Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Britt 02-13-07, 05:31 PM	A new version has been sent into WotC due to some required changes. Here is a changelist: - Closed NPC Base Classes from DMG and removed associated text in a few places - Switched Master's Touch and Critical Strike to SpC versions (adding Critical Strike back) - Clarified upgrading magic items from the Open list - Added one FAQ entry regarding multiple uses of the same CL bump items and stacking - Version number updated to 7.0.1 -- Britt F. Frey Living Greyhawk Circle - IUZ Metaregion
LachlarlanIII 02-13-07, 05:36 PM	Why were the NPC base classes ultimately closed?
Bosstone 02-13-07, 05:38 PM	NOOOOOOOO! :bigeyes: Oh well. Figures there'd be an Issue with using them. LachlarlanIII, I'm betting WotC wound up denying permission. I doubt the reason why will be made public, but I could be wrong.
Britt 02-13-07, 05:39 PM	They are not intended to be used by PCs (hence the name NPC Class) and, due to the first point, they are too underpowered.
catsclaw 02-13-07, 05:48 PM	They are not intended to be used by PCs (hence the name NPC Class) and, due to the first point, they are too underpowered.Wow. The Circle is now banning underpowered classes. Will we be entitled to a rebuild? I have a feeling the Athletic feat will be next on the chopping block, if this keeps up.
Bosstone 02-13-07, 05:49 PM	They are not intended to be used by PCs (hence the name NPC Class) and, due to the first point, they are too underpowered. I agree they're underpowered, but what PC class allows you to pick your own class skills, or gives you a hybrid wizard/cleric spell list? Expert and Adept could have made positive contributions, even if the others didn't. Not that I'm going to argue strenuously for their inclusion or claim I'm disenchanted with LG or anything. The idea of having the NPC classes in was just a lot of fun, and they wouldn't have hurt anything by being an option.
Howie23 02-13-07, 06:00 PM	Upgrade question: Does special material limit ability to upgrade an item by purchase? If I have a +1 mithral fullplate, and gain access to +1 light fortification fullplate, can I have the light fortification added to my +1 mithral fullplate? David
Britt 02-13-07, 06:03 PM	Yes, that would limit it as well (by my understanding). An adamantine longsword is not the same as a steel longsword, just like a longsword is not the same as a greatsword. I will check with the others while at DDXP, though.
Howie23 02-13-07, 06:08 PM	- Closed NPC Base Classes from DMG and removed associated text in a few places Oh maaaaaan. There goes my idea for a commoner intro with rebuild after.... ;) David
Alpha_Nerd 02-13-07, 06:24 PM	Uh Oh. I played a module this morning and started an Adept 1. Do I get a rebuild? joking
clannagh 02-13-07, 07:29 PM	I was seriously considering adding aristocrat levels to a couple of my Ratik secondaries with "courtly background" for role play reasons. No matter .. the ruling actually makes a lot of sense.
Reska 02-13-07, 07:32 PM	I'm only upset cause I printed out the version last night, then took it to Kinko's and had it bound (so I'd have it on hand at DDXP, and not lose pages in the process). Now there's a new version? Curses! Foiled again!
Britt 02-13-07, 07:38 PM	Those are the only changes, I promise. I'm pretty sure nothing changed page location or anything. Here's what you can do to your version: Equipment p9: Strike out the DMG reference. Landless Nobility: Strike out the NPC classes. Creating magic items p15 last para: add "+ Appendix 4" FAQ: Add "no stacking beads of karma or similar stuff" Closed Base Classes: Add "DMG NPC Classes" Open Spells: Add "Critical Strike (SpC)", change Master's Touch source to (SpC) That covers it in shorthand.
Reska 02-13-07, 07:43 PM	Those are the only changes, I promise. I'm pretty sure nothing changed page location or anything. Here's what you can do to your version: Equipment p9: Strike out the DMG reference. Landless Nobility: Strike out the NPC classes. Creating magic items p15 last para: add "+ Appendix 4" FAQ: Add "no stacking beads of karma or similar stuff" Closed Base Classes: Add "DMG NPC Classes" Open Spells: Add "Critical Strike (SpC)", change Master's Touch source to (SpC) That covers it in shorthand. Course, the downside to that is when players look it over (or anyone else) and they see the handwritten stuff...they question it. But, as it's mostly for my benefit (and to keep on hand when judging) then they can suffer! Muahaha!
LCJJohnson 02-13-07, 10:54 PM	I'm only upset cause I printed out the version last night, then took it to Kinko's and had it bound (so I'd have it on hand at DDXP, and not lose pages in the process). Now there's a new version? Curses! Foiled again! Heh, I downloaded the 7.0, but made a point of not printing it because I was sure something like this would happen. For that matter, since I'm not going to DDXP I will make a point of not printing it until the day before the next game I play. Let them work the bugs out without wasting my precious ink and paper.
RedKnightofKet 02-13-07, 10:59 PM	Yeah, I should have done that - but was too eager to print it :( Ah, well - at least it's only 30ish pages, rather than 70 plus...
Mithreinmaethor 02-14-07, 02:45 AM	I did have one question can we either Unlock it so we can Bookmark it or is someone gonna Bookmark it for us and upload it ?
Britt 02-14-07, 02:49 AM	I can't unlock it. The best I can do is allow you to copy from it, as I have done. I will keep bookmarks in mind for next revision though. I already plan on creating an index and linking all text that refers to different chapters or sections.
Mithreinmaethor 02-14-07, 03:05 AM	Cool thanks
Southernskies 02-14-07, 03:16 AM	A new version has been sent into WotC due to some required changes. Here is a changelist: - Closed NPC Base Classes from DMG and removed associated text in a few places Noooo!!!!! Aristocrat is one of my favourite classes when I don't want to play a "regular" base clase. A properly thought-out aristocrat is more powerful than many average base class builds (I play one in Living Arcanis). More seriously, I hope you flagged them as available to authors; otherwise there won't be any more NPC foes to fight.
kenobi65 02-14-07, 08:39 AM	The new version is up on the RPGA site now.
LGMoses 02-14-07, 09:23 AM	They are not intended to be used by PCs (hence the name NPC Class) and, due to the first point, they are too underpowered. Why were they put on in the first place? I must have missed the post where it was talked about. It just seemed kinda random. "ok guys, now you can retrain for gold and TU's, and o yeah Tim, you can make that commoner/aristocrat you've always wanted to make."
LGMoses 02-14-07, 09:25 AM	Heh, I downloaded the 7.0, but made a point of not printing it because I was sure something like this would happen. For that matter, since I'm not going to DDXP I will make a point of not printing it until the day before the next game I play. Let them work the bugs out without wasting my precious ink and paper. yeah, i got lucky. I started printing it and ran out of ink on page 1. Been low a while.
gomeztoo 02-14-07, 09:28 AM	It was originally added by accident. The LGCS was simplified to say that everything in the Core books was open unless specified, and then they forgot to add NPC classes as closed. When this was pointed out it was initially found to not be a real issue to have the NPC classes open, so it was left in. Apparently the opinion on this has changed, and so now they are (again) Closed.
LGMoses 02-14-07, 09:31 AM	yes, the idea of someone getting a commoner to 16th level probly scared them. I would love to see that. The hero peasant.
Fleetfang 02-14-07, 10:08 AM	Haha. Yeah, I was joking with a friend of mine last week that I was going to make a Commoner PC. I'd explain to people that he was like Luke Skywalker in A New Hope, caught up in events that are far larger than he is.... No, he's not a jedi or anything. He's got no grand destiny at all: He's just caught up in events that are far larger than he is. "Ahhh! Orcs! Help!!"
Mortepierre 02-14-07, 11:41 AM	NPC classes have been open in Living Arcanis for a long time and haven't broken the game. From what I could see at various conventions, players went mainly for Expert or Aristocrat and then only for a few levels at best. When you think about it from a rp point of view, it's kind of tragic. "But I started as a simple farmer's son! Why can't I be Commoner?" "Because you would be underpowered. Now shut up and go min/max your sheet like all your buddies!"
gomeztoo 02-14-07, 02:44 PM	Aristocrat isn't that bad. Reasonable BAB, martial weapon prof, smack of gold and reasonable skills. But commoner? You can wield *one* simple weapon a bit, and suck at everything else. If you loose your club you can't even wield a dagger...
cycloptic_squirrel 02-14-07, 02:57 PM	But imagine one who used a spiked chain at third level. Need slashing? Here, borrow my longsword. Can't, don't know how. Don't you whip that fancy chain all abouts? Yeah, but I only know how to wield the chain and one simple weapon. What's that? Sling bullets. So where's your sling? I said sling bullets, not sling. What?!? I just throw the sling bullets. But they don't do any damage! Maybe if I get lucky and crit... No, not even then,no damage. But I throw them three at a time, shouldn't that give me three times the damage? You do three times nothing! ...four if I crit. I hate you.
Lightblade 02-14-07, 03:31 PM	Uh Oh. I played a module this morning and started an Adept 1. Do I get a rebuild? joking Well, even though you're joking, the LGCS covers that already. PG 20: you took a class that became closed, so you can now Retrain out of it. Except you actually didn't, so you don't.
mlund 02-14-07, 03:36 PM	I'm just going to take a moment and offer my sincere thanks for all the hard work that went into this document. I started LG with the 595 and this is a vast improvement in terms of organization and structure. I also think the integration of new errata and supplements has been handled with a keen eye to play balance and classical flavor for D&D. It isn't exactly how I'd do it at home, but for a global game this is incredible. Thanks again, Marty Lund
Morgen 02-15-07, 12:50 AM	Awwww, I already had a wondering noble in the shield lands all built up in my head and you guys cut it out. No fair... :(
denny1824 02-15-07, 01:43 AM	I hope this is the right spot for this. Page 26. Open Base Classes. None of the Base Classes from the PH are listed. Page 34. Open Prestige Classes. None of the prestige classes from the DMG are listed as being open. It may be assumed that these are all open, but I could not find anywhere that it stated they were.
cycloptic_squirrel 02-15-07, 01:56 AM	Anything in the core books (PHB, DMG, MM) are open access unless specified otherwise. So they're all in, with the exception of a few DMG PrCs listed in the closed section.
Aoibin 02-15-07, 04:07 AM	Just as a thought for anyone who really wanted to play the NPC classes...I'm seriously considering this myself... It is possible to look at the capabilities of a base class and then take open classes that would give you (for the most part) the abilities of the NPC classes. Then...and here's where some will say it's dumb...but I submit if you only want to play one of the NPC classes it is not, you, as a roleplayer, restrict yourself from using any additional class abilities the open classes may allow in addition...i.e., take a rogue class and fighter to emulate an aristocrat, but don't take advantage of the extra feats...shunt them off to something useless...say skill focus: underwater basketweaving. To create an adept, ONLY take or use spells that are open from that list, and restrict yourself from using any class abilities the adept would be unable to use, such as turning or using domain abilities or spells. It's possible. As a player you can actively choose not to use class abilities as a roleplaying schtick as it were. With some creative roleplaying, you may not completely recreate the NPC classes, but you could come so close it wouldn't matter. And if other players object to this, advise them it's a roleplaying choice. It may underpower your character, but if you want to play an underpowered PC it is your choice. Try it...it could be fun. It's just a thought. John Evans John Evans
LGMoses 02-15-07, 10:17 AM	I don't think that allowing npc classes or doing what the above poster suggests follows the spirit of the game. LG is a game where people heavily invest in their characters. If NPC classes were to be used/allowed or you were to neuter your character as the above poster suggests, then you would no longer be contributing to the fun of the table. When people don't contribute, others die. Your character is suppossed to be better than the average person in most respects. But playing down your character is not going to help anyone as everyone would have to babysit your or you just wouldn't contribute. Remember, in LG its not just about your fun, but its also about the fun of the other players.
KarmaInferno 02-15-07, 11:51 AM	I notice a number of the entries on the access lists are still not properly alphabetized. Like the feats - all the ones starting with the word "Metamagic" should be all next to each other, right? They're scattered among the rest of the M feats. Probably not enough of an issue to warrant an actual re-issue, but something to keep in mind for the next revision. -karma
kegdrainer 02-15-07, 12:06 PM	I don't think that allowing npc classes or doing what the above poster suggests follows the spirit of the game. LG is a game where people heavily invest in their characters. If NPC classes were to be used/allowed or you were to neuter your character as the above poster suggests, then you would no longer be contributing to the fun of the table. When people don't contribute, others die. Your character is suppossed to be better than the average person in most respects. But playing down your character is not going to help anyone as everyone would have to babysit your or you just wouldn't contribute. Remember, in LG its not just about your fun, but its also about the fun of the other players. Just some random thoughts: If that was the case, then the powers that be would have to remove all substandard classes/Prestige classes from the game. No Elemental Savants since they lose caster levels. No Mystic Theurges since they are mutts. The list goes on. The problem is finding the right balance between the players and the game. Some are going to create their characters based on an idea or for fun. Others are going for the most bang for the buck. Same thing for the mod writers. If I heard that a mod had X TPK's, I would not want to play it unless I might get a reward worthy of the risk. Some mods I had a good time playing them, others, I was glad when it was over having a miserable time. I should not have to burn access to a Time Stop to get out of a near TPK. (to save a player from losing their dead character and mine with only 2 hp.) Having just started playing Blackmoor last month, I find that the time I spend playing LG is not worth the investment for what I get in return for my character. At an APL 2 table, I should not be seeing Vampires/Spawn, let alone fighting them but I have in LG. I should have an enjoyable experence playing but I should not get wiped out in one shot due to a monster that is over powered for the APL or can kill me so I can not be brought back. More so at that low of a level. The latest LGCS has gone a long way towards improving the characters but that is limited by their builds. Why play a fighter if I can get magic items cheaper than they can by crafting them. I might as well play a cleric. I would gladly give up xp and a feat or two to craft magic items for half price. As a suggestion, there should be an option for players to receive magic items as rewards for their actions and not have to buy them.
jstorrie 02-15-07, 01:42 PM	You do, technically speaking, often get magic items as rewards during adventures. But once an adventure is finished, all treasure is converted to gold so that people don't get off of the wealth-by-level-curve. So yes, the prince does give you a a +3 holy greatsword for saving the realm - but then it gets converted to liquid assets temporarily, while the party divides up its treasure. Then you have access to take it with your 'share,' at market value.
kenobi65 02-15-07, 01:52 PM	Anything in the core books (PHB, DMG, MM) are open access unless specified otherwise. Just for denny1824's benefit: It says this on p. 26, near the top of the page. All base classes, prestige classes, feats, spells, and domains from the core rulebooks (PH, DMG, MM) are considered Open unless specifically noted otherwise in this appendix.
denny1824 02-15-07, 03:09 PM	Just for denny1824's benefit: It says this on p. 26, near the top of the page. Thanks, I missed that paragraph.
kegdrainer 02-15-07, 03:19 PM	You do, technically speaking, often get magic items as rewards during adventures. But once an adventure is finished, all treasure is converted to gold so that people don't get off of the wealth-by-level-curve. So yes, the prince does give you a a +3 holy greatsword for saving the realm - but then it gets converted to liquid assets temporarily, while the party divides up its treasure. Then you have access to take it with your 'share,' at market value. Then as an adventurer, you should be able to buy it from the party members for what they were going to get for it at that adventure. It could have easily been an item the prince gave you that you can't sell and have to take care of like a white elephant. If you die, you still can not sell it to get you raised. The wealth by level is useless when fighters/rogues can not craft items. I have yet to see a spellcaster offer full plate armor to a fighter to help protect him. For 4000 gp for a +2 stat boost, the caster can make it and still BUY a set of MW full plate and throw in MW spikes. If you want to equalize things, then the crafters should only be able to craft one magic item a level (except for potions/scrolls).
cycloptic_squirrel 02-15-07, 05:05 PM	Then as an adventurer, you should be able to buy it from the party members for what they were going to get for it at that adventure. It could have easily been an item the prince gave you that you can't sell and have to take care of like a white elephant. If you die, you still can not sell it to get you raised. I think something similar to certs early in the campaign. They decided the current system works better. I'm not sure I like the possibility that I might be able to buy the shiny axe off my party for a pittance because none of them wanted it, while you had to compete with two axe specialists at your table and ended up paying twice its value. Once you accept that, it becomes a function of limiting wealth that you can gain by playng a module. And white elephants like you mention exist in LG, they just usually take the form of favors/blessings/curses. The wealth by level is useless when fighters/rogues can not craft items. I have yet to see a spellcaster offer full plate armor to a fighter to help protect him. For 4000 gp for a +2 stat boost, the caster can make it and still BUY a set of MW full plate and throw in MW spikes. If you want to equalize things, then the crafters should only be able to craft one magic item a level (except for potions/scrolls). 1) The crafter is blowing a feat and possibly spell choices. 2) Very few crafters can craft anything they want. Even a 14th level wizard is prevented from crafting a ring of protection +1. 3) I have heard of crafters giving out goodies, but you wouldn't see full plate. You'd see items that are more easily used and not likely already possessed by others, i.e. high power adamantine weapons, ion stones, cool cloaks, ect. 4) It does take TUs, which can be a deterrent for a primary character. Crafting does unbalance the game, but I think the system we have is better than removing crafting all together, which is the only other reasonable option I've heard of. With the new charity of friends clause, no one should be crippled by lack of wealth. I realize that it's hard to ignore, but there's always going to be someone with more wealth than you. It's part of the game. If we tried to equalize everything we'd either end up with a boring game where everyone is the same, or a LGCS 200 pages long (Even then, I doubt it'd be equal).
Eric Anondson 02-15-07, 05:36 PM	I think something similar to certs early in the campaign.Yeah, I remember the days when you could sit down at an APL 4 table with a player with a character that had two +2 keen kukris, because they had played Fright at Tristor and a friend of theirs had also played it but quit LG and gave them the extra +2 keen kukri. Oh the halcyon days of certs and Magic Mart (tm)... :bored:
clannagh 02-15-07, 05:52 PM	If you want to equalize things, then the crafters should only be able to craft one magic item a level (except for potions/scrolls). Balanced is not the same as "equal". Balanced classes will still have advantages over each other in some areas or have relative levels where one class is more powerful (a back loaded class like arcane heirophant will be weaker at low levels whilst a front loaded class like fighter gets weaker at higher levels).
UMiskatonic 02-15-07, 06:08 PM	I don't know about that, kegdrainer. If you take a look at perhaps the most common crafting feat, scribe scroll, then it's clear that it gets used ALL the time on other PCs. Have you seen a wizard use a scroll to contribute? Then great, it's a benefit to the party. As a cleric, my scribed scrolls are good for poison, disease, etc. I don't hand them to the fighters because it changes from a magic item to a piece of paper. That's also true for probably the most commonly crafted magic item, the pearl of power. If that spell is recalled, and is used for the party, then you should be glad that caster has craft feats, because it benefits you. The reason people don't make +2 tridents of returning is that you're forced to guess at what might be useful to the next party you play with. You'll usually be wrong on that one, best to focus on gear that's useful.
kegdrainer 02-15-07, 08:29 PM	As far as I can tell, the most common feat is "use Happy stick":D . Since Wizards (or clerics with the rune domain) get Scribe scroll by default, it would be a common crafting feat. While there are casters that scribe scrolls, pearls of power are the most common thing I have seen used by them. I guess the problem is feeling like I am behind the power curve since the character has died twice, along with learning this version of D&D. In a home game, I know what to expect in the party. In LG, there have been times when he is the only fighter with a bunch of spell casters. He becomes a speed bump for the monsters. Adding up all adventures played by the character, he has received 18,071 gp (after paying for reincarnate) so far and is about to go to 6th level. He is above the curve there, having to play up most of the time (Above Level 20 (4 times at 1/2xp, gold)/ At Level 6/ Below Level 3). I guess I will have to double check the character and find out where his money has gone. The most expensive item he has is +1 full plate and no magic weapon. He has a happy stick but has used over half of the charges during the last 13 adventures. I know part of it is selling items for half price when he changed from Full Plate to Mithral chain and back. Funny, all those adventures and no access to Gauntlets of Ogre power. I am glad they changed things with the latest LGCS.
bitznarf 02-15-07, 08:34 PM	Deaths after about level 6(?) actually tend to put people ahead of the money curve, which in turn puts them ahead on the power curve. Also take into consideration *how* you died. Was it actually because you are below the power curve, or some other factor, bad tactics, bad party composition, risks taken that didn't pay off, etc.
kegdrainer 02-15-07, 08:54 PM	Deaths after about level 6(?) actually tend to put people ahead of the money curve, which in turn puts them ahead on the power curve. Also take into consideration *how* you died. Was it actually because you are below the power curve, or some other factor, bad tactics, bad party composition, risks taken that didn't pay off, etc. The first death was at 2nd level when he tripped a hill giant but was too close when it got back up (Played up as a F1/W1). Chalk that as a learning experence. Second death was in an interactive and being the only tank of the group, against a gnoll that got a crit. (F2/Rgr1, currently F2/Rgr3) I find that I need to double check the math on my AR's. Using Excel, it shows that I am missing 800 or so GP. I will need to double check things on the AR's and get with the DM next adventure to make sure everything adds up.
Morgen 02-15-07, 09:03 PM	Why is it that everyone in LG seems to have this equation in mind. Fun = Powerful Character I'm just curious.
Eric Anondson 02-15-07, 09:11 PM	Because in LG, usually :teach: : Powerful Character = More likely to survive. More likely to survive = Less chance of dieing. Less dieing = More fun. :pint:
ranagrande 02-15-07, 09:16 PM	Why is it that everyone in LG seems to have this equation in mind. Fun = Powerful Character I'm just curious. I would say that this is because LG is a very combat-oriented campaign, and in general, it's more fun to win than it is to lose.
bitznarf 02-15-07, 09:18 PM	Why is it that everyone in LG seems to have this equation in mind. Fun = Powerful Character I'm just curious. Well, for me personally, I like playing a character who is good at what he does, whatever that may be. In my above post I had fun in that fight regardless of the death.
kegdrainer 02-15-07, 09:34 PM	Why is it that everyone in LG seems to have this equation in mind. Fun = Powerful Character I'm just curious. Dying = Chance of losing character forever. In a small group of players, that might mean a gap in later games if no one can play up or down, or for a TPK that no one can return. I find that LG gives me a chance to check out the rules that might not be used in a home game. In a 3.0 home game, we did not trip, disarm, grapple or use mounted combat. LG gives me a chance to see how it's done. (Playing a trip monkey, when a raging Barbarian does 60+ in one shot and then does it again on their next strike, I may as well stay home.)
bitznarf 02-15-07, 09:44 PM	(Playing a trip monkey, when a raging Barbarian does 60+ in one shot and then does it again on their next strike, I may as well stay home.) I would think playing a trip monkey is helping said barbarian be able to power attack for so much and still hit. It also helps defend your party as the BBEG(s) are effectively taking a -4 penalty to the attack roll. Don't underrate a well built trip monkey. They can (and often do) contribute just as much if not more to the combat then the raging barbarian. After all, a trip monkey can rage too ;) (if built for it of course). If I had to choose one of the other to play at my table, I would personally probably edge the trip monkey over the barbarian. As for feeling like just staying home.. well.., I recommend you don't play a bard if you don't like taking a less 'glorious' role.
kegdrainer 02-15-07, 09:54 PM	I would think playing a trip monkey is helping said barbarian be able to power attack for so much and still hit. It also helps defend your party as the BBEG(s) are effectively taking a -4 penalty to the attack roll. Don't underrate a well built trip monkey. They can (and often do) contribute just as much if not more to the combat then the raging barbarian. After all, a trip monkey can rage too ;) (if built for it of course). If I had to choose one of the other to play at my table, I would personally probably edge the trip monkey over the barbarian. As for feeling like just staying home.. well.., I recommend you don't play a bard if you don't like taking a less 'glorious' role. Nope, have not played a bard since 1st edition:D . In that battle, the barbarian got to act first and got the second kill in when I was dealing with the third one. I like the build since it has allowed me to learn tripping. With the retraining rules/new access, I might change spiked chain to something else. I plan on taking Horizon Walker next and then EWM for a level or two. If Duskblade was open, I would take that since he was built as a gish before getting killed the first time.
cycloptic_squirrel 02-15-07, 10:09 PM	Because in LG, usually :teach: : Powerful Character = More likely to survive. More likely to survive = Less chance of dieing. Less dieing = More fun. :pint: I thought death meant your gp:xp ratio improved... Wouldn't it go something like this: Powerful Character = More likely to survive. More likely to survive = Less chance of dying. Less dying = More fun, lower wealth ratio. Lower wealth ratio = More dying. More dying = Less fun, higher wealth ratio. Higher wealth ratio = Powerful Character. Repeat. :twitch: :crazy: :looloo: :blink: :rolleye2: :dancin:
LGMoses 02-15-07, 10:33 PM	:twitch: :crazy: :looloo: :blink: :rolleye2: :dancin: I really like smilies. especially the twitch one. :)
LGMoses 02-15-07, 10:54 PM	I have to say I am pleased with the the new LGCS after all is said and done. Good work Circle
Arvagor 02-15-07, 10:56 PM	I really like smilies. especially the twitch one. :)I think we need to reserve that one for Britt and the rest of the Circle each time an LGCS review comes 'round...
Aoibin 02-15-07, 11:24 PM	I don't think that allowing npc classes or doing what the above poster suggests follows the spirit of the game. LG is a game where people heavily invest in their characters. If NPC classes were to be used/allowed or you were to neuter your character as the above poster suggests, then you would no longer be contributing to the fun of the table. When people don't contribute, others die. Your character is suppossed to be better than the average person in most respects. But playing down your character is not going to help anyone as everyone would have to babysit your or you just wouldn't contribute. Remember, in LG its not just about your fun, but its also about the fun of the other players. With all due respect, I was simply offering an option for those characters who want to achieve something they couldn't otherwise do. To be honest, in the past several years, I have seen that, in the opinion of a large number of players in LG, the only acceptable, contributing character at a table is a powerful one. I've seen any number of players stop short of actually making fun of someone who chose to play a straight Bard. I've heard players say a number of times that a bard is useless except for diplomacy rolls and bardsong. Personally, I had a fighter/ranger who was a crossbow using Deepwood Sniper just before conversion. After conversion, I still used a crossbow only. Several players chided me for not using a longbow and getting the extra attacks and damage or taking bow only feats. Or for not resetting feats to make him a better melee fighter (Str was 10). I told them he was based on a concept, not on numbers. That PC has been an assett to almost every table he's been a part of. I also once knew a player who's goal was to play a Jack of all Trades PC with a single level of every base class and see what prestige class he could qualify for when he was done. He was a very interesting PC. But his abilities were all 1st level and his BAB and casting levels were all at the bare minimum. It was an underpowered PC, but it was entirely legal. Alignment-wise, he started out LG and slowly turned NG, a reasonable transition for someone growing older and wiser from an RP standpoint. Nothing about this PC was remotely illegal, and it was very underpowered. I understand wanting the party to work well together and everyone do his part, but if you expect every PC to be tricked out to the max, in my eyes that violates the spirit of the rules far more than sticking to a PC concept. Power gamers have their place, but so do concept players. John Evans
cycloptic_squirrel 02-15-07, 11:42 PM	I've seen any number of players stop short of actually making fun of someone who chose to play a straight Bard. I've heard players say a number of times that a bard is useless except for diplomacy rolls and bardsong. There are days I'd kill for a decent bard at the table. If it was orcs, I'd kill three for one. Inspire courage? Yes, please. Haste? Oh thank you. Let me have the spotlight in combat? Oohh, can I have seconds? Builds are important, but the intellegence of the player matters too. I'd rather play with an underpowered character played deviously than a powerful character played foolishly. That goes for roleplay too... if you spend the first three rounds getting distance from the combat while I'm getting mauled, simply because you're playing a cowardly character, something unpleasant will happen to you.
clannagh 02-15-07, 11:54 PM	There are days I'd kill for a decent bard at the table. If it was orcs, I'd kill three for one. Inspire courage? Yes, please. Haste? Oh thank you. Let me have the spotlight in combat? Oohh, can I have seconds? Builds are important, but the intellegence of the player matters too. I'd rather play with an underpowered character played deviously than a powerful character played foolishly. That goes for roleplay too... if you spend the first three rounds getting distance from the combat while I'm getting mauled, simply because you're playing a cowardly character, something unpleasant will happen to you. agreed In fact in my experience those big mouthed boasting players who claim to have "power" characters often seem to be tactically limited and get quite flustered upset or even angry if a mod takes them outside there pet pre-planned combat scenarios. As for bards .. if you total up the damage done in a mod .. and to be fair if a power attack swing by the barbarian would have missed without the bardsong ALL that damage should belong to the bard not just the extra plus from the song .. bards can often work out as the highest damage dealer in the party.
LGMoses 02-16-07, 12:00 AM	I understand wanting the party to work well together and everyone do his part, but if you expect every PC to be tricked out to the max, in my eyes that violates the spirit of the rules far more than sticking to a PC concept. Power gamers have their place, but so do concept players. John Evans I am not arguing for people to [I]trick[I] out their characters, or for them to limit their gaming choices. You don't have to tweak out your character to contribute to the game. We are all free to play the characters we wish to play, but playing an npc class would not be fitting to play. They aren't made for PC's. Joe Blow the farmer commoner 1 should NOT be adventuring. Not long neways. Also, I'm a major believer that when making characters, your roleplaying choices need to match what is on the paper. Just some random thoughts: If that was the case, then the powers that be would have to remove all substandard classes/Prestige classes from the game. No Elemental Savants since they lose caster levels. No Mystic Theurges since they are mutts. The list goes on. The problem is finding the right balance between the players and the game. Some are going to create their characters based on an idea or for fun. Others are going for the most bang for the buck. Once again, not trying to criticize "builds" or "suboptimal" builds. How you create your character is how YOU create your character. Enjoy it. I was just saying that npc classes are inappropriate for the game. See the above. Also, once again, your character needs to match your sheet. If your barbarian has 6 int don't have him solve complex algebra puzzles. Also, its really a terrible idea to try and "neuter" your character down. For instance, playing so that your barbarian can only wear hide armor (thereby dropping to 20 mvmnt) would be ridiculous. Your character as you play him should always reflect your sheet. I also apologize if anyone was offended by my post. Just trying to state that IMO playing NPC classes is a bad idea and they should remain not open. If WotC wants to produce an aristocrat class for dnd to mirror Star Wars' noble class that would be fine.
copper_wyrmling 02-16-07, 12:09 AM	As for bards .. if you total up the damage done in a mod .. and to be fair if a power attack swing by the barbarian would have missed without the bardsong ALL that damage should belong to the bard not just the extra plus from the song .. bards can often work out as the highest damage dealer in the party. I do find that argument a little dubious, although I'm not debating the niceness of bardsong. Say your main fighter has Weapon Focus. The rogue tumbles around to give him a flank. The cleric casts Recitation and gives him +2 to hit. The bard sings and gives him another +2. He power attacks for full, hits AC 22 which was exactly what he needed, and does 40 damage. So... does the 40 damage "belong" to the fighter's feat choices (weapon spec over something else), the bard who gave him +2, the cleric who gave him +2, or the rogue who gave him +2? Without all those bonuses, none of the others would have mattered. Thus, I don't like the "if you hit due to my buff then it was really my damage" argument - most of the bonus to hit probably came from the fighter's build, and other party members may have contributed also, the bard just pushed it over the top. Again, not trying to say that bardsong isn't good, just that I don't think that particular argument is really logical ;)
Arvagor 02-16-07, 12:16 AM	[...] Also, its really a terrible idea to try and "neuter" your character down. For instance, playing so that your barbarian can only wear hide armor (thereby dropping to 20 mvmnt) would be ridiculous. [...]Why is that ridiculous? Perhaps the barbarian was raised by a druid, yet never was able to manifest the divine abilities of his mentor. He would nonetheless share many of the same philosophical underpinnings, including a compunction against wearing metal armor, therefore hide armor is the best he could wear while hoping for dragonhide, etc...
Morgen 02-16-07, 12:36 AM	Not like it's hard to make a powerful character. Make a sorcerer, take fireball, cast it a lot. Blow things up, don't stand around things that can hurt you. Tada. My builds arn't at all optimized and they work just fine. My pally has a horrid AC but survives, my Sorcerer can't cast teleport due to a curse and is fine. My illusionist gave up evocation and conjuration and is just fine. My monk sucks, but he's got a ridiculous bluff score at level 3. I've seen extremely powerful characters sit on their asses in mods and not be able to do anything. I think it'd be better if everyone made balanced characters. It'd end up screwing us less and since the play test groups won't be ridiculous maybe we can move away from what's effectively becoming a D&D miniatures game with some clippings of storyline. Okay, maybe that was a little too harsh. Sorry.
clannagh 02-16-07, 01:23 AM	I've seen extremely powerful characters sit on their asses in mods and not be able to do anything. I think it'd be better if everyone made balanced characters. It'd end up screwing us less and since the play test groups won't be ridiculous maybe we can move away from what's effectively becoming a D&D miniatures game with some clippings of storyline. Okay, maybe that was a little too harsh. Sorry. Well to be honest the local group is at risk of losing a few players who are getting tired of continual death or near death encounters ... our "ex 40k crew" who play a lot and love stats and tactics seem quite happy with the new crop of more challenging mods that let them show off there "leetness" but a lot of the more casual role play oriented people are starting to mutter ominously about doing something more productive with their time.
clannagh 02-16-07, 01:25 AM	Again, not trying to say that bardsong isn't good, just that I don't think that particular argument is really logical ;) Well its not logical really :) Arguments have to be logical ? hmmmmm .... interesting
LGMoses 02-16-07, 01:32 AM	Why is that ridiculous? Perhaps the barbarian was raised by a druid, yet never was able to manifest the divine abilities of his mentor. He would nonetheless share many of the same philosophical underpinnings, including a compunction against wearing metal armor, therefore hide armor is the best he could wear while hoping for dragonhide, etc... its your choice. I was just trying to come up with an example. I mite suggest that barbarian wear studded leather instead tho. I'm pretty sure you could ruin ne analogy I could come up with with a crazy character backstory. Its not hard.
solbergb 02-16-07, 03:23 AM	Well to be honest the local group is at risk of losing a few players who are getting tired of continual death or near death encounters ... our "ex 40k crew" who play a lot and love stats and tactics seem quite happy with the new crop of more challenging mods that let them show off there "leetness" but a lot of the more casual role play oriented people are starting to mutter ominously about doing something more productive with their time. /me shakes head. The mods are no easier and no tougher in CY596 than they were in CY593. I have a large enough sample size to judge. Ropleplay and power is unrelated. I recently played in a module which took about 2x the length it should have because the characters just couldn't stop roleplaying with each other, with the NPC's, with peasants, with animals, with rocks (no I am not making this up. someday the rocks will even talk back to her, and I dread the day she can meld into stone repeatedly every day.). Very strong party though. Warchanter high AC tank, stonelord high damage barbarian type, very powerful sorceress, pacificst cleric of mighty buffing and two rogue/thief-acrobat types to do all the utility stuff who were still pretty good in combat, if a touch overshadowed by the barb. I've also played with players who don't talk, don't do anything out of combat and then prove incapable of doing anything in combat. Thankfully they're rare in LG, I don't think I've ever seen more than one at a table at a time. Most players provide some of each. I just find it puzzling to have someone roleplaying a character who gets into fights nearly every week of his life that is bad at being useful in a combat situation. If you are useless in a fight, find something to do with your life that isn't so dangerous. D&D characters are actually very hard to mess up and make useless. Pick a single PHB class, pick feats that do something other than boost skill points and you're going to be able to contribute. You have to WORK at it to make a subiconic character.
Arvagor 02-16-07, 08:38 AM	its your choice. I was just trying to come up with an example. I mite suggest that barbarian wear studded leather instead tho. I'm pretty sure you could ruin ne analogy I could come up with with a crazy character backstory. Its not hard. My point is, that by constantly using negative terms -- "ridiculous", "ruin", "crazy" -- all you're doing is reinforcing the belief that other players' choices that don't conform to your own are wrong or incorrect. I don't come up with stats and then see what "crazy character backstory" I can concoct to rationalize my build choices (barbarian monks, anyone?) -- I come up with, IMO, an interesting backstory and then see what PC arises out of that pool of facts. I find that if you let the campaign affect a character, he comes out a lot more interesting on the other side...
cycloptic_squirrel 02-16-07, 10:35 AM	My point is, that by constantly using negative terms -- "ridiculous", "ruin", "crazy" -- all you're doing is reinforcing the belief that other players' choices that don't conform to your own are wrong or incorrect. I don't come up with stats and then see what "crazy character backstory" I can concoct to rationalize my build choices (barbarian monks, anyone?) -- I come up with, IMO, an interesting backstory and then see what PC arises out of that pool of facts. I find that if you let the campaign affect a character, he comes out a lot more interesting on the other side... Strongly seconded. Cheeze builds tend to annoy me (yes, I'm a hypocrite) but everything is totally forgiven if you can make it work convincingly rp wise.
Mattastrophic 02-16-07, 12:14 PM	The mods are no easier and no tougher in CY596 than they were in CY593. I have a large enough sample size to judge. Roleplay and power is unrelated. *Matt e-pplauds Solberg!!!* There really is no arms race! My experience has shown me that yes, you often have to try to be ineffective. And what gets to me are people who think they're better roleplayers than the rest of us because they took Negotiator. And don't even get me started on people who say "But that's what my character would do, sorry!" after making people angry. As for the NPC classes thing... for awhile I encouraged their inclusion, until the concept of sitting down with three Commoner5s entered my head... -Matt
LGMoses 02-16-07, 12:27 PM	I find that if you let the campaign affect a character, he comes out a lot more interesting on the other side... I agree with that. I never really plan out my builds more than one or two levels myself. If so I leave gaps. I've got my rogue designed for Greyhawk Ruins ready. He's gonna have dodge and mobility. At 6th level he gets spring attack most likely. 3rd level I'll take a feat I unlock from an AR. Its fun to take stuff from AR's. U never know when some of it will come up and it really is using the game.
solbergb 02-16-07, 01:18 PM	The cool thing about retraining is you can let the character grow more organically without being afraid you'll miss out on some future option that is perfect for the PC. One awkward thing about D&D PRC's is that if you want to be a dwarf defender, say, you have to make the decision at level 1 to get all the feats together. Whereas now you can say as you're about to level to 7: "you know, I'm just not getting much use out of mobility and now that I finally have spring attack, it just isnt' that great in play. My AC is high enough that AOO's miss anyway and I'd rather get a full attack than a single attack. "Since I mostly prefer to stand still and be a damage dealing wall for the party, while receiving buffs I should take a PrC designed for that. I'll retrain spring attack for toughness this level and mobility for endurance next level and be a dwarven defender at earliest possible level." That kind of thing is very, very cool. And actually pretty realistic. I've come out of some class or other all fired up about something that when I use it in real life it proves impractical or I lack the discipline to continue, and go back to refining my usual ways of doing things...
girger_gorlok 02-20-07, 09:32 AM	<quite> I've seen any number of players stop short of actually making fun of someone who chose to play a straight Bard. I've heard players say a number of times that a bard is useless except for diplomacy rolls and bardsong. </quote> That is complete bollocks. While its easier to build some dipped-fighter mongrel, building proper bard is not hard. After my homecountry won Eurovision contest last year, I got idea for bard from Lordi. What came out was half-orc barbarian bard, with Cha almost as good as Str. with masterwork drum, I can give hefty damage bonus just after one round of drumming, then listening the aftereffect, I attck with scythe. Possible reaction mods are taken care by "Rustic Charm" feat Granted my AC sucks, but you can't have everything. And he's fun to play
LCJJohnson 02-23-07, 01:38 AM	Recommendation for next LGCS: I think it may be prudent to include in the introduction something to the effect of Dispel Confusion articles being official "starting with Dispel Confusion Vol. 3, No. 2." The previous DCs are obselete, and any material in them has either been incorporated in the current LGCS or is no longer relevant. It seems obvious, but IME it doesn't hurt to come out and say it. LCJJ Just when you think you've made something foolproof, Mother Nature makes a better fool.
Britt 02-23-07, 01:43 AM	Some of the DCs are still valid. If they are not contradicted by the current LGCS, assume they are still good.
LCJJohnson 02-23-07, 02:19 AM	Some of the DCs are still valid. If they are not contradicted by the current LGCS, assume they are still good. Oy vey. That is going to be 'fun' for new players to sort through. Anyhow, here is another thought that I haven't seen addressed (no guarantee that it hasn't been, just that I have not seen it). With all the concern over the xp/gp curve, I have noticed that Zealot Pact seems a nobrainer for 11+ level clerics at the beginning of each adventure, whether the last one got triggered or not. My thought is that it could be treated akin to consumable magic items and listed accordingly on ARs and MILs. With any luck allowing the spell to carry from mod to mod might in this way would slow the corresponding XP drain. At the very least I think it would be a good idea to add this spell to the list of those clarified on page 17 of the LGCS. But that's nothing more than my humble opinion. Cheers, LCJJ
King Kashue 02-23-07, 02:36 AM	I do find that argument a little dubious, although I'm not debating the niceness of bardsong. Say your main fighter has Weapon Focus. The rogue tumbles around to give him a flank. The cleric casts Recitation and gives him +2 to hit. The bard sings and gives him another +2. He power attacks for full, hits AC 22 which was exactly what he needed, and does 40 damage. So... does the 40 damage "belong" to the fighter's feat choices (weapon spec over something else), the bard who gave him +2, the cleric who gave him +2, or the rogue who gave him +2? Without all those bonuses, none of the others would have mattered. Thus, I don't like the "if you hit due to my buff then it was really my damage" argument - most of the bonus to hit probably came from the fighter's build, and other party members may have contributed also, the bard just pushed it over the top. Again, not trying to say that bardsong isn't good, just that I don't think that particular argument is really logical ;) It's not all 40 points that should be attributed, the concept is what's important (i.e., people should recognize the contribution). I semi-regularly play with a bard who now gets +3 hit/+4 damage with his bard song, oh lordy is that sweet. Every time my guy attacks, that's 10 free points of damage without affecting my statistically chances to hit. That's huge...
Timlagor 02-25-07, 09:43 AM	Most people find having a powerful character fun. Most people find having an underpowered character, espcially if they find themselves unable to make a meaningful contribution at all, a considerable damper on their fun. That doesn't mean that it is the only factor contributing to their fun. With LG the risk of spoiling things makes it very hard to talk about the things you had fun with in a game (by the time the module retires, it's a long way in the past). Out of interest kegdrainer, do many of the casters you run into use a lot of damage spells?
kegdrainer 02-25-07, 11:31 AM	Out of interest kegdrainer, do many of the casters you run into use a lot of damage spells? At this stage of the game, (APL 2-6) there are few Arcane casters that play in our area. In yesterdays game (Fane of the Drow) we had a Druid, Ftr/Druid, Cleric, 2 fighters and a rogue. No arcane casters. No big damage spells and the only real offensive spell was a Summon Natures ally II from the Druid (Hippogriff) Lots of cures and some buffs. I ended up taking a level of Wizard just so I do not have to spend 250gp for a potion of enlarge or hoping a wizard can cast it on me. The new crafting rules also helped change my mind. I was going for Ftr2/Rgr3/Horizion walker1/EWM1-2/then back to HW. For the moment, Ftr2/Rgr3/W1 (or specialist, just leveled :D ) and maybe going for spellsword. I have found that powerful characters can be dull after a while. In a 3.0 home game, I played a Deepwood sniper. 18-20/x5 crits made the game less enjoyable to me and the other players. For me, the hard part is finding the right balance between the two. I like adventures that I feel that I had contributed something to the group, not a cakewalk nor an unholy terror where the players are not enjoying themselves.
Argentbard 02-25-07, 06:36 PM	There are days I'd kill for a decent bard at the table. If it was orcs, I'd kill three for one. Inspire courage? Yes, please. Haste? Oh thank you. Let me have the spotlight in combat? Oohh, can I have seconds? Builds are important, but the intellegence of the player matters too. I'd rather play with an underpowered character played deviously than a powerful character played foolishly. That goes for roleplay too... if you spend the first three rounds getting distance from the combat while I'm getting mauled, simply because you're playing a cowardly character, something unpleasant will happen to you. As a player of a mid-level bard, thanks! I haven't had too many people roll their eyes at having me at their table, but it has happened on occasion. It usually stops, however, when they notice there is no party cleric, and I'm the one with the CLW and CMW wands...:mage: As a bard, I feel my job is all about support, and filling in those little gaps that might get overlooked. And romancing the ladies; Argent is the "second best lover in all Oerth". Second best tries harder.