Are AL characters allowed to have "custom" mundane equipment? Or are there rules restricting you to only what's in the PHB verbatim?
The idea for a PC I really want to play in AL involved being a dwarf bard who uses a battleaxe crossed with a lute. So it's both a weapon and a musical instrument.
Is this gonna be poo-poo'ed or frowned upon?
Some DMs will think this is awesome. Others will think it is lame and ask you (or tell you) to separate the battleaxe and lute.
Technically speaking, there is no axe-lute in a player resource, so a character can't really possess one, but not every DM will feel the need to enforce that over the 'rule of cool' that comes from having a heavy-metal bard in the party.
--
Pauper
(Edit: Just realized there is one advantage to an axe-lute that would certainly be disallowed -- bards can use musical instruments as spellcasting foci, so a player might think by combining an axe and lute, he can get the benefit of both a weapon and a spellcasting focus in the same item. This is certainly not allowed. As long as the lute portion of the axe is basically cosmetic only, most DMs probably won't bother adjudicating it.)
If it provides you with any type of mechanical advantage (even a small one) then no, it's not allowed.
However, reflavoring is fine. So if you want your club to be nunjucks, go right ahead. With the axe-loot, you're gaining some small advantage by having both in two hands at the same time. And if a DM allows that, it's harder to outlaw, say, a bladed shield or an automatic rifle. So with D&D AL they draw the line at the items from the PHB.
...so as long as I only do 1d8 damage with the battleaxe, it should be no different (mechanically) than wielding it in one hand, and holding a focus in the other?
Except you're not wielding a weapon in one hand and a focus in the other -- you're wielding an object that can be used either as a focus or a weapon in one hand with the other hand effectively being empty, thus allowing for potion use, satisfying somatic components, and lots of other things that not having a free hand makes more challenging.
In effect, you're getting a significant portion of the benefit of the War Caster feat without having to take the feat, just spend gold (and since the 'custom' item isn't defined in the Player's Handbook, there isn't even a standard amount of gold that such an item should cost).
Choose either to use the item as an improvised weapon and get full lute benefits (in which case it only costs as much as a normal lute), or use the item as a battleaxe and get no lute benefits (though a sympathetic DM might let you use the lute as an instrument outside of combat, allowing you to use your proficiency with it on ability checks). This satisfies the idea that, while 'reflavoring' an item is allowable, such reflavoring shouldn't make the item more rules-effective than the original item.
--
Pauper
Can someone point out the AL guideline that says you can *only* have item explicitly called out in the PHB?
Or anywhere that says any and all mechanical advantages must be disallowed?
Player: I want to buy some wooden wedges I can use to keep a door open, or closed
DM: Sorry, its not in the PHB and it would give you a mechanical advantage....
Player: Okay, I want to buy a covered wagon
DM: Gee... its not in the PHB and since it would keep you dry and hidden... can't allow it.
edit: That said, being able to put both your weapon and your spellcasting focus in one hand to hold, thus giving you a free hand.... that is a DM call which I am not sure how I would rule.Nor am I familiar with any of the DM tweets on the issue.
ALPG, p.4: "Purchasing Items. You can purchase any mundane items found in your rules for character options."
Currently, the Player's Handbook is the only place where mundane items are listed for purchase.
--
Pauper
(Edit: You can actually purchase a wagon out of the Player's Handbook for 35gp; it's up to the DM to determine if the wagon is covered, though, since the PH doesn't specify either way. You can also purchase wedges to use to keep doors open or closed -- they're called pitons and cost 5 copper each, though the PH doesn't describe exactly what their game effects are, so it's up the DM to decide.)
The rules lawyeriness that permeates organized play has always intrigued me.
So we've come to this?: I can have a battleaxe (that happens to resemble a lute aesthetically, but does not functionally as a bardic spell focus). And a spell component pouch on my belt...
Sure. What's wrong with that?
That it ends up being functionally the same thing as what I started out with...
Pauper wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Pauper wrote:
I'm not here to justify my position -- I'm not the one claiming something novel is allowed by AL rules.
Of course, if the only reason you're here is to troll for folks who want to argue with you, by all means, continue. I've said my piece.
--
Pauper
You said your piece? Really? Justify what position? I asked you a question. A direct one. Regarding something you came in here claiming to understand.
So you are saying you can't/won't answer that question? Should I guess why?
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Harmonica neck holder for the bard. Like a Forgotten Realms Bob Dylan.
Perhaps, during play, I'll have a sign in front of me that reads, in big, bold typeface:
Attention all anal-retentive rules lawyers, fun-killers and wet blankets:
Anytime you hear me say, "I lay down some sick, magic licks on my axe..."
please pretend you just heard, "I reach into my spell components pouch..."
That is all.
Mirtek wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Pauper wrote:
RCanine wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
Avross wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
I appreciate that Pauper tried to answer my questions, but since he didn't succeed, is anyone able to actually find rules to support your assertions?
Cahpahkah claims that at least some of you are "the people who understand the rules better than you do", so can anyone actually present the rules they are claiming exist??
Coredump00 wrote:
So looking at the entire thing with my DM glasses on I would say it simply boils down to intent and, especially in organized play, player expectation and DM variance.
If the intent is to
If you want to use unlisted/custom equipment without the intent of gaining additional mechanical benefits. Its all cool. Go ahead and slay em with your awesome 1d8 riffs of doom. Even a mechanical effect that could otherwise be produced is fine (said 1d8 or the door blocking effect of pitons) so wedges.. I do not see a problem. The wooden wedges might not be quite as sturdy as pitons, but they should work more or less the same.
Now if you are looking to invent equiment for mechanical benefit. Nope. will and should not fly,
The tricky part in AL/organized play is that you cannot have the expectation that this will be ruled the same way at every table. The old "expect table variance" caveat applies.
(and yeah I know this is essentially just a recap of what was aready said, but with all the drama I figure it does not hurt to restate 
)
BRJN wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
There's multiple problems with the 'axe-lute' issue. One really big issue (IMO) is that barring magic such an object simply doesn't work. Sure, you can draw a picture of it but that doesn't mean a truly functional version of the item can be made. The body of a lute has to be hollow and made out of wood. You also need some holes cut in the sound board, which weakens structural integrity. Try and build a lute is some other fashion and it's going to sound worse than if you were trying to jam on an electric guitar without an amplifier, with nylon strings, and without the low E string (medieval instuments only had 4 or 5 strings).
So you've got two real choices. The first is that you can make the object as a weapon, which means it will really suck as an instrument, or you can make the object as an instrument, which means when you hit someone with it you can forget about it going out of tune. You're going to break it, and probably more seriously than a simply Mending will be able to fix. Sure, you can argue that even if it sucks as an instrument it still is an instrument and should let you cast spells but I will point out that you are now failing to look cool and if your DM is going to say that such a poor instrument can be considered a valid spell component then I would expect to see lots of kazoo-armed bards.
"But I'm not gaining any real advantage," you say, to which I reply "Don't start a sentence with a conjunction." More to the point, what you might view as cool others might view as over the top. Simply saying that it doesn't give you any advantage is akin to me arguing that my dwarf is actually from space and has crashlanded in Faerun or that the two shortswords I am duel wielding are actually a single weapon known as sword-chucks. They give me no advantage but others may view them as disruptive to their enjoyment of the game because they push the boundaries of suspension of disbelief too far.
Ok, before you hit me with the labels of 'killjoy' and 'wet-blanket' let me say this; if I was running a home game and the other players were fine with this kind of thing in the campaign I wouldn't have any trouble allowing it. I would probably make you work at it a little bit more than just letting you spend the cost for an axe and lute (perhaps making you seek out someone who can craft you a magical axe-lute that plays as though it is amplified even though you don't have an electric amp) but if that's the kind of campaign that you and the rest of the players are enjoying then I can work with that.
So why am I writing so much if I am ok with this? Because I'm talking about in a home game. I'm not as sure I would be ok with it if I was DMing an AL game. Firstly, I am much less likely to know all the other players, especially those who might drop in in the future, and I don't want to degrade their enjoyment if something so over the top is going to put them off. I also don't want to cause any headaches for other AL DMs that you might play with who are not as comfortable with all the handwaving involved should you try and use the argument that I allowed it so they should (I'm not saying you would use such an argument but you must admit that the potential exists).
All of this leads us to why AL has a rule concerning non-standard equipment. Simply DMing is hard work. You're outnumbered by the players. You've got to keep track of what's coming up. You have to take care of multiple characters while the players only have to take care of a single one. You have to deal with players coming up with unanticipated solutions to problems that aren't over the top (what if we just try lighting the roadhouse on fire?). Having to put in all the thought I presented above as to why I don't want to let you bring an axe-lute into the game, even though it doesn't give you any advantage, to every player who makes a request like that and you are rapidly going from hard work to exhausting.
So please, be kind to your AL DMs. If you find one who says yes then great, have a blast, but if your DM says no (and I'm sorry to say that I suspect most of them will fall into that category) please don't try and argue the point. Don't ask why they are saying no and try showing how it gives you no mechanical advantage. Don't label them as anal-retentive rules lawyers, fun-killers, or wet blankets. Believe me, they aren't trying to kill your fun. They are trying to maximize everyone's and sometimes one person has to give up a little of their enjoyment for the rest of the group. Please, just accept it and move on.
imaginaryfriend wrote:
imaginaryfriend wrote:
madscientistlabrat wrote:
madscientistlabrat wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
RCanine wrote:
For the tables I organize, we use the following criteria for ruling on nonstandard items:
- What is the composition of the item?
- How does the player intend to use the item?
- Are the item's mechanics something the player could already do in a single turn with only standard gear and all regularly available hands?
- Does the item make sense?
An example of something that passed scrutiny is the arcane focus of a wizard in my group. He wanted to have the diamond and pearl required for Chromatic Orb and Identify inlaid into his staff like buttons. Since he normally wield nothing but his staff, the item's ruling took that into consideration. It could be used as a normal arcane focus with one hand, but must be held in both hands to operate the buttons. This is mechanically identical to the wizard holding the staff in one hand and using the free hand to grab the appropriate gem out of a pouch.
While writing this, I came up with an idea that could use some feedback. How do you guys feel about silvering a tankard to be used as an improvised weapon for a Tavern Brawler build?
ChrisCarlson wrote:
All games have restrictions and permissions. Most games (magic, WH40K, etc) have a 'permissive' ruleset... you are not allowed to do anything, unless there is a rule that says you can.
RPGs tend to be one of the rare exceptions, they have 'restrictive' rules, you are alllowed to do anything you can think of, unless the rules create a restriction (which sometimes means a process for determining success or failure)
Because this opens a *lot* more situations that need rules.... the game is also designed to use a DM (or GM) to adjudicate those situations.
imaginaryfriend wrote:
I think I agree with much of what you have said....
madscientistlabrat wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
I’ve removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting are violations of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code of Conduct here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
Coredump00 wrote:
madscientistlabrat wrote:
madscientistlabrat wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
imaginaryfriend wrote:
Honestly, I am surprised this thread has gotten this far..... It is a clear cut, straight forward answer as CahPahkah illustrated above.
- Unless the item is found in the allowed rules sources, you cannot use it in AL.
I have noticed that a lot of people are unhappy with the organized play restrictions, feeling like they stiffle their creativity, or limit their options. Unfortunately, if you are going to play in an OP environment, you will need to put up with the restrictions inherrent in the format. This is standard for all OP environments.
Magic has their Type I, and Type II events that limit available card pool.
Yugioh has their banlist.
PFS has their OP ruleset
LFR had their OP ruleset
LG had their OP ruleset
........and now AL has its OP ruleset. If you cannot abide by the restrictions, perhaps Organized Play is not the right format for you. There should be no judgement here. It is not a perfect fit for everyone, and nobody should make you feel "lesser" simply because it doesn't suit you. Find the play format(s) that work best for you and have a blast.
Kalani wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Kalani wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
Kalani wrote:
imaginaryfriend wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Kalani wrote:
As an aside, this whole discussion is giving me some great ideas. I will start pushing my players to use a 6 person tents. It is so much easier if your NPC assassin just has to douse ONE tent in oil and light it on fire.......
CahPahkah wrote:
Coredump, you are taking an offhand comment out of the PHB and misapplying it to AL. Specific beats general. The comment you quoted above (almost anything imaginable is offered for sale) is a general rule, as the PHB makes no assumptions about what kind of game you are running, and assumes the DM has licence and authority to provide such items for sale (making them up if necessary).
The ALPG is more specific than the PHB. It specifically limits the players to content found in the Allowed Rules, and nothing else.
Specific > General
Just because something exists, does not mean your PCs can get access to it.
Case in point 1 - Story Origins.
- Tyranny of Dragons characters will not be allowed to use any Elemental Evil character options, as these documents are not listed on the Allowed Rules for the ToD story origin.
- Likewise, Elemental Evil characters will not be allowed to use HotDQ, Appendix A when creating their character, as this document will not be on the list of Allowed Rules for the EE story origin.
Yes, 6-person tents do exist in the world, as do axe-lutes, or whatever else you can imagine..... However, unless the characters encounter the item in an adventure, or it is available to them during character creation, they are unable to acquire it.
Case in point 2 - Nonmetallic Armor and Druids
- Nonmetallic Scale and Plate armors are not on the list of Allowed Rules. Such items exist in the world however, but Druid characters cannot own such items unless they find them in an adventure.
- Examples from the ToD story arc include the white dragon scale armor, and the red dragonscale shield. Other items may exist (although I have yet to encounter them).
A druid cannot reflavor metallic scale to be nonmetallic, as this changes the mechanics of the item. The same applies in respect to the axe-lute, or any other item whose mechanics are being altered.
Kalani wrote:
What part of Creating and "advancing" a character are you not understanding........
You are advancing your charater each time you play it. Unless the item is found from a legitimate source in the Allowed Rules - you cannot have it. Period.
I would consider an adventure as an example of official documentation creating an exception to the allowed rules - such as with the dragonscale shield I mentioned above (a non-cert item which the adventure assumes you will cash in, but doing so is not mandatory).
I do not consider the DM as being an example of official documentation which creates an exception.
Coredump00 wrote:
Kalani wrote:
As a side note, I think this thread has far exceeded its usefulness. (Other than Krishna's note about setting the whole party in a 6-man tent on fire with one action. That's going in a mod...)
Kalani wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Based on a few side comments WRT the direction I took the sign I was going to use at the table, I've decided to revise it slightly.
If you feel compelled to cite some "rule", regarding my PC, please first read the following:
Anytime you hear me say something like, "I lay down some sick, magic licks on my lute-axe..."
Please pretend you just heard me instead say, "I reach into my spell components pouch..."
That is all. Hope that helps. And thank you for your support.
Looking forward to the next thread where the OP asks if wine coolers are legal in Adventurers League!
Pauper wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ZHDarkstar wrote:
ZHDarkstar wrote:
madscientistlabrat wrote:
madscientistlabrat wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ZHDarkstar wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
madscientistlabrat wrote:
While I agree with you on all of philosophical stuff, I do have one last argument for my claim to make my drink by RAW for S&G because I have a degree in restaurant management and hospitality management experience. Distribution would fall under the principles of trade and good business practices. One thing that all alcohol sales reps are trained in is mixology as a means of boosting sales via signature drinks for each establishment. The only real difference between an alcohol sales rep and a bartender is their employer, as both use their knowledge of alcohol and customer service to make money off of drunk people. In a world where the most basic of magic spells can be used as a means of cooking, it is wholly within the realm of possibility for there to exist bartenders who use magic as part of their drink recipes.
madscientistlabrat wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
I’ve removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting/personal attacks are violations of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code of Conduct here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
CahPahkah wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
madscientistlabrat wrote:
Warning: I'm one of those people who favor DM empowerment (as I understand the term).
That said, it seems to me that the real underlying question is when can a player make a DM accept a certain thing (like the axe-lute thing). To me, the answer is "only when a specific rule says so."
It's a basic tenet of D&D that a PC can attempt anything they can think of. It's up to the DM to adjudicate the results of that attempt. Sometimes success is obvious (e.g., pouring a flagon of beer into a bucket). Sometimes failure is obvious (e.g., attempting to fly across a city with no particular ability or item to enable flight). No die rolls necessary. When the DM feels the outcome is uncertain, he or she can decide the difficulty and assign a die roll to resolve it. If you're not with me this far, then we have very different ideas what D&D is all about.
Now, in Adventurers League, the campaign staff has placed a few additional restrictions (that is, in addition to the rules of the game itself) on what players can do (character creation rules) and what PCs can do (e.g., alignment restrictions). In my opinion, if the DM and players don't fall afoul of these explicit restrictions or obvious implicit restrictions logically based on those, it's the DM who decides how things work out. There's no mechanism—especially in Adventurers League—to force a DM to rule a certain way when there's even a shadow of a doubt as to the rules. To say otherwise is to grind the game to a halt. Rules lawyers (of which I am often one) who point out more than obvious mistakes during play need to get a grip and talk about it after the event.
Would I allow a PC to purchase an axe-lute? Probably not, because it's unlikely that someone else had the idea and thought it was commercially viable to sell them. Would I allow someone to commision one to be made? Sure. I'd figure out how much someone would charge (not necessarily the price of an axe and a lute bought separately) and whether it would be any good—because that's my job as a DM. I'd try to make the result (success or failure) as entertaining for that specific table as possible.
If a PC came to my table claiming to already have one, but it's not an item with official rules around it (e.g., no certificate or description in the rules) then again, it would be my responsibility to adjudicate whatever the character wanted to attempt to do with it. Turn it upside down and strum it while walking through town? Sure, no problem. Impress the princess with the beautiful sound? Eh, maybe. Use the strings like a bow to shoot arrows? Probably not (but go ahead, try to convince me at the table).
It seems like the overwhelming thing missing in these discussions is a sense of reasonableness. A microscope can be useful, but not if it makes you forget about the big picture.
Oh, and before responding, please read the disclaimer in my signature below. These are my opinions, and you're welcome to share them or ignore them.
TheBreen wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
TheBreen wrote:
Aribeth wrote:
madscientistlabrat wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
ZHDarkstar wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
Pauper wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Kalani,
What's next? Are you going to tell a player that his character's quarterstaff can't be made of bronze-shod ash? Or that another PC's sword cannot have the head of a lion as its pommel? Because those things are not outlined in the PHB? Aesthetics are now under the sovereign domain of... well... you?
Yeesh. I'm suprised in that you are usually very level headed in general. That's not like you.
Kalani wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Pauper wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Kalani wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Okay, let's play a new game:
My lute is just a lute. But my PC's dwarven clan traditionally makes their lutes out of metal. Thick, sturdy, strong dwarven metal. That's reflavoring. My particular lute happens to have a long leading edge on the bottom of the bout. An edge I sharpened to resemble a battleaxe. More reflavoring.
Now, to paraphrase the Improvised Weapon Rule: If something resembles an existing weapon closely enough, the DM can rule it functions just like the weapon it resembles...
ChrisCarlson wrote:
To me, the term "mechanical advantage" that's being thrown around seems a little vague. In the context of this discussion, I see the term as meaning a concrete in-game benefit (or way to work-around a restriction in the rules), but it seems like some people mean any potential in-game benefit.
For example: If you try to say that your bow has three strings, so you can shoot three arrows at a time (circumventing the normal one shot per action), that's a clear "mechanical advantage," right? But if you want to buy a bouquet of flowers as a role-playing aid in the hopes of gaining a modifier on your Charisma roll, is that a mechanical advantage? Seems to me that it's just smart role playing. After all, you won't know if there's actually a modifier, or what it may be ("How beautiful! But I'm allergic to daisies!") until it's time for the Cha check.
Is that how other people are using the term? Because it gets tossed around a lot, and perhaps a better term in this context might be "unfair advantage." I think players should be trying to think of clever things they can do or make or buy to make them more successful. The DM, however (IMO) has to make sure they don't cross over from "novel" to quasi-cheating. And that, I think, should be a reasonable discussion between the player and the DM.
Your mileage, and your table, may vary.
TheBreen wrote:
Pauper wrote:
[Editors Note: Upon re-reading this, I realize it may come across as condescending because it is step by step in very small steps. I apologize if it does come across that way, I do not intend that; I simply want to make sure the thought process is thorough.]
Okay, the back an forth seems to be bogging things down more than helping... so let me try a different approach.
I beieve we can all agree that the game, even AL games, is meant to be played with the PHB.
We are playing DnD, and that is defined by the rules in the PHB, so those are the rules that we follow, plus any restrictions given by the AL guidelines.
Can we all agree on that?
(I will assume yes.)
When playing DnD, it is within the rules to buy things. In fact, on page 143 of the PHB it states how the marketplace of a large city 'teems' with buyers and seller, and specifically states that large cities will have "almost anything imaginable" for sale. The PHB goes on to describe some items that adventurers "commonly find useful". There is nothing in the PHB to indicate that these are the only items a player can purchase.
This is emphasized in places such as p.144 where it states that the chart is only of the "most commonly available" types of armor; which means that in DnD there will be *other* types of armor available, at least in some places. There is similar terminology with the weapons, mounts, trade goods, etc. In fact, the Mounts section specifically states that other mounts can be had, but are not "normally" available; which, of course, means that it is entirely within the rules of DnD for those mounts to be available in a unusual/rare situation.
So, I think we can agree (not so sure anymore) that the game of DnD, as defined in the PHB allows for a griffon mount, if raised from an egg, and perhaps even purchased in a rare situation. Similarly, in the game of DnD, as defined in the PHB, you can purchase other types of armor, or a plethora of gear that may even include a 4 person tent or an expensive boquet of flowers. This *also* includes buying potions of healing, selling magic items, etc.
Which brings us to AL.... As we discussed above, AL assumes we are playing DnD as defined by the PHB; but they added some additional restrictions. You can't buy pots of healing, you can't sell magic items, etc.
I can see no restriction stating that you can *only* purchase items explicitly listed on the various charts.
I can see no restriction stating that you can not buy something if it provides *any* mechanical advantage.
The AL Guidelines says or assumes we are using the PHB, the PHB does not restrict items to only those listed.... therefore AL has no such restriction unless explicitly stated.
TheBreen wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Kalani wrote:
You know what.... I am sick and tired of arguing with you CoreDump. You argue over everything, and are frequently wrong.
You have admitted that this will be your first organized play experience, yet you insist on the fact you have a superior understanding of the organized play environment and the rules by which it operates.
I will not speak for others, but I have participated in OP events for well over a decade. I started by playing living greyhawk back in 2000 (or was it 2001, I forget). I was a certified RPGA DM in the 3.5 era, and regularly coordinated, ran and participated in sanctioned RPGA events. I coordinated and ran the 4E launch event at my local FLGS, and participated in living forgotten realms.
In addition, I was a highly respected UDE judge for Yugioh (well known on the official UDE yugioh forums) for the better part of 4 years (prior to the Konami/Upperdeck Lawsuit) and wrote the book on priority - literally (having poured through over 5000 card rulings in order to compile and establish how priority worked as prior to that, we only had individual card rulings to go by, establishing which card had priority over which other card).
While it is not relevant to Dnd specifically, it shows that I take my job as an OP DM/Judge seriously.
In respect to Adventurer's League
I am one of the 200K playtesters who were under NDA, and followed the development cycle since packet 1 (actually, since the announcement - but that was my first look at the actual rules). During that time, I followed each and every developer comment as to how the game was intended to function. Some rules were much clearer in the playtest than in the final version (which I find disappointing tbh).
I have been DMing Encounters since August last year, have been organizing, coordinating, and running Expeditions since September, and will be taking over as the Store AL coordinator (for some 6-7 tables) next season.
Furthermore, the former Regional Coordinator for Western Canada - Kristina Frost was my table DM, prior to my taking over for her in the first few weeks of the Season. Speaking of RC, I have even had people suggest that I take over as the RC for Western Canada, but I have no intention of taking on such responsibility at this time - despite the position being vacant.
As a table DM, and Expeditions coordinator - I have made it my duty to stay aprised of each and every ruling, article, developer, or admin comment I can get my hands on - and spend hours each day pouring over the rulebooks, and participating in discussions on this forum in order to perfect my understanding of the rules - especially as they pertain to the AL.
I fully admit when I make errors (I can cite examples on several threads), and take steps to correct any misunderstandings of the rules I might have. I do not argue for the sake of arguing, but simply to further my understanding of the rules and make certain I know them inside and out.
But what do I know? I bow to your superior knowledge and experience of the organized play environment.
You obviously have no desire to understand the rules, and are simply arguing to WIN. As I do not share this goal, I have nothing further to say.
Kalani wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Let me make this even simpler...
In a non-AL setting, when playing DnD and following the rules from PHB, is it against the rules for a character to buy a 4 person tent? (Yes or No)
(I will assume "no".)
The ALPG Allowed Rules says to use the Rules from the PHB... and you just said the rules from the PHB does not preclude you from buying a 4 person tent.
So...if the Allowed Rules does not preclude you from buying a 4 person tent.... where is the AL restriction that *does* prevent it?
I don't think it gets any simpler, or more explicit, than that.
Coredump00 wrote:
Kalani wrote:
If you create a rule for an item the PCs can purchase - you are using additional rules, as there is no rule which covers the cost/abilities of the custom item in question.
You cannot permit additional rules, ergo you cannot permit additional items which require said rules... Stop quoting an offhand comment which was directed at DMs who have complete empowerment of the adventure/story. AL DMS are given limited empowerment. Stop quoting a bloody passage that applies only if the DM has free reign because it is completely irrelevant in this instance.
If we subscribe to your way of thinking, there is nothing preventing a player from showing up with a rocket launcher, or any other item "they can imagine"....According to you, the PHB gives them licence to create and purchase such items and use them legitimately in the organized play environment.
How about I create a nonmagical flamethrower, that allows me to duplicate the effects of scorching ray, each and every round -for the negligable cost of a pint of oil per use.... Or a drug which makes a target susceptable to suggestion - one which makes the target "friendly", and imposes disadvantage on any saving throw vs charm/enchantment, in addition to any opposed deception, or diplomacy check.
By your reasoning - such items exist, and are available for purchase.... The DM has no authority to deny such requests because the PHB says so according to you.... which as we both know is completely absurd.
I'm done being trolled by you.
Well, I'm heading off to the convention now. The first AL game I get into, I'm going to try to purchase a bouquet of flowers, a sack of sugar (or flour, or both), and a 4-person tent. Pretty sure the convention will implode.
If I make it back, I'll let you know what happened. 
4 person tent, winter clothes
Kalani wrote:
Kalani wrote:
As I said before (and was conveniently ignored....)
Let me make this even simpler...
In a non-AL setting, when playing DnD and following the rules from PHB, is it against the rules for a character to buy a 4 person tent? (Yes or No)
(I will assume "no".)
The ALPG Allowed Rules says to use the Rules from the PHB... and you just said the rules from the PHB does not preclude you from buying a 4 person tent.
So...if the Allowed Rules does not preclude you from buying a 4 person tent.... where is the AL restriction that *does* prevent it?
I don't think it gets any simpler, or more explicit, than that.
Kalani wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
madscientistlabrat wrote:
Enevhar_Aldarion wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
madscientistlabrat wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Sucky experience and u had a very nonprofessional DM to boot.
Kalani wrote:
TheBreen wrote:
So a quick personal recap attempt before this thread takes another stroll around the track:
If you want to do something that is not specifically listed in an applicable rule source, as limited by and listed in the AL guide, the following applies:
- A DM can always choose to disallow it.
- A DM is less likely to do so if the effect/action is temporary ("I jump towards the chandelier, swing and then make a triple twist in mid air to land on the back of the bard, daggers down. Will that give me advantage on the attack if I succeed?" )
- A DM is less likely to do so if the effect/action is non-mechanical (i.e. flavour like a horse with a magenta tail. (yes there is a mod where this could happen))
- A DM is less likely to do so if the effect/action fits within the setting. ( reflavouring your longsword to a katana is likely fine, a light sabre..less likely)
- A DM makes the final call on everything regarding the effect/action. (If DM wants to rule that you can indeed buy a six person tent, they can also rule it is so rare that they cost 250gp.)
- No DM is bound to honour another DMs call. (Just because swinging from the chandelier was a Hard DC with DM X, does not mean DM Y cannot disallow it, or make it a DC 20. And that six person tent may evaporate for a session)
The more permanent and the more mechanical something becomes, the more likely it is that it will be disallowed. Making it anachronistic for the setting just makes it worse.
Examples
- I want to buy a bowl of sugar.
Sugar can last a while, but it is a consumable so not permanent. Sugar should have little mechanical impact and the setting is likely to have it. So, probably fine. - I want to buy a six person tent.
A tent is likely to be a permanent item. It may have some mechanical effects and it does fit the setting. Could be fine, but a DM is more likely to have issues. - I want to put strings on my axe to turn it into a lute axe.
Permanent and likely to fit the setting, but mechanical impact depends on extra factors. If someone wants to only use it as an axe mechanically and not change any of the rules concerning weapons, instruments and spellcasting. Probably fine. If someone wants the lute-axe to change how weapons, instruments and spellcasting work. Very unlikely (and very high impact).
No DM or Player can make a mechanical change or addition that lasts beyond the session. But AL is not played in a vacuum. No matter how often we stress to EXPECT TABLE VARIANCE, players will mutter (or worse) when DM Y disallows something DM X allowed. Not to even mention the situation where table A is allowed to do Y in an adventure while table B is not, and then they talk in the bar.
For a DM this is an area where they should tread very very lightly and always consider the impact of their descicion. Will this make it more fun at the table? Will this be an overly powerful mechanical benefit? Do i feel comfortable with this call? Is the player looking to weasel my gouda? etc. etc. .. Usually this should not be as hard as it may seem. You are in that DM seat for a reason after all, but it will not always be easy. And even though I stress that no DM is bound to honour the call another DM has made, expect your call to be thrown in the face of the next DM. Keep that in mind, And if you are not comfortable with something that goes off the written path. Just say no (but keep trying to say yes now and then ).
For a player it is important to realize that when you go beyond the listed rules you are entering the realm of TABLE VARIANCE. You cannot expect a DM descicion to have any form of permanence beyond your current session. Don't badger DMs with other DMs calls. Present it as information, sure, but they will still make their own descicion and you should accept it. With poise and grace (even if you are not a southern debutante).
I think that about covers what I am taking away from this whole debate sofar. I am sure that if I go looking for them I can find some bona fides to bolster my knowledge, experience and dedication, but I won't bother.
TheBreen wrote:
Oh when DM-ing I would likely allow the axe-lute but add a wild magic chance to all bardic music effects (i.e. spells) once it is used as an axe. I'd call it dissonance.. Smacking people around has a bad effect on an instruments tuning after all. Player can re-tune the axe lute durin a short rest.
I guess that also makes for a good example of what I would not expect another DM to go along with. I am fairly sure I can make it balanced and fun, but its not something everyone is going to be comfortable with. And if the player is not comfortable with it they can always just use it as an axe with a cool look
delroland wrote:
madscientistlabrat wrote:
Despite all the debate i think the current rules and guidelines work just fine. The AL admins have better things to do than to start "officially" clarifying every thing people have differing opinions on. That would only lead to an encyclopedia britannica sized AL guide. I realize there are those that woud like every inch of this game spelled out, codified and wrapped up in a neat bow,. But, would that actually be a benefit to all? I do not think so. I think most do not need it. Sure, some people will try to game any grey area for potential gain. So be it. People who are actively trying to break Wheatons law are not worth spending a lot of time on.
I have confidence the DM population will be able to manage the responsibility that comes with making calls on this issue. And even if some players are likely to grumble, compare calls and otherwise make a stink. It just not worth "official" time and effort.
While I agree with the theory (AL admins have better things to do than to start clarifying everything people have different opinions on) I don't necessarily agree in this case. Obviously you will find cases where people are trying to pretzel grammar to the point of "what do you mean by 'is'?" and you will have cases where people are coming up with conclusions that while linguisticly supported the vast majority of people will agree are not reasonably interpretations (the most obvious that springs to mind is the "opponent loses next turn" rule).
You're right that the AL admins probably don't have the time or emotional resources to deal with every single one of these. In this case, however, I think we are looking at a case that is both muddy enough and important enough to maintaining a cohesive play style that it should probably be addressed.
madscientistlabrat wrote:
Kalani wrote:
I say the ALPG allows players to purchase items regardless if they are explicitly listed in the PHB or other books (with the omnipresent DM approval of course); and that DMs need to keep in mind the 'shared experience' and rule mechanics when making their determination.
Others say it is *not legal* to buy *anything* that is not explicitly listed in the PHB or other books unless it can be considered a 'reflavor' and makes *NO* (not even minor) mechanical changes in the game.
So, which side are you agreeing with again...??
Kalani wrote:
A thing that is very easy to forget in the midst of a heated forum debate is this:
Most AL players and DMs do not frequent these fora. Just because something is a hot item here does not mean it is a significant problem out there.
In this case I am convinces that this is not a big deal. It is something that I have not witnessed being anything beyond a minor issue in very rare situations. Now that in no way lessens the importance of the debate cause it makes for a good viewpoint repository for those looking for that kind of info. But it does mean that putting time and effort into stricter or better defined rules would be akin to filling an illusionary pothole. It takes a lot of time and effort, while only a few people (those that failed their save) will appreciate it. The majority will just look at you and wonder why you are moving dirt.
Well that and I think that a lack of black and white, right or wrong, our way or highway, etc. rules is an asset to game, DMs and players. Sure, some potholes will no doubt need to be filled eventually (as more and more people fail the save ) but I would prefer to not pave paradise. There are enough parking lots already
Anyways, had a great convention weekend. Managed to squeeze out time to play in all of four AL sessions (all of them with my new bard). Not a single complaint. Not a sideways glance. Nor questioning leer. Nothing but fist-pumping cheers, broad smiles or approval, and headbanging along, whenever I rocked out on my lute-axe (whether to play a sick song or smash a cultist's head). I even insulted a winged kobald so bad it died and fell from the sky! So metal!
Fun times had by all.
Good times. Good times.
I also just got back from a convention yesterday. Ended up playing seven rounds of AL, even though I missed the two rounds on Friday. Got my ranger from 3rd to 5th level and picked up a few things here and there (including the severed head of an enemy—I hate that guy!). Yes, of course it's on my adventure log and character sheet. I'm currently looking for a taxidermist…
I saw a few things that I wasn't sure I'd allow, such as one character claiming his noble background and some hand-waived downtime days made his character in charge of a significant portion of the city officials. I definitely wouldn't allow that at all without without an official certificate, but the DMs when I adventured with that character rolled with it. (I have to say, I eye-rolled with it.) In the end, no harm done I suppose. I won't see that guy again until/unless I go to another local convention, and with my schedule that's iffy for now.
Bottom line, everyone wants to do something memorable with their character. I believe it's up to the DM to keep this in check (all the people this character wanted to order around were "not in your chain of command," for example). The good ones can do this; the ones who can't will need to get more practice.
Other observations:
• I never saw or heard of a DM at this convention checking character sheets or adventure logs.
• I also never saw any DMs hand out inspiration points, although the bards in my groups handed out bardic inspiration like it was Skittles.
(Hmmm… You get a Skittle to indicate you have inspiration, and you eat it when you use the inspiration die…)
• One DM made people look up spell components when you cast a spell and prove you had the material components. (Component pouch was OK.) Nobody else cared.
• Every game ran over its alloted four-hour time slot (one by two and a half hours, but it was worth it!). No DM asked to see a certificate when someone used a magic item.
• Buying anything before and during the adventure was hand-waved. ("OK, you buy it.") No one seemed to care whether an item was on the PHB equipment list.
• DMs seemed to like it when you remembered NPCs from previous adventures and "knew" stuff about them.
• Sometimes hotel food is adequate. It's never good, or cheap.
All in all, a great time despite Friday. Kudos to the DMs.
TheBreen wrote:
Lets avoid the trolling please.
Thanks for the update -- it's a good thing to be reminded that often, our discussions here are pretty ivory-tower and that actual play is much messier and more permissive than we'd often think reasonable.
TheBreen wrote:
Do you think a plasma generator is against the ALPG?
I’ve removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting/personal attacks are violations of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code of Conduct here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
Hehe.
delroland wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Nah. Cuz, to me, a plasma generator is a WMD. A weapon that can unleash powerful blasts of plasma. That put's it clearly outside the realm of PCs.
Remember, we can't gain a mechanical benefit, amIright...
Wow, I thought the "Product and General D&D Discussion" forum was toxic...
I would like to get feedback from this august group regarding a player at my AL table. We just finished HotDQ and are geting ready to start RoT. During the last couple of episodes, my party defeated a Helmed Horror and the white dragon Glazhaezel. One of my players is carrying around the pieces of the Helmed Horror and has meticulously cut off scales of the dead dragon. With these components, he would like to have a smith craft him custom plate mail. I think it is a neat idea and have come up with a good roleplaying scene for him to negotiate with a smith the price/time to create the mail. Would this item be considered illegal in AL play?
caecafortuna wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Let's use a more realistic example..... I want a bor musket. There are rules for such in the DMG. According to the PHB, "almost anything you can imagine" exists for sale - this includes dwarven bor muskets.
I am not asking for something outside the rules for the game.... and by Coredump's logic, there is nothing the DM can do to prohibit my character from spending 1 downtime day finding and purchasing such an item. I then write it on my character sheet, and now my fighter has a bor musket....
This is the absurdity that is being argued here. We either deny such items, or we invite extreme examples of it. We must remove the subjective element of the DM from the equation, as each DM has different ideas of what is "acceptable" to purchase, what it costs, and what its mechanical advantage should be (if any).
Otherwise, I could simply state I had a very lenient DM who allowed me to purchase a bor musket, and now I have one.... thereby imposing upon future DMs because of one DMs subjective ruling.
In addition, as stated in the DMing and DM empowerment article - DMs are Not Empowered to houserule. They are Not Empowered to add/subtract/modify the rules the characters use, to impose restrictions, or allow characters to use any additional rules.
I would much prefer to keep to what is available in the PHB specifically, and only allow players to acquire additional items if they are specifically listed in an adventure. Yes, it creates a logical falicy in that other items exist - but are unavailable for PCs, but I am willing to suspend disbelief in this instance in order to maintain a consistant, headache-free play environment.
The alternative, is to face the inevitable arguments that occur between players, DMs and even previous DMs disagree on what is 'acceptable'. Hurt feelings and arguments are not my idea of a fun gaming experience.
Kalani wrote:
I was talking as a baseline... Haggling would alter the cost up/down from that baseline. Either way, the character would end up with wicked looking (but otherwise ordinary) plate armor....
With that being said, I like to tailor encounters to my PCs. Wearing such wicked looking armor should grant advantage/disadvantage in social encounters on a case-by-case basis as NPCs react to the characters appearance. That is not to say I would grant the armor permanent mechanical effects beyond those listed in the plate armor description - only that I would make liberal use of ad-hoc DM rulings.
Then again, I also have NPCs react to PCs based on their lifestyle......Noble lords and townfolk tend to scoff at murder hobos (esp. those with a wretched lifestyle), while deferring to those which are well dressed, and presentable (comfortable+). I would make low-lifestyle characters spend more money at inns etc as well (as they cannot handwaive it as lifestyle expenses), and might force them to purchase gems/fine clothing to get into the manors estate - while those of comfortable lifestyle (or above) may simply be allowed as matter of course.
Kalani wrote:
Speaking of Talis and her armor....
- Ep7 makes clear reference to cultist's from the town making frequent visits to the Lodge - and that such a visit should happen every few days (should the PCs dally at the lodge).
- Ep7 makes it equally clear that a fight with Talis is very likely.
- Most murder hobo's would gleefully don their newly "liberated" dragonscale armor*
* White Dragonscale Armor: There is an error in the book. It is described as white dragon scale armor (read-aloud text), yet listed as +1 scale armor in her stat block (and treasure section). This is further complicated by the fact that there is no certificate for +1 scale armor in the HotDQ packet, while there is a certificate for white dragonscale armor. Most DMs lack access to the HotDQ certificates and would be unlikely to know such an error existed.
With that being said, even if your DM goes by the book and treats it as +1 scale armor, it has a very unique description (as per the read-aloud text and Talis' picture) - and should be recognizable on sight.
Kalani wrote:
Kalani wrote:
delroland wrote:
I will cite a specific example which came up at my FLGs this season.
Someone came to the table from a different store with a pet 5-headed wyrmling dragon that their former DM gave them as a bonus. It was written on their character sheet and adventure log and the player was justifiably upset when the table DM not only forbid the pet, but made the "corrections to their character sheet and logsheet" to correct the "errors" - as per ALPG, sidebar (cheating). The player lacked a certificate or other official documentation supporting the pet 5-headed chromatic wyrmling and so the DM was well within their rights to remove it from their character sheet and log.
Some DM played extremely loose with the ALPG at their former table, thus resulting in bitterness and resentment when another DM was confronted with something which broke the game in a big way and took steps to correct it (this was not at my table btw, but one of the other tables at my store - being run by the event coordinator at the time).
I can completely understand you point and I think that the DM who gave the player the pet 5-headed wyrmling dragon really shouldn't have done that. As I have said, I would be concerned about allowing someone to take an axe-lute, not because of any mechanical advantage but purely because of its capacity to be a disruptive element in future games (I am already assuming everyone at the table is fine with it and it would not currently cause a disruption).
None of which has any bearing on what I feel the rules currently say. These are statements about what I think they should say.
madscientistlabrat wrote:
delroland wrote:
We’ve removed content from this thread because of a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
Remember, a community is a joint effort of all those involved, and while we want intelligent meaningful and productive banter to ensue we also need it to be polite and considerate of others.
Thank you for your time and support as we continue to try and make a great community for everyone.
madscientistlabrat wrote:
madscientistlabrat wrote:
Kalani wrote:
delroland wrote:
delroland wrote:
Kalani wrote:
delroland wrote:
madscientistlabrat wrote:
delroland wrote:
madscientistlabrat wrote:
Temporaryfriend wrote:
Hey, reductio ad absurdum is a perfectly valid and logical form of argument.
Also, most of the bile in the thread has been deleted, mine included.
caecafortuna wrote:
Why do you find it acceptable to insult, smear, and lie about me... and yet refuse to answer any questions I pose to you?
Wait... let me see if I understand this.
You complain about 'others' making it "black and white"
You complain about 'others' making 'absurd' comparisions
You complain about 'others' "bending the rules"
And yet you come up with this...??
delroland wrote:
delroland wrote:
Kalani wrote:
delroland wrote:
madscientistlabrat wrote:
Kalani wrote:
delroland wrote:
Actually on the 5 headed chromatic wyrmling.. there is one AL module where that could totally end up on a players logsheet. (as a non mechanical pet/flavour item only of course). One of my players walked away from that module with a preserved, dead, mouse sized, triceratops. I think it may also be magenta coloured. Oh and at one time it was a dead preserved mouse...
This is a game of fantasy, things that seem absurd out of context can actually be fine. Which is not to say that i think the wyrmling is question is likely to be fine. I do not think that mod was avaiable at the time and even in that mod it is a stretch. But it can happen (and yes, my players did some ...ehm.. shall we say.. unexpected.. things ).
delroland wrote:
Kalani wrote:
delroland wrote:
Just a heads up, this thread has become pretty toxic. I encourage people to let this thread lie. I know that I have ceased reading it, so posting here is definately not getting anything to the Admins.
Coredump00 wrote:
Skerrit wrote: