Post/Author/DateTime	Post
JamesMaissen 02-05-07, 03:07 PM	What good does this rule actually do? Does it really help a true newbie that OTHER players are restricted to PhB feats? If a person is overwhelmed by options can't they restrict themselves down to the PhB and be done with it? Likewise if I were trying to make an optimal character I couldn't simply look at the PhB for the first two levels as I would need to plan out things based on what options are later available. Really what good does this rule do for the campaign? All I can see is the harm and confusion it creates. -James
bitznarf 02-05-07, 03:24 PM	The other thing it does is prompt people to take SF (Diplomacy) at 1st level and Marshall at 3rd to allow for the selection of any core feat rather then one in the PHB. This is of course only for those who are taking Marshall levels.
Lomiat 02-05-07, 03:42 PM	Though the rule has now been somewhat defeated by the addition of non-PHB base classes and domains, I like it. It helps standardize the campaign a bit and returns us to the fact that we're playing Greyhawk, rather than Forgotten Realms or Eberron or some other system altogether where character builds can start with screwy feats from 20 different sources. It helps provide a bit of a "core" substance to the fantastical world in which our characters live and adventure.
UMiskatonic 02-05-07, 03:47 PM	It also forces you to have a build which is playable from 1-16, which I sorta like. In RP terms, I find it very plausible that a 2nd level character wouldn't know anyone particularly important, wouldn't yet be a member of the assassins' guild, wouldn't be a Knight of the Hart, etc. At 2nd level, you're just a mook in splint mail, and don't really have a chance for signature moves until 3rd level, when you are less green. Makes it easier to write/judge intro mods as well, and those are useful entry points for beginners to have (and keep).
Mommy was an Orc 02-05-07, 03:51 PM	I like the rule a lot. Non-caster builds are almost always taking the start of some feat chain, which requires TWF, Combat Expertise, Power Attack, Dodge, or some other PHB feat. They're not getting penalized. With a true newbie, you don't want them playing a caster anyway, so again, they're not hurt. So the rule is essentially preventing casters from loading up on odd caster feats at 1st level. That's a good thing for the balance of the game. Especially to stop certain cleric builds/feats from being available too early - one of the things it forces people to do is take CWI, a turning feat, and/or a non-PHB PrC qualifying feat at levels 3, 6, and 9 - instead of having all of them by 3rd.
trollbill 02-05-07, 03:54 PM	The biggest benefit I have seen so far is in time required to generate a new character. It is quite common for new people to show up at our monthly game day, usually less than 15-minutes prior to the slot starting, and wanting to play. By restricting the choices, it makes for a much faster character creation as some people just can seem to get the concept of, "the game was supposed to have started 40 minutes ago, you don't have time to create a 100% optimized character from scratch." I also don't have to spend time explaining the whole "Core, limited, NPC only, restricted" thing to them when they first create their character and can save that for later.
trollbill 02-05-07, 03:59 PM	I like the rule a lot. Non-caster builds are almost always taking the start of some feat chain, which requires TWF, Combat Expertise, Power Attack, Dodge, or some other PHB feat. They're not getting penalized. With a true newbie, you don't want them playing a caster anyway, so again, they're not hurt. So the rule is essentially preventing casters from loading up on odd caster feats at 1st level. That's a good thing for the balance of the game. Especially to stop certain cleric builds/feats from being available too early - one of the things it forces people to do is take CWI, a turning feat, and/or a non-PHB PrC qualifying feat at levels 3, 6, and 9 - instead of having all of them by 3rd. Agreed. There are a few times I might have wished to take some other feats at first level, but it isn't that big a deal. I mostly regret not being able to take Draconic Heritage and Draconic Breath as a human sorcerer at 1st level, but I freely admit that a 2d6, 30-foot cone is pretty broken for a 1st level character. I wouldn't mind seeing Augment Healing show up as available at 1st, though.
Akhamshyy 02-05-07, 04:14 PM	When it started I wasn't a fan of this rule. I wanted to build a PC with the feats and such fancyness as I could get from the new books. It wasn't until I started setting up local game-days and introducing new gamers to D&D/LG that I thanked the circle the rule was there. Over the course of many a sit down to birth a babeh PC, I always expected they'd look over at the shop's wall-o-D&D books and ask about it. I'd answer that they should play with their new PC first; then look to see if stuff they wanted was there later. When it came time for those same new gamers to run their first LG mods I knew they'd be OK since they had the 3rd level rule there to keep things simple enough for them to get through it.
Rerednaw 02-05-07, 04:21 PM	I do not like the fact that there are several feats with the "can only be taken at first level" restriction and this results in them not being available...ever. If the true meaning is to be 'core' then fine, nothing except the phb, dmg or mm until 3rd. Period. No 'I have a convention special' or 'this limited card says I can do this' or 'I played the year 5 so I can play this non-standard whatever.' It's the half-rules and special exceptions that confuse and can ruin it for everyone else, especially the new players. Plus of course races that get bonus feats...like the sub-optimal human race never get the full benefit of their racial ability due to this restriction. And some classes (i.e. sorceror) that would benefit from learning from nice level 1 spells or feats right off. Well they don't. But special class x and y do. Well sorcerors are overpowered anyway, right? :D
Mithreinmaethor 02-05-07, 04:59 PM	Maybe if you provided examples of specific feats we would have a better idea of what you are referring to the take at 1st level only ones.
bhale187 02-05-07, 05:47 PM	The only feats I know of that MUST be taken at level 1 are the "heritage" type feats. Things like blooded, land-less noble, etc. It seems pretty obvious to me why those would be required at character conception.
rutrow424 02-05-07, 06:00 PM	The biggest benefit I have seen so far is in time required to generate a new character. It is quite common for new people to show up at our monthly game day, usually less than 15-minutes prior to the slot starting, and wanting to play. By restricting the choices, it makes for a much faster character creation as some people just can seem to get the concept of, "the game was supposed to have started 40 minutes ago, you don't have time to create a 100% optimized character from scratch." I also don't have to spend time explaining the whole "Core, limited, NPC only, restricted" thing to them when they first create their character and can save that for later. I think there are different issues at play here - I can't dispute what your experiences are, but I do not find them to be served by the 3rd level rule. The rule may assist new DnD players by limiting the choices and breadth of rules they need to be aware of, but none of those folks are likely showing up cold off the street w/o someone to guide them. I also doubt any of the new DnD players are worried or have even thought about optimizing a PC to make that a concern - and a PC can be perfectly fine (even optimized) with just the Phb. No matter what may be allowed, you would want/suggest a new player to stick to the basics. DnD can already be overwhelming with just the Core rulebooks As for DnD players new to LG (the problem you seem to discuss above), the rule does not reduce the learning curve, only changes it slightly. If someone shows up cold for a game and can spend an hour creating/optimizing a PC, then they can build a perfectly fine PC in 10-15 minutes to get the game going (or at least have enough done to allow the game to progress while they buy equipment, select spells, etc.). In this instance, the rule probably helps the game, but not the player. An established LG player creating a new PC, or a DnD veteran but LG newbie with time to prepare are hurt by this rule - they are unable to create the PC they want from level 1. It is not the worst thing in the world, but there exists enough exceptions to the 3rd level rule as to make the rule border on ridiculous. I hope/expect other exceptions may be coming if the Phb2 classes are allowed in the new LGCS. The rule is in place in theory to simplify the game for new players to LG. I have never agreed that the rule does that in practice (if there are testimonials from LG newbies who benefited from this rule, including the exceptions being explained and such, I would love to hear them). The rule also helps to limit some crazy combos and choices that may be broken - but that was never expressed as one of the intentions and should not be used as a cop-out to restricting said items. I hope the 3rd level rule goes the way of item certs, magic shop, and the dodo.
Eric Anondson 02-05-07, 06:03 PM	The only feats I know of that MUST be taken at level 1 are the "heritage" type feats. Things like blooded, land-less noble, etc. It seems pretty obvious to me why those would be required at character conception.The LGCS 596 states that the regional feats can be taken at 1st level, like Landless Noble.
clannagh 02-05-07, 06:18 PM	I like the rule. It encourages the idea that you have a real character working its way up rather than a tool used to implement your latest pre-thought out optimal build. In fact I would be very much in favor of a similiar "scaling" in the item list. For example a ban on magic enhancements below level 3 (maybe balanced by open access to +2 enhancements at level 8) would be a great step forward in my opinion.
JamesMaissen 02-05-07, 07:01 PM	I like the rule a lot. Non-caster builds are almost always taking the start of some feat chain, which requires TWF, Combat Expertise, Power Attack, Dodge, or some other PHB feat. They're not getting penalized. With a true newbie, you don't want them playing a caster anyway, so again, they're not hurt. So the rule is essentially preventing casters from loading up on odd caster feats at 1st level. That's a good thing for the balance of the game. Especially to stop certain cleric builds/feats from being available too early - one of the things it forces people to do is take CWI, a turning feat, and/or a non-PHB PrC qualifying feat at levels 3, 6, and 9 - instead of having all of them by 3rd. I'm sorry but that just seems a backwards way of looking at things. In my mind it's an arbitrary rule that distorts the game skewing it for no reason. If there indeed are problems with certain combinations of feats then the feats should have restrictions on them (either in game as many feats do requiring you to be a certain level to take or removing them from the game entirely). This rule to me seems like an awkward cludge. It's stated purpose was to make things 'simple' for newbies. But that is simply untrue. First of all a newbie could easily choose to pick feats and spells from just the PhB and don't require a rule to do so. If anything having this rule adds yet another confusing LG specific rule for newer players to learn. How many builds are best currently done by taking things like quicken spell or skill: focus diplomacy merely because of this rule? How many characters significantly alter thier builds because of it? Perhaps it is as you say a bandaid to other problems, but like any crutch it should not become a permanent solution. The third level rule has been around for too long and while some might like the side effects of it, it's still not a good permanent solution to things. If feats (et al) available from other sources are too powerful then they should be removed. But arbitrary rules like this are not a solution, they are a only a crutch. They should not become permanent fixtures. -James
Maesto 02-05-07, 07:27 PM	I personally don't like it. Here's a couple of examples. I was trying to make a friend a character which was a barbarian 1/sorceror 1 at second level. She wanted to have cold spells, coming from the land of the frost barbarians. Unfortunately, I couldn't give her lesser orb of cold at second level, because of the silly rule, and had to tell her to wait until third level to take a sorceror level. Another instance is the feat "ancestral knowledge", which I think should only be able to be taken at first level (it's from RoS, and lets you use your wisdom modifier in place of your int modifier for knowledge skills, and lets you roll all of them untrained). I've got a low level character which I want to go for earth dreamer with, and this feat fits in nicely, but I can't take it a first, so it means that feats at 3 and 6 are taken up by earth dreamer and earth sense, while the first feat is rather useless. I'm sure that there are many more instances of this kind of thing happening. Cheers, Jolyon
Grantor 02-05-07, 07:45 PM	I thought that Limited Access feats and PrC and even the Alternate Class abilities that I just unlocked this weekend were meant to be the demonstration of "Advanced Talent." I am of the feeling that Core = Core. I agree with those that believe that adding a sub-layer to core for 1st and 2nd level characters (with lots of exceptions, such as domains and new classes) is arbitrary and needlessly complex, under the stated goal of reducing complexity.
ranagrande 02-05-07, 08:08 PM	I don't like the third level rule, and I think it causes far more problems than it's worth. I don't even think it serves the intended purpose of simplifying character creation for new players. I suspect that it used to, but the game has changed enough that it has lost its value. One of the main reasons I say that is because there are too many exceptions. You can't use anything outside the PHB until third level. Unless you want to play a class from a different book. Or if you're a cleric, you can use domain spells from different sources. Or if you're a warmage, you can use non-PHB spells. It's a pointless limitation that only adds another set of complex rules and unnecessarily restricts players. The third level rule should be removed.
Mommy was an Orc 02-05-07, 08:11 PM	I'm sorry but that just seems a backwards way of looking at things. In my mind it's an arbitrary rule that distorts the game skewing it for no reason. If there indeed are problems with certain combinations of feats then the feats should have restrictions on them (either in game as many feats do requiring you to be a certain level to take or removing them from the game entirely). You see it as distorting the game. To me, it is the lesser of two evils. The problem is not that you can get 1 feat, it is that you can get 3 feats by 3rd level. Say Divine Spellpower, Augment Healing, and CWI. The effect of having all those 3 feats, particularly with LG's crafting rules distorts the game a lot more than the 3rd level rule. Magic of the Land at 6th means a 6th level caster is potentially healing 450 hp of damage with his 3rd level spells in a day. And a new person not understanding how the crafting rules works is at the mercy of who he starts play with if he decides to play a caster if the 3rd level rule is not in effect. That's why the 3rd level rule is in effect.
clannagh 02-05-07, 08:52 PM	You see it as distorting the game. To me, it is the lesser of two evils. The problem is not that you can get 1 feat, it is that you can get 3 feats by 3rd level. Say Divine Spellpower, Augment Healing, and CWI. The effect of having all those 3 feats, particularly with LG's crafting rules distorts the game a lot more than the 3rd level rule. Magic of the Land at 6th means a 6th level caster is potentially healing 450 hp of damage with his 3rd level spells in a day. I agree entirely. In fact I think the best part about the rule is also the bit that annoys some people the most. Basically it nobbles feat heavy power builds and stops people doing even more stupid builds that overpower at very low level ... which long term, if allowed, will result in mods at low APL's acquiring tougher encounters which will make it even harder for normal builds to keep up.
bhale187 02-05-07, 09:02 PM	The LGCS 596 states that the regional feats can be taken at 1st level, like Landless Noble. Yes, I am aware of that, I was responding to post #9's complaint about feats that must be taken at level one or never. IMO, those feats make sense to be required at level 1 or never.
amnuxoll 02-05-07, 09:58 PM	Most people who complain about the 3rd level rule are people who: a) Already have multiple characters and want maximum tweakage for their next PC b) Have little or no experience getting inexperienced D&D players up and running with LG c) Have no real interest in making the game accessible for newbies When someone walks into a game day and wants to play for the first time, having a limited set of options helps a lot. If there are more options then it's inevitable that the newbie is going to want to know what they are and what he should do. That's how gamers are. They like to play with all the options. The problem is that character creation now takes three times as long *and* despite the fact that the newbie asked for details he will often still end up being intimidated by the choices. Often the needed books aren't even available to look at. ("Does anyone have a copy of Complete Warrior?"...silence) How do I know this? Because even with the 3rd level rule newbies often ask about the future and and find out about the additional rulebooks right away. Putting a buffer in there to prevent them from drowning themselves in new rules items (at least until 3rd level) keeps them focused on a good first level character here and now. They can pore over rulebooks later. In situations where an experienced gamer brings his newbie girlfriend/friend/son/daughter/wife with him to play it's even worse if there are more options. The experienced gamer is eating up all his choices while his tagalong is rapidly losing interest. So, in short, third level rule makes a big positive difference. I'm always eager to help new players get started and, as a result, I've seen the impact that it has many times. I'm a firm supporter of the rule. :AMN:
copper_wyrmling 02-05-07, 10:08 PM	You see it as distorting the game. To me, it is the lesser of two evils. The problem is not that you can get 1 feat, it is that you can get 3 feats by 3rd level. Say Divine Spellpower, Augment Healing, and CWI. The effect of having all those 3 feats, particularly with LG's crafting rules distorts the game a lot more than the 3rd level rule. Magic of the Land at 6th means a 6th level caster is potentially healing 450 hp of damage with his 3rd level spells in a day. Mommy what parameters are you using for that calculation? I can very easily make a L6 cleric (with the third-level rule in effect) who can heal everybody in the party 100 damage/day with his third-level spells before putting pearls of power into the equation (although said cleric also has CWI and could make L3 pearls if he had the cash and the access), and that's without having to (a) be in a natural setting, (b) make a divine spellpower roll that may actually reduce caster level, (c) take a domain that gives Knowledge (Nature) as a class skill, and (d) make a Knowledge (Nature) check that kills the spell if you fail... (It does use the Healing domain, without that it would be 75 per PC per day before pearls, or 450 given a six-person party. This is a guaranteed result, not maximum.) An entirely different approach (still within the confines of the third-level rule) can get you 168 healing / day to the entire party, with a feat slot free for CWI, and no need to take any specific domains (although that one assumes starting charisma 14). That also doesn't take any spell slots. And these are just the approaches that come to mind quickly, I'm sure there are better options. I think you overestimate the effect of the third-level rule. I find that it's usually possible to get the effect you want anyway, it just often involves some weird (and usually highly out-of-character) contortions in the build at low levels, such as taking metamagic feats long before you can possibly use them, or taking a single marshal level in order to expedite PrC qualification after breaking the third-level barrier. I honestly don't see much point in forcing players to jump through these sorts of hoops: I can't imagine it makes the game more fun for either them or those who play with them in the weird levels. Also, the game is a game, not some sacred and inviolable ideal. When you say that a certain combination of feats or abilities "distorts the game", then what it sounds like to me is "it makes the game less like the way I think it should be" (since I can't see how banning most player options at L1-3 makes LG closer to non-LG D&D, which would be the other interpretation of that phrasing). I just don't find that a very convincing argument for determining the rules of a worldwide campaign (of course you're entitled to your opinion, but phrasing it as "this distorts the game" makes it sound like an objective judgement rather than subjective). And a new person not understanding how the crafting rules works is at the mercy of who he starts play with if he decides to play a caster if the 3rd level rule is not in effect. Maybe I'm being dense, but I really don't understand this comment. As someone who walked into her first gamesday a couple of years ago as a complete newbie to D&D, I found your earlier comment on "you don't want them playing a caster anyway" rather patronizing... my cleric made it all the way to L15 (in 86 ARs, 2.5 years and zero deaths) just fine. My sorcerer is doing well too, at L12 - it really doesn't take that long to learn the basics. I'd been playing for about 18 months before I even started a melee character, and frankly I think his build is a lot less forgiving than either of my casters'. With my cleric, I could take seven unrelated Skill Focuses as her feats and her spellcasting would still make her powerful enough to contribute just fine to LG tables... with my sorc, picking spells that did what I wanted to do and feats that enhanced those spells has also created a fairly strong character. I'm pretty sure my fighter (who, y'know, actually relies on feat chains to be effective) would've been utterly screwed if I'd taken the same "make it up as you go along" approach with him. That little diversion from the topic aside... I don't understand your point here. Why is someone who wants to play a L1 cleric "at the mercy of who he starts play with" in the absence of the third level rule? Because they suggest he takes a non-PHB feat? If you're worried about them suggesting a really poor feat, I don't think it gets much worse than my friend who (at his first game of LG, on the advice of a more experienced player) took Self-Sufficient with his grey elf wizard. I really think I'm missing what you're trying to say - sorry. Also, amnuxoll, I'd like to think I'm not in category (a) or (c) for you, but I'm probably in category (b). Most of the new players who turned up at our gamesdays had already done at least a bit of reading about the campaign and only really needed a quick demonstration of how the AR system worked. I do respect your experience, it's just not an effect I've seen myself.
bhale187 02-05-07, 10:33 PM	I can understand the idea of newbies avoiding casters, more specifically arcane casters because they take alot more skill to be effective and even to survive at the lowest levels. A new player can easily understand the concept and abilities of a lowbie fighter or barbarian and usually is able to be an effective and productive member of a party at the low levels. A person who is just learning the game will have a much more difficult time learning to chose the right time to cast the right spells and at the same time learn how to stay alive while still aiding in combat.
JamesMaissen 02-05-07, 10:36 PM	Because even with the 3rd level rule newbies often ask about the future and and find out about the additional rulebooks right away. Putting a buffer in there to prevent them from drowning themselves in new rules items (at least until 3rd level) keeps them focused on a good first level character here and now. They can pore over rulebooks later. And then they can find out that even though they didn't want say Dodge and Mobility for it's PhB feat tree that they really would have liked to have Ellusive Target in their future but instead burned their two or three first level feats on other things because they didn't know... etc. Meanwhile you are giving a player new to LG an extra overly complicated rule rife with exceptions. Most newbies to LG that I encounter are not new to D&D, but rather they are new to LG and the biggest hurdle that they have is dealing with the LG specific rules. IF the REAL concern is for newbies and letting them not suffer for initial spur of the moment decisions then this is NOT the solution. Simply allow characters to be rebuilt prior to playing their first mod at 2nd level. That takes off the pressure that you describe and is far more newbie friendly than this silly 3rd level rule. It would give them time to examine their choices as well as get used to how LG works in practice. Currently if a player is wanting to examine all his options before making his character (and you can't blame him for that) then the third level rule only complicates matters not simplify it. Go to any of the character discussion boards and you'll see the periodic cries of people who didn't plan their characters ahead of time and how they've suffered for it. What the 3rd level rule really does is penalize everyone by distorting the game where it doesn't have to be. Some sacrifices need to be made for living campaigns but this is not one of them. -James
Mommy was an Orc 02-06-07, 12:54 AM	I'm doing it in 3 rounds. Not 50. Insignia of Healing Augment Healing Divine Spellcaster Str 8, Dex 8, Con 14, Int 14, Wis 16, Cha 14 That's a +8 to the Turning Check for Divine Spellpower with a crafted Circlet of Persuasion - odds are the spell level is not going down. If I don't have the right access at 5th, I'll get it for free at 7th. And I want that anyway for turning checks. 1d8+6+2+6+6 ~ 25 hp of damage healed per target * 6 = 150 hp. The Magic of the Land roll necessary is an 18, which is difficult - I've got 9 ranks, +2 for Int, that's only an 11. That's a 30% chance of failure, but there's times where I'll live with it. Without that though, I'm still healing 120 hp across the party in one round. And you're missing the point about the Healing - it isn't that I'm healing that much damage, it is that I'm healing that much damage without giving up anything. Someone who wants Augment Healing as their 3rd level feat is giving up their turning feat. Someone who wants a turning feat is giving up Augment Healing. And both of those guys are giving up Pearls of Power at 5th level. Also, the game is a game, not some sacred and inviolable ideal. When you say that a certain combination of feats or abilities "distorts the game", then what it sounds like to me is "it makes the game less like the way I think it should be" (since I can't see how banning most player options at L1-3 makes LG closer to non-LG D&D, which would be the other interpretation of that phrasing). I just don't find that a very convincing argument for determining the rules of a worldwide campaign (of course you're entitled to your opinion, but phrasing it as "this distorts the game" makes it sound like an objective judgement rather than subjective). In normal D&D, a person who excessively crafts ends up losing caster levels and suffers as a result. This is an objective fact. If you want to pretend it is subjective, great. But in a normal home game, you can't get away with this. In LG however, casters get rewarded for doing this unless their only option is a very restrictive home game. The one thing that balances this back for casters in LG is that they can't load up on all the feats at 1st level. So what you're talking about is making casters more powerful without making non-casters more powerful. Objectively speaking, your position distorts the game - unless you're saying that you think that casters are underpowered in LG.
cycloptic_squirrel 02-06-07, 01:46 AM	In normal D&D, a person who excessively crafts ends up losing caster levels and suffers as a result. This is an objective fact. If you want to pretend it is subjective, great. But in a normal home game, you can't get away with this. In LG however, casters get rewarded for doing this unless their only option is a very restrictive home game. The one thing that balances this back for casters in LG is that they can't load up on all the feats at 1st level. So what you're talking about is making casters more powerful without making non-casters more powerful. Objectively speaking, your position distorts the game - unless you're saying that you think that casters are underpowered in LG. I'd say that then the problem is with crafting, not casters. If you want to hobble the power monkeys, why don't we just restrict non-PHB material to two feats and four spells per character? It's just as arbitrary, just as suffocating, and would limit cheezeheads far more than the 3rd level rule. It'd even help newbies; 'you only get two limited feats, I'd save them until you know how your character plays out.' The 3rd level rule is too complex at this point, and it doesn't seem to serve the purpose I wish it did. New players who really want to optimize their character have to look ahead. Explaining the third level restriction and all it's exceptions is tedious and comes across as 'because the LGCS says so'. I'd like to see it go.
Akhamshyy 02-06-07, 02:33 AM	The 3rd level rule is too complex at this point, and it doesn't seem to serve the purpose I wish it did. New players who really want to optimize their character have to look ahead. Explaining the third level restriction and all it's exceptions is tedious and comes across as 'because the LGCS says so'. I'd like to see it go. New players want to learn how to play. The only reason they would ever want to optimize is if they where forced to. Even then they wouldn't have any skill at doing it, simply relying on whatever their peers said was good. What they may end up with is a PC they don't want. It's one of the things I try to steer clear of, and find out what they want to play. I've helped dozens of new gamers building new characters and have never found it tedious, in itself, or because of one rule. I usually find explain filling out ARs and how they work than how that rule affects them to be the most difficult. New players should be encouraged to play and enjoy the game right there and then. There are often a couple intros available around here if they want to test out something else after their first try. This rule has a place, and is not nearly as complex as some people make it out to be.
cycloptic_squirrel 02-06-07, 03:12 AM	New players want to learn how to play. The only reason they would ever want to optimize is if they where forced to. Even then they wouldn't have any skill at doing it, simply relying on whatever their peers said was good. What they may end up with is a PC they don't want. It's one of the things I try to steer clear of, and find out what they want to play. I've helped dozens of new gamers building new characters and have never found it tedious, in itself, or because of one rule. I usually find explain filling out ARs and how they work than how that rule affects them to be the most difficult. New players should be encouraged to play and enjoy the game right there and then. There are often a couple intros available around here if they want to test out something else after their first try. This rule has a place, and is not nearly as complex as some people make it out to be. I'm not suggesting that new players want to/should optimize. I'm saying that there are some who do, and they will have to look ahead. Without the rule, it's pretty easy to say, 'I'd stick to the PHB for your first character, it has solid options and almost anything you could want.' When I've helped a new player, the process itself wasn't tedious; it was explaining the rule, the exceptions, and the usual questions of 'why?'. Even with the 'PHB only rule' I've seen players with PCs they didn't really want. A good peer will help the newbie build something they want with or without the rule. I fear that the 3rd level rule makes a poor impression on a new player of LG having arbitrary rules with multiple exceptions. I think a strong suggestion in the LGCS would do just as much good without complicating the rules.
Sieylianna 02-06-07, 08:05 AM	I'm generally in favor of it, although now that the Circle has made so many exceptions (warmages and clerical domains), I think it's becoming harder to justify. Personally, I wouldn't mind a core rules only (classes, feats and spells) until 3rd level decree, although that's never going to happen. Ed
bhale187 02-06-07, 09:25 AM	Just my 2 cp, but I'd rather see everything available from level 1 or restricted to core rules for the life of the character. That being said, obviously LG would never be limited to core rule books due to the potential loss of sales. For new players joining LG I can see how too much information can be overwhelming. However, if a player shows up 15 minutes before the game wanting to get a character made the fault lies upon whoever invited the new player and did not explain to them the legnthy process of making your first character. Additionally I think that just about everyone learns how to create a better character by mistakes, a new player's first character should be expected to be less than perfect. For veteran D&D players, but new to LG the level 3 rule can be an added source of confusion. Our group was all veteran D&D players and all said they read the LGCS character creation rules, but over half the group ended up trying to take a non-core feat at level 1 or 2 (not deceitfully, but out of ignorance).
trollbill 02-06-07, 10:29 AM	For new players joining LG I can see how too much information can be overwhelming. However, if a player shows up 15 minutes before the game wanting to get a character made the fault lies upon whoever invited the new player and did not explain to them the legnthy process of making your first character. Additionally I think that just about everyone learns how to create a better character by mistakes, a new player's first character should be expected to be less than perfect. I agree in theory, but practice is something completely different. We get new players to our LG group in the following ways: 1. Word of mouth. One of the current players tells someone else about it and the new guy shows up to see what it's like...usually just prior to game start. We could ask them to just watch the first time, but we are trying to build the group and know it works better if they actually get to play instead of just watch. 2. Advertisement. We have several signs about the store we have our game day at advertising when the game day is and giving contact information to the delegate who runs it. If they actually contact the delegate for further information, fine. But half the time they just show up. 3. Store Owner. Someone asks the store owner about D&D groups in the area. He tells them about the LG game days and if we are lucky, gives the contact info to the delegate. Same problem as 2 above. 4. Buddy system. A current player brings in a buddy to play as well. Now in this case, they usually have a character already build, but occasionally, they don't. For veteran D&D players, but new to LG the level 3 rule can be an added source of confusion. Our group was all veteran D&D players and all said they read the LGCS character creation rules, but over half the group ended up trying to take a non-core feat at level 1 or 2 (not deceitfully, but out of ignorance). I think it adds far less confusion than trying to explain the whole Limited/ Resticted/NPC Only/Core rules to them and giving them a copy of the LGCS with a long list of things they can choose from, but a large list they can't also. If everyone who started LG read the LGCS and created character prior to they're first game, I think there would be no need for the 3rd-level rule. In practice, however, I find almost no one does this as few wish to invest the time until they find out what LG is like.
bhale187 02-06-07, 10:56 AM	Good point trollbill, I was thinking more inline with the home games that someone invites a friend to. In that situation it would seem the invitor's responsibility to make sure the new player arrives early or better yet arrives with a prepared character that the invitor helped the newbie to create ahead of time. I was not considering the pickup games at retail stores in my previous post, and therefore overlooked the situations you brought up regarding first time players not arriving early enough. In the end I guess fast-track characters are always an option, and although flawed, they usually are no worse then what a new player would come up with on his/her own. I think it adds far less confusion than trying to explain the whole Limited/ Resticted/NPC Only/Core rules to them and giving them a copy of the LGCS with a long list of things they can choose from, but a large list they can't also. That part I fully disagree with, the only thing the level 3 rule does in this regard is make the player wait a little longer to learn the limited/restricted list. It certainly has no impact on the level of confusion involved in learning the system. It simply adds one more rather arbitrary rule of when you can use splat books.
Randall Montgomery 02-06-07, 11:39 AM	In normal D&D, a person who excessively crafts ends up losing caster levels and suffers as a result. This is an objective fact. If you want to pretend it is subjective, great. But in a normal home game, you can't get away with this. In LG however, casters get rewarded for doing this unless their only option is a very restrictive home game. The one thing that balances this back for casters in LG is that they can't load up on all the feats at 1st level. So what you're talking about is making casters more powerful without making non-casters more powerful. Objectively speaking, your position distorts the game - unless you're saying that you think that casters are underpowered in LG. As someone who plays a caster heavily involved in crafting, I can tell you that this is a complete fallacy. In LG, crafting costs TUs. Those are TUs where you can't earn XP, which will cause you to fall behind other characters who do use those TUs adventuring. If you take two characters, one who crafts and one who dosen't, this is what will happen. For the sake of arguement, we'll say they're both 1st level character's playing all core mods at APL 2. Character 1 plays 26 core mods, earning 11700 XP and GP. At the end of the year, he'll have been a 4th level character for 3 mods. Character 2 is a crafter, who spends 4 TUs crafting a Headband of Intellect +2, a Amulet of Health +2, a Gloves of Dex +2, and a Cloak of Resistance +2. He spends a total of 8000 GP on these, as well as 640 XP. In addition, he could only play 24 core mods, giving him a total of 10800 XP and GP. So in the end, he ends up with a total of 10140 XP and 2800 GP, and will have just made 4th level on his last module. As you can see, the crafting cost for LG is not much different than the cost in a home game, except in a home game, you could always just assume the rest of the group was in "down time" while the caster was crafting, while in LG you can't. As for the 3rd level rule, I think at one point it may have been useful, but it currently just makes things more needlessly complex. I would much prefer that any of these "problem" feats and spells that make things too "broken" just be made limited, and the 3rd level rule be abolished.
GrahamWills 02-06-07, 11:49 AM	So ... in the last 2 weeks I have introduced 6 people into the LG system. Of them, one had played LG a while ago, three had played a version of d20 (but NOT D&D), one had played D&D 2E and one had never played anything before. The three who had played a d20 system had also played half a dozn other systems. None of these players know anythign about the 3rd level rule. It does not confuse them as they have no need to know about it. It just makes their life easier. I told all of them that they could choose any race/class in the PHB and there were a few others outside that list. If they chose a race/class in the PHB and told me about it I would let them know the variants in other books and get it for them if they liked the idea. One player chose a cleric, and they got the LG deities document. Other people rejected being a warmage/scout/whatever in favor of standard PHB classes. The net result: A fast, simple start. I hate to think how slow a start would have been needed if I had to give them the LCGS ...
trollbill 02-06-07, 12:03 PM	That part I fully disagree with, the only thing the level 3 rule does in this regard is make the player wait a little longer to learn the limited/restricted list. It certainly has no impact on the level of confusion involved in learning the system. It simply adds one more rather arbitrary rule of when you can use splat books. Yes, all it does is delay them learning it. But if that means they can have their character ready to play faster because they can wait to learn it later, that's a good thing. Though I agree it probably doesn't help much in a normal home game environment.
Mommy was an Orc 02-06-07, 12:08 PM	As someone who plays a caster heavily involved in crafting, I can tell you that this is a complete fallacy. In LG, crafting costs TUs. Those are TUs where you can't earn XP, which will cause you to fall behind other characters who do use those TUs adventuring. If you take two characters, one who crafts and one who dosen't, this is what will happen. For the sake of arguement, we'll say they're both 1st level character's playing all core mods at APL 2. Character 1 plays 26 core mods, earning 11700 XP and GP. At the end of the year, he'll have been a 4th level character for 3 mods. Character 2 is a crafter, who spends 4 TUs crafting a Headband of Intellect +2, a Amulet of Health +2, a Gloves of Dex +2, and a Cloak of Resistance +2. He spends a total of 8000 GP on these, as well as 640 XP. In addition, he could only play 24 core mods, giving him a total of 10800 XP and GP. So in the end, he ends up with a total of 10140 XP and 2800 GP, and will have just made 4th level on his last module. As you can see, the crafting cost for LG is not much different than the cost in a home game, except in a home game, you could always just assume the rest of the group was in "down time" while the caster was crafting, while in LG you can't. Actually, character 2 has larger problems, as he can't actually craft any of those items as his caster level isn't high enough. But everything you said is irrelevant unless both character 1 and 2 have to play with each other in every mod. If it happens, more normally, that the two are not linked, then at some point, character 1 is playing at APL 6 and character 2 is playing a diferent table at APL 6 - and as a result of crafting, character 2 is a much more powerful character than character 1. Especially at the levels where character 1 hasn't found the right access, but character 2 manages to bypass it. Pearls of Power 1st level in particular - a Cleric 5 who crafts 5 Pearls of Power for 2500 gold is a much more powerful character in play than a Cleric 5 who can't craft. This is made up for because the Cleric 5 who can't craft has a Turning feat of some kind or Augment Healing or some similar feat.
Randall Montgomery 02-06-07, 02:33 PM	Actually, character 2 has larger problems, as he can't actually craft any of those items as his caster level isn't high enough. Absolutely true, and another example of how LG is more restrictive with crafting than a home game. In a home game all those items would be craftable, because the rule that the caster level of the item is a prereq for crafting it is an LG-created rule. But everything you said is irrelevant unless both character 1 and 2 have to play with each other in every mod. If it happens, more normally, that the two are not linked, then at some point, character 1 is playing at APL 6 and character 2 is playing a diferent table at APL 6 - and as a result of crafting, character 2 is a much more powerful character than character 1. If these characters are playing together at the same level, than the crafter would have AT LEAST 5-10 more modules played than the other character, to make up for the difference in crafting and the lost TUs. If those same two characters were playing together, and neither of them crafted, there would still be a power gap between them, because one's played more. And a crafter SHOULD have a better equipment selection than an equivilent character who dosen't, otherwise what would be the point in crafting. I myself play in a home LG group that's been playing for 2+ years, and with the crafting I've done plus an unfortunant death that cost me about 7000 XP, the 10 or so mods I've played at cons without them has only kept me at about the same level as the rest of the group. Yes, I've got a little better equipment than them, but I've also played more, and I've actually had to budget my crafting so I'll have enough TUs to continue to play with them throughout the year. If it were legal, I would've been crafting equipment for them too, but LG restricts this aspect of crafting as well. Especially at the levels where character 1 hasn't found the right access, but character 2 manages to bypass it. Pearls of Power 1st level in particular - a Cleric 5 who crafts 5 Pearls of Power for 2500 gold is a much more powerful character in play than a Cleric 5 who can't craft. This is made up for because the Cleric 5 who can't craft has a Turning feat of some kind or Augment Healing or some similar feat. So what's stopping the cleric who dosen't craft from spending an extra 2500 GP and getting those pearls himself? If we take your example and give him Augment Healing, he would heal an additional 10 points of healing per day in CLW spells cast with those pearls over the cleric who crafted his, in addition to the bonus to his regular healing spells. Is he better off than the Cleric who did craft his, considering that cleric also spent a TU and 400 XP? Hard to say. Personally, I believe the equipment boost is worth it, which is why I craft. But to say there's no penalty involved in crafting in LG is just false.
rutrow424 02-06-07, 03:23 PM	Most people who complain about the 3rd level rule are people who: a) Already have multiple characters and want maximum tweakage for their next PC b) Have little or no experience getting inexperienced D&D players up and running with LG c) Have no real interest in making the game accessible for newbies When someone walks into a game day and wants to play for the first time, having a limited set of options helps a lot. If there are more options then it's inevitable that the newbie is going to want to know what they are and what he should do. That's how gamers are. They like to play with all the options. The problem is that character creation now takes three times as long *and* despite the fact that the newbie asked for details he will often still end up being intimidated by the choices. How do I know this? Because even with the 3rd level rule newbies often ask about the future and and find out about the additional rulebooks right away. Putting a buffer in there to prevent them from drowning themselves in new rules items (at least until 3rd level) keeps them focused on a good first level character here and now. They can pore over rulebooks later. So, in short, third level rule makes a big positive difference. I'm always eager to help new players get started and, as a result, I've seen the impact that it has many times. I'm a firm supporter of the rule. :AMN: I can appreciate the experiences you've had, but I do not think the 3rd level rule is the solution to the problems of overwhelming newbies (either kind) or saving time. Even with the existing rule, PC creation can take as long as someone is willing to spend. If time is a factor, the solution is common courtesy and solid direction from the non-newbies present; limiting others is not a valid alternative IMO. The complexity of DnD for a total newbie is enough, and again I would suggest strong tutelage from the other players to hasten through PC creation and get to the game. If you are explaining the intricacies of which feats from which sources are best to a DnD neophyte, you are not doing your job very well, especially if there is a time issue. For LG-newbies, the rule does quicken their PC creation, but I again say this is a courtesy issue, and not one that should be mandated by rules. I agree with Ed that a core-only environment (for first 3 levels or ever) may be best, but that ship sailed long ago. Take the shackles off everyone else, restrict or limit the combos that may ensue, and remove the 3rd level rule.
Mommy was an Orc 02-06-07, 03:26 PM	So what's stopping the cleric who dosen't craft from spending an extra 2500 GP and getting those pearls himself? He doesn't have access? They're a lot more expensive and he doesn't have all the savings from crafting? But to say there's no penalty involved in crafting in LG is just false. You listed the precise example of when I said it is a penalty - you're trying to play with the same restrictive home LG group every time. Unless you're in that group, there's no penalty. Most people even regard it as a benefit.
solbergb 02-06-07, 03:44 PM	I didn't really object to the rule when it came up because at the time the only exception was the non-PHB classes and even then, they were limited in spells tehy could use to PHB list. I think now the exceptions have defeated the purpose. I also quite frankly think it is stupid for people to be taking things like quicken spell at level 1 because of this arbitrary rule. Sometimes you want a PHB feat late in life instead of early, but this rule pretty much means you have to take it early and it warps the smooth progression of a lot of concepts. If the feats were not supposed to be used at L1, they'll have restriction (as many do) on caster level, or on BAB or something similar. I also think you can manage the complexity with the newbies by taking the approach I take with any player new to a character (not just new to LG, D&D or roleplay in general). "Describe your character to me. How do you see him behaving in combat? What does he do when he's not fighting? What makes him an adventurer, not just a commoner?" I'll ask leading questions and then give attribute and early feat options that will lead to a result similar to what they describe if they choose to pursue it, but won't shoot them in the foot if they don't. For example, a nonhuman warrior type with bull BAB and average or better strength for a fighter pretty much can't go wrong by taking power attack as the first feat. They'll want it someday. Two or three feat combinations are harder, but if you have an idea where the guy wants to go with the character conceptually, you can help him make choices that allow that while allowing them to shift gears later. Prepared casters - it really doesn't matter what you advise. They can't really go wrong in the long run. They'll learn what spells they need in play and use them. Spont casters - if you encourage diversity in spells and encourage them to think about what they wished they had last level when choosing the next level's spells they'll avoid most of the dangerous traps. Some character classes are harder right out of the box to "Get right". Monks and rogues can both can be unforgiving if you make bad choices, but you can't go too wrong by sticking to the sorts of choices the PHB iconics made in attributes and picking feats that support the concept. (there is no concept that needs skill booster feats, unless required for a PRC. Those are "NPC feats" designed for non-adventurers trying to bust out of the cap of skill ranks based on level, or for adventurers in campaigns that end at APL4)
rutrow424 02-06-07, 04:02 PM	I agree in theory, but practice is something completely different. We get new players to our LG group in the following ways: <snipped for brevity> I think it adds far less confusion than trying to explain the whole Limited/ Resticted/NPC Only/Core rules to them and giving them a copy of the LGCS with a long list of things they can choose from, but a large list they can't also. If everyone who started LG read the LGCS and created character prior to they're first game, I think there would be no need for the 3rd-level rule. In practice, however, I find almost no one does this as few wish to invest the time until they find out what LG is like. I'm going to sound like a broken record, but... I understand all the issues you mention in the ways new players filter in to your gamedays. I suggest that all could still be handled just as effectively w/o the 3rd level rule. Are you explaining to these new players that they can be a warmage, scout, or favored soul as well as the Phb stuff? If you are, then you have to explain the 3rd level rule, which should open the core/limited/restricted can of worms even if it can be otherwise ignored. If you are not explaining all their options, then you can continue to do so w/o the 3rd level rule. None of these rules really should impact a total newbie. Strong support from other players is much more important to helping a newbie than forced "simplicity." A dnd player new to LG creates different issues, but I find it hard to believe they would hijack the gameday by spending an inordinate amount of time building a PC. If they are willing to waste the time of 4-5 other players to perfect a PC (by taking an hour to do so, and 45 minutes into the scheduled start), I will be blunt and say I wouldn't want to play with them once they know what they are doing, either.
trollbill 02-06-07, 05:22 PM	A dnd player new to LG creates different issues, but I find it hard to believe they would hijack the gameday by spending an inordinate amount of time building a PC. If they are willing to waste the time of 4-5 other players to perfect a PC (by taking an hour to do so, and 45 minutes into the scheduled start), I will be blunt and say I wouldn't want to play with them once they know what they are doing, either. Two problems with this: 1) If they are new to LG but not to D&D they are likely used to the relaxed environment of a home game where you start playing when everyone (or most everyone) shows up and stop playing when everyone decides its time to go home. The are likely not used to the more rigid schedule of a con/gameday mod so don't understand how much they are holding things up. 2) I've noticed a rather odd phenomenon amoungst experienced D&Ders. They seem to optimistically think they can hammer out a basic character in under 10 minutes. It never works out to even close to that. Oh, sure, they have a basic concept with stats, class, race and feats in their head. But invariably once they start putting it to paper, other ideas crop up in their head from their original concept and pretty soon they are pulling out books and flipping through them to see if their new idea will work and how to tweek it. Experienced gamers can never leave well-enough alone.
Lupo 02-06-07, 05:41 PM	Two problems with this: 1) If they are new to LG but not to D&D they are likely used to the relaxed environment of a home game where you start playing when everyone (or most everyone) shows up and stop playing when everyone decides its time to go home. The are likely not used to the more rigid schedule of a con/gameday mod so don't understand how much they are holding things up. 2) I've noticed a rather odd phenomenon amoungst experienced D&Ders. They seem to optimistically think they can hammer out a basic character in under 10 minutes. It never works out to even close to that. Oh, sure, they have a basic concept with stats, class, race and feats in their head. But invariably once they start putting it to paper, other ideas crop up in their head from their original concept and pretty soon they are pulling out books and flipping through them to see if their new idea will work and how to tweek it. Experienced gamers can never leave well-enough alone. that is the reason to have a pile (currently FIVE) unplayed characters, completely planned till level 15 preprinted with me :P three of them are "standard" builds; dwarven barbarian going four cleric levels mixed with fighter going pious templar, wood elf archer going mostly ranger and fighter levels later initiate of the bow, human rogue going thief acrobat. the complex ones are a dual wand wielder and a shuriken gatling gun. in addition i have the complete concepts of my non lg characters: a divinator, a kelanen pious templar, a draconic breath sorcerer. the concept paper states all prerequisites, at what point for what class, and the benefits of it. take the stats, insert your name and a new character name here, your RPGA number here :) ciao martin m.
bitznarf 02-06-07, 05:54 PM	that is the reason to have a pile (currently FIVE) unplayed characters, completely planned till level 15 preprinted with me :P What, you too? lol
rutrow424 02-06-07, 06:21 PM	Two problems with this: 1) If they are new to LG but not to D&D they are likely used to the relaxed environment of a home game where you start playing when everyone (or most everyone) shows up and stop playing when everyone decides its time to go home. The are likely not used to the more rigid schedule of a con/gameday mod so don't understand how much they are holding things up. I understand this, but do you "suggest" that things be sped up to allow for play? I find it hard to believe very many people would hold up the game for the rest of the group when they are aware there is a 4 hour window (or whatever) for the whole table. 2) I've noticed a rather odd phenomenon amoungst experienced D&Ders. They seem to optimistically think they can hammer out a basic character in under 10 minutes. It never works out to even close to that. Oh, sure, they have a basic concept with stats, class, race and feats in their head. But invariably once they start putting it to paper, other ideas crop up in their head from their original concept and pretty soon they are pulling out books and flipping through them to see if their new idea will work and how to tweek it. Experienced gamers can never leave well-enough alone. That's where friends beat them into submission:D If the experienced player for some reason needs more time, they obviously can have the basics (race, class/role, name, etc) done quickly enough for the game to start. I don't see it as such a big deal if they are looking up feats/spells/equipment while the mod is getting going; more troublesome if the mod starts with a fight, but again it comes down to courtesy towards the others.
Istaran 02-06-07, 06:39 PM	Absolutely true, and another example of how LG is more restrictive with crafting than a home game. In a home game all those items would be craftable, because the rule that the caster level of the item is a prereq for crafting it is an LG-created rule. I am intrigued by this allegation. From Rules of the Game article "Making Magic Items (part one)" When creating items, the creator's caster level must be at least as high as the item's caster level. Your caster level is your level in the class that gives you access to a particular spell needed for the item (see the section on prerequisites). In some cases, your caster level will be less than your class level; if so, the class description notes it. For example, a paladin's caster level is one-half her paladin level (a paladin of 3rd level or lower has no caster level at all).
Bob_the_Theurge 02-06-07, 06:47 PM	I am intrigued by this allegation. From Rules of the Game article "Making Magic Items (part one)" Not according to the Errata'ed DMG.
trollbill 02-06-07, 07:12 PM	I understand this, but do you "suggest" that things be sped up to allow for play? I find it hard to believe very many people would hold up the game for the rest of the group when they are aware there is a 4 hour window (or whatever) for the whole table. That's where friends beat them into submission:D If the experienced player for some reason needs more time, they obviously can have the basics (race, class/role, name, etc) done quickly enough for the game to start. I don't see it as such a big deal if they are looking up feats/spells/equipment while the mod is getting going; more troublesome if the mod starts with a fight, but again it comes down to courtesy towards the others. It's basically a balancing act. You push/nudge them as much as you can while making sure you don't do it so much their first experience with LG leaves a bad taste in their mouth. So anything that can help with this particular problem I find useful. The level 3 rules does seem to help with new LGers who are old D&Ders (which is most of what we get). Though it probably doesn't make a difference with people who have never played D&D before.
Istaran 02-06-07, 07:20 PM	Ah, I sit corrected. It's this rule: 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. Three of the items in question could be crafted because that is only one of the several options for qualifying in LG to craft. Another is: Casters able to purchase items valued over 2,500 gp from approved sources may create those items once the prerequisites are satisfied. The attribute + 2 items are all purchaseable by any character that has played at least one mod. So that's that. The cloak of resistance +2 would need some kind of access, though the crafter could always make a +1. Thanks for the insight. I'll shut up now.
Randall Montgomery 02-07-07, 01:07 PM	He doesn't have access? They're a lot more expensive and he doesn't have all the savings from crafting? A cleric crafting the pearls without access wouldn't be able to do so until he's 7th level, at which point I would be very suprised if the other cleric failed to find access. As for the savings, I would argue that if you really wanted 5 pearls of power, the extra 2500 is not the end of the world. I really don't see this as unbalancing between the two characters. You listed the precise example of when I said it is a penalty - you're trying to play with the same restrictive home LG group every time. Unless you're in that group, there's no penalty. Most people even regard it as a benefit. True, I've played this character in conventions with same-level characters, and I generally do have better equipment then they do. I also have about 10 more ARs then their characters do, to make up for the XP that was lost due to crafting. A character who has played more SHOULD be stronger than one who has not (excepting character death and other penalties). I've actually played a mod with a group who had characters of every level from 7 to 12. I don't remember hearing the level 7 character complaining how much more powerful the rest of us were. It just works out that in LG, you often have people of different levels of power playing together. Also, even in a home game, a crafter will rarely be more than a level behind the rest of the group, since in home games the XP for lower level characters in a part is greater than that received by the rest of the group. So home game crafters don't have quite as steep of a penalty as you're making it out to be. I get your arguement about a 7th level crafter being more powerful than a 7th level non-crafter. It's true. However, I simply fail to understand why it's a problem, as according to the rules that is how it should be. To avoid completly hijacking the thread this will be my last post on the matter, but I'm willing to debate this further on another thread if anyone would like.
solbergb 02-07-07, 02:11 PM	Actually...the 7th level non crafter has an extra feat. The guy who crafts is SUPPOSED to have more equipment in compensation. That's the point.
Mommy was an Orc 02-07-07, 02:39 PM	Actually...the 7th level non crafter has an extra feat. The guy who crafts is SUPPOSED to have more equipment in compensation. That's the point. Sure he is. He's not supposed to have DOUBLE the equipment without paying a severe price. In LG, there isn't the natural limitation on this except TUs and the need to play with the same group every time with the same characters. There are plenty of people for which neither of those is a limitation. And to get back to how this affects the 3rd level rule - the time I'd take someone seriously about removing the 3rd level rule is when they explain how to keep casters and non-casters in balance despite giving casters a power up.
bhale187 02-07-07, 03:48 PM	Sure he is. He's not supposed to have DOUBLE the equipment without paying a severe price. In LG, there isn't the natural limitation on this except TUs and the need to play with the same group every time with the same characters. There are plenty of people for which neither of those is a limitation. And to get back to how this affects the 3rd level rule - the time I'd take someone seriously about removing the 3rd level rule is when they explain how to keep casters and non-casters in balance despite giving casters a power up. IMO, non-casters would be getting low level powerups also. Barbarians in particular, but also bards and fighters benefit.
Eric Anondson 02-07-07, 03:53 PM	IMO, non-casters would be getting low level powerups also. Barbarians in particular, but also bards and fighters benefit.How, in particular?
bhale187 02-07-07, 04:01 PM	Barbarians get access to extra rage, extended rage, instant rage, intimidating rage Bards get extra music, lingering music Fighter types get kiai shout, monkey grip Those are the first that come to mind.
Mommy was an Orc 02-07-07, 04:08 PM	IMO, non-casters would be getting low level powerups also. Barbarians in particular, but also bards and fighters benefit. No, they don't - whatever powerup they get vanishes as soon as they take a PHB feat that they qualified for at 1st level. A Barbarian 1/Fighter 2 who took Extra Rage at 1st and Power Attack at 3rd is no more powerful than a Barbarian 1/Fighter 2 who took Extra Rage at 3rd and Power Attack at 1st. And if you're telling me that a Barbarian or Fighter build is not planning to take at least two of WF, Power Attack, Combat Expertise, Dodge, Mounted Combat, EWP, PBS, or things higher up the chain, I have some swampland in Suboptimal Build Land to sell you... Bards do see a powerup. However, Bards are a caster class fully capable of taking advantage of CWI.
bhale187 02-07-07, 04:10 PM	No, they don't - whatever powerup they get vanishes as soon as they take a PHB feat that they qualified for at 1st level. A Barbarian 1/Fighter 2 who took Extra Rage at 1st and Power Attack at 3rd is no more powerful than a Barbarian 1/Fighter 2 who took Extra Rage at 3rd and Power Attack at 1st. Hence my statement of low level power-ups. BTW, whats with the pompous attitude, is it that hard to have an argument of opinions without making it a personal issue?
Mommy was an Orc 02-07-07, 04:23 PM	Hence my statement of low level power-ups. :rolleyes: With most Barbarian or Fighter builds, that will at best last until 3rd level. 2 levels < 9-15 levels...the attitude is because you just claimed that Bards are not casters as part of your argument and that having a powerup from levels 1-2 somehow compensates for having a powerup throughout the life of a build.
rutrow424 02-07-07, 04:37 PM	Sure he is. He's not supposed to have DOUBLE the equipment without paying a severe price. In LG, there isn't the natural limitation on this except TUs and the need to play with the same group every time with the same characters. There are plenty of people for which neither of those is a limitation. And to get back to how this affects the 3rd level rule - the time I'd take someone seriously about removing the 3rd level rule is when they explain how to keep casters and non-casters in balance despite giving casters a power up. The 3rd level rule is not in place to prevent weird combos or to hinder casters from shining or to prevent low level power creep. The stated intent is to simplify things for new players. None of the discussion related to MIC has anything to do with that stated intent. If unintended consequences of the rule are things you prefer, that's great, but IMO those items should be solved separately if they are indeed a problem. For example, MIC (CWI in particular) has always been at least perceived as some sort of a problem due to the access rules. I don't agree that it is as bad as you claim, and would be happy to debate it in a new thread (in short, the benefits seem a lot better in theory than in practice). But if it is a problem, than MIC should be fixed in its own way. If certain "power combos" come in to play too early (subjective opinion on both what is a power combo and when is too early) w/o the 3rd level rule, than those combos should be made limited or restricted in the rules, not just pushed back as a side effect of a different rule.
bhale187 02-07-07, 04:45 PM	I only mentioned bard, because they do not benefit from any of the feats previously mentioned as causing balance issues for casters when taken at level 1. Besides all of your arguments up to this point have been suggesting that the level 1 feat availablity would make caster too powerful too soon, not that they end up more powerful.
Mommy was an Orc 02-07-07, 05:42 PM	I only mentioned bard, because they do not benefit from any of the feats previously mentioned as causing balance issues for casters when taken at level 1. Arcane Prep, Extra Music, Lyric Spell. And this is in the context that CWI is available. It would normally not be possible to take all of these feats until 12th. Besides all of your arguments up to this point have been suggesting that the level 1 feat availablity would make caster too powerful too soon, not that they end up more powerful. They end up more powerful because with the exception of Improved Initiative and the metamagic feats, most of the best caster feats are either not in PHB or not available at 1st level(crafting feats).
ranagrande 02-07-07, 08:31 PM	I see that the outdated third level rule has indeed been eliminated in the 597 LGCS. I, for one, would like to applaud the Circle on making this excellent decision.
JamesMaissen 02-07-07, 08:32 PM	And to get back to how this affects the 3rd level rule - the time I'd take someone seriously about removing the 3rd level rule is when they explain how to keep casters and non-casters in balance despite giving casters a power up. How about attacking the problem(s) directly and having real solutions to them instead of bandaids and crutches? I mean it's one thing to have these cludge fixes for the short-term, but for the long term it's just shoddy work. As to MIC for example it's a problem in and of itself regardless of the 3rd level rule. My solution to the MIC inequity I suggested on the LGCS suggestions thread. Basically to allow the hiring of crafters so that access would be equal across the board. MIC feats would still be worthwhile for the saving of cash, but would not increase the access like it does in LG today. Imho it's the combination of these factors that makes craft wonderous overpowered. Level the playing field for access and it just becomes a very good feat rather than overpowering. As a side note I don't like the idea of 'least of two evils' for the long run. It might be an emergency solution for a short term, but should NEVER be a long term solution. As the leadership here seems overburdened, even short term solutions are not optimal as they tend to pick up intertia from no longer being a squeeky wheel. -James
Istaran 02-08-07, 11:55 PM	I see that the outdated third level rule has indeed been eliminated in the 597 LGCS. I, for one, would like to applaud the Circle on making this excellent decision. Huzzah. Now I can have Draconic Claws at level 1. Bwa ha ha ha ha ha. It may be a ridiculously suboptimal thing to do, but it has been burning at my soul relentlessly for months. Finally I can buff and scratch things at the same time.
cycloptic_squirrel 02-09-07, 12:29 AM	Huzzah. Now I can have Draconic Claws at level 1. Bwa ha ha ha ha ha. It may be a ridiculously suboptimal thing to do, but it has been burning at my soul relentlessly for months. Finally I can buff and scratch things at the same time. What's the point of buffing things to a mirror-like sheen if all you're going to do is scratch them up? :confused: Pardon my insanity. It's been a long day. :P
Istaran 02-09-07, 07:44 PM	What's the point of buffing things to a mirror-like sheen if all you're going to do is scratch them up? :confused: Pardon my insanity. It's been a long day. :P The mirror like sheen makes the scratches more obvious. Obviously. I was thinking more things like.. Round 1: fist of stone + claw round 2: shield + claw round 3-10: claw + slam. Since battles are so fast, if you spend rounds doing nothing but buffing yourself, soon the battle is over without you and you didn't contribute. This way I can attack while buffing. And before you tell me there's a bajillion ways to be more deadly than a single claw per round.. It may be a ridiculously suboptimal thing to do, but it has been burning at my soul relentlessly for months.
Mithreinmaethor 02-09-07, 08:14 PM	The mirror like sheen makes the scratches more obvious. Obviously. I was thinking more things like.. Round 1: fist of stone + claw round 2: shield + claw round 3-10: claw + slam. Since battles are so fast, if you spend rounds doing nothing but buffing yourself, soon the battle is over without you and you didn't contribute. This way I can attack while buffing. And before you tell me there's a bajillion ways to be more deadly than a single claw per round.. I am sure you already realize that you dont get the +6 STR bonus for damage on anything other than the Slam attack. You would get it to hit though. And using the Slam attack as a secondary weapon drops you to -5 to hit with it and only 1/2 str bonus to damage right ? Your better off just slamming for the 1 1/2 str bonus to damage
Master_Bushido_Mark 02-10-07, 02:43 AM	What good does this rule actually do? Does it really help a true newbie that OTHER players are restricted to PhB feats? If a person is overwhelmed by options can't they restrict themselves down to the PhB and be done with it? Likewise if I were trying to make an optimal character I couldn't simply look at the PhB for the first two levels as I would need to plan out things based on what options are later available. Really what good does this rule do for the campaign? All I can see is the harm and confusion it creates. -James What also makes this rule and other rules like this annoying is the idea that a game engine should weaken better players for the sake of making other players, who are less experienced, feel better about being newbies. That is not only detrimental to the fun-factor of the game, but it lessens the exposure new players have to the other sources out there. Plain and simple, the more you empower your players with choices, the more sources they will sell. And, the more players will enjoy the game engine. They are already limited by the fact that they must own the source that said feat comes from, and must either have it with them, or a copy of the pages needed as a reference for the GM. Mark
Simpi 02-10-07, 03:25 AM	Plain and simple, the more you empower your players with choices, the more sources they will sell. And, the more players will enjoy the game engine. And the more options there are, LG gets that much more "broken" in terms of power level. Yet the same people who want more options will likely go and hurl abuse at authors much more willingly for cranking up the challenge. I for one do not like that 3rd level item rule has been removed. Sampo Haarlaa Naerie Triad
Mommy was an Orc 02-10-07, 04:35 AM	I for one do not like that 3rd level item rule has been removed. Sampo Haarlaa Naerie Triad I'm okay with it at the moment - they seem to be cracking down on some of the abuses casters can get away with. If they close off the retraining problems, I'll be mostly happy.
Randall Montgomery 02-10-07, 11:18 AM	I'm okay with it at the moment - they seem to be cracking down on some of the abuses casters can get away with. If they close off the retraining problems, I'll be mostly happy. Speaking from a caster's perspective, I'm pretty happy with things as they stand right now, too. We lost the ability to craft any item with a CL prereq 2 lower than ours, but I'd say that's minor. As long as it's mentioned that you can craft any Open item you meet the prereqs for (which Britt has said will be included), I've got no problem with the current MIC rules. I'm disappointed about the polymorph restrictions, but since I've never used any of the relevant spells it'll have no impact on my play. I'm also pretty happy to see the 3rd level rule gone, too. I'm gonna be playing a Fighter in Greyhawk ruins, and it'll be nice to be able to grab a feat or two out of CW straight away.
LGMoses 02-10-07, 11:43 PM	i'm sad its gone. it made first level not that complicated. Now new players are going to want to look thru these books at first level. Overall, IMO, a bad decision. Did the Circle make the decision or did WotC?
Britt 02-11-07, 12:14 AM	We did, and with Retraining, it's not an issue. The only thing that matters all that much is your class. Everything else you can change out later if you made the wrong decision. With all the exceptions to the third level rule, it wasn't a rule anymore and was more complicated than it needed to be.
Rerednaw 02-12-07, 02:38 PM	Speaking from a caster's perspective, I'm pretty happy with things as they stand right now, too. We lost the ability to craft any item with a CL prereq 2 lower than ours, but I'd say that's minor. As long as it's mentioned that you can craft any Open item you meet the prereqs for (which Britt has said will be included), I've got no problem with the current MIC rules. I'm disappointed about the polymorph restrictions, but since I've never used any of the relevant spells it'll have no impact on my play. I'm also pretty happy to see the 3rd level rule gone, too. I'm gonna be playing a Fighter in Greyhawk ruins, and it'll be nice to be able to grab a feat or two out of CW straight away. The open item list is pretty short. Most of the items I wanted to craft such as Muryland's Spoon, Hat of Disguise, Pearls of Power, Bag of Tricks, Necklace of Adaption, Decanter of Endless Water, Medallion of Thought Detection...you now either have to wait for AR access OR the item has been moved to the closed list and you will never be able to make them. I can see my casters training in make the 1 or 2 stat adding items and then immediately dropping them. Sure it's 4 TU's and a few hundred gold...but that beats having a useless feat. When you do get access on a nice AR, well then retrain the feat back in. The one I really liked about the 3rd level rule being dropped is now that many Limited level 1 feats are available. Heritage feats especially look interesting, even if they are bit weak.
clannagh 02-12-07, 06:49 PM	And the more options there are, LG gets that much more "broken" in terms of power level. Yet the same people who want more options will likely go and hurl abuse at authors much more willingly for cranking up the challenge. I for one do not like that 3rd level item rule has been removed. Sampo Haarlaa Naerie Triad I also feel its a bad move. I expect to see in my local group the mid level power gamers building even more outrageous characters (the really experienced players never bother power building or power leveling they play for fun) while the new players are tempted by all the new shineys to build even odder and more ineffectual builds.
Istaran 02-12-07, 10:58 PM	I am sure you already realize that you dont get the +6 STR bonus for damage on anything other than the Slam attack. You would get it to hit though. And using the Slam attack as a secondary weapon drops you to -5 to hit with it and only 1/2 str bonus to damage right ? Your better off just slamming for the 1 1/2 str bonus to damage I realize no such thing. I saw nothing in the spell description indicating that was the case. I could look again. I am fairly certain it said the extra str applied to attacks (not slam attacks specifically), grapple, and break attempts. IIRC it says the str bonus applies to attacks before even indicating that it gives you a slam attack...
Randall Montgomery 02-13-07, 10:42 AM	[/SIZE] I can see my casters training in make the 1 or 2 stat adding items and then immediately dropping them. Sure it's 4 TU's and a few hundred gold...but that beats having a useless feat. When you do get access on a nice AR, well then retrain the feat back in. Well, since the LGCS was updated to state that if you retrain an item creation feat, you have to pay the difference in gold for everything you crafted with that feat, I'd highly recommend not doing this. You'd lose the XP and TUs crafting it, and get absolutely nothing in return. While I'd say the open access list does cover most of the common items that everyone is generally interested in, you're right that access is still the name of the game. Still, many of the items you've mentioned are one's I've seen across a few ARs, so it's likely that you'll hit them eventually. Keep the faith, friend!
Adolfo_Mondschein 02-15-07, 02:16 AM	:( LG is confusing me so... I've played 3.5 for a while now, even DM'ed for home games. I have a mountain of books (Thinking back.. I'm amazed at the money I managed to spend on them.) and while I'm not a newb to D&D or Living campaigns, I'm certainly one to LG. So what IS the deal with this 3rd level stuff? I really wish someone could just spell it all out for me... If you wouldn't mind. Is it still in use, what's the limits, etc.?:confused:
Sithobi1 02-15-07, 02:23 AM	There's no third level rule any more...so just ignore it :P
LGMoses 02-15-07, 02:26 AM	:( LG is confusing me so... I've played 3.5 for a while now, even DM'ed for home games. I have a mountain of books (Thinking back.. I'm amazed at the money I managed to spend on them.) and while I'm not a newb to D&D or Living campaigns, I'm certainly one to LG. So what IS the deal with this 3rd level stuff? I really wish someone could just spell it all out for me... If you wouldn't mind. Is it still in use, what's the limits, etc.?:confused: the third level rule is gone now. don't worry about it. It WAS a rule that you couldn't take feats/spells/etc from books outside of the PHB until 3rd level. apparantly peple didn't care for it. I have mixed feelings about its removal. I don't like seeing new peple to dnd looking thru supplements when they've barely touched a phb, but the rule was rather cumbersome. It'll all probly balance out.
Adolfo_Mondschein 02-15-07, 02:33 AM	Thank you both for putting my newbie mind at ease! :D
cycloptic_squirrel 02-15-07, 02:38 AM	:( LG is confusing me so... I've played 3.5 for a while now, even DM'ed for home games. I have a mountain of books (Thinking back.. I'm amazed at the money I managed to spend on them.) and while I'm not a newb to D&D or Living campaigns, I'm certainly one to LG. So what IS the deal with this 3rd level stuff? I really wish someone could just spell it all out for me... If you wouldn't mind. Is it still in use, what's the limits, etc.?:confused: Simple answer: Ignore anything you hear about the third level rule. Not as simple: Prior to the new LGCS, there was the third level rule. This rule stated that until your character hit third level they could not utilize any sources outside the PHB (spells, feats, etc.). It was designed to allow easy introduction into LG, as getting swamped with options isn't that conducive to learning the system. It had the side benefit of limiting the power level of some people since their first feat(s) had to come from the PHB. After the campaign allowed warmages in the campaign, it was decided to make an exception for the warmage spell list (since they have very few options if limited to PHB spells). Then non-PHB domains were allowed, and an exception was made for domain spells outside the PHB. Long story short, the rule was still in effect, but half a dozen exceptions creeped in, and some thought that the rule became to complex and too arbitrary to warrant its existence. So now, if there's an option that's open access, you can use it at first level. Very not as simple:Troll through these threads and you'll find many debates, most of them actually are good discussions about power level and introducing new people into LG. On a personal note, I agree with the removal, but would still encourage new players to limit themselves to the PHB for the first few levels. With the retraining options now available, it's unlikely that a first character will become seen as 'unredeemable' (read: suboptimal), as was the case with many player's first LG character. Oh, and welcome to LG! I hope you come to enjoy it as much as many here do!
LGMoses 02-15-07, 02:44 AM	On a personal note, I agree with the removal, but would still encourage new players to limit themselves to the PHB for the first few levels. With the retraining options now available, it's unlikely that a first character will become seen as 'unredeemable' (read: suboptimal), as was the case with many player's first LG character. Oh, and welcome to LG! I hope you come to enjoy it as much as many here do! I'll agree to that. I get a little frustrated sometimes. We have one or two peple wehre I game that own complete warrior but not phbs. retraining is great. characters long retired due to mistakes are showing up now. Also, it costs time and money so it fits my slight sense of realism.
cycloptic_squirrel 02-15-07, 03:18 AM	I'll agree to that. I get a little frustrated sometimes. I hear the frustration. With this subject in particular, I might disagree with your conclusions, but I can't fault your priorities, which clearly lie with new player introduction. A common goal usually leads to friendlier discourse. :)
The White Sorcerer 02-20-07, 11:27 AM	I'm pretty neutral about the removal of the 3rd Level Rule. Sure, it keeping the game simple was a good thing. However, the rule's removal might allow people to choose feats that would make sense for their characters at 1st level instead of having to spend the slot on something else. And it's not a matter of optimizing, rather it's a matter of what makes sense for the character. The removal also allowed me to find a new side of myself. When I realized it had been removed, I thought "Cool, I'll take Versatile Unarmed Strike for my 1st-level monk!". Seconds later, however, I thought "Nah, I'll stick with Athletic," although I did end up changing it to Iron Will (prioritizing personality over physique).