I remember reading that a permanant magic item that breaks still counts against your magic item total, but I cannot find this in the ALPG anymore. Did I imagine this text or can someone point me to where it is?
It's in the Magical Item FAQ.
Thanks. 
abanathie wrote:
http://dndadventurersleague.org/magic-items-faq/
I strongly recommend that all players bookmark the link to the dndadventurersleague.org website. It is the campaign staffs primary means of passing along new rulings, articles and information to the player base.
can you create a treath with all the link (FAQ, facebook page, twitter, google doc, pertinent sage advise column... or any of the means that the cmapaign staff use to communicated? and get it stickied? might solve a lot of problem?
and would it be possible to add link of those in the ALPG, in the column optional (or mandatory) to make it clear if DM must use those article (about orcsplitter, about mulmaster arcane edict, about Lucky changing disavantage into advantage+3rd dice etc... or if they are just proposed interpretation for the DM who want help to adjucate a ruling.
I can't tell if you're being sincere or sarcastic
Kalani wrote:
I will create a thread, but I don't know how to keep it stickied.
Kalani wrote:
A point I made a few months ago...
You can request a moderator or customer service to sticky a thread. If that fails, you can push up to your boss and request they get in touch with someone within the forum's organization to get it stickied.
What we really need is someone from the AL staff to be made a moderator of this forum.
RCanine wrote:
RCanine wrote:
RCanine wrote:
Not entirely accurate. I wrote a few of the FAQ entries myself, the most recent being the ruling for vampirism/lycanthropy.
Only admins can approve new rulings - but any member of the campaign staff can submit proposed rulings.
Kalani wrote:
Next question: Can a player permanently remove a magic item from their character in AL? If so, how?
There is only one way to remove a magic item at this time:
- if you spend the last charge of a semi-permanent (aka charged) item, the item is removed from your character sheet and adventure log.
There is no way to remove a permanent item at this time -including rechargeable permanent items which lack charges (eg. Wingwear)
. Your only option is to trade it to another character, and only if you have a cert with a valid trade log.
The admins have stated that they are looking into the magic item system but that we will not see changes until season 4 (at the earliest), possibly season 5.
Kalani wrote:
Yeah, be sure everyone knows never to take magic items in AL unless they are supremely useful. Utility items and nearly all 'flavor' items have Legendary Curse effects that even death cannot remove.
Your character could be killed, your corpse looted, and your magic items be handed down to several generations of the monster that killed you's children. But 180 years later you could get True Resurrected and you would still never be able to pick up another magic item...cuz AL admins say so. don't worry though. They will have time to fix the rule in another year or two.
an other way to remove a permanent item would be to trade your permanent item for a potion (LMoP had cert for potions) then you drink the potion so your permanent magical item count will go down by one (not sure if the number goes down when you trade the potion or when you drink the potion. But at my knowledge since, LMoP, there was no potion cert printed, making this loophole difficult to do.
But then again like already said on these forum, if you erase the item from your log sheet (yes it's cheating) no one will ever know that you had that item, and seeing that cheating has occured will be next to impossible. and even if you get caught, the ALPG ask to the DM to not assume cheating, simply assume a mistake and to simply ignore the log sheet entry.
Sorsohka wrote:
Byakugan01 wrote:
The rebuild rules should be expanded to include the option to delete all magic items claimed up to that point. Sure this only works til the character hits 5th level, but it would help so many new players who make the mistake of taking something they think is useful or cool, only to have it not be or to miss out on an actually good item because they already have an item or two.
Enevhar_Aldarion wrote:
Maybe you should read the rules more closely. If two players want the same item, the one with the fewest items automatically gets it. No vote, no DM override. The DM is only allowed to determine who gets the item if the contesting players have an equal number of magic items. And the initial step of everyone agreeing on who gets the item would not apply if two players want the same item, since not everyone at the table is in agreement, obviously, because more than one player wants the item.
Enevhar_Aldarion wrote:
Enevhar_Aldarion wrote:
I actually enjoy the diplomatic way of deciding magic item distribution. My players and I have agreed on a more parliamentary approach.
Declarations of interest are made and a primary vote is taken. I give each interested player 30 seconds to state their case, plus 15 seconds for each vote received. If an unanimous decision isn't reached afterwards, then we move onto magic item count. Any further ties are settled via d% rolloff, barring an obvious case of item sniping. Whoever is closer to my roll in either direction wins.
The only times that I make an executive order on magic item distribution are when one of the tied players is trying to deprive a player an item only usable by their character, eg. a barbarian trying to screw over the only warlock in the party at the end of a recent expedition. I'll gladly schedule a replay instead of dealing with the negative energy that comes from drama. My Expedition night has grown to three tables, so reruns are totally doable now.
I am all for applying executive authority. However that would be considered DM cheating according to the rules.
Which is exactly my point, that the rules as they currently exist are terrible.
A direct reading of them can actually mean that characters who do not even want an item can win it by default if they have less items. Most of us are just choosing to go with the inferred assumption that they really meant 'fewest items, that is interrested, gets the item'.
Well I guess I'm glad that I never had to enforce an otherwise unenforceable clause in our "rules of engagement." It was designed to be a deterent clause that encourages reruns as an alternative to incompatible/malicious magic item sniping. None of my players try to screw each other out of magic items, so I can remove it from our table rules without it being noticed.
Debating over who gets a driftglobe yields moments that end up making the group bond stronger. Defaulting to Step 2 of a 3 Step process defeats the purpose of Step 1: can the party reach an unanimous decision. Math doesn't forge bonds, communication does.
ZHDarkstar wrote:
Byakugan01 wrote:
Byakugan01 wrote:
Enevhar_Aldarion wrote:
Enevhar_Aldarion wrote:
ZHDarkstar wrote:
Having to acquire a second item of equal value on the other character that is of some use to the first character.
If I were a lawyer, and my job was to read that rules passage literally, here is what I could read...
Step 1, DM announces the item.
Step 2, the entire table agrees to leave the item on the ground, or the entire party agrees to give the item to 1 player. If the party does not all agree, then the player with lowest item wins it. IF they happen to be the lowest item count and they don't want the item, then the item cannot be claimed by anyone.
If -ANY- character wants the item, then the character -sitting at the table- with the fewest magic items wins it. If the lowest number is a tie, then the DM randomly determines which of them gets it.
Don't get me wrong, I think this is a really stupid interpretation. I think they meant to infer that only people who wanted the item would be considered. However that is not what they actually said.
Kinda like the recent Obamacare lawsuit....pretty much the same type of mistake here. It went all the way up to SCOTUS, and was decided in a 5-4 decision based on what was meant instead of what the actual words were.
You misread the passage. It says "lowest item count among the contesting players" - not the lowest item count at the table.
The only people whose item counts are checked are those who want the item. If one of the contesting players has Less MIs, they get it. If there is a tie - it's determined randomly
People who don't contest the item are not entered in the draw by default. You have to choose to be in it to win it.
Pauper wrote:
Sorsohka wrote:
Sorsohka wrote:
A system rife with ways to abuse it, incentives for doing so, and no real way to enforce infractions or punish players who do abuse it. Awesome.
Sounds more like a hacked version Diablo then DnD where people who do cheat get everything and people who don't cheat get nothing.
How did people survive 3.5/PF/4e if they have a problem with having a choice in your reward instead of...purely organic rewards. Btw, if the rewards were organic, they would be rolled randomly, which imo is way better than the item just always being 100% crap every time for every group.
Sometimes the magic item is just a potion...but that one time it hits the *Roll twice on weapons table* is the 1 time every player remembers decades later.
Byakugan01 wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
abanathie wrote:
SteveMND wrote:
SteveMND wrote:
Its hardly a surpise that people that want to dishonor a honor system, can totally make characters of any level with a forged set of paperwork. And it would be almost impossible to check. And all that has been known from the very start, by players, DMs and admins alike.
If you feel cheating makes you a better D&D player, or if it makes things fun for you.. you totally can. There is even a built in feeling of superiority as those stupid AL people cant touch you! You shall be the king, queen, emperor and general grand poohbah of all pumba's (wait.. how did disney get in there,,,oh yeah.. childishness..disney movies..logic..it works).
If people feel they must cheat they will. As far as I am concerned I will even welcome them at any table I am DM-ing (provided they cheat well enough for me not to spot it with a normal check). After all I am a DM, not a personal shrink there to deal with peoples feeling of inadequacy.
Coredump00 wrote:
abanathie wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
The thing is - we here all this annecdotal evidence about widespread cheating yet have few actual documented cases of it occurring. You would think if it was a serious problem (as it's made out to be) the LCs, RCs and admins would have substantial documented feedback of reported cases. We hear a lot of vocal concerns, but little actual evidence that the abuse is occurring.
Don't get me wrong. I suspect a small minority are using this method to cheat. In my experience however, there are much bigger fish to fry - the least of which being the large number of players and DMs who are cherry picking the AL rules and using extensive house rules. That is a common problem (and one I have seen a handful of times personally).
I have yet to see an actual case of forged logs or items, nor have I heard of any spoken about by other members of the campaign staff.
Kalani wrote:
Main Entry: rife
Part of Speech: adjective
Definition: overflowing
Synonyms: abounding, abundant, alive, common, current, epidemic, extensive, frequent, general, many, multitudinous, numerous, pandemic, plentiful, popular, prevailing, prevalent, profuse, raging, rampant, regnant, replete, ruling, swarming, teeming, thronged, ubiquitous, universal, widespread
i used the word correctly. If you misunderstood the message I intended to convey, I will restate it for you.
-there are a lot of ways to cheat-
The question of how much cheating actually occurs is tough to nail down. Can anyone direct me to a place that keeps track of such cases when they occur? Maybe there is a form I can fill out?
I've only run into one person I suspect of cheating thus far in AL. That was at a Con and he had a high level character with no supporting log info because, "we don't track stuff like that". He was pretty confrontational, too, going way off the reservation with how his spells and class abilities worked and haranging the DM about it if they didn't let him get his way.
Byakugan01 wrote:
abanathie wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Outside of hazirawn, there are few items I can think of that would strongly incentivize someone to cheat by forging their logs - but hazirawn is OP broken (it's more powerful than orcsplitter, and is handed out 7levels earlier).
The thing is - the token system that people mention as a way of preventing this problem, doesn't prevent what it advertises to do.
It is in fact easier to cheat with a token system than it is with the current system, as a player can simply say they ran any combination of adventures to earn X tokens - at which point they purchased Y item.
Not only that but unless strict controls were in place (such as a digital character database) - a token system also incentivizes cheating more than the current system, as it allows players to cherry pick the best items for their build.
The use of a digital database is also problematic as it requires much more data entry on the part of the DM and store/convention Rep. People are already complaining about filling out logsheets which requires a fraction of the effort required to maintain a database.
It is also a headache to fix if errors occur, and requires the employment of paid staff to maintain said database.
Kalani wrote:
abanathie wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Kalani wrote:
abanathie wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Afaik orcsplitter is handed out near the end of the adventure, and the harpers try to trade it off them for [rewards]
Primarchx wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Ainulindalion wrote:
Pauper wrote:
There are quite a few people who say they got the black dragon mask from that area - despite the fact that the cult is undercover, and she is not listed as having it on her person at any point in the adventure (even the battle with her in Ep8 she is sans mask)
Pauper wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Ainulindalion wrote:
I was simply misinformed as to where orcsplitter shows up (as I play the adventure - I do not read ahead if I can avoid it, so as not to spoiler stuff for myself). On a couple occasions I have had to spoiler things in order to answer questions on this forum (such as those relating to the Lich).
As it shows up in a L11 side quest - replace my comment of "7 levels" with "4 levels". The comment is otherwise unchanged. Orcsplitter shows up in tier 3 and is less powerful than hazirawn which shows up mid-tier 2.
I feel there is a significant difference between
1) Following the intent of the rules
2) Working within the system, but 'abusing' it by whatever loopholes possible
3) Ignoring the system and 'cheating' to get what you want.
It makes a difference if someone is complaining that this system can be abused versus people can cheat.
I think this system is relatively hard to abuse, but very easy to cheat. OTOH, I think it would be very very difficult to create a system that can prevent cheating. This system (inclusive of the AL rules, the items provided, and the DnD game design) disincentivizes cheating because the items are just not that much of a boost. Which means A) There just isn't much reason to cheat and B) Even if you do cheat, it doesn't really impact the game that much.
From all the information I have gathered, (all anecdotal, but including lots from folks online) the 'cheating' and 'abusing' situation is far far far from being 'rife'..... occasionally you hear some story about someone that a friend told a guy about, but otherwise it tends to be a lot of theory talk about what might possibly happen if someone wanted to.
To me it keeps coming back to the same argument path
Complaintant: Person X could do A/B/C and abuse the system to item(s)
Me: Okay, but if it is that important to them to abuse the system that much, they could also just cheat and get them.
Complaintant: Yeah, they could just cheat and get them, thats a problem too.
Me: Yes, but one that is nearly impossible to prevent without greatly changing the nature of the AL
Complaintant: but.....
And also... so what.
Remember the last Expedition you played? Did you have a good time?
What if I told you the person on your left cheated to get the magic item they had? Did you still have a good time?
I assert that if your answer is the same, the system is working fine. If the answer changed, that likely says more about you than the system. This is an organization designed to let folks play a game.... no prize money, no livlihoods, no trips to Hawaii........ playing...a...game....
I concur.
Coredump00 wrote:
Kalani wrote:
I live in a fairly large city with over 1million people. There are 3 game stores participating in the program (and about another 8 that arent)
The game store which I am also the event coordinator for is one of the biggest in Canada. Each week I get 40+ regular players (6 tables) and have another ~20 transient players. At peak attendance I had 8 full tables (64 players including DMs).
There are certainly bigger stores - and there are certainly areas (such as SoCal) which has dozens of stores and over a dozen LC in the program.
I have not seen a single case of forged logs yet in Calgary. The closest I have seen was one case where a regular player of mine had his backpack and all of his stuff stolen when his truck was broken into. Several of the players (myself included) chipped in to replace his PHB.
That player asked permission to recreate his pre-existing characters and copy his log entries from another player at the same table. He did not cheat. He just wanted to recreate his stolen character.
Everyone knew he had played the character at that specific table and had no problem with him recreating him and copying the logs (most of my tables are fairly static).
In home games and in store games, where a lot of the same people regularly play together, not only it is harder to cheat, but there is the peer pressure from your friends to not do it. Cheating, if it is going to happen at all, is most likely to happen where most people are strangers, such as conventions or big game days.
Pauper wrote:
abanathie wrote:
Say a magic Staff of fire drops from a powerful wizard.
The Evoker wizard that loves blasting stuff wants the Staff, but he accidentally picked up a wand of magic detection earlier. Nobody else wants the staff, however the min-maxer paladin Jeff thinks the party Warlock should get the staff. He knows the monsters will die faster if the evoker AND the warlock can both throw fireballs at the same time. The warlock has no magic items yet, because he read the module and wants to make sure he gets the Black Dragon Mask. His opinion is that he would like to be able to fireball stuff but he doesn't want to lose out on the later item.
This means the party does not all agree.
So what happens per the rules?
The way I read the RAW, it would be perfectly reasonable if the DM felt obligated to award the Staff to the Warlock.
You start stating that the wizard wants the staff and nobody else wants it. Ok, as a DM that is the point where you are done. Give it to the wizard and move on. If debate makes someone reconsider, take it from there.
Taking inventory of player wishes is always first. So that means the warlock has to make a choice. If they are swayed by the paladin and decide they want the staff, they get it. If they do not want it the only player that does is the wizard, so they get it. As a DM you have no right to award it to the warlock UNLESS they state they want the item. You can choose to participate in the debate between the paladin and the warlock (but likely should not).
Well at level 3, Suggestion can outright win...all it takes is 1 failed save and a DM to forget about the Legendary save(which is pretty easy to do actually, lol). Something along the lines of 'My allies and I are envoys from your leader, so give us all your magic items and order your men to release us unharmed; then go take a nap for 8 hours.
As far as I know, Rezmir only has a single stat block listed in the book, and it includes statistics for the Black Dragon Mask, with a treasure entry...DMs are expressely forbidden from removing rewards, I am told. Even if you did put the Mask in the chest in the later chapter then you still have the problem of almost everyone now knowing its there and how to obtain it...first time through, sure. Almost nobody should know how to obtain it, but you can bet your behind that people will meta-game the **** out of that the 2nd time around.
Byakugan01 wrote:
Byakugan01 wrote:
SteveMND wrote:
Well, according to the ALPG the Paladin most certainly can contest giving the item to the wizard if he wants the warlock to have it. The point that Byakugan01 brings up *is* how the rules read.
If the Paladin thinks the item should go to the Warlock, then he does not agree it should go to the wizard, thus the players do not "all agree" and the condition for the first bullet point is not met.
OTOH, the rest of his supposition doesn't hold up.
First, no DM is going to follow the letter of that rule, regardless of the exact wording, no DM is going to let the Paly prevent the wizard from getting it if the Warlock doesn't want it.
Second, even if he did, the part about comparing # magic items only triggers if 2+ people want it. So the way Byakugan01's scenario would actually play out is
1) Does everyone agree? (No)
2) Who wants it? (Only the Wizard)
2a) Wizard gets it.
Pauper wrote:
SteveMND wrote:
SteveMND wrote:
Pauper wrote:
It seems patently ridiculous that a character with no interest in the item could cause that item to be contested.
Primarchx wrote:
Primarchx wrote:
Skerrit wrote:
Byakugan01 wrote:
While I understand the wording confuses some people, each sentence and bullet point builds on from the last.
One thing people seem to be forgetting is that the process is a logical process of elimination.
- No contest? That player gets the item.
- Item Contested? Eliminate all non-contesting players. (First wait to make sure nobody changes their mind)
- Compare Magic Item totals of all contesting characters.
- Eliminate all characters except those who tie for the lowest number of items (among contesting players, as the item count of noncontesting players are not included in the comparison).
- If this leaves a single character -STOP. That character gets the item. ELSE proceed to 6.
- DM determines randomly between all characters that remain. Any characters which were eliminated in steps 2 or 4 are logically excluded from this step.
Kalani wrote:
Why would you let all contesting characters be involved in the random roll. That is extremely abusable.
Someone with 4 magic items just has to convince two characters (who are tied for lowest items) to contest it - then they have an equal chance at the item
How is that fair for those with fewer items? May as well ignore the item count completely and roll off with all contesting players (which is essentially what you allow as long as 2 other characters are tied for items)
The intent is that the DM only determines the winner randomly between all contesting characters which are equally tied for the lowest item count (among contesting players).
The point that is proven very well is that the system is not just abuseable by players that absolutely want to, its also easily warped or wrecked by DMs willing to go the distance..
Still what holds up for me is that you pretty much have to want to intentionally mess with the system for it to go really wrong
Kalani wrote:
Kalani wrote:
At least several of the Expeditions are written by RCs or Admins
Season 1
- 1-3: Greg Marks (Skerrit)
- 1-10: Greg Marks
- 1-11: Claire Hoffman
- 1-12: Robert Adducci
Season 2
- 2-6: Greg Marks
- 2-11: Greg Marks
- 2-12: Robert Adducci
IIRC, several S3 adventures were written by RCs as well
Kalani wrote:
Does anyone actually have such troubles distributing magic items? I have played with complete strangers (on many occasions) and not needed some 6-point process to guide us through the distibution process.
Who wants it?
Who has the lowest items?
Okay, roll off....
And 'random' assumes equal liklihood, once you are weighting the probability, it is no longer random.
Coredump00 wrote:
imaginaryfriend wrote:
abanathie wrote:
imaginaryfriend wrote:
What I have seen happen is someone will consistently ignore "trap" items and then whine when they "don't have any magic items" because "the magic items are all junk."
There are some mods with some decent items, of course, but people will pass on an item that is a good item but which doesn't fit their character concept, even if the item woulc be used by them. And then whine some more about not having any magic items.
At the same time, 5e *doesn't require you to have magic items*. I try to ingrain this into people's minds at the table, but they are all focused on the new toy of the day or the "trap" item of the day and don't realize that they are still very effective even without those items.
Kalani wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Kalani wrote:
It's not naive. I simply do not wish to draw attention to certain questionable channels and so purposefully omitted mentioning them. Especially In light of the fact that we have been asked by the admins to report any leaks we discover.
Haha...its funny because i am a DM and i was one of the only ones at my AL table that didn't know the password.