You have questions: how does it work? Where does it go? How do I get that perfect item I've been pining for?
Most of your questions will be answered here!
Everything You Always Wanted To Know About Fai Chen's Fantastical Faire (But Were Afraid To Ask)
--
Pauper
That's why I'm glad to have a RC in my area so when ever we have a local Con he usually shows up so we can have Fai Chens outpost!.
Imaginary: Asia Pacific is in the same boat. Although Im lucky im on the same really large island (Australia) as him just he is on one side of it and Im on the other.
Just got confirmation we'll have one at a large, local con later this year.
For anyone going to GenCon - Fai Chen will not accept wingwear (and presumably other cult items). The reason given is that he believes the cult would track him down and kill him. He wouldn't touch it if you paid him.
If you thought you could offload them on him - you will be disappointef
Kalani wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Are there certs for Wingwear and Balloon Packs?
Anyone have feedback from Origins or Winter Fantasy regarding interesting things they could trade to get?
Primarchx wrote:
Ainulindalion wrote:
It seems odd they will not trade for Wingwear. I find it a bit disconcerting.....
It is official (was stated by Robert Adducci). The reason being that they don't want people offloading their expended items. Fai Chen also won't trade consumables either (but does sell them)
Kalani wrote:
MasterNamer wrote:
At Dex Con, Fai Chen sold spell scrolls, potions of greater healing, +1 weapons, +1 armor, and +1 shields. There were a few other things, but I don't recall.
MasterNamer wrote:
In other words, to paraphrase a famous actor "they Fork you at the drive-thru(AL table). They know you aren't coming back( cuz u can't get a refund)."
It is kind of -amazing- that they would put in the item and have it function for all purposes as a charged item, and then call it permanent in the first place...like the light spear in season 1. Then make a way to trade in items who's purpose specifically is to let players get rid of their crappy items and better 'tailor' their items, but then they specifically SINGLE out the horribly designed trap items from the early part of the module and exclude them from the offer. I want to know how many people will spend money to get to this Con JUST to trade in their crap items, then get turned away as the booth attendent points to a little bit of fine print that only a tiny portion of the DnD community will ever see beforehand anyways.
The Posters and Bulletins and web pages they are suggesting/encouraging people to put out(and even offering to print for you if u pay them)...are those all going to come with little bullet points that say 'Sorry wingwear not included".
At least my parties Warlock can finally trade in his cursed flashlight...if he can raise $900 for the plane ticket.
Sigh. AL does not have any say in what items are in the hardcovers. They are written by a third party publisher contracted Bon behalf of wizards. The AL is twice removed from any decision making that goes into those adventures.
I understand their reasons for disallowing wingwear. It is to prevent people from offloading a very common item (within the adventure) for something much harder to come by.
It is also to prevent people from offloading items that are no longer functional (zero charges) and therefore circumventing the rule in the magic item FAQ.
While not stated explicitly, I doubt Fai Chen would trade for a broken magic item either - (eg a wand of winter that broke when it's last charge was expended).
Pauper wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Maybe Fai Shen should start offering "Controlled Magic Descruction" services? Change a hefty fee, but allow people to get rid of stuff like wingwear?
imaginaryfriend wrote:
imaginaryfriend wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Actually, we were thinking something more along the lines of Fai Chen performing a ritual of destruction - in which the RC (playing Fai Chen) performs an actual ritual (dance), and destroys the item in his brazier. Fire regulations would prevent us from actually burning the cert, but it could be simulated (with the cert being destroyed by tearing for example).... Besides, any reason to get the RCs to perform a silly dance.
Whether the admins go for the idea, or could get approval from WotC to do this however is another story - but I have put the idea out. Excellent idea imaginary! (I am kind of surprised nobody has mentioned it before as it almost seems obvious in hindsight).
@Kalani: Thanks for the added information. The issue is still what items are in the adventures, but the solution may not be in the Admins hands.
Pauper wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Just to throw this out there...
The Adventurer's League rules say you can't sell magic items. The permanent magic item count is based on items that you possess.
Selling non-cursed items is not the only way to get rid of things that you possess...
Mommy_was_an_Orc wrote:
The rules for Adventurer's League do not actually point out that there is a FAQ independent of the FAQ in the rule document...
That's kind of like saying that a state constitution doesn't mention that there is a U.S. Constitution that supercedes it (to use an example local to me).
If every rules source had to refer to every other rules source, the rules would quickly become unmanagable. That's part of the reason why the admins don't make Sage Advice a required rules source, as an example.
--
Pauper
That's actually once of the changes I submitted to (hopefully) be added to the next ALPG.
Great Idea Imaginary, we're having a lot of fun with this...
Speaking of which, the campaign staff is currently discussing a list of proposed changes to the S3 ALPG. Once we have finalized our list, the admins will be taking it to WotC on our behalf. Whether any of those changes are implemented however, is up to the guys at WotC who oversee AL (Chris Tulach and co). Offering suggestions and proposed changes are as far as our powers to affect the ALPG go.
Pauper wrote:
True, the ALPG does state those things (or fail to state them). That does not change the fact that it is WRONG. The ALPG is written in-house by WotC. A good portion of the S2 ALPG was copy/pasted directly from the S1 ALPG (which was created prior to the AL FAQ, and IIRC - the website itself).
The Admins oversee the AL. The admins had to gain permission for the creation of an AL FAQ, and were given explicit permission that the FAQ was authoritive. All submissions for the AL FAQ go through an approval process before being added to the FAQ. I am under the understanding, this includes approval by the WotC rep who oversees AL (and to which the admins report directly).
The admins and RCs have also stated on numerous occasions that the AL FAQ supercedes the ALPG, and in the case of a discrepency - the AL FAQ is the authoritive document. Not only do the campaign staff have no control over the ALPG, but the ALPG is only updated once/season - regardless of any copy/paste errors, ommissions, or issues that occur with its wording/intent.
The ALPG also has an entry on page 3 which states:
-
Official documentation, such as a D&D Adventurers League certificate, might provide exceptions to the allowed rules.
It has been specifically stated that the AL FAQ and articles with the AL Legal logo are specific exceptions to the allowed Rules, so it is already covered (although not explicitly so).
One of the things we would love to see happen in S3, is specific language to this effect be included in the ALPG itself. Something to the effect of:
- Articles on the AL website with the "AL Legal" logo are considered a rules source for that story origin.
- The AL FAQ is an official rules source. If there is a discrepency between this document (the ALPG) and the AL FAQ, the AL FAQ is correct.
Mommy_was_an_Orc wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Mommy, despite your objections - I am in fact telling you that the ALPG is not correct, and has errors (and omissions). One of those omissions is the fact that the AL FAQ is authorative.... The Admins were given explicit permission by WotC for this to be the case.
Likewise, the campaign staff recently gained control over Expeditions/Epics Playtesting. The ALPG discusses playtests and states:
Playtesting Adventures
If a group playtests a D&D Adventurers League adventure, you’ll be asked to fill out a short survey on your experience. Please take a few minutes to fill out the survey; that feedback is invaluable to shaping the final adventure’s experience.
Playtesting an adventure involves playing one of your existing characters in a not-quite-ready for release adventure. After the adventure is finished, you’ll receive a link to a survey to give us feedback. By playtesting the adventure, you do so with the understanding that the final adventure can and will change (based probably on your feedback). Unless otherwise specified, the playtest of the adventure does not count as an official D&D Adventurers League game, and your character does not earn any rewards for playing it. However, you can replay the adventure with the same character once the finaladventure is released.
If your group would like to help develop the D&D Adventurers League adventures by playtesting with us, simply contact the administrators and we’ll get you and your group on the list. You’ll need to have at least one DM and four to six players to playtest (five players is best).
Mommy_was_an_Orc wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Here are the rules upon which all playtests currently operate.... This information is taken directly from one of the playtest emails I have recieved.
- If you've signed up, you're expected to be the DM. You are not permitted to pass around the documents to other DMs. If you know someone who wants to DM they can fill out the form themselves.
- We expect you to give feedback on at least 1 in 3 adventures sent out.
- Rewards are Gold Pieces and Experience Points only, no downtime, no renown, no magic items or consumables.
- XP is exactly like as if you were playing or DMing it in a regular AL Session.
- Playtesting is limited to in person, private play. No game stores, convention play, or online games please...... Exception: LCs, RCs, and Admins can participate in online playtests providing at least one admin/RC is present.
Are you honestly saying that the text of the ALPG (quoted above) trumps rules that were written and published last week?
Pauper wrote:
Online play is considered the same as home play (in most circumstances). I am not clear on the specifics, but if you have any questions about how online play works, please contact the Online Play RC or the LC for your specific platform.
- Online RC: David Russell, online@dndadventurersleague.org
- Fantasy Grounds LCs
David Williamson, David@DAWPage.com
Michael Del Valle, FGTalen@gmail.com
There is also at least one LC for Roll20, although their information has not been posted to the administrators list.
Mommy_was_an_Orc wrote:
Kalani wrote:
The information on the website trumps what is written in the ALPG however, in this case - both documents are in agreement.
ALPG v2 (EE): Home and Online PlayD&D Adventurers League play has been developed to promote in-person, public play with the D&D tabletop roleplaying game. Some opportunities exist for players participating at home or online to get involved in the D&D Adventurers League. You can:
• Purchase and play Lost Mine of Phandelver
• Purchase and play the storyline season’s adventure product
(for example, Princes of the Apocalypse)
Simply record your play using an adventure logsheet as you would any other public game. Your experience and rewards earned are valid for public D&D Adventurers League play.
Pauper wrote:
Cult item question:
Princes of the Apocalypse has the elemental weapons drown, tinderstrike, etc. - these have certs and are legendary items. Can these be traded with Fai Chen?
Fred
Many players also use the advice of their DMs, Event Organizers, LCs, RCs, and admins.....
Event Organizers should be made aware of the AL Website and FAQ, and disseminate that information to their DMs. The DMs in turn, should make knowledge of the FAQ available to their players. It is excusable for a new group to be unaware of these rules due to their existance not being specifically mentioned in the ALPG (something we, the campaign staff are trying to rectify) - but that does not mean that players are allowed to ignore these rules upon becomign aware of them.
I am confused why you keep ignoring the fact that the Campaign staff is making every effort to have the AL FAQ and Website be recognized in the ALPG as "Rules Sources", and to have those rules sources be authorative in the event of a discrepency between the FAQ and the ALPG.
Unfortunately, the earliest we can expect such language is the ALPG - RoD (season 3) document, and only in the event that wizards makes the changes we request.
Regardless of whether wizards makes said changes to the ALPG or not however, the fact remains that the AL FAQ is more authorative than the ALPG. You will note however, that we also make every effort not to contradict the ALPG (except in the case of errors), so the only discrepencies that should exist are because the ALPG had a copy/paste error, ommission, or other similar error.
Kalani wrote:
Yes... I mentioned him by name and contact info in an earlier post.... I fail to see how the online region is relevant.
- It exists for the same reason that all other regions exist: To address concerns specific to that location and/or play format.
- Its existance is not mutually exclusive with the information on the AL website or ALPG.
- Online games are still expected to follow the rules as written in the ALPG, in that the only adventures allowed are the hardcover adventures (LMoP, HotDQ, RoT, PotA, etc).
- To my knowledge, online Expeditions are not offered. Last I heard, they were specifically prohibited (but I could be wrong about that. As I said - its not my area of expertise, you are better off asking the Online RC).
In fact the only change I can think of, is the fact that you can run them as public drop-in games.... Then again, you can do that with a home game as well.
Kalani wrote:
Guys - I asked a question tied to the actual thread that is getting burried about POTA elemental items - please take separate discussions to another thread. Thank you.
Fred
Kalani wrote:
Mommy_was_an_Orc wrote:
Kalani is incorrect, you can participate in Expeditions online through the before mentioned group.
The FAQ is authoritative, language will be later included to specify it as such in the ALPG (hopefully). When in doubt, FAQ is correct.
FelwredNew wrote:
FelwredNew wrote:
Ravix wrote:
Mommy_was_an_Orc wrote:
I'm nobody (in reality less than nobody), but I think all parties should just step back for a few, cool down and head to a neutral corner.
Thanks,
Les Foster
LC Coordinatior - New Jersey
CahPahkah wrote:
They have trade blocks so they appear to be tradable.
Ravix wrote:
I would not however, allow anyone with Drown to trade any items personally.... Drown makes you covetous and unwilling to part with anything that is yours. Logic dictates that such characters would never trade with Fai Chen (or anyone).
Kalani wrote:
Sorsohka wrote:
ZHDarkstar wrote:
ZHDarkstar wrote:
Skerrit wrote:
Sorsohka wrote:
Skerrit wrote:
The fighter wanted the staff of charming, while there was a spellcaster at the table? tsk.
imaginaryfriend wrote:
Sorsohka wrote:
Primarchx wrote:
Possibly the answer is to re-think how magic items are distributed in a more fundamental way.
Take out the whole discussion on whether magic items are needed in this edition - it's a separate argument. Let's assume most everyone would like 1 or 2 interesting items that their character could use before around 10th level.
Take the staff of charming example. That fighter might have no magic items and already be 5th level - possibly unlucky rolls on roll-offs, etc. If he doesn't claim that item, it's likely he may keep going and get nothing. If he claims the item, he has a chance to trade it to another player who could use it in exchange for something he did. Otherwise, he keeps not getting items.
The current system has created an almost necessity to claim items you don't want in order to be able to actually get to something you'd like (via trade with other players or a trading post). Further, it promotes everyone searching for leaks as to what items appear in what module so they can go after those specific items because they fit that class or build. Neither of those scenarios promote a positive environment for item distribution in organized play.
What if we considered a different option? Rather than handing out named items such as a ring of protection +1, etc. via certs, players are handed a cert just saying "Uncommon item, 5 spell levels learned (for wizard spellbooks), or 1,000 gp" that they have to decide, at the table with the GM that session, what it will be? Unique items/legendary items would continue to be handled the way they are now. The item doesn't become valid until signed off by the DM that a choice has been made and written in ink on the cert. You wouldn't even need to have the certs be tradable anymore.
Yes, it means you ignore what the NPC was fighting you with (unless it was unique) but it seems worth the price.
It would mean players being a bit more min-maxxed where they would have an item specific to their class, race, etc but would solve the rest of the problems. It sounds like a more than fair trade off for a warlock level 4 to have a pact rod and a fighter level 4 having a +1 greatsword than that same fighter claiming the pact rod just so he might be able to trade it some time in the future.
What are your thoughts?
Fred
Same scenario happened in my play group....Paladin took the staff of charming so he could trade for something better later, because the spellcasters had wingwear. I'm sure he probably already knows what all the magic item rewards are for later, since he always manages to buy silver weapons just before they meet the lycanthropes, or holy water just before they meet undead, etc..I figure half my table has read the spoiler.
Sniping wasnt invented in this game....it has existed in every game that uses a low yield reward system....ie a lot less rewards than the players required to earn them. 5e Bungles this factor pretty spectacularly. Their system as is ENCOURAGES this sort of behavior, and they need to adjust it.
FelwredNew wrote:
Mirtek wrote:
Byakugan01 wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
FelwredNew wrote:
WillemManderly wrote:
Sorsohka wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
Sorsohka wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
The solutions you're proposing aren't particularly elegant, and aren't likely to be adopted for AL play. Your proposal for Wingwear violates the spirit of consumable vs. permanent magic items, and what you're suggesting for Hazirawn is almost completely inappropriate for organized play -- you're adding a lot complexity and derailing play sessions in order to solve an incredibly marginal problem.
Managing the expectations and experiences of a large and diverse community isn't as simple as making the kinds of rulings DMs use to run homegames, which is basically the level of what you're suggesting.
Ah yes, "the AL just needs to cut ands paste what I say and all will be well". I guess it can be seen as a form of volunteering, but one that comes with a lot of... lets use a word that has seen some weird overuse on this forum recently....hubris. Although it may very well be a calculated attempt at sarcasm, in which case ..its well done 
The english is not at issue, that is easily fixed. English is not my primary language either and I would like to think I have some experience with fixing Dutch-ism, French-isms and German-isms, so if the english needs work, I am willing to do it (if its a serious proposal). But, an actual proposal for "problem" remediation may require a little more content and attention to the possible complexities of the situation. A little less "all in one" and a little more addressing of each problematic element. Maybe with more than one option. And definately with less "DO THIS!!!11!".
And maybe with the realisation that whatever you, or I, or whomever comes up with is very likely something the admins have already thought of as they have been doing this for a while (ok, so have some of us, but still ). So there may be some things at play that stand in the way of a simple resolution. Which could likely be found out, and debated, but its that whole flies.honey..etc thing. Fire and virtiol are not likely to aid resolution.
One thing I should state - just because you share an opinion and a possible "fix" for your perceived issues, does not mean that the system is broken simply because the campaign staff does not share those opinions, or does not adopt your chosen "fix".
There is a major difference between a system which is objectively broken, and one which is subjectively perceived to be broken. An objectively broken system/rule is one that does not work as intended - such as a rule intended to allow a character to dual-wield, but fails to deliver on this promise.
Another example are Invocation level requirements. This was an objectively broken rule which was corrected in the recent PHB Errata. It was broken due to an omission, which allowed players to qualify for invocations using their character level, despite the fact that invocations were intended to require a specific warlock level.
Hazirawn lacking ability scores is an objectively broken rule, as without them, hazirawn cannot engage in a contest of wills should the character do something opposed to its ideology. The fact that it also lacks said ideology is also an inherrently broken quality.
Unfortunately: AL does not have the ability to alter this item. It is up to Wizards to issue an errata for hoard of the dragon queen. As such, AL created a FAQ ruling to aid DMs in adjudicating Hazirawn as written. Ideally, an errata for this item would be released which clears up the issue - but until an errata is released, we are left trying to bandaid an objectively broken item.
Adventure League do have the power to change Hazirawn within the confine of Adventure League. I mean they did it with Orcsplitter, saying that Orcsplitter sentient was too difficult to control within Adventure league confine so they modfied teh adventure given alternative to the players.
So how does modifiing what is directly written in the book is within Adventure League power, but adding missing information is not?
Then I miss the point that my Hazirawn solution is not elegant? please explain, give me some constructive criticism, just saying "not elegant" won't help anyone coming up with a good solution. Remember hazirawn is a sentient weapon in the book, and the sentient rule are complicated so yes since the solution need to create those rule, they might seem complicated, but this is WotC sentient weapon system. Unless we use the same solution as for Orcsplitter, where the Harper appear and offer you to trade Hazirawn for a non setient greatsword+2 dealng an extra 2d6 necrotic damage and 4 charge to cast detect spells?
So unless we transform Hazirawn into a non sentient weapon like we did with Orcsplitter this solution seem pretty simple, considering it need to fix a sentient weapon missing all sentient element:
Hazirawn Personality: Hazirawn love prestige and will do anything to obtain more prestige
Hazirawn ideals: Prestige can be obtain trought feat of strenght and with Bard singing songs
Hazirawn Flaw: Hazirawn as no loyalty. If you no longer bring him extra prestige, he will refuse to help you (unattune himself from you) and will challenge strong fighter find a new weilder
Hazirawn bounds/Special purpose: Glory seeker: want to gain renown and prestige, in order to reach those objectif, Hazirawn want to be weilded by the strongest combatant. This sound very simple and straight foward to me
Then I explain how does Hazirawn determined the "worthyness" of the player: 2 choices:
- Participate in melee combat again the current weilder fo Hazirawn (Rezmir) this is fairly easy and 90% of the player should satisfy this criteria. Since PvP is not available, player wonT' be able to trade Hazirawn which fit with the current cert lacking a trading log so everything is good here
- Defeat a strong opponent (define as a CR5+ opponent) in a 1VS1 combat. Outside assitance (like a paladin casting bless) is acceptable, as long that it's not flagrantly detected (Hazirawn is not Lawfull, so he don't care about cheating, as long as no one see you) This allow to player who somehow miss there chance to attack Rezmir in combat to still have a chance to attune to Hazirawn. it also serve as a way to regain Hazirawn approbation if you were to lose it
Hazirawn stats are: Int: 14, Wis: 16 Cha: 18
Communicate can speak, read and understand common, draconic and infernal
Senses: Hearing and darkvision out to 60ft
Conflict: If you miss an opportunity to give Hazirawn the renown the he seek (refuse a duel, don't pay a bard to sing a song about Hazirawn, act cowardly etc...) then Hazirawn will make a conflict check against you as describe in the DMG: contest of charisma check (+5 for Hazirawn) and if he win Hazirawn wil suppress it's power untill the player regain the favors of Hazirawn or Hazirawn will speak outloud and challenge a strong fighter or hire the bard to sing his prowess (at the expense of the player) or by taking control of the player a describe in the DMG then will go and "fix" the problem, usually by challenging a strong opponent.
To regain Hazirawn favor, you siply need to challenge and win a dual against a strong opponent (CR = to your character level) or pay a Bard 50gp per character level to sing the prowess of Hazirawn
Yes it's a lot of text, but to make a sentient weapon fit the DMG desccription this is all the text you need and if you have idea to make it simpler please let me know.
Then for hte wingwear and other "rechargeable" item that require a node to be recharged. Since those node are only present in PotA and some specific DDEX and the player usually are closing such node, and a single character cannot return to an already play module, eventually it will be impossible to recharge the item, making it a limited charge item just like KEOGHTOM'S OINTMENT.
So I see 2 possibilities:
- add a downtime activity: where it going to cost the player X downtime to return to a node and recharge the item (the X can be modified to what seem balance and fair, personnaly I would suggest 1 downtime if the player last session was in Mulmaster or PotA, 3 downtime and 10 gold (for caravan fees) if the player last session was around the moonsea but not at mulmaster (In Phlan doing season 1 mission or in Hillfar doing season3 mission) or 5 downtime and 30 gp (for transportation fees) if anywhere else in the world (doing LMoP, HotDQ, RoT)
or
- consider the item as a non rechargeabe item just like KEOGHTOM'S OINTMENT and follow the same rule that already exist for KEOGHTOM'S OINTMENT (once the number of charge reach 0 the item no longer count as a permanent magical item)
Like stated previously, the wingwear and the balloon pack were not intented to be a permanent item in the Adventure League definition since they were not created for Adventure League, they were created for homegame, where player can discard magical item that expended tehre last charge and cannot be recharge (because there is no plan to find new node).
I would love to help but if the only critic I receive are : AL do not have the power to do that, maybe if you can refer me to a document describing the power of AL it might help me to create a solution that fit within the power, otherwise I can only based my solution based on other solution released by AL up to now (Orcsplitter for example)
Or if all you an say it's: it's too coplicated, well for hazirawn you need to bring a complicated subject (sentient weapon) well it will be complex, but I believe that I manage to make it fairly simple, but giving Hazirawn a simple objectif, that will not be disruptive to the party (compare to a special purpose requirng to be polished every day with paladin, virgin or baby blood, witch might cause trouble at the tables)
In the case of Orcsplitter, the book is written such that the Harpers already show up and offer to trade for the weapon. As written, the trade offer was completely open ended - you could get anything for it. The AL admins imposed some limits on what the Harpers would be willing to trade, that was all.
They don't take Orcsplitter away, nor do they change it into anything it is not already. You are not required to trade it to the Harpers. You may keep Orcsplitter if you wish.
Ainulindalion wrote:
Can they change Hazirawn...?? Sure, they probably have the authority.
But is it really that big of a deal? How often is it being used? Is it being disruptive to the game?
I know in my case it has enhanced the roleplaying at most tables where I sit.
Coredump00 wrote:
Sorsohka wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
CahPaKah...how many players need to have their AL experience ruined before you consider it to be a problem? Not many people that quit playing DnD is going to seek out these forums, make an account, and post how they don't play anymore. Even if they did, they would simply be told 'sorry we have no say, we just moderate the forum and tell you what we are told to tell you'. The best feedback you are possibly going to get is from the players that are so frustrated that they will spend hours of time reading through a long convoluted threads sharing their problems.
Kalani, I love the work you do...but Water Whip wasn't an rules ommission, it was a rules change. Empowered evocation wasn't a clarification, it was a rules change. Intensified evocation is a rules change...the admins themselves said as much....they said it DID allow for maximized cantrips but that it wasn't a good idea, and suggested a fix involving a 'different' amount of damage than the ability specifically called for. It is semantics I guess...I am all for changing rules when rules are broken or severely out of line with 'normal'.
The excuse that a reward is 'open ended' is a straw man argument...there are several places now that have had open ended rewards, including in season 2...AL has created rules that explicitly DEFY the stated method of treasure distribution in these cases. They have done it several times, so obviously it is within their power to do. Orcsplitter is another example. It was a GOOD thing that they made that change, despite the fact that hardly anyone even has characters high enough level to do that side quest. Most of the people who are actually high enough to do that quest are playing season 1 characters, and thus have a good chance to already have encountered Hazirawn before. Someone was smart enough to know that, because they explicitly allow for spell casters from season 1 to add season 2 spells. The Dark Lady side quest is another example. RoT had the white dragon hoard which was explicitly supposed to be randomly generated...but AL -changed- what was printed and removed the possibility of getting magic items. Not saying it is good or bad, however clearly they are not applyign their authority in even strokes. They -CAN- change things, they just choose when they feel like exercising the power or not to.
They could have easily said 'Wingear' counts as a consumeable, problem fixed. Instead, they chose to wring their hands and push the blame onto the 'boutique' and explain away the blunder with an explanation that they don't design their adventure based on AL's restrictions. WotC is buying the product, right? Why aren't they buying a product that conforms to AL standards, or at the very least contains SIDEBARS for applicable AL rules. The expeditions are made by mostly vollunteers...and they contain such information...why can't WotC demand what they are PAYING for fit the parameters they want? Unless the answer is that AL is simply not a high priority to them. Why pay for something we can just ignore and get for free?
Why aren't they buying a product that conforms to AL standards, or at the very least contains SIDEBARS for applicable AL rules.
If you don't play Expeditions, it is also impossible to get a rank 3 character - as secret missions only occur in Tier-2 expeditions (as of this writing).
Each season has a single secret mission/faction (2 currently).
Kalani wrote:
WillemManderly wrote:
Byakugan01 wrote:
Byakugan01 wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Bless your heart.
I was wondering why you picked that guy as your avatar. now I know.
I think even complainers
and habitual instigators contribute to the community. If for nothing more than the example they show others not to set.
3 of my players have asked me to make noise on the forums to help get the stupid stuff fixed. I was already doing that before they asked because i cared enough to try to improve their experience and my own. 15 minutes was spent on our last session discussing the options for how the warlock can be free of the
cursed flashlight. So now the plan is to do Foulness under mulmaster with a different group, play a new level 1 warlock and get the magic item reward, then trade it to himself to transfer the cursed driftglobe to the 1st level guy who will then kill himself, forever rendering the driftglobe from again cursing any hapless adventurers.
Kinda seems like the system could be a little less complicated.
Byakugan01 wrote:
The magic item is for warlocks, so he wants the best chances of winning it. This way only other warlocks and/or others in the same predicament who were forced to use the same underhanded strategy will roll against him.
This is for a player that doesn't optimize, doesn't read spoilers, and doesn't own any 5e books. But his dissatisfaction with getting 'cursed' bleeds over into nearly every session, so several of the other players taught him what he needs to do.
Obviously the system is perfect.
Byakugan01 wrote:
Byakugan01 wrote:
Maybe we just have different ideas about how magic items are supposed to be? When you have a +6 to hit roll with your spells, and you get an item that gives you +1 to hit...that magic item gives you 16% higher attack roll. Whether or not a character needs that bonus is not what we are discussing...the question is whether or not individual players enjoy their games more when they get 'phat lewtz'. Since the vast majority of RPG/MMO/MMORPG/TCG/CCG/FPS/and yes, even Freemium APPs, and every edition of D&D in the entire gaming industry is modeled on 'gain levels and get better stuff', one might think people that play these games might actually enjoy getting good loot. For better or for worse, this is something people are both used to and expect with most games. Any individual might just revel in the fact that the game is totally great because players can't optimize...but they actually still can and it isn't because of the magic items. Fortunately it is easy to work around optimizers. Its a lot harder to work around rules that we -have- to follow that don't make sense, or that make people feel like their characters are trapped because of 1 decision they made when they were new to the game.
Considering attack rolls are the most consequential and most common rolls made, and there are only a few other ways of getting + bonuses to hit in the whole 5e universe, getting magic items that augment them are pretty huge. I wonder why the cleric keeps casting bless at the start of EVERY fight, and bard is considered one of the strongest classes in this edition? At the beginning o the game, the warlock was the only one that didn't have darkvision, and he didn't know Devil's Sight was a thing. He read the description and thought he could control where the floaty magic light would go...he misunderstood, but not until after he was handed the cert and put +1 on his log. He can't even run the expedition with his regular character because...*looks up expedition* ok I just realized the listing for Foulness Beneath Mulmaster says it is a 1-4 expedition, but page 2 says the module is designed for 3 to 7 5th-10th level characters...then says it allows the use of 1st level pregen characters. Cute.
Not much to say about the attempts at character assasination. One of the last things I would ever assume on an online forum is that people act or talk the same as they do in real life. By their very nature. online forums are more likely to contain complaints rather than praise. I am not offended by your ignorance. I've shared several recaps of various sessions on the forums. Anyone is welcome to judge if they sounded fun or not, and I frequently request feedback to make the games more fun, since it was my first stint ever DMing. They seemed disappointed when I announced last week that I would be playing in season 3 rather than DMing, and several of them asked me to keep running the game on a different day. So, I guess you should feel surprised...perhaps you will be just as surprised if you ever sit at JC's table and he tells you to roll 1d4 for each of you MMs?
Coredump00 wrote:
Just poking my head in before GenCon to note that the specific wingwear question has been answered in the Season 3 ALPG (p.22):
"If I have a consumable magic item on a certificate, does that count as a permanent magic item?
"No, it does not. Any magic item that has a small number of uses does not count as a permanent magic item. Wands and other magic items that have charges that reset do count as permanent magic items."
So that part of the discussion, at least, can be put to rest.
--
Pauper
Pauper wrote:
The probem is in the current state, and with AL official unwillingness to change it or reword it or make an explicit exception for that item, wingwear are consider rechargeable since there is a way to recharge them. The fact that the way is not accessibe to player is irrelevant for the AL rules.
This is why I've been asking for AL to write an exception (and I even wrote it for them) daying that is the rechargeable method is not accesible to player (like air nod once you did/outleved all adventure with such node, should no longer count as permanent, and count as a multicharge consummable item (like the Keoght ointment)
That rule exist since season 1, where Keoght ointment (not sure of the complete name) is a 4 charge potion of healing and cannt be recharge, so it count as a magic item untill it run out of charge.
The problem is not the lack of rule (since the rule already exist for Keoght ointment) the problem is the rule not including the rechargeable item that are impossible to recharge since they require specific requirement that cannot be fullfill.
If they are not willig to create such rule, they could at least add a downtime activity where by spendin sgome gold and downtime, a player could find a air node (asking to a local wizard to create one, going back to Mulmaster, finding a natural occuring one etc...) to recahrge the item.
But AL refuse to move forward on this matter, people (including me ) apparently they don't have time to write such rules, and we the player are too greedy/stupid to write it our self. In a differnt post I already offer to help and gave them the wording for some ruling that are way overdue, but they are not good enought, but I don't see anyone suggesting anything better and seeing the new season 3 ALPG I don't see any fixs to those problem.
Pauper wrote:
Sorsohka wrote:
Technically, the charges on wingwear do not "reset" in the manner being discussed in the ALPGv3.
If a player takes a specific action (which can only be taken maybe twice, given the lack of opportunities), wingwear is capable of being recharged, but the charges do not reset on their own, like wands and many staves.
I understand the ruling being designed to prevent entire parties having essentially unlimited flight capability, particularly at low levels (as it matches up with the ruling concerning aaracokra), but it's still a horrible choice (like the aaracokra one).
Except for the fact that air nodes seem to be somewhat naturally occurring. While in the case of the air node in PotA and the air node in DDEX2-13, they are both being manipulated by members of the air cult to produce desired effects, there is no evidence to suggest that the cult actually created the air nodes themselves.
If the cult was capable of creating air nodes virtually at will (or any of the cults capable of creating their respective nodes at will), they would not need devastation orbs that factor so heavily into the storyline at multiple points.
Logic suggests that the nodes are either naturally occurring or the result of magic outside the control of mortals. In the first case, there is no fundamental reason why air nodes couldn't be discovered allowing for the recharge of wingwear (even if you made it rather expensive in terms of DT and GP). In fact, given the function of a free market economy, and the vast numbers of wingwear potentially floating around after the elimination of the air cultists, there'd almost certainly be someone searching for an air node and setting up a teleportation circle as close to it as possible, then charging for access.
In the other case, that they are formed by magic outside the control of mortals, well... FIIK. Though I would assume the elemental princes, if nothing else, would continue trying to break through, and therefore, keep dropping various nodes into the Prime Material.
True, the charges do not reset in the traditional manner - however this does not make the item itself a consumable. In order to qualify for the ruling the item must be designated as a consumable. Such is not the case (no matter how much we wish it was). The potions of superior healing (LMoP), and Keoghotm's Ointments are both consumables.
Wingwear is a fun item, and would be perfectly ok in a non-AL game. The only reason it causes problems in AL is because the designers did not take AL rules into account when designing it. Hopefully, the items in Out of the Abyss fit seemlessly into the AL program and do not run into any of the problems of the previous two seasons products*
*Admittedly, I give Hoard of the Dragon Queen/Rise of Tiamat a pass when it comes to hazirawn, on account of the fact they were written during the 5E Playtest and were designed with incomplete rules. Wingwear however, is an unfortunate side effect of a fun item having strange interaction with the AL magic item rules.
Do we know the Fai Chen schedule for Gen Con? If it is posted somewhere, I'm not looking in the right place.
My group was pretty disappointed with the Fai Chen Faire. We had been hoping for some interesting items. There were a few, but the number of different options were pretty low once you discounted the scrolls. It was also tough dealing with the schedule (though the lines were not very long). All-Access was given a window of time per table, but that time was always outside of the All-Access play. While that is great for maximizing your play time, it was during a time when we were at a different building far away. We worked really hard to get there at another time... and then found the very limited options. Coupled with how few certs I have as a player to begin with, and needing the rarities to match up, it was hard to be excited.
It isn't the end of the world. Certs are not at all why I play the game. But, I wish there had been more variety and a better way to find an interesting item in a timely manner. I did really like the flexible "+1 weapon ___" and "+1 armor ____", because they make up for how many certs specify a weapon or armor many players don't use. I also liked that they would roll on the Quality tables in the DMG and give you a fun quality.
What I would suggest in the future:
- Admins research a list of non-broken fun items, as well as having those +1 flexible certs (and maybe +2 for higher tiers?)
- That list is given to all-access DMs as a checklist.
- All-Access players review the list, give all the certs they are trading and check off what they want.
- DM takes the list to the HQ at some point during the round.
- At some point, HQ reviews the list and prints out those certs. Or, it could be a generic Fai Chen cert and they write in the item and sign it. Because of this, it can be a much larger list (no need to pre-print just a few certs. Also, much less chance of wasted paper.)
- For the next All-Access slot, the DM receives that tables' certs and passes them out.
- If at any point an All-Access player wants to make an additional trade, they can use the Faire like anyone else (go stand in line, etc.)
It seems to me that the question in the Season 3 ALPG was specifically added to address wingwear and other items that aren't rechargable in the context of the campaign; as such, that entry would override the Magic Item FAQ, being a newer ruling.
I guess we'll just have to wait until Skerrit or someone else gets to chat with one of the WotC folks to explain the intent behind that ruling.
--
Pauper
Pauper wrote:
We will be writing an FAQ that specifically calls out wingwear and siilar items. We submitted our thoughts for ALPG 3.0 but that part got cut for space. Look for it on our website.
Skerrit wrote:
Master list: http://dndadventurersleague.org/sage/index.php?title=Main_Page
Mommy_was_an_Orc wrote:
There is someone on this forum who maintains a PDF compilation of the FAQ and other documents (eg. Mulmaster Backgrounds). The problems with maintaining a master PDF however means that we would need to transcribe the FAQ into a word doc, and then export as a pdf, and then replace the existing PDF with the new one. The only way to edit an existing PDF is if you have a full copy of Acrobat, which I don't expect anyone to be required to purchase just to make it easier.
A wiki is also much easier to edit and update (if there are errors). Updating a PDF requires editing the word doc, and then re-exporting it which requires even more effort for little benefit. Sure, a PDF is easier to reference offline, but it shouldn't be that hard to copy/paste the contents of the wiki into your own word doc and export it if desired.
Kalani wrote:
Im not saying its an excessive amount of extra work, but it can be (depending on how many errors/changes are made after the initial doc is posted). I know for a fact that on some days I have had to edit a FAQ entry 3-4 times because of things that are changed after it was originally posted (due to things people notice, errors, etc). As I am the one who normally transcribes the FAQs to the wiki, I personally don't have a problem with also creating a pdf as it wouldn't be that much more work for me.... But the fact still remains that the wiki can be edited by any of the campaign staff. If someone failed to update the pdf at the same time, both documents would quickly become out of sync.
As such, it is just easier IMO to leave the wiki as is - and compile the document only when you need to take it offline. That gives me an idea... I am not 100% familiar with the limits of wiki's, but if there was a possibility of adding an "export" button being added to the wiki - end users could then click that button and have it compile the wiki into a pdf which they could then save. It would prevent unnecessary work on the back end, while still allowing people the flexibility of a pdf as needed. I will bring it up with Alan and see if he could look into it for us.
From scratch, it takes 19:23 seconds if one is worried about every correction. Hint, there are still quite a few. It's something that became pretty obvious when i created a brand new document and ran spell check. But then, that could also be seen as an opportunity to correct glaring gramatical errors accidently created by other editors.
I didn't time using a pre-existing document; I don't believe in doing the same work more than once. However, I'd be more than happy to time it with a future update if you remind me.
A question related to wingwear. A storm boomerrang is a magic weapon that loses it's ability to do additional thunder damage unless recharged in an air node. It looks like it is still a magic weapon but without the thunder ability after being discharged. Would that item be eligible for trade at Fai Chen's (there is another one runnning at Tacticon in a couple months)?
Fred
FelwredNew wrote:
FelwredNew wrote: