly dying. To be honest, I'm not sure how to fix it, but more limitations is not the answer. LG's play numbers continue to grow (even in year 4). So rumors of our death have been greatly exagerated. Even this thread proves that while some jump up and down about restriction others think we are to liberal in what we give out. The vast majority are happy in the middle and that is just the way we like it
Simpi 05-20-04, 09:33 AM	Originally posted by WCrawford What specifically don't you believe is true? Limits of any type are limits and all these small limits add up. I myself will stop playing LG once my main character is forced to retire (unless I can't even organize a table first). In recent weeks, we have not been able to seat a full table. Later this year we will be losing additional players and won't be able to seat a legal table, and new players are not interested after reading the LGCS and seeing all the restrictions. In contrast, Living Arcanis can regularly seat 3+ full tables on any given game day. It may take time, but as I see it, LG is slowly dying. To be honest, I'm not sure how to fix it, but more limitations is not the answer. I don't believe the limits would kill LG. They are small and in my opinion they don't add up that much considering how much things were freed in latest update. LGCS 2 did not offer nearly as much access as LGCS 3. Characters must retire at some point, there is no way to write modules for APL2-20 and character retirement should come naturally. I have several characters and I'll probably 'put them aside' long before hitting level 16 since I don't especially enjoy high level playing. We might differ in this so it's just your opinion vs. mine so no point arguing about that. I've not face-to-face met anyone who would find the new LGCS limiting or 'fun' killing. I'm not paying money for playing this game (aside from a bus ticket) and I know lot's of people put aside their personal time & effort to make this campaign possible. As such it's pretty useless to essentially say that 'we are not having enough bang for our buck.' If it turns away new people from even trying, it is really about their attitude, not about limits in LG. 'Waaah!... I can't be celestial drow samurai/psion! I'm not playing with you guys......! Just an extreme example for everyone. :rolleyes:
Steve_MND 05-20-04, 12:26 PM	Well, first off, I agree with many when I say that I feel that the Circle, after a long, steady climb up over the last year and a half, made serious, incredible mistakes with this last LGCS update. Far too much was made Core, and far too much choice was stripped from the individual regions. As to the reasons for the metagroup changes, I do not agree with any of them. If players were cherrypicking, a strict residency requirement would have been all that was needed (as was suggested by many people, including myself). If some regions were providing more metagroups than their neighbors, so what? If some regions were falling down on the job (and several regions were), then the solution is to provide means for those regions to step up to the level of the other regions -- not to take all the other regions and strip them down to the level of the underachievers. I've said it before, and I'll say it again -- the Circle, unfortunately, has been adopting the "lowest common denominator" approach for many campaign issues, and that approach has never, ever been the optimal solution in anything. That said, LG isn't going anywhere. While some people (like XXX) might have seen a reduction in tables in their area over the last year or so, other areas have seen them remain steady, or even increase. Conversely, you couldn't drag people into playing a game of LA, yet it is still popular. You have to look at the overall picture, and the overall picture is still that -- when taken as a whole -- LG is still the largest and is still growing happily. If the disastrous RUPs two years ago didn't sign the death warrant on the campaign, these recent changes, poor as they may be, will not. As to the new metagroups: first off, the new metagroup document isn't "secret," it's just not publicly posted for the players to review. Why? Because it isn't a player document. It's a set of guidelines for the Triads to use when developing their region's metagroup. There's no reason why the average player has to be able to see it any more than the average player needs to see the author's guidelines. The Triads can distribute it to those people they see fit (usually those volunteers, POCs and regional assistants helping to develop the new metagroups in the first place). As to the new limit on the number of metagroups: 25 isn't even remotely close to being enough metagroups for any decently-sized or detailed region, unless they are watered down to a point where they become essentially useless. Heck, many regions have at least half that many organized churches at least, and what is served by having to ration potential metagroups to the point where you are left with "Region X's Generic Church A" as opposed to the Region X's Church of Hieroneous, the Region X's Church of Wee Jas, the Region X's Church of Pelor, etc. Steve M
Cardinal Teplin 05-20-04, 01:04 PM	Yet, even in Onnwal, where as Steve S points out, we had very little abusive compared to the bulging folders of some US regions, we still had 42 metaorgs. They just weren't very beneficial metaorgs. While I think cleaning up the whole metaorg situation is a good thing, I don't see what difference limiting the numbers makes. I certainly doesn't, in and of itself, make them any more or less abusive. The key to limiting metaorgs is not limiting numbers that exist, but keeping TU costs high. Of course, I'm a little biased. I spent a great deal of time writing a metaorg, and submitting it to the Triad. This new limit means it will probably never see the light of day. Hey ho.
Simpi 05-20-04, 01:40 PM	Originally posted by Steve_MND Well, first off, I agree with many when I say that I feel that the Circle, after a long, steady climb up over the last year and a half, made serious, incredible mistakes with this last LGCS update. Far too much was made Core, and far too much choice was stripped from the individual regions. As to the reasons for the metagroup changes, I do not agree with any of them. If players were cherrypicking, a strict residency requirement would have been all that was needed (as was suggested by many people, including myself). If some regions were providing more metagroups than their neighbors, so what? If some regions were falling down on the job (and several regions were), then the solution is to provide means for those regions to step up to the level of the other regions -- not to take all the other regions and strip them down to the level of the underachievers. I've said it before, and I'll say it again -- the Circle, unfortunately, has been adopting the "lowest common denominator" approach for many campaign issues, and that approach has never, ever been the optimal solution in anything. Very much agreed. However, I would think meta-regional meta-organisations could increase the number of available meta-organisations. For example, making 'Knights of the Watch' (or what was it called) a Sheldomar Valley meta-organisation would ensure that local regions don't have to burn a meta-org for this kind of meta-organisations.
Steve_MND 05-20-04, 02:14 PM	Actually, while the KotWD (Knights of the Watch and Dispatch) are based in Gran March, they are effectively a metaregional organization, as anyone from most (perhaps all) of the Sheldomar regions can join it already. It has it's own seperate structure, rank, etc., outside the regional structure -- including a unique Prestige Class available to it's members -- so having it represented by seperate groups in each region would be rather awkward. In fact, KotWD is one of the very few cases where I actually think a metagroup larger than regional is a good and appropriate idea.
grey580 05-20-04, 02:22 PM	Originally posted by WCrawford What specifically don't you believe is true? In contrast, Living Arcanis can regularly seat 3+ full tables on any given game day. That's because it's one of the best run campaigns I've seen. With excellent customer service. :)
MichaelTLH 05-20-04, 02:51 PM	Originally posted by grey580 That's because it's one of the best run campaigns I've seen. With excellent customer service. Of course, the fact that you are Paradigm's site admin means you're completely neutral, right? ;) ;) ;) As to the meta-orgs: The old adage applies... you can please some of the people, some of the time... but not all of the people, all of the time.
grey580 05-20-04, 04:29 PM	No. If I didn't think that way about them I wouldn't volunteer my time.
Cardinal Teplin 05-20-04, 04:51 PM	>As to the meta-orgs: >The old adage applies... you can please some of the people, some of the time... but not all of the people, all of the time. With that philosophy, you might as well not try at all. Either you care about getting these things right, or you don't.
grey580 05-20-04, 05:38 PM	Originally posted by Cardinal Teplin >As to the meta-orgs: >The old adage applies... you can please some of the people, some of the time... but not all of the people, all of the time. With that philosophy, you might as well not try at all. Either you care about getting these things right, or you don't. Even if you do your very best and it comes out close to be a masterpiece. Someone will still have something to complain about.
BillKronick 05-20-04, 05:54 PM	Originally posted by Wavester LG's play numbers continue to grow (even in year 4). So rumors of our death have been greatly exagerated. Even this thread proves that while some jump up and down about restriction others think we are to liberal in what we give out. The vast majority are happy in the middle and that is just the way we like it Are these play numbers published anywhere? How did you arrive at the conclusion that a "vast majority" are happy? How did you measure the happiness? The majority? Are these all based on the survey at the living-greyhawk site? If so, consider the following; 1.) The only one's who could take the test are those that knew about the test. 2.) Only those who knew about the test during the testing timeframe could take the test. 3.) Only those with internet access could know about or take the test. To claim that this small subset of the customer base constitutes a representative sample is, at best, inaccurate. Just because some may "suffer in silence" doesn't mean they aren't suffering and are therefore happy. If your conclusions are not based on the living-greyhawk survey, please be so kind as to let us, the happy majority, know how we were discovered without having been asked. Thanks in advance, Bill Kronick (Retiring after year 5)
Cardinal Teplin 05-20-04, 05:56 PM	Of course. No system is perfect. But that doesn't mean that it doesn't matter what the decisions are. Otherwise we could just replace the Triad members with talking sock monkeys that said 'NO' every time you pressed the button on their tummy. Of course, you'd need some way for the sock monkey to absorb beer... :-)
grey580 05-20-04, 06:21 PM	Originally posted by Cardinal Teplin Of course. No system is perfect. But that doesn't mean that it doesn't matter what the decisions are. Otherwise we could just replace the Triad members with talking sock monkeys that said 'NO' every time you pressed the button on their tummy. Of course, you'd need some way for the sock monkey to absorb beer... :-) That's a brilliant idea!:thumbsup: Even when they said no you couldn't be upset for too long cuz they are too cute to be mad at for long. We already have a plush Triad member. http://www.livingcity.net/wipou/con/DCP_0198.jpg He was turned into an Echidna during a mishap with plush Cthulhu. http://www.livingcity.net/wipou/con/
Steve_MND 05-20-04, 08:19 PM	"But that doesn't mean that it doesn't matter what the decisions are. Otherwise we could just replace the Triad members with talking sock monkeys that said 'NO' every time you pressed the button on their tummy." You know, it's comments like this that remind me of how lucky I am to be in a region where the Triad is so responsive and involved in the campaign, and the player base is so eager to volunteer and donate time and effort to making the campaign fun. Darned shame that other regions don't step up to the plate as well...
honeynuggets 05-20-04, 09:52 PM	Wow, Honeynuggets. How about this for an explanation: not all metagroups have to give the PC every little thing that they want. By the sound of it, being a member of this metaorg doesn't preclude you from gaining other mounts, so if you can find a more powerful mount elsewhere, knock yourself out. I hardly think asking for a PrC to function as WoTC intended is "giving me every little thing I want." No, the meta-org does not preclude me from gaining access to other mounts. So now all I have to do is "find" another mount(read- wait for a module that grants access to appropriate CR special mounts). Wonder how long I'll be waiting for something which is supposed to be a class feature according to WoTC. Forever is likely. Nice house rules LG has here.
Cardinal Teplin 05-21-04, 12:02 AM	>You know, it's comments like this that remind me of how lucky I am to be in a region where the Triad is so responsive and involved in the campaign, and the player base is so eager to volunteer and donate time and effort to making the campaign fun. Darned shame that other regions don't step up to the plate as well... I've not seen a region where that is the case, but I've not been to any of the US ones. The "No!" is a reference to one of the Triad from my own region, because I happen to know he has been reading this thread. The quality of the decisions has been pretty good, even if they aren't the ones I would have made (but then what are the chances of that?) However, the limit on numbers of metaorgs is going to limit the extent to which players can make a metaorg their own. In general it is quite hard for players to actually contribute meaningfully to the campaign setting. There's no actual mechanism for it, but metaorgs were one area which they could move in and give something its own flavour. But with the new tight limits, designed to prevent system abuse, the ability to provide flavour also looks like it might go. In general its hard for a Triad to let players contribute, because if they aren't monitored, then there might be abuse, if not by them, then by another group who want the same rules to apply to them. The triad doesn't really have the time to monitor groups of players, so the rules forbid anything that might actually make a a difference to the game. Much player creativity goes into trying to publicise a particular point to the extent that a GM might deign to take it into account during a table, because he's sort of heard of it, but this is a tenuous connection at best. Certainly there is no rules support for player creativity - and its not clear how their could be. I find it frustrating because I know my group could do great things if let off the leash. Between them they have run games for well over 200 people, weekly, for the last year, including three cases where they invented their own rules system, and in most cases they invented their own background. But they can't do much in LG. And of course it's really becoming a problem. The purpose for which my war company was set up has become the subject of a one-off special event - run on a date which they can't make. I'm more than a little afraid of what's going to happen to the war company group, mailing list, symbol, motto, web site, history, background, short stories, poetry, international mailing group, physical resources, and on-line database. How do I tell them that actually, officially, none of that ever really mattered, because some random people turned up and sorted it all out? Of course, special events with campaign consequences _are_ one way of influencing what happens, but it doesn't harness the player's creative tendancies to make a better game. The problem is, I'm not sure what would.
Cardinal Teplin 05-21-04, 12:09 AM	>I hardly think asking for a PrC to function as WoTC intended is "giving me every little thing I want." Guys, her prestige class has been nerfed because her Triad didn't like it as written. They consider their creation, the game setting, to be more important than her creation, the character. I'd be annoyed too. Honeynugget's being forced to downgrade her characer, and change all her ideas, as well accepting a (slightly) higher chance of death for herself and anyone she adventures with, all because the Triad believes that its more important that a character reflect their animal ecology than the intentions of the player. Noone likes having their character messed with, particular not after they may have already played them as written for several years.
StevieS 05-21-04, 06:27 AM	Originally posted by Cardinal Teplin Of course. No system is perfect. But that doesn't mean that it doesn't matter what the decisions are. Otherwise we could just replace the Triad members with talking sock monkeys that said 'NO' every time you pressed the button on their tummy. Of course, you'd need some way for the sock monkey to absorb beer... :-) Shhhh, don't give away our secret! :D When we've discovered a way for seamless beer absorption all Onnwal triad members will be of the talking sock variety but with the refinement that the ritual NO!!! answer will change to a maybe, then yes, depending upon beer-age. A much simpler admin method me-thinks ;)
StevieS 05-21-04, 06:32 AM	I can assure you this is being looked at to ensure that no LG rules are broken if your suggestion is approved. Working out how to set up a 6'x12' scenery table will be obstacle number 2 I guess ......... Stevie Onnwal POC talking sock ;) Originally posted by Cardinal Teplin And of course it's really becoming a problem. The purpose for which my war company was set up has become the subject of a one-off special event - run on a date which they can't make. I'm more than a little afraid of what's going to happen to the war company group, mailing list, symbol, motto, web site, history, background, short stories, poetry, international mailing group, physical resources, and on-line database. How do I tell them that actually, officially, none of that ever really mattered, because some random people turned up and sorted it all out?[/B]
Cardinal Teplin 05-21-04, 09:11 AM	Argh.. Triad leaping out of the woodwork!!!:) :) :) Actually, I haven't told anyone about my suggestion for that particular problem (except J) because you might still have to turn it down. Erk.. I didn't mean to lay a guilt trip on anyone. In general terms, it is difficult for players to contribute to the running of any sort of living game, because of the admin hassles. Triad has its work cut out just making sure modules get written, events happen, and players don't suddenly all become specularly rich from land speculation due to a rule designed to allow them to maybe buy their own little house or lab. That said, player input is, in a way, kinda the entire point. Why else have a living campaign at all? Difficult to do though. Onnwal seems pretty good in this respect, although I travelled enough to really compare. Regionals have campaign consequences, which get tallied and noticed. I've not actually noticed it have any effect, but that's never really bothered my players until now - they more like the idea that someone is actually counting their adventure result as part of the overall picture. And special events certainly have consequences. A Spring Break in Onnwal threw us into a spin with a sudden alliance with Ahlissa. The fact that NPCs take actions and have agendas is a nice touch, although the numbers of active actors seems few from a player perspective, probably because of the limits on what can be expressed in a few regionals. I had hopes for players redesigning metaorgs, which got a favourable response from the players, who could use their character'smembership to effectively influence part of the game world, and from the Triad, as long as they had rights to edit and veto, and we did all the work. With only 25 metaorgs, there is less space to do that now, although it also means that more people may join each org, which may be a good thing... Message boards are also a way of doing something. One of the Onnwal Triad runs the Onnwal message boards, and we had a good in character inn meal discussing recent politics, running well over a hundred posts, which can only be a good thing. Maybe this is the best we can practically manage. What do people think? This isn't about the Windrider prestige class any more though.. Maybe we should start a new thread? Cardinal Teplin ------------------ morose and stressed, which maybe influencing me....
Samwise 05-21-04, 04:43 PM	I for one am very happy with the LGCS. Seeing as I pushed for the majority of the changes since 2001, I should be. The whole meta-org situation was critically injured with the decision to link non-Core Book access to them. This meant access to about 75% of the available, "official", feats, 95% of the prestige classes, 10% of the spells, with a disporportionate number of highly specialized ones, and miscellaneous equipment and magical items. As a result, meta-orgs became nothing more than cheap giveaways, with balance between regions guaranteed to be non-existent, even after the reorganization of meta-orgs in 2003. Instead of serving to support the background and regional flavor, all they did was provide giveaways, with the background elements so overwhelmed that those who did care about them barely able to remember that the organizations once had a purpose beyond those giveaways. Now they can get back to doing that, and people can have nearly total access to otherwise optional material. As for a character concept giving way to the campaign, good! There is a certain limit past which a campaign can not accommodate every little thing. It obviously is not going to try and deal with Samurai class or variants, or any of the alternate Core classes being presented, and it is limiting others. Just because somebody decides they want doesn't make it appropriate. Nor is it even close to reasonable to suggest that one player should get to impose their desires on an entire region. Why is it fair for a Triad to do that? Well aside from the fact that they are three people and not just one, there is also the vast amount of work they put in to the campaign for the region. But instead of that we should have every single player able to override such decisions with their own little house rules, and trash out any concept of a unified regional flavor. Wonderful. That would destroy the campaign faster than any limits on it ever could. I hope the campaign doesn't stampede down that path. Triad members should say "No!" one hundred times more often.
Steve_MND 05-22-04, 01:59 PM	Ok, I have finally been able to sit down with a copy of Master of the Wild and look over the Windrider Prestige Class. After doing so, I am even more convinced that Honeynuggets is simply and purely incorrect. First off, the CR limits you quoted describe the upper limits of what is considered an appropriate mount. The CR-3/CR-4 are the maximums for what a character could technically call a mount as far as the game is concerned. That section in no way states that a character -- Windrider or not -- is required or obligated to have a mount of that maximum power. Further, nowhere in the Prestige Class description does it mention anything about a Windrider needing to have a mount of a certain power level or CR. The metagroup is not required to provide any mounts at all, and if it does decide to allow provide a default mount, it certainly isn't required to offer a mount of the maximum CR compared to a prospective member's level. If you do not yet have levels in Windrider, and are thinking about joining the metagroup for access to the Prestige Class and to a special mount, I can see no legitimate reason to complain. As described above, the CR maximums are not related to the PrC, a Windrider does not get a new mount for becoming a member of the Prestige Class, and a metagroup offering the Prestige Class is not obligated to give you one. On the other hand, if you are complaining about the metagroup because you have Windrider levels and are already a member -- why again are you complaining? It doesn't make sense to me: To take a level in Windrider to begin with, you must already have a mount. Presumably, you already had one before you took the first level of the Prestige Class (whether it was a standard animal from the PHB or a certed creature obtained through campaign docs). So by joining the metagroup, you now have access to another mount (which, I'd remind you, is not an automatic feature of the PrC to begin with), and can swap yours out if you like it better. If you didn't already have levels of the PrC, and joined the metagroup in order to gain access to it, then again, why are you complaining? You knew beforehand that they offer only one type of mount (which, just to remind you again, they were not obligated to do), so there's no point in joining something only to complain about it when you are aware from the beginning what you would be getting. The only reason I can see somebody even remotely having a problem with the metagroup was that if maybe it used to provide access to some other mount, and due to whatever reason that mount changed after they had already joined. In that case, it'd be best to talk to the Triad privately as opposed to trying to drum up support for a mistaken interpretation here on the boards and trying to make the Triad in question look as if they are ignoring the rules -- because, simply put, they aren't.
kenobi65 05-22-04, 03:46 PM	Originally posted by Steve_MND The metagroup is not required to provide any mounts at all, and if it does decide to allow provide a default mount, it certainly isn't required to offer a mount of the maximum CR compared to a prospective member's level. Further, the Windrider PrC's "Chosen Mount" ability adds to the HD, Natural Armor bonus, and STR of the mount anyway, even at 1st level. So, that Dire Wolf they give you as a 1st level Windrider now has 8d8+24hp (60hp on average), an armor class of 18, and a STR of 27. I'm no expert on CRs, but I'd say that adjustment takes it up to CR4, at a minimum.
honeynuggets 05-23-04, 07:44 AM	Nice fantasy world (pardon the pun) you live in. That section in no way states that a character -- Windrider or not -- is required or obligated to have a mount of that maximum power. Further, nowhere in the Prestige Class description does it mention anything about a Windrider needing to have a mount of a certain power level or CR. Nowhere does it say that a Paladin is obligated to have a mount of their maximum allowable CR and nowhere does it say that wizards have to fill their spell slots with the highest level spells possible...but they do. Game balance is determined by maximum power attainable and you know it. The metagroup is not required to provide any mounts at all, and if it does decide to allow provide a default mount, it certainly isn't required to offer a mount of the maximum CR compared to a prospective member's level. The metagroup should not be allowed to restrict access to benefits allowed in the official rules. I can see a metagroup restricting access to certain TYPES of mounts for flavor but lowering the CR of mounts is subjective modification of PrCs. And yes, the metagroup does restrict access to mounts effectively since the only way you can get non Core "stuff" is with campaign documentation. Further, the Windrider PrC's "Chosen Mount" ability adds to the HD, Natural Armor bonus, and STR of the mount anyway, even at 1st level. Enchancing a mount is the whole point of the Windrider PrC. Otherwise you would just buy a trained Dire Wolf for a fighter. This enhancement is considered to be balanced by WoTC exactly the same way it is for a Paladin's (CORE class) mount. A Paladin gets many more abilities than a Windrider too and doesn't have to deal with this metagroup bs. Too bad for me that I hate Lawful Good roleplay.
Simpi 05-23-04, 10:13 AM	Originally posted by honeynuggets Enchancing a mount is the whole point of the Windrider PrC. Otherwise you would just buy a trained Dire Wolf for a fighter. How can you buy a trained Dire Wolf?
Steve_MND 05-23-04, 10:55 AM	Ugh. I can see you are hung up on this "I deserve to get everything I want" bit, but I'll try one more time here: "The metagroup should not be allowed to restrict access to benefits allowed in the official rules." As mentioned before, it is IN NO WAY restricting anything. In case you missed it in Living Greyhawk 101, access to everything outside of the Core stuff described in the LGCS 3.0 is restricted to begin with. The metagroup isn't restricting access to a super-powerful mount; the campaign is, by not allowing you to just go ahead and buy a trained griffon or spider eater mount whenever and wherever you want (and thank god for that). The metagroup is providing access to something you wouldn't have had before, and something which -- again -- it is not required to do so. And yet, you see that as somehow restricting access. Incredible. Weapon Master is a Prestige Class that allows you to emphasize your abilities with a specific weapon. By your logic here ("you should always have access to the most powerful allowed feature") then as soon as you take one level in said Prestige Class, you should automatically have access to a +10-equivalent weapon (since, after all, that's the "maximum power attainable and you know it"). "This enhancement is considered to be balanced by WoTC exactly the same way it is for a Paladin's (CORE class) mount." Tell you what, if you can show me ANYWHERE in the description of the Windrider Prestige Class where it says that the character is required for his mount to have the highest CR allowable compared to the character's level, I'll concede the point. Heck, it just requires him to have "a mount;" you show me anywhere in there where it says that the Windrider is obligated to have any specific type of mount at all, and I'll be impressed. Incidently, "Game balance is determined by maximum power attainable and you know it." is by far one of the saddest quotes on roleplaying I've seen in a long time.
Samwise 05-23-04, 10:57 AM	Originally posted by honeynuggets Nowhere does it say that a Paladin is obligated to have a mount of their maximum allowable CR and nowhere does it say that wizards have to fill their spell slots with the highest level spells possible...but they do. Game balance is determined by maximum power attainable and you know it. An interesting example. A Paladin gets a warhorse or a warpony. The DM may, as an option, grant a riding dog or a shark as an option according to the PHB. But Paladin's do not get automatic, optional, or even suggested access to any other mounts at they gain levels. So you have misinterpreted and misrepresented this rule in an attempt to gain a benefit for yourself. The metagroup should not be allowed to restrict access to benefits allowed in the official rules. I can see a metagroup restricting access to certain TYPES of mounts for flavor but lowering the CR of mounts is subjective modification of PrCs. And yes, the metagroup does restrict access to mounts effectively since the only way you can get non Core "stuff" is with campaign documentation. Since the metagroup is the only way to get access to the class in the first place, it obviously has the power to restrict anything and everything related to the class. Without the metagroup you don't have access to anything in the class at all. So again you are misinterpreting and misrepresenting the intent and function of a rule to try and gain a benefit for yourself. Enchancing a mount is the whole point of the Windrider PrC. Otherwise you would just buy a trained Dire Wolf for a fighter. This enhancement is considered to be balanced by WoTC exactly the same way it is for a Paladin's (CORE class) mount. A Paladin gets many more abilities than a Windrider too and doesn't have to deal with this metagroup bs. Too bad for me that I hate Lawful Good roleplay. And does the meta-org prevent you from enhancing a mount? No it does not. In no way does that meta-org in any way limit a class feature of that prestige class. Just as a Triad could not limit the advancement of a Paladin's mount, a Druid or Ranger's animal companion, or a Wizard or Sorceror's familiar, so there is no limiting of the Windrider's mount here. And a third time you are misinterpreting and misrepresenting the rule that covers this for your own benefit. I would also note that since the bonuses for a Windriders mount are not modified based on the mounts HD or CR, getting automatic access to a mount of higher CR would be unbalancing to the game. Given the changes to Paladin, Druid, and Ranger companions, that would be more in violation of the spirit of the rules as intended by WotC than giving you an automatic super mount whenever you want one. Maybe you should just take some time to actually learn the rules before insisting someone is cheating because they won't give you whatever you want.
Thannin 05-23-04, 03:03 PM	***Enchancing a mount is the whole point of the Windrider PrC. Otherwise you would just buy a trained Dire Wolf for a fighter. This enhancement is considered to be balanced by WoTC exactly the same way it is for a Paladin's (CORE class) mount. A Paladin gets many more abilities than a Windrider too and doesn't have to deal with this metagroup bs. Too bad for me that I hate Lawful Good roleplay.*** So from just that paragraph, ignoring all the other posts on this two page board, ignoring all the obvious hints that this is a roleplaying game, and looking at your post history honey nuggets; I come to the conclusion that you just want what you cant have. Such a third grade conclusion is the only thing I can come up with simply because it sounds in every way you just want the maximum cheese and whine for a Roleplaying character. Anyone that knows me knows that I try to be as good as I can be and I dont deny it. But at the same time I also realize that roleplaying is not all about statistics. If you want statistics go play Forgotten realms, go join the optimizer boards, and go play a home game where you can have anything and everything you want. But in no way take this as a personal attack, it just simply appears Living Grayhawk is not for you. If The CO6 and Triads gave the players everything We wanted Id quit in less than two minutes and burn my character sheets. I dont play the game for the best statistics, I play the game to have fun and be challenged.. And please, read the thing called the introduction to the windrider PRC, because obviously you cannot tell that wind riders are not all about their mount. If you want x prc for y reason, and y reason isnt specifically stated in the prc, dont take x prc. If you think x prc isnt "balanced" because you cant get the y benefit out of x prc, then obviously you're thinking about x prc for the wrong reasons. This board needs to be closed and if you're not having fun then dont play.
Cardinal Teplin 05-23-04, 05:07 PM	Goodness, its going to be hard to comment without being rude to people, but I'll try. The issue here seems to be one about balance. As Honeynuggets has pointed out, the metaorg in question restricts access to the type of mounts that a windrider can ride. This limit has not been made on the type of mount, but on the CR of the mount. The issue is not about who can make the most abusive personal comments about eachother. Bearing that in mind.... >Ugh. I can see you are hung up on this "I deserve to get everything I want" bit, but I'll try one more time here: Does seem to be entirely off-topic. And offensive. >As mentioned before, it is IN NO WAY restricting anything. I would dispute that. Have you really thought your position through? If the rules don't allow something to occur, then it restricted by the rules. In this case the metaorg is restricting the windrider prestige class to a subset of the possible options under which it was written. Whether or not this restriction is justified is something we will consider, but it is clearly a restriction. >The metagroup isn't restricting access to a super-powerful mount; the campaign is, by not allowing you to just go ahead and buy a trained griffon or spider eater mount whenever and wherever you want (and thank god for that). Of course Trained Griffons have already appeared in the campaign setting. So it isn't so much a campaign limitation as a limitation for players within than campaign. >The metagroup is providing access to something you wouldn't have had before, and something which -- again -- it is not required to do so. And yet, you see that as somehow restricting access. Incredible. Specifically, providing access to the prestige class, but not to the mounts the prestige class is predicated on. My own Triad recently decided that it would be unreasonable to have the dread pirate PrC and not allow such people access to some kind of ship. Were they wrong to think so? >Incidently, "Game balance is determined by maximum power attainable and you know it." is by far one of the saddest quotes on roleplaying I've seen in a long time. Its also almost a direct paraphrase of the justifications by the Circle of many of the changes to the latest LGCS. And quite rightly so. In determining game balance, it is unfortunately the maximum power attainable that is used as a guide. You do seem to be confusing a complaint about 'system' with 'roleplaying'. I'm not sure why. >Since the metagroup is the only way to get access to the class in the first place, it obviously has the power to restrict anything and everything related to the class. Without the metagroup you don't have access to anything in the class at all. Indeed so. This particular Triad has decided, in their infinite wisdom, to allow the PrC itself, but only in a very limited way. In doing so, they are ignoring game balance, which is largely the substance of honeynuggest's complaint. In the same way, were the Circle to rule that spells about 5th level simply weren't available in the campaign setting, there might well be a few complaints, despite the fact that the it is entirely within the Circle's right to do so, and despite people being able to switch classes away from wizard should they desire to do so. >In no way does that meta-org in any way limit a class feature of that prestige class. Nor would ruling any spell above 5th being unavailable to wizards limit the class features of wizards. >Just as a Triad could not limit the advancement of a Paladin's mount, Although they could ban them from all regional adventures, eg by a law against magical beasts. >a Druid or Ranger's animal companion, Like they weren't banned in Isles of Woe? >or a Wizard or Sorceror's familiar, Nonsense. Try having a disturbing looking familair in public and see how long the law takes to get to you. >so there is no limiting of the Windrider's mount here. Of course there is. The PrC is predicated on the idea of riding an exotic mount. Restricting exotic mounts has obvious repercussions for the class. >I would also note that since the bonuses for a Windriders mount are not modified based on the mounts HD or CR, getting automatic access to a mount of higher CR would be unbalancing to the game. This is decent point. I'm not sure it's true, but it is a good point. >Given the changes to Paladin, Druid, and Ranger companions, that would be more in violation of the spirit of the rules as intended by WotC. Changes? What changes? >than giving you an automatic super mount whenever you want one. Not about super mount. Its about what was considered balanced in the writing of the prestige class. >So you have misinterpreted and misrepresented this rule in an attempt to gain a benefit for yourself. Sigh... 1) This kind of thing is clearly against the behaviorial code of the boards. It's also rude and undermines your case. Please stop. 2) I notice you don't bother to support this statement with any kind of argument. 3) I don't have a windrider, don't intend to get one, and share at least some of her concern. How does that fit in? 4) If you do think it is legitamite to guess at people's motives, it would only be fair to include your own motives in insulting someone you haven't met. (eg <bing> calling Mr Freud...) >I come to the conclusion that you just want what you cant have. That does seem obvious. The point in contention is whether it is right that honeynuggets can't have it. >Such a third grade conclusion <vast swathes of insult snipped> ...But in no way take this as a personal attack, Oh, well thank goodness that wasn't personal! >If you want x prc for y reason, and y reason isnt specifically stated in the prc, dont take x prc. If you think x prc isnt "balanced" because you cant get the y benefit out of x prc, then obviously you're thinking about x prc for the wrong reasons. Sorry for making a statement that is maybe in ignorance, but isn't there something in the windrider class about mounts that fly? Or is the 'wind' part a reference to just riding really fast? On a more practical note, Honeynuggets, is there any way you can get your hands on a figurine of wonderous power : griffin? Someone in my group managed it, but that was because of a metaregional adventure which you may not be entitled to. I am beginning to see one of the possible problems with LG - simply that many people seem to hate players for having their own ideas. Maybe its because they rely on the traditional authority of the GM, which in LG is partly retained by the Circle...
Thannin 05-23-04, 05:59 PM	Ok after a step back and many many cherry cokes I decided I owe a more logical reason why honey nuggets is plain out wrong. Specifically, the wind rider does not have to ride a exotic mount. Further more, a dire wolf is a pretty darn exotic mount when you think about it. Also, it does not say in the meta org that you HAVE to ride the dire wolf. It says it grants access to it but you do not have to utilize that feature. Also, take into consideration the Seven or eight different "exotic" mounts available in the campaign. Including the awakened dire wolf, the year one/two? griffon, and several other campaign documented sources of exotic mounts. Just because a druid has an animal companion and access to a dire bear doesnt mean he doesnt like his trusty advanced wolf who has been with him for most of his career. I think this whole post in some ways should remind us that it is a game and that it really shouldnt be about game "balance", it should be about the character. Sorry for the personal attacks, but when you dont give a reason except for balance, it shows a sign that alls you care about is x benefit, not the overall roleplaying of the character. I would suggest looking at various exotic mounts and realizing the metaorg doesnt limit you to using it, it just provides another access route. My suggestion is to close this thread..
honeynuggets 05-23-04, 06:00 PM	How can you buy a trained Dire Wolf? The monster manuals quote prices for various mounts as youth and trained. Living Greyhawk restricts access to these mounts even though their prices are in a Core book. As mentioned before, it is IN NO WAY restricting anything. Wrong. LGCS does restrict access to special mounts, but this meta-group also nerfs the Windrider PrC by neglecting to offer mounts of up to the maximum allowable CR values. by not allowing you to just go ahead and buy a trained griffon or spider eater mount whenever and wherever you want (and thank god for that). Just to clarify I am not suggesting everyone be able to buy whatever mount they want. I am suggesting that the Windrider PrC is entitled to the complete range of it's class features. So a Windrider should be allowed access to the Dire Wolf as a mount at CL 6 (Ranger 5/Windrider 1 for example) as the official rules allow. It in no way detracts from the "flavor" of the metagroup. Weapon Master is a Prestige Class that allows you to emphasize your abilities with a specific weapon. By your logic here ("you should always have access to the most powerful allowed feature") then as soon as you take one level in said Prestige Class, you should automatically have access to a +10-equivalent weapon (since, after all, that's the "maximum power attainable and you know it"). Couldn't find this PrC. I doubt that the 1st level in Weapon Master grants characters a +10 weapon. What I am saying is that a Paladin of 6th level can select a Dire Wolf as a mount. According to WoTC rules a Ranger 5/Windrider 1 can also select a Dire Wolf as a mount. According to the Wanderer meta-org the Ranger 5/Windrider 1 can just sit and spin because it only grants access to one special mount and at a character level far above level 6. Without specific documentation in LG you can't get jack from non-core books. It's obvious to anyone who plays a Windrider PrC that whoever made the meta-org nerfed it. A Paladin gets a warhorse or a warpony. The DM may, as an option, grant a riding dog or a shark as an option according to the PHB. But Paladin's do not get automatic, optional, or even suggested access to any other mounts at they gain levels. So you have misinterpreted and misrepresented this rule in an attempt to gain a benefit for yourself. P.204 DMG (A Core book) lists mounts for level 6+ paladins. I'd appreciate it if you edited your post to remove the insinuation that I am misrepresenting facts. I am the only one here trying to stick to the official WoTC rules instead of these highly subjective LG house rules. Since the metagroup is the only way to get access to the class in the first place, it obviously has the power to restrict anything and everything related to the class. Without the metagroup you don't have access to anything in the class at all. So again you are misinterpreting and misrepresenting the intent and function of a rule to try and gain a benefit for yourself. The metagroup does indeed have the power to restrict anything related to the class. It already added an unofficial pre-requisite of additional Survival ranks. The metagroup even has the power to say you have to wear pink all the time. The metagroup has lots of power. What I said was that it SHOULDN'T have power to alter PrCs to the point where they become significantly less effective. You are the one who is trying to misrepresent my words. Either that or you just failed to comprehend. And does the meta-org prevent you from enhancing a mount? No it does not. In no way does that meta-org in any way limit a class feature of that prestige class. Just as a Triad could not limit the advancement of a Paladin's mount, a Druid or Ranger's animal companion, or a Wizard or Sorceror's familiar, so there is no limiting of the Windrider's mount here. And a third time you are misinterpreting and misrepresenting the rule that covers this for your own benefit. This, you have taken out of context. It was in reply to kenobi65's incorrect rationale that the Windrider's mount enhancement ability effectively made a Dire Wolf CR 4 and that that makes it somehow ok to restrict access to it until 9th level. And a third time you are misrepresenting my statements. Nowhere do I say that this metagroup restricts the "mount enhancement" ability of a Windrider. In the most FUNDAMENTAL way it DOES limit the most important class feature of the Windrider PrC by not granting access to many many mounts that a Windrider is ENTITLED to according to the official WoTC rules. The Triad does not limit the advancement of mounts true, but they do limit access to the mount itself which alters the PrC significantly. Maybe you should just take some time to actually learn the rules before insisting someone is cheating because they won't give you whatever you want. Maybe you should just spend less time misrepresenting my statements. In yet another example, nowhere do I say that there is any "cheating" going on. The people behind this meta-group can restrict mounts to tiny purple pigs if they want. All I'm saying is that they shouldn't be in the business of second guessing WoTC and weakening PrCs. Finally, "they" are taking away what WoTC has called official not giving me whatever I want. If WoTC says the Windrider is imbalanced after two revisions then they should be the ones to publish an errata or update to revise the PrC. I come to the conclusion that you just want what you cant have. The conclusion I would hope people come away with is simply that Meta-groups are being nerfed by the people writing them up. Therefore, these "people" presume to know more than WoTC about game balance. I am merely pointing out what changes they made to a meta-group granting access to the Windrider PrC and showing how compared to a similar class (Paladin) it is now significantly less effective. This to illustrate that they should not be allowed to alter effectiveness in the name of flavor or their subjective opinion that a class is overpowered. This board needs to be closed and if you're not having fun then dont play. What attracted me to LG in the first place was it's relatively slow Exp and Gold accumulation. It's just my bad luck that the type of character I like to play got hit with the nerf stick. Like I said before not all classes are nerfed. I can whip up a fighter 3x-4x more effective than my character and 6x+ times more effective than my character + the windrider nerfs. I'm just not that into being a tank though. What will drive me away from LG is this strange idea that it's ok to nerf some classes and not others. Nerfing should be global through EXp and Gold alterations only imho. Calls for my valid "objection" post to be closed remind me of conservative editors. Everyone should be able to read about and pipe in if they want.
Cardinal Teplin 05-23-04, 06:55 PM	> Ok after a step back and many many cherry cokes I decided I owe a more logical reason why honey nuggets is plain out wrong. Fair enough. Can I just add that I greatly respect your making the effort. >Specifically, the wind rider does not have to ride a exotic mount. Well no. A wizard doesn't have to have spells above 5th level. >Further more, a dire wolf is a pretty darn exotic mount when you think about it. Also, it does not say in the meta org that you HAVE to ride the dire wolf. It says it grants access to it but you do not have to utilize that feature. No, but the PrC isn't really being used properly if you just have a horse. >Also, take into consideration the Seven or eight different "exotic" mounts available in the campaign. Eh? >Including the awakened dire wolf, the year one/two? griffon, and several other campaign documented sources of exotic mounts. I've not seen any of theses. Bear in mind also that it can't be assumed a particular character will play a particular adventure, nor should a one-off availability be used to balance a particular class. >Just because a druid has an animal companion and access to a dire bear doesnt mean he doesnt like his trusty advanced wolf who has been with him for most of his career. Indeed not. That said, several of my animal companions have died. I eventually retired my wolf as an animal companion because I couldn't stop him getting hurt. Merikka the mountain lion soon followed - she was just too vulnerable and no good purpose was served by taking her with me. I had to go places that she could not follow. I have also sworn off dire weales after Charlotte's one-round decapitation in the claws of a powerful monster. 'Upgrading' to a more powerful animal may simply be a matter of practicality, or even sentiment. I knew one druid who hated animals. Respected them, but found them a distasteful part of nature. He and his animal companion had a wonderful relationship with eachother, which had little to do with any obvious affection, and a great deal to do with mutual friction at being thrown togeather by forces beyond their control. Or to put it another way, the fact that, were you playing the character you could justify keeping the animal does not mean that is it bad roleplaying or bad practice to change it. >I think this whole post in some ways should remind us that it is a game and that it really shouldnt be about game "balance", it should be about the character. Indeed so. So why is the PrC limited, do you think? You reckon that the Triad got togeather and thought of all the possible mounts that would suit their region and couldn't think of a single one that happened to be over CR3? Or do you think it might have had something to do with balance? What do you reckon? What about the character concept of someone who has always dreamt of flying? Maybe a dire wolf doesn't fit everyone's character? >Sorry for the personal attacks, but when you dont give a reason except for balance, it shows a sign that alls you care about is x benefit, not the overall roleplaying of the character. Maybe because the rule in question is a system ruling, born of balance, and nothing to do with roleplaying at all, not even slightly. >I would suggest looking at various exotic mounts and realizing the metaorg doesnt limit you to using it, it just provides another access route. So, hunnynuggets isn't wrong to think that a windrider ought to be able to get an appropriate mount, since you advocate getting one by a different route? >My suggestion is to close this thread.. Um.. Why? Surely it will drift off when people lose interest? Why close it early?
hustonjj 05-23-04, 07:18 PM	Originally posted by Cardinal Teplin >Specifically, the wind rider does not have to ride a exotic mount. Well no. A wizard doesn't have to have spells above 5th level. >Further more, a dire wolf is a pretty darn exotic mount when you think about it. Also, it does not say in the meta org that you HAVE to ride the dire wolf. It says it grants access to it but you do not have to utilize that feature. No, but the PrC isn't really being used properly if you just have a horse. Wow. That's a VERY strong statement. According to how _I_ read the class, it ALLOWS you to ride nearly anything as a mount eventually, but low-level Wind-Riders have ot stick with taditional types of mounts. Anything beyond that would be a case of SOCIAL consideration. The PRC is offered (in theory) by a group, an organization who teaches the secrets and skills of the trade, and such organizations are VERY likely to have preferred mounts that all members are expected to use. Such a mount could EASILY be "just" a horse. It could just as easily be "just" a Dire Wolf. A specific player's desire to have or use a specific mount HAS to be handled by the campaign administration. In this case, his local Triad, who have (apparantly) said quite clearly that their local Wind Riders use horses and Dire Wolves. NOTHING in a campaign can be done without the support of the campaign administration. Kind of like th elocal player who kept demanding his Living Arcanis character was the missing representative of one of the gods. The player actually got angry with the campaign administration when they brought that NPC back into the story, and voided his role-play concept. Gee. His expectations were unrealistic. I don't know anything about your (or Honney Nugget's) expectations, but if you honestly expect the Campaign Administration to allow all of the random players to decide what makes an appropriate mount, well, then, yeah, your expectations are just as inappropriate. Originally posted by Cardinal Teplin >Sorry for the personal attacks, but when you dont give a reason except for balance, it shows a sign that alls you care about is x benefit, not the overall roleplaying of the character. Maybe because the rule in question is a system ruling, born of balance, and nothing to do with roleplaying at all, not even slightly. Maybe it was posted and I missed it, but, what is the basis for this claim? It is REAL easy to say that. Have you got that as a reply from the guy who wrote the meta-org? From the Triad meta-org contact? Or is it an assumption being made because theclass, as implemented, doesn't allow the particular flavor of cheese you wish to use? I, BTW, have been Triad, and asa player USE the Windrider PrC for Role-Play expansion of my character. He's a Windrider because his people live and die with, by, and on their HORSES. The class is about someone who is dedicated ot being mounted, not about somebody who is dedicated to riding something that flies, or something different every week, or anything else you CAN do with it. And, in case you didn't notice, Windrider mounts DO get buffed from being bonded mounts. Jeff HUston Former Dyvers Triad [edit = finished a thought I was interrupted in the middle of, and left hanging . . ..]
Nidome 05-23-04, 07:20 PM	I must say that Honeynuggets still seems to be getting Prestige Classes and Metagaming Organisations confused. A prestige Class and a Metagaming Organisation are totally seperate entities. It is possible for a Metagaming Organisation to grant access to a limited Presige Class. No region is required to grant access to all limited Prestige Classes. On a previous thread I remember you complaing that a region wouldn't change it's metaorg entry requirements to suit you as you wanted to join that metaorg to gain access to the Windrider PrC. Was the granting of access to that PrC the sole existence for that metaorg or did the metaorg have a background to it as a reason for people to join, with the access being one of the benfits of being a member? It appears that the Principality of Ulek has decided to grant access to the Windrider PrC to members of it's Wanderers metaorg. This is nice of them for they are in now way obligated to grant access to this PrC. Does the purpose of this metaorg require it's members to be Windriders or for them to have special mounts? From what I've read so far on this list and the PoU website, it appears not. The mount access is a gift. If you don't want the gift then feel free to reject it. Not every glass of wine is champange or every car a Ferrari. I have to say "Honeynuggets" that you are correct, everyone is entitled to express an opinion within a few limits, but I haven't seen anyone else complain anywhere near this much that they can't get their own way. The real question is should the PoU "Wanderers" metaorg revolve around around your character and tailor it's benefits to suit you? I say no myself, to run a metaorg purely for the benefit of a single person is wrong, to do so would be to encourage cheese and munchkinism and I don't think that is what LG should be about. Nick.
Samwise 05-23-04, 07:38 PM	Just to clarify I am not suggesting everyone be able to buy whatever mount they want. I am suggesting that the Windrider PrC is entitled to the complete range of it's class features. So a Windrider should be allowed access to the Dire Wolf as a mount Access to a mount is not a class feature of the Windrider PrC. Let me repeat that: Access to a mount is not a class feature of the Windrider PrC. The ability to use and enhance any legal mount already owned is a class feature. The two are not identical. No class feature is being denied the Windrider PrC by this organization. Instead what you are suggesting is that a meta-org grant an additional class feature to the Windrider PrC. This is not allowed. It is against both the spirit of the rules and the LG campaign rules. Nor would ruling any spell above 5th being unavailable to wizards limit the class features of wizards. It is not a class feature of the Wizard class to have access to any spells not in the PH, or to any spell from the various expansion books that have a Core availability. Therefore a meta-org that made a Wizard PrC available but did not make any spells of 5th level and higher that have Limited accessibility (as defined by the LGCS 3.0), is not in any way restricting or limiting a class feature of the Wizard class. By that logic, any meta-org that allows access to a Fighter PrC must also give access to all special weapons and armor, and all enhancements for them, since using them is a class feature of Fighters. The rest of your arguments have the same level of validity Cardinal Teplin. You, like honeynuggets, are simply misrepresenting these rules. Nothing is being limited or restricted. Additional access, above and beyond any class feature, is not being granted. Those two are completely different. And as I noted, the granting of an additional class feature by a meta-org is prohibited by the LG rules. Perhaps a better title for this thread would be: "Another meta-org that refuses to mock official rules" I don't see how that is a bad thing.
Cardinal Teplin 05-23-04, 08:11 PM	>It is not a class feature of the Wizard class to have access to any spells not in the PH, or to any spell from the various expansion books that have a Core availability. You've added the 'not in the PH' bit. Were the circle not to allow ANY spells of above 5th level to be available in the game environment, that would be a restriction on the wizard's class features in the same way that the PrC windrider is being limited here. Sorcerors would be fine, as their spells known don't depend on finding existing spells. Similarly, it would a restriction on the dread pirate to have no access to a ship of any kind, even though a ship is not a class feature either. >The rest of your arguments have the same level of validity Cardinal Teplin. You, like honeynuggets, are simply misrepresenting these rules. Hm.. I'm sorry. After misunderstanding one argument you did actually consider, I'm not inclined to give you benefit of the doubt on the rest. I believe I understand the broad thrust of what you are saying - that actually getting the mount in not a feature of the PrC, and thus it is not unreasonable to have the metaorg not provide it. However, the class is predicated on the idea of having some kind of mount, and a restriction on the mount is effectively a restriction on the class. You may well argue that this is a just and reasonable restriction, and ought to be in place. Fair enough. But the initial complaint is a reasonable one. The PrC is nerfed, whether fatally or not, by making the PrC available without the exotic mounts that go with it being available, either there or anywhere else. Obviously people are entitled to agree or disagree as to whether or not this is a good or bad restriction, but attacking other posters with faults real or imagined is neither relevent nor helpful.
Cardinal Teplin 05-23-04, 08:24 PM	>>Maybe because the rule in question is a system ruling, born of balance, and nothing to do with roleplaying at all, not even slightly. >Maybe it was posted and I missed it, but, what is the basis for this claim? Misunderstanding, I suspect. There is no automatic connection between a system issue and a role-playing issue. I make no claim to know the reasons for the design of the metaorg, but the rules question raised by honeynuggets is a system one, and should be treated as such.
StevieS 05-23-04, 08:43 PM	As a limited PrC the triad must decide if it fits in the region and how to allow access so that it is consistant with the setting. I've been doing this for Onnwals orgs recently. For some PrCs the triad may want to allow access but have issues with some of the mechanics and the options are to either tweak the class to make it fit the region or disallow it. It sounds to me, and I may be wrong as I don't know the region, that the triad have chosen to include the PrC but have added some tweaks to make it fit the region and have released it upon that basis. Given that option B is likely to be to disallow access totally, its my opinion that it is to the triads credit that they have taken the time to modify the PrC to allow it within the region rather than simply to throw it out. Provided the players know the limitations up front they can make an informed choice, as seems to be the case here.
kenobi65 05-23-04, 09:00 PM	Honeynuggets' fundamental argument here (I'm probably going to get in hot water for paraphrasing, but what the hey) is: if it's this way in the "stock" D&D rules, it really should be this way in LG, too. IMO, that's a risky argument. It wouldn't take long to find dozens of ways in which LG departs from the "stock" rules. XP award calculations, magic item creation, etc. I think expecting LG (or, for that matter, *any* Living campaign) to do things exactly as in the books (which, remember, are written for a home game) is a mistake. Beyond that... Acc. to the DMG passage Honeynuggets quotes, a 9th level PC "should" have access to a CR6 mount. (As Steve pointed out, that's not a promise, but Honeynuggets strongly believes that PCs should be maxed out on power, so I don't think there's going to be a resolution to that argument.) Unfortunately, there's no CR6 dire animal for a direct comparison, so I'll go one level lower -- an 8th level PC "can" have a CR5 mount, which would translate to a Dire Lion. Given the adjustments a Windrider makes to her mount, it strikes me that it's just a wee bit broken that an 8th level PC would have a mount that has: 10d8+30 HP (75hp) Claw / claw / bite attacks at +15 / +15 / +9, for 1d6+8 / 1d6+8 / 1d8+4 You bring up the Paladin's mount as a comparison. By comparison, an 8th level Paladin's mount (assuming a heavy warhorse) would look like: 8d8+24 HP (60hp) Hoof / hoof / bite attacks at +8 / +8 / +3, for 1d6+5 / 1d6+5 / 1d4+2 (I'll grant you that a Paladin's mount gets more special abilities, such as empathic link, improved evasion, and sharing saving throws, so maybe it's not as unbalanced as I first thought. But, if we're talking about raw power here, that dire lion looks absurd. It's not a mount, it's a barbarian cohort. ;) )
Samwise 05-23-04, 09:01 PM	You've added the 'not in the PH' bit. Were the circle not to allow ANY spells of above 5th level to be available in the game environment, that would be a restriction on the wizard's class features in the same way that the PrC windrider is being limited here. Sorcerors would be fine, as their spells known don't depend on finding existing spells. And yet the Circle has not restricted all spells above 5th level. Nor has anything restricted the ability of a Windrider to use a mount. All that has been restricted is the ability to get something above and beyond the norm. And so your comparison is not equitable at all. Instead the comparison is to whether the Circle allows access to any specific spell not otherwise available to the Wizard class. And lo! That is what they have done. All without limiting the class feature in any way. Similarly, it would a restriction on the dread pirate to have no access to a ship of any kind, even though a ship is not a class feature either. No it would not. To qualify as a Dread Pirate you MUST already have a ship. As was noted previously, if you already have a ship, you do not need further access to a ship. Or to a specific alternative ship. Likewise if you already have access to a mount, which every single Windrider does, then you do not need further access to a mount. Or expanded access to a specific, non-standard, alternative mount either. Hm.. I'm sorry. After misunderstanding one argument you did actually consider, I'm not inclined to give you benefit of the doubt on the rest. Well, let us look at your logic on this next pair of statements: I believe I understand the broad thrust of what you are saying - that actually getting the mount in not a feature of the PrC, and thus it is not unreasonable to have the metaorg not provide it. However, the class is predicated on the idea of having some kind of mount, and a restriction on the mount is effectively a restriction on the class. You may well argue that this is a just and reasonable restriction, and ought to be in place. Fair enough. Some kind of mount, yes? Can the person buy a horse? If so, then they absolutely have access to some kind of mount, do they not? So the class is not restricted at all, is it? The meta-org doesn't prevent anyone from buying a horse does it? So in fact that meta-org does not restrict access to some kind of mount. Instead what honeynuggets is asking for, and what you have placed yourself in the position of supporting, is access to everything. Any mount, with no limit other than the CR of the mount, without the already established campaign standards for gaining access to such. (That is, through a special mission or from an AR.) And this demand is being predicated on a clearly incorrect reading of a class feature. But the initial complaint is a reasonable one. The PrC is nerfed, whether fatally or not, by making the PrC available without the exotic mounts that go with it being available, either there or anywhere else. WHOA! Where in the PrC does it say the class grants access to exotic mounts? It says you can use exotic mounts, it does not say you gain access to them. This has been pointed out by more than one person, but so far absolutely nothing has been offered to refute it other than this assertion that not granting an additional benefit above and beyond the class features, and above and beyond the limits of the campaign, constitutes a "restriction". So as I said, read the rules. This is in there, and it is very clear. The PrC offers no access. Not granting that access violates nothing. That Triad is not mocking anything.
Nidome 05-23-04, 09:23 PM	Originally posted by Cardinal Teplin However, the class is predicated on the idea of having some kind of mount, and a restriction on the mount is effectively a restriction on the class. You may well argue that this is a just and reasonable restriction, and ought to be in place. Fair enough. But the initial complaint is a reasonable one. The PrC is nerfed, whether fatally or not, by making the PrC available without the exotic mounts that go with it being available, either there or anywhere else. Actually Hunneynuggets isn't complaining that that he has no mount access, or even that he has no exotic mount access (He does, the metaorg gives him access to a Dire Wolf). The highest thing that classes as a mount is a CR of level-3. Windriders gain enhancements to thier mounts so the CR3 Direwolf is CR4 when it is the mount of a 1st level windrider which makes it an appropiate mount for a 7th level character, the increasing bonuses means that the CR increases as the Windrinder increases in level. As it is possible for a 6th level character to be a windrider, this exotic mount is not underpowered. Considering that metaorgs can only offer a limited number of benefitsoffering an additional creature probably wouldn't be permitted, and offering a higher CR exotic creature instead which would only be of use to very high level windriders or characters who take windrider at level 9+ isn't that logical, but then a character of that level is more likely to have a better access via AR or special mission. This isn't a restriction, it's a bonus to mid level windriders. Low level windriders are limited to standard mounts by the CR limit unless they didn't take windrider until higher level. Nick.
Thannin 05-23-04, 11:01 PM	[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nidome [B] Does the purpose of this metaorg require it's members to be Windriders or for them to have special mounts? From what I've read so far on this list and the PoU website, it appears not. The mount access is a gift. If you don't want the gift then feel free to reject it. Not every glass of wine is champange or every car a Ferrari. oh God oh God!!!! You cant refuse/reject a gift!! Have you never played a fey mod? Im from Geoff and down here in Fey lands, if you refuse a gift you might as well die... Dont give people bad advice and tell them they can refuse a gift!!!! Ahhhh :sad:
honeynuggets 05-23-04, 11:26 PM	The real question is should the PoU "Wanderers" metaorg revolve around around your character and tailor it's benefits to suit you? I did not say that LG should make me the only exception. I said the whole policy of significantly altering certain PrCs is bs. Access to a mount is not a class feature of the Windrider PrC This is not as black and white as you make it seem. Some MoTW quotes: 1. "The Windrider is a specialist in mounted combat, but hers is NO ORDINARY mount." 2. "The creature is AT LEAST unusual, and often rare." 3. Image of Windrider on a Giant Eagle 4. "The Windrider may designate ANY one mount she has previously ridden..." The spirit and rule of this is clear. Windriders are supposed to be able to access mounts either through adventure or direct purchase. LG artificially creates a world where these game mechanics are obliterated and only a small list of accessible items are available thus nerfing the PrC severely. It sounds to me, and I may be wrong as I don't know the region, that the triad have chosen to include the PrC but have added some tweaks to make it fit the region and have released it upon that basis. They did not tweak it they nerfed it. Tweaking would be something like selecting one mount from each CR and saying these are the mounts in the region go for it. This would not significantly nerf the PrC like granting a CR 3 mount but only at 9th level. Honeynuggets' fundamental argument here (I'm probably going to get in hot water for paraphrasing, but what the hey) is: if it's this way in the "stock" D&D rules, it really should be this way in LG, too. I'm not against LG making changes but I feel that any nerfs should be global only and effect everyone not just certain classes. The most obvious global nerfs are exp and gold accumulation rate. You bring up the Paladin's mount as a comparison. By comparison, an 8th level Paladin's mount (assuming a heavy warhorse) would look like: 8d8+24 HP (60hp) Hoof / hoof / bite attacks at +8 / +8 / +3, for 1d6+5 / 1d6+5 / 1d4+2 As per the DMG quote an 8th Paladin can choose from a nice variety of mounts including the Dire Lion, so why did you give him a horse? An Pal 8 has a Dire Lion +2HD +4AC +Extra Paladin mount benefits (empathic link, improved evasion, and sharing saving throws) +Paladin special abilities lvl 6.7.8 +Mount can be summonded out of thin air vs An Rng 5/WndRdr 3 has a Dire Lion +2HD +4AC So clearly the Paladin 8 comes out ahead even without nerfs. Windriders gain enhancements to thier mounts so the CR3 Direwolf is CR4 when it is the mount of a 1st level windrider which makes it an appropiate mount for a 7th level character, the increasing bonuses means that the CR increases as the Windrinder increases in level. Wrong. Mount CR is determined before class feature enhancements. Can you imagine how complex it would be to figure out mount CRs all the time if it was calculated after? There is a whole chapter in the MM detailing the process of improving CRs.
Thannin 05-23-04, 11:28 PM	ROFL. Thats all I have to say after re reading this whole post. Think about it folks, Complete divine AND complete warrior are out, as we all surely know, the old builder books will become irrelevant as the new complete books come out.
Samwise 05-24-04, 12:07 AM	This is not as black and white as you make it seem. Yes it is. It is quite black and white. Some MoTW quotes: 1. "The Windrider is a specialist in mounted combat, but hers is NO ORDINARY mount." You mean because of the boosts it does get as a class feature? That is correct. 2. "The creature is AT LEAST unusual, and often rare." Those boosts sound pretty unusual to me. 3. Image of Windrider on a Giant Eagle And . . . That is supposed to be taken as granting access to a Giant Eagle mount automatically? 4. "The Windrider may designate ANY one mount she has previously ridden..." And there you have it. From your own choice of quotes. Now . . . when did you ride this dire wolf or whatever it was you wanted to be given access to by the Triad? Or are you asking that the Triad grant you access to an animal you have never ridden? The spirit and rule of this is clear. Windriders are supposed to be able to access mounts either through adventure or direct purchase. LG artificially creates a world where these game mechanics are obliterated and only a small list of accessible items are available thus nerfing the PrC severely. Nothing in that indicates these mounts should be available through direct purchase. Such special mounts are definitely available through adventure. But you have rejected that as insufficient. You want to be given the mount without adventure. You want purchase access when such is clearly against the rules for access to such mounts. Special mounts have always required special missions or module presentation to gain access to in LG. This has been the rule from the beginning. As I said, if the Triad offered these mounts through an organization they would be mocking the official rules. The spirit is indeed clear. Special mounts can only be gained with DM, in this case, Campaign Staff, approval. It is not required. It is not mandatory. It is specifically against the campaign rules to do otherwise. The only thing that would be nerfed by allowing access to something like this through a meta-org would be the rules of the entire campaign. I am glad they have not been.
Nidome 05-24-04, 01:44 AM	Originally posted by honeynuggets Wrong. Mount CR is determined before class feature enhancements. Can you imagine how complex it would be to figure out mount CRs all the time if it was calculated after? There is a whole chapter in the MM detailing the process of improving CRs. And where does it say that you calculate the CR before class enhancements? Are you perhaps saying that a 15th level character with 10 levels of Windrider should be allowed a CR12 mount? A 15th level character riding a 20HD+ creature? Really? I've done some calculations, and by your definition of what qualifies as a mount a CR12 mount of a 15th level character could, just with it's HD increase work out to an effective CR16(or even higher if you factor in the CR increase for the other windrider enhancements to it) so in theory the mount has a higher CR by itself than many of the encounters the party face during the course of a LG adventure. What is this class about. Is it about the rider or the mount? Which should be the more important and powerful, the mount or it'd rider? Of course, unless the Windrider PrC appears in any of the complete books this conversation becomes irrelevant when the old builder books are removed from play, probably early next year. Nick.
Cardinal Teplin 05-24-04, 07:13 AM	>And yet the Circle has not restricted all spells above 5th level. No, of course not. However, were they to do so, it would still be a restriction on the class, even though having 6th level spells available in the gaming environment is not a class feature. >Nor has anything restricted the ability of a Windrider to use a mount. No, but the availability of mounts, which the class is predicated on, is restricted. >All that has been restricted is the ability to get something above and beyond the norm. Go on, define norm then. I don't think you understand this argument. Its about whether something in the game environment can act as a restrcition on a class. It clearly can. >>Similarly, it would a restriction on the dread pirate to have no access to a ship of any kind, even though a ship is not a class feature either. >No it would not. To qualify as a Dread Pirate you MUST already have a ship. As was noted previously, if you already have a ship, you do not need further access to a ship. Actually, you need to be able to operate the ship freely on the high seas. Were you not able to do so, because of a change to metaorgs, then it would act as a restriction on the class. So you could well have a ship, and still end up restricted. >>However, the class is predicated on the idea of having some kind of mount, and a restriction on the mount is effectively a restriction on the class. You may well argue that this is a just and reasonable restriction, and ought to be in place. Fair enough. >Some kind of mount, yes? Can the person buy a horse? If so, then they absolutely have access to some kind of mount, do they not? So the class is not restricted at all, is it? Yes, it is. The mount is restricted. Therefore the class on which it is based is restricted. >Instead what honeynuggets is asking for, and what you have placed yourself in the position of supporting, is access to everything. No, she's asking for access to the mounts in the DMG and/or in the windrider class description. That's not everything, and I'm not sure how you could possibly think it is. >Where in the PrC does it say the class grants access to exotic mounts? It says you can use exotic mounts, it does not say you gain access to them. Yes, I know. >This has been pointed out by more than one person, but so far absolutely nothing has been offered to refute it other than this assertion that not granting an additional benefit above and beyond the class features, and above and beyond the limits of the campaign, constitutes a "restriction". That's because I wasn't arguing that the class does or should provide access to such mounts, only that campaign rules that restrict access to such mounts amount to a restriction on that PrC. >offering a higher CR exotic creature instead which would only be of use to very high level windriders or characters who take windrider at level 9+ isn't that logical, but then a character of that level is more likely to have a better access via AR or special mission. If better mounts are available by other means, then this would probably answer honeynugget's complaint. However, I suspect that getting a better mount is not as easy is implied here. Noone in my group (levels up to 10) have seen any kind of mount on offer as a special mission or AR. >Complete divine AND complete warrior are out, as we all surely know, the old builder books will become irrelevant as the new complete books come out. Possbly. Some of the Sword and Fist material is still current, and its going to be a good year or two before MotW is out of the campaign. As someone playing a PrC that may not be replaced, I really can't afford to take the attitude that what is soon to be replaced doesn't really matter. >>2. "The creature is AT LEAST unusual, and often rare." >Those boosts sound pretty unusual to me But the boosts maketh not the mount. >>3. Image of Windrider on a Giant Eagle >And . . . That is supposed to be taken as granting access to a Giant Eagle mount automatically? No, merely that its a realistic possiblity >Now . . . when did you ride this dire wolf or whatever it was you wanted to be given access to by the Triad? Or are you asking that the Triad grant you access to an animal you have never ridden? No, she's asking for the chance to seek out and ride such an animal, as would be possible in any normal game where the windrider PrC was allowed to reach its full potential. >Such special mounts are definitely available through adventure. Where? I'd love a mount like that, but I've never seen one, or met anyone who has adventured and got one. >But you have rejected that as insufficient. When? I may have missed this. Quote please.
StevieS 05-24-04, 08:19 AM	The issue is quite clear. The PrC allows you to adopt as your chosen mount any creature you've previously ridden. This will need to have documented access in LG to show that you had seen, captured, purchased and trained said mount. The region in question is under no obligation to allow this access via a meta-org and unless you can find a canon referance to exotic mounted groups for the region, such as the 'Skymen' of Storm keep, then this is an entirely reasonable position. This documentation may occur on an AR or may be subject of a special mission. It's exactly the same as anything else in LG. If you want it, you need access.
Nidome 05-24-04, 10:42 AM	Originally posted by Cardinal Teplin >Nor has anything restricted the ability of a Windrider to use a mount. No, but the availability of mounts, which the class is predicated on, is restricted. >All that has been restricted is the ability to get something above and beyond the norm. Go on, define norm then. I don't think you understand this argument. Its about whether something in the game environment can act as a restrcition on a class. It clearly can. >>However, the class is predicated on the idea of having some kind of mount, and a restriction on the mount is effectively a restriction on the class. You may well argue that this is a just and reasonable restriction, and ought to be in place. Fair enough. >Some kind of mount, yes? Can the person buy a horse? If so, then they absolutely have access to some kind of mount, do they not? So the class is not restricted at all, is it? Yes, it is. The mount is restricted. Therefore the class on which it is based is restricted. >Instead what honeynuggets is asking for, and what you have placed yourself in the position of supporting, is access to everything. No, she's asking for access to the mounts in the DMG and/or in the windrider class description. That's not everything, and I'm not sure how you could possibly think it is. >Where in the PrC does it say the class grants access to exotic mounts? It says you can use exotic mounts, it does not say you gain access to them. Yes, I know. >This has been pointed out by more than one person, but so far absolutely nothing has been offered to refute it other than this assertion that not granting an additional benefit above and beyond the class features, and above and beyond the limits of the campaign, constitutes a "restriction". That's because I wasn't arguing that the class does or should provide access to such mounts, only that campaign rules that restrict access to such mounts amount to a restriction on that PrC. >offering a higher CR exotic creature instead which would only be of use to very high level windriders or characters who take windrider at level 9+ isn't that logical, but then a character of that level is more likely to have a better access via AR or special mission. If better mounts are available by other means, then this would probably answer honeynugget's complaint. However, I suspect that getting a better mount is not as easy is implied here. Noone in my group (levels up to 10) have seen any kind of mount on offer as a special mission or AR. >Complete divine AND complete warrior are out, as we all surely know, the old builder books will become irrelevant as the new complete books come out. Possbly. Some of the Sword and Fist material is still current, and its going to be a good year or two before MotW is out of the campaign. As someone playing a PrC that may not be replaced, I really can't afford to take the attitude that what is soon to be replaced doesn't really matter. >>2. "The creature is AT LEAST unusual, and often rare." >Those boosts sound pretty unusual to me But the boosts maketh not the mount. The Windrider is a mounted combat specialist. If the Windrider had a mount, then the Windrider can engage in mounted combat, although the Windrider would always prefer a better mount. An Order of the Bow Initiate is a bow specialist. If the Order of the Bow Initiate has a bow then the OBI can use a bow in combat, although the OBI would like a better bow. Now I could do this with every class if you like, but I won't. Not having access to every possible mount in existence is no different to an OBI not having access to every bow enhancement in existence and the OBI hasn't had that since the Magic Mart was abolished. By arguing for unrestricted mounts you are arguing for unrestricted acces to evrything wether you like it or not. The metaorg in question does allow access to an exotic mount. The Triad does not have the power to grant unrestricted access to every exotic mount imaginable, only the circle can do that. The windrider's mount is not like the Paladin's mount it doesn't just appear when called, it has to be found and in any gaming enviroment you would have to find the mount. Every player is entitled to request a special mission from their Triad provided the reason for it is reasonable, so there is no reason why honeynuggets couldn't request a special mission to go and visit the place where the giant eagles live in order to ask one of them to be his mount (should such a place exist in the PoU) or whatever is relevant for the type of mount he seeks. All he has to do is find another 3-5 players to accompany him on the mission, the triad to authorise it and someone to write and run it. The Circle have stated more than once that as soon as the 4th Complete book is released they will discontinue all of the old builder booksand run some form of conversion for those that need it. The Complete Divine is currently being released, the Complete Arcane is due in 5-6 months, so the last Complete book should come out around this time next year. And as far as some of the wording goes..... Unusual means not usual. A windriders mount is always at least unusual in comparison with a usual mount of the same type because of the boosts given to it by being a windriders mount, and this is obviously the intent of this passage. If it wasn't then the windrider would be barred from riding normal mounts, and they aren't. Access to mounts is whatever is appropiate to the game setting and in the case of LG, the region and the PoU Triad have decided that Dive Wolves are an appropiate mount for Windriders who receive their training as a part of the Wanderers metaorg. I would guess that this is a roleplaying thing, after all if you ask a Direwolf riding Windrider to train you as a Windrider, don't be surprised if he trains you to be a Direwolf riding Windrider. Now reading the PoU website, it seems to me that the purpose of the Wanderers is to Patrol the long roads within the PoU and making sure no-one takes up permanant residency in the wayhouses along those roads. The Dire-Wolf offered by the metaorg seems like it is appropiate to the task. It is strong, has a reasonable turn of speed and a reasonable endurance. Having a majority of it's members use the same mount helps their task for it helps people recognise who they are. If you are in the PoU and you see a man riding a dire-wolf the odds are that he's an experienced member of the wanderers. It makes sense to me, although I could have read it wrong, and if I have then I apologise to the PoU triad. Nick.
Samwise 05-24-04, 12:18 PM	I think those of us who are trying to explain the rules have made ourselves clear. Both the wording of the PrC, the LG campaign rules, the meta-org, and everything else are clear that access to anything and everything not only need not and should not, but can not be granted. At this point there isn't anything left to say. Anyone can twist the wording of the rules any way you like, add assumptions and presumptions, and make up bizarre examples that do not exist all they like, but it won't change anything. All I will do is continue to repeat that I am glad the LG campaign rules do not allow for such, as it would surely destroy the campaign in short order.
Cardinal Teplin 05-24-04, 02:39 PM	>By arguing for unrestricted mounts you are arguing for unrestricted acces to evrything wether you like it or not. I've argued for unrestricted mounts? Since when? I'm finding this constant attempt to put words in my mouth quite tiring. Looking back, its been attempted nearly every post. >I think those of us who are trying to explain the rules have made ourselves clear. Sam, you've not done much of that. You've devoted most of your energy to personal attacks on honeynuggets and I. I'm sure if you had tried to explain the rules, you probably would have made a reasonable case. >Anyone can twist the wording of the rules any way you like, add assumptions and presumptions, and make up bizarre examples that do not exist all they like, but it won't change anything. All I will do is continue to repeat... And on and on. Its a shame you can't bring yourself to discuss or argue a point, but instead have to indulge in mudslinging and insults. I would have expected better of you. The irony is, that I doubt we actually disagree very strongly on what makes a good campaign. Even more ironic that my attempts to discuss why the campaign has ended up restricting player input so much get shouted down by people bent on hurling abuse. Still, I am beginning to understand the barrier faced by Triad and Circle types when conducting any kind of consultation. Possbily some form of non-public arena could be ultilised, as largely takes place with Triad POC now. On-line debates seem to bring out the worst in people. Hm. It all seems to come down to module writing. That seems to be the only way someone can contribute to the game, and this method, unfortunately, leaves out their PC, almost by necessity. Module writing is controlled tightly both in quantity and in quality. Quantity is important, as each new item or article dilutes the general span of knowledge within a region. Quality is important, to keep a consistent flavour to a region. But by design, the module-writing route is limited by Triad time, and Circle checking. So the only way we can influence the game is by... writing actual modules... Many of the Year 2 and 3 Onnwal modules were written in such a way as to introduce metaorgs. The Stormseekers, the Hillstalkers, the Flan, the Followers of Tarnedas, and so on, were all introduced by adventures. Maybe that's the way to go? But then with new restrictions on metaorgs, there is no longer space for any new structures that players can interact with. Which leaves existing structures. And that does worry me. In our local LARP game, the game world had a tendancy to become overrrun with entities that, because they remained under the original author's control, couldn't be used by anyone except that author. Should P.L., for whatever reason, stop writing adventures about Tarnedas, would anyone else dare to try and put their own interpretation on things? I wouldn't... Well, one thing at a time. I'll try to write an adventure and see what happens. No point trying to contribute if I can't provide what the Triad actually wants and needs.
honeynuggets 05-24-04, 02:56 PM	By arguing for unrestricted mounts you are arguing for unrestricted acces to evrything wether you like it or not. My oponents love to use broad statements like these to mislead readers. I am arguing that meta-groups should not be allowed to significantly alter PrCs since WoTC considers them officially balanced for gameplay already. In the example I provide I argue that the Windrider PrC should be granted access to mounts of the maximum Allowable CRs according to the Official WoTC rules. Wizards are not denied access to Fireball when they reach 5th level, Paladins are not forced to use weaker mounts, fighters are not forced to use short swords only, etc. Specifically I argue that the Wanderer metagroup which is the only access to the Windrider PrC allow the use of a Dire Wolf CR 3 at Character Level 6 which would follow the Rule: CR (3) = CL(6)-3 I acknowledge that "flavor" is important so being able to buy Any mount at all is not appropriate imho. However at least one mount per CR level has to be offered otherwise the class is significantly nerfed. Not having access to every possible mount in existence is no different to an OBI not having access to every bow enhancement in existence and the OBI hasn't had that since the Magic Mart was abolished. Wrong. Bow enhancements are not a class feature. Unusual and Rare mounts are a class feature of the Windrider. Outside of Living Greyhawk it is within Core book rules to purchase special mounts, track them for access, etc. Typically the Windrider will find a type of mount, befriend it or purchase it through game mechanics, ride it, then select it as their bonded mount. LG artificially restricts access to any special mount so Windriders rely on meta-groups for access. If the meta-group further restricts access then the Windrider class becomes nerfed. The Dire-Wolf offered by the metaorg seems like it is appropiate to the task. It is strong, has a reasonable turn of speed and a reasonable endurance. I am not arguing that a Dire Wolf mount is good. I am arguing that it should be offered at CL 6 (WoTC official level at which CR 3 mounts can be used) not CL 9 as the meta-group states. At CL 9 a character is allowed a mount of CR 6 and the Dire Wolf is only CR 3. I think those of us who are trying to explain the rules have made ourselves clear. Both the wording of the PrC, the LG campaign rules, the meta-org, and everything else are clear that access to anything and everything not only need not and should not, but can not be granted. Here come the broad statements again. The "and everything else" is totally wrong. In fact the official WoTC rules support my position that Windriders be granted access to unusual and rare mounts of a maximum CR = CL-3. The PrC also supports my position. The LGCS and meta-org support your position that it is ok to significantly alter PrCs that WoTC has deemed balanced. Again, I am not saying that "access to anything and everything" be granted. I am saying that access to unusual and rare mounts should be allowed for the Windrider so as to not interfere with it's class features and make it significantly less effective. Anyone can twist the wording of the rules any way you like, add assumptions and presumptions, and make up bizarre examples that do not exist all they like, but it won't change anything. More deceptive statements. I have not twisted any wording. Others have done some serious twisting like suggesting that "unusual and rare mounts" only means that a Windrider's horse is more powerful. That is some sorry logic. As for the bizarre examples that do not exist...point out one. All my examples follow official rulings. I am glad the LG campaign rules do not allow for such... You are glad because your primary character is probably not a windrider and you have no compassion for the suffering of others. Yours is a common alignment. On the other hand, if I learned that the only meta-group allowing access to the Deepwood Sniper PrC is denying them access to poisons (because using them is evil or whatever) then I would consider that unfair since that is an implied class feature. Nowhere does it say in the PrC description that they have access to all the poisons in the DMG but it is implied that they can purchase and use them since they have the Safe Poison Use ability.
kenobi65 05-24-04, 03:38 PM	Originally posted by honeynuggets As per the DMG quote an 8th Paladin can choose from a nice variety of mounts including the Dire Lion, so why did you give him a horse? Because, as a paladin in LG (or any D&D campaign, for that matter), I can legitimately expect to be able to obtain a heavy warhorse as a mount, as it's described in the PHB. Higher CR mounts (as detailed in the DMG) are all under the caveat (near the beginning of that section) that it's up to the DM to determine which creatures are allowable for mounts in his or her campaign. (IMO, giving an 8th or 9th level PC such crazy-good mounts isn't balanced. If I were the DM, I'd think twice about allowing them, esp. the dire animals, whose CRs feel generally low to me anyway given how much damage they can deal.) And, ultimately, that's the entire dispute you have with LG. The DMG gives the DM the ultimate authority to decide what is and isn't right for his campaign. I can guarantee you that 99.9% of D&D campaigns have some sort of house rules / additions / restrictions, and LG is no exception. You can point to the rule books all you want and say "but it says such-and-such," but if the DM (or, in this case, the Co6) has decided that that's not the way it works *in their game*, the buck stops with them. Also, you keep saying, "WotC has deemed the Windrider balanced." IMO, that can be a spurious conclusion to come to. If you look at how many PrCs have been changed (frequently weakened) in the translation from the 3.0 Builder Books to the 3.5 Complete Books, it may well be that the Windrider is not as balanced as you think.
StevieS 05-24-04, 03:41 PM	Originally posted by Cardinal Teplin Well, one thing at a time. I'll try to write an adventure and see what happens. No point trying to contribute if I can't provide what the Triad actually wants and needs. [/B] Please please please write a scenario for Onnwal, I'll swap you for it's weight in beer exchanged at a convention of your choice :D
Adhevan 05-24-04, 05:14 PM	If the PrC was not available at all before the meta-org gave access to it, then how exactly is the org restricting anything? If access to the class had already been available and they suddenly changed it to only allow certain mounts, that would be nerfing. But they haven't taken anything away, at all. They just haven't given as much as you wanted them to give. Since the Wizard seems to be the popular analogy, this would be the same as it just flat out not being allowed in the game and then a meta-org opening that allows access to it but with the caveat that 5th level spells are not available. Again, this would not be nerfing, since nothing would be taken away that someone had already had. You now have access to the class. If this is what you wanted, then you should be happy and keep playing with the intention of finding a better mount through adventure. Or you could keep whining that the gift isn't good enough and provide less incentive for the triads to make better mounts available in the mods.
Samwise 05-24-04, 05:32 PM	And what remains is that the ability to ride an unusual mount is not access to an unusual mount. As per the DMG quote an 8th Paladin can choose from a nice variety of mounts including the Dire Lion, so why did you give him a horse? Did you also happen to note that a Paladin who has a Dire Lion does not have it enhanced as much as one with a regular Horse? Did you also happen to note that no such adjustment exists for the Windrider PrC? Did you also happen to note that such adjustments also exist for Druid and Ranger companions? But rather that looking at this change from 3E (Remember you asked about that Cardinal Teplin?), and noting the spirit of the rules that it conveys, you continue to demand unlimited access to a mount that would become unbalanced without a reduction in the Windrider PrC bonuses. Of course acknowledging that would mean acknowledging that you were wrong, and that you were deliberately misinterpreting this rule so you could insult your local Triad with the title of this thread. You are glad because your primary character is probably not a windrider and you have no compassion for the suffering of others. Yours is a common alignment. No, I am glad because I dealt with people like you as a DM in my home games for AD&D. Many of them tried misquoting or adding to rules the way you are doing with this. None of them suceeded in getting anything absurd like this past me either. And I dealt with people like you as Triad member. The same attitude demanding that everything you wanted be given to you immediately, no matter how it affected the rest of the game. The insults to people giving time and effort to develop the campaign for thousands of people while you do nothing but complain and harass them. The accusations about rejecting any outside input while offering no creative input of your own. Not every idea is appropriate to the campaign. That is a simple fact. But during my time as a Triad member, if someone wanted to contribute to the campaign and actually took the time to do the work required for a submission, then they were able to contribute. It may have been on a different project than they intended originally, but the Triads are always looking for input and help. But it is easier to complain and accuse these volunteers of breaking the rules.
Cardinal Teplin 05-24-04, 08:02 PM	>Of course acknowledging that would mean acknowledging that you were wrong, and that you were deliberately misinterpreting this rule so you could insult your local Triad with the title of this thread. <sigh> You're not really interested in this thread are you? Just in making accusations against the author. >No, I am glad because I dealt with people like you as a DM in my home games for AD&D. Many of them tried misquoting or adding to rules the way you are doing with this. None of them suceeded in getting anything absurd like this past me either. Interesting. I have been DMing for many years, and have never come across players so unreasonable you couldn't reason with them. Maybe the difference is in how, as GMs, we approach the problem? If you are running into a large number of 'difficult' players, maybe there is something in how you are treating them? >And I dealt with people like you as Triad member. The same attitude demanding that everything you wanted be given to you immediately, no matter how it affected the rest of the game. The insults to people giving time and effort to develop the campaign for thousands of people while you do nothing but complain and harass them. The accusations about rejecting any outside input while offering no creative input of your own. Well I've not been Triad, but I have been part of a GM team running large scale many player games over more than a year. I must say that I found people turning every games dispute into a personal slanging match to be far more a problem than people who wanted things I didn't think they should have. The latter were rarely a problem if you explained the reasons for your decisions. They weren't always happy, but other people took note of how you treated them and refrained from doing the same. Shouting just seemed to entrench opinions, since the less reasonable you sound, the less likely people are to listen to you. Similarly, the ruder you are, the more reluctant people are to empathise with your position, since your position involves a view of them that isn't reasonable. The trick was to avoid taking out my frustrations at the stress of the job on people who were in my view being unreasonable. Whether this applies to being a Triad member or not I have no idea. Offhand, though I'd say that personal attacks do more damage to the game than complaints about metaorgs. This may be the result of personal style though. >During my time as a Triad member, if someone wanted to contribute to the campaign and actually took the time to do the work required for a submission, then they were able to contribute. It may have been on a different project than they intended originally, but the Triads are always looking for input and help. Interesting... How was this contribution manifest? What form did their contribution take and how did it contribute? I've been finding this difficult to manage, so I'm interested to know how you did it. Writing adventures is the only method I've seen so far, and even then the background needs to reflect the Triad more than the author if regional flavour is to be maintained. I'd be interested to know how you managed it. Advice from experienced Triad and all that...
Thannin 05-24-04, 08:42 PM	Meh, Im through arguing, it appears half of the debate is that access is "restricted" to the dire wolf when no one has decided to talk about what access is available. Also it appears that this board is bringing out the evil side of people, and everyone should report to North Keep for interrogation immediately. Thats the place in Geoff where everyone with an evil taint goes to get checked out. Also, it would be nice if the Co6 dropped a message on here but Im not holding my breath, heck, i would not want to touch this with a ten foot pole. On another note, some of the accessible mounts I have run into include: Awakened Dire wolf advanced brown bear griffon Light and heavy War sheep Dire War sheep and a few others. Basically, it does seem logical that you should have to do something to acquire your mount/friend. Im not a history buff but I do believe horse nomads loved their "companions" and didnt say, oh this is a weaker horse, lets ditch him. My reference comes from Hildago, a great horse movie, Hildago WAS NOT the best horse of his kind. But I do understand where not getting the mount you want hurts and I agree that access should become more common knowledge. Special missions, adventure access, and more are some ways to "RP" the access of the mount. Just my 2 cp
honeynuggets 05-24-04, 08:48 PM	If the PrC was not available at all before the meta-org gave access to it, then how exactly is the org restricting anything? People keep throwing this logic out there. It's like a President standing up in front of poor people and saying "Before you were making $1 an hour and now I am granting you $1.01. Before me you did not have access to the extra penny so why aren't you happy?" I made a partial summary comparison of a Pal 6 vs Rng 5/Windrider 1 (without the metagroup nerfs) and the Pal 6 was far superior. A Pal 6 vs Rng 5/Windrider 1 (with the current metagroup nerfs) is truly pathetic in comparison. I could write out the stat blocks, but anyone with half a brain knows I'm right. I fully expect my opponents to deny this obvious power difference anyway since that's their nature. keep playing with the intention of finding a better mount through adventure. You make this seem far easier than it is. Waiting for an adventure that grants access to something as specific as special mounts is like waiting to win the lottery. Did you also happen to note that a Paladin who has a Dire Lion does not have it enhanced as much as one with a regular Horse? Yes, I did. Paladin mounts are generally superior to Windrider mounts of the same type even without LG/meta-group nerfs. Did you also happen to note that no such adjustment exists for the Windrider PrC? Yes, I did. There is no CR adjustment to Windrider enhancements because Windrider levels do not stack with ANY other class for the purpose of enhancements unlike Pal,Rng,Dru,Hflng Outrider, etc. Also, the CR = CL -3 rule governs the power level further. Pound for pound Paladin mounts are superior even without LG/meta-group nerfs. I expect you will deny this just to confuse readers about who is right. you continue to demand unlimited access to a mount that would become unbalanced without a reduction in the Windrider PrC bonuses. Why do you keep misrepresenting my statements? Do you think repetition convinces people? My demand is NOT for "unlimited access to a mount." My position is that LG/meta-groups should not significantly alter PrCs as WoTC is responsible for game balance and has a MUCH less subjective method for doing so than a few LG players/Dms. Only allowing access to a CR 3 mount at Character Level 9 does not comply with the CR = CL - 3 rule. This is a flagrant official rule change. Adding unofficial pre-requisites to PrCs also suggests the LG people behind the meta-groups think they are better at balancing than WoTC. The accusations about rejecting any outside input while offering no creative input of your own. Actually this post is merely the latest in a long grievance about this PrC and the meta-groups granting access to it. I have contributed two separate metagroups formatted and everything. So I have given creative input. But it is easier to complain and accuse these volunteers of breaking the rules. That they are breaking official WoTC rules is a fact. That they are following LG/meta-group houserules is a fact. I have heard this before "Poor volunteers...so many demands on their time." My response...If they are so burdened then maybe they shouldn't be spending their time on things like re-balancing PrCs and coming up with VERY subjective methods for deciding if a meta-group is balanced or not. Don't even bother pretending like the methodology is sound because I know the process enough to know it is Retarded. I'm not going to post details because they want to keep it a secret (more proof that their methods can't hold up to public scrutiny).
kenobi65 05-24-04, 10:28 PM	Originally posted by honeynuggets Only allowing access to a CR 3 mount at Character Level 9 does not comply with the CR = CL - 3 rule. This is a flagrant official rule change. You've repeatedly pointed to this bit as graven in stone, that a 9th level character must have access to a CR6 mount, when the DMG doesn't say that at all. As Steve Mumford has already pointed out, the DMG says that a 9th level character should have a mount that's no more powerful than CR6: "The mount's Challenge Rating should be no more than 3 less than the rider's character level." (DMG, p. 204) Thus, a mount that's anything CR6 or below would qualify. (Whether or not that's optimal is another question entirely.) Only providing a CR3 mount to a 9th level PC doesn't break a rule that sets a maximum, but not a minumum. I would suggest that you would talk to your Triad POC and inquire about what your PC's options are for obtaining an unusual / special mount. Thannin's experience does seem to indicate that such mounts are *not* unobtainable in play, as it seems like you believe.
Nidome 05-25-04, 04:22 AM	Originally posted by honeynuggets Adding unofficial pre-requisites to PrCs also suggests the LG people behind the meta-groups think they are better at balancing than WoTC. Actually this post is merely the latest in a long grievance about this PrC and the meta-groups granting access to it. I have contributed two separate metagroups formatted and everything. So I have given creative input. That they are breaking official WoTC rules is a fact. That they are following LG/meta-group houserules is a fact. I have heard this before "Poor volunteers...so many demands on their time." My response...If they are so burdened then maybe they shouldn't be spending their time on things like re-balancing PrCs and coming up with VERY subjective methods for deciding if a meta-group is balanced or not. Don't even bother pretending like the methodology is sound because I know the process enough to know it is Retarded. I'm not going to post details because they want to keep it a secret (more proof that their methods can't hold up to public scrutiny). No-one has added any any unofficial pre-requisites to anything, no-one has claimed to be better than balancing anything, no-one is breaking WoTC rules no-one is rebalancing PrCs and the rules for balancing metaorgs aren't written by triads, they are written by the Circle. It seems to me that the problem is a lack of understanding of how the Living Greyhawk system works. Living Greyhawk uses the three main core rulebooks. All other books are option suplements and the circle decides how much of these supplemental books are appropiate to LG. This is detailed in the LGCS. In general terms, material from supplements that they believe can fit any part of the world they designate as "Core". If they believe that it is only appropiate to certain parts of LG, or they belive that it is only appropiate under certain circumstances they deem it as "Limited". If they deem it inappropiate to LG they deem it "Restricted". If material is deemed as limited then it is up to each triad to decide if it fits their region, and to what extent it fits their region. The PoU Triad have decided to allow access the the Limited "Windrider" PrC in their region, there was no requirement for them to do this, and indeed some regions have not allowed any access to this PrC at all as them deemed it entirely inappropiate to their region. It appears that the PoU triad have decided that the only people who train Windriders in their region are the "Wanderers" and that the Wanderers allow members of a certain level of experience access to an exotic mount of a specific type. In doing this they have no changed any rules or rebalanced anything, the Windrider PrC still works exactly the same way as it does in MotW. They have merely added roleplaying requirements. As D&D is a roleplaying game there shouldn't be a problem with this. Did you join the Wanderers because you believed in their aims, and then became a Windrider to be a better Wanderer? Or did you join the Wanderers because you wanted to play a Windrider and they were the only meta-org to offer access to the PrC? This is role-playing Vs. roll-playing and I believe that we still consider D&D to be primarily a roleplaying game, because if it wasn't then all material would be core and meta-orgs wouldn't exist at all. It is up to the Triad to decide what fits their region and how it fits that region. For example, if your region is landlocked but has big rivers then the only way you can be a Pirate is to be a river Pirate. A High Seas Pirate does not fit the region. You can only access what is appropiate to that region. If you wanted to play a different kind of Windrider to those appropiate to the PoU then you perhaps should find another region whose Windriders better fit your ideas. Nick.
scon40 05-25-04, 08:14 AM	Originally posted by Thannin Also, it would be nice if the Co6 dropped a message on here but Im not holding my breath, heck, i would not want to touch this with a ten foot pole. What sort of message do you want us to drop? :) Access to the Windrider pclass does not guarantee access to unusual mounts. In a home campaign, the DM decides what mounts to let you find. In LG, the Circle and Triads decide. If you want unusual mounts, you normally have to find them in play (on Adventure Records). You don't get them by default just for taking a pclass. -Steven Conforti, the Circle
Cardinal Teplin 05-25-04, 08:44 AM	>Awakened Dire wolf advanced brown bear griffon Light and heavy War sheep Dire War sheep and a few others. Of these, I've only seen the brown bear, and that was druid/ranger only. That adventure is also no longer available. I suspect there is considerable regional variation here. Certainly, with present adventures, there may be no realistic prospect of getting a better mount. Other than ARs the only suggestions I can make are difficult to implement (try and get a figurine of wonderous power), or somewhat flangy.... (use the leadership feat, get a druid companion, get the druid companion a suitable creature, ride the creature, ditch the druid)
Thannin 05-25-04, 09:12 AM	Originally posted by scon40 What sort of message do you want us to drop? :) Access to the Windrider pclass does not guarantee access to unusual mounts. In a home campaign, the DM decides what mounts to let you find. In LG, the Circle and Triads decide. If you want unusual mounts, you normally have to find them in play (on Adventure Records). You don't get them by default just for taking a pclass. -Steven Conforti, the Circle And so he answers :behold: On another note I find it hilarious that my druid rides a light war sheep as an animal companion. And soon my wizard will be riding a 14 headed hydra familiar. (improved familiar from CW, with polymorph)
Cardinal Teplin 05-25-04, 09:44 AM	A 14-headed hydra with half your hit points, and your base attack - don't expect him not to be a target. I often try to act as a mount for various fighter types in my party, since many of them don't have, or can't bring with them, proper mounts. I can now do rhinos and sea lions, which makes me less effective, but makes them much more so, and makes a nice change. Our warrior, Haldur, kept having his horse stolen, because he couldn't take down the dungeon with him, and had to leave it outside. Eventually, he just gave up taking one. Mounts, like animal companions, are very limited in when they can be used. I am jelous of the war sheep. I suspect though, that if you were in a different region you'd find mounts much rarer.
Thannin 05-25-04, 10:03 AM	Heh I suppose I should explain first. My character is a dwarven elemental savant with a maxed out constitution. My constitution score is 20 without items or spells. Considering my familiar has the following spells(tensers transformation, polymorph, shield, mage armor, false life, haste), we're looking at 88 base hp+10 false life+1d10 false life+ 14d6 tensers transformation= 175. Im currently looking at ways to get his hit points up higher. We're also looking at an extremely high ac with extremely good damage output. Then also consider myself, polymorphed into Anis hag. Also realize Im only 11th level right now, but the same effect is present, just lessened.:behold:
Thannin 05-25-04, 10:05 AM	Also, I really do hope they reprint the familiar pocket spell, I also forgot the familiar buff spells from T&B.
Cardinal Teplin 05-25-04, 10:11 AM	>This is role-playing Vs. roll-playing Rubbish. Its no more role-playing to join the wanderers because you admire their aims, and then pick up windrider because its there, than it is to become a windrider because you wanted to be windrider, and join the wanders as the only available means to that end. Do people go to university out of admiration for their aims, or because they think degree-level training might be a good bonus to pick up? My character joined the navy so that people would regard him as a less of a foreigner, (ie to pick up circumstance bonuses to social skills). He regarded the navy as nasty and brutuish, but felt he'd be more accepted in society if he 'did his bit'. In a hyper-patriotic environment such as Free Onnwal, is that bad role-playing? What about the personal who accepts noble vassalage, not because he particularly likes serving the nobility, but because it opens doors (grants access to other things). Or the person who joines the Hillstalkers because they offer the best training in all the land (access to certain feats), even though he believes them to be a bunch of useless idiots when it comes to serving the Szek? Or the guy who joins the US navy because he wants the training, particularly in IT skills, and doesn't think he'll end up in a shooting war. I guess these real-life people are bad role-players too? I keep on hearing about role-playing vs. roll-playing, and its a bunch of crock. Yes some people munchkin themselves to high heaven, and it's very annoying. Some of them are good role-players, and some of them aren't. Some people take levels and bonuses more from enthusiasm than planning, and have characters that are both lifeless and ineffective. The two aren't related, conversely, inversely or in any way at all.
Cardinal Teplin 05-25-04, 10:37 AM	Nasty. Still, relies on three rounds of preparatory casting. I had a similar deal with a sorceror elemental savant with a fire mephit familiar, polymorph, false life, etc. Just not in LG. Still 14th level characters should be tough I suppose. Just don't forget to watch out for peices of string tied across the top of the corridor. If he charges forward, and you fall off his back and get left behind, it could get embarassing. Also, he can't get through DR. May want to get an amulet or something so he is at least doing magical attacks I'm certainly looking forward to my character at 14th level. Unfortunately, I suspect my prestige class will no longer exist by then. I've been looking for some kind of replacement in the complete books as they come out, but I may end up having to do a more or less complete redesign, which will be a real shame.
Nidome 05-25-04, 11:51 AM
Nidome 05-25-04, 11:53 AM	Originally posted by Cardinal Teplin >This is role-playing Vs. roll-playing Rubbish. Its no more role-playing to join the wanderers because you admire their aims, and then pick up windrider because its there, than it is to become a windrider because you wanted to be windrider, and join the wanders as the only available means to that end. I believe you mis-read my post. Making the character a Windrider because the Player thinks it is a nifty little PrC, and picking meta-orgs to achieve this (aka "cherry-picking") is different from the character admiring the riding skills of the "Wanderers" and joining their organisation to learn them. It's a matter of in-character or out of character decision. In you navy example, what what you have written it appears that it was an in-character decison. I'm sure your character is happy to perform his Naval duties knowing that it will help his acceptance. That is role-playing. If however you had decided as a player after reading up on the local metaorgs you had decided to join the ones that gave your character access to "power-ups" without any regard to the metaorg background that would be roll-playing. Do you understand what I was trying to say any better now? Just for interest, are in your opinion, the background writeup for the Navy appropiate to the Navy and the feats which the Navy grants access to appropiate to the Navy? or is the presence of this metaorg solely there to provide access to those feats with the meta-org requirements being unfair additional triad imposed prerequisites to those feats? Nick.
cheesegrater 05-25-04, 02:25 PM	Making the character a Windrider because the Player thinks it is a nifty little PrC, and picking meta-orgs to achieve this (aka "cherry-picking") is different from the character admiring the riding skills of the "Wanderers" and joining their organisation to learn them. It's not different at all. Players decide what is in character for their characters. Building up a character that is interested in windrider training because you OOCly like the PrC is exactly the same thing as deciding your next character will be a paladin and making up a personality to match. Almost everyone does this.
Cardinal Teplin 05-25-04, 03:14 PM	>I believe you mis-read my post. Making the character a Windrider because the Player thinks it is a nifty little PrC, and picking meta-orgs to achieve this (aka "cherry-picking") is different from the character admiring the riding skills of the "Wanderers" and joining their organisation to learn them. It's a matter of in-character or out of character decision. I don't think I did. Those two would be different, but its a question-begging example. You are assuming the conclusion you want to prove. Let's say player Alf of character Xavier decides that Xavier will join a metaorg and become a windrider. Xavier joins the appropriate metaorg, and becomes a windrider. In character or out of character decision? Is Alf doing this because Xavier likes the metaorg, because Xavier likes windriders? Well Xavier can't tell you, because he's a made up character. All the decisions are being made by Alf. Are Xavier's actions in character for Xavier? Well.... that is also up to Alf. So, no matter what Xavier does, not matter whether he paints himself blue, joins 6 different metaorgs, goes to zoo or impales himself on his own butterknife, the final arbiter of whether this is in character or not is still Alf. Accusing people of roll-playing is entirely fruitless, because only they can tell you if you are right. No set of actions that are taken can ever be roll playing or role playing - the two are not distuinguishable. On a related note, cheesegrater is entirely right. Many people do direct their character's personality down roads that would be interesting to play. If a new metaorg turns up, characters will join that had never displayed interests in that area in the past, but the characters might well develop an interest now the option is available. Now yes, you could insist that people decide on a personality and stick with it, unchanging, despite whatever the consequences might be. I had one player who created a juggler character, very well detailed, but who didn't like danger, and had no desire to seek it out. That character never went on another adventure again. The very structure of LG requires that a character's personality not become an obstacle to the game. It is bad roleplaying to go on adventures with random strangers, bad roleplaying to expose yourself to risk continually without any kind of coherent goal being served, bad roleplaying to only develop interests and abilities in line with the developed rules of the game, and bad roleplaying to only develop passions and loyalties to groups that have a metaorg write up in your region. For this reason I know of several people who don't regard LG, or games like it, as roleplaying at all. This would describe more than half of the roleplayers I know. I personally take a more flexible approach, in that a character's personality should be internally consistent, but still subject to my control, so that I can guide the character to have an interesting and heroic life, rather than the safe, comfortable and possibly quite boring life that many of my characters might otherwise choose. >Just for interest, are in your opinion, the background writeup for the Navy appropiate to the Navy and the feats which the Navy grants access to appropiate to the Navy? No, not particularly. First off, the navy is the one of Free Onnwal, which is halfway down a peninsula. The end of the peninsula is held by an enemy with superior naval strength. So logically the ships can't easily get from the north coast to the south coast. Similarly the landscape is very mountainous, preventing speedy travel from one coast to the other. And finally, the navy has to be divided, because the ports on both sides are quite small, and couldn't possibly hold all those ships. Despite all this, the navy is organisationally a single undivided entity, with a strong centralised hierarchy. I don't really see how it could function like this, and would prefer to see an arrangement of semi-independent privateers, since harassing shipping is what they would primarily be used for. I suspect it was basically given the same structure as the army, since the write up of both are very similar in structure. That said, the navy was only recently formed, so its possible that is does indeed have a bad structure, and may be changed, in character, at some point in the future. As for feats, again no. They've tried hard, but AD&D doesn't have very many feats of a terribly nautical flavour, and ultimately they've included feats that are more about fighting than sailing. That's how the system works, and they've done the best they can within it. >or is the presence of this metaorg solely there to provide access to those feats with the meta-org requirements being unfair additional triad imposed prerequisites to those feats? Yes and no. The requirements are very fair. In fact the more or less the same feats can be acquried by almost any character class, depending on which of the many branches of the the armed forces you join. I do suspect that some of these metaorgs existed only to provide access to those feats, or rather were stretched to provide the 'right' feats. Probably the strongest contender in the 'only exists to provide access to a PrC or feat' would be the half-orc tribes. They had very little flavour, no involvement in the poltics of the game, huge requirements and very little benefit apart from access to the Tribal Defender PrC. Many players saw this as an attempt to include a metaorg that would provide access to Tribal Defender, and I suspect they were right. They also thought the cost was too high, and I think they were right there too. So, yes, in that sense, the metaorg existed only to give access, and the Triad was being a little unfair in making the cost of metaorg membership so high. Our metaorgs are all now being changed of course, so this account doesn't reflect Onnwal as it is now. So yes, those who joined the metaorg, in the vast majority of cases were doing so to get access to the PrC and for no other reason. I know at least some were doing so because helping the half-orc tribes was part of their character goals, and had been since character creation. Joining the metaorg itself did nothing to help this, but joining the PrC did. For them, the metaorg was soley there to provide access to the PrC, and they were still being good role-players.
Nidome 05-25-04, 03:35 PM	Originally posted by Cardinal Teplin [>Just for interest, are in your opinion, the background writeup for the Navy appropiate to the Navy and the feats which the Navy grants access to appropiate to the Navy? No, not particularly. First off, the navy is the one of Free Onnwal, which is halfway down a peninsula. The end of the peninsula is held by an enemy with superior naval strength. So logically the ships can't easily get from the north coast to the south coast. Similarly the landscape is very mountainous, preventing speedy travel from one coast to the other. And finally, the navy has to be divided, because the ports on both sides are quite small, and couldn't possibly hold all those ships. Despite all this, the navy is organisationally a single undivided entity, with a strong centralised hierarchy. I don't really see how it could function like this, and would prefer to see an arrangement of semi-independent privateers, since harassing shipping is what they would primarily be used for. I suspect it was basically given the same structure as the army, since the write up of both are very similar in structure. That said, the navy was only recently formed, so its possible that is does indeed have a bad structure, and may be changed, in character, at some point in the future. Actually you are incorrect, the Onnwal Navy is not only recently formed, it came into being when whe Iron League was formed in 447CY (Prior to that it was part of the navy of the Great Kingdom). The fleet of the Iron League was provided by Onnwal and Irongate and was by far the largest naval presence in the area but in 584CY treachery allowed the Scarlet Brotherhood to capture the majority of the Onnwal Fleet in Port. A number of vessels currently operated by the SB were former posession of the Onnwal Navy. Nick.
StevieS 05-25-04, 04:00 PM	...... and as anyone with much experience will tell you, the military doesn't tend to change its basic structures. Tradition and all that old chap :D You mentioned a more reasonable structure being independant raiders or privateers. You may purchase a 'letter of marque' from the Szek and operate exactly like this.
honeynuggets 05-26-04, 01:10 PM	If you want unusual mounts, you normally have to find them in play (on Adventure Records). You don't get them by default just for taking a pclass. Finally after 11 adventures I got AR access to an animal! Thanks for the bird. (No pun intended). I am witholding the type of bird so I don't ruin the wonderful surprise for others. It's the size of a hawk but less powerful. I am looking forward to getting Reduced to the size of a pixie so that I can ride this baby.
StevieS 05-26-04, 01:23 PM	..... and Dorokaa trembles in anticipation ...... :D (A joke before anyone gets stressed given the tone of this thread so far)
Timlagor 06-26-04, 09:20 AM	Time for me to stick my oar in :smirk: Firstly I really can't see any virtue in the original complain. If you can't get a more exciting mount in the course of adventuring then that might be a basis for complaining but you shouldn't expect a meta-org to give it to you. EVERYONE has limitted access to EVERYTHING. 5th level spells Every Wizard gets 2 new CORE spells at every level for free (vaguely analagous to getting windrider buffs as this is what is in the PHB). Anything beyond that is restricted for LG in EXACTLY the same way as exotic mounts. AR access may be more common for spells but you still need it. Alternatively you can collect RIPs and spend them on getting access -no one seems to have mentioned this yet. If you ask your triad for a mission and ask to spend your RIPs and still can't get a mount you are satisfied with then I will have some sympathy.
oroborous 07-02-04, 11:44 PM	The LGCS 3.0 caused a bit of a stir in my household. I was happy, because they made the Horizon Walker PrC core, which is the direction I recreated my character in when the 3.5 conversion happened. My wife was slightly disappointed at the nerfed Spellsword PrC, because she lost her Spellsword Cache, however, she immediately picked up an extra caster level due to the new odd level bump, instead of the even level bump that it had before. I'm glad they added access to the +2 stat boosting items. During year 2, we never had enough gold to buy anything while you still could. Now my wife's character has +2 WIS & +2 STR, and I got some Gauntlets of Ogre Power too. The next 4000 Gold will be for an Amulet of Health as soon as I can get some. As far as level caps go, I know people playing since year 1 with several characters past 10th level. We play more conservatively and have just reached 9th. I'd be interested in seeing if a high-level or Epic LG could be pulled off. I'd be interested in a few more years. I am happy with the direction of the games, even if the meta-orgs have been weakened a bit. One of these years they'll be ironed out, just in time for D&D v4 :banghead: