Post/Author/DateTime	Post
haferka 12-20-06, 02:06 AM	I realize that the RPGA is not allowed to modify the game mechanics of D&D. No "official" errata for broken rule items.. etc. Can the RPGA "Adapt" rules to fit the campaign? Basicly, changin (or fixing) the way a rule element works for the purpose of the RPGA campaign. Example: Xendrix, the Power Link stones from Magic of Eberron need only a single work "NOT" inserted in their description to keep them from being completly broken.. currently they DO allow the manifestor to spend more points than they have manifestor levels on a single power. Example: Marshal aura Dex, currently grants Initiative boost which becomes more and more broken at later levels, when the first group to go wins the combat. "Adapting" the Aura to NOT provide an Init boost beyond the bonus of the characters Major aura would resolve the issue. What other "Adaptations" would people recomend.. if such a thing were possible?
Britt 12-20-06, 02:35 AM	No, and that's flat-out changing the rules; no adapting about it.
haferka 12-20-06, 09:15 AM	I know.. I just found a nice way to say it..
Japangirl 12-20-06, 02:31 PM	Why is it broken to provide major bonuses to initiative, when not winning initiative becomes so very problematic and can lead to a TPK? You'd expect high level adventurers to be jumpy and alert and have very quick reflexes when it comes to combat, even the clerics (ah how we love thee, clerical initiative). Marshalls who have made it to high levels should be used to encouraging these very jumpy and experienced adventurers to move really fast in combat situations so that people don't die.
haferka 12-20-06, 02:43 PM	Why is it broken to provide major bonuses to initiative, when not winning initiative becomes so very problematic and can lead to a TPK? You'd expect high level adventurers to be jumpy and alert and have very quick reflexes when it comes to combat, even the clerics (ah how we love thee, clerical initiative). Marshalls who have made it to high levels should be used to encouraging these very jumpy and experienced adventurers to move really fast in combat situations so that people don't die. It is broken at later levels for either the PCS.. or the NPCs to go first.. that is whey at higher levels the DM is encouraged to roll initiative seperatly for each creature, which the PCs have been doing since 1st level. A marshal granting +5 or higher Initiative bonus on top of the individuals existing Initative bonus(s) typically puts ALL the PCs going before any of the NPC creatures... but... regardless... I really don't care what anyones opinion on it is right now... what I do care about is "do you think the RPGA should make changes to the rules when their is an obvious mistake? Currently Living Greyhawk is doing exactly this by ignoring the wilshape/shapechange errata. By ignoring this errata they are changing the way the game works.. (of you can think of it as maintaining the original rules.. whatever.. )
copper_wyrmling 12-20-06, 02:53 PM	You'd expect high level adventurers to be jumpy and alert and have very quick reflexes when it comes to combat, even the clerics (ah how we love thee, clerical initiative). Hey, my cleric got 34 on initiative in one APL 14 game, and she doesn't even have Improved Initiative. Clerics can be fast too! ;) I agree with Japangirl, I wouldn't call the marshal auras an "obvious mistake in the rules" - unbalanced, maybe, but they're entirely unambiguous in how they work.
KShaver 12-20-06, 03:21 PM	Example: Marshal aura Dex, currently grants Initiative boost which becomes more and more broken at later levels, when the first group to go wins the combat. "Adapting" the Aura to NOT provide an Init boost beyond the bonus of the characters Major aura would resolve the issue. The only problem I actually have with this is that the character can do it with only 1 level of marshall. Speaking as a single class marshall character the group initiative bonus hardly makes up for the lack combat skills a pure marshall receives. Limiting it to major aura bonus is severely hampering to the pure marshalls. If you are going to suggest something try more like 3+ major aura bonus, or 2+ level. That way the pure marshalls, whom are far from overpowered, can at least have something. Either way I haven't seen it come into game breaking effect to actually need nerfed. Initiative is still random, and there are still some critters out there with huge initiative modifiers. I doubt I'll ever beat them in intiative regardless, as my +9 init tends to net me a 12.
Morgen 12-20-06, 04:21 PM	Boy you must have a really hard time at your tables if there is a dread commando around. ;) The RPGA really can't change rules. They can ignore some errata but only Wizards can change how their game works. Plus what you might think is broken isn't going to be a shared view among the whoooooole world of the RPGA. Honestly by this point they’ve worked out a lot of the major bugs and have pretty much just proud nails left in the system. Just because you find something somehow unbalancing in no way gives you the right to change the rules in an RPGA game as you please. So it's pointed out, purpose of the game is to have fun, not for the DM to kill the PCs. If you want to play a game like that go play Descent (http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/descent.html). Just got a plug-a-different-game vibe from you. No offense but if you don't like how D&D plays then don't play it.
Bob_the_Theurge 12-20-06, 04:27 PM	Currently Living Greyhawk is doing exactly this by ignoring the wilshape/shapechange errata. By ignoring this errata they are changing the way the game works.. (of you can think of it as maintaining the original rules.. whatever.. ) No, the WotC people and the Circle got together, and rightly figured out that the LG solution to Polymorph (having campaign restrictions on how far such magics could go in general) worked much better than WotC's ill-conceived, ill-thought-out, and generally ill-advised and badly written "errata" did, and the decision was to allow each organized campaign to either use the Wizards errata, or go with their own solution, on this one issue.
Britt 12-20-06, 05:53 PM	For polymorph, WotC granted a specific exception to the standard rules and allowed LG to either take all the new poly changes or none. This is not the normal case. For Marshal, it is broken. Saying that the PCs should be able to win is not a valid argument, as that just as easily justifies the "I Win" feat. Rules items are supposed to be balanced against each other to provide a consistent play environment. Marshal is not. The Init bonus from a minor aura is an extreme example, but the entire minor aura ability is not balanced, overall. If you had 10 levels in Marshal, it would balance out, but few people take more than a level. Can the Circle change that? No. Can we get rid of it? We could, but even if we all agreed that we should, it might not be worth the trouble it would cause at this point. As an aside, I really respect people that recognize rules items as broken and exercise self-restraint by not abusing said rules items.
haferka 12-20-06, 07:31 PM	As an aside, I really respect people that recognize rules items as broken and exercise self-restraint by not abusing said rules items. Well, thanks.. but... typically I will blatantly exploit a rules problem untill it is recognised as such then I will exercise self-restraint by not abusing it... On that note.. is there any way for my character to choose a different minor aura? Perhaps if you could add the PH2 rebuild options as a potential Special Mission objective...
copper_wyrmling 12-20-06, 07:52 PM	Well, thanks.. but... typically I will blatantly exploit a rules problem untill it is recognised as such then I will exercise self-restraint by not abusing it... On that note.. is there any way for my character to choose a different minor aura? Perhaps if you could add the PH2 rebuild options as a potential Special Mission objective... I've been avoiding using CL-boosted Holy Word with my L15 cleric, because it's just so *easy*, there's no challenge or cleverness involved, and it makes the game less fun for everyone at the table (imo). Before Ray of Stupidity was Restricted, I was trying to decide whether I would take it with my sorcerer if I had the opportunity - it would be horribly horribly broken in her hands, but that *did* require a significant feat investment, and nobody but me seemed to have noticed how terrifying it was (and my attempts to get it Restricted at the last LGCS revision had no effect at the time), so at least it was original cheese. Ah well, now I don't need to decide :P Britt, has there been any discussion of allowing or partially allowing the PHB2 retraining options? It would be very nice to have some way to do a limited rebuild, especially in a Living campaign where you don't know from one game to the next what rules options are going to become available to you - of course, there should be a cost associated (TUs or gold? Special missions only?) It doesn't seem very exploitable, since you wouldn't be able to do anything that you couldn't have done by planning your PC better in the first place.
Britt 12-20-06, 09:19 PM	I don't believe we've discussed the P2 Rebuild Options, at least not in any depth. The problem is that rebuilding is a very touchy subject in LG. I'll add it to my list, but I don't expect it to go anywhere.
copper_wyrmling 12-20-06, 10:34 PM	I don't believe we've discussed the P2 Rebuild Options, at least not in any depth. The problem is that rebuilding is a very touchy subject in LG. I'll add it to my list, but I don't expect it to go anywhere. Thanks Britt :) I know it's a touchy subject, and I was hesitant about bringing it up, but I'd rather know it's been discussed and rejected than not even considered because nobody asked about it.
Arvagor 12-20-06, 11:26 PM	As an aside, I really respect people that recognize rules items as broken and exercise self-restraint by not abusing said rules items.Hear! Hear! Now all we need is for people to actually truly build PCs around a concept, as opposed to building around a set of mechanics/classes and calling it a "concept". The number of monk/barbarians running around the campaign strains credulity... ;) I don't believe we've discussed the P2 Rebuild Options, at least not in any depth. The problem is that rebuilding is a very touchy subject in LG. I'll add it to my list, but I don't expect it to go anywhere.I know you said you weren't taking votes on the Dispel Confusion stuff (over on the Living_Greyhawk Yahoo! group) -- nonetheless, count me in on the "no more rebuilds" group... :)
copper_wyrmling 12-21-06, 12:42 AM	Hear! Hear! Now all we need is for people to actually truly build PCs around a concept, as opposed to building around a set of mechanics/classes and calling it a "concept". The number of monk/barbarians running around the campaign strains credulity... ;) I think maybe reading these boards, and the lgchardiscussion group, gives us the wrong impression of how people build characters. I know that when I post to lgchardiscussion looking for character advice, I normally have the concept already figured out, I'm just trying to get feedback on whether the build that I've set up to capture it will be reasonably effective, so I tend to describe my idea in terms of the mechanics it uses. I'm also not sure that it's more satisfying to start with a well-defined concept, rather than just develop it through play - my characters inevitably get warped into something entirely different from what I intended (concept-wise) within a few levels ;) Just my experience... For example, I think my only PC with barbarian levels is about to go Lawful :weep: Since moving to Bissel and joining their army, his previous Neutral attitude ("Meh, I don't care what humans do to each other") has suffered a number of blows. I think he's actually developing a sense of loyalty and patriotism, which was NOT supposed to happen! (He's a mercenary, his entire reason for being out in the world was to improve his sword skills and get some cash together, but in a recent combat he actually apologized to the guy he was beating unconscious, and used the phrase "For the good of Bissel".) I'm not sure how much longer I can justify having "Neutral" written on his character sheet, but oh, I'll miss Rage... Then there's my sorcerer, who was supposed to be a copper-dragon-themed sorcerer who'd been raised by gnomes - she started with an excellent Bluff score and a liking for illusions, gemstones and practical jokes (has it ever occurred to you how many similarities there are between gnomes and copper dragons?) She also started out Chaotic Good, and was meant to go Chaotic Neutral as soon as she found out about Zagyg; also, she had a hatred for clerics of Wee Jas, which I assumed would last right up until her first encounter with a PC cleric of Wee Jas. Anyway, ten levels later, she has a spell component pouch embroidered with little flaming skulls (indicating clerics of Wee Jas killed), she's a Chaotic Good Trithereonite and behaves pretty much like a Holy Liberator when dealing with slavery, and she has five levels of Wild Mage and has dumped the illusions and trickery in favor of sheer sweet chaotic power. (She used to be a subtle character... now she's still sweet and charismatic and diplomatic and investigative, but "subtle" is rarely used to describe her.) Also, she now appears to have some bizarre mix of red and silver dragon heritage in addition to the copper bloodline, and she's becoming awfully necromantic: she radiates Strong necromancy, has been trained in Ur-Flan spirit rituals, and is "infused with the power of unlife". I think that most people who play a character for a year or more will develop a personality and background and concept that makes them fun to play, and fun to play with. If what they started out with was "I want to check out how this feat combo works at higher levels", then does that really matter? I probably shouldn't derail threads like this, but the original purpose of this one pretty much got shut down on about post 2, so... ;) (Oh and btw Britt, isn't procrastination wonderful? :) I hate my grad school's system of having assignments over the Christmas break and finals in the first two weeks of January...)
Arvagor 12-21-06, 01:09 AM	copper, all good points. I think that most people who play a character for a year or more will develop a personality and background and concept that makes them fun to play, and fun to play with. If what they started out with was "I want to check out how this feat combo works at higher levels", then does that really matter? What I lament, from a concept standpoint, is the people who don't let the campaign affect their PCs. By that I mean, it's all well-and-good to have an idea of where you want the PC to go (class-wise, mechanics, etc.), but I see too many players whose PCs experience things that should have changed the way the PC is played, yet the player doesn't follow through on the role-playing. As an example, my region is Veluna, a Lawful Good region if there ever was one. For whatever reason, we have a significant number of barbarians and/or worshippers of Vatun in the area (enough to form an adventuring company where Vatun worship is one of the prerequisites). Anyways, there was a year 3 mod that had an artifact of sorts in it, a chair, such that anyone sitting in it had their alignment transformed to lawful good (for a minimum of 52 TUs). Well, one of those Vatunian barbarians made the mistake of sitting in the chair -- now granted, I'd be unhappy if a major class feature (rage) was taken away from me if I thought the PC depended on it, but rather than seeing what new direction he could go with the PC's newfound outlook on life, the player acted as if nothing had happened! He didn't cheat or anything -- he was honest and wouldn't use his rage -- but he played it as if the PC were actively seeking a way to undo this "curse" he had obtained. It just seems to me that there are a lot of opportunities like that out there in the campaign, yet so few players actually use them when given the chance...
echoota 12-21-06, 02:14 AM	What I lament, from a concept standpoint, is the people who don't let the campaign affect their PCs. By that I mean, it's all well-and-good to have an idea of where you want the PC to go (class-wise, mechanics, etc.), but I see too many players whose PCs experience things that should have changed the way the PC is played, yet the player doesn't follow through on the role-playing. Well, to be honest, it just isn't all that appealing to some players. For myself the whole motivation angle with character concepts holds no interest. I play D&D to slay monsters and get loot. Real life is filled with conflicting interests and emotional drama, I just want un-nuanced black and white scenerios when I'm playing pretend. I have no problem spicing things up with some flavor, but certainly nothing that would impede my character from getting the job done as expeditiously as possible. I make sure I'm not obnoxious with the powergaming. I constantly metagame the DM and story, analyzing how they are reacting to player questions and if he is referencing the module (good sign you are onto something) or not picking it up (probably a useless line of inquiry). I do keep that to myself though. Likewise analyzing the narrative structure of the story. Barring some really interesting and creative writing, most storys are going to have narrative demands to them that make it easy to figure out what needs to be done. I don't simply say "we have to let this happen since the narrative demands that it happen" but try to find a creative way of saying it in character. In the end though, having motivational elements forced onto you is just plain annoying and detracts from my enjoyment of the game.
MeinVT 12-22-06, 12:41 AM	I make sure I'm not obnoxious with the powergaming. I constantly metagame the DM and story, analyzing how they are reacting to player questions and if he is referencing the module (good sign you are onto something) or not picking it up (probably a useless line of inquiry). I do keep that to myself though. Note to self: pick up module after random questions periodically, just to throw off the players. Actually, I somewhat agree with both sides. I like to see players (and play myself) in whatever way is giving me the most enjoyment. It is one reason that both of my characters right now have chaotic in their alignment. I also think that after playing a character for a while they do develop a personality, and that is cool. But the great thing about a campaign like LG is that different folks can take it at their own level and still get along and enjoy the game. It definitely doesn't help mod writers that the players know it is supposed to run for a specific time period. It is like watching poker on tv and noticing right before a showdown that it is 3 minutes to the hour. The timing already tells you how it will go, and nothing will ever change that. The clever part is incorporating the 'meta' stuff into the game in character.
paigeoliver 12-22-06, 08:36 AM	The Marshall initiative boost is a lot LESS powerful if the gamemaster is actually rolling initiative for each combatant the way they are supposed to be.+3, +4, +5. or +6 certainly tilts the initiative in favor of the players, but it doesn't make it automatic. Gamemasters rolling only one initiative check for all the bad guys has far more negative effects on play than any Bard with a marshall dip. I have also noticed that Marshall hating gamemasters tend to be the same guys rolling only one initiative die for ALL the bad guys, even when they have different stat blocks. Paige, who has several Marshall characters, only one of which has motivate dexterity, and that character has 5 Marshall levels.