| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| #1AvrossFeb 04, 2015 18:17:15 | So the rule in AL is intended to promote equity and make sure there's at least some level of fairness in determining who gets a permanent magic item. But an odd situation came up in our group, which I'm pretty sure the DM doesn't want to be in the middle of.
The barbarian in our group typically hares off at the end of the combat, as many barbarians do, looking to quickly find another opponent before his rage wears off. Well, in this case, the party chose not to follow him immediately, since the mage needed some healing. The barbarian rushes randomly into another room, and once his rage wears off, proceeds to loot the room. Now for the most part, the party isn't concerned about the gold he may or may not have obtained. But he was pretty specific about the things he grabbed, and more than one of us wondered if one of those items may have been a permanent magic item.
How does that work? If he grabs a magic dagger, and none of the party is in the room to see it happen...do the rules indicate the player has to give it up? (Does this answer change if he already has more magic items than another party member?)
Likewise, if the party splits in half, and Group A finds a permanent magic item, do the players in Group B have a claim on it as well?
I'd love to be pointed at something concrete (aside from the sidebar on ALPG pg10), as the particular player has intimated a disdain for some of the 'restrictions' of AL play, and I think that sidebar is lacking in clarity.. |
| #2TheBreenFeb 04, 2015 18:35:25 | It's important (in my opinion) to note that distribution of magic items is a meta-game activity, not an in-game roleplaying activity. Magic items are distributed at the end of the adventure, by the DM. Thus the player of the barbarian never has the (in some cases metaphorical) magic item certificate in hand until/unless the table or the DM grant it to him.
The sidebar in every Expeditions adventure seems pretty clear to me.
"Permanent Magic Item Distribution D&D Adventurers League has a system in place to determine who is awarded permanent magic items at the end of a session. Each character's logsheet contains a column to record permanent magic items for ease of reference. • If all the players at the table agree on one character taking possession of a permanent magic item, that character gets the item. • In the event that one or more characters indicate an interest in possessing a permanent magic item, the character that possesses the fewest permanent magic items gets the item. If there is a tie in the total number of permanent magic items owned by contesting characters, the item's owner is determined randombly by the DM."
Note that for treasure that ultimately breaks down to its gold piece value, the DM needs to reduce the value of the other treasure to account for the value of treasure stolen by the barbarian, so that the total party treasure does not exceed the maximum allowed in the adventure. |
| #3UndrhilFeb 04, 2015 20:03:50 | In Adventurer's League play, it is assumed that all PCs are sharing knowledge of everything they find. Some players like to try to play sneaky and that's cool for their character concept, but that really isn't what AL is about. |
| #4OraibiFeb 04, 2015 23:14:45 | Yeah, if you don't want to split the treasure fairly (both money and magic items), then you shouldn't be playing AL. You can screw over your fellow PCs as much as you want in a home game, but not in an OP game. |
| #5Enevhar_AldarionFeb 05, 2015 22:03:34 | Yep, magic items are distributed by vote or roll-off. Any items listed in the adventure that are of sellable value are generally calculated into the GP reward that is split evenly between all characters. Any other items tend to be window dressing and generally not kept at the end of the adventure. |
| #6madscientistlabratFeb 06, 2015 19:58:13 | Just a few things to add to the previous comments people have made;
The first step of magic item distribution is 'If all the players at the table agree on one character taking possession of a permanent magic item, that character gets the item'. If the players at the table all agree that due to the roleplay reasons the barbarian should take the item then there is no immediate problem. I myself wouldn't have a problem voting that way if that's how the table wanted to go.
Two big caveats, however. First, all the players have to agree. While I would have no problem agreeing with the barbarian getting the item due to RP I also would not feel I have any right to try and pressure any of the other players to go that way and if only 1 person disagrees then you have to go to the system of seeing who has the fewest permanent magic items.
Secondly, the fact that the barbarian 'put on over' on the other characters (either through player agreement or because he got lucky on the loot roll and retained the item) doesn't somehow prevent the item from counting in future item distributions. Even if the other characters are unaware that the barbarian has a magic item he is no longer allowed to take a second permanent magic item until all other characters have one (barring, of course, a unanimous vote from the players to give the barbarian some item). |
| #7NozareemFeb 08, 2015 18:07:03 | I was at Winter Fanatsy and in the last 2 days the dickery started to pick up while players started lying more to get certs to trade at the new trading posts it happened at two tables I was at. One player had like three certs out while he was reading up on a item but near the end of the mod quickly put the others away in hopes to get third cert given one was a fake item the other 2 were not. But he still said he only had one item when the DM asked who has magic items. All the people at the table already had 2 items, but me I only had one. Lucky I won the roll off so the dude who was doing the dickery didn't. |
| #8TyranthraxusFeb 08, 2015 18:18:07 | Nazareem: There isnt much I guess the Admins can do about dick players. I dont think it matters if they were playing Expeditions, Living Arcanis or Pathfinder Society or any other game. They would still be a douche. Conventions just happens to put such players.. and I use that word loosely in proximity to gamers they dont know. |
| #9NozareemFeb 08, 2015 20:01:46 | The only issue I saw possible dealing with younger gamers who might get intimated by these cats that don't care about who they are screwing ove. The second dickery happend with a friend of mine at the table the dude was bugging my friend to give him the item even though he already had like 3 already and 2 on his character. They argued for bit and finally the DM stopped it and made them role off . We're grown, but with a young kid whose just learning to play and I saw some there. It could be a bad exsperice for them and a turn off from D&D. It was not like this in 4th, it was player friendly now it's a competion every gamer for himself and at times hoe or intimate new players to take magic items for themselves. They need to fix it because it's only going to get worse as more and cool items come out next season. |
| #10TyranthraxusFeb 08, 2015 23:21:59 | Then we .. or me .. or us as DM's need to be more proactive and stamp out such asshattery behavior. I dont get the feel its every player for himself, in my case its because I know most of my local expeditions players now. The DM should of stepped in before they started arguing or during and not let it drago on. |
| #11NozareemFeb 09, 2015 8:12:00 | I step up a state they needed to of a role off the player wanted to do PVP for the item even though he had more items then my friend did. I do worry that this just the beginning of this epidemic problem with certain players it seemed to me if your playing with a group of people who are playing together they stayed to the rules where these players are usually lone wolfs at least that how it happend at the con. |
| #12PauperFeb 09, 2015 8:50:16 | Sadly, some players will interpret the 'if the table agrees that a character gets a magic item then that character gets it' as 'if I can intimidate the table into giving me the magic item, then I get it'. In these cases, it is paramount that the DM step up and protect the interest of the table at large, rather than sitting back and letting a bully get his way.
-- Pauper |
| #13RCanineFeb 11, 2015 21:53:58 |
|
| (Reply to #13)Coredump00 |
|
| #15TyranthraxusFeb 12, 2015 0:12:24 | Exactly, I think people I think are far too quick to blame the system then blame the player, because you have to socialise with the player during/after/before the game. After a while that player is either going to find he dosnt get to play much anymore as the other players react to him/her. Or its going to continue because nobody is willing to point the behavior out but instead complain about it online or to others.
Peoples behaviours will rarely self moderate. 9/10 people will need an incident or action to provoke a change in behavior. |
| #16RCanineFeb 12, 2015 0:36:47 | I'm not saying it's the system's fault that players are jerks, I'm saying it's the system that lets players be jerks in a way that negatively affects other players. And that you don't even have to be a jerk to negatively impact someone else. Compared this to LFR, where there was literally no way to negatively impact another player, except maybe to insult an NPC the player was trying to impress or make fun of his mother. |
| #17UndrhilFeb 12, 2015 0:42:24 | I have to wonder what was so wrong with the system in 4e and why they couldn't do something similar in 5e.
In 4e, there was an item limit per level cap, so a level 2 character would only be able to have 2 magic items.
In 5e, maybe they could put a cap per tier of play. So, a tier 1 character could only ever have 1 magic item. A tier 2 character could only ever have 3 magic items (1 for tier 1 and 2 for tier 2.) Or, each character can have 2 items per tier of play, so 2 at tier 1, 4 at tier 2, etc.
Then, they could go back to the method of "each item is available to be taken by any character, as long as that character has the abililty to take another magic item."
It isn't fun to be bullied into letting someone else get an item. As a 'pack animal', most humans are going to follow the pack and the Alpha. Generally, the "Alpha" at a table is going to be the loudest, most obnoxious person there, and he or she is also likely to be the one being a bully. Maybe not intentionally..... being a loud person can just be intimidating, I guess. But once you have some people at the table saying "Yeah, we'll do that." the pack mentality kicks in and everyone else goes along with it. |
| (Reply to #17)Coredump00 |
|
| (Reply to #18)TheBreen |
|
| #20Mommy_was_an_OrcFeb 13, 2015 11:40:01 |
|
| #21ChrisCarlsonFeb 13, 2015 11:41:25 |
|
| (Reply to #20)Enevhar_Aldarion |
|
| #23madscientistlabratFeb 13, 2015 17:40:35 |
|
| #24BRJNFeb 13, 2015 18:24:17 |
|
| #25Mommy_was_an_OrcFeb 13, 2015 18:41:48 |
|
| (Reply to #24)madscientistlabrat |
|
| #27KalaniFeb 13, 2015 21:14:57 | Keogotoms ointments are a special case. They count as semi-permanent and even come with certs.
Iirc - while u have a use, it counts against ur character. Once expended it no longer counts
|
| (Reply to #27)Undrhil |
|
| #29Enevhar_AldarionFeb 13, 2015 22:21:46 |
|
| (Reply to #27)madscientistlabrat |
|
| #31KalaniFeb 13, 2015 23:07:02 |
|
| #32madscientistlabratFeb 13, 2015 23:07:22 | I can think of a handful of items that are not permanent that probably should be treated as permanent while they are functioning (Luck Blade, Nine Lives Stealer, maybe even a Necklace of Fireballs since it will do between 32-72d6 of damage before it is out of charges or the various Manuals) but the idea that something that has at best 5 charges of 2d8+2 healing (plus curing poison and disease) is treated as a permanent item while it still has charges seems excessive.
Not saying you're wrong. Just saying that seems like something that needs to be fixed. |
| #33KalaniFeb 13, 2015 23:12:52 |
|
| #34madscientistlabratFeb 13, 2015 23:20:38 | Yeah. That's even crazier. I can have a Manual of Iron Golems and it doesn't count against my total but Keoghtom's Ointment does.
I think the rules for magic items need some revision. The fact that you can only trade items with certs seems rather broken given the highly limited number of certs. The fact that a person with the Hand of Vecna gets priority on magic item splits over someone with Keoghtom's Ointment who previously had a set of cursed armor (but who got a remove curse and has since ditched the armor). I recognize that the system can't be overly complex so that the table doesn't grind to a halt everytime an item has to be given out but there needs to be a better solution than this. |
| #35KalaniFeb 13, 2015 23:31:08 | No arguments there. It does require some revision, but I cannot (at this moment) think of a better system than the one we are using... I am sure I could think of a better system, if given enough time.
I do however understand their hesitancy to allow trading without a cert.....Previous OP formats (LG, LFR, and even PFS) have all had major issues with magic item bloat, and/or broken rules combinations.
I am eternally grateful that AL has nipped one of these problems in the butt from the get-go, by limiting character creation/advancement to a narrow list of options for each story origin. This prevents broken combinations from occuring due to unintended rules interactions from multiple products (such as the combined effect of spell from book X, feat from book Y, and subclass from book Z).....
IMHO, the decisions they made regarding magic item distribution/trading comes across as more miss than hit - at least in respect to how anaemic such items are in Season 1. I will wait to see how it pans out in season 2 before I pass judgement however. |
| (Reply to #35)madscientistlabrat |
|
| (Reply to #36)TheBreen |
|
| (Reply to #36)Coredump00 |
|
| (Reply to #36)Aribeth |
|
| #40BRJNFeb 16, 2015 19:21:54 |
|
| #41RCanineFeb 17, 2015 8:22:04 |
|
| (Reply to #38)Pauper |
|
| (Reply to #42)Coredump00 |
|
| #44AvrossFeb 17, 2015 18:33:26 | So the point of the original post was really (and I probably should have thought to phrase it this way) to confirm that the expectation in AL is that party treasure is metagamed. The rogue can't bogart treasure because he snuck ahead if the other players aren't cool with that.
|
| (Reply to #44)TheBreen |
|
| #46SkerritFeb 18, 2015 7:31:39 | You can potentially trade it for a different item with a player (or I could envision an adventure allowing it in certain cases), or to a trading post (like the one we trest ran at Winter Fantasy, and I think worked well so it will likely see some sort of wider circulation). You cannot give it away however, as we've seen how that works in the past. I recall playing a 3rd-level cleric at a con in the LC days and having some other players say "You only have one item? Well, we've got lots of stuff we don't use anymore. Here's a staff of illumination, two rods of smitting, some gauntlets of ogre power, a +2 battle axe, some white dragonscale armor and about 20 potions and scrolls. That should get you started." Every adventure after that was a breeze for me. We don't want to see that in the DnDAL. |
| (Reply to #46)TheBreen |
|
| #48KalaniFeb 18, 2015 9:14:44 |
|
| (Reply to #48)TheBreen |
|
| #50OraibiFeb 20, 2015 2:44:49 | Me personally, I like the current system and I don't see a real big need to change it right away. Maybe in a few seasons the admins could revisit it, but it seems good so far. |
| #51Mommy_was_an_OrcFeb 20, 2015 11:06:11 |
|
| #52BRJNFeb 20, 2015 16:35:22 |
|
| #53OrganicDnD23Feb 22, 2015 10:37:54 | I won't say which one, but theres a new 5-10 AL mod with +1 split mail as the cert. Why would you ever want this? Buying full plate is equivalent and wont cost against your magic item count. Very disappointing for a tier 2 mod near the end of a story arc. |
| (Reply to #53)TheBreen |
|