Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Britt 12-22-06, 11:36 AM	Similar to my new Q&A thread, I'm starting this to get feedback from the players so I can steal their ideas and claim them for my own, gaining all the praise that goes with them ;) Ok, seriously, this thread is for posting ideas for the next LGCS. If you want to post in here, you must support your idea with well-thought out reasons. Do not simply post that you think X should be moved to Restricted or from Restricted; give me a good reason. This thread, however, is NOT for discussion of the next LGCS. If you disagree with someone's post, take it to a new thread. Do NOT post a "suggestion" style post that is obviously just a way for you to disagree with a previous poster; I know what those look like and it won't be tolerated. I may, from time to time, post that an idea is not at all possible or that we are already looking into something. The latter is less likely, as I don't want people to get all happy and then get crushed if we have to scrap the idea. If I say something is not happening, don't start arguing, especially not here. If I say that, there are either reasons outside our control that cannot be changed or we are all deadset, adamantly, vehemently, other-adjectively against the idea and you're not going to change our minds. I'm trying to be realistic and honest here. Similar to the Q&A thread, this thread has specific rules and violation endangers the continued existence of this thread. 0) My universal rule: Don't be an idiot. Ok, it was originally a little less PG, but I have to tone it down a bit in this context. You will know when you are violating this rule, and if you don't, you shouldn't be allowed to post ;) 1) Don't expect us to implement anything from this thread. I don't want you getting your hopes up that since you posted something, it's obviously going to be addressed. I will be looking for ideas that I think we might be able to implement or issues we might be able to address. I will then take those ideas into our super-secret Illuminati-Circle meetings for discussion, along with how to nerf all your characters, since we hate you all. 2) No arguing about anything in here. In fact, no discussion at all. This thread should only be for players to post LGCS suggestions and for me or other Circle members to reply, if we want to. If you want to discuss a particular issue, start a new thread. 3) Try to read through the past posts to make sure your suggestion has not already been posted. Posting multiple times will not help you at all; it will only annoy me :mad: 4) Keep the ideas reasonable. We are not going to change any fundamental aspects of the campaign. Do not try to recommend elimination of the regional system, or TUs, or anything like that. 5) No self-policing. If you think someone is breaking the thread rules, let them know politely off-list rather than in this thread. And be sure to be nice, they might not think they were breaking the rules. Relevant comments I've made: A) There will not be a list of "Limited" rules items, ever. This one is not going to change. B) There will not be a significant shift in material from the Core to Restricted list, or vice versa. Sorry, but this is another issue that will not change. C) I am exceedingly sure that pricing of items will not change. The gp value/level ratio in the campaign is just about that of the DMG, on average. Changing these issues would require re-tweaking of those scales and an exception-rule to purchase prices. (In response to request to make Adventure access items 1/2 price) D) We are looking at reformatting and editing the LGCS. I am actually doing that a bit right now. E) Cohorts will not get 28 point-buy. F) Books that are not "Core" or in the "Complete" series are unlikely sources for new Core material. G) Along similar lines, items from sources other than the DMG are not likely to make it onto the freely available for purchase list. H) We are looking at the MIC rules from various angles.
Mommy was an Orc 12-22-06, 12:09 PM	I'd do the following: 1) Clarify is an [Evil] spell an Evil act. There's more than enough rules in Book of Vile Darkness to make it an easy call to say yes without inventing rules. But if it isn't, I'd like to be able to build around it without table variation. 2) Restrict Ruathar. The PrC is far too easy to qualify for, has quirky rules when dealing with items, and its skill list is basically 'what skill is required to get into PrC X' - Examples: Cleric 5/Ruathar 3/Seeker of the Misty Isle 4 - no caster level loss and no need to take the Travel Domain to get into Seeker. Sorcerer 6/Ruathar 3/PrC 6. Or at least make it a lot more difficult to qualify for. 3) Emphasize that the spirit of the rules is just as important as the rules as written. I know it is in there, but I'd put a little more emphasis on that. That's it for now.
Arinaad 12-22-06, 12:11 PM	Hey; Great venue for doing this sort of research as most of us never see or speak to our circle members. I would love to see some enforcement of more RP in mods. I know this might be a stretch, but I find that a lot of the mods in all levels of play (regional, meta-regional, and Core) are very combat intensive. We have all now learned to min-max, power-game etc. Let's see if people can actually RP... I do not come by this argument lightly. I play actively in 3 regions (Bissel, Tusmit, Keoland) and by extention 2 meta-regions (Sheldomar Valley, VTF). I would play in my home region of Ket but for 2 reasons. 1) the mods are all combat & tactics. #2 is not a topic that I would like to delve into in such a public format. Be that as it may, I do enjoy most of the regional mods from the three regions that I do play, but round after round of beating down monsters and NPCs is starting to play on my nerves. S.Walker 837431
Britt 12-22-06, 12:21 PM	Arinaad: Thank you for the feedback, but that is unfortunately not an LGCS issue. That is an issue you will have to address to your Triad for regionals and metaregionals, and to Creighton and his team for Cores. Again, though, thanks for the feedback.
Alpha_Nerd 12-22-06, 01:01 PM	I'm gonna go ahead and post the first thing that came to my mind and I'll come back and edit it as I think of more things. I think you should make the Natural Bond feat core, but with the restriction that you can't use it to negate the druid levels lost by picking a higher animal companion. For Example, if you were a 12th level druid with natural bond, by the wording of the rules you could take a -3 to druid level companion like a wolverine and get it with 12th level benefits, making you effectively a 15th level druid which could end up terribly if stacked with beastmaster. Also, there are plenty of classes now that merit the Multiattack and Improved Natural Attack feats becoming core instead of Animal Companion only. For Example, Dragon Disciple, Green Star Adept, Warshaper, heck even Monks would benefit greatly without becoming overpowered.
Puggle Halfwine 12-22-06, 01:18 PM	Ok, although I have a number of 'small' changes, "the big one" I can think of is this: Remove the 3rd level rule. It just makes things more complicated. You should be able to take feats such as Improved Toughness or Oversized Two-Weapon Fighting as soon as your character qualifies for them (typically first level). Similarly, casters should be able to pick their spells from non-PHB sources as early as 1st level.
UMiskatonic 12-22-06, 01:28 PM	Can i suggest more clarity? Let's face it, the core rules are not as clearly written as they could be. These are the areas that come up often at my tables, and a sentence or two for each would make me happier. It would give me something to point to beyond my own opinion. 1) Standing from prone is a full round action that provokes. Is there any intermediate (standing, kneeling) between those positions? Do they provoke? 2) I successfully grapple you. When do I do damage? 3) I can draw a weapon as part of a move (+1 bab). May I do so as part of a move-equivalent action? 4) I can use a ride check to use my mount for cover. Let's say I succeed at that. What is the chance that the horse is hit? Must I recover from this, or am I in position to make full attacks vs. adjacent opponents?
Lupo 12-22-06, 01:28 PM	Good Luck :) Good Idea ;) Good Grieve, this will open pandemonion :D ok, more seriously: just some thoughts on the LGCS: a) add an index. b) some of the core access prestige classes actually aren't, because they need a special intro prerequisite, sometimes a special mission, sometimes a special encounter in a module, sometimes access to a special material or something else. c) update the www references and the e-mail adresses. d) try to get the permission to reprint the regional feats ;) (hey come on, world is moved forward by optimists :D) e) i would vote to print the list of "right now" limited feats/spells/classes, ok, it is a vast amount of pages and there should be a big "and all other of these that are added through ARs and other official sources", but it would help those who feel somehow lost with the sheer mountain of books to scan. so much for now, just the thingies that came to my mind right now ;) ciao martin m.
UMiskatonic 12-22-06, 01:29 PM	Now, we have a number of Bright Sands characters, and it looks like we will have Greyhawk characters in due time. Is it possible to create core-level meta-orgs?
Mattastrophic 12-22-06, 01:31 PM	Off the top of my head: -Improve cohorts to make them more viable. The "maximum of two levels lower than the master" rule is more than enough to balance them, and so there's no reason to nerf them with 25 point buy, half-shares of XP and gold, and a possible reduction in gp value with every level gained, which is utterly ridiculous. We already have mechanics in place to prevent a cohort from taking a human's place at the table, as well. Cohorts should be equal to regular PCs, including 28 point buy for attributes, full XP and gp, and no constant nerfing of any equipment earned. Why make this change? We already know that LG modules can be brutal for a four-man party when compared to a six-man party. With Leadership being a more viable choice, then we can assume that more characters will take Leadership, thus leading to a higher percentage of six-man tables. ALSO, authors can more safely assume a six-man table when they write their modules. Both improvements lead to more stability among tables, thus improving the play experience for everyone. -Eliminate the rule that allows PCs to repair other PCs' damaged equipment. This rule violates the 'every man is an island' concept that LG is built upon, plain and simple. -The process for resolving death should be better spelled out. If I die and get raised, do I still earn the module's full experience on my AR? Or do I earn experience only for encounters I participated in? If so, do I earn experience for encounters I participated in before death, then lose it all because I died after participating in them? The current lack of verbiage for a topic that by nature requires a lot of it is very confusing. So confusing, in fact, that a year and a half into my own character's life, I self-audited and realized that I had screwed up all four of his deaths, so much that due to a cascading effect created, he dropped from level 10 to level 8! -Expand upon the "Benefits from Nonadventuring Activity" section. Quick example: There are many bards out there who can make much, much higher than a DC 30 Perform check, yet any earnings are maxed out at DC 30. Perhaps several more tiers are in order? Perhaps a fame bonus to Leadership? And this last one I'm not sure about how it ends up applying to the LGCS: -Create a standardized process for attaining access to Limited Prestige Classes and other elements one must build a character around through a standard set of special missions. For example, if someone wants to create a Dread Pirate character, he could rest easy knowing that he may use his special mission slot for the year and gain access, instead of having to hope that he plays just the right module in just the right region with just the right character and the module plays out just the right way. Prestige classes are most often elements that one must build for starting at level 1, and the current system of randomly receiving access to Limited ones (or meeting the special requirements of Core ones, in some cases), makes them impossible to build for. -Matt
Britt 12-22-06, 01:34 PM	Can i suggest more clarity? Let's face it, the core rules are not as clearly written as they could be. These are the areas that come up often at my tables, and a sentence or two for each would make me happier. It would give me something to point to beyond my own opinion. 1) Standing from prone is a full round action that provokes. Is there any intermediate (standing, kneeling) between those positions? Do they provoke? 2) I successfully grapple you. When do I do damage? 3) I can draw a weapon as part of a move (+1 bab). May I do so as part of a move-equivalent action? 4) I can use a ride check to use my mount for cover. Let's say I succeed at that. What is the chance that the horse is hit? Must I recover from this, or am I in position to make full attacks vs. adjacent opponents? None of these are LGCS issues. These types of things need to come from WotC. Your second post is not really LGCS either, but that's not your fault :) The idea is noted, though, thank you.
Britt 12-22-06, 01:35 PM	There will not be a list of "Limited" rules items, ever. This one is not going to change.
amnuxoll 12-22-06, 01:50 PM	The campaign documentation has improved so much in the last two years that I think we're down to the tweaks and adjusts now. Here are my pet peeves: 1. Please rethink the campaign's handling of Craft magic item feats. They allow a PC to greatly overstep the campaigns intended wealth level and, worse, circumvent the access rules. I've been in the campaign a long time. I've seen the cert days. I've seen the "magic mart" days. The current system is much much improved but I think one more tweak is in order. My suggestion: Only allow PCs to craft items they currently have access to purchase and only if the access is in the "Items Found During this Adventure" box. If a PC sells an item s/he crafted, that PC only gets 1/2 the gp spent (i.e., 1/4 of the market value). 2. Please rethink the caster level exception for crafting Pearls of Power. As written, a wizard with Craft Wondrous Item can effectively keep his excess cash stored in pearls of power since selling them at "half" price is the actual price in gp that he spent to make them. (In other words, see #1 above.) As a result, it's not very gratifying to play a sorcerer in Living Greyhawk becase a wizard with CWI will have more spells per day. A quick scan of the lgchardiscussion list (on Yahoo) will show that "Craft Wondrous Item" is an essential part of every twinky cleric or wizard build. I love the quantity vs. quality trade off with wizards and sorcerers and mourn the fact that it's been hijacked this way. =( I recommend a return to the core rules that require a 17th level caster to craft pearls (i.e., make them uncraftable outside of the high level campaign). 3. I know this is a lost cause, but please consider adding just a few more core races to the campaign. I love the variety we have in feats, base classes and pclasses. I think even 2 or 3 more races would make a big difference in what's available. Perhaps restrict players to 1 non-standard PC each? 4. Be explicit in the LGCS about the Circle's policy to avoid making rulings on ambiguities in the rules. I don't like this policy but I don't think you're going to change. So, please state it in prominent location. Then, have a list of the Top 10 (or 20?) most contentious issues that the Circle will not address for this reason. (Example: If you must continue to refuse to rule on "trained for war" then be explicity about it.) This will serve to dampen the flame wars I hope. 5. Please allow PCs to play up or down as much as they wish rather than restricting them to a particular APL. While I see steps have been taken to ease the perceived "arms race" between authors and players, I think this is a nice release valve. First, it allows the non-powergamers and four player tables to relax and just enjoy the game since they can simply play down. Second, it allows the uber-powergamers to have their fun by playing up. To prevent players from "power-leveling" add a restriction that the highest level PC in the party can be no more than 4 levels higher than the lowest level PC. Thank you for creating this thread! :AMN:
Nutation 12-22-06, 02:00 PM	The Polymorph entry (p. 49) needs rewriting and perhaps needs to be pulled from "Spell Clarifications" into its own section. First, this section refers to a variety of shapechanging effects, including Wildshape and the entire Alter Self spell tree. Second, it now needs to be mentioned that the alternate form errata from early 2006 is not used. Pull the text from p. 65 and incorporate it into the new section. Third, more discussion of equipment slots and sizing may be called for. For example, the list of allowable animal equipment (p. 40) could be referenced here. I realize that most such questions are judge calls and probably won't be dealt with.
Nutation 12-22-06, 02:06 PM	The whole FAQ section of the LGCS (almost all of Chapter 9) is getting awfully long. A lot of it is clarifications that could be embedded into the proper sections. Also, some of it duplicates Instant FAQs appearing elsewhere in the document.
Mattastrophic 12-22-06, 02:06 PM	Another one that came to me: Revise the APL system. A much simpler and much more effective method of determining just how much XP and GP a character earns in a module would be something like: A character earns XP and GP equal for the APL equal to either APL played or the character's level, whichever is lower. In the case of odd character levels, round down to the nearest even number (with the exception of first-level characters). This way, it becomes very simple to determine XP and GP earned, and characters are encouraged to play their APL instead of constantly playing up for greater rewards. It also makes tables easier to muster, as there are no worries surrounding who will 'take half,' because, of course, no one would 'take half,' we would simply earn the proper amount! Also, when characters are encouraged to play their APL, it makes 'graduating' to the next APL much more rewarding. Also, if a group of powerful characters get together, they can elect to play an APL higher, but solely for the additional challenge. That same group will be able to do that because they won't have to worry about some or all of their members 'taking half.' Also, if a group feels they are quite weak, they may elect to play down, and again that group won't have to worry about some or all of its members 'taking half.' Why make this change? Mustering will become easier, and when characters are more strongly encouraged to play their APL, then authors can more easily write for the proper APL. This change, combined with a 'viable cohorts' change, would create a larger percentage of balanced tables, and thus authors will be able to assume that they will be writing for a balanced table. In the end, it leads to more enjoyment for everyone. -Matt
Genghis Cohen 12-22-06, 02:25 PM	* Alternate MIL for a characters 2+ MIL. The one that Martin M. posted here is great: http://boards1.wizards.com/leaving.php?destination=http://www-stud.uni-essen.de/~sl1506/web-lg/lg-index.htm
tvknight415 12-22-06, 02:28 PM	OK, I know this will be unpopular, and was inspired by the thread about characters and builder books, but.... Make a lot more things restricted access across the board. For those of us who don't have every builder book, or have them memerized, the plethora of options being taken turns the first half hour of a slot into a DM-reading-the-rules session. It also slows down when the DM needs to re-reference a class ability/spell/feat description to adjudicate something (even after a read-through at the beginning of a slot, most of us don't have photographic memory to memorize every little detail). Don't feel that just because WotC puts out a book means it has to be included in the campaign. I think that 98% of what people want to do with creative niches can be done through the core books (maybe you only get a +12 instead of a +14 to do something, but you're still pretty **** good at it). I'll agree with the previous poster about making the cohort option more attractive. Also, because cohort inclusion is variable depending on who shows up at a table, allow the option of a "substitute" feat (from a short list of feats - don't allow everything under the sun - the book suggestion of improved initiative is a good one). That way, when characters in feat-starved classes take leadership they are not at a marked disadvantage when they can't use their cohorts in 2/3 of the modules. I'll post more as I think of them. Eric
Drezden 12-22-06, 02:34 PM	Here is one recommendation that jumps instantly to mind - please clarify (and possibly adjust) the XP, GP and item access awards for interactives. We know you get 1/2 GP and XP, but I have seen: GP, XP and item access awarded at the APL the interactive was played at; GP and XP awarded at character level, rounded down, but item access given at the APL the table was played at; GP and XP awarded at character level rounded down, but higher level PCs given it according to the APL the table was played at; All 3 awarded at character level rounded down (i.e. not getting access in accordance with the APL the table was played at); and Probably other variations of these. I don't see why we need to change the whole APL system for interactives, but if Circle feels we do, it would be nice to have the exact rules spelled out, so that we can have some consistency across the campaign. Thanks, Daren
Britt 12-22-06, 02:35 PM	There will not be a significant shift in material from the Core to Restricted list, or vice versa. Sorry, but this is another issue that will not change.
DerekSTheRed 12-22-06, 02:57 PM	Adventure access should be half the base book price. Consider a home game with 6 PC's who find a 12,000 gp item. If no one wants the item, they sell it for half and each get 1,000 gp. If someone does want it, he/she pays the other members of the group 1,000 gp each. This means he/she essentially bought the item for half (12,000 divided by 2 equals 6,000 and paying 5,000 instead of gaining 1,000 is a difference of 6,000). In LG however, if you find a 12,000 gp item it is sold for half no matter what. You are then given adventure access to it which gives you the option of buying it at the full price of 12,000. In order for adventure access to better represent a home game it needs to offer the items up for half-price, albeit at the limited time. Derek
Britt 12-22-06, 03:04 PM	I am exceedingly sure that pricing of items will not change. The gp value/level ratio in the campaign is just about that of the DMG, on average. Changing these issues would require re-tweaking of those scales and an exception-rule to purchase prices.
Munkwunk 12-22-06, 04:00 PM	For what it's worth, I'd like to second (or third?) Mattastrophic's cohort issues. Not to mention 22 points makes a tank-style cohort all-but-unplayable due to the lower level *and* the lack of stats to go around. The only thing I'd like to add to this discussion that is unique is a pretty simple request: make absolutely certain that there won't be another fiasco like last year's first run of the LGCS which was laden with background images and fancy colors. Not only was this bad for printing, but it's bad for those of us who are hard of seeing. I'd actually like to see a non-PDF version (maybe .rtf?) of the LGCS so that it can be copy/pasted easily and so that people like me (who are visually impaired) can change the colors of the document to fit our needs. This isn't entirely necessary as long as the LGCS stays in a format like it is now (no-graphic version) but an RTF or DOC would still be exceptionally handy.
rogerd 12-22-06, 05:43 PM	Characters with Item Creation feats may elect to spend additional time units to create magic items. Characters can created magic items at any core adventure or after a regional or metaregional adventure set in the characters home region or metaregion. Item creation occurs before the adventure starts. You must have a magic item creation logsheet filled out and ready for your DM when you sit down at the table. Emphasis mine. I ran into this rule conflict when I sat down with my MIC logsheet ready to go and handed it to the GM. She looked blank, handed it back and informed me that magic items are created after an adventure, and showed me that first rule. In the heat of the moment, I couldn't locate the second paragraph quoted. Magic item creation should be done before the adventure, because trying to work out what new access you received and how much money you have to spend slows down the already busy time at the end of the module. Far better to work it out while you're on break and have the item ready to go at the next adventure. The first paragraph is doubly confusing, since it uses "at" and "after" for different types of adventures. It seems clear that the intent is crafting occurs before a module starts, but the wording needs to be adjusted. Finally, I believe that magic item creation should be opened up so that it can be used before any adventure. If my Verbobonc based character can craft before traveling to the Hanging Glacier, he should be able to craft before traveling to Veluna.
szwanger 12-22-06, 05:51 PM	1) In a living campaign, spells with XP costs don't work the way they're intended to. Unless you're playing in a set group every adventure, losing XP, especially at high levels, is a benefit, not a cost, because it makes you wealthier for your level, i.e. your gp:xp ratio goes up. Ideally, XP costs should be replaced by gp costs (at an appropriate gold-xp ratio), or these spells should be NPC only. 2) Can you clarify what gold over the cap can be used for? Bribes and NPC spellcasting are pretty standard uses, but can you use gold-over-cap to buy material spell components, e.g. Stoneskin, and then cast a spell with them? What if you pay a bribe before getting any treasure -- can you get reimbursed from gold-over-cap? Steve
DuctShuiTengu 12-22-06, 06:08 PM	Okay, most of these already got mentioned, but... Improve Cohorts. As Mattastrophic (and others) have pointed out, the extent to which they are currently restricted makes the Leadership feat too weak, discouraging players from taking the feat that's most likely to help 4-person tables to survive tough mods. Move the "NPC Only, but Core for Cohorts, Mounts, Animal Companions, etc." feats to be Core instead. while these frequently are easier for such NPCs to qualify for than they are for PCs, several of them (Multiattack, Improved Natural Armor, etc), PCs are perfectly capable of meeting the prerequisites for. While there may be some reason for feeling that such feats are acceptable for Mounts and Cohorts but not the PCs themselves, I'm not seeing them. Remove the "3rd Level" rule. If I understand correctly, this rule was originally put in place to make things simpler for new players. And as it existed when I joined the campaign (year 4), it worked decently for that. However, in it's current incarnation of "Nothing from outside of the PHB. Except for Domains for Clerics. And they also get their domain spells even if those aren't in the PHB. Oh, and Base Classes. Oh, and Warmages get all the spells on their list starting at first level. (Or Bright Sands characters, though that option will be going away)" it just causes more confusion that it prevents. Also, it leads to players taking feats at first level that they won't be able to use until much later (sometimes much later) in the build because the other feats they want (which they could use from 1st level) are from other books. Allowing players who own other books to take feats and/or spells from them won't invalidate making a PC just from the PHB as a viable option, nor will it scare off potential players with concerns about needing a vast library of Source Books to play. Allow Crafting of non-magical items. At present, Crafting can only be used as a source of Non-adventuring wealth. The PHB already contains rules for crafting mundane equipment, so this could be done simply using a combination of those rules and those for creating magic items. In addition, this could help make access to exotic equipment a little more reliable (A PC who's gotten access to a Greatbow and has Craft: Bowmaking, could attempt to create one without having to worry about grabbing it before losing access.)
UMiskatonic 12-22-06, 11:45 PM	Ooh, I'll second the craft normal items idea. I mean, if crafting a flying carpet or a wand of fireballs is okay, how is a suit of plate mail going to unbalance the game? I know someone's going to come back with 'the characters are supposed to be heroes, not tradespeople' argument. But it's not like anyone would be making a profit here. Just making the things that they need in order to BE heroes. It would also restore a little parity. Spellcasters can effectively make money crafting magic items, bards can perform, rogues can tumble (or steal). Who gets hurt? The lowly fighter. And if you are trying to create a living world environment, it actually makes MORE sense that characters have something to do when adventures are scarce. I mean, how many times can giants possible invade? There's got to be -some- down time. Sorry if the earlier posts seem 'out of bounds'. I recognize that they are outside of the LGCS goals, but I'd like to see them somewhere, maybe a FAQ or something.
echoota 12-23-06, 12:04 AM	An issue that I've seen come up quite a bit as of late is the problem of new players wanting to play LG, but the local group is playing at too high of an APL to allow them to join in. I know that the system was originally intended for convention tournament play, but I can only assume that a lot of play is home based at this point and being able to play with friends is an important factor in why everyone is getting together. Making the rules concerning APL a bit more flexible would help, however I'd like to see a more radical option for people. I'd like to see fastplay characters available at particular APLs. I know that is blasphemous to a lot of people, as your supposed to start out at a lowly 1st level and work your way up, however so far I've seen the scaling system simply make it harder for friends to be able to play with each other. Fun should be the ultimate goal. It seems to me that making fastplay characters that are scaled up to an APL could be balanced well enough. Because the character starts out at a higher level all it really takes is balancing things out with some penalties. Perhaps the fastplays are 25 point builds or perhaps they get less gold that what is normal for that level. Because they are prebuilt characters there are a number of ways of offsetting the level bump. On top of all of this, the character is without the numerous story objects that a character all the way from 1st level will have accumulated over the course of play. So we'd have fastplays of 3rd, 5th, 7th, 9th and 11th level. The new players can jump into a game with friends, get involved in the RPGA and have it grow even more, rather than the logistical roadblocks to getting someone who just wants to jump in and have fun.
copper_wyrmling 12-23-06, 12:52 AM	So this is something very minor, it's just annoyed me for a while... Would it be possible to change the LG-specific Planar Ally rules in the LGCS so that the called creature just has to be within one alignment step of the deity, rather than matching it exactly? Or alternatively, for the called creature to match either the cleric's alignment OR the deity's alignment? (Note that the PHB does not contain either restriction, only requiring that the outsider be one of the deity's choice, although you can request specific creatures; I assume the LGCS restriction was inserted to give GMs a way to adjudicate "deity's choice" quickly and easily.) The reason I'd like this is that since we only use the MM as a source, there's a rather noticeable imbalance in the power of this spell between clerics of good-aligned deities and clerics of neutral-aligned deities. Neutral deities don't even get a monopoly on elementals, since the LGCS explicitly changes the usual elemental alignment rules so clerics of any deity can call them. As an example, a cleric of the Greater God Boccob can call, at best, a CR 8 Elder Arrowhawk or Elder Xorn, or a CR 7 elemental, using their L8 Greater Planar Ally spell. A cleric of Keoghtom, a Neutral Good Hero-God, can call a CR 16 planetar with the same spell - or the elemental, of course, if they want. To me (and maybe only me), it just seems a little off. It's not a big deal, of course (three spells which have a gold cost and are thus rarely used), but it's occasionally important - when trying to crack certain curses and diseases, some of the good-aligned outsiders have extremely useful spell-like abilities. It would be very easy to change, and I don't really see why a deity can't have servants with alignments differing by one step (since many of their clerics are in that situation). Not expecting anything, but I figured I'd ask ;)
Maesto 12-23-06, 11:08 AM	I'll start by adding my voice to the "remove the 3rd level rule" group. It makes some things remarkably difficult to get into; for example, to get a sorceror into mage of the arcane order at level 6, you need to twink around with marshal because you can't take empower + arcane prep at first, followed by cooperative spell at third. Also, there are some (role-playing oriented) feats such as "ancestral knowledge" that should be able to be taken at first level, but can't because of the silly rule. I don't think it helps at all. The other is a slightly technical issue: items which have "permanency" as a spell required for their creation currently can't be made because of the restricted status. These include all of the carpet of flying items. Can we change anything that requires permanency as a spell to make it to have something that is valid? Cheers, Jolyon
Kithran 12-23-06, 12:57 PM	2. Please rethink the caster level exception for crafting Pearls of Power. As written, a wizard with Craft Wondrous Item can effectively keep his excess cash stored in pearls of power since selling them at "half" price is the actual price in gp that he spent to make them. (In other words, see #1 above.) As a result, it's not very gratifying to play a sorcerer in Living Greyhawk becase a wizard with CWI will have more spells per day. A quick scan of the lgchardiscussion list (on Yahoo) will show that "Craft Wondrous Item" is an essential part of every twinky cleric or wizard build. I love the quantity vs. quality trade off with wizards and sorcerers and mourn the fact that it's been hijacked this way. =( I recommend a return to the core rules that require a 17th level caster to craft pearls (i.e., make them uncraftable outside of the high level campaign). Please do not adopt this for a number of reasons: Pearls of Power do not have a minimum caster level requirement by the core rules (check the errata if you are unsure) They are considered vital for a lot of builds - but often their usefulness is due to other limitations e.g. enable a cleric to cast multiple align weapons because he can't buy scrolls Find out how may people actually _use_ all the pearls they have - yes people may have a pouch full but it means nothing if they only use 3 at most Ooh, I'll second the craft normal items idea. I mean, if crafting a flying carpet or a wand of fireballs is okay, how is a suit of plate mail going to unbalance the game? I'd advise against allowing crafting normal items mainly due to how the core rules work. If you assume a TU is equivalent to a week (yes I know it isn't but assume it is for the case of this example) and you have a character with a total craft modifier of 15 (10 ranks, +2 masterwork tools, +3 from stat/metaorg/etc). You want to make some non-masterwork plate mail, book price 1500gp or 15000 sp. If you take 10 (trust me you want to take 10 otherwise you have far too many calculations to make) you get a skill result of 25, meaning in one week (or one TU) you craft 25 * 17 = 425sp worth of your plate mail - yes it takes 36 weeks to craft that simple suit of plate mail. If you want it to be masterwork, well that means another 1500 sp worth of labour at 25 * 20 = 500 sp per week. This is why the 'characters are adventurers not tradesman' argument is actually valid here - if you want your character to make his own armour and weapons it will take you more than a year. Its a fact of the core rules that crafting mundane items makes you nothing in comparison to crafting magical items (or in comparison to casting fabricate). OK enough about what I disagree with. I'd agree that the 3rd level rule should be dropped - with the various exceptions and caveats to this rule it now just makes things more complicated for beginners rather than less. Clarification is required in how magic items, both due to the issue already raised here and in relation to exactly when you can craft - the recent question on the board as to crafting playing a regional that isn't your home region but is in the same meta region should be answered for once and for all. Cheers Kithran
Britt 12-23-06, 02:52 PM	QUOTING THE RULES: "2) No arguing about anything in here. In fact, no discussion at all. This thread should only be for players to post LGCS suggestions and for me or other Circle members to reply, if we want to. If you want to discuss a particular issue, start a new thread." That especially goes for disagreeing, but also for agreeing. Only make posts if you are adding a new ISSUE to the thread.
Morgen 12-23-06, 03:21 PM	All right, there are a few things that I've seen that might be useful to a new LGCS. Add Shield Lands to the regional feats table for Landless Noble . We have it according to the feat's description in dragon mag, but I'd like to see it on that table as well. I'd hate to take it and go to a con somewhere and have some judge complain that it wasn't on the table so I don't get to have it. Consider allowing a few more races to the campaign . I don't know what kinds of races, but one or two more might be interesting. Kobold so people can use the Races of the Dragon, and then some of the other no level adjustment races from the other books. I know it probably won't happen, but I'll voice my suggestion. Add the Retirement rules to the LGSC that are in the High Level campaign documentation . Just the ones that happen to be relevant to retiring characters and their three choices. Add an Option for a retiring character to be, 'reborn' as a different race. Something like, instead of retiring you can get rewarded and can reincarnate your character as a tiefling or what have you with no experience, gold or anything of that like. Just average starting gold and the same name for people who really don't want their characters to go away. Make a custom Living Greyhawk reincarnation list . Just a suggestion, that's all. >.>; PLEASE: Sort out the Core spell list by arcane/divine spells and spell levels. That's just a request because I'm lazy and it'd look like you guys did a ton of work! ;) Give access to some Templates. Just if you think it might not be too terrible, give people access to like warbeast and other templates for thier mounts, special animals, companions, familiars and the like. Just put like a Core Access after level 10 or something restriction on it and that it has to be done as a special cert which takes gold and TUs from the player and has to be done after like a core mod. All in all though the campaign is doing well and if you don't change anything a vast majority of us won't be too upset. Keep up the good work!
Howie23 12-23-06, 06:56 PM	Please clarify MIC rules to match intent regarding source, necessary access, and CL, following determination of intent. Rationale: let's be sure the written rule is in alignment with intent to ensure consistancy.
Eagle Prince 12-23-06, 07:05 PM	Restrict blasphemy, dictum, holy word, word of chaos, and forcecage. Too ill-balanced. The costly material component for forcecage isn't actually all that costly for NPCs, since they don't keep wealth over multiple adventures. Need I say more for blasphemy/etc? But a good example is a high HD, low CR monster with a template that grants spell-like abilities, generally at caster level equal to HD, makes it horribly unbalanced. Move divine insight back to core or completely restrict. No good reason for it to be NPC-only. Core access from the new releases, ie Complete Mage, PHB II, Dragon Magic (new dragonic heritage feats), etc. I think about everyone I've played with wants to try out some of this new stuff.
garyjohnson 12-23-06, 07:22 PM	Hi, Britt. My suggestions. 1. Please allow characters to earn GP using skills after any event, not just regional events. From an "in-game" perspective, it's jarring that characters can't do street busking or pick pockets after core adventures set in Greyhawk or Hardby, but can after regional adventures set in uncharted wilderness. 2. Please include a statement above the "NPC only" lists stating that asterisked items are in this list only because they have been used in currently active scenarios, and that they will be moved to "restricted" once all such scenarios have retired. IIRC, the reason why Divine Insight (for example) is "NPC only" is to avoid "breaking" scenarios where NPCs use it - I think people are less likely to complain about things being "NPC-only" if they can see that some of them are on the way to being "restricted". 3. Please move the first two pages of boilerplate from the start of each module to the LGCS, and replace with a short instruction to look up the LGCS. That way, the boilerplate can't get out of sync with the current rules (I'm thinking of the full/half XP & GP when playing down problems here) and we save two pages of printing whenever we turn a scenario into hard copy. Cheers, Gary Johnson
MeinVT 12-23-06, 08:09 PM	A few suggestions - The section on character creation gets a bit confusing for new players (as I am) when you need to start referring to access levels / regional feats and the like. It would help to clarify this writing a bit. There is nothing in the character creation section about needing to pay for upkeep at the start of your first adventure. Plus for those of us with a non living campaign background I automatically stocked up on a week's worth of food, bottle of wine, that sort of thing that really are covered in upkeep. Perhaps a little sidebar in this section "for the player new to Living Greyhawk" could let you know the key stuff to read before starting to make a character. Even though it has pretty much been stated it won't change, I find access to wealth/items a bit too low. Is there a formula as to use of consumables and/or availability of "overcap" money assumed that allows characters to do these things, pay for the occasional raise dead and still reach the wealth targets? Clarification on overcap gold might be useful. My understanding is you can't spend early in an adventure from your own wealth and then replenish from overcap gold, but if you have an early encounter which provides treasure you can use it to purchase consumbles to use during that adventure potentially without impacting what you take away. It all ends up feeling "gamey and min/max" oriented to me, but unlike character build you can't ignore it and end up with a decent amount of equipment over time if you fritter away consumables. It is also not 100% clear to me if you have an item in hand on an AR that says you can sell it for x gold, whether that is done after collecting cap gold or before, and whether you enter that value as gold earned in the adventure or as an item sold and then divided by half as what you actually collect. Also can you sell it at a later time, even if it lists a specific person as the buyer, since it doesn't list particular access to make the sale. A couple small changes to the AR: Add a section for current class and levels if you want them recorded, along with a specific label that this information should be put here. Create separate icons for item access versus item in hand. As it stands now you get some items outright in an adventure (so far I've seen tokens, unique gems, maps, books). You also get access to items that you don't own unless you spend gold for them. They have the same icon and the text is not always very clear as to which category they fall into. In six adventures I've already had the experience of a DM at a table awarding an item and telling us we had it, only to have it clarified later when we read the AR more clearly and e-mailed the author mod that we did not in fact have it, which also meant that my purchase and sales of items on that AR were no longer sensible etc. and so forth. By having a hand grasping an item as an icon for something you possess and the shield as something you have access to, this would be much more immediately apparent. Thanks for listening, it is good to feel like our comments are at least heard and considered and on behalf of the players who feel the same as me, thanks for the hard work. If I listed a question that is already answered it is just a sign that there is so much campaign material to wade through that this new player has had trouble keeping track of it all.
LGMoses 12-23-06, 08:33 PM	Just do everything you can to keep the game consistent, balanced, and realistic fantasy and I will be very pleased! :D Also, I would honestly like it if you continue to limit player's choices on supplements or whatever. Here is why: 1. It limits the build style of play. Not fishing for arguments but don't you think it kinda goes against the game that these people start knowing what their character is going to be in 17 levels? I mean, doesn't that defeat the purpose of playing? To see what happens to your character? Why bother if you already know that 100 Ars from now he's going to be a This 5/That 4/PrC8? If you limit the choices to AR unlocks then its harder for people to make their silly purpose defeating builds. 2. All of these things coming from all of these different places can give a DM a headache and slow play as I flip through books checking crazy stuff. 3. Supplements detract from the PHB which I sometimes wonder if some people have even looked at. They've read Complete Divine and all about their favored soul but they have no idea whats in the PHB. Supplements flood the game with feats, new rules, prestige classes, and etc. That just aren't needed usually. And its watered down the PHB a little some I think. When was the last time you heard of someone taking feats like Magical Aptitude and Acrobatic and other feats in the PHB that give +2 to two different skills? I'm also personally against anything allowing character rebuilds and what-not. Choices and life are permanent and so should they be in the game. If you don't qualify for a class you pick up thats just too bad. If I'd been training all my life to be a dentist I could have a decent job by now. I can't change it now. I just finished a system where there were rebuilds and adjustments to both characters and equipment and it just makes the game feel cheap. It basically makes it all be about the +'s. If you do this and supplements aren't heavily restricted then its also all about the supplements as it becomes a race to buy the most supplements which have the most items which give the most +'s. So if you'd do this to crack down on power gaming I would be very pleased also LG Staff. Thanks for your hard work, time, and effort. Zack moses
Evanta 12-23-06, 09:25 PM	Just do everything you can to keep the game consistent, balanced, and realistic fantasy and I will be very pleased! :D 1. It limits the build style of play. Not fishing for arguments but don't you think it kinda goes against the game that these people start knowing what their character is going to be in 17 levels? I mean, doesn't that defeat the purpose of playing? To see what happens to your character? Why bother if you already know that 100 Ars from now he's going to be a This 5/That 4/PrC8? If you limit the choices to AR unlocks then its harder for people to make their silly purpose defeating builds. 1. I also propose that LGCS include the 'character rebuild' options core-wise (the one that allows you to change a few details per level), so that people can actually qualify for the classes they've picked up from the ARs. 2. Please allow the Knight and Beguiler base class from PHB II! Nerf them if you need (I dunno if they are worth nerfing in the first place), but get them out please!
SDouek 12-23-06, 09:30 PM	Recently, while at the end of playing a Keoland Intro Mod, Myself and a friend told the GM that we planned on buying barding for Our War Dog Animal Companions. I was told that my dog couldn't use barding. The GM said since their is no trick in the PHB letting an animal use barding and it didn't specifically say it could anywhere in the PHB or Monster Manual, then it couldn't. He stated, that the only way I could have a riding dog, or a even a war horse (He said this when I pointed out the under Riding Dogs it says they can be trained for war just as a war horse) was to have it gain enough HD by going up in Druid, and then having it take Armor Proficiency as a feat. This feels wrong not only does this mean a normal animal used for war can't wear barding, but since barding starts at medium you would need 2 feats to use it. He pointed to the LGCS saying that "No where inside does it say these creatures can use barding just that it can be bought and that animals may only know tricks from the PHB." Is this really the case in LG?? Is there anyone to appeal to because this feels not only wrong but like and over site. Any guidance you can give me would be greatly appreciated. Until I played on this table it was just assumed it was OK to buy barding for animals. Please correct this oversight. Thank you, SDouek
Britt 12-23-06, 10:16 PM	Barding stuff This is not an LGCS issue; it is a general rules issue. The answer, however, is that your animal can use barding, even if not proficient. It will take penalties just as any creature using armor without proficiency.
jstorrie 12-23-06, 10:40 PM	I think something ought to be done about XP penalties due to multiclassing - since they're more of a benefit than a penalty in most cases. I don't think 'you can't take class levels that would give you an XP penalty' is the best way to do this. Maybe just 'Living Greyhawk does not use XP penalty for multiclassing rules.'
UMiskatonic 12-23-06, 11:55 PM	Is there a way around the seven person problem? I understand why you might not want all seven at the same table, but as it stands, the answer is that six get to play, and one gets screwed. What would be wrong with a) seven at a table, with appropriate APL bump, or b) table of three and a table of four
Britt 12-24-06, 12:00 AM	Is there a way around the seven person problem? This is an RPGA issue, not an LG issue. This is not something LG can change from the RPGA rules.
frupton 12-24-06, 12:44 AM	Please add "Vest of Resistance +1" to the list of items on Chapter 4 page 2 (accessible to anyone who has completed one adventure. ) Cloak of Resistance +1 is already on this list. Vests are identical in every respect except for the substitution of the word "vest" for "cloak". Game-wise, why should vendors have abundant supplies of cloaks, but no vests? Given the strong demand for vests, surely some savvy entrepreneurs have started setting up vest shops to compete with the cloak shops by CY 597.
LachlarlanIII 12-24-06, 12:51 AM	Why not make all potions and scrolls less than 750gp readily available instead of just those found on the tables in the DMG? Limit potions and scrolls to those spells found in the PHB. On a similar note, why not make wands less than or equal to 750gp available. Being able to buy a wand of cure light wounds before getting access would be a huge asset.
JamesMaissen 12-24-06, 01:57 AM	First, thanks for attempting this. Greater communication between the playerbase and the circle can only improve the atmosphere of the game. Towards that I would suggest the standard slew of suggestions that get proposed at each and every LGCS be addressed and commented upon so that those that continue to push for them may understand the obstacles that are facing each of them. As it is they come up as suggestions each and everytime. Whether they are ignored out of hand or are heavily discussed each time is not evident to those suggesting them. For example: Mundane Item creation. While not one's best of use of TUs (as many items will cost ALOT of time) the mechanics for doing it would not be difficult to add into the Magic Item Creation rules. Another example: The random magic item tables as sources for access. These tables are rife with errors, omissions and inconsistancies.. why should the LGCS tie the players to them? What's gained from using these tables? -James
Elder_basilisk 12-24-06, 02:10 AM	1. Increase the general access gp limit on scrolls (and potions) to 800gp. Why? Because that allows general access to a scroll of restoration. Scrolls of restoration should be a staple cleric item--far more so than the 700gp scrolls like death ward and air walk. The increase on potions is going to be largely irrelevant but would save the text specifying a separate limit for scrolls. 2. Allow the Knight class from PHB II. 3. More playable cohorts: Other people have said it but I have my own take: A. Make the resetting gold optional. "Upon gaining a level, a cohort may choose to either keep their current equipment and gold or may add enough gold that their total equipment and gold value is equal to the NPC wealth by level guidelines." B. Give cohorts 28 point buy--or at least 25 point buy. Change A has several reasons behind it. First, it rewards players who play their cohorts as characters and buy permanent items with their cohorts' wealth rather than squeezing as many consumables or spell components as possible out of their cohorts. Second, it makes cohorts much easier to play. It has been a real pain going back and adding up my cohort's total equipment value and then deciding what to keep and what to lose every time she levels. We don't have to do that kind of math for PCs and I'd prefer not to do it for my cohort either. Change B will have several positive effects. First, it will increase the range of options available to cohorts. At the moment, a cohort really has no choice but to dump non-essential stats if they want to be remotely effective in their chosen role. With a fuller range of points, they will have the same options open to them as other characters. Since nearly every special cohort I see has better than 22 point stats (some of them have significantly better than 28 point stats), there obviously isn't a balance issue here. And, again, since I haven't heard anyone complaining about special cohorts overshadowing their real characters, I don't think it is likely to make that situation any more common. (The one case I have seen a player complain about being overshadowed by a cohort, the cohort in question was higher level than the character and had min-maxed for a more offensively oriented build; I think that problem is inherent in the APL system where one player may be playing down two levels with an at APL cohort and the other player is playing up two levels and is therefore two levels behind the cohort).
JamesMaissen 12-24-06, 02:30 AM	First appologies for 2 posts back to back, I wasn't sure if multiple suggestions on one post was preferable to a 2nd post and elected to split them for clarity. The LGCS has been edited, cut and pasted and more or less mutilated over the years. Many passages are very hard to read as a result (eg MIC) or are horribly out of date (eg animals). Could it be possible for someone (or several someones) to go through the wording of sections to rewrite it for clarity in places? Likewise when the LGCS goes through updating a master list of alterations being maintained would make following things easier (highlighting additions is a great help, but deletions are easily missed and are slow to propogate amongst the players). Likewise in the standard paperwork forms for ARs, MILs and MIC sheets some alterations and updating would not be harmful as they too are suffering from such edited wordings and either lack clarity or are redundant in places. Some examples: ARs: The name section asks Players to list the classes and levels after one's character name.. yet the ARs themselves do not do so and as such MANY regions have a majority of their players not doing this. It is a hassle to fit in and it simply won't propogate well amongst the playerbase unless the line below has classes/levels list as well as name for that line. I'm not sure how much of an LGCS issue that is, but it's something to address (or simply remove the requirement and make the problem moot). MILs: Non-magical nonPhB items and even PhB planar forks need to be listed here, but have no proper location in the standard form. MIC sheets: How many times does one need to write down the name of the scenario when making 5 little items? That seems like a holdover from when the form was first being discussed, but it isn't needed more than once and it's been this way for too long of a time. Perhaps the form could be revamped a little here? Thanks for your time, -James
JamesMaissen 12-24-06, 02:46 AM	How about allowing the hiring of NPCs for certain tasks? For example consider the following two ideas (the later one not being all that new). 1. Training animals. PCs can train their animals, but cannot hire animal trainers to do the same thing? 2. Magic Item Creation. One of the problems I find with Craft Wonderous Access (er Items) is that the feat alters access. It gives a great enough boon in saving cash to be worth a feat. Allow PCs to hire NPC crafters using the MIC rules only instead of the PC crafter spending xp and half gold as per the feat the PC hiring the crafter would pay full gold, no xp plus full gold for any spell castings that they cannot supply themselves. So for example a 8th level (or higher) Fighter that had prior access to a pair of +4 gloves of Dexterity could hire a wizard to craft such gloves for him. He would have to wait around for 5TUs (the crafting time) and spend 16,960gp (16000gp full price for gloves plus standard NPC casting costs for 16 castings of cat's grace). Access for hiring crafters would be the same as current MIC restrictions. The end result of this would be that all players would have equal access and those with MIC feats only would benefit from them in saving of cash. In a game that keeps strict cash flow control like this one that's still a very valid feat without making it as essential as it currently seems. -James
gomeztoo 12-24-06, 10:22 AM	Making Benefits from Nonadventuring Activity allowable after any event (not just regionals) was already discussed. If that is not viable for some reason (and it would be nice to get one), then please restrict the crafting of magic items to regional instead. It is seriously weird that I can't earn money performing on the streets of Hardby, but I can craft magic bracers in the middle of the desert with no lab in sight.
Taren Seeker 12-24-06, 10:47 AM	Please allow the Archivist from Heroes of Horror. It's a really interesting support/knowledge class and is a nice alternative to a cleric. I like that you can coordinate your spells with any other divine casters at the table. I'm guessing that it's currently restricted because it has the ability to learn any divine spells. Firstly, it can only learn these spells when finding them on scrolls or by getting an AR reward granting divine spell access, which doesn't happen too often for druid, paladin or ranger spells. Secondly, the class is balanced out by having to pay for spells, and having 2 casting stats. Compared to the cleric the class gives up spontaneous healing, turning and domains for the Dark Knowledge abilty and increased spell flexibility. I think it's a good compromise. If the spell flexibility is really so powerful that it's preventing this excellent class from being allowed, then can't it just be dropped? State that the Archivist can only cast cleric spells, or cleric and druid or cleric and paladin...whatever gets it done. It probably weakens the class a bit much but I'd still love to play one for the flavor. Thanks for your consideration, Nick
qstor 12-24-06, 12:10 PM	Consider allowing a few more races to the campaign . I don't know what kinds of races, but one or two more might be interesting. Kobold so people can use the Races of the Dragon, and then some of the other no level adjustment races from the other books. I know it probably won't happen, but I'll voice my suggestion. Make a custom Living Greyhawk reincarnation list . Just a suggestion, that's all. >.>; PLEASE: Sort out the Core spell list by arcane/divine spells and spell levels. That's just a request because I'm lazy and it'd look like you guys did a ton of work! ;) All in all though the campaign is doing well and if you don't change anything a vast majority of us won't be too upset. Keep up the good work! I disgree about the new races. I think the Core races in the PHB work just fine. LG is supposed to be about the 'core' rules. I think adding new races above Centaurs and Asherati should not be allowed. Ken Jenks made a Core spell list. Check the files area of the main LG Yahoo! List. I agree that a custom LG reincarnate table is a good idea. I'd like to see a metaorg for the Old Lore Bards. Mike
Britt 12-24-06, 01:19 PM	1) We are looking at reformatting and editing the LGCS. I am actually doing that a bit right now. 2) Cohorts will not get 28 point-buy. 3) Books that are not "Core" or in the "Complete" series are unlikely sources for new Core material. 4) Along similar lines, items from sources other than the DMG are not likely to make it onto the freely available for purchase list. 5) We are looking at the MIC rules from various angles. 6) Again, no discussion of what others have already mentioned. If you want to agree, disagree, or expound on the arguments for an item, do it in a new thread.
szwanger 12-24-06, 02:06 PM	"Characters can create items after any core adventure or after a regional or metaregional adventure..." It would be helpful if the next LGCS clarified the above sentence.:confused: Do Core specials count as core adventures for MIC purposes? Do Core interactives count? Core intro mods? [assuming that any are eventually created, of course :P ] Do interactives count as regional adventures? How about regional intro mods? Special missions? Steve
Mithreinmaethor 12-24-06, 03:07 PM	I have seen several posts about APL max gold and exps. I have always wondered why it could not be expressed as a total Exp for the module divided by the number of players that play the mod. So as of right now max exps in an APL 2 mod is 450 exps (450x6=2700 exps) well so if only 4 people played the mod their max exps would be 2700/4= 675 exps each. Same could be done for the gold etc. Outside of conventions I rarely play at a table of more then 4. Max total exps now/proposed APL 2 = 2700 / 2500 APL 4 = 4050 / 4000 APL 6 = 5400 / 5500 APL 8 = 6750 / 7000 APL 10 = 8100 / 8500 APL 12 = 9450 / 10000 APL 14 = 10800 / 11500 APL 16 = 12150 / 13000 Then the question becomes how do we track how many people played say in instance of an audit. Just need a box on the sheet where the GM writes in or circles etc either 4 5 or 6 to represent number of people present at the table. I mean they have to trust that the GM is awarding the correct exps/gold by circling the APL why not trust the GM to circle/write in the number of players at the table. The math is pretty easy after that. Or even better list it like it is under the APL on the right side now with 1 line for max exps for 4 5 or 6 players and a 2nd line for max gold for 4 5 or 6 players. for example (using the current exps spreads) APL 2 Max Exps 675 / 540 / 450 Max Gold 675 / 540 / 450 APL 4 Max Exps 1012 / 810 / 675 Max Gold 975 / 780 / 650
Morgen 12-24-06, 03:29 PM	That was how the cert for Mad God's Key was done...to make a point. We're often under 6 for out LG mods in my direct area. That'd probably mess with how the cert was formatted. More to my point though, I'd make another suggestion that the money made from having ranks in profession should be increased or perhaps the rule could be changed so they could make some extra...no that wouldn't make any sense at all. How about we just get rid of the Profession nonadventuring gold all together? Slight of Hand, Tumble and Perform kind of work, but Profession is so not worth it since most of the time you wouldn't even make enough back to cover the lifestyle cost of your TU. We need some serious rules about property ownership and taxes and so forth as well. So far my region hasn't asked for anything at all with the thousands of gold coins we keep finding. Oh, and do Silver/Copper round up or down when your doing things like buying starting equipment, standard adventuring gear or magic item creation? It would be nice to actually see a rule in the book about it. Thanks again! And don't forget to totally add more races! Kobolds especially!
DuctShuiTengu 12-24-06, 03:48 PM	One possible idea for allowing a few non-standard races would be to allow players to use some of the special cohorts that mods have granted access to as fastplay characters instead. I.E. You complete Random Module X and get a favor that allows you to take a Kobold Sorcerer with such-and-such stats as a special cohort. You may instead use this favor to play said kobold sorcerer as your next PC. This would serve two purposes. 1: it allows favors that grant special cohorts to be valuable to more players and more characters, as it's no-longer a dead favor for everyone who wasn't planning on taking the Leadership feat anyway (or who was going to take said feat, but doesn't want that cohort for their char) 2: It allows access to some of the non-core races, without opening the floodgates to everyone having them.
Britt 12-24-06, 03:51 PM	There will not be any additional races available for play in the LGCS.
JamesMaissen 12-24-06, 11:13 PM	In LG we maintain a significant level of paperwork and tracking. Could we attempt to use this level of tracking to our advantage and expand into some areas that other Living Campaigns deign not to tread? To whit I'm talking about effects carrying over from prior modules. Let's start with Permanency. Why should it be banned? 1. Is it too powerful? Well it's part of the core rules, so if it's too powerful then some experience in the LG environment should showcase that and lead to it's alteration. But I'm of the opinion that it has it's place in the game system. 2. Is it too hard to track in a Living Campaign? We all maintain MILs that reference ARs, it should not be too hard to make an additional form that could track such ongoing effects that could work in the same way. 3. Does it fit poorly within a Living Campaign system? No more so than Item crafting or XP cost spells already do. Problems along these lines should be solved directly and not skirted into this area. If that's the hang up then work on the others while striving to allow this into the game itself. As it currently stands the game is distorted by it's lack.. the goal of the game should include trying to deliver as much of the Core rules of D&D as possible. The default should be to include it and the onus should be on the detractors side to maintain it's banned status. Likewise spell storing items and rings of counterspells could be tracked on such forms as well as curses and other permanent effects. Its perhaps not the first thing you would consider as the common wisdom is that such cannot be maintained in a living system. However what I ask is why is that the case? The only issues I see against it are above and I don't see them as insurmountable. -James
MatBlack 12-25-06, 01:51 AM	1) Classes I would love to see the inclusion of the Knight class (PH2) and the Spirit Shaman class (CD) as Core access. To a lesser degree, I would like to see the Beguiler and Duskblade (PHB2) as Core access as well (the Duskblade seems overpowered at first, but seems to be fairly well-balanced). Additionally, I would LOVE to see the Marshall (MH) moved to Limited or even NPC only. While I absolutely love the concept of the class, as a player of a mutted Marshall, I know exactly how ridiculous it can get. 2) Table APL I would like to see APL calculation use total PC levels divided by a straight 6 rather than the actual number of players (+1 to the result for an actual full table). This formula is used in another shared-world campaign and seems to work better, especially for "under-manned" tables. Everything else in the campaign (xp division, gp division, etc.) assumes a full table of six, and scenarios seem to be written with a full party of six in mind as well. I see no reason that APL calculation should not also work this way. 3) Alternate Skill Uses I would like to see the alternate skill uses (from the Complete series, etc.) restricted to characters with specific ranks in said skills. Specifically, I'd like to see them used in a manner of "One alternate skill use per 5 full ranks in said skill," documented in the same fashion as access to regional feats gained with Knowledge (Local - xxx). As not all GMs are familiar with every single one of these alternate uses, it should ensure that after the time out spent reading the book, the character attempting the skill use actually has some significant chance of succeeding on the roll. 4) DM's Challenge Rules I would like to see the DM's Challenge rules folded into the LGCS itself. 5) XP Penalties I would like to see XP penalties either removed altogether (including in the DM's Challenge Campaign) or handled in a similar fashion as the DM's Challenge (maximum of 50% xp loss, regardless of actual number of levels). 6) Clarification of Evil Acts I would like to see an absolute ruling on the Evil descriptor and whether or not it constitutes an evil act. It's been the 3 ton pink elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about for a number of years now, and it really needs to be addressed. While it's true that table variation will exist for what is considered an evil act (it's an inherent problem with a shared-world campaign), this particular facet of the issue is the most likely to occur and the easiest to solve. 7) Crafting of Mundane/ Masterwork Items Another 3 ton pink elephant. I don't think it would take much to format a system similar to the Magic Item Creation rules. Plus, with just a little bit of tweaking, the same log sheet could be used for either. Just some things I would like to see.
LCJJohnson 12-25-06, 09:28 AM	Well, since you are asking for it.... Chapter 3 Make Knowledge (local-home metaregion) a class skill for the character classes. -->Rationale: Since the subdivision of this is already a house rule not accounted for in the number of skill points/level allotted to the classes, at least take some of the sting out of it. Chapter 5 The NPC Only lists should be much shorter, containing only those items that are inaccessible to PCs anyhow, such as due to alignment or racial prerequisites. All other items should be moved to one of the other three categories. -->Rationale: If it is broken/abuse, restrict it already. If it isn't broken, play nice and share. For the Warmage Advanced Learning ability consider adding Limited wizard evocation spells from the Spell Compendium to the available choices. -->Rationale: Have you looked at the current choices? If not, please do. Please mark Prestige Classes that have special requirements or guidelines with an asterisk. -->Rationale: Let people know at a glance that they need to look for the additional guidelines. Chapter 6 Allow cohorts in adaptable adventures so long as all the rules for cohort inclusion are followed. -->Rationale: Is there some reason they should be barred from adaptables? Allow cohorts a 25 point build or subtract 1 from their level for purposes of calculating APL. -->Rationale: An Xth level cohort is inferior to a Xth level character. They are currently treated identically for table APL calculation even though, all other characters being equal, the table with the cohort is inherently weaker than the one with the PC. The Restricted Spells entry has nerfed the meaning of Restricted. Please un-nerf it. I suggest amending it to read "Spells that are listed as restricted in the Living Greyhawk campaign are never accessible to PCs or NPCs. However, their effects may be present in adventures (such as awakened animals or magic items created with permanency). All such effects must derive from spells cast prior to the start of the Living campaign in CY 591." Alternatively you could eliminate the Restricted Spell category entirely and move all the spells from it to the NPC Only Spells category. As it stands the distinction between the two is trivial at best and better suited to the writers' guidelines than the LGCS. Chapter 7 Is there some reason we use Random Generation tables? "Items over 2,500 gp that the caster cannot purchase may be crafted if the casters level exceeds the minimum item creation level by 2 and all other prerequisites are satisfied." -->The vast majority of items do not have a "minimum item creation level" for the caster/creator (exceptions include Amulets of Mighty Fists and Natural Armor, and Bracers of Armor, Golem Manuals, Ioun Stones and several others.) What caster/creator level is required when there is no minimum? "After the next adventure, Mialee decides to spend more time crafting items. After careful consideration, she decides to create a pair of gloves of swimming and climbing. She meets the minimum requirements (she is 5th level, has access to the item, and knows the spells cat's grace and bull's strength)." -->This item does not have a creator level requirement. Please amend. Table 7-4 needs to be fixed. Chapter 9 Magic Item Creation "Q: Is the Caster Level of an item a prerequisite for making it?" -->No, according to the DMG 215 + errata definitions of caster level and prerequisites. Please ponder this quote "The prerequisites for creation of an item are given immediately following the item's caster level." Item caster level and creator caster level are not the same thing. This is reinforced by the items listed above that do have a creator caster level as part of their prerequisites and consistent with DMG 282-8. However, if you want to add such a requirement in the Campaign Errata that is a whole different ballpark. "Q: What about the [I]pearls of power? ..." -->The prerequisites for pearls of power are: Craft Wondrous item, creator must be able to cast spells of the spell level to be recalled Okay, I've been up all night reading and cross-referencing. If I think of anything else I'll put it in a later post. LCJJ
JamesMaissen 12-25-06, 10:47 PM	Suggestion: remove the house rule that creates multiple knowledge local skills. Rationale: It's not core rules and serves no purpose. One may argue regionality for most knowledge skills with just as much validity as knowledge local. Don't get hung up on the name. Embrace 3.5 and accept knowledge local as a single skill. -James
DerekSTheRed 12-25-06, 10:57 PM	The monk's belt is referenced in the latest D&D FAQ that contradicts the LGCS instant FAQ. I suggest that LG use the D&D interpretation and remove the contradiction. Crafting mundane items would be nice, but if that's added please don't use the D&D rules since they don't make any sense. For instance if you craft a silver ball and a gold ball that are exactly the same size, it would take 10 times as long to craft the gold ball as it does to craft the silver ball simply because of their cost. They do not take complexity into account when determining the amount of time it takes to craft. Derek
KPollnow 12-26-06, 12:52 AM	My main request for the new LGCS is to have the spells and feats listed by source, and then alphabetically, rather than a single giant alphabetical list each for spells and feats. I think this would improve the ease of use greatly, and not add to the overall word or line count very much. I also think that adding an index, as several have requested, is unneccessary. The pdf is searchable, which should generally remove the need for an index, especially since there is already a table of contents. Spending time creating an index I feel would take away valuable time and energy that could be spent improving the document in other ways.
Duncan Haldane 12-26-06, 04:23 AM	Hi Britt, Thanks for starting this thread. My biggest gripe about LG and the LGSC is actually about the Dispel Confusions and FAQ applying the moment they are added to the Website. Could we PLEASE have a date each month where they are applied. IE, if they are applied on the first of the month after they are listed, then I only need to look up the changes before the first game each month. At the moment, I could check the rules, travel a few hours to get to a convention, and then discover that during my travel time new rules were released, changing my spell lists, etc. The other situation that occurs (and I know it has happened) is the rules changing between the first and second sessions of a two-rounder. But if the LGCS specified a date of application of these rule changes, it would be easier to know if you are up to date. It would also be nice to have a little time to discuss and consider the ramification of rules changes, and to avoid situations like the polymorph rules last year which were updated three times in three days. Thanks.
DerekSTheRed 12-26-06, 10:40 AM	I personally hate the mob template. However, I'm seeing it more and more at apl's 6 and 8. In my experience most judges don't know how to run them and most players don't know how to fight them. It would be really helpful if there was some instant FAQ related entries about mobs to help reduce table variation. Derek
Britt 12-26-06, 12:07 PM	If I had all the data in a database of some kind, it would be simple to create two different lists, one alpha and one by source (or more). However, with the system as it is currently, it is unfeasible to have multiple access lists. Each time something changed, we would have to change it in two places, which increases the likelihood of mistake. Players are free to create unofficial lists by source, though. I'm sure there are plenty of resourceful players out there willing to take this on in an afternoon. The Dispel Confusions will be happening on a more regular basis in 2007. I will clarify this in the LGCS. We are looking at various rules inconsistencies as we update the LGCS.
kegdrainer 12-26-06, 01:07 PM	1.) I feel that there should be a limit on the xp penality. I motion for a XP penality cap of 20%. Characters that are already have a XP penality greater than 20% due to classes need to be corrected (fix the problem at the next level gained to bring it to 20% or rebuild the character). On the odd chance there is/was a mod that gave a permanent xp penality, it does not get factored into the 20%. 2.) Base character classes should be made available at character creation, not unlocked due to a mod. If the class is not open to players when they create their character, it should be NPC only or restricted. (I can see mods opening access to prestige classes, not base classes) 3.) End the 3rd level requirement for non-core book access. At the very least, if it is available for fighters to take as a bonus feat, they should be able to get it. (If the players have the books, they should be able to use them.) 4.) Improved Natural Attack/Multiattack for Centaurs.
wagnert 12-26-06, 04:22 PM	With the prospect of a new LGCS in the near future, I have some changes I would like made to it. There are some Core Spell Compendium spells that I believe should be NPC Only. They are: Cursed Blade - this spell is only on the Assassin list as a level 4 spell, and LG PCs cannot take the Assassin class, which is an NPC only class. Infernal Threnody - this is an [evil, sonic] bard spell that boosts by 2 the effective caster level of each evil-aligned spellcaster within range. It gives a -4 profane penalty on Charisma checks to turn undead for good-aligned divine spellcasters. Based on the effects noted above, I believe this should be an NPC only spell also, since no neutral or good aligned bard would ever want to cast this spell to effect his party or an opposing evil party. Being an evil descriptor isn't a problem, but the fact it only helps evil spellcasters, which obviously cannot be a PC is my problem with this spell.
szwanger 12-27-06, 10:41 AM	Under "Out of Game Benefit Rules" (pages 45-46), many entries say "any action point option is invalid". Please clarify that this means "any option requiring an action point cannot be used in the campaign". As a judge, I once had a player at a time who argued that it meant he could use the option without needing to use an action point. (He was trying to use "Missed Me" and didn't have the Mobility feat.)
jhorred 12-27-06, 01:49 PM	What about the 2 different versions of the Bane of my Enemies card? Are both of them going to valid?
KPollnow 12-27-06, 09:00 PM	Perhaps I wasn't clear in my meaning. I wasn't looking for the LGCS to have them listed twice or more in different formats, I just thought the single existing lists could be switched to a more easy to use format. You are right that this could be solved by players, but those kind of writings often suffer from being difficult for people to 1)find easily 2) not needlessly duplicate something already out there 3) difficult to tell if it is up to date if not actually part of the LGCS. If I had all the data in a database of some kind, it would be simple to create two different lists, one alpha and one by source (or more). However, with the system as it is currently, it is unfeasible to have multiple access lists. Each time something changed, we would have to change it in two places, which increases the likelihood of mistake. Players are free to create unofficial lists by source, though. I'm sure there are plenty of resourceful players out there willing to take this on in an afternoon. The Dispel Confusions will be happening on a more regular basis in 2007. I will clarify this in the LGCS. We are looking at various rules inconsistencies as we update the LGCS.
Britt 12-27-06, 10:58 PM	Perhaps I wasn't clear in my meaning. I wasn't looking for the LGCS to have them listed twice or more in different formats, I just thought the single existing lists could be switched to a more easy to use format. You are right that this could be solved by players, but those kind of writings often suffer from being difficult for people to 1)find easily 2) not needlessly duplicate something already out there 3) difficult to tell if it is up to date if not actually part of the LGCS. I see what you mean. I'll look into it.
Mattastrophic 12-27-06, 11:04 PM	A small one: Restrict Last Breath, aka the Druid version of the already-restricted Revivify. Not only is it the equivalent of a Restricted spell, it's severely easy to cheese. Just kill yourself and get a friend to Last Breath you over and over until you get the form you want. -Matt
Sutro 12-28-06, 02:46 AM	There's a couple of things in LG that grind my gears, but the biggest one to come to the top of my head is the rule that for interactives, players are always rounded down to the lower APL if they're at an odd-numbered level, regardless of the APL of the table they played at. With interactives already half gold/half xp, I was incensed earlier this year when I realized that my level 3 cleric paid double TUs for an out-of-region interactive, at a APL 4 table, went through 200gp in wand charges and a lesser res scroll, and LOST money playing the adventure. I don't understand why interactives need to be treated differently than regular adventures for APL purposes. Maybe if someone could explain the rationale to me, it'd be better, but I think the whole APL rounding thing not only makes things more complicated but puts the screws to players who are OK with a little more risk or are trying to fill a class hole in an interactive party at a higher APL. Another thing that bites at me is the rules for sundering and character death and their consequent effects on a player's gold/level ratio, ESPECIALLY with carytid columns. My main character (eight) is approximately 20k gold off of the DMG wealth/level ratio because of having to eat two raise deads out of equipment (11k) and having three magic weapons destroyed, two to carytid columns. (I especially despise the fact that carytid columns break adamantine weapons equally well as normal ones.) If we're going to be sticklers to the xp and gold rewards scaling to the DMG table, then there need to be allowances for these things. My recommendation would be that sundered weapons/items cost half the original cost to replace (thus a +2 longsword would cost 4k) and that equipment can be sold at retail value for purposes of obtaining a raise dead, but NOT a resurrection or true res.
Sutro 12-28-06, 03:10 AM	Couple of other things while I'm on a roll. Remove feign surprise as a legal card. (Coming from someone who uses it extensively :D.) Allowing, effectively, a character which is not specced out to do so (high ranks in spot/listen) to gain another action, especially one with the enemy flat-footed, is very much out of sync with the power levels of the other cards and very often breaks an encounter completely in the player's favor from the get-go. There's some real good stuff in the PHB2's alternate class features. I'm always hesitant to advocate for expanded options for PCs (variety=power,) but some - not all, though - are simply awesome for bringing previously underpowered/underutilized classes into line with other ones. In particular, I think the Hexblade's option for the Dark Companion is much more fitting than the ability to summon a familiar and much more appropriate and helpful to the class. I wouldn't give carte blance approval to all the alternate class features, but I think some of them - such as Dark Companion - are balanced and should be made widely available. Personally, I would remove the whole race, but reasonably, I would restore the -2 charisma penalty to the wood elf, even if it's not a core adjustment. Its stat adjustments simply blow away all the other races for light infantry-type builds and, while -2 cha is not going to stop that, it may at least stem the horde of wood elves invading Greyhawk. If anything's looked at for mundane crafting, I think some rules for crafting traps would be absolutely awesome and could give rogues a needed expanded role in LG. Obviously most of the DMG traps are not suitable for LG play, requiring far too long to install to be of use, but some are OK and there are some good sources, such as the Core Coliseum, for a starting point for implementation. I feel the same way about poisonmaking. Sneaky types, due to LG's structure with "box surprise" and canned encounter, kind of get the shaft, and I think this would be a good way to introduce some exciting rules and help them on the power scale. Also, a formal mention in the LGCS about what "masterwork tools" are acceptable and which are not would be neat.
Cynric 12-28-06, 04:34 AM	Hey Britt, Personally I would like to see one particular bit of the crafting rules get a tweak. Guantlets of Ogre Power should be able to be upgraded to a Belt of Giant strength. That way fighters can work on getting the upgrade access (+2 item to +4 item) for what is primarily there base stat like other classes can. Another way to handle it would be something a freind has suggested being that access to plus 4 stat boosters become core at level 8-10. Steven
Britt 12-28-06, 10:35 AM	Interactives have special rules because many times they play much differently. Sometimes you have non-combat interactives where there is no challenge; other times you have large, mixed tables where it would be too difficult to calculate APL. While there are normal interactives as well, the frequent abnormal ones indicate a need for some special rules. You can already repair magic items per the LGCS at 1/2 cost. I will investigate some ideas for keeping character wealth in line with level. We will be looking at everything in the P2 for the LGCS. Personally, the only alternate class I have serious issues with is the Wizard one. Wood elves will not be changing. I doubt we will be adding rules for mundane crafting. Since the masterwork tools conceivably cover every skill and there could be multiple ways to use tools on each school, it is infeasible to cover them officially. This will likely remain a table judge decision on what is allowed. Judges have brains, let them use them :p
Mattastrophic 12-28-06, 12:37 PM	After reading the Raging Spell thread... Restrict Divine Metamagic. If Raging Spell is proving to be too broken at one/mod then the same effect at 1-2 times/day is definitely too broken. -Matt
torrquan 12-28-06, 05:04 PM	Things I would like to see in the new LCGS. Most of PHB2 being made core. I think a lot of the stuff in that book is interesting and would not throw the campaign for a loop. I would like to see Healer make it as a base class. I think it is interesting to play and I dont think that the class is over powered at all.
codyknotts 12-29-06, 12:28 AM	Suggestions: 1. Clarify the role of animals since Wizards seems to be unclear on this. Limit the number of non-companion animals to avoid table problems (I have a character that insists on bringing four dogs all the time and other have considered it) (reason is to have scent in every corner of the table when outside to avoid ambush) 2. Ban Suggestion since Wizards seems unwilling to clarify spell. By their own words it causes more arguements than any other spell. The reason is that properly used by a DM it can be MORE powerful than the higher level Dominate Person or a Geas. 3. Though this is not a LCGS issue (Please clarify Mounted Combat and Charging rather than the multiple interpertations of it) 4. General suggestion: Please find a way to restore balance between Fighter types and others. Our general group seems to see the fighter types dominate and the rest of the team do nothing much that matters. Since most people are playing at lower and mid level the spell casters/Rogues and light fighters are overwhelmed 5. Make the regional language of the area a given for characters. For example it seems silly that residents of Keoland cannot speak Keoish. Since Common is too much a part of the game (curse you Tolkien) we need to have something that makes more sense. Players at our tables always complain that it is silly they don't know their local language and have to spend skill points to do so. 6. CR levels make no sense for NPC encounters. Dragons that are CR 4 are MUCH more powerful than a single 4th Level Rogue or Wizard or even a fighter. That is the main reason that tougher adventures seem to focus on Monsters rather than human or humaniod opponents. BTW the game is great and we love playing it. We think that all the effort is well worth it. This has made the game fun again.
catsclaw 12-29-06, 02:09 PM	Suggestion: remove the house rule that creates multiple knowledge local skills. Rationale: It's not core rules and serves no purpose. One may argue regionality for most knowledge skills with just as much validity as knowledge local. Don't get hung up on the name. Embrace 3.5 and accept knowledge local as a single skill. Alternatively, you could allow characters to substitute their highest Knowledge (Local: regional) for Knowledge (Local: Core). Preserves the distinction between the regions (which is what I assume it's there for) without requiring rogues to blow twice as many skillpoints getting both.
Nutation 12-29-06, 06:05 PM	People continue to post or ask if X is allowed in Living Greyhawk because they can't find it in the LGCS. It may be that by the time the next version comes out, enough of us have gotten used to the idea that "the default case is Limited". Or, it may be that the statement on (flip, flip) page 25 of the current LGCS should be placed more prominently.
Sutro 12-29-06, 06:41 PM	One other thing. There may be further one other things, I'm not sure. :p Unrecoverable death is rough. In the LG system, typically you've got characters that people have invested 200+ hours and tons of gas/lodging/meals/convention registration fees into. And this investment can be completely wiped out - as RPGA rules stand - by a single DM who happens to be the senior DM at the event. Traveling to out-of-region (and out of area) conventions with my top-end characters scares me sometimes because I know I'm going onto someone else's home territory. I've seen it done a couple of times; an out-of-region guy has a situation where he is facing unrecoverable, and he's left up to a DM and one of the DM's regular playing buddies and friends to make the call. Even if the guy has a decent case, the nature of a regional system with regional conventions means that there's very often social ties between the DM and the senior DM that creates an irreversible bias in favor of the DM's ruling. If the DM happens to be the senior DM, (no, I haven't seen this) but he could conceivably open up the play session by saying "You're all permanently dead, please give me your ARs to void," and there's no recourse. Later, obviously, he would have his DM rights stripped by the campaign after player complaints, but the characters are still permanently dead because the immutable rule is "resolved at the table." I grant that this is an outlandish scenario, but it is a possible one, and there are a few scenarios I have personally seen and many more I have heard/read about that are less extreme. So here's my thought. Permanent character death should still be a component of LG. People die, and it sucks. But characters also are not islands. There are people out there - indeed, the "friends" in "charity of friends," that adventurers know and are acquainted with and have the power to retrieve a player's body. Beyond that, there is the opportunity to profit from a player's gratitude. One form of what I propose here would be a global meta-org, and I'll continue on using that example. Wayfarers Insurance, LLC specializes in providing insurance to adventurers and their goods in case of disaster. Wayfarer Guides (from Complete Arcane) and other contract employees are liasoned by WI to provide recovery services for adventurers who take out a policy with WI. For a 10,000 gp initial fee and a 5,000 gp annual renewal (increasing by 1,000 gp for every level beyond 10th), WI will scry a token on the adventurer every two weeks to check up on his/her safety. Should the adventurer be dead, WI will send a Wayfarer Guide and whatever additional personnel are required to teleport the adventurer's body. The cost of the raise dead/resurrection, however, is not included in this fee, and indeed is entirely up to the region's availability rules. This process takes 2 TUs away from the slain adventurer (the gap in time between the scry and the recovery.) Note that if the token is lost, stolen or destroyed, this voids the policy. Thus, a party member that falls into lava, or is disintegrated, or consumed by a barghest, is still permanently dead. But, for example, if an adventurer is killed out in the remote woods, he could be recovered, and even if he's underwater or in an avalanche, as relatively minor magics (like dig, or water breathing) can circumvent these problems. -Sutro
rockondon 12-29-06, 06:57 PM	if you could make the sap a simple weapon instead of martial that'd be nice. :)
LGMoses 12-29-06, 08:53 PM	One other thing. There may be further one other things, I'm not sure. :p Unrecoverable death is rough. In the LG system, typically you've got characters that people have invested 200+ hours and tons of gas/lodging/meals/convention registration fees into. And this investment can be completely wiped out - as RPGA rules stand - by a single DM who happens to be the senior DM at the event. Traveling to out-of-region (and out of area) conventions with my top-end characters scares me sometimes because I know I'm going onto someone else's home territory. I've seen it done a couple of times; an out-of-region guy has a situation where he is facing unrecoverable, and he's left up to a DM and one of the DM's regular playing buddies and friends to make the call. Even if the guy has a decent case, the nature of a regional system with regional conventions means that there's very often social ties between the DM and the senior DM that creates an irreversible bias in favor of the DM's ruling. If the DM happens to be the senior DM, (no, I haven't seen this) but he could conceivably open up the play session by saying "You're all permanently dead, please give me your ARs to void," and there's no recourse. Later, obviously, he would have his DM rights stripped by the campaign after player complaints, but the characters are still permanently dead because the immutable rule is "resolved at the table." I grant that this is an outlandish scenario, but it is a possible one, and there are a few scenarios I have personally seen and many more I have heard/read about that are less extreme. So here's my thought. Permanent character death should still be a component of LG. People die, and it sucks. But characters also are not islands. There are people out there - indeed, the "friends" in "charity of friends," that adventurers know and are acquainted with and have the power to retrieve a player's body. Beyond that, there is the opportunity to profit from a player's gratitude. One form of what I propose here would be a global meta-org, and I'll continue on using that example. Wayfarers Insurance, LLC specializes in providing insurance to adventurers and their goods in case of disaster. Wayfarer Guides (from Complete Arcane) and other contract employees are liasoned by WI to provide recovery services for adventurers who take out a policy with WI. For a 10,000 gp initial fee and a 5,000 gp annual renewal (increasing by 1,000 gp for every level beyond 10th), WI will scry a token on the adventurer every two weeks to check up on his/her safety. Should the adventurer be dead, WI will send a Wayfarer Guide and whatever additional personnel are required to teleport the adventurer's body. The cost of the raise dead/resurrection, however, is not included in this fee, and indeed is entirely up to the region's availability rules. This process takes 2 TUs away from the slain adventurer (the gap in time between the scry and the recovery.) Note that if the token is lost, stolen or destroyed, this voids the policy. Thus, a party member that falls into lava, or is disintegrated, or consumed by a barghest, is still permanently dead. But, for example, if an adventurer is killed out in the remote woods, he could be recovered, and even if he's underwater or in an avalanche, as relatively minor magics (like dig, or water breathing) can circumvent these problems. -Sutro That sounds a little too Eberrony to me. I like my Greyhawk the way it is, medieval fantasy. I'm against any works that turn magic into a business or corporation type mechanic. If you want that stuff go play shadowrun, or Eberron, or something. Consequences for actions are what make the game fun. Items get lost, characters die, and animal companions get the mange. You learn and you move on.
Britt 12-29-06, 10:41 PM	No Discussion In This Thread! Read The Rules!
bhale187 12-30-06, 07:14 PM	How about adding Libris Mortis to the list of useable, but requiring campaign documentation. Also add DMG II and PHB II to the list of core rule books. I think all 3 have alot to offer, and the book of undead would be great so long as kept in moderation.
Lord Yod 12-30-06, 10:32 PM	As an alternative to Sutro's suggestion above, would it instead be possible to make special missions available to recover fallen comrades? My main PC has 2 comrades that have been in the party for all but one of his adventures. He would gladly go to the Abyss and back for 'em. In a world where raise dead is available, wouldn't it be appropriate for him to be able to go back to recover the corpses of his fallen comrades, on the off chance that they would then be brought back to life? It could be further limited by saying that the 'rescue team' must be comprised of PC's not played by the same players as the dead PC's. And since we only get one special mission per year, it's not like anybody would be doing this often. There could be additional level and/or time constraints added in.
haferka 12-30-06, 11:29 PM	Simplify the APL estimate. - Always divide by 6 (the max # of possible participants) - Change the Mod writers guidlines to create encounters for parties of 6 (not the current 5) Create a list of "Circumstance modifiers" to APL, to serve as a guideline for Mod creators. Simply request examples of "poorly estimated APL" and use those as a basis for creating APL adjustments.
haferka 12-30-06, 11:39 PM	I would like to see ALL regions forced to share examples of ALL ARs so they can police each other. I hear way to many tales of distant regions giving out crazy access with relativly no risk. Retired & Special mission & Interactive mod ARs should be public, and all others should be restricted to Triad members. (I trust the triads to NOT use this "insider" info for the advancement of their own characters) I would also like to see the mods shared, in the same fashion.
Reylance 12-31-06, 03:45 AM	Please list all languages that exist in the Living Greyhawk campaign, that are not listed in the PHB. In particular, the human languages need to be clarified. Are there separate languages for Suloise and Ancient Suloise, for example? I think the other languages would include Baklunish Suloise Flan Oeridian Velondi Keogh Touv Olman ----- Undercommon Illumian
frupton 12-31-06, 04:44 AM	1) As noted here, (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=758149)a literal reading of the "Craft Magic Arms and Armor" (CMA&A) feat in the current LGCS does not provide any way to craft a +2 (or higher) armor or weapons. These are found on DMG tables 7-2 and 7-9, neither of which is listed as allowed for crafting from this feat, even if one has purchase access. This appears to be an error/oversight. I suggest that +2 through +5 weapons be made craftable, by adding the +2 through +5 enhancements from DMG tables 7-2 and 7-9 to the list of items one can craft with CMA&A if one has purchase access. 2) Almost all Craft feats (Wondrous Item, Rod, Staff, Ring) allow crafting of items from their allowed DMG tables even if one does not have specific access, as long as one exceeds the CL requirements by 2 levels. However, this is not the case for CMA&A. I can respect the view that it is potentially unbalancing to allow crafting certain weapon types, and therefore to disallow crafting some of these without specific access. (Weapon of Speed -- CL = 7, armor of greater energy resistance -- CL = 11,) Though the unbalancedness of these is perhaps offset by the expensive costs. And you could argue that a Weapon of Speed is no more unbalanced than Boots of Speed, etc. Regardless, I suggest that craft access to the enhancement bonuses should be allowed on a similar basis to other feats, i.e. allow crafting +2 items at CL8, +3 at CL 11, etc. If this access isn't intended to exist, it should perhaps be made clearer in the LGCS that this is forbidden. Some people assume it currently exists. (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=10951673&postcount=3) Under RAW, it is possible that one never receives access to anything that one can craft, and the feat will be entirely useless all the way through 15th level -- a liability not inherent in any of the other craft feats.
honeynuggets 12-31-06, 03:37 PM	I would like a reason if my suggestion is not implemented and not just "We are dead set against it." Really? Why? Anyway, here is my suggestion: Insert a section in the LGCS that addresses the issue of non-Lawful Good alignment play with robust examples. "Like what?" you ask...here ya go... ALIGNMENT The Living Greyhawk campaign realizes that there is more than one way to do good. While a Lawful character would balk at the idea of stealing from nefarious NPCs in order to uplift the needy and downtrodden, a chaotic character's morals allow them to do just that. Every alignment has it's strengths and weaknesses however. Lawful characters benefit from their society's infrastructure at the expense of their own personal freedoms. Chaotic characters are free to do good without consideration to bureaucratic red-tape but their society at the very least frowns upon their vigilante justice. As long as chaotic good characters accomplish more good than evil a society will tolerate them in the shadows, but if characters are noticed while breaking the Law, the officials won't be able to look the other way. Illegal actions that are not intended to SELFLESSLY (no direct personal gain) vanquish evil are prohibited in the Living Greyhawk campaign. In terms of gameplay, use the following rules: 1. Urban setting: A character violating Laws while in an urban setting must roll a successful Hide check for each illegal action to avoid being noticed, identified, and subsequently arrested. The DC of the check is based on the APL of the adventure, APL2 = DC18, APL4 = DC20, APL6 = DC22, APL8 = DC24, APL10 = DC26, etc. The purpose of these checks and DCs is not to dissuade players from being chaotic, but rather to give the DM a standardized and simple way of handling chaotic actions. 2. Suburban setting: A character violating Laws while in a suburban setting(hamlet, small village) must roll a successful Hide check for each illegal action to avoid being noticed, identified, and subsequently arrested. The DC of the check is based on the APL of the adventure, APL2 = DC15, APL4 = DC17, APL6 = DC19, APL8 = DC21, APL10 = DC23, etc. 3. Rural setting: A character violating Laws while in a rural setting(forest wilds, plains, etc.) must roll a successful Hide check for each illegal action to avoid being noticed, identified, and subsequently arrested. The DC of the check is based on the APL of the adventure, APL2 = DC10, APL4 = DC12, APL6 = DC14, APL8 = DC16, APL10 = DC18, etc. (Now do you see why Rangers like to stay out of cities?)
Hariman 01-01-07, 08:11 AM	Could you add a footnote regarding size changes caused by the "reincarnate" spell? I had a human character die and become an elf. (I cheered this event.) Later, said character died again, but became a halfling. I ended up spending at least an hour calculating the sale value of all of her medium items and the cost of re-buying all of those items. I'd like to see an addendum to the deaths section that states that this sort of equipment resizing isn't necessary, as all medium items could be traded for small items. And vise versa. Another issue: Will there ever be an equivalent to Pearls of Power for spontaneous casters? Even with a sorcerer, I've often wished that I could recall a spell or two in the middle of a mod. Third: Is Complete Scoundrel being reviewed for the LGCS597? I'd hate to have to wait a year before I could use the book in LG.
Britt 01-01-07, 11:57 AM	1) I'll bring up reincarnate/item resizing type stuff 2) Dragon Magic has memento magicka, which are pearls for spontaneous casters. They cost 50% more though :/ Not really an LGCS issue though. 3) If we get ahold of it before the draft is done, we will review it.
Mommy was an Orc 01-01-07, 12:31 PM	2) Dragon Magic has memento magicka, which are pearls for spontaneous casters. They cost 50% more though :/ Not really an LGCS issue though. Could Memento Magicka could be a core access item for purposes of crafting as Pearls of Power are for non-spontaneous casters? i.e. the Momento 1 has auto-access and the Momento 2-7 follow the rules for Pearl of Power in terms of caster level needed for creation - instead of 17th as they are now.
malenthor 01-01-07, 06:53 PM	Were I in charge of the LGCS, these would be the changes that I would implement for CY597: #1 Chapter Two: LG Primer Under the heading of Metacampaign, I'd create a standardization of adventure codes for the various extra adventures. For instance the XXXI7-0Y could be used for various regional (XXX) introductory mods. XXXSM7-0Y could be used for the various special missions produced by region XXX in CY597 and so forth. XXXS7-0Y could be used for the interactives and mini-mods produced by Region XXX. **Reason for doing this: less confusion when looking at mod offerings at cons and on regional sites. #2 Chapter 6: Beyond the Core Rules Clarify under Animals and the APL that at some point animals likely are not a boon for the adventure. **Reason for doing this: Beyond apl 6, purchased PHB animals are not likely to add much, if anything, to the combat effectiveness of a party. The GM should at that point consider not adding anything to the apl for such animals. #3 same chapter: Clarify what "trained for war" means in the PHB. I propose that riding dogs, warhorses and warponies are all considered "trained for war" and thus can wear barding without penalty. Clarify that animals can not be trained "for a purpose" in Living Greyhawk unless they receive campaign documentation allowing them to purchase animals trained as such, or documentation allowing them to access a trainer for an animal already purchased. **Reason: recent communication from WotC clarifies that they believe this to be the purview of the DM of the campaign. Since the Circle fills that role, they should specify what they mean by "trained for war". #4 same chapter Under Leadership feat, make the following changes: (bear in mind that my views are largely based upon following core rules as compared to the drastic changes that previous LGCS versions have made). #4a - Cohort inclusion in the adventure: - cohorts can come along on all adventures, regardless of the number of players or characters at the table already. **Reason: core rules allow for this. Furthermore, other recommendations below will address any incidental problems this creates. #4b - followers can be utilized in all adventures, but should not be roleplayed or take any aggressive actions in combat nor should they be of any use beyond their regular roles. All followers need to have a full statblock created by the player of the Leader PC. **Reason: followers could logically be utilized for such activities as crewing a ship. If the PC were to use their own ship in an adventure, with their followers for crew, the ship would not suddenly disappear, or the crew be suddenly unable to perform their duties should combat ensue. **Reason II: The followers shouldn't be roleplayed since their duties should take place "off screen" for the most part. Roleplaying 50+ followers would also consume too much game time. #4c Step 5 Designing your Cohort - Step 5 Equipment Clarify that the list of available items at creation includes the following: - Adventure Access items from the Leader's last 3 AR's - All Regional access items from the Leader's home region gained via AR's - All items from the meta-orgs that the cohort belongs to as of their creation - All "Core" access items from the Leader's mods if the cohort was first used in a Core mod. - All "Metaregional" access items that the Leader has access to if the leader can access those items on this AR. **Reason: clarification will reduce confusion. The current version is ambiguous and in some respects illogical if the above Regional and Meta-Org access is denied. #4d - Cohort advancement Change the "half-share of treasure and experience" to read: Cohorts gain experience and treasure as in the DMG and also listed in the SRD under the Leadership feat. **Reason: core rules are better than ad hoc rules from another source. Furthermore, all GM's are required to bring a copy of the DMG to the table. Finally, the calculation is not that complex that would preclude it being used. If the calculation is a hinderance, all players with cohorts could be required to bring a calculator to the table to utilize their cohort. #4e - same section - Cohort advancement Change "A cohort can not take or use any magic item creation feats" to "A cohort can take magic item creation feats, but not use them to create items due to past abuse of this system". Similarly to other D&D campaigns, cohorts, not PC's, with an MIC feat can purchase AR access items that they could make themselves at 75% of cost as the benefit to their feat. Eliminate "A cohort can not have more than 10% of its total wealth wrapped up in consumable items at any one time" in favor of "Cohorts are not allowed to hand their consumables off to any other PC except to be used on the cohort themselves". **Reason: Since cohorts will gain gold and xp as given in the DMG, there is no longer a need for rules on purchasing items at level-up or the mandating of purchasing permanent items at level-up and not consumables. **Reason II: eliminating the mandate on consumables will be unnecessary since the current system encourages purchasing only consumables between level-ups and using them up every time they are played. #5 same chapter, under NPC Spellcasting Add "Atonement" to table 6-3. **Reason: this is a spell that is important, and could be required due to narrow interpretations of a GM where other GM's would not require it. #6 Chapter Eight - Running a Living Greyhawk Event Remove boilerplate (save that required by WotC) from front of mods and place it here only. **Reason - most people skip reading the boilerplate and only reference it when necessary to compute affects of bringing animals along or other factors. **Reason II - as the recent change in how xp/gp is calculated for characters 3 or more levels away from the apl showed, changing it in the boilerplate is a poor and inconsistent method of changing how the campaign is managed. #7 - same chapter, change boilerplate Instead of half rewards for being 3 or more levels away from the apl, the following changes should be made to how maximum apl is determined, and how players are rewarded for their play. First off, from the time of the publishing of the new LGCS onwards, a complete table of maximum rewards for apl 2-16 should be published in the LGCS, and all AR's from that time on, should indicate on the AR apl 2- apl X max rewards, where apl X is the highest apl supported by the adventure. Secondly, apl of play should be determined as follows: Average of all character levels (including cohorts) and apl bumps such as from purchased animals or special mounts. Round to the nearest whole number. Odd numbered apl's can choose to play up or down to the nearest even numbered apl. Since an RPGA event allows for only 4-6 players, this means that the maximum number of characters at a table would be 12 (if all 6 players were playing characters with cohorts). For six to seven characters, add one to that average. For eight to ten characters add 2 to that average. For 11-12 characters, add 3 to the average. This becomes your group apl. Thirdly, for parties of 7 or more characters, the apl of play given above is what will be played. For 6 or less characters, the party can choose to play any apl they wish up to the maximum of their group apl. This will allow them to focus on roleplaying to the detriment of rewards, if they so choose. Fourthly: Characters receive access for the apl's up to and including the apl of play unless instructed otherwise in the module or on the AR. If they choose to play down, they lose out on access in the mod. Fifthly: XP and GP rewards will be calculated as follows: Characters higher than the apl of play will gain the xp and gp earned in the mod as per normal. Characters lower than the apl of play with gain the minimum of: apl of play or apl based on character level +2 rounded down to the nearest even apl. For instance: a 10th level character playing at apl 4 will receive apl 4 gp/xp and rewards. A 5th level character playing at apl 10 will receive apl 10 access, but only apl 6 xp and gp The maximum level supported by the mod (max apl +3) can remain the same. Add that despite the omission in the RPGA core rules, a single player can not play 2 or more PC's in the same mod at the same time. **Reasons for these changes: -allows for core rules on cohorts. -makes table mustering easier by eliminating the 50% penalty -keeps PC's to xp/gp acquisition mapped out by the Circle which approximates the expected wealth levels of the DMG. -accomodates players less interested in combat and more interested in a relaxed role-playing experience -penalizes characters playing down through the lesser xp/gp ratio of lower apls. -reduces the incentive of low level characters to play obscenely high apl's for their level. -keeps some incentive for those who do risk "playing up" #8 - same chapter - What you can and can not do as a DM add: apply circumstance penalties of range -4 to +4 to skill checks, saving throws, attack rolls, etc. DM's should be encouraged to add bonuses for good tactics or roleplay, and give penalties for poor gamesmanship, argumentative style and for dominating play with a higher level PC or for usurping the main role of another party member. (As an aside, this addition/leniency might allow for the reintroduction of divine insight as a spell if the main reason was that certain party members felt useless with the cleric using it). **Reason for doing this: circumstance penalties are part of the core rules, but there is some confusion as to whether or not GM's in LG can apply these to games. Thanks for considering these suggestions. Most have been made several times before over my 6 years of playing LG. Most of my attention has been focussed on my two most disliked areas of LG - the handling of cohorts and the handling of rewards for players more than 2 levels away from the apl. Happy New Year,
Hariman 01-01-07, 10:11 PM	1) I'll bring up reincarnate/item resizing type stuff 2) Dragon Magic has memento magicka, which are pearls for spontaneous casters. They cost 50% more though :/ Not really an LGCS issue though. 3) If we get ahold of it before the draft is done, we will review it. Thank you. For #2, I meant "Would Memento Magicka ever be available in LG, core or otherwise?" I didn't know that memento magicka had been published in Dragon Magic. (I don't have that book. Yet.) I really don't mind the cost, though. One spells slot for a spontaneous caster is a choice between multiple spells.
Sutro 01-01-07, 11:11 PM	Coming from a region which did not release its full allotment of year 6 mods, I would very much appreciate this caveat in the LGCS: If your home (meaning, your real-life home) region doesn't release its allotment of eight mods in a single year, you may treat a number of core or out-of-region modules equal to the difference as regional modules for purposes of crafting, profession, meta-org upgrades or item access. This does NOT count for TU purposes or meta-org benefits. I have a couple of characters from my real-life home region and they've been pretty hamstrung by the lack of regional modules to play; I had to shelve one of my characters for several months for reasons related to this, and several items are going to have to wait until the first year 7 release (which won't be for four months, I don't think.) I'm not pointing fingers or blaming my Triad for anything, but it does cause a breakdown in the regional benefits system in the LGCS and makes players from regions that, for whatever reason, don't release a lot of mods second-class LG citizens. :p -Sutro
mowaca 01-01-07, 11:57 PM	Reincarnation loophole - the price for the scroll in the published DMG is incorrect. (700gp - missing the material cost). It has been corrected in later editions and in the SRD. Currently, since the scroll is any access, and the section on casting the spell doesn't specifically disallow using UMD, so players have been using UMD to reincarnate characters. I'd just like to see this specified in the LGCS.. A statement like - Scrolls of Reincarnation are not (or are) any access, cost 1700 (or 700) and cannot (or can) be cast by non-druids using UMD.
pedr 01-02-07, 05:32 AM	Can you clarify the position on TU costs for metaregional adventures? The current wording has clearly caused some confusion and is really quite unclear?
Dr.Cornelius 01-02-07, 08:35 AM	I can respect the view that it is potentially unbalancing to allow crafting certain weapon types... Isn't all crafting inherently unbalanced? On a practical level, Craft[magic] enables spellcasters to convert TUs into gold, at the expense of a feat. The XP cost is meant to balance the advantages of crafting in normal campaigns, by having the crafter behind a level at some times. But a slight XP loss is actually an advantage in LG, enabling a beloved character to stay in action longer before retirement. This strategy is so efficient that virtually all optimized spellcasters end up crafting. But what does crafting add to the game experience? The primary effect of Craft magic item is to increase the relative wealth of spellcasters versus non-casters. And the net effect is to further exaggerate the huge power advantage casters have at higher levels. It may be heresy, but I think that LG would be more interesting without PCs crafting magic items.
codyknotts 01-02-07, 09:27 AM	Leadership should be allowed as per the DMG with the keeping of the lower pont number for build. This allows the players that sacrifice a feat to use it AND keeps the cohorts weaker than players. Currently characters with leadership always feel as though it is a wasted feat and that is wrong for any ability. Instead it has encouraged the players to "cheez" their characters. Even in home games where we have had characters with leadership as a choice few players actually take it because of the hassle of running two guys. Less of a problem than the Triad seems to realize. As a DM I don't mind running tables with a cohort and since I for weeks ran two tables of 6 at the same time, I really don't mind more players or characters. More characters are less a problem than more players.
Reylance 01-02-07, 11:15 AM	I'd like to see a clarification as to exactly what use of TUs requires the spending of upkeep money (12/50/100 gp per TU). -Clearly requires spending money 1/2/4 TU for the adventure TU for extended play options -Clearly does not require spending money Perform/Tumble/Sleight of Hand/Craft/Profession skill checks to earn money -Up in the air Magic item creation TUs spent for metaorgs TUs lost due to imprisonment or enslavement Extra TUs due to the different flow of time in other planes TUs spent to, say, journey to a place to make use of a favor or to get a spell cast
haferka 01-02-07, 03:08 PM	I would like a clarification on Upkeep costs... specificly giving examples of Upkeep modifiers and "free upkeep" interactions. Currently, there are a ton of ways to get "free upkeep", then you come across something that doubles your upkeep cost.. duh... 2x0 = 0 I believe that "free" upkeep should be -100%, and double should be +100%. kinda the way multipliers work for crits... x2 + x2 = x3...
Seera 01-02-07, 07:23 PM	Well, I didn't see it here yet, so I'll go ahead and give my only big issue with regard to unbalancing the game: Divine Spell Power True, it's most appalling usage is in powering up the Holy Word/Blasphemy/etc chain, but the game did not actually intend for people to run around with +5 Magic Vestments and Greater Magic Armor at 14th lvl. This is a minor usage of the feat, that is true, but it is merely one symptom of the problem with Divine Spell Power. This single feat (more than anything else) has led to a "Cold War" between players and triads in at least one region where the general sentiment is "If you don't bring out DSP'ed Holy Words, we won't bring out DSP'ed Blaspemies . . . and we can get our caster level much higher than yours. . ." The last reason I have may be a core argument with any game. It takes the fun away from the game. A DM enjoys challenging a party and leading them through the story encompassed in the mod and most players enjoy a good challenge when they play. Not an overwhelming one, mind you, but a fight where they can proudly go swap war stories with other gamers about later. Thus, my reasons for the restriction of this feat are enumerated below: - Unbalancing of the APL system - Increased tensions between players and Living Greyhawk volunteers - Reduction of fun for other players/DMs who play the game. Charlie Smith
Golorious 01-02-07, 10:26 PM	Please, Considering restricting or limiting Divine Meta Magic. Divine Metamagic Heighten can be horribly abused, Divine Metamagic quicken is crazy and generally it can be broken. Not all of it is crazy but I think it requires at least some limitation if it continues in the campaign. My suggestion is that if it is not restricted then do not allow +4 level adjustment feats and be explicit in saying heighten can only be used to add one spell level. Restricting it may require special rules for re-build feat replacements. Since many builds are multiple feat trees to accomplish divine meta-magic. ------ Please change crafting rules for magica memento's to be like pearls of power, even if a Memento 1 doesn't become core. ------ Create a rules section that details what we do when an item gets restricted or a spell/feat does. How do we deal with an item (sell for full value?), replace a restricted feat or replace a restricted spell (i.e. for like a sorcerer, bard or favored soul). For example my favored soul now has an NPC only spell (divine insight) do I need to wait till an even level to swap out the restricted spell? Do I automatically get to do it? With more frequent Dispel Confusions this will come up again. ------ Add dispel confusion information to the LGCS faq or rules section as necessary. Finally thank you for taking the time to do what you are doing. Paul K.
budleiser 01-03-07, 08:28 AM	Reduce or eliminate the limited list. Things should either be Core or Banned.
haferka 01-03-07, 09:09 AM	Remove the NPC only list. If a pc is not allowed, the NPC should not be allowed. I would like to see, a core list, a restricted list. and thats it.. everything else is limited. I dislike the fact that cohorts and animal companions are allowed to take "NPC only" feats. Lets be more consistent.
Bogjob 01-03-07, 09:12 AM	Personally I would like to see a lot more of the RPGA cards allowed as they do give the players a boost when needed. I have 35 cards and can use 7 of them (5 of which are Bane of my Enemies). It wouldn't unbalance the game and any powerful cards could be downgraded. It would mean receiving those envelopes would actually be exciting as opposed to the let down when you cant use any of the 3 you just received.
Golorious 01-03-07, 12:25 PM	One thing that could use some clarification is Cohort Access. If the PC with leadership has access to xyz prestige class can they get a cohort with that prestige class? the same is true for magical items, feats, spells etc... There is even a debate sometimes if cohorts can have any prestige classes or limited spells. If that section could be a little more specific I think it would help. Such as "When creating a Cohort they have access to any class, spell, and feat that the PC has access to from previous ARs. The cohort must still meet the prerequisites as normal." Or something of the like.... My requests in the pass for a ruling on this from triad and circle have been basically "I don't know" because the LGCS doesn't really address this. Thanks
Golorious 01-03-07, 12:30 PM	Animal Companions and feats. There isn't much there other than animal companions can take some NPC only feats. But it doesn't directly say they have access to core feats. yet many animals have core feats in there descriptions in the Monster Manual (weapon finesse is a prime example). So we get table discrepancy on things like weapon focus bite, tunnel fighting or improved flight. All of which are core feats but no one is sure if they can be added to an animal companion or not. Thanks
crimsonsky 01-03-07, 12:53 PM	Get rid of the campaign cards altogether. The cards aren't designed for use with LG and it seems like the more recent sets are designed to use action points or end up so horribly broken in LG that they get banned later on anyways (a blanket statement I realize, but it reflects my feelings on the cards more than anything). I haven't gotten a single LG usable card in the last 3 mailings. If this trend continues it will give an advantage to people who had been playing RPGA games for years or those who have lots of money to spend for cards on eBay. This in turn could put off newer or casual players who don't have access to the same "goodies" that the greybeards have. Just leave the cards to their intended campaings.
Britt 01-03-07, 01:03 PM	We are discussing DMM, DSP, Healer, MIC rules, animals, upkeep, and other topics. I'm not saying anything is happening with any of this, but it is being discussed. Many issues are being clarified at the least. We cannot make everything either Core or Restricted, as there are faaaaaaar too many books to address everything and the job only becomes more difficult as more books come out. It's a feasibility nightmare. Campaign Cards are not going away.
LGMoses 01-03-07, 02:58 PM	We are discussing DMM, DSP, Healer, MIC rules, animals, upkeep, and other topics. I'm not saying anything is happening with any of this, but it is being discussed. Many issues are being clarified at the least. We cannot make everything either Core or Restricted, as there are faaaaaaar too many books to address everything and the job only becomes more difficult as more books come out. It's a feasibility nightmare. Campaign Cards are not going away. how do yaw discuss things? Do you live near each other? Is there like a super friends Circle Satellite orbitting earth somewhere?
LGMoses 01-03-07, 02:59 PM	Get rid of the campaign cards altogether. The cards aren't designed for use with LG and it seems like the more recent sets are designed to use action points or end up so horribly broken in LG that they get banned later on anyways (a blanket statement I realize, but it reflects my feelings on the cards more than anything). I haven't gotten a single LG usable card in the last 3 mailings. If this trend continues it will give an advantage to people who had been playing RPGA games for years or those who have lots of money to spend for cards on eBay. This in turn could put off newer or casual players who don't have access to the same "goodies" that the greybeards have. Just leave the cards to their intended campaings. I wonder how many retired people play LG. Man i want to retire....:weep:
Dr.Cornelius 01-03-07, 03:05 PM	What about fundamental changes to reduce the arbitrary nature of access? For example, how about linking access to level? Something like this ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- At levels 6, 9 and 12 a character may access one limited feat. No character may have access to more than 3 limited feats. At level 7 or above a character can access one limited Prestige Class. No character may access more than one limited PrC. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Another option would be to allow TUs to be converted to access on a limited basis. For example: Once per three levels a character may spend X TUs to access a limited feat. Once in her career a character may spend Y TUs to access a limited Prestige Class. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Removing the randomness from access solves a number of well known problems and leads to a more rewarding gaming experience.
haferka 01-03-07, 03:12 PM	How about allowing us to "trade" access between characters.. - I earned this awsome Limited spell access with my Fighter :( - I eaned access to this really cool exotic weapon with my wizard :( Spend X TUs on BOTH characters, and they "Trade" 1 line item of access.
PaulH 01-03-07, 06:21 PM	Hi I'd like a review of the Deity/Worshipper rules. I realise that different regions have differing views on specific religions, but there doesn't seem to be any support for Boccob. Maybe even allow some of the racial domains from Spell Compendium? Cheers Paul H (Cleric player)
honeynuggets 01-03-07, 06:56 PM	Reduce or eliminate the limited list. Things should either be Core or Banned. I second this! Make all regions the same as far as access.
Britt 01-03-07, 07:59 PM	I hate having to "yell"... NO DISCUSSION IN THIS THREAD. NO REMARKS ABOUT THINGS I POST. IF YOU WANT TO DISCUSS, START A NEW THREAD. IF YOU WANT TO SAY SOMETHING TO ME IN RESPONSE TO SOMETHING I POST, SEND ME A MESSAGE OR START A NEW THREAD. SERIOUSLY...
haferka 01-03-07, 08:44 PM	Allow Psionics for followers of Zuoken!!! There are At least 2 psionic dieties. LG cannon. Lets allow them. or at least allow them as NPC ONLY. (like a "test drive") Perhaps adding a mod that uses PH2 options to "Rebuild" into a psionic class, if psionics look feasable for the campaign... (that would keep them rare and limited)...
Dr.Cornelius 01-03-07, 09:39 PM	Is there a minimum age requirement for LG? If not, please consider setting 12 or 14 as the lower bound. Some of the material in the mods is not appropriate for pre-adolescents. Another option is to strongly encourage the young children to play at their own tables or with other father/son pairs.
Evanta 01-04-07, 12:22 AM	Make power attack limited to 5 pts of BAB convertable to dmg max as a LG rule (like polymorph and the like.) This will balance sword and board vs. 2-handed a little better. Also less pain for both monsters and PCs alike, so battles can be more epic instead of opponents trying to waste each other very quickly.
clannagh 01-04-07, 12:23 AM	1. Consider allowing upgrade of more items without crafting. Selling a +4 item to get a +6 item when others in your party can craft an upgrade on the same item is annoying. If necessary limit this to stat boost items with just one function (such as gloves of dex). 2. Consider a blanket ruling that all item access is available as normal or mastercrafted unless the cert specifically says "not master crafted". This will avoid silly situations like the one that engendered the bright sands dispel confusion. 3. Clarify the current situation concerning druids and metallic barding on animals. there seems no rules based reasoning to ban this as its a player fluff choice yet some GM's dock role play experience and/or refuse to allow it causing unnecessary table variation. 4. Sort out some sort of guidelines on the silly animals/barding/proficiency versus trained for war conundrum. 5. On the subject of druids/animals include a simple step by step guide to exactly what wildshaped druids and higher EDL animal companions DO get.
pedr 01-04-07, 04:26 AM	Allow parties to choose the APL they play at, rather than being dictated to by the actual average party level. This would allow very strong parties to get more of a challenge rather than 'walking' a module and would allow weaker parties to enjoy the experience more. Living Arcanis does something similar, allowing a party to choose the calculated APL, the one below or the one above. If they choose the one above, they only get rewards from the calculated APL (more risk, same rewards). If they choose the one below they get the rewards from the APL they play (less risk, fewer rewards). This would solve some problems such as: a table of 4 PCs plus 2 cohorts is quite underpowered; some very optimized PCs enjoy more of a challenge than their calculated APL; some multi-class combinations are underpowered at certain points; sometimes players are less experienced (or simply more tired!) than is really necessary to face the challenges of their calculated APL; etcetera.
TWG_Prometheus 01-04-07, 08:36 AM	Expand/Review the items that can be replenished with Standard Upkeep. The relevant LGCS section (from only a quick search) reads as follows: This expense is the adventurer standard. Spending this gold allows characters to spend time in warm beds, eat hearty meals, travel in relative comfort (for adventurers), replenish rations, mend clothing and equipment, refill healing kits, restock up to twenty normal arrows and bolts (found on Table 7-5: Weapons of the PH), and properly heal between adventures. There isn't a major problem with that as it stands. However, there are some obvious and extremely cheap items such as torches that don't fall on the list, and that common sense would tend to dictate would be included. Also, there appears to be some confusion on the matter. I received some advice once to purchase a disguise kit and get Standard Upkeep to replenish it. I don't remember where or who gave it to me, but I didn't think to check the LGCS first, and wasn't even tracking the kit's usage. When I realized that the kit wasn't listed as a possible item to replenish, I had to assume that it was depleted. No big deal on my part, it was only a 50g item. However, there are a lot of things that seem like they should be replenished by Standard Upkeep (mostly very cheap things that no one wants to keep track of) and that just aren't. Technically, waterskins aren't even on the list! Perhaps a listing of items that are replenished by paying upkeep would help? I think the current listing would follow: Rations Healing Kits 20 normal Arrows/Bolts Obviously, I would favor expanding this list a bit. PHB only items that would or should be cheap to replace, at least torches/lantern oil/waterskins, and things of that nature would be great. I wouldn't be disappointed if Disguise Kits made the cut, either. (Those weigh enough to be problematic to carry around anyway.)
GrahamWills 01-04-07, 10:49 AM	I think it would be useful to require that all modules state their intended audience in the description. In particular, they should state if there are PLAYER age targets and CHARACTER alignment or meta-org/class restrictions. The idea would be to select from something like the following template, to be placed at the end of all descriptions This module is suitable for all players and characters unsuitable for younger players suitable for all characters willing to break the law if necessary not playable by characters with the disfavor of XXXX unsuitable for clerics of YYYY Basically I think that this would help with GMs who find themselves explaining to 10 year olds what a brothel is, and also help when the party of paladins is told they need to ally with the underworld and break into a house to rescue someone. Either is not *necessarily* an issue, but having the GM know that the player is comfortable with the restriction would be very helpful.
JamesMaissen 01-04-07, 10:54 AM	Remove mundane items from 'limited' status for the most part. Anything that is craftable with a low DC craft check should not be more rare than magical items. If sorting through materials is a problem allow access to mundane items from approved sources (that are then updated each LGCS). Alternatively atleast allow regions to give regional access to certain mundane items outside of metaorgs (metaorgs should be about roleplay and not access mundane or magical). Things like Elven gear in Highfolk or Dwarven gear in the PoU or the like would be reasonable. Excluding a gold holy symbol because it's in the wrong book is silly. But in the main mundane items should not be sought after and coveted above and beyond magical items. Certainly not for rarity. And certainly not for easily craftable items. It doesn't unbalance the game, and its lack strains believability. -James
Lightblade 01-04-07, 12:03 PM	Some thought about racial substituion levels and alternate class abilities might be in order. I know that the current LGCS says the former are not used, and have heard rumor that there exists at least one mod that grants limited ability to chose from the latter, although i am not familiar with those details. Since Complete Mage continues to offer alternate class features, perhaps some rules governing them could be in place. If the ability to take a sub class feature (or even a racial sub level, if the circle changes it's mind) is gained, perhaps the change would be allowed retroactively, with no change in skill selection or other class choices allowed. That way, such access will not turn into the need to play a specific mod at a specific point in time, and result in lots of questions about module rewards.
pedr 01-04-07, 09:30 PM	Another idea: Now that there are sanctioned 'fastplay' characters, allow players who use them to tweak them after their first mod. That way people who are new to LG can just 'pick up and play', without being stuck with a completely cookie-cutter character. You could limit what could be tweaked if you like - perhaps say that the stats, race and first class are fixed but that feats and skills can be changed. Or you could allow a completely free rebuild. This would be even more useful, for a convention context, if this was allowed any time before the character played its first module at 2nd level - otherwise new players still don't have the time to slow down and think about what kind of character they want without taking a whole slot out of a convention to do it in. Once again Arcanis has a similar rule (although I've never played Living Arcanis, so I can't tell how it works in practice.) But from my own experience I DM'd at a convention this year which was essentially the replacement for GenCon UK. At it was a table of people who hadn't played LG since the previous year and had picked up some pre-gens that were floating around at GenCon 05. I think that I had three Paladins of Mayaheine there - and they were all identical! I don't think this is good for a living campaign - let's make it easier to start playing and not penalise people for not having taken the time before their first game to think through their character.
bhale187 01-04-07, 09:37 PM	Ban the :censored: spiked chain
UMiskatonic 01-05-07, 11:00 AM	I don't think the problem is the age of the players, it's the writing of the adventures. We need younger players, because they turn into older players. Can we get some better enforcement of our existing guidelines, to make sure that all material is family-appropriate?
Reylance 01-05-07, 11:21 AM	On the current Page 25, sources used in the campaign but requiring campaign documentation, I suspect you will add books to this list. I also suspect that while you're still reviewing classes and spells for possible core access or restriction, you know that very little will be restricted. Please, Britt, I humbly beseech you: Tell us now which new books will be on this document, and allow those of us doing the High Level rebuild access to these sources now! I sincerely hope a quick Dispel Confusion could be released, giving this access, and making high level players very happy.
haferka 01-05-07, 11:33 PM	Looking at the preview for complete scoundrel... - I definitly !!!! want skill tricks added to LG. The whole concept is GREAT!... its original, adds to the existing rules.. and cool. (my only fear is that some of the "tricks" will be as powerfull or more powerfull than feats...) Specificly: I want to see my animal companion learning some of the movement "tricks" - Imagine the Ape runnign 10' up a wall, then getting an extra 10' of movement (net gain 0 ft) as he leaps down on his target from above.. sounds cool to me.. and now the rules spell out how it can be done. (FYI: Walk the Walls & Wall Jumper ) I recomend that LG allow more of the campaign cards, but do NOT ignore the Action Point cost... (replace it with a list of alternative costs...) - Fatigue/Exhaustion (as long as you are not already exhausted, or immune to these conditions) - A "luck roll" (like the luck domain, or the new stuff in the complete scoundrell - Penalty to a future roll (chosen by DM) (like -5 to a skill check to disable traps, or -5 to an attack roll - Declared by the DM before the roll) I like the cards, but they seem to be balanced to a campaign that uses action points.
Britt 01-05-07, 11:43 PM	Please, Britt, I humbly beseech you: Tell us now which new books will be on this document, and allow those of us doing the High Level rebuild access to these sources now! I sincerely hope a quick Dispel Confusion could be released, giving this access, and making high level players very happy. We are primarily reviewing P2, CM, and CS (if possible) for the LGCS. Other books will likely not be added to the LGCS, but could show up in adventures. We will be working on access up until the last minute, so I seriously doubt a DC could get the access out there beforehand; access is one of the trickier parts of the LGCS.
awroe 01-08-07, 03:22 AM	Consider using the Druid Animal Companion list from the PHBII as well as the PHB list.
haferka 01-08-07, 09:47 PM	Add +1 Improvised Weapon as CORE access. This will help with Justicar, and anyone with a wierd concept... "My half dragon drunken master carries a +1 flaming iron chair" :)
Britt 01-09-07, 12:27 AM	There will not be enchanting of improvised weapons, Core or otherwise.
Alpha_Nerd 01-09-07, 11:13 AM	I'd like to see access for a large variety of books, but not that much from each book. When a book comes out I think the Circle might feel obligated to put most of the content available to the players becuase they had to buy the book and don't want them to feel cheated. I would much rather have half the classes and feats allowed from the Complete Books if it meant getting a splash of Prcs/feats from all sorts of other sources. Living Greyhawk is getting too convluted in my opinion. We've gotten to the point where we have too much content. Sure, we want people to be able to create the character they want to play, but when we get so many classes and feats and items more and more opportunities for inbalanced characters arise. PS. Please don't quote my post and discuss my recommendation, Britt is doing a great job as a circle member and I don't want to discourage his proactive behavior :) EDIT: For someone looking to play a Green Star Adept, maybe you could give them access to starmetal but only for the purposes of leveling up Green Star Adept?
haferka 01-09-07, 11:22 AM	PS. Please don't quote my post and discuss my recommendation, Britt is doing a great job as a circle member and I don't want to discourage his proactive behavior :) We ALL agree! oops I quoted part of your post... :)
Azzy 01-09-07, 11:56 AM	I'd really appreciate a cleaning up and reassessment of the diety/domain associations of the Greyhawk deities that uses the domains in the PHB and Spell Compendium as a starting point.
LCJJohnson 01-09-07, 05:02 PM	Delayed implementation. I know someone mentioned having a delay between release and implementation for Dispel Confusions and the like, but I think this would be a great idea across the board, with a minimum 1 week delay between when anything official is released and the day it takes effect. This would be for Dispel Confusions, FAQs, erratas, and especially the LGCS itself. Give people time to read and understand things before they have to work with it. I view it as the equivalent of giving everyone time to 'prep' the rules rather than run them 'cold'. LCJJ
Synecdoche 01-09-07, 05:26 PM	Not so much an issue for the LGCS, but I would like to see a revision in the regional/metaregional system that eases up a little bit on the restrictions on playing out-of-region modules. As a practical matter, most people are never going to have enough time to travel to, and experience, many out-of-region conventions, and as a result will never get to experience the different flavor of different regions. I would suggest something like the following: Each year, leadership from each meta-region can elect to designate one adventure (or perhaps two linked adventures) from that meta-region that premeired the prior year. For the next year, those adventures are playable at any of the big three conventions (GenCon, GenCon SoCal and D&D eXP). If this is successful, perhaps it could be expanded to regions the year after. This gives players a chance to get a little bit of flavor from outside their region and gives meta-regions/regions a chance to showcase some local talend. BMM
Synecdoche 01-09-07, 05:37 PM	Also, is the circle looking at using the new polymorph rules? It would seem to clear up a lot of problems with the rules as they currently exist, not least of which is the flavor of parties full of troglodytes and green hags. BMM
SirApropos 01-09-07, 06:18 PM	Consider making the Healer base class and Combat Medic (HoB) PrC Core Access.
clannagh 01-09-07, 08:14 PM	The table in the sidebar on page 116 Complete Adventurer allows the more general weapon focus/specialisation rules used in all the later complete books to apply retrospectively to Complete Warrior. This seems quite reasonable but runs afowl of the LGCS ruling about not using content from any "sidebars". In terms of game balance it would be good to specifically endorse this table as allowable.
Kithran 01-10-07, 04:39 AM	There's a thread on the forum regarding the Laws of Greyhawk (the city). I'd suggest the laws should appear in the LGCS given the sheer number of mods that either take place entirely within the city or spend some time in the city. From reading the thread I get the impression the laws have always been in place however they were forgotten by authors in years past - as such characters would have been fully aware of them (even though they didn't appear in the older Greyhawk mods and happened off-camera). I'd suggest the basic laws (weapons peace bonded, only certain weapons allowed etc) should be known along with the legal ways to get round them (permits were mentioned in the thread and apparently appear in the original source material yet I have never had the opportunity to purchase one even as a member of the Greyhawk Mercenaries Guild) and what is checked. By the last point (what I checked) I mean is the check visual (sheathed sword in hewards, bow in quiver of elhlona, hat of disguise used to make sword appear peacebonded all ok), a quick pat down (hat of disguise trick now has save) or open every container etc. Note if the latter trade would grind to a halt unless merchants were exempt due to the mile long trail of wagons waiting to be searched. If this can't appear in the LGCS it _has_ to appear in the sourcebook for the new Greyhawk arc though as I've stated I think it should be LGCS given the number of Greyhawk mods that aren't part of the arc. Kithran
Gwumph 01-10-07, 05:03 AM	Thanks for this forum Britt Now I think this has been mention, but it seem to get lost among many other suggestions. Can we please update the scroll list. So many classes have a much more extensive core spell list, but it's not possible to buy a scroll of those spells since they weren't around when DMG was printed. My suggestion is that any core spell that could made into a scroll for under 750 gp (usually 4th lv) should have core access too. It just seems silly that there are all these spells out there that are core and fairly common, but no scrolls. i.e lots of CLW scrolls, but no Lesser Vigor scrolls. Cheers Gwumph p.s Potion list should be updated too, but there are alot more mechanics involved to that.
haferka 01-10-07, 07:31 AM	I would like to see a clarification on CORE regions. Can a character chage regions to a "core" region? Bright lands or Greyhawk (so far)... Does a character that joins a core region "Bright Lands" gain the default access? Does a character that leaves the region loose ALL access, specificly, a Druid with an animal companion from that region.. will they need to choose a different companion? I would like to suggest that animal companions be treated as npc cohorts, so curses & effects carry on to the animal from mod to mod. This would require more bookkeeping, but I think it would be worth it. Will these regions be sticking around even after the storyarc is over?
pimeister 01-10-07, 09:12 AM	I was never around for discussions on warlocks, if there ever were any, but I would like to see them become core for these reasons: 1) They are no more evil than hexblades 2) with the lower level cap of 15, they do not get access to their most heinous invocations. I dont know what the issue was to begin with, so I cant defend them properly, but I dont see them being any more abusable than what is currently being abused.
gomeztoo 01-10-07, 04:40 PM	I like to see a clarification in the LGCS on noting down the classes of the PC on the AR: specifically, if it shoudl be the classes you START the scenario with, or the classes you END it with (i.e. after leveling etc). The LGCS lists "current", so I guess it's when you finish the game, but it could be clarified. Note that most people gloss over this. An extra line on the Ars to fill it in migth help.
haferka 01-10-07, 05:08 PM	I would love to see a questionare setup to collect the LG players opinions. The website would be available 24/7 all year. Perhaps a yahoo board if nothing else... It wouldnt be a perfect representation of the playerbase opinion.. but it could be better than simply reading what the few vocal people write on these boards. You would need to advertise the location of this board, perhaps in the LGCS and in the weekly/monthly emails that RPGA sends out.
haferka 01-10-07, 05:53 PM	I would like to see a clarification on Metaorg benifits/requirements/restictions.. and how they change when the character switches regions, and when they switch back to a previous region where they had/have metaorg memberships.
haferka 01-10-07, 11:27 PM	3 Things. 1) Remove the Requirement of teh MIL, and simply REQUIRE that consumables/destroyed items be marked on teh AR (as items sold/used). We can continue using the MIL as a quick reference (if we wish, but it is unecessary). 2) Treat animals (including animal companions & familiars) as "items". .. so, if it dies, mark it off on the AR. If it gets a permanant curse, mark it as a special note on the AR. - Why would I want this... becouse its stupid that the PCs can get cursed, stat drained etc.. but the druids uber "limited" creature gets auto healed every mod. Some people might have a cool animal companion from one region, which under the current rules goes away when they change regions (since they lost access to it).. I believe they should be able to keep that creature (like an item) untill it dies or is dismissed. 3) Allow, Permanancy spells, and magic effects to last BEYOND the current mod. Just mark them on the AR. people could still use the MIL to assist them with tracking these effects, just like expendable magic items.
Fleetfang 01-11-07, 06:03 PM	Obviously this thread was hiding in plain sight when I needlessly started a thread asking about this. If that has been read, try not to hold the redundancy against me. :hides: I think Rhopan should be limited to Rhennee PCs only. It's part of their racial description that they do not teach their language to non-Rhennee, so I get a bit exasperated with people playing Elven PCs --or any other race really-- and they have "Rhenee" written down as a language their PC can speak. Misspelled and misnamed. heh. I don't think it's any different than limiting Druidic to Druids, and it adds a bit more to the race's flavor. Thanks for reading (perhaps a second time).
SirApropos 01-12-07, 12:03 AM	Don't think this has been specifically brought up before, with only a mention that Complete Mage was getting looked at, but the Alternative Class Features on pgs 31-36 seem like they are going to be a trend in the new Complete books since they started in the PHB II. If these are included I would suggest giving them their own subsection in the LGCS with a list of what was Core, NPC Only and Restricted similar to how Feats, Spells, Domains, Base and Prestige Classes are now done. You will probably need to include a note similar to one on an AR I got access to the Fighter/Rogue Alternate Class Features that they cannot be retrospectively selected for existing PC's.
cycloptic_squirrel 01-12-07, 04:53 AM	Now that I have some idea what I'm requesting... I like the mercenary option. I'd like to see a handful of generic level twos and fours available for hire for core mods. I see it as particularly valuable in getting groups of new people off the ground. It takes a few levels to get used to LG, and more than a few times I've seen mods tackled with 4 people who were relatively new to LG, simply because the player base is small and everyone else has played it. A NPC 5th could really take some of the pressure off until the players really know what they're doing. Some adventures it's incredibly hindering to not have enough men on the field. Cohorts can fill that 5th body slot pretty well at APL 6 and up, it'd just be nice to be able to do that at APL 2 and 4 as well. I can think of half a dozen other minor justifications, but I'm guessing you're far more familiar with this issue than I and in a much better position to gauge if this would be good thing for the campaign as a whole. I'm just glad it's not the other way around. ;) Oh, and I'm not trying to steal BK's thunder or nerf their flavor, I just think they had a great idea.
Fleetfang 01-12-07, 10:29 AM	I wonder if including options from the Core Beliefs articles of Dragon Magazine might be allowed. For example, the new spells that are limited to Clerics of particular gods and the summon monster lists that are augmented for particular worshippers. The player would of course, have to have a copy of the magazine (or the relevant pages) with them at the table. Cheers, FF
Bob_the_Theurge 01-12-07, 04:01 PM	Split the MIL into a "Permanent Items MIL" and "Consumable Items MIL" to cut down on wasted dead trees when people buy 50 gazillion scrolls or potions. It's not that hard. I have mockups done quickly in Photoshop that look pretty darn good that I can email to you.
Bob_the_Theurge 01-12-07, 04:05 PM	Also, how about an alternate spell for Clerics of Good Deities who happen to have the Destruction domain? Contagion is on our Domain list, but it's an Evil descriptor spell, so we can't cast it. An alternate spell isn't so bad, you already do that for spells that are otherwise removed from the Domain lists for other reasons.
Psykick 01-12-07, 06:29 PM	I know this may be a bit off-topic, but relevant, I hope. I would like to see the LGCS Deities document edited as well. especially regarding "Radiant Servant of [X]". It's become a recurring hot topic here on the Pale boards for the past three years. For my 2 cents worth, if this PrC is going to be expanded beyond Pelor, I'd like to see the following adjustments: open to any worshipper of a deity with the Sun domain as detailed in the LGCS Deities 2.0 document (as suggested in "Adaptation", p. 52, Complete Divine) select the Sun domain as one of his/her domains ("Requirements" clarification, p. 52, Complete Divine) alignment must match the actual given alignment of the sun deity in question as detailed in the LGCS Deities 2.0 document (e.g., Pelor=NG, Pholtus=LG, Phyton=CG) bonus domain at level 5 is selected from: Glory (keeping the flavor of Radiant Servant of the Sun), Purification (keeping the flavor of Radiant Servant of the Sun), or one of the available domains for the sun deity in question as given in the LGCS Deities 2.0 document regarding the "[X] Healing" abilites listed on Table 2-15 (this was adjusted from the Xen'Drik Expeditions Campaign Standards): Instead of affecting domain spells from the Healing domain, these abilities allow Radiant Servants without access to the Healing domain to prepare (thus not converting spontaneously) as many as half of his/her Radiant Servant levels in divine conjuration (healing) spells listed in the Healing domain spell list (PHB, p. 187) each day with the ability in question. For example, a 10th level Radiant Servant of Ehlonna can prepare five (5) conjuration (healing) spells from the Healing domain spell list as though affected by both the Empower Spell and Maximize Spell feats. Those spells do not use up a higher level slot. Radiant Servants with access to the Healing domain still must take Healing as one of their domains to access these abilities. By allowing non-Healing domain Radiant Servants access to healing boosts, I tried to keep the "undead bane" flavor of the class; undead HATE Empowered and Maximized heal spells. By using what Xen'Drik Expeditions has as a precident, I'm trying to suggest something that already works elsewhere without breaking the LG system. Thanks for your consideration; we all appreciate your hard work on this.
Dragon9 01-13-07, 01:35 AM	Number one recommendation: Incorporate Tome of Battle: Book of Nine Swords into LG!! What Tim said be damned! Put it in there! I have no problems if you take it for your own idea. Claim it as your own. Just make it legal as of the next LGCS!! :)
cycloptic_squirrel 01-14-07, 03:02 AM	Add in a rule about removing pages from a spellbook, specifically so that a PC may purchase the pages of a specific spell without needing to buy a entire spellbook full of spells they neither need nor want. I can't find anything in the rules to support this, but I also cannot find anything to prohibit it. There is already precedent in LG for this process to be non-damaging, specifically the Silent One's removal of prohibited spells from an offender's spellbook.
_m_ 01-14-07, 10:39 PM	Add in a rule about removing pages from a spellbook, specifically so that a PC may purchase the pages of a specific spell without needing to buy a entire spellbook full of spells they neither need nor want. I can't find anything in the rules to support this, but I also cannot find anything to prohibit it. There is already precedent in LG for this process to be non-damaging, specifically the Silent One's removal of prohibited spells from an offender's spellbook. i don't know if you've noticed, but the new spellbook you get is pretty much the same price as the total of the spells you get from it... so you basically get a free new spellbook. though if you can get at it during the mod, you can scribe. i think warlocks should stay out, to the above poster, they are too chessy imo (dagerspell warlock anyone?), and smell a bit like reserve feats.
Britt 01-14-07, 10:47 PM	DO NOT REPLY TO OTHER POSTERS IN THIS THREAD! I know it's difficult sometimes to remember which thread you are in, but try to take care in this and the Q&A thread.
_metz_ 01-15-07, 06:05 PM	Here is my recommendation: We need a review of a few of the limited PrCs. For example: Dread Pirate, this is a class that offers some useful, funky yet overall not very powerful abilities. This class requires a lot of Skill points in Appraise and Profession Sailor, two very specialised skill sets considering what normally comes up in RPGA. This class, to be taken early requires putting off most of a character's money, to the point of being dangerously underequipped in order to purchase the prerequisite Ship. Thus, its not an easy class to get, is largely roleplaying, and is not exactly powerful. SO why has its already quite restrictive access been added to by needing AR access? also this AR access has not been clarified at all? there was one module where you had to spend a time unit getting access, but that was a core five, and as such is no longer accessible. Furthermore, AR access is somewhat unjustified, there is no requirement to have it tought to you, or invited to a guild, or organisation, or anything of the like. Thus I would like to see Dread Pirate made core, its prereqs are restrictive, and also mention no need for help as a pirate is largely self sufficient, and as such as a roleplaying class its a shame to reduce its application in game, when I see limited as a means of restriciting powerful classess or catering to the class requirements in the prereqs, both of which Dread pirate does not require. Just a few ideas. :D I also agree Ruathar is far too cheesy, its the perfect prestige class dip. - metz
cetiken 01-15-07, 09:13 PM	I know its unlikely but I'd like to see the Warlock allowed. Yeah its got an evil taint, but considering that Complete Mage features two Prestige Classes for it that are good alighned its clear that being tainted isn't the same as being evil. 'Sides, Dosn't LG love its shades of grey?
Britt 01-15-07, 09:26 PM	Warlock is not being added, for the ruleset more than for the flavor.
CdrcJsn 01-16-07, 01:09 AM	Please review the LG specific rulings in the LGCS where they modify the core rules (or conflict with the FAQ) and make sure they're absolutely needed. Less rules is better in my book. With that said, I think the modifications to polymorph are ok. The monk belt has a specific ruling in the LGCS, but a recent FAQ basically overturned that ruling but we're still living with it because the LGCS trumps the FAQ. It's not a big thing and I don't have any characters with this item...just something I noticed. A small sidebar with actual costs for tricks for animals would be appreciated.
Howie23 01-16-07, 01:05 PM	I know the MIC rules are being looked at from various angles. In the spirit of keeping the written presentation in alignment with the intent and the recent ruling on the Celestial upgrade being a standard item, please reword the text on upgrades. The current text suggests that arms and armor items can only be upgraded with DMG enhancements, and that items are non-standard if they have enhancements that are not from the DMG. Thanks, David
Fleetfang 01-16-07, 01:33 PM	Clearer examples and/or presentation of what is Standard and Non-standard for purposes of upgrading magic items would be GREATLY appreciated. Even just more examples than the current chart provides. Awesome. Thanks.
Britt 01-16-07, 02:39 PM	Those rules have already been rewritten and will probably be further tweaked during the draft discussion phase.
Alpha_Nerd 01-16-07, 02:42 PM	Please remove the rule that restricts players from riding their cohorts and cohorts from riding the player. I understand you had to do something like this for centaurs, but the thought of a cavalier with a nature's warrior cohort is too funny to pass up in my opinion.
ceregon 01-16-07, 04:20 PM	Allow PC's to take feats from the MM. Dragon Disciples should be able to take Multiattack and several feats are useful to Monk-type characters.
Lightblade 01-17-07, 12:17 AM	Give animal companions the stat bump for every four hit dice they have, or at least specifically clarify that they don't get it. I assumed they did and gave mine a boost until I saw it called out on the boards that, as written, they don't get one.
haferka 01-17-07, 03:16 AM	And, specificly limit the stat bumps to Non-intelligence. (we dont want a ton of Int 3+ Animals running around LG... or do we) :)
Fleetfang 01-17-07, 08:51 AM	Please consider making Mementos Magica (Races of the Dragon) craftable with the same adjustments to requirements that were made for Pearls of Power. Thanks for listening, Britt.
Bob_the_Theurge 01-17-07, 05:14 PM	Please consider making Mementos Magica (Races of the Dragon) craftable with the same adjustments to requirements that were made for Pearls of Power. Thanks for listening, Britt. And likewise for Metamagic Rods. CL 17 for all three variations (lesser, normal, greater) is silly.
SirApropos 01-17-07, 09:19 PM	Just got Complete Scoundrel and while most of it is very good there are a few things that may not work well in LG. Most of the feats and PrC's revolve around using the new Skill Trick and Luck Feat mechanics, so if those are out then most of the book won't be allowed. They seem well balanced since you are limited in the number of Skill Tricks you can have and most of the Luck feats aren't overwhelming. If those are in, these are some things I would consider looking at for Restricting in the next LGCS. Prestige Classes Avenging Executioner - many fear effects that easily stack with existing stuff Combat Trapsmith - too cumbersome to apply in most situations Malconvoker - summoning is almost already too powerful Master of Masks - complicated mechanics and special requirement Psibond Agent - no psionics Feats Ascetic Stalker - Ninja feat Better Lucky Than Good - too powerful IMO Disemboweling Strike - better than the Wounding weapon enchantment Expanded Ki Pool - Ninja feat Enduring Ki - Ninja feat Martial Stalker - Ninja feat Master Spellthief - Spellthief feat so NPC only Mind Drain - Psionic feat Poison Expert - Ninja feat Poison Master - Ninja feat Psithief - Psionic feat Psychic Luck - Psionic feat Third Time's The Charm - despite requirements still very powerful Unbelievable Luck - too powerful IMO for a feat Skill Tricks False Theurgy - wouldn't want to see an NPC with this Spot the Weak Point - making attacks touch attacks with the use of a skill is wrong in some way Spells Create Fetch - similar to similacrum mechanics wise Siphon - turning any wand or staff into a Pearl of Power like device is powerful Wand Modulation - Right Wand for the Job spell esentially
LCJJohnson 01-17-07, 11:34 PM	Some Nuts and Bolts loophole, clarification needed. As written, the XP and TU cost are based off full market value of the magic item, not the 'change in market value'. For example, creating +1 mithral breastplate (Market Value 5200 gp) would cost 2600 gp + one mithral breastplate, 208 XP, and 2 TU based upon the hazy wording this section of the LGCS. Clearly these numbers are wrong, but that's what you get when following the formulae given, because MV (market value) should be replaced with dMV (MV - material component cost) yielding: GP = (dMV/2) + material components XP = dMV/25 TU = dMV/5000 Using this for the above example yields 500 gp + one mithral breastplate, 40 XP, and 1/5 TU (if you decided to create other items). Before you say "Look at the Upgrade rules" I will point out that a mithral breastplate is not an Existing Magic Item. It is intuitive, it is logical, but the wording in the LGCS falls short for this item as well as others with material costs. (eg - Wand of Hail of Stone, CL4) LCJJ Just when you think you've made something foolproof, Mother Nature makes a better fool.
Britt 01-17-07, 11:48 PM	The section on MIC has already been rewritten and this has been addressed.
LCJJohnson 01-18-07, 12:10 AM	Scribing Scrolls DMG p237-8 says "A scroll holding more than one spell has the same width (about 8 1/2 inches) but is an extra foot or so long for each extra spell. Scrolls that hold three or more spells are usually fitted with reinforcing rods at each end rather than simle strips of leather." Table 7-21 on DMG p238 allows up to 6 spells per scroll. But I seem to recall a 1 spell per scroll limit for LG, though I haven't located where it says that. Recommendation Allow characters with the Scribe Scroll feat to scribe up to 6 spells per scroll. Effect: scribe scroll would be less wasteful for low level spells with low caster level. Would it really be that unbalancing to allow a scroll with Cure Moderate Wounds (5), CL3, MV 750gp to be crafted in one day (assuming the caster can cast that spell 5 times in one day) instead of requiring separate scrolls and a full TU? Or to allow said character to single move/cast for several rounds instead of having to use a move action to pull out a new scroll each round? It would still be less effective and more expensive per casting than a wand of the same spell. If there is some reason why this is unbalancing/undesirable for LG please let me know. LCJJ
Alpha_Nerd 01-18-07, 04:19 PM	I think it would be a great idea if you made a detailed set of rules for alignment shifts and possibly tracking alignment. It seems to be all the rave nowadays in the optimizing world to take the first 2 levels of monk for the saves and feats, then at third level drop monk completely for a 180 degree character personality change into barbarian. It just feels like the alignment part of a character is something that people are taking advantage of.
welbybumpus 01-19-07, 02:12 PM	Here's one: Clarify your position on the maximum Strength on composite bows. Preferably, remove the archaic and irrelevant cap on the Strength of composite bows available for open purchase. Previous incarnations of the rules permitted a composite bow with a Strength limit of +4, probably because that was the upper limit provided in the 3.0 PHB. The LGCS now allows players to purchase bows with a higher Strength bonus than this, and even enchant them, but provides a seemingly contradictory limit. Here are the relevant sections from Page 17 of the LGCS regarding items players are freely allowed to purchase: 1) Anything from the PH from the following tables [...] Table 7-5 Weapons (small & medium sized) [...] 2) Any +1 weapon of a type listed on Table 7-5: Weapons (small & medium sized) in the PH. (Composite bows are limited to a +4 Strength bonus). 3) You may upgrade any standard masterwork weapon (ammunition in groups of 50), armor, or shield into a +1 version of that item. Purchase these by paying the difference between the masterwork market value and the +1 market value. The strange and archaic placement of the Strength limitation has resulted in the following irregularity: * Can I buy a +1 composite bow with a +5 Strength modifier? No, per #2, above. * Can I buy a masterwork composite bow with a +5 Strength modifier? Yes, per #1, above; the 3.5 PHB doesn't limit upper Strength modifier of bows. Can I then have this bow enchanted to be +1? Yes, per #3, above. Note that the Strength limit found in #2 is not applicable to this kind of purchase. There is a lingering attitude that high-Strength bows are somehow restricted in this game; I even keep seeing AR access for them. But they are freely available to all players, with the LGCS as written. When my barbarian uses his +1 composite longbow with a +7 Strength modifier, people sometimes ask where I got it; I tell them I got it out of the PHB. They tell me that bows are limited to +4 Strength according to the LGCS. I correct them, show them the passages above, and show them that I purchased the composite bow on one AR, and enchanted it to +1 on a later AR. Although everyone has thus far agreed with my logic, I've gotten a few frustrated sighs of "Well, it looks like the Circle *meant* to limit bows to +4 Strength." So that's why I'm writing. If the Circle meant to limit bows to a +4 Strength, then do so more clearly. If not, remove this restriction entirely. As this restriction is a holdover from the 3.0 PHB, I promote ditching the limit. Thanks for this post, Britt, it's a great idea and really gives us players the sense that we're being heard by the Circle. Ron Lundeen (author, player since Year 1, former Verbobonc Triad member)
chesspiece 01-19-07, 02:13 PM	Thanks for another year of LG. Some of my requests are unlikely, but here goes: 1) Give yourselves a pat on the back. 2) If a PRC prereq is lost, does the PC lose the PRC abilities (per some Complete books) or not (per 3.5DMG)? 3) Consider the rebuild / swap options from PHB2. 4) Allow PCs to make a non-adventuring activity roll before the module starts (at the cost of 1 TU) regardless of the type of module. This gold is starting cash-on-hand / spending money and falls under the Cap / Overcap rules. If they find themselves in a town / shop once the boxed text starts, they can use this gold for consumables, etc. Possibly allow this gold to be put towards Lifestyle payments. 5) After the LGCS597 & DDXP, I'd like to compile a 2-page reference document on spellbook rules (LG & Core) to be reviewed / approved by the Circle. It would be swell to have all the rules clarified in one place since I hear confusion on this topic several times each year.
Mommy was an Orc 01-19-07, 04:45 PM	Another recommendation: If you visit another region and play more than one regional in a row, the TU cost after the first 1 is 1 instead of 2. As an example, when I went to GenCon this year, I went to the Verbobonc mini-con and one of my characters played 2 mods in a row in Verbobonc. I think it has two nice aspects: Encourages travelling out of region for conventions. Makes geographical sense - you're not travelling halfway around the world to visit region X, you're right there.
haferka 01-19-07, 06:52 PM	Notes on potential Complete Scoundrel stuff (If it is makes it in.. which I would love) Prestige Classes: Combat Trapsmith: ... perhaps a note about standard upkeep and when/if it renews the components of the special kit that is used to create the combat traps. Grey Guard: ... perhaps a note somewhere that attonment for them (when appropriate) costs less gp.. since it costs no XP for the spellcaster. Spellwarp sniper: ... make this limited (i dont wana see a bunch of lightning bolts warped into ray attacks... the crit damage would be insane...) Skill Tricks: LOVE them all .. include them please! Equipment: ... please add some of this stuff to regional metaorg access :)
LCJJohnson 01-20-07, 03:51 AM	Upgradeable Magic Items Add pearls of power to LGCS table 7-2.
awroe 01-20-07, 07:59 AM	If the third level rule were to be removed, consider lifting the restriction on Able Learner (and other non-core must be first level feats). Similarly for Chameleon and other Prestige Classes that rely on these feats.
haferka 01-21-07, 12:19 AM	1) I would like to see a space on the mod ARs for each and every member of the party to record their information. (no more guessing about who played what mod with who.. AND those groups using ficticious members to cheat and get ARs which they have not actually earned would need the cooperation of 4 people (DM & 3 players) in order to cheat. Currently it only requires a DM & yourself to cheat the system. I have heard rumors of a DM that creates ficticious RPGA members to fill tables. If that DM were required to record the ficticious members on each and every AR, it is more likely to throw up red flags when the handwriting is identical.. and those ficticious members only play in mods with that DM. 2) I would like to see a way for DMs to run games from other regions. I believe this would aleviate the problem of RPGA members who live outside the existing LG regions, and it would allow other members to experience forign regional flavor. The exact method of doing this would need to be limited, so as to NOT diminish the focus of your home region. Example: A group of players with characters of the same region (other than their home region), could request mods from their PCs region. The DM would need to supply the identities of these characters before that region would supply the mod. The group would need to contain at least 4 members from the mods region of origin. 3) Allow out of region characters to play mods out of region WITHOUT the TU penalty IF their previous AR was from the SAME region.
Frumpkis 01-21-07, 01:55 AM	I don’t know if this has been brought up before, and apologies if it has. I haven’t had time to look through every post in this thread. I’ve heard that material from PHBII is under consideration for inclusion in the upcoming LGCS. If it is, I’d like to respectfully ask that the Steadfast Determination feat be restricted. That’s the feat that allows you to use your Con modifier - instead of your Wis modifier - for Will saves; also, if a natural '1' is rolled on your Fort save, you do not automatically fail the save. This feat is way too powerful, for a number of reasons. First, it makes Wisdom even more of a dump stat for fighter types than it already is. With this feat, a melee PC can completely ignore mental stats and throw every build point into Str and Con (and maybe Dex, if they have build points left over). I shudder to think of this feat being used in conjunction with Deepwarden levels – it would lead to the ultimate in cheese PCs. I also see this feat as seriously devaluing “Will save negates” spells. If monsters with the Steadfast Determination feat start showing up in mods, it would severely nerf enchantment- and illusion-specialists in particular (arguably even more than they already are in the LG environment). Finally, as if this ability to add Con instead of Wis to Will saves isn't bad enough on its own, the fact that the feat basically prevents fighter types from EVER failing a Fort save makes it even more unbalanced. Normally, melee mutt builds who end up with insanely high Fort saves are balanced by the fact that they can still roll a natural '1'; this feat eliminates even that remote chance. For these reasons, I’d ask the Circle to seriously consider restricting this feat. Thank you, Eugene Luk
Britt 01-21-07, 02:33 AM	Steadfast Determination will not be available.
SirApropos 01-21-07, 12:52 PM	Since there are PrC's (Dread Commando) that give you Sudden Strike ability of the Restricted Ninja class I would suggest adding to the LGCS the relevant text from Complete Scoundrel (pg 25) that states that "For the purpose of qualifing for feats, PrC's, and similar options that require a minimum number of extra dice of damage, treat the Sudden Strike ability as the equivalent of Sneak Attack." Most of the Ambush Feats from Complete Scoundrel require several dice of Sneak Attack to qualify for and this would make things clearer in regards to things for future releases as well.
haferka 01-21-07, 03:47 PM	Since "Improved Familiar" has been reprinted in virtually every book, but with diferent options every time.. Perhaps it would be a good idea to note that the older familiar options are NOT replaced by the newer printing of the feat.. they simply add new options.
Bob_the_Theurge 01-22-07, 02:33 PM	Change the restrictions on Special Missions: allow one Special mission per *character* per year, rather than one per *player*. Since the uber-to-heck-nerfage of meta-orgs last year, it's now become vogue to offer up "well you can get X requirement or X feat/etc by going into a special mission". The problem I face is, there are how many meta-orgs, there are how many OTHER players asking for people to join them to make table for THEIR special missions, there are meta-orgs that are restricted to a very few classes only that can't possibly make a balanced table without relying on the charity of other friends to help them out, and it's just too restrictive trying to decide which character gets your one special mission. And that doesn't even include special missions for our region that didn't even involve people looking for specific meta-org things, but that were simply done based on in-character requests to do something that would affect regional plotline. Please, make this change. All it does as written currently is penalize people for having more than one character.
Alpha_Nerd 01-23-07, 01:26 PM	As you've mentioned previously Britt, there has been somewhat of an arms race between writers and players, especially back in years 3 and 4. While it is rather easy for mod writers to quit the arms race by just writing next years modules to be less deadly, it is considerably harder for a player to quit the arms race, as the average lifespan of a character from 1 to retirement is about 3 to 4 years. I bet there are people out there with level 11-12ish character that are completely munchinked out because they used to have to optimize back in year 3 to survive, but would rather have played as less-optimized character they could have more fun with. So, I recommend you have a rebuild in year 597. I believe more people, at least from the attitude on the forums, will rebuild their characters to more well-rounded and more fun to play than the character they currently play now. I understand there will be some risks as rebuilds have the stigma of letting people over-optimize, but I feel if there was some kind of official statement about the rebuild, asking players not to abuse it, it could be very beneficial to the campaign.
Britt 01-23-07, 01:51 PM	Excepting substantial changes to the rules, there will be no rebuilds.
mlund 01-24-07, 12:02 PM	I'd recommend revising in the Magic Item Creation Rules that you may only Scribe one spell per day, rather than one scroll per day. This eliminates the unnecessary deviation from Core Rules that keeps you from creating single scroll objects with multiple spells scribed on them. It also interacts more cleanly with certain objects like a Caster's Shield or the like. Thanks for your consideration, - Marty Lund
Rerednaw 01-24-07, 02:20 PM	More clarification on animal handling and tricks is needed. I recommend adopting the animal handling rules, from the Xen'drik Expeditions Campaign Standards as a guide. Provide a cost for a riding dog, untrained.
Britt 01-24-07, 02:22 PM	Animals and tricks are on the list to work on, but so far we don't have anything new, so no promises.
haferka 01-24-07, 02:33 PM	Could we allow "fastplay characters" to apply xp & gp to ANY other character... This would allow intro mods to quickly start playing without all the character building at the beginning of the mod. If there is time left over at the end, those players would have a much better idea of what type of character they really want to play. Then you help them build the character that they really want. This also allows players with higher level character to "introduce" friends to lg without requiring them to create a new character just to play a game with them.
Dr.Cornelius 01-25-07, 12:31 AM	Change the restrictions on Special Missions: allow one Special mission per *character* per year, rather than one per *player*. Since the uber-to-heck-nerfage of meta-orgs last year, it's now become vogue to offer up "well you can get X requirement or X feat/etc by going into a special mission". The problem I face is, there are how many meta-orgs, there are how many OTHER players asking for people to join them to make table for THEIR special missions, there are meta-orgs that are restricted to a very few classes only that can't possibly make a balanced table without relying on the charity of other friends to help them out, and it's just too restrictive trying to decide which character gets your one special mission. And that doesn't even include special missions for our region that didn't even involve people looking for specific meta-org things, but that were simply done based on in-character requests to do something that would affect regional plotline. Please, make this change. All it does as written currently is penalize people for having more than one character. Go play Xen'drik Expeditions. No silly blundering about randomly looking for access. Every character gets a certain amount of access based on level - no luck or favoritism involved. You can plan out and play the character you want instead of begging for special missions or acquiring foreknowledge.
Britt 01-25-07, 12:39 AM	Do NOT comment in this thread, especially if all you are trying to do is get someone to go play something else! This thread is only for unique recommendations for the next LGCS. "Go play XE" is not a suggestion for the LGCS.
Dr.Cornelius 01-25-07, 01:34 AM	OK - how about these recommendations: 1. Reduce the randomness of access. Why not link access to level or some other function that is easy to measure so all characters have roughly equal access? 2. Do away with special missions. SM's smack of favoritism and LG already feels like an insular clique to new or casual players. Does anyone really like sitting next to someone who pulls out an outrageously overpowered or rare "access"? Wow - that's a really amazing (favor, feat, follower, spell, PrC, etc) - how did you manage to get that? Well, my boyfriend's best friend is on the triad and he wrote this special mission... 3. Clearly indicate which mods are fluff for grossly ineffective "roleplaying" characters and which are meant to take the local power-gaming crew down a notch but will TPK a random party. 4. Set an age limit of twelve or fourteen for conventions. Another poster covered the topic in detail, so suffice it to say that D&D is not a appropriate babysitting venue for preadolescents, even if their parents are avid gamers. Set up a kids table and let them have at it, but mixing 8 year olds and 30 year olds is not fair to either. 5. Consider altering the fixed, arbitrary cost of Raise Dead. Why not have the cost of dying scale with wealth? For example, the cost is 25% of current wealth or 5% each for all players at the table. Yes, this is outside the D&D rules as written, but the D&D rules were not designed for a living campaign. Scaling the cost of death could be done by fiat and would have important advantages in a living (vs home) campaign.
Psykick 01-25-07, 12:31 PM	Has there been any discussion about possibly including elements from the Dragon Compendium? Force Missle Mage? Urban Druid?
haferka 01-25-07, 12:38 PM	I would also like to see Dragon Compendium listed in the LGCS, but only as a "limited source".. things like "Unorthodox Flurry" feat would be really cool for some characters.
Britt 01-25-07, 01:30 PM	Dragon Compendium (haven't even seen it) will not be in the LGCS. Books do not need to be listed in the LGCS to appear on ARs.
Howie23 01-25-07, 02:05 PM	Please edit the section on source materials (currently LGCS p.62) to conform with the current policy that all books are available for use in the campaign via campaign documentation. The current structure lists the specific books, and how they are usable (player, author, etc.) By listing specific books, books not on the list are excluded from the campaign. This does not match the current intent or practice. Let's get the text to match the intent and practice. David
Britt 01-25-07, 02:07 PM	Already done. The LGCS will be for player information.
thorinXXX 01-25-07, 02:58 PM	1) Please consolidate info on spells, specificly Raise Dead and Resurrection. I nearly lost a character because I could not find the section on deferred payment before the next slot started. 2) Please go back to year 2 for Polymorph rules. I.E. Restrict it except for Druidic Wildshape, which has severe limitations on it already. Polymorh is simply too confusing as it stands.
CdrcJsn 01-25-07, 07:53 PM	Allow each region to come up with iconic characters that can be used for tables with just four characters (no cohort). At the very least, allow this for APL2 mods if not the higher APLs. Simple enough for a triad to create a 1st level character appropriate to their region (one of each 'base four' class - fighter, cleric, wizard, rogue).
Golorious 01-25-07, 07:58 PM	Well I'm not sure how to phrase this request other then to be consistent with the latest dispel confusion in the LGCS. Please flush it out a little so that we know how to adjudicate things. "That said, the Book of Vile Darkness goes on to say “[s]ometimes, a nonevil spellcaster can get away with casting a few evil spells, as long as he or she does not do so for an evil purpose. But the path of evil magic leads quickly to corruption and destruction.” Player characters cannot have an evil alignment in the Living Greyhawk campaign, but occasional evil acts are not forbidden. Your PC can cast an [Evil] spell without necessarily becoming evil; however, we urge casters of evil spells not to cross over into true corruption, or one day you will be turned over to your Triad, and on that day you may become an NPC." The implications of this rule should be reconsidered, because of the following. If casting an evil spell is an evil act then casting a good spell is considered a good act. Which of course leads to casting a lawful spell a lawful act etc... How many good spells will it take to go from neutral to neutral good. There are approved LG classes and PRC's which say Non-good alignment, Non-Lawful alignment etc... Hexblades, bards, warchanters, Holy Liberator etc... How many evil spells does it take to go evil. If I balance my good vs evil spells do I stay neutral. If I do 3 good for every one evil do I stay chaotic good? When casting a summon monster spell if you summon something that is of an alignment the spell gains that alignment. How many evil monsters can I summon to fight other bad guys before I'm out of the campaign. How many good monsters before I become good? I really think this one should have been left alone and RAW per core books. Which do not say casting an evil spell is an evil act nor casting a good spell a good act. Clerics are bared from casting against their alignment per phb. Which is the only mention of alignment and casting in the PHB that I have found that addresses restrictions. But since it has not been left alone we need a little more flushing out of the meaning of this ruling. PS Holy word is a good spell that can have some horribly evil consequences. It should be actions and uses that determine evilness. Not spell descriptors.
Periac 01-26-07, 04:37 PM	For druidic wildshape (hope I did not miss anything): make clear, to which shapes a druid has access too (I suppose all from MMI) or if he needs to have seen them and noted on an AR. Make other forms available if seen (like MMII) and noted on an AR. For Sandstorm druids: give access to all forms from Sandstorm.
haferka 01-26-07, 04:57 PM	Add an alignment tracking system... This will prevent people from moving from Lawfull monks into chaotic barbarians in a single mod. They will be FORCED to act in a chaotic fashion to shift their alignment. This will also passify those people who want to cast X good spells to compensate for casting X Evil spells. I'm not sure exactly how many steps should be between each alignment .. but I was thinking 4 actions in any given direction (chaotic/lawfull/good/evil) should shift you into the next alignment. http://people.tamu.edu/~haferka/Alignment.gif The link above is an example image of a chart to help visualize the alignment tracking. (I remember seeing something on the web like this in the past... but I can't remember where, so I can't give them credit... the idea was someone elses.. but I made this from scratch)...
boolean 01-28-07, 12:44 PM	Dragon Compendium (haven't even seen it) will not be in the LGCS. Books do not need to be listed in the LGCS to appear on ARs. I know, no comments in this thread... It's really unlikely that anythhing from the Dragon Compendium will ever become legal for LG. This is because the DCv1 isn't published by WotC. It's a collection of articles reprinted from Dragon magazine. Published by Paizo Publishing. http://paizo.com/dragon/products/books/v5748btpy7dxa
thorinXXX 01-29-07, 02:35 PM	My reccomendation for Alignment change is make the PC purchase an Attonement spell. This will not bother the role-play crowd too much, but will hit the power gamers right where it hurts; the wallet.
Reylance 01-29-07, 05:30 PM	I think it would be good to clarify, for the "this adventure plus three additional adventures" rule for buying items with Adventure access, that only adventure ARs (and not metaorg ARs) count towards the three adventure limit, and that no matter how many pieces of paper you get for a particular adventure, it counts as one adventure towards the three adventure limit.
magebeast 01-29-07, 10:06 PM	Make Lyric Thaumaturge core, please. It's a nice prestige class for Bards that doesn't have a really high entry level. Plus, Bards are awesome Britt. I HEARD you say that at G-Kon. They deserve it!
_m_ 01-29-07, 10:10 PM	Clarify access to special requirement prestige classes. eg. a reaping mauler simply requires 3 unarmed victories to qualify, but nothing ever actually grants you access, per say. More annoying is green star adept. you simply need to aquire the star metal. clearly that is meant to be the only requirement, but the way it is ruled atm, if the ar dosent accompany ur aquiring star metal with a little (qualifies you for gsa) footnote, you cant take it. so id like to see it clarified that if you have fullfilled the class special requirements, you qualify for the class (or dont, depending on the situation)
berpo 01-30-07, 05:46 PM	Hello Britt, Sorry if I make a lot of mistake, English is not my native language, There is one thing that I would like to have revised or changed is the Perform check available after a mod of our region. Could you explain why it is easier to make a tumble check to earn money rather than a sleight of hand? The DC is much more harder and gives a lot less money. For exemple my rogue lvl 8 who have tumble/sleight of hand maxed out. I'm an halfling with 14 int and 18 dex. If i want to take "the Overking's Jewels" I must succeed a minimum of 20 in my check to avoid prison and for not too much money... DC 30 tumble = 3D6+3 PP average of 135 GP DC 30 SOF = 3D20 + 40 GP average of 71,5 GP Also I can do it again with a +4 check on my tumble. Please fix. Thanks for the post. Marc Potvin Tusman player.
Al 01-30-07, 07:36 PM	Hi Britt, I would like some clarification on Arrows made of special materials (Cold Iron, Adamantine, Etc) and whether or not there is some way to re-use them. For example a "mending" or a "make whole". It seems really odd that the arrows would "Effectively destroyed". What damage would the arrow head take from a nice squishy human:) There should be some mechanic to re-use the arrow heads at least. A craft(bowmaking) check? Thanks, Al Degenaar Gran March
Britt 01-30-07, 07:41 PM	Al, and others, we're at a point now where I doubt any new issues can be incorporated in the LGCS. I'll see what I can do on any new issues, but no promises. I definitely won't be able to get to it before the public draft discussion starts, as we need to spend our time ironing out any issues that are still on the table.
haferka 01-30-07, 10:11 PM	See seperate thread.. Top post is update with most current version of the suggestion... http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=782399 Summary: Standardized reward vs risk for non-adventuring activity.. This simple, elegant system allows additional skill based activities to be added with very little effort. Virtually ANY job, can be simulated. The system allows other players to "assist" your skill checks.. so you can work together and share the reward for those actions. Some of the example "activities" that I added are: Repairing a mundane item. Crafting a mundane item (for yourself). Mugging someone. etc... I am looking for suggestions for new activities...
thorinXXX 01-31-07, 01:24 PM	I assume that we will be using the rule about the using magic items taking a standard action even if the casting time is an immediate action found in The Complete Mage. If so, please make explicit mention of it.
General Xy 01-31-07, 10:18 PM	Britt, Sorry for not writing sooner. Recommendation: Allow Warlocks as a base class. Rationale: Many of the new books treat Warlocks almost like a base class already. I believe that Warlock is the only class in Player's Handbook II not allowed in Living Greyhawk. Complete Mage and Dragon Magic also provide additional Warlock material. When my group tried out the Xen'drik Expeditions campaign, Warlocks were a very popular character choice and did not seem overpowered. Recommendation: Clarify the Domesticated Animals rules. Rationale: It is unclear whether the "extra tricks" are in addition to the basic attack trick or in addition to the tricks known to an animal trained for a purpose. It is also unclear whether all domesticated animals are proficient with armor. New players use domesticated animals quite a bit so these rules need to be very clear. Recommendation: Allow the Permanency spell and use the Magic Item Creation rules to track usage. Have all Permanency spells cast on other players or other players' animals by a PC be automatically dispelled at the end of the session. PCs could still have NPCs cast Permanency on them for the standard cost. Rationale: This would allow Permanency to be useful but still allow it to be tracked. Recommendation: Allow expansion slots like in the Xen'drik Expeditions campaign to unlock Limited spells, feats, and items. Rationale: There are so many Limited elements that PCs are unlikely to ever get access to the ones they want. This would allow players to use more elements from the expansion books. Thanks for taking the time to read this. - Luke Keoland Herald-Level DM
Morgen 02-02-07, 12:33 AM	I have a few recommendations that I don't think are too rediculious or obscene. Recommendation: Get rid of or change Adventure Access on certs. There are a number of reasons I suggest a radical change to this: 1.) Most items that are listed as Adventure Access are too expensive to afford on a whim unless your saving for something specific. It's mean and cruel to put adventure access items that cost tens of thousands of gold on a cert just because you know no one will buy it. That's honestly just mean. 2.) During a convension where your playing multiple slots, if the judges are forcing you to get your final gold total written on the cert before they sign them, you have little to no time to decide to purchase most adventure access items or even look up what some of the more obscure items do. 3.) There is no middleground in almost any of the access areas. I either have perminent access or I lose it in 3-12 weeks? Something about that just seems a bit odd. 4.) If you open the windows the players have to buy items, you would not allow the truely broken items to be given out just because you /think/ no one can afford them, only to have it come back around and bite you in the butt. 5.) Gives people one less thing to complain about because the current access system heavily favors magical crafters who get to see tons of rediculious things and then make it at a reasonably affordable price weeks/months/years later. Now if we got rid of it, that'd be alright. Personally I'd like to see more dates on your ARs to give people more time to think and less time to plot. Thinking time would be just general, "Oh, that's what a necklace of shark summoning does." Plotting would be more along the lines of, "Ooooh, if I sell my full plate and play these three core specials, I should be able to afford that staff of the magi that got on a cert cause no one could ever afford it." I'd say, give Adventure Access something like 6 callender months from the play date or something. I don't really know, other people could come up with a better balance. Heck, make it 4 or 5 mods instead of just 3 would work too. Whatever would be best. Suggestion: Give players a chance in some modual somewhere, maybe an interactive or maybe something else, to allow an auction to happen at a convention. Something that was heavily taxed of course! The sale is at full book cost but the host takes half the profits. Each item gets a sales slip and you use that as the access just like the old certs in year one were like. Just my suggestion.
JamesMaissen 02-02-07, 01:26 AM	This is probably too late a suggestion for this LGCS, but would like to throw it out anyway and that's to alter access to come closer to crafting access. 1. On the AR that the item is found it would be available for half price; that is the amount the party has sold it for obstensibly. 2. On any future AR you could buy that item for full price (as you've found it previously) 3. Some method of 'basic' access to items as a function of level. (If you haven't found a wand of cure light wounds by 6th level you then get access then) The potential gold savings from the 1st option is no more out of line than using craft feats to save cash. So it shouldn't be problematical and removes the bad feeling of selling for half items that you then turn around and pay full price for.... It also removes the feeling of frustration of getting access to something that you cannot capitalize upon at that moment for one reason or another. Not to mention the straining of credibility of having a 15th level character with access to multiple holy weapons but due to luck or timing can't find a simple wand of cure light wounds! -James
Eric Anondson 02-02-07, 07:24 PM	Is it too late for a comment? I would like the next LGCS to handle the possible RAW ability of Holy Liberators to swap celestial companions every day. Celestial heavy war horse one day and release it from service when day is done, call celestial riding dog the next day and release it from service when the day is done, call celestial eagle the next day and release it from service when the day is done, call a new celestial heavy war horse the fourth day and release it from service when the day is done, ad infinitum.
astancius 02-04-07, 01:22 AM	i like the idea mentioned previously of how GP & XP is earned in the campaign to equate to be the lesser value of either the APL of the table, or that PC'S level rounded down for the following reasons. 1: too many times in a scenario, a 12th level or better PC has elimninated the encounter in one or two rounds with the usage of whatever their main ability was, and the rest of the party has done practicully nothing. 2: that higher level character gets penalized heavily by being forced to take half the GP & XP that the rest of the party recieves while doing most of the combat. 3: the low level PC'S recieve more GP & XP than a balanced table does without really earning it. with this change, a 12th level PC at an APL6 table would earn 900 GP & XP, while a 1st, 2nd, or 3rd level PC at the same table would earn 450 xp & 400 GP. in response to the half GP & XP rule that already exists, this method better distributes what was earned from a scenario without benefitting anyone in particular.
JCP 02-04-07, 01:53 AM	As you review Complete Mage, consider making the reserve feats core. They seem balanced enough and allow a wizard to contribute to battles while balancing letting all their big boom spells fly. It also allows wizards to balance utility with one or two large area damage spells while still contributing to the minor battles along the way (say the bandits on the way to the tomb of bigger, scarier challenges). It provides options, requires some strategy, and has proven pretty fun in home games I've played in. PS: Any idea when the new LGCS will be out?
astancius 02-04-07, 02:22 AM	we need to have a chapter devoted to circle rulings regardless of how ilrelevant they may seem to ANYONE. for example, the circle ruling that grants access to AR.PDF files to the sight impaired members. second, some kind of fair usage ruling on ALL documentation that's used in the campaign. even though it's considered a "MINOR" issue that only serves the minority in THIS organization, it's a discriminatory action, and illegal to imply rules that ARE NOT equally usable by ALL members of the RPGA organization as it's defined under the "equal access" section of the americans with disabilities act that refers to membership in a club, or organization. this issue deals with all levels of the organization where ever materials, and rule guidelines are implied, and not to just the RPGA HQ alone.
cetiken 02-05-07, 12:24 AM	Its probably too late to matter, but I'd really like to see the beguiler become a core class. More trap finding classes seems like a great thing for everyone. Mod writers can be more free with trap use and players don't have to be a low hit point, light armored, front line combatant (also known as dead).
Mithreinmaethor 02-05-07, 01:26 AM	My recommendation is to get the LGCS and the new plot Arc supplement out to the masses before my head explodes :) I have a lot of time on my hands right now before I start the convention circuit and I have some local games coming up and things in both of these releases could really affect choices I make. BY the way you are doing a great job. I just am impatient when I have free time on my hands :)
SirApropos 02-05-07, 12:14 PM	Along similar lines I would recommend a short review time (2-3 days) for the draft to catch major issues so that the LGCS can be out as early as possible before DDXP to give people time to familiarize themselves with new options if there are any. You can always go back and get little typos fixed afterwards with a single update to fix small issues.
Britt 02-05-07, 03:36 PM	The LGCS will be out within a couple of days. There will be about 4 days for public review.
clannagh 02-05-07, 05:25 PM	The following is cross posted form the FAQ thread as it also seems relevant as a potential LGCS issue. 1. A huelenar centaur is a large non humanoid. This means armor costs 2x for large and 2x for non humanoid. Does the armor therefore cost 3X (D&D maths) or 4X (normal math) What if the armor is mithral ? Is the mithral component a fixed figure (9000 gc for full plate regardless of type for example) or does the mithral cost also increase. 2. When a huelenar centaur "becomes large" at level 7 its equipment increases in size as well. Does the centaur have to pay the price difference. If yes .. what happens if the centaur has no money.
soonerpat 02-06-07, 11:12 PM	Hi, I'd like one thing to be added for the Warmage class. Currently the warmage gets an important benefit at level 3 - "Advanced learning". This gives the warmage an opportunity to add one wizard's evocation spell to her list. Unfortunately, there are *no* core evocation spells available except Floating Disk, which doesn't fit the warmage theme very well. Would you consider adding access to one or two first level evocation spells from SpC or another book that the warmage could select from? Examples include: - Guiding light, Light of Lunia.. etc. This particular feat allows some personalization as well as an important extra option for the warmage. Thanks. Without this the warmage doesn't really get to use this ability.
Matherion 02-07-07, 04:53 AM	Something i would like to see is minimum amount of levels required in a prestige class before you take levels in another . This would stop a lot of the prestige class dipping that occurs and keeps prestige classes prestigious.
haferka 02-07-07, 08:45 AM	I would like to see 3rd lvl rule.. and all other restrictions on class/feat/etc (rule items) selections REMOVED. With the exception of the limited/resticted status of many items.. I like the concept of earning access to these items. I would like to see NPC only items be converted to restricted access or limited. If its to good for the players, then its to good for the npcs. Any suggestions to further restrict the players selections should be ignored, as they are personal preferences.
MatteBlack 02-07-07, 09:37 AM	As per my posting in the Q&A thread, the note listing which types of NPCs may take "NPC Only" feats would be a welcome addition in the "NPC Only" Classes section and any other "NPC Only" section.
Bob_the_Theurge 02-07-07, 04:17 PM	This is just a suggestion and I know the draft is coming out later today, but perhaps it could be fit into the revisions during review: Alter the access rules slightly, such that "Adventure" access which has expired can be sought out for a payment of TU's (say, 2 TU's to go back and "find" an item with expired access). This would offer some small amount of parity between those classes that can take crafting feats (and get old access back) and those that can't.
Rerednaw 02-07-07, 04:41 PM	I just thought of something else. Change the definition of adventure access from access from this AR until AR+3 to regional access with a caveat. "If you do not purchase the item on this AR, to buy any item or items from this list afterward this AR requires a time investment of 1 TU per 5,000 gp spent (or 5 items, whichever is less). This covers time spent as you journey back to NPC X." I think it closer balances the 'dang why am I getting access to items for wealth level 12 at level 1.' with item crafters who still have to invest TUs and XP. And it ends the AR+3 item death loop.
chesspiece 02-07-07, 04:51 PM	I think that the LGCS597 discussions should have its own Sub-forum here in Living Greyhawk (like LG Rules & LG Characters). It might make it easier to discuss multiple threads and keep things less confusing. Perhaps require that a Circle member kick off new Threads there to minimize noise? A warning against going far off-topic in Threads would be prudent. Circle members should be able to easily lock a discussion in this sub-forum. Members could still debate ad-nauseum elsewhere on the WotC board.
CrystalSmoke 02-07-07, 06:56 PM	I have just one recommendation. It's simple yet versatile. It sets up a policy now that would head off countless future arguments and complaints. So what is this solution? The annual rebuild! Once per year, allow a PC to be rebuilt, at the cost of 100 time units. You'd re-create the character, starting with ability scores and going through all of the level-up choices through the character's current level. Put reasonable restrictions on it, of course, like keeping the same name, treasure and items, feats that have been used to generate cash or items, etc. Make the TU cost high enough to discourage frivolous rebuilding. A rebuild would free players to take advantage of options in newly released sourcebooks (which encourages them to buy more of those new sourcebooks, hint hint). :$$: And it would let players go back and re-do choices that they now regret. Provide amnesty to the tank fighter who's kicking himself for taking the Stealthy feat, and to the sorcerer who just realized that Quicken Spell wasn't exactly a brilliant choice. Not to mention the fighter who behaves so much like a paladin that people assume he is one, and wishes he'd realized it a few levels earlier. :cool: And so on - I'm sure a lot of people here can think of their own examples. The annual rebuild has been used with great success in the Living Arcanis campaign. I think that LG would really benefit from taking advantage of their experience with it. For the curious, they're described in the LA Rules Compendium at http://www.onaraonline.org/chargen.php
MatteBlack 02-07-07, 07:53 PM	nm
Keasar 02-08-07, 02:36 PM	1. I think characters should get a complete rebuild. Players have invested feats, PRC, and gold into building their characters around specific classes and feats combinations. Its not enough to just let them swap out the restricted feat or classes. They should get a complete rebuild. 2. Power attack should be capped at +5 max. Lets face it this is the most broken you must have feat of them all. 3. Over powered spells/feats that players can't use anymore should not be used by mod writers. 4. Evil spells. If you can't come up with an easy way to judicate these spells then you should just ban them for everyones sanity.
Arcainite 02-09-07, 02:26 PM	Why do they have Rhinoceros in the game but not Camels or Giraffe?? I took Camel as an Animal Companion for my druid (now deceased) - straight out of the core PHB - and got strange looks from everybody at the table with me. It was a Bright Sands non-Wasteland Druid (because someone told me that Wasteland Druids couldn't have Camels even though it was on their animal companion list also). Can we get some love for the camels in 597?
Master_Bushido_Mark 02-10-07, 02:07 AM	Question for Britt. I noticed that the Open Access Section that defines what we can buy without an AR includes armor and weapons from any size small, medium or large. But the LGCS draft says only whichever size is appropriate to your character's size class. Well, that seems a little ridiculous that a Centaur can locate a Large Scythe in Greyhawk, but that I can not. Here is why. With the level 3 rule abolishment, I can build a first level Human Fighter with the feats Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Chain, Spiked) and Monkey Grip, but I can not buy a Large Spiked Chain because my size class is medium. However, a Centaur in my party could easily purchase a Large Spiked Chain without any difficulty. I strongly suggest an edit that either allows all PCs to be able to purchase any size class armor or weapon, or that no PC may buy such items without AR access. Mark
Aoibin 02-11-07, 01:27 PM	This is an old idea coming back to haunt, but over the years I've seen enough things to cause me to ask that it be considered. Please consider to changing the table minimums back to 3 players. As the 4 player minimum stands, it causes a LOT of tables to have problems mustering and sometimes to prevent mustering at all. I have seen people trying to do home games that never went off because they didn't have enough friends in their local group; I have been to a number of events where the 4 player minimum rule caused mustering problems that otherwise would not have occurred...Seven players wanting to play and no 8th...it has caused problems where half the players were too low or too high...it has caused players to have to be the one to volunteer not to play at all. ( I've seen people offer to run a 7 player table and report it as a table of 6)...I've seen an event coordinator get a DM to use one of his own PC's as an NPC and then fill out the from as if the coordinator had run the game, just to be able to have the event go off at all. These are not justifications, but none of the above would have happened if the 3 player rule were reinstated. If we are willing to try a game with 3 PC's why not let us? And it would allow players to actually get to dust off their cohorts and use them as well. I know a number of players who didn't take leadership because they felt like they wouldn't get to use the cohorts and didn't want to waste the feat. I know there was a lot of discussion about this years ago, but maybe after years of seeing the problems we have experienced because of it the Circle could consider changing the rule back to 3? John Evans
Mithreinmaethor 02-11-07, 02:12 PM	A couple of questions: #1 Improved Feint - it is not Open and not Closed. It was the same way in the CY596 LGCS. Was just wondering why this was #2 Dazziling Illusion (CM) - It is same as above ?
Cardinal Teplin 02-11-07, 04:29 PM	I have a question- why was Master of Many Forms made closed. There was a case for saying it was overpowered before all the polymorph rules changed, but afterwards? Once the change have been made, what is the reason for still banning it? Curious. H Teplin: druid5/MoMFs 9
Master_Bushido_Mark 02-12-07, 01:35 AM	It would appear that your Open and Closed lists are explicitly built off of the Core and Banned lists from the current LGCS. Which had the ruling that any class, feat, spell, et cetera not listed in those lists were considered Limited by default. For example, the Prestige class Sacred Purifier is in neither of your lists, yet I have AR access to be trained in this class by the Church of Lydia. Now, this is the Prestige class that is MADE for my LG Cleric/Fighter of Wee Jas who has an undetered and unabashed hatred of the dead. She seeks to end all those trapped souls, and release them from their corporeal hell. It is not an overpowered class being as it is SO stacked against explicitly dead, and LG is built around destruction of dead and evil outsiders for the most part, from what I've seen. So, Britt, are we to understand that all feats, spells, prestige classes, et cetera that are not listed are, yet again, assumed to be limited (or earned only as another poster had suggested)? Or, are they closed by default, which would suck for the twelve new supplements that will be releasing before the next LGCS launches in '08? Mark
Eric Anondson 02-12-07, 03:02 AM	So, Britt, are we to understand that all feats, spells, prestige classes, et cetera that are not listed are, yet again, assumed to be limited (or earned only as another poster had suggested)? Or, are they closed by default, which would suck for the twelve new supplements that will be releasing before the next LGCS launches in '08?If it were closed it would be on the Closed list. Receiving access via an AR, in the past or in the future, effectively makes those specific things on that AR Open for that character. Things on the Closed list will never be made available on an AR and if they ever were in the past they are now removed from the campaign.