I was talking with some friends, and we though of an easy system that could solve a lot of issues with the magical item system that we are using now. Please do NOT derail this thread. I would like to discuss the system itself see if the "token" system could work. Please If you are going to post be constructive ( I like the idea because of... or I don't like the idea because of ...)
The current issues that my group found: (you don't need to agree with the entire list (or even agree with a single one), or to have experience every single item of that list to agree with me, and even if you are part of those "I don't care about magic item" then if you don't care, then you don't care):
- Not scalable rewards. Doesn't matter if you got a 3 player table or a 8 player table you only receive 1 magical item, so Optimizer are trying to find 3 player tables in order to receive a magical item every 3 games, instead of every 8 games, which increase the number of DMs (a rare resource).
- Some adventure got "useless" item that no one in the group can use (a splintmail ina group without a heavy armor user), or "useless" item that are simply "bad"(this is variable on people point of view), so that adventure, even if WotC had the intention to give his player magical item, end up being "without a magical item" since no one take it. For those who do like receiving those "fun" item like the horn of blasting, it could still be available in the new system I'm proposing, it will simply won't be forced/wasted on group who don't want it, so you are loosing nothing, and other group are gaining something, everyone is happy.
- Abuse: those player who change character each time they receive a new magical item so they can hoard the certs
- New player joining the table, take the magical item and leave
- Cheating: it's so easy to say that those goggle of night vision I took them (even if the drow rolled higher then me) and right it on my character sheet. and once that I know that the goggle of night vision come from DDEX Y-X it's so easy to create a new character and simply say that I ran that adventure and got the item, and no DM can discover that cheat if done properly.
- If I bring a character from LMoP (level 5 with 4 magical item) into a DDEX where character level 5 got 1 or 2 magical item each, I won't be able to get any item for a long time.
What if every adventure gave ALL the players a "token". This will also stop encouraging smaller table (some players do want 3 person table, since the adventure scale with the number of player, but the reward do not scale, so if you play the DDEX with 3 players, you get 1 item every 3 adventure. If you play the SAME DDEX with 8 player, you can an item every 8 adventure and this cause a huge difference between players. If everyone receive 1 token per adventure, and need let's say 5 token to buy an item, then everyone would recceive 1 item every 5 adventure no matter what table size you have.
Then with those "token" you buy magical item from your faction (or underground for the factionless)
Now for the detail I'll let WotC hash it out, but I'm seeing something similar to this.
All adventure give 1 token to each player.
Each faction have a list of available item. This list can be as simple as everything is available and all faction go tthe same list,
or more complex, but the complexity would offer some depth to the faction, would give a sign of importance to your choice, because honestly, I don't feel that my faction choice matter up to now, my Emerald Enclave character could just as easily be harper or zhentarim, and he would basically be similar to what he his now.
- Each faction got a different item list, and offer different item depending on your rank in that faction.
- An item would cost an amount of token variable between 3-5token (3=uncommon (require rank 2), 4=rare (require rank3), 5=very rare(require rank 4) (legendary and artifact are not available at the shop those item should stay reserved in the big adventure.
- You can buy item from a different faction (since they work in collaboration), but you are consider 1 rank lower when dealing with a different faction.
- Each faction offer items for every class, at every level (so no such thing as Zhentarim do not carry heavy armor, because then fewer fighter and paladin will join the zhentarim for example, and Order of the gauntler should still carry some spellcaster item, to avoid such thing as most wizard join Lord Alliance because Lord alliance is the only faction with a spellcaster item for example.
- Some item should be available in all faction, specially basic item (weapon +1/+2/+3, armor+1/+2/+3, wand of war magic +1/+2/+3 etc...) the variation between faction should be more in the specific item like Harper and zhentarim would have cloak and boot of elvenkind, Order of the Gauntlet would have the adamantium armor, etc....
- Maybe allow to sell back item?
- you can still trade item. The tradiing post could have item not available with the factions. My Emerald Enclave could still trade item with a Harper since I need to reach the next rank in my faction to buy an item from the Harper
This is just a quick idea, the exact number, who get what and the other details should be tweak to represent the intent of WotC. This is just a quick example to get the idea rolling.
My intent with such a system are:
- Standardize the game play experience, since now EVERYONE will receive an item at regular interval instead of variable dependant on the table size.
- Avoid those situation where a new player join in the game take the magical item then never come back
- Avoid abuse where during tier 1 adventure, player take the magical item and create a new character so they can take the next magical item as well
- Avoid complain and disapointed player where they really needed that item (a hafling rogue need the goggle of night vision before going in the underdark in season3) but the drow sorcerer rolled higher then him.
- This way WotC can put some "fun" item like the horn of blasting that some of you seem to love, Specific item like wand of the pact keeper and headband of intellect, and Optimizer like me will still be happy since they'll still be able to choose the good item on that list and ignore the "fun" item.
- Increase the differenciation between the faction, making the faction choice more meaningless, and encouraging the teamwork between faction (for example, Lord Alliance have a rare item that I want. I can wait untill I reach rank 4 in Emeral Enclave and buy it directly, or I can ask to a Lord Alliance player to buy it for me and I'll trade with him one of my Emerald enclave rare item.
It's an interesting idea, but I like the current system and I think it avoids some of the problems we saw in 4e where players pretty much usually had exactly the right item to optimize for whatever build they chose.
(I'm also not sure how the token system would prevent the cheating that you described. Presumably one could just lie about the number of tokens gained or spent.)
To me, the D&D experience is much more about finding magic items and much less about buying magic items.
The "problem" you're trying to solve isn't a problem - it's one of the strengths of this edition.
There's no reason to take a system that works perfectly well - in which magic items are quirky, random and special - and turn it into a mechanical arms race with extra bookkeeping and paperwork attached.
That said, if you want to turn your home game into a Diablo auction house, your group might enjoy that; it's not that it's a bad idea (and it's better than most organized play systems), it's just not as good as what we already have.
I can't really get behind an idea like this. I think magic item rarity is in a pretty good place right now and this would be adding lots of extra magic items to the campaign. I have yet to encounter a player that has more than 3 magic items, and that makes magic items feel rare and wondrous, as they should be. The issues you describe are not indicative of a problem with the system, but a problem with the individual that is not playing the game the way it is intended. Changing the rules for the entire campaign to mitigate a localized problem doesn't seem like a sensible approach. Even if you do, those individuals will still find a way to game the system. These situations will happen and it is up to regional and local coordinators, not the campaign staff, to deal with them as they come up.
Your idea sounds pretty similar to how Pathfinder Society allows you to buy magic items from your faction with gold and prestige (their equivalent of renown). The result is that virtually every character is a walking christmas tree. Every character has a bandolier of potions, scrolls, and wands that give them an answer for every situation. Most magic items found in the adventure are just tossed aside because you have free reign to just buy the most optimized gear that you want. 5E did a good job of making it so optimized magic items are not required to be an effective character.
That being said, non-spellcasters do need something to spend gold on. Currently, it only seems like spellcasters have anything to spend gold on at higher levels. I think it would be a better idea to be able to purchase favors, influence, a keep, etc rather than magic items however. Although I wouldn't be opposed to the idea of a few expeditions having a magic item available for purchase.
reddaemon wrote:
reddaemon wrote:
The Breen: The Bards thats trying to lay low in Mulmaster so he dosnt lose his hands? Being famous is fine, but Faerun is littered with the handless corpses of people who got 'too famous' 
Qwerty, your system will work. It will do what you want it to do, and achieve what you want from a magic reward system.
It just won't do what I want from a magic reward system, nor (apparently) what WotC wants.
I don't *want* a system where every fighter will get the 'perfect' weapon, where every scout will have a Cloak of Elvenkind after 3 modules..... I *like* the 'quirkyness' of taking what shows up... or not.
My Paladin has a HoI, and I love it. But I seriously doubt I would have thought to take it if I could choose. Our EK fighter just got a Dagger of Venom. One fight he started with the dagger to try and poison, then dropped it for his longsword. Later, when fighting gargoyles, he dropped his longsword for the magic dagger. My paladin uses battle axe and shield... but if I end up getting the magic greatsword I will probably switch.... it will 'waste' my fighting style... but I think that is cool. Its how life works.
You system lets people get just what they want, when they want it..... I just don't think that is a good idea for a system of magic rewards. I like that magic is special and rare and unpredictable. Heck, I think it would be even better if they had 4-5 items which one was there was determined randomly. (I know, open for abuse... but if not abused, I think it would be great.)
I don't want magic items treated as a shopping list.
For me, it doesn't make sense for a "magic item system" to provide whatever the players want. Treasure should reflect the creature that owned it before the PCs, not the desires of the PCs.
BBEG: "OK, I've stocked the lair with a sword +1 for the fighter, an elven cloak for the ranger, a magic dagger for the rogue… What should I get for the druid?"
Henchman: "My lord, the party approaches. I think they're mostly arcane casters."
BBEG: "Quick, Snydley! Get rid of this stuff and hasten down to Walmart to stock up on wands and spellbooks!"
I dunno. It just doesn't seem as fun, somehow.
ok since a lot of argument are being repeated I'll answer them all at the same time:
- The argument saying it will increase the among of magic item: FALSE; in the current system, you gain 1 magic item every 3 to 8 games (depending on table size so yes if you got a table with 8 players every character will have very few magic item, if your table often meet new player give them the item and they never come back yes you have low magic item, but the table who only have 3 players and never accept new players, they have a lot of magical item, probably more then they can wear. Remember you can only have 3 attune items, so even if a player got 100 magic item, he can only have 3 attuned at the same time, and the non attunable item are rare and less powerfull then the attunable version) the system I'm proposing will give one magic item every 3 to 5 weeks (and those number can change, like I said I'm just giving an example, if the intention is to reduce the among of magic item, we could simply put uncommon at 5, rare at 6 and very rare at 7 token, this is part of the "tweaking" necessary.
-The argument about loosing the "Quirky" item: those item will still be available in the merchant list so if you want a horn of blasting go ahead and get it, no one is stoping you. You can still have your fun with your quirky, funny, useless item. While the optimizer can have his fun with en efficient items. This way instead of just the quirky loving player being happy, even the optimizer will be happy. My system will NOT stop you from taking a quirky item, will just give me a option that is fun for me
-The argument that everyone will have the more efficient build: not really, this all depend on how the merchant list is created. Yes if all 6 faction (the faction+factionless underground) have all the weapon then yes everyone will ahve there favorite magic weapon, but if Harper and emerald enclave got piercing weeapon, Zhentarim and Order of the gauntlet got slashing weapon, and Lord Alliance and factionless got bludgeoning weapon. if your greatsword (slashing) fighter joined Lord Alliance he need to gain an extra rank before buying his greatsword+1 or he can take right now a Maul+1, not optimized for him, but better then nothing. Just make sure that every faction got some simple and some martial weapon, again to avoid all the fighter to join the martial weapon faction. Then the quirky player will go get quirky item. and even Optimizer won't all have the same item because Optimizer can prioritize different things. With the current system it's really cooky cutter build. ok I'm making a halfling rogue, I need to go do the DDEX with the goggle of night vision, then the one with the cloak of elvenkind, then go in HotDQ chapter 6 for that magic item etc... and i'll do it with my 3 best friends so they let me keep the item. At least the token system would allowed diversity (my rogue I want him to be a scout so I'll take the goggle of night vision, cloak of elvenkind and a dagger of venom, but my friend rogue, he want him to be a great melee fighter abusing the attack of Opportunity in order to do 2 sneak attack per round, so he'll take more offensive item and less scouting items)
-Those who like "finding" a magic weapon. I don't know about your DDEX experience, but most magic Item I received are on teh BBEG body at the end of the expedition or given by a NPC as a reward. Then EVERY DDEX have an item, so if the BBEG didn't had the item, you know you need to go back and search for the item. With such a system, WotC could leave some hidden item in the module (but not every module), specially quirky item that player would find fun, but that wouldn't increase their relative power level (like a horn of blasting, a splintmail+1 that glow near orc or a ring of sustainance, etc..). This way the thrill of searching an item would be increase, since you don't even know if there is one in that module, but optimizer wouldn't really care about it since those item won't make them more powerfull (if something it would make them less powerfull).
- The magic item need to reflect the BBEG who own it??? like the a mage who used to be in a undead catacomb who now study the plane of chaos carrying a horn of blasting? Or the Robe of eyes that do not even appear in it's module? and the dragon hoard could not have anythign else then a splint armor+1 that detect orc?
- The token do not represent what the BBEG had in his lair, the token represent: the faction doing other mission then what the player are doing, finding magical item, and gathering those item and splitting them among there member based on merit. Could even be possible to limit the among of item obtainable (specially in store where they receive limited among of certs) so the zhentarim only have 1 rod of the pact keeper +2 (per table since store usually receive 1 package per table they are running?).
QwertyAzerty wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
I'm not sure what kind of feedback you're really looking for, because -- speaking unofficially -- I really don't see any chance this will be adopted within this organized play program.
You could probably pitch it to another OP program that's less established or one that you create yourself, though. It might work for that, but it honestly doesn't meet what I'm looking for in OP.
I generally like the system; however, I would just provide magical items using a character's faction rank. For example, a character could gain access to a single magical item on a limited faction-based list of common magical items at faction rank two and access to another item from a list of uncommon magical items at faction rank four. That would provide two magical items over the course of an adventuring career; something I, personally, don't find over the top.
Another way would be to grant favors for each adventure; the player could turn in X favors for access to a single magical item. Common items would cost fewer favors than uncommon items. This would divorce the magical item gain from factions for those rare players that decide against joining a faction. It's just a question of creating a viable mathematical formula to keep the number of items gained via this method in check. It is possible since the major multiple adventure to level points seem to be tiered based as a general rule...
Personally, I would be in favor of the first option over the second one...
CahPahkah wrote:
Primarchx wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
The problem is, we campaign staff only have limited control over the content and must attempt to reconcile our limited function, with what comes down the pipe.
- FAQ: We have significant control over the FAQ. Some rulings require HQ approval (although I am not sure which ones - most likely those which add new rules rather than clarify existing ones).
- Website Articles: We have control over the articles published to dndadventuresleague.org. If it involves new AL-legal content, permission from HQ may be required (I am not sure on this detail).
- ALPG: We have no creative control over the ALPG. The Admins make suggestions to HQ, who implements what changes they choose.
- Expeditions: We have little creative control over the Expeditions. At least some modules were written by the campaign staff however.
- Encounters: We have no creative control over Encounters. The hardcover books are written by 3PPs, while the Encounters documents (DDEN) are adapted in-house by Wizards. The admins can make suggestions, but have almost the same influence over Encounters content as the general public.
CahPahkah wrote:
QwertyAzerty wrote:
If your table has 8 players, you're already playing a non-legal game. So why not just add whatever magic items you want, and say f@#$ it to the rules as you've already done?
Nevvur wrote:
Primarchx wrote:
Skerrit wrote:
Nevvur wrote:
What are you suggesting - we impliment a Need, Greed system (such as in WOW), with all characters rolling off regardless? Yeah, not seeing that working.
Also, I don't see how the adventures could logically increase/decrease treasure awards in a way which remains consistent across all tables - while GP awards are easily scalable, magic items - not so much.
About the only thing I could suggest, is that a second magic item might be available if there are 6-7 players at a table, and that no item is present at tables of 3. This solution however, poses its own grab-bag of problems.
- Lack of Players: Some locations may only be able to scrape 3 players + DM together. This penalizes those locations by offering no award.
- Item distribution: Item desirability will vary. Regardless of which item (A or B) is the primary item, and which one is only awarded to "large" tables - there will be complaints from those who prefer the secondary item.
Solving the GP discrepency across table sizes however, is an easy fix. If the adventure increases encounter difficulty due to APL - simply have the treasure award increase proportionately, so that all players gain approximately the same wealth (regardless of table size).
QwertyAzerty wrote:
The one thing that a system like that would also cause (and we've seen it in previous OP campaigns) is an arms race with authors. The optimized characters have every item they want, so they are even more optimzed, so when they play there is no challenge, so the author begins to add a little something to the adventure to challenge them which in turn obliterates those who didn't optimize. The current system treads a little closer to a middle ground. You don't get everything you want when you want it, but there is trading and we are instituting trading posts so the most invested players can do some optimizing.
CahPahkah wrote:
Skerrit wrote:
abanathie wrote:
Skerrit wrote:
As I said, we'll have to wait and see what changes or any are made following the next Admin meeting (or later given it will take time to implement if a consensus is reached that a change is warrented and what that change should be).
Skerrit wrote:
Quick to come out. The admins are well into prepping season three, so its unlikely we'd see significant change before season four which we've only just begun to work on and thus could potentially deal with big changes like that.
abanathie wrote:
Ainulindalion wrote:
Skerrit wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Skerrit wrote:
abanathie wrote:
TheBreen wrote:
TheBreen wrote:
Somehow I am quite amused by the claim expeditions are too easy, mixed with the inferance that a DM is not able/allowed to look the party's equipment and tactical aqumen when adjusting an encounters challenge. Trust me, if I get a table of 3 experienced players that have optimal magic items. I will consider them a strong(ish) party and adjust accordingly. Its not a table lookup, its DMing.
As for magic items. If the AL admins are looking into changes, I would request taking a good hard look at the current permissiveness towards items from adventures that are written without regard for the issues that are unique to Organized Play. I like the adventures and I know the realities that come with them, but people are not wrong when they claim that things like staffs of flame and that weird semi-smart sword are really messing with the curve. Not to mention the expectations the AL is trying to cultivate.
And i know you all know, but please be careful. I remember all to vividly how horribly difficult balancing encounters became in 4th. It was sometimes a hellish puzzle to design one that could provide the DM with tools to challenge optimized parties, while still remaining fun and viable for the more casual players. And DMing them was not always a picknic either . We don't need that back..
QwertyAzerty, why do you play Adventurer's League instead of home games? I don't mean to stifle your right to advocate for the changes you want to see in the program, but not all of us want those changes, and all of your 'problems' are easily remedied by playing outside the AL/OP program.
imaginaryfriend wrote:
Nevvur wrote:
Skerrit wrote:
Mommy_was_an_Orc wrote:
Mommy_was_an_Orc wrote:
Mommy_was_an_Orc wrote:
Kalani wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
Those tables are a guideline which DMs can use when creating their campaign. Unlike 4E (in which system math was inherrently tied to magic item aquisition), deviating from that list will not unduly affect the campaign.
You could go 20 levels without a single magic item, and as long as your DM doesn't throw a creature immune to non-magical attacks at you, the game runs fine due to the flattened system math. Such is not true with previous editions (4E especially, in which level-appropriate monsters gained +1 to all combat stats at levels 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, and 30 - in addition to normal scaling).
I have spoken about the diminishing returns of 4E previously - in which a +1 weapon is valuable at 1st level, becomes a +0 weapon at 5th, becomes a -1 weapon at 10th, a -2 weapon at 15th, and a -3 weapon at 15th. 4E items have subjective value, depending on the level of their wielder (and the enemies they face).
In 1E - 3E, magic items still possessed subjective value, depending on the opponents faced. In this instance however, it was due to the fact that many high level creatures could only be injured by weapons of +X or higher.
5E doesn't work that way. A +1 weapon in 5E is equally valuable to a 1st level character as it is to a 20th level character. The item itself determines its value (it has inherrent value), not the level of the character wielding it, or the enemies faced. Weapons either bypass resistance/immunity or they don't. ACs (and other defenses) don't scale at regular intervals (unlike 4E), making a +1 weapon equally valuable across all levels, but less valuable than a +2 or +3.
Then again, some +1 weapons may be superior to +2 weapons in 5E, depending on their specific abilities and the opponents faced. A +2 venomous longsword is less useful against a creature immune to poison than a +1 flaming longsword.
Sorry, but I don't find your 7-player table example to be even slightly compelling. We already have that issue with 8 or more players showing up for a game when nobody wants to DM a second table, and so players get turned away. Worrying about optimizers looking for smaller tables in order to improve their odds of getting a magic item is super low on my "things to care about" list when people are already getting sent home over the same table size issue.
And if you're starting from an assumption that the people who write and provide QA for AL adventures are going to fundamentally fail the campaign on that level, then there's no system of magic item distribution that would save it. I know you have experience with that side of things from LFR, but I remain optimistic (perhaps naively so) that the power curve flattening of this edition can extend to the way items are handled in AL.
As much as I loved LFR, it was absolutely toxic by the end -- and I saw that as largely the consequence of in intended interactions between player options and DMs feeling hamstrung to fix it at the table. The AL is off to a great start on both fronts: DM empowerment is in much shape, and curtailing player options as a preventative measure, at this point, mostly means magic item availability. Those are both super good things in my book.
limiting the among of item a character can have ALREADY exist, a player can only be attune to a maximum of 3 items. The problem is for a table of 3 players, you need 9 adventures to reach that limit. on a table of 7 player you need 21 adventure to reach that limit.
Then the table of 3 player can start getting better item (I have a ioun stone of AC (giving me +1 AC) and I found a ring of protection (+1AC and +1 to all save) then I'll unattune to the Ioun stone and attune to the ring.
I like the idea that If I take an item I can give an other item to the table. So in my previous example, I take the ring of protection I can give the ioun stone to the table (since I cannot beenfit from the ioun stone since I can only be attune to 3 item maximum.
True in the current syste there is no limit in consummable, so a character can have as many potion/scroll as he find, but from my experience those item are not a big problem, often the character with 5 potion of healing will give a potion to the fallen teammate. Then what happen when the wizard already have the maximum among of item and the group found a wizard scroll? The barbarian take it? or do we leave the scroll behind?
True some item (like dagger of venom, wand of magic missile, wand of detect magic, pear of power etc...) do not require attunement, but those item are usually weak item and generally stronger version exist and those stronger version require attunement.
So a limit to the among of "powerfull" magical item already exist you can only have 3, and at my knowledge there is no way to increase that limit of 3 (unless they somehow release a cert at some point but I doubt such a cert will exist)
So the most item a character coudl use is 3 attunement items, then a among of weak (non attunement item) equal to what a character could wear, So yes by the book you could have up to 20 rings (2 per fingers) but only 3 of them can require attunement, and from the DMG very few ring do not require attunement and IIRC none would be consider a fighting boost. But yes you could have 20 rings, but try to convince your DM that you can wear 2 helmet? or 2 pair of boots? or 2 armor? even if those are the only 2 item you have.
There is already limit on the among of item you can use (3 attunements, and limited by what you can resonnably explain how you wear, so 3 necklace? yes why not, 2 pair of boots? no sorry boot do not go ever boot (boot covers goes over boot, but in the DMG there is no boot cover, only boots) no need for a 3rd limitation based on the rarity of the item.
The current system is self-sustaining and self-moderating.
- Item Frequency: Most adventures have very few magic items, with Expeditions granting 1 permanent item per adventure (on average).
- Character Level: Unless you have a table of optimizers who rotate 5 separate characters* (only one of which gains magic items), characters will level out of Tier 1 with 0-2 items (1 on average). I have yet to personally witness any character level out of Tier 2 (as of yet), but even those characters who completed Hoard of the Dragon Queen (Ep8) only gain an average of 2-3 items each (over the entire adventure, most of those items being in Ep7 and Ep8), and reach 7th. This leaves them with Tier 2 Expeditions, and/or Princes of the Apocalypse with which to gain new items.
* Cheaters seek quick paths to power. This theoretical party requires a willing DM (accomplice). As you already have a willing accomplice, any player(s) willing to cheat in this manner would simply falsify log entries, and have their DM falsify certificates. Expedition kits come complete with 6 copies of each certificate. All it would take would be 15minutes filling out the certificates, and falsifying log entries and you could easily skip the adventure entirely (but that is boring IMO).
- Item Contests: In order to gain more than a handful of items, you have to be incredibly lucky to not have those items contested. The current rules give preferential treatment to characters with less magic items. The more items you gain, the less chance you have of gaining a subsequent item(s).
Eventually, uncontested items will pass to the character(s) with the least number of items, as they would be able to grab the item, and still maintain preferential treatment. If the rest of the party has 2+ items more than yourself, there is 0 risk in claiming an otherwise uncontested item, as you will still retain first pick on any "contested" items that come down the pipe. If the rest of the party has 1+ items more than you, snagging an uncontested item (that would otherwise pass to the greedy player) ties you for preferential treatment.
Sure, in theory, you might end up with a tonne of magic items, and in a home game that might very well be true.... But the self-moderating system used in AL makes this a non-issue in practise. I honestly see your "solution" as fixing a problem which simply doesn't exist.
Kalani wrote:
QwertyAzerty wrote:
Kalani wrote:
The problem in your example is that the Rogue would need to gain 3 items (from adventuring) that they could trade for said goggles of night, dagger of venom and cloak of elvenkind.
While I know that some gaming groups leave items on the ground (which your rogue could snap up), this is not the usual situation. Most players would prefer to have a mediocre item vs. no item. This was especially true in S1, in which items (of any quality) were few and far between (outside of Expeditions).
Even then, this also assumes you were lucky enough to gain all three of the items you desired. Playing a new character did not guarantee you an item after all - as there are many players who play the same character week after week who still lack a magic item(s).
Kalani wrote:
Mommy_was_an_Orc wrote:
WotC R&D does not run this campaign, Organized Play does. Also, R&D does not create the guidelines for AL.
imaginaryfriend wrote:
That is a very good suggestion. I will pass it on.
I guess the third time is a charm...
abanathie wrote:
I don't recall you mentioning a Faction Perk before - but I do think it has merit as a possible Rank 3 or Rank 4 award. I have relayed the information to the campaign staff.
abanathie wrote:
The first time I used the word "Perk", but I've put the concept forward a few times already. I think people were just too impassioned about magical items to pay attention to something trying to hug the middle instead of going to either extreme.
LFR had that same system in place, giving PCs access to specific items via their membership in Meta-Organizations (which was that campaign's equivalent of Factions, though never fully implemented).
I like the idea of Factions being more meaningful to AL play; my only concern would be if every faction had "a +1 Weapon of your choice" available in this system, then nearly every PC would gain that, and then the system math just becomes everyone has +1 to hit and +1 to damage, and then magic items don't feel special, and then adventure design needs to accommodate that...
...and then we're basically just repeating the optimization-creep that poisoned LFR and PFS.
Can't we just not do that this time?
CahPahkah wrote:
QwertyAzerty wrote:
Kalani wrote:
imaginaryfriend wrote:
imaginaryfriend wrote:
Mirtek wrote:
The perk when you reach rank X in a faction sound decent. I would suggest rank 2 specially with season 3 demon comming quickly, and the necessity for magical weapon will become obvious.
Like it already been mentioned, you cannot really say that Lord Alliance and Order of the gauntlet offer heavy armor, Harper offer light armor, Emerald Enclave medium armor and Zhentarim offer wounderous items, since this will push many heavy armor user to got Lord Alliance and OotG FOR the item instead of choosing that match there Role play.
Within the list of Magic Weapon common to all factions we should include wand of war magic so spellcaster in any alliance will have a good choice since many full spellcaster don't care about a dagger +1.
I like the idea of allowing to enchant your current weapon/shield or armor into a +1, but like I said there should be an option to enchant a wand since many full spellcaster (wizard, sorcerer, warlock) don't care about weapon/armor/shield enchantment.
The list must be carefully crafted so every faction got interesting item for EVERYONE and no faction become an optimization choice over an other faction (I don't want it to be mandatory for my warlock to join zhentarim because it's the only way to get the rod of the Pact keeper.
Here is the problem as I see it.
Either the magic items are good for the level, at which point the factions become part of the build guides.... or the magic items are low for the level, at which point why bother?
The idea is to move away from the 'magic store', changing it to the 'magic faction store' isn't much of an improvement. Even if its a 'only buy one item magic store'. The idea is for a PC to adventure for fame, good deeds, and the chance of money, loot, and magic. I don't like the idea of every faction having some warehouse full of every +1 armor and +1 weapon just in case someone gets to Rank3/4.
And it begs the question.... why? Why is it needed? At what point do you *have to* have that +1 weapon or else your PC is worthless?
I have heard the 'what if' scenarios depicting some 'worst case imaginable' scenario. But even then.... does it really matter? If your group is playing and having fun with a table of 7.... why does it matter if someone else across the state is having fun in a table of 3? Are they coming to your house and making fun of you? Are they somehow stealing the magic items from your modules? How is what they are doing affecting your ability to have fun in any conceivable way? Lets say we outlawed any table with less than 7 players.... does that now mean you will be having *more fun* at your table?
Then there is the 'no really, this happened' scenario. Someone apparenlty made a 1st level character... played long enough to get lucky and win the roll for the goggles of night. Then created another 1st level character, and played him long enough to get lucky on the roll and get the Cloak of Elvenkind, and then immediately made another 1st level character for the next adventure, and again won the roll for the +1 Bow. But wait...thats not all.... he then created his *fourth* 1st level character.... who then somehow managed to win the rolls for 3 more magic items, which he then traded to his other characters so that his fourth character had the googles/cloak/bow......
Supposedly, this player didn't even have to roll, since he was the 'only one' without a magic item. But lets not forget..... isn't this the same group of 'hardcore players' that refuse to play the same DDEX adventure more than once. So out of the first 9 DDEX1-X modules played, he somehow got 3 of the 8 magic items. I have no idea how his 4th character has already gotten 3 more magic items, how many season 2 adventures could he have possibly played?
But the almost infintesimal chance that this all happened misses the point. So what? If none of those items existed..... does that mean no one could play a rogue archer and have any fun? What about those rogue archers that failed the rolls... should they just quit?
Yes this guy is a douchebag.... but even if he did manage to somehow pull this off A) It really has minimal effect on anyone else's ability to have fun playing the game, and B) he is such an edge case, like the bleeding edge of edge cases... he is a lousy justification for drastic changes to the AL magic system. (Not to mention, he now has a 2-3lvl PC with 3 magic items, he will not get another one for a long, long, time....)
I do, however, have a suggestion for modifying the magic reward system. As before, I prefer we find out magic, not shop via catalog. The only change I would make is the ability get the items you may really want. There will need to be logistical/tracking changes made, but I think those should be fairly simple.
At the end of the adventure, any magic items found are put into a 'pot'. Each PC can then put any item they currently have into that same pot. Now you proceed as if all of those items were found in that adventure. If a PC put all of his magic in the pot, he would have 'zero' items and would get priority over anyone that still has magic items.
The upside is you don't worry about taking that Tankard of Plenty or Spear with light charges or +1 Splint.... since you can put them back into the pot at a later date if you come across something you really want. It could also be a mechanism for getting rid of 'broken'/non-functioning magic items. (ie horn of blasting) (If not desired, they could simply disallow that.)
The downside is you can now 'go after' magic items you don't care much about, since you can always ditch them later for something you do want.
But I think overall it will prove to be an improvement.
Lost another magical item roll... Almost ninth level without any magical items... 
abanathie wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Mirtek wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
Mirtek wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
That's just how it goes sometimes; my main AL PC is level 9 and has five magic items, only one of which involved winning a roll-off (which was, incidentally, the only roll-off I've ever been involved in).
Mirtek wrote:
abanathie wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
FWIW, it's also not that hard for regular DMs to have new 5th level characters who've never played a mod - especially via Catching Up.
I think every table I've ever played or run in Tier 2 has had someone without any magic items. Lots of people pass on items on the hope that they'll get something better in the next module.
They've failed to pick up that there isn't really anything better, generally. You have to make do, unless you're playing one of the published adventures.
Also,
I believe that by the time you reach level 7 in Princes of the Apocalypse, your party has potentially encountered exactly 5 magic items (2 in the necromancer's cave, 1 in the tomb of moving stones, 1 in the fire keep, and 1 on a side quest, I won't be more specific, even in a spoiler block). If you're playing with more than 5 people, someone doesn't have one.
And that's assuming they all want the available items. Which is a bit unlikely, as many people are looking at the items and doing a min-max calculation in their head, even if they're not aware of doing it consciously. And two of the items are almost totally flavor items unless you're really quite creative.
But I may be wrong. It's late and I'm not flipping through the book right now.
Ainulindalion wrote:
I want to see the list of 'guidelines' that these 3PP companies are given. What parameters are they designing their adventures within?
Let's see what WotC is actually asking to be made, so they can sell it to us.
abanathie wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Mirtek wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
Ainulindalion wrote:
Mirtek wrote:
Where are all these tables where people just leave magic items that are found during an adventure? I have never once, in all the games I have played or DMed, seen a magic item left behind after the scenario is over. Every item has been looted.
abanathie wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
reddaemon wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Mirtek wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Sure, loads and loads of magic items. All powered by the old weave which was about to be .. ehm.. shall we say...borrowed?...by Shar. So measures had to be taken. There was a full recall. Ad in the Astral Sea Times and all. Did you let your subscription lapse???
You may still be able to find some of those old items, even the gods miss something now and then, but wether you would enjoy using a Shar tainted item.. I am not sure.
Don't forget the Sundering. A good portion of the magic items would have been on Aebir during the Sundering - and as such no longer exist on Toril.
That accounts for a reduction of approximately 50% from the 4e era even if we ignore other factors.
Then there is the fact that a good number may have been destroyed/lost during the Sundering; and that magic functions differently now (which might cause some items to lose their magic).
Mirtek wrote:
Up to the Herald, long after Mystra's return there was certainly no shortage of magic items among the forces of Myth Drannor and Shade. The companions and Farideh's troupe certainly have no lack of items either. There's nothing indicating a mass destruction of magic items (the ground zero at Myth Drannor should actually be more choke full of them than every before).
And why would many be on Aebir? Was there a convention for magic item holders going on in Tymanther and Akanul? The areas of faerun being replaced and changed back now were rather small in the grand scale of things. Inhabitants of the sword cost or the heartlands might never noticed it from anything more than some traveler reports
The new FR just isn't the cholk full of magic items that it used to be, and even if you would like to argue that it should still be (for whatever reason you feel justified), the DnDAL program is not a high magic campaign but rather something more middle of the road.
To be honest, I know very little of FR history, and I am not really concerned to learn. I am playing 5E and the game, and setting, has changed from before. (From what I understand) There may have been a ton of magic items on every streetcorner, I don't know... and again, it doesn't really matter. The way to books are now written, magic is rare, and special. So much so that no magic shops exist, and it takes an effort to find a buyer for an items you find. Not sure if this 'makes sense' with the historical setting..... but it is how it is being presented now. And from what I can tell, AL isn't changing that.
imaginaryfriend wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Wait... Wait... We're in the JJverse of the Forgotten Realms! That explains why lens flares have replaced magical items!
Mirtek wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Mirtek wrote:
Kalani wrote:
I was not aware that the LFR canon was revoked (it was canon when I was playing it). Likewise, LC (Greyhawk) was also canon for that setting, so in WotCs reign - both of the OP campaigns were canon at the time. I see nothing that would say AL is any less/more canon than the previous two OP campaigns.
I did read something somewhere (although I forget the source) to say that what happens in the Moonsea is definately canon, although the events on the sword coast may not be (as they are written by 3PPs). I know that Ed Greenwood & Co control a large portion of FR canon (esp. events relating to their characters), although even they have to answer to Wizards in respect to certain things - such as the Spellplague being canon (although largely undone by the Sundering). I remember reading an interview in which Greenwood was very upset about the Spellplague and wished to erase it from the continuity.
A similar situation occurs in respect to Dragonlance, with the main authors (Weiss & Hickman) being incredibly unhappy with the 5th age material (which was canon). Summer Flame was intended to be the original "ending" for the setting, but TSR thought otherwise. It was for this reason that the War of Souls occured (to largely undo the damage to the world as they saw it).
I see the War of Souls and Sundering storylines in a similar light (the setting authors attempting to undo the majority of damage done to their setting, in their opinion). I admit however, I have read very few FR books in my time, so I am much less familiar with the settings continuity (although I have familiarity with the setting itself from the 3.X and 2E sourcebooks).
Well, with LG it's difficult since no canon Greyhawk sourcebook was released during the run of LG or thereafter. So it's not set in stone either way, but whenever the possibility of a new Greyhawk sourcebook was discusses the possibility of ignoring all of LG was seen as very real threat/boon (depening on how invested one was in LG).
With LFR is was supposed to be one of the big things of LFR that it would determine canon events for a living, still published setting. Obviously WotC found it too much trouble to keep the necessary tight reign over LFR and it was send into non-canon land. On the pro side of things, this speed up adventure release and allowed LFR to pursue much grander storylines with the LFR adventures
I haven't read anything about the status of AL before, that's why I asked.
Well, based on my understanding - it follows a similar premise as what LFR did prior to becoming noncanon. Its possible it counts as canon only for the purposes of AL continuity (as events occuring in one adventure affect future adventures, via feedback reports) - but I am under the understanding that the novels are largely ignoring the moonsea in order to give AL the space it needs to make any changes necessary.
As I said, there are two adventure paths going on. The Moonsea adventures (Expeditions), and the Swordcoast adventures (ToD, EE, etc). As a majority of the novels take place on the Swordcoast (to my knowledge), I suspect those adventures are less canon than the ones which take place in the Moonsea - although the existance of the various cults and their overarching agenda may be canon (the specifics may not be). I am not the person to ask - someone with detailed FR knowledge would be a better person to ask than me (I am only basing my comments off the limited information I have).
Where the FR is concerned your safe bet is: novels are canon. hardback adventurers are probably canon, AL modules (EX & EP) are probably not canon. Don't think anyone bathered to make an official statement either way.
Its been tried with LG, LC and LFR. I am not sure about Green Regent.
LC, may actually have stayed canon, I was never involved
LG, impossible. So many regions, so many plotlines, so many adventures. I don't think anyone has all the history of what happened all over greyhawk during those 8 years. So not canon
LFR, they tried, could not work it out resource wise, it became its own parallel FR.
edit: Of course all of them user and/or were based on canon, but I honestly can't recall any history created by OP modules becoming canon.
Canon is whatever happens in your campaign -- the FR of the novels is not the same campaign as the FR of AL, and is certainly not the same as the FR I've been playing in a home game for over 20 years, where nobody's ever heard of Farideh but a thief** named Pseudolus who ascended to godhood is still causing trouble.
** - AD&D edition
--
Pauper
Mirtek wrote:
edit: darn your timing Greg
re Pauper: True, but not really the issue. Yes, every campaign has its own canon, but the settings like the realms all have their own canon outside of any specific campaign. Heck the realms has a documented history hardback. Thats the canon that is being debated.
Case in point -- R.A. Salvatore routinely put things into his novels that couldn't happen in an 'official' Forgotten Realms (such as a dwarf who eventually became a druid during AD&D, or a drow elf proficiently dual-wielding scimitars), simply to prove that novels don't have to follow the rules of a game.
--
Pauper
Skerrit wrote:
imaginaryfriend wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Kalani wrote:
They tried with LG, still have some Journals to prove it But LG was way way waaaaaaaay to stretched out and fragmented (by design) for that to work in the long run.
They've tried with the major campaigns, LG and LFR, but something always kept them from realizing it. They backed off their canon stance with each of those campaigns.
Of course they did. For both they quickly found out that fact checking, concequence analysis etc for the volume of adventure text created would pretty much be a full time job.
Maybe with LG; however, there were other factors involved too. LFR definitely had other issues in the mix, mostly financial from most accounts.
imaginaryfriend wrote:
I do know that R.A. Sal references the lead up to ToD in the latest Drizzt books.
Also, there's been some serious forshadowing of Rage of Demons in Archmage Gromph's behavior in the last few books.
Mirtek wrote:
The new AL DDEP is different, though, than the old LFR. The DDEX (Expeditions) and DDEN (Encounters) modules are of questionable canonicity (although it's been said that RA Salvatore and Ed Greenwood are being heavily consulted, so that's a sign they probably are). My understanding of the DDEP (Epic) line, though, is that what happens in the majority of tables in those modules is DEFINITELY canonical -- they are extremely limited, being held in one a few major conventions every year, and expire quickly. That's the whole point of the Epics -- your character can determine the destiny of the FR.
shivafang wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
I rarely purchase adventures myself. If it wasn't for running AL, and the fact that DMs at my store get store credit for running the program - I doubt I would have bought all 3 hardcovers (maybe princes but I doubt I would have bought the S1 adventures)
shivafang wrote:
QwertyAzerty wrote:
Personally, I don't think the current item system needs an overhaul; I just think it needs some tweaks.
I could see, as outlined earlier, a "faction store" addressing some concerns about the rate of magical item acquisition. In addition, varying the items available at this "store" from season to season, independent of story origin, could be used to minimize the tendency of power building, a concern raised in a previous post. Basically, a Harper in season three, as an example, could have access to any +1 magical weapon and a couple of other items. When the season four ALPG is released and becomes effective, the same Harper would have access to +1 studded leather and a different set of other items. In season five, the list of magical items would change again, or no magical items are available for that season. If the AL administrators were so inclined; they could make the items available based on the overall success or failure of the faction in the previous season.
Alternately, possibly in conjunction with a "store", completing certain side quests might grant a favor, or token, that can be redeemed for one magical item from a list; that list might include any common magical item or a pick from a specific list of named items. Not every side quest has to have a redeemable favor; however, an occasional favor, or token, would expand the player's options for magical items. However, it can give access to certain items without the need of creating, from the administration's perspective, or playing a specific adventure, from a player's perspective, to gain access to it.
Neither of these options require an overhaul of the current system and could be implemented on a limited or expansive basis based on the needs of the campaign as determined by the AL staff. In other words, the adminstrators can still exert a great deal of control over the access of these additional magical items. This would also lessen the need to place specific items in the world and build adventures that would justify those items within the context of the adventure.
Ninth level and 17 sessions... Got my first magical item... And it was a pretty good one at that.
Certificate pic or it didn't happen.
RCanine wrote:
RCanine wrote:
I got a Staff of Charming on my Warlock who was only lvl 1 at the time, in an expeditions game. It's so nice and I got the certificate for it too. The only other caster in the group already had a magic item.
Lilika wrote: