Is there a plan for what to do in Adventurer's League if someone's character is negatively impacted by errata?
If your character is below 5th level, you can retrain everything about the character except your name and story origin the next time you go up a level.
If you're 5th level or above, then just play.
--
Pauper
Some concept are completly destroy with this errata, it really sucks for those player who had a cool concept and saw those concept destroy and now have to play with gimp character, or restart level 1.
So you want the AL admins to give you permission to play with an illegal character? I really doubt that's going to happen.
--
Pauper
I'm really not seeing a build that is super negatively impacted by this errata. But maybe I'm not creative enough.
Can I see some specific examples (besides the twinned scorching ray trick, which never felt right anyway)? Or is this another exercise in 'what if' ?
I asked the same thing over on the AL Facebook page and so far only only response I have seen is basically "no exceptions or swapping out after 4th level and if there is anything that does not work for your character, then you are stuck with a screwed up, or now illegal, character."
What build is absolutely broken by the errata? And more importantly, what build is unrecoverably broken by the errata?
The only build I know which would be illegal is any that uses character level for the purpose of gaining invocations. I would expect such players to swap their invocations to a legal option now that the rules have been explicitly clarified.
The thing is, this was debated back in August - and it was clear even then that the intent was for invocations to be based on class level, as all similar class abilities used terms such as "levels in the X class" (or similar). The fact that Warlock Invocations failed to use such terminology was most likely due to an editing oversight, as warlocks were designed in the playtest - and as such, some of the terminology may have changed since it was first introduced (and was not updated in the final product).
The thing is - I have no sympathy for anyone who tried to cheese the system by gaining warlock invocations based on character level. Most other builds lose a trick or two (such as twinned scorching ray) but function perfectly fine regardless. Likewise, hand crossbows can no longer be used with a shield - this doesn't gimp the build, only reduces AC by 2.... Hardly what I call "broken".
The simple truth is: Errata will always cause issue with some builds (but not others). A character is more likely to suffer issues if they make use of a combo which seems cheesy, or is blatantly OP. This comes down to a user beware scenario... You make use of such combos at the risk of them being eventually errata'ed.
Very curious as to how concept can even be broken by errata. Losing mechanical advantage or even parity does not break a concept. May make it undesireable though.
Fire dragon sorcerer. They now have no decent single target spell.
Twin scorching ray was never allowed, so that is just fine to clarify it making it more easy to understand and remove any ambiguisity that rule abuser were trying to create.
But the +Cha to damage roll, this hurt what was the ONLY viable single target fire spell.
Gratz, now fire dragon sorcerer are good for twinning a concentration spell (giving haste to 2 players or hold person 2 BBEG) then casting fireball to kill the useless cannon fodder, then they can turn on there PSP and play video game, there contribution to the fight ended since they have no single target options.
Yes disintegrate is still good, but sorry I don't feel like a powerfull fire dragon casting a force spell.
Considering the the cold, lightning, acid, poison dragon were already a joke because the sorcerer got very few spell option using those elements (poison and acid have 3 spell each... including the EE player companion) and that wild mage are a unreliable dangeroud time bomb threathening to fireball the party each morning when he cast mage armor, the sorcerer now got 0 decent sub class.
can we have a real sub-class for the sorcerer, one that will make the sorcerer a spellcaster on the same level as the wizard please but that will make the sorcere feel unique? a sub-class that will make the sorcerer feel like a real source of arcane power, making him feel as if he was magic himself?
Then all the monk who dip in fighter to grab some battle maneuver (or took the feat giving them battle maneuver) since now unarmed attack are no longer weapon attack, they can no longer use there battle maneuvers on there unarmed attack. Cool my shadow monk can no longer disarm, trip and push you, untill he find and win a magic weapon.
QwertyAzerty wrote:
Kalani wrote:
abanathie wrote:
I thought that invocations could be retrained much like spells known? I could be mistaken in that detail (as I have not played a warlock, nor looked at their invocations in quite some time). With that being said, my previous post was based on the assumption that invocations could be retrained.
As a DM, I would expect anyone with an "illegal" invocation to retrain it upon gaining their next level of warlock
Until such times as that occurs, I would prohibit the use of the "illegal" invocation at my table, and would recommend my table-DMs to do likewise (thereby giving incentive to take a warlock level and retrain it).
As I said previously - I have no sympathy for anyone attempting to "game the system". Anyone who cherry picked their warlock levels so as to gain invocations at specific character levels (while filling in other levels with their primary class) is someone who was attempting to game the system. Whether the rules allowed it due to an editing oversight or not is irrelevant.
The fact remains that due to the wording choice - such players deliberately and knowingly planned their warlock levels to coincide with specific character levels, so that they could qualify for specific high level invocations. IMHO, such characters did not earn their high level invocations. They simply took advantage of a loop-hole in the rules. The fact that such loop-hole has now been closed does not justify players to complain about it.
You wouldn't complain about a loop-hole in the criminal code being patched that allowed criminals to walk on a technicallity.... This is kind of the same thing (but on a much lower scale).
Kalani wrote:
Kalani wrote:
abanathie wrote:
The OP gave no direct examples. In fact, I was the one who brought up the example of a character who chose invocations based on character level being a "build" affected by this ruling.
True, there is a small possibility that someone might do this innocently, and I am more than willing to work with such players in correcting the problem at soonest possibility. This would most likely mean taking a level of warlock at next level up. If they have multiple illegal invocations, I would not penalize them further and would allow them to swap out all illegal invocations at the same time in order to make the character legal.
However, the vast majority of such players with this example build would have done so deliberately - as it was discussed heavily during the first few weeks of 5E, and was even put into several warlock optimization guides.
For example - I am fairly certain this issue came up (and was discussed) in the Blade, Book and Spell (A Warlock guide) thread.
With that being said, it is theoretically possible that someone might end up with an illegal feature that cannot be retrained (I know of no such features at this time). If that should occur, my first response would be to inform my RC as well as the admins of the situation. I expect the answer to such potential situations would be an FAQ ruling which allows such characters to retrain the illegal feature.
Basic rule of thumb: If a rules interaction/combination seems to deviate significantly from the nominal curve then there is a good chance this will be fixed/changed at some point in time. Building your character on this interaction/combination regardless is a risk a player chooses to take. It may lead to disappointment, but that would be disappointment they brought on themselves.
IOW: if it seems to good to be true and its GOLD (are we still using gold?) in the build guide, don't bet on it hanging around. And don't whine if it does not.
Kalani wrote:
Um what? We never said nor implied he was cheating. We asked for examples. The only example where cheating was remotely implied was for invocations.
As I said above - if a legitimate issue occurs as a result of an errata; and there is no legal fix, I suspect the response would be to create a ruling that lets people fix the issue.
Without an actual example however, that is impossible.
The closest I can think of is someone multi classing via "headband of intellect" and then trading away the headband - a situation I have no sympathy for because it is a blatant attempt to game the system: and should an errata or FAQ make this option explicitly illegal - the player has no one to blame but themselves.
I honestly can't think of anything else which has the potential of breaking a character. Nerfing a combo - sure. But breaking a character? Such issues are few and far between.
Warlocks with invocations based on character level and characters who multiclass with magic items are the only two examples I can think of. There might be others - but if so, they are obscure.
abanathie wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Just to clarify.... it is perfectly acceptable to use unarmed strikes with BM maneuvers. (at least most, I didn't check each one)
You can use an unarmed strike to make a melee weapon attack just fine.
People need to stop acting like chicken little.....
No, I didn't have anything in mind. I just wanted to know if there was a plan, so that if later some other errata gets issued we'll know what to do.
Kalani wrote:
As an LC, I don't have the luxury of making "under the table" corrections to make characters legal. I would have no problem personally in allowing this, but I cannot officially sanction it at my table in good conscious.
If another DM allowed it, I am not going to kick up a stink though (as I agree - having a legal character to play and have fun with is superior to having an illegal character because: rules)
Kalani, if you are concerned about the 'propriety' of this, couldn't this fall within the parameters of the "Cheating" sidebar. You are allowed to review character sheets and log sheets and if there is anything 'amiss' discuss it and have them make the necessary changes.
Well a Warlock2/Sorc3 with Thirsting Blade is 'something amiss'.... so discuss it and have them change it.
As for that FB thread, there is only one person that said anything about 'no rebuilds' and...
1) He is not an admin
2) I have seen some of his 'rulings' about Twinning, and I dont' trust his rules knowledge.
3) He referenced a 'rebuild', which is *not* what we are discussing here.... but just 'correcting' an 'illegal' character.
I would agree - except for something Robert Adducci told me in the first week or two as an LC. That DMs cannot make changes to character sheets or logs (even if there is an error).
DMs can only allow/disallow the character, or log entry; ask the player to use a standard array (in the case of stats) or disallow the use of an offending ability or item in question. It may be contrary to what is written in the ALPG but it is what the admins want. I understand the sentiment as the alternative might result in DMs on a power trip making major (permanent) changes to a character.
I think allowing a one-time free rebuild whenever the rules change is a legitimate thing to do; a rules change in 4E (one that I, to this day, am mystified by) completely destroyed my desire to play D&D, because the character as I envisioned it simply coudn't contribute to adventures anymore, and I had become emotionally attached.
While 5E lacks that sort of keeping-up-with-the-johnsons math, I don't see what the harm would be in letting a player re-think his build choices (but not equipment) if doing so means the difference between the player continuing to play D&D AL or doing something else with his time.
QwertyAzerty wrote:
I think allowing all players to rebuild characters before level 5 is already too generous enough so I dont think they need to allow rebuilds any further than that.
Also I think that you might find that a LOT of AL dms do not even KNOW about this errata. Its still not a widely known about document, I have not read it yet and until any of this Errata modifies the next printing of the PHB then you will find a lot of AL DMs will continue with the old rules.
A couple of the concerns the errata raised for me are not "character-concept killing, make a character worthless" changes, but more things that can still screw up a character.
Two specifics:
"Dwarven Combat Training (p. 20).
Nope! Because there's no weapon called "throwing hammer" on the weapons list. There is, however, a light hammer (range 20/60). This was a clear case of an editing error -- it should've been "light hammer" all along.
Kalani wrote:
Tyranthraxus wrote:
1 year of waitin for 1 page.
What is there seems like OK fixes....but what isn't there is what pisses me off. Find Steed, Suggestion, Phantasmal Force, Fabricate, Contagion, Simulacrum, etc.
No one at my LGS that I know of has tried to abuse CBE, or Water whip, but I think the elemental affinity nerf hit a couple of sorcerers. The eratta does not seem to clarify what happens when a spell targets multiple creatures, or generates multiple attacks over a duration. For example, Melf's Minute Meteors. Seems clear that it only does Charisma x1 even if you hit them with 2 meteors in a round....but what happens next round? It is clearly a seperate 'attack', and it is compleely illogical that you could hit a different target and deal bonus damage but not the guy you hit last turn.
Aw no more sorcerer lvl 3/warlock lvl 3 super build!
Byakugan01 wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Kalani wrote:
QwertyAzerty wrote:
QwertyAzerty wrote:
Pauper wrote:
I would like to remind everyone that these forums are specifically for questions/comments about the DnDAL specifically and this thread has devolved into complaints about the errata in general (mostly from one poster) and other attempts to molify them. This is not the place for that. The DnDAL does not control or affect the errata process. Please come back to the topic of the DnDAL or I will ask to have the thread closed.
Greg Marks
DnDAL Associate Resource Manager
ok to be back on subject then. How to deal with now illegal or non functional character because of the change of the errata (and don't ask me to give example of broken character that are no longer available, Skerrit said that we cannot describe broken concept)
Can AL league give a chance to player who played a legal character and give them a free rebuild to fix the problems? I don't want my battlemaster or rogue level (or any other combinaison that peopple could have use believing that unarmed attack were considered as weapon) anymore if I cannot use them with my monk (and the fact that you don't agree and believe I still can use it on 66% of my attack is not to be dsicuss) I want to change those level to go straight monk. My spell selection I had using a combo, is no longer worth it without EA, I want to change my spell selection and not just 1 spell per level this will take too long. I want to be helpfull to my party now, not in 3 month.
I agree those player who got burn because they can no longer twin cast scorching ray got what they merit, everyone told them scorhcing ray cannot be twinned. But EA on scorching ray was even confirm by Crawford, so it was not abusive. Unarmed attack considered weapon was clearly indicated in the weapon table and no one ever even questioned it. So why are those player penalyzed?
If we can have a window to legally change character after an errata that not only clarify the rule, but change the rules is not asking too much. it really suck otherwise that my fighter monk lvl 9 will go to the trash and I need to restart a new monk from level 1, specially when at my store the Dm don't replay older content and we are now playing tier 2 adventures, so now I have to choose, playing a character that is 66% what he was or stop playing all together and I dislike both choice. I love playing DnD but I don't want to play a gimp character that is only 66% what he was. Specially that he was not more powerfull then other class that did not even got affected by the errata.
Is this within the AL staff power to allow a window to legally rebuild a character into something that will be legal to play and still functional for the player (I don't care what Kalani think of the effectivement of my character and that she think that my character is still as good as pre-errata, I want to be happy and proud of playing my character and now I don't feel happy nor proud, I feel punish for no reason.
Unfortunately, historic evidence gives a strong indication that "Errata broke my PC, can I have a rebuild" does not translate to a person making the minimal changes needed. Instead, in my experience, it tends to translate to: "Can I have a rebuild, so I can visit the character build forum and select the new FotM?"
Now if a character becomes illegal in some way, I would say sure, let them make the minimal changes required to become legal once more. But handing out free FotM passes. Please Karl no! (yeah I m channeling a gnome 
)
edit: FotM - Flavor of the Month
QwertyAzerty wrote:
MasterNamer wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
QwertyAzerty wrote:
Pauper wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
The admins are discussing it.
Pauper wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Skerrit wrote:
I suspect the former
abanathie wrote:
Skerrit wrote:
Suggested:
1. If you are an MC Warlock who has Eldritch Invocations selected based on your character level, rather than your Warlock level, immediately retrain invocations that are illegal into invocations that are legal choices.
2. If you are a Monk (Way of the Elements) with elemental disciplines that are now not legal on your character, immediately retrain these disciplines into legal choices.
I don't think anything else would have created illegal elements.
Ainulindalion wrote:
Mommy_was_an_Orc wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Mommy_was_an_Orc wrote:
imaginaryfriend wrote:
Whether it is a problem depends on your outlook. I consider it a problem because it is boring and leads to "Oh look, its another force movement based bloodmage" or "How original, a rebreather dragonborn sorcerer" (and those quotes coincidently also tended to be how a character introductions went.. ). But thats just my personal preference.
As to it only affecting a small number of players.. yes, but also often the kind of players that are actively seeking unintended rules interaction for mechanical benefits. And since I do not have to subscribe to the idea that everyone needs to be catered to. I am fine with AL not catering to FotM. In my experience they have a detrimental effect on the overall viability of an OP campaign in many ways (amongst which mental wear and tear of the administration, escalation of encounter difficulty and a shrinking of the encounter resolution space as combat is forced to the forefront).
Providing aid in "fixing" affected characters, yes please. A free rebuild, no thanks.
The Admins' response has been posted: http://dndadventurersleague.org
Greg Marks
DnDAL Associate Resource Manager
That sounds spot-on and totally reasonable.
[Waits for inevitable outrage...]
imaginaryfriend wrote:
Cross post regarding the new errata (which Greg mentioned upthread)
A Brief Summary
- Characters don't gain a free rebuild.
- If their character is made illegal by an errata, they can make the minimum changes to make them legal (such as swapping out an invocation or two). Swapping class levels are not normally an option. It would be if a future errata clarifies that you must always meet the multiclass requirements - which would make characters who multiclass via items (eg. belt of giant strength or headband of intellect) illegal if they lose access to those items. In such an instance, rebuilding the illegal levels would be appropriate.
- If your character is legal but less optimal than it was previously - you gain no special considerations
The recently released Player’s Handbook errata may have affected some of your Adventurers League characters. In general the errata includes mostly clarifications rather than complete changes.
The Adventurers League does not generally support rebuilding characters above 4th-level, but what if those changes result in the unlikely event that the errata made your character illegal? In such a case, in the presence of your DM, you should make the minimal changes necessary to make your character conform to the rules. So for example, if your character is currently a 12th-level monk who chose eternal mountain defense as your 11th-level tradition feature you might note that the errata changed the minimum level requirement for that feature to 17th-level and so your character is illegal. The minimum change would be to select a different, legal feature; for example flames of the phoenix. The Adventurers League would not allow you to instead rebuild your character to have 12 levels of fighter, as that is not the minimum change necessary to make your character legal.
Another example: if you were a bard/warlock and had previously been using your total character level to select your invocations, the rules have been clarified that only your total warlock level is used. If you have an invocation with a level requirement that is higher than your warlock level allows, you must make the minimal change of selecting a legal invocation, not converting your warlock levels to bard (or vice versa).
If your character was affected by the errata so that it is less optimal, but still legal, you are not granted a rebuild. So for example: if you were a sorcerer that had been using elemental affinity and twinned spell to get extra scorching rays and applying the extra damage to every bolt, the errata clarifies that the elemental affinity is only added to one damage roll (not all three) and you cannot twin scorching ray because it can target multiple foes. This clarification does not make your character illegal, and so no rebuild is warranted.
Thank you for playing in the Adventurers League and Good Gaming!
Ainulindalion wrote:
Skerrit wrote:
Mirtek wrote:
What is wrong with those AL admin? they want people to play there game and have fun, they refuse to clarify rule for a full years, letting us invest time and getting attach to our character and then bring an errata that destroy a few popular concept and they are asking thsoe player to restart from 0 or play a gimp character? After that people wonder why some player are loosing faith in AL and start to leave the program, start to go back to home game, start to go back to Pathfinder. it's because you cater and obey the oh all mighty role player and ignore everythign else. oh he lost 33% of damage, but the RP is not affected, he's fine NO IT'S NOT FINE IF MY CHARACTER DIE BECAUSE I CANNOT KILL THE MONSTER I CANNOT PLAY ANYMORE AND NOT PLAYING IS KIND OF BORING.
yes some of you al mighty role player you don't see the difference between scorching ray doing 2d6+5 per ray or adding the +5 to only 1 ray, but I got new for you, some player like to be optimized and loosing 33% damage is more then just "less optimize"
What if the errata would have say that you can no longer do race/class combo if the race you choose do not give a at least a bonus stat required to multiclass? all your gnome barbarian, tiefling druid and drow wizard would have been force to change to half orc barbarian, wood elf druid and high elf sorcerer, would you have been happy with the change? well this is the SAME thing for optimizer to loose 33% of the damage of a spell.
I really hope DnD 5e could have been good, I really wanted to liek DnD 5e. it had good potential, but the AL system had to try to control too much stuff, to please those who were crying to get a pure Role Play game without any optimization possibility. well gratz you got your stupid RP game where optimization is impossible, sadly some of your player base are optimizer and as they realise that you are removing all optimization choice they will leave one by one.
CahPahkah wrote:
QwertyAzerty wrote:
QwertyAzerty wrote:
RCanine wrote:
God forbid that a Role Playing Game (Rpg) focus on role playing.
(My introduction to D&D was from wargaming with cardboard unit counters on hex maps. I've done my share of number crunching and there remain lots of options for that.)
TheBreen wrote:
abanathie wrote:
TheBreen wrote:
The admins didn't make the eratta, but a lot of characters were spoiled by the eratta. The admins did however make it clear that they don't give two poops about the players who want to change their characters now.
If it was a home game and a player was doing a trick for a year then the DM decided it was too abusive what would happen? They would probably let the player retcon a new choice.
If they made an eratta that said 'your greatsword does 10 less damage on a hit' then people using greatswords would have a pretty good excuse to want to change weapons.
On the EA specifically, the various bigwigs were all over the place with how that ability worked.
Wizards already pretty crapped on in AL. This eratta just fixes 2 of their strengths that were poorly written,
without fixing their broken parts (potent cantrip).
RCanine wrote:
Byakugan01 wrote:
imaginaryfriend wrote:
Mirtek wrote:
TheBreen wrote:
Mirtek wrote:
Byakugan01 wrote:
7500 players seems a very small number, given the fact that some AL regions have had enough participation that the campaign staff had to create a new position (Senior Local Coordinator) to help coordinate those regions. On average, most stores participating in AL have between 1-3 tables running (2 average), with about 6 players + DM each. Megastores (such as mine) tend to have between 5-8 tables running with 6-7 players + DM per table. This is just for encounters.
I would say that approximately half of the FLGs are participating in AL as a conservative estimate, but for sake of argument lets say 25%. For simplicitly sake, lets assume each FLGs has one 7 player table (6 players +1 DM). The numbers add up quickly, even if you only count the continental US and completely ignore the rest of the world.
Furthermore, I should add that about 2-4 new LCs are being added to the program each day (some days we see 5 or 6 LCs join the program), which indicates the numbers are even higher than that. At present, it does not appear that the LC recruitment program is slowing in any regions, and that the program is in fact growing at a steady pace.
At my regional meeting this weekend, we had one new LC join our team; while our Strathmore LC expanded to 2 tables (in a community of only 12,305 people), and expects another 10-15 people in the near future. To expect a player base of ~20 - 25 people from such a small community is an excellent turnout, especially since Strathmore is only 30min outside of Calgary.
I would give a conservative estimate of the number of AL players to be somewhere around 50,000 - 75,000 world wide (but it could be much higher), based on an estimated 500,000 PHB sales the last time I checked. The AL participation may in fact be a larger percentage of the D&D community (possibly as high as 30-50%), as the Wed night Encounters is the most visible game that players could join; and participation in AL does not proclude players from also playing in home games.
I think it is a fair assumption that 10% of 5E games being run are AL
But think the actual number of players in the AL is a far higher % of the 5E community than total game volume (as many gamers play multiple games/week). I suspect that only 25% (or less) of the AL community plays AL games exclusively.
Kalani wrote:
Measuring the number of AL players is tricky because the AL supports so many play modes across many communities. So some dudes playing Rise of Tiamat at home may consider themselves AL players, but essentially be playing a home game that little resembles encounters or expeditions. Similarly, encounters DMs sometimes run far off the rails, or convert their games to home campaigns.
I was basing my estimates off those players who play at stores or other public places (not home games under the AL umbrella).
Yes I made some assumptions (well educated guesses actually), but my assumptions were based on direct feedback from various campaign staff as to how many tables were being run at X, Y, or Z stores in their area. I then extrapolated that information and made an educated guess, deliberately underestimating the numbers, based on the information I did have.
While I may not have exact numbers - I can make a much more educated guess than some people, as I have access to annecdotal data that many others don't. Either way, I made it fairly clear that it was an educated guess on my part, and that my conclusions were therefore an approximation at best.
Kalani wrote:
I don't really think this tangent into how many people/stores play AL is all that on point to the purpose of this thread.
I was going with the smaller number 3 of our 40 players.
The exact number does not really matter. I think 7.5% of something is a lot. A beer with 7.5% alcohol has a lot of alcohol in it.
Feel free to disagree that 7.5% of the players is an accurate representation. I suspect there were at least enough characters making waves with the abilities, otherwise there would have been no reason to bother with it.
What do you think the % is?
imaginaryfriend wrote:
Byakugan01 wrote:
Pauper wrote:
As I said previously (either in this thread or a similar thread), I had a handful of people since the games launch which would have been affected by this:
- One character that dual-wielded handbows (the player left late last season).
- 1-2 characters who used a handbow + shield....Such characters will lose 2 AC and remain perfectly viable.
- About 10 sorcerers (this season). I am unaware if any of them were using the scorching ray exploit, but if they were - I suspect most of them would simply shrug and move on (as most of my players are accepting like that).
- 0 Elemental Monks (of any level), let alone any 11th level Elemental monks with the errata'ed ability (there are only around 10 Tier 3 characters in my store, and they decided not to play Rise of Tiamat as an AL game - and are therefore illegal characters by AL standards).
- Several warlocks and MC warlocks. None of which used character level for the purpose of choosing invocations as I had previously informed my table DMs that this was most likely an editing oversight and that it probably meant "warlock level" like all other similar class abilities (eg. monk elemental disciplines)
Keep in mind I have some 60 odd players, many of which have multiple characters - and despite this, perhaps a handful are affected slightly by the ruling (and none of them are broken by it).
Pauper wrote:
imaginaryfriend wrote:
Mommy_was_an_Orc wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Byakugan01 wrote:
abanathie wrote:
Kalani wrote:
TheBreen wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Pauper wrote:
abanathie wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
New eratta is perfectly in line with my already implimented rule that that says "All your weapon attacks in a turn that hit after the first one do -5 damage.".
It wasn't a relevant rule until all the martial characters hit 5th level and all got multiattack. They are a it miffed that the rule does not apply to NPCs, though. Some of them wanted to retrain, but I had to inform them that retraining isnt allowed at 5th level.
Byakugan01 wrote:
devlin1 wrote:
Mommy_was_an_Orc wrote:
RCanine wrote:
Sorsohka wrote:
Mommy_was_an_Orc wrote:
RCanine wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Mommy_was_an_Orc wrote:
Byakugan01 wrote:
Xhaosdaemon wrote:
I actually find it funny how anyone could think spellcasters are maligned this edition - when all they have done is bring them down to the same ball-park as everyone else. Too many people get hung up on the Wizards Rule Fighters Drool and think thats how all games should be.
imaginaryfriend wrote:
devlin1 wrote:
So you guys think that martial classes built around dual wielding and multi-attacking would be much less effective if they did -5 damage on their bonus attacks?
It wasn't sarcasm, so much as empathy for the people who had something taken away, and were basically given the response of 'tough ****'.
But then again, at my table If a PC got nerfed by a signifigant portion by eratta, or if they leveled up and took a spell expecting it to work a certain way and my interpretation was different, i would gently remind them that rebuilding isn't allowed, but also that I do not have copies of their sheets and that my memory is -very- bad about such things *wink*.
I keep forgetting how to access the bookmarked page of -allowable summons- so I find it is just easier to look up the monster stats in the Monster Manual for them. Funny that.
RCanine wrote:
The easiest way of looking up the bookmarked page of allowed summons is to either look at the list in my sig, or look it up on the FAQ.
FAQ: List of Allowable Summons (by Spell/Ability)
Kalani wrote:
devlin1 wrote:
Kalani, thank you for trying to be helpful.
I wasn't actually asking for help...I have the page bookmarked and I participated a lot in that particular discussion...I like knowing what the rules are, even if I ignore them in instances where they are terrible.
Like the eratta...I don't have a problem with the 'nerfs'. All of the changes are easy to impliment and are reasonable changes from a balance perspective. But I have a big problem with the bold declaration that they don't give 2 chits about the impact it has on 'some' of the players. It would have cost them absolutely nothing to allow a character rebuild, and they can decide to do so at any time. As a DM, if a character sits down at my table with a legit character that played through HotDQ and RoT and they were dual wielding hand crossbows the whole time, or spamming scorching rays all day long, I am saddled with the crappy job of telling them their character is no longer valid. I am damn well not going to punish them for investing 40 or 50 thursdays(yes we play on thursdays) worth of time, traffic(some of our players commune over an hour), and putting up with the cra-cra folks that make up our awesome gamer community. It hasn't happened yet, but if it does I will let them retool their character to adjust to the change. I might even just let them finish the session with the 'old' rules with the understanding that they need to rebuild for the following week.
Half of my players are already begging me to just run a casual game because of the litany of things I can't 'allow' them to do because it's AL. 5e is my first OP experience, and I like it. It got me to become a DM for the first time ever. I want it to be a success. I also want it to actually be fun, so I am here on the forums sharing my meager opinions.
Byakugan01 wrote:
Byakugan01 wrote:
Byakugan01 wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Err... Why would you advocate for my players (or any player really) to purposefully seek out a bad gaming experience??
That and the fact that you imply Byakugan is the cause of his players unhappiness is not only insulting, but borders on defamation and character assassination.
I would be more inclined to believe that it is a case of group mentality - in which Byakugan and his peers are simply sharing their mutual unhappiness with the program, and in doing so - have developed a mentality where they have unintentionally warped their perspective to the point where their filters are wired to find displeasure/unhappiness in the program, rather than the alternative. Even if someone does see something positive, an environment of negativity will only drown it out and leave the person second guessing the thing they found enjoyable.
This is nobody's fault - it is simply how group psychology operates. It is so well documented in fact, that many companies make their living by promoting a certain group psychology in order to market their products (the beauty industry is a prime example).
Kalani wrote:
I don't automatically think you would advocate such... I guess my intent didn't convey in my wording choice (for which I apologize). Let me try and rephrase.....I was asking if you were advocating that Byakugan was the cause of his players negative perceptions - and if so, I consider that defamatory as there is no evidence to suggest he is the cause.
I then went on to say why it wasn't his fault (although he may be a factor in the group think - he is only one part of a whole which I know very little about). There may not even be a primary instigator of the negative perception, or there might be (I don't know either way and won't make suppositions).
Either way, I did not automatically assume the worst of you - and I apologize if that is the impression I gave. No harm?
Kalani wrote:
imaginaryfriend wrote:
I won't get into the topic of unsubtle insults and character assasination. Pretty easy to see what he was implying. Kalani already pointed ut out.
If you wanted some examples of what my players want to do. And please, you can just assume that when I say 'my' players that i simply mean the players that come and sit at my table. The last thing i try to do is poison their perception.
They want to make magic items.
They want to help each other craft armor for the fighters.
They wanted to keep flying hippogryph/vulture mounts.
They want to turn one of the keeps into a home base.
A warlock is very bitter that he claimed a driftglobe before he understood the 'cursed item' nature of all utility items in 5e.
They are frequently frustrated that there is no treasure. Both the low amount, and that random encounters are always pennyless.
6d6+5, and 6d6+15 is not just different math. Its a drastically worse attack. Avg 26 versus avg 36. That is nearly -30% damage.
Byakugan01 wrote:
Byakugan01 wrote:
Byakugan01 wrote:
imaginaryfriend wrote:
Byakugan01 wrote:
"So while I understand a player might feel nerfed, the reality is that Scorching Ray as you were playing it was not healthy for the game."
This is the main point I was trying to make. That some people would take it very personally and want to pick a different strategy because of the 'nerf'. In normal home games, the first thing you would do if you took something away from a character would be to let them make a different choice.
I don't really see how crafting magic items is difficult to figure out for OP.....it seems pretty simple to go with a 'power-based' rarity scale, with rarity determining both value, and tier required to craft. Our AL group has several hand-written certs floating around, and certs from say HotDQ that were given out in Princes modules because the other certs were gone. Not to mention that the certs in general are very poorly implimented/distributed. It is only really difficult if you designed your magic item system so that uncommon magic items that 1st level characters can obtain could do things like cast 7th level spells and then recharge afterwards. I am sure the designers wouldn't have done somethi......oh, wait they did. But this thread isn't about that topic.
I am beginning to think of AL as more like satire...like their rulings got cut/pasted from The Onion or they used a little spin-wheel or 'The cow says...' kids toy to decide their rules or something. I can picture a few guys and 1 girl in casual business attire sitting in a overly warm room with stale coffee and a lone motivational poster(probably with a cat on it)...and a clipboard with several post it notes stuck on it that say AL rules on it. One of them says 'Guys OMG I totally got this! We each put one of these stickies on our forehead and the last one that falls off is the rule we go with!".
The big question is where do you draw the line when it comes to accommodating players affected by the errata - especially when emotional expectations are involved. the admins drew the line at the point of making illegal characters legal
But with emotions involved - the line is arbitrary. Sure, many players might be happy if you let them retrain scorching ray (but to extrapolate your monk example) - what about those players who chose sorcerer just because of how scorching Ray worked.
Should they now be allowed to retrain their sorcerer levels to another class over a single spell?
Byakugan01 wrote:
My table recently finished Rivergard Keep, so i guess we are technically doing 'casual' play now, but that is exactly the same as official as far as i can tell, except there are no xp caps. That section had nowhere near enough xp to meet the suggested milestone so I am running the Ice Shield orcs side trek...with several extra orogs, and EoGs. The party was like OH crap spellcaster, kill it!! when they realized the multi-attacking great axe wielders in plate were blessed like they get every fight, lol.
The group has a balanced mix of newbies, min-maxers, and theatrical role-play types. My job is to figure out how to enable all of them to have fun. I just hit my 12th session as a DM, and they are still bringing me cookies. So hopefully i am doing something right! Heh.
RCanine wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Sorsohka wrote:
randl wrote:
devlin1 wrote:
Pauper wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
The inherent problem with that - is that if the module writers designate some items as "flavour" or "ok" - some players will be happy, and others will complain; both because some will see the item as "powerful" and should be "penalized" and others which think that a different item is weaker and complain why it was penalized when [random item they view as equal to or stronger than their favorite item] wasn't.
I can just see the exchange, too.
Human Fighter: Ha ha! The magic longsword goes to me, dwarf. Not you. Because you took that silly tankard last week!
Dwarf barbarian: Whatevs. This here tankard keeps my thirst at bay. What does that shiny new sword do for you?
Human Fighter: What... does it do for me? What does it...? Are you kidding? It enhances my ability to kill stuff!
Dwarf Barbarian: Huh. Well, I can already kill stuff pretty darn good. Even with just this here stick I found lying on the ground, for example. But can your new sword make free beer?
Human Fighter: ...
Dwarf Barbarian: That's what I thought.
Human Fighter: Wanna trade?
Kalani wrote:
Don't get me wrong, I prefer this system of most that I have heard of, and more than most of the 'suggested' replacements I have heard of. But the current system does have an issue with being 'stuck' with an item once obtained. That may be a 'necessary evil'.... or it may not.
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Sounds like apathy is at least partly to blame. Not necessarily the system.
DSZ wrote:
DSZ wrote:
@Skerrit
I would do so because once I had a lot of fun playing living greyhawk. And I would do so, because I met some awesome guys playing LFG.
Once a week I travel to another country in order to play with them. They do not play organized play any more but I would have never met them without organized play.
And it is the fond memory having an awesome time and a lot of fun which led me to posting here.
And I do so because my empathy lets me feel with others.
@Pauper
Writing "I do not creally care because I do not play AL." was probably not the best choice of words.
I care, because I care about humans having joy and fun.
I just wanted to counter, what I personally feel is a predjudice, that only those care about taking away something from others that are personally effected.
I wanted to counter/eliminate the thought, that I was sure would come to some peoples mind, that I must surely play a sorcerer in AL
to advocate the idea/have the opinion that the AL solution treats some players in an unfair, bad manner.
I would rather ignore the few black sheep and go with the majoity of innocent players than vice versa but each to their own.
And I would strongly advocate puting me on your ignore list if you feel the need doing so.
After all, you have the same right of having joy anf fun verybody else has.
For the moment, you're good. Still, it's pretty weird that you think the only way people can meet and enjoy Organized Play is to do so exactly the same way you did.
And if you read Skerrit's bio on the dndadventurersleague.org site, it's pretty clear he was around for LG and LFR as well. Why would his experience be any less valid than yours?
--
Pauper
Pauper wrote:
Well here is an example of the broken magic item system.
A Paladin claimed Staff of Charming from an expedition, over people who were actually capable of attuning to it, because wingwear. He plans to trade it for an actual item he can use months/seasons from now.
Byakugan01 wrote:
I agree with the AL ruling. First, addressing the portability of a character is a important, and that issue was addressed by the ruling. Second, the campaign staff has a full right to expand or minimize options to adjust to the errata. Allowing a wholesale rebuild is too soon, in my opinion, and not necessarily warrented by the scope of the PHB errata. The errata, the grand scheme of things, had a limited scope. Allowing something between those two extremes would cause issues in character tracking and would just promote a cycle of pursuing the next flavor of the month mentality with each errata release.
Ainulindalion wrote:
Byakugan01 wrote:
The spellcasters that could use the staff had wingwear...so they had 'more' magic items and couldnt roll. The newbies and people who aren't optimizing don't realize until it is too late that driftglobes and wingwears are cursed.
On the other hand, the paladin knows that there might be an item exchange in the future, or possibly just assumes there will be a mage in another party that claims a good weapon from a fighter because they can and that is how the system now works.
We're up to 2 tables out of our group now where the players only want to run expeditions now because thats where the magic stuff is. 5e is not going to succeed in untraining people's desire for phat lewtz.
Not to mention, it takes 5 seconds to find a website on your own now that lists all the magic items, so no need to ask. It was more difficult in 4e due to all the mods in year 1 and in Living Greyhawk, the web wasn't nearly as advanced.
(To be clear, I'm one of those guys that when someone starts to suggest, 'oh, you play an X, you should totally play mod Y because it is good for X', I cut them off at should and say, "I don't want any spoilers, ever...unless it is to warn me off playing a particular mod or particular DM because the experience will be horribly unfun.")
Byakugan01 wrote:
Byakugan01 wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Ainulindalion wrote:
Alright, explain how, within the rules as written, the table deals with Percy being a dick, when Percy is committed to this behavior?
Yes, in the future, they can refuse to play with Percy. That doesn't help them today.
How do we solve Percy being a dick today, before we stand up from the table, so that Joe gets the staff that Joe ought to have?
Ainulindalion wrote:
I agree with Pauper on this one.
That's saying something!
As a counter example - my table operates the way it should.
For example: the session before last saw our cleric take the +1 long sword because everyone agreed. Last session, we had the opportunity to acquire "Drown" a magical trident. Few members of the party could use the item - only the cleric, the fighter, and one other character.
The cleric wanted the item and was willing to trade the longsword for it if necessary (we have certs). The other character considered contesting it for quite a while, eventually resulting in a roll off (as both characters had 1 item).
Nobody else at the party contested it even though we had several characters with no magic items. The fighter (who had no magic items) did not even contest it - as he was a GWF type and did not have a use for the trident or longsword
. This, despite the fact that I made it clear to him that he could have the item if he wanted (both because he was item less and because a backup weapon vs creatures with resistance is better than none). He was new to the program and I didn't want him to miss out due to a lack of knowledge if he really wanted it. He still said "it's ok. Let one of them have it. I'm sure there will be an item I want later".
We do not have players at my table who take items to be a dick. This sometimes results in one character getting two items in a row - and sometimes results in them waiting for a long time.
More often than not - we decides who gets the item by group consensus. Even those who want the item, usually agree for one of the interested parties to get the item uncontested. We have only had 3 roll offs since the start of the program (in season 1)
Pauper wrote:
Yeah, that's great, Kalani. And totally beside the point. Which is completely off topic for the thread, but anyway.
Amazingly, when the rule operates like it should, at tables where all players understand the concept and the mechanics and how things actually work, it works well. Shock, awe, no one really cares about tables that work.
Tables that work aren't the problem.
Tables that are broken are the problem. People gaming the system because it can be gamed are the problem. People gaming the system because the system promotes being gamed conceptually (not in actuality) are the problem.
IF player[1:7].vote=X
THEN X gets the item
ELSE IF player[X].magicitemcount < player[<X].magicitemcount AND player[X].magicitemcount < player[>X].magicitemcount
THEN X gets the item
ELSE IF player[X].magicitemroll > player[<X].magicitemroll AND player[X].magicitemroll > player[>X].magicitemroll
THEN X gets the item
Byakugan01 wrote:
The DnDAL promotes community policing, not top down directives from Renton. If a player is constantly a problem, the local players will deal with it fair more effectively than anything WOTC could say.
Pauper wrote:
Why are we assuming that a player claiming a magical item is some kind of bad behavior? A magical item is a special reward for completing a given adventure, and the fact that it's valuable doesn't change whether you're hoping to trade it to Fai Chen, swap with some other adventurer at the next tavern, or wield it in battle.
Also, you're all ignoring the fact that magic items can be loaned within a given adventure. So that paladin with the Staff of Charming she doesn't use can loan it to the sorcerer every single session until the day comes when she finds somebody she wants to trade it to for keepsies.
I get that this is the internet and hysterically passing judgment on the play choices strangers is apparently 90% of what this forum is for, but this feels a lot like complaining for the sake of complaining.
Mommy_was_an_Orc wrote:
Skerrit wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Ainulindalion wrote:
Mommy_was_an_Orc wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Mommy_was_an_Orc wrote:
Personally, I view Ain's viewpoint as a legitimate viewpoint. In other words, he has a very valid point that is based on a relatively common situation. However, I don't think there are many improvements that can be made to the system without significantly altering the system. There are things like opening up a limited, non-convention magical item store that can tweak the current system and possibly alleviate the impact of bad situations.
I agree with AL; let local scene handle the situation. However, I do desire some minor tweaks to the system to lessen the impact of having to deal with these situations.
Sorsohka wrote:
Why can't they just ask designers to put in enough rewards so that nobody needs to feel left out? A menu of 3 or 4 options is not hard to do. (see orcsplitter)
Nobody is complaining that LMoP is too scrimpy on magic items...
But a lot of people in HotDQ were 30 sessions in wondering 'WTF are the magic items'!?
It is pretty nieve to think that people would not be abusing the rules to their limits. When the driftglobe was discovered, more than one person suggested how great it would be for the warlock, but some of the same people immediately started saying 'no dont use that we all have darkvision and the monsters will see us! They know what they were doing.
People frequently pretend they aren't reading ahead, but right before the lycanthrope encounter they suddenly remember how important silver weapons were to buy...or they let slip a name or location they havent been told yet etc. if that doesn't happen in your game, i think it is an exception rather than the rule.
Byakugan01 wrote:
Byakugan01 wrote:
Byakugan01 wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Undrhil wrote:
Undrhil wrote:
Played the Season 2 mod that awards the staff of charming as the treasure item -- we had one character at the table capable of attuning to it.
We all agreed that character should get the item, so he got it.
I'm not saying this proves the system works, but in our example, it clearly did.
--
Pauper
Really, I never encountered such players back when playing in person during LG/LFR and not even now while solely playing online (where you'd expect this behaviour to be more likely due to the increased anonymity) in AL.
I'd see more items left in the dust and not claimed by anyone than I seen actual roll offs for contested items. Even the roll offs were only between characters who really had an equal need, with characters with a slight less need passing in favor of those with slightly stronger need even if those had more items.
I've also seen a few items, that otherwise would have been left in the dust, claimed after the DM told that he actually had certs and would mail them to the player. Those were then explicitly claimed for purpose of trading at GenCon and no other player (who was not so fortunate as to attend GenCon this year) contested the claimant since maybe another non-GenCon opportunity to trade could come along. Rather the envy about goind to GenCon and good luck for the trading booth were the only statements
Am I really that lucky with my fellow players? I've also never seen the request to harm another PC asked without the best tactical intentions and never seen such a request being denied by the affected players (though I saw the best tactical intentions fail spectacularly more than just once)
Byakugan01 wrote:
Grief is a good descriptor....
Warlock: brings up being stuck with the useless flashlight every sesssion.
Warlock: this magic item is so bad I want to sell it and get rid of it.
Me: sorry that isn't allowed...
Warlock: What if I just leave it behind?
Me. it would be gone and you couldnt use it any more but it still counts against you.
Warlock: What if I destroy it?
Me: Still counts against you
Warlock: Can I trade it to the Paladin for the staff he can't use?
Me: sorry, the item can only be traded for an item of exactly the same rarity.
Warlock: Is there any way I can get rid of this stupid thing?
Me: starting a new character is the only way.
ie...magic items that aren't supremely useful are all 'cursed'. Actually they are more like artifact level cursed because even if you die and someone takes it from your corpse and you are later resurrected, say 10-15 years later, you still cannot be freed from their grip.
Actually...I guess Wish could probably do it...so you just need a wizard with his infinite simulacrum army to burn one of his infinite wishes for you....actually...I may have just found the BEST use for the Lich in the monastery EVER. Since I am allowed to change his spell list, I can just give him simulacrum and Wish....and if the party is nice to him he might bestow a Boon upon them!
Your made up scenario is weak. Why did the warlock even want the thing then if he didn't find it useful? Lame.
Beyond that.... all it means is he has an item he can't use. He can still get other items, and since you don't need any of the items to be effective, they are all 'icing' on the cake.
Chris, it isnt a made up scenario....it is happening at my table. Except for the dying and resurrection part.
Whether u need magic items or not is irrelevant. His fun is being ruined by a 'cursed' flashlight that he can't get rid of. He now understands he can't win a 'real' item until all the other guys claim items.
Byakugan01 wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
While they are often occluded by excessive posturing and misdirected anger, I absolutely agree that Byakugan has valid issues with the magic item system. I do not experience many problems, nor do a lot of other people. But most of those people like me have tables that are cooperating and don't make any kind of big whoop about magic item distribution. For those groups even a lack of any magic item distribution system would have probably worked fine. Now my personal preference would be that people who just cannot cooperate and/or need to game the system would just go away. But that is not likely to happen.
The current system is not making the dicks act in a social manner and it can create bad situations for players that play with a changing array of players. Tweaks would be good.
But the current system is not anywhere near as bad as it is being presented, and thusfar most suggestions towards fixing it amount to little moroe than "Here, use this system that guarantees more bettah phat lewts of their choice for players."
I hink we want to keep the parts of the system that work, even if they only work for the social majority.
And for the record, I still really like the idea of adding something like a one time enchantment of an item (armor/weapon/whatever) that you own to +1 through the faction system. Simple, limited in power and scope, and it gets rid of the "But resistant monsters!!!11!" argument.
I'm sure i won't be able to sleep a wink knowing Chris thinks I am lying about one of my player's dissatisfaction.
I'll sleep even worse knowing I am -so- ignorant about the distribution rules. I can't believe i missed the obvious answer that all the players in OP just need to have the same moral value system, and all only make characters that want different items from each other.
If a single person in a group says 'I want all magic items because (insert reason).' That defaults the entire system to lowest number wins. You only get to grant an item to a character if -everyone- agrees.
As long as we all are fully aware of the old addage, "Ignorance of the law excuses no one." Because that's the key. If this supposed warlock player didn't need (or want) the globe, why is he taking it? Just because a couple other players griefed him into it? That's lame. Lame that they are jerks for screwing with him and that he's clueless about what he wants.
Can there be problems when someone who is ignorant of the AL guidelines just blindly grabs stuff up they don't care about? Of course. I never said there wasn't a potential for a player to screw themselves over in some minor ways. In that regard, of course Byakugan01 has a theoretical point. But is it a terrible problem that needs immediate correcting? Haha. No.
I also enjoyed the fact that this thread had numerous examples of how to deal with something like this, but the Chicken Littles are still screaming fowl (hehe) without realizing the solutions are there. They just have to be willing to act on them.
Oh well, that's never stopped people from freaking out and panicing on the interwebs.
ChrisCarlson wrote:
imaginaryfriend wrote:
my association with the Internet predates the world wide Web by quite a bit.. Now, now, let's not antagonize the folks who'll be paying for our retirement.
--
Pauper
Pauper wrote:
abanathie wrote:
Ainulindalion wrote:
I live in the Netherlands. We already have death panels.. according to some people and/or news(ish) stations.. (we do not, but..oh well )
That and it is very unlikely any of the people on this forum will participate in paying for my retirement.
We’ve removed content from this thread because of a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
Remember, a community is a joint effort of all those involved, and while we want intelligent meaningful and productive banter to ensue we also need it to be polite and considerate of others.
Thank you for your time and support as we continue to try and make a great community for everyone.
Wow. Of all the posts to censor...
not sure how a PHB errata treath became a item distribution system tread, then became a discussion on retirement fund and death panel????
But the item distribution (at least this is still within AL admin power) do have multiple solution:
Dick player are everywhere, Ninja looter, loot **** etc... are concept that exist in every MMO game where loot is limited and need to be distributed, and you cannot hope that no ninja looter will play your game, because untill we legalize death penalty for being stupid, there will be stupid people in every aspect of the world, so we need to deal with them. Mc Donald need to warn "the coffe can be hot", in your cloth iron instruction booklet they need to specify "to not iron cloth on the body", and those sun blocker screen you put on the windshield of your car they have the instruction "to removed the sun blocker before driving the car".
Any system where you share the loot with the party, you find only 1 magical item and a party of 3-7 player need to decide who get it? yes some table will have no problems, but other table will be abuse, no matter how many rule, requirement etc.. you place (even if you say that you need profiency to get an item, the archer is proficient with greatsword so he can still take the greatswrod from the barbarian), Everyone if proficient with headband of intellect, but only the eldritch knight and the arcane trickser can use it best (the wizard should already have 18 Intellect and should have 18 intellect fairly soon).
Then if we have a system where we need to share 1 item between 3-7 player doesn't work, we can have a system like other OP:
- IIRC LFR is you found a longsword+1, anyone wanting the longsword+1 can have it, this is fair for everyone, but then you end up with high magic item level campaign, starting a arm race forcing the developper to great greater challenge, then the player who had less magical item will have a very difficult challenge.
- Pathfinder, all the loot youfind (including magical item) are sold back to the pathfinder society (in DnD could be sold back to the faction alliance) then the player is allowed to buy those item back. So if we find the longsword+1, at the end of the campaign anyone who want can spend 2000gp to buy it back (even if you found just one 4 player can buy it) This allow to control the among of magical item inthe world since if you control the among of gold you control how many magical item are bought.
- World of Warcraft tried multiple variety of loot system: between a greed/need roll, a master looter, round robin hood, token/point system, individualize random loot, etc...
Personally I believe a good system would be the token system (similar to what Qwerty talked about) a token system is:
- Easy to track; just got 1 number to track.
- Easy to control by the admin; since the admin can determine the priceof the items, the available item list and the number of token receive per adventure.
- Fairness between table: the number of player at the table no longer matter since everyone will receive a token, so 3 player table will have the same among of magical item per player then a 7 player table. This would even encourage bigger table, commpare to the current system that encourage smaller table.
- For those who want the thrill of "finding item" we could find magical item in module, give them back to your faction, and the faction learn to create that item and can add it to the item list there faction member can buy (similar to the pathfinder system).
- This system will fit everyone play style. You are an RPer and believe the tankard of ale is a better item then a longsword+1 then buy the tankards. your an optimizer and believe the longsword+1 is better then buy the longsword+1. You are an RPer who want the tankard but you won't be happy if the optimizer take the sword and do more damage then you? they your a dick stop crying and decide what is fun for you? drinking imagineray beer and dealing imaginery damage.
- Such a system can be hard to abuse (not impossible, just harder then the current system), since if done properly, most kind of abuse can be removed. Token hoarder can be penalized by putting prerequisit for some item. If you require a certain rank in your faction to buy a certain item, since rank require character level, renow and secret mission, you can prevent player from buying a very rare item by hoarding token, admin can simply not put an item in the available item list so if an item is consider a problem it cannot be bought etc... Yes true a sorcerer can still hoard his token, not buying anything untill he reach the appropriate rank then he can buy both staff of magi and robe of the archmagi, but he didn't benefit from magical item untill he reach the appropriate rank. Then if the item list change with the season, then hoarding token for an item in list A is risky since if you fail to obtain the token (or reach requirement) before next season the item lis tmight change and you loose your chance to buy that particular item. The fact that I buy an item do nto take anything away from your character. If you want to avoid arm race, then this is the admin job to avoid putting on the list item that would make the optimizer so much more powerfull then the RPer, so don't put the tankard of ale at the same price as an holy avenger. Put the tankard at 1 token, a weapon+1 at 5 token and a holy avenger at 20 token and require rank 4 with your faction and by the time the optimizer buy his holy avenger the RPer should had time to get a weapon+1 and be able to keep significant even comapre to the optimizer.
Optimizer will alway do more damage then the RPer, and this is normal and as intended, the RPer accept that fact when he decide that RP is more fun for him then high number, and the optimizer decide that high number is more fun. As long as the RPer is still relevant to the party there is no problem. so go ahead get your tankard of ale, while the optimizer get his longswrd+1, but even the RPer should buy the longsword+1 by the time the optimizer get a longsword+2, the RPer is still fighting life threatening situation and unless he RP a suicidal character, he should realize that he need good equipement to survive the ever greater danger he'll be facing, and where the tankard of ale is fun, in order to have fun using the tankard you need to survive the dragon in front of you.
Ok, I am going to correct you on a few details.
- We do not have any control over Item/Reward Distribution.
- The admins can (and do) inform Wizards of any issues with the program, and can offer suggested/proposed solutions - however, the final decision is made by WotC.
- This is a known issue, but one that will not be addressed until Season 4 at the earliest.
- Anyone who knows of the proposed solution to this issue is probably under NDA and unable to speak about it.
Kalani wrote:
Sorsohka wrote:
ok I'm sorry for my mistake then, but it doesn't really change my proposal, who ever decide how many and which magical item are inserted in the module, can determine the price, requirement and the among of token gain per adventure to suit there intent
Sorsohka wrote:
Kalani wrote:
RCanine wrote:
NDA's are all over the D&D space. Heck I lost count of the amount of NDA's I am or have been under.... Part of that no doubt is the volitility of the gamers community. Add to that the fact that Hasbro is a publicly traded company that NEEDS to have some strict governance in place. It may seem silly to us, does not mean the people inolved have much of a choice.
But thats all beside the real point so I will just get back to watching the attempts to influence the AL administration, through dismissing all but the very top management tier. I'll be curious to find out the success rate on that tactic.
Kalani wrote:
RCanine wrote: