So this is a bit of a rant so forgive me but i just need to share this. I was pretty enthusiastic about playing at organized play simply so i can enjoy being a player instead of a DM for once but i've done both sides of the screen and come to realize that adventurers league is poorly organized and designed to screw players and dungeon masters alike.
- Players are cutting deals with dungeon master's for loot of their choice. "Run this for me so I can get X and i'll run that for you so you can get Y"
- "Ill give you my certificate if you run X and give me that item that drops from it"
- Players are lying to get magic items they want ensuring new players to get squat. Sometimes whether they need the item or simply want to trade it away later. Magic items have become a player currency to buy and trade magic items from other players. Or they give the cert to another character they have that can use it. "I need this for my wizard"says the barbarian.
- Dungeon Masters are getting nothing for running games. The DM experience is miniscule and frequently too low.
- Since nothing in the DMG is technically allowed such as buying magic items, gold is nigh worthless. Players have had obscene amounts of wealth by level 5 and nothing to spend it on.
- Zhentarim characters are antagonistic to other players at the table frequently using their evil alignment as an excuse to sabotage the efforts of the table's would-be heroes. Our store is at least 50% Zhentarim players who do this.
- Organizers are not doing anything to help the situation.
- Our event organizer watches porn at the game table. There are tweens and kids running around the store.
This is just my rant that it feels poorly organized and there is so much competition over magic items i have been screwed out of magic items nearly every time by someone cutting a deal with the dungeon master or doing asshattery at the table that would get them booted from my home game without a second thought.
I really prefer 5th edition to pathfinder but pathfinder society seems to have their **** together when it comes to organized play. Many new players to the hobby have left the store never to return because of this bullshit or formed private games to not have to deal with everything I have detailed above. So far the experience has been very unpleasant for most of us.
Is AL poorly organized and full of terrible people, or your store?
Wow, your store seems off the rails. This is very different from the experiences I have had. You should consider taking your complaints to WOTC customer service.
Ocule wrote:
Magic item distribution needs an overhaul. Yeah i really do hope that it is just my store its the only location near me that i know of that does adventurer's league because neither me nor my players really want to go back.
I don't wanna say "it's just your store" but surely there can't be (m)any other stores where organizers are watching porn openly during store hours o_O
He was right there at the table, as a player in the open in front of everyone. >_>
Ocule wrote:
Definitely try another store if possible. I've played at three different stores and had much better experiences than you are describing. I agree that you should also let WOTC know what's happening at this store, although I'm not sure what they can do about it.
Sounds like a big problem with the store. That sort of thing would not fly for a second at the store I play at.
I do agree that DMs need better incentives to run the games. If I were running things I'd at least have progressive goals (every x hours/sessions you run you get y incentive) to provide less of a temptation to resort to collusion to advance your characters.
Part of this issue is also, in my opinion, a societal descent into the acceptance of corrupt behavior. AL works on the honor system. What you're describing is a place where honor means nothing. I wouldn't play or, heaven forbid, take my kids, to a place like that
Ocule wrote:
Heck. Get a petition going around and get signatures of everyone who has been offended at that store and give a copy to the store owner, making them aware that these are dollars walking away. The store owner, hopefully, will step in from there.
Skerrit wrote:
Ocule wrote:
Aribeth wrote:
I can tell you my store is not as bad as yours. but there is still some problem with "loot whores" who no matter what the item is they say "I want it" so we are handing up with a barbarian wearing a headband of intellect, a bard who NEVER used stealth with a cloak of elvenkind (giving you advantage on stelath and disavantage to opponent perception to see you), a fighter using heavy armor with a bracer of defense (+2 to AC if you wear no armor) and a wizard with Harizawn (a sentient greatsword) or and a melee rogue drow with the goggle of night vision (because he want to throw his daggers at 180ft in the darkness?)
I know that some online MMO had problem similar to this (a wizard who cannot wear heavy armor rolling NEED on heavy armor because he NEED the enchanting material you get from destroying the item or the gold from selling/trading it) So the game developper included codes in the game where if you cannot use the item you cannot roll NEED (in a system where NEED>GREED>PASS) and the fighter cannot roll on Intellect light armor since fighter don't use cloth armor and don,t use intellect.
How hard would it be to add in the AL module (leave home game open and free) a code saying what class can roll on this particular item.
The rule would be somthing similar to this:
1- If ALL player agree to give it to a player then that player receive it.
2- If there is no concensus with ALL players, then the DM ask to the player who want the item and who can used it (based on these following criteria) roll for the item (here we need to trust the DM to understand these guideliines) If multiple player match those priority listing (so we have 2 sorcerer currently with less then 22 charisma who want a cloak of Charisma 22, but one of them already got a ring of protection+1 while the other one got nothing, then the one with nothing get the magical cloak)
-Priority to player already using this type of item: so if you find a magical greatsword (heavy two handed weapon) and you have 2 fighters, one sword and shield and one using a heavy weapon (greataxe, great maul, greatsword, glaive etc...), well the player already using a heavy weapoon will have priority over tthe sword and shield one.
-Priority to player using those stats as main stats: For item like a cloak of Charisma 19 priority to paladin, sorcerer, bard, warlock (main stats charisma) but if the player already got 18-19-20 Cha he cannot roll on that item (since the cloak will have no effect on someone who already have 18-19-20 on that stats). If it's a cloak of Charisma 22+ then priority to paladin, bard, sorcerer warlock (no particular order) doesn't matter on the actual stat so the paladin with 14 Charisma do NOT have priority over the sorcerer who already have 20 since 22 will give a bonus to both class.
-Priority to player already filling that job: so a cloak of elvenkind (advantage on stealth and disavantage on opponent perception) if a rogue and a bard want it, the rogue is always running ahead scouting, hiding, in combat he always use his cunning action to hide in combat to gain advantage etc... and the bard who is alway singing out loud (not even trying to stealth), well the rogue should receive it (and if the group meet a place where the entire group need to cross an obstacel stealthly, nothing is stoping the rogue from letting the fighter borrow the cloak to cross the obstacle. Item that can be used by everyone (Ioun stone +1AC for example) once again should go to who will use it the best. between the front line monk who's alway in melee and the sorcerer who alway stay 100 feet away from combat casting spell like shield/mage armor, misty step to stay away from ennemies, greater invisibility to not get targeted etc... well the monk should receive it instead of the sorcerer since the sorcerer already never get hit, while the monk constantly get attacked being constantly in melee.
-You loose priority if: you already have a similar item of a better item (or a race/class feature with similar effect. for example 2 fighter using a full plate and fighting in melee want the full plate +2 that they found. One of them is using a full plate +1 while the other is using an adamantium full plate +1 (immune to critical damage) the fighter with the adamantium full plate +1 loose priority (but he could trade his adamantium full plate+1 with the other fighter in exchange of the full plate +2). Or the group find goggle of darkvision, a human and a elf want them. the elf already got darkvision 60ft, compare to the human with no darkvision, so the elf loose it's priority over the human. But an gnome VS a drow, the drow loose over the gnome (since the drow already got 120ft)
Like I said if ALL the player agree to give the Ioun stone to the sorcerer instead of the monk or to give the cloak of Charisma to the barbarian instead of the sorcerer, then this priority list have no value since you group used the first rule: if ALL the players agree.
3- Then If no player have priority (a headband of intellect 19 drop but you have no wizard, no arcane trickster and no Eldritch knight) or none of those with priority want the item, then the player with the least number of item get it. If there is a tie roll for it (as it is now)
This new model is on teh basic the SAME thing that we have now. If the player agree, the player choose without any DM involvement. If more then 1 player want the item and do not agree in giving it to the other, then instead of going directly to blind randomness loved by loots **** since they can simply roll on everything untill they win (and we end up with a group having useless magical item) we now have some filters to help honest player getting item the will help them. No longer can the wizard roll to get a greatsword for his barbarian, no longer can the rogue roll on the staff (that can only be attune by a druid) so he can trade it to the DM etc... This should greeatly improve the satisfaction level of the public game participant (I know myself that if I see some player sitting at the table I'm not playing (which SUCKS) because I know those player brought a new character AGAIN, so they can roll on the magical item. Those "loot ****" always bring a new lvl 1 character the week following a week they obtain an item (so there item cound stay at 0 all the time) and I have a feeling that they will magicaly have just as many character level 5 with 0 magical item so they can roll on EVERY item from tier 2 adventure.
To prevent this, I would advocate you can only have 1 character per table per tier of play.
By "per table" this mean that the wednesday night when you join your friend at the table 1 you cannot bring a new character EVERY week, but if you play mulltiple game in your week (table 1 on wednesday, table 2 on friday and a home game with friend on Sunday) you can have 3 different character.
By "per tier of play": at the moment there is 4 tier of play (lvl 1-4, 5-10, 11-15, 16-20) from level 1 to 4 you can change your character as much as you want (except for the equipement and name) so Jimmy join our table with his rogue lvl 1 and obtain the goggle of night vision, the following week Jimmy bring the SAME rogue decide he doesn't like rogue, he cannot make a new character, he need to play with this SAME character, but he can change hie class rogue for fighter if he so desire, he can change his halfling race into a drow if he so desire but he need to keep the goggle of night vision (but could trade them with someone who now need them). Then the following week he realise he still don't like fighter, so he can re-train druid (but still keeping his goggle of night vision, and he doesn't like druid, but he like the spell list, so he'll go try cleric instead and here he foudn his perfect class Jimmy love cleric, and he didn't "ninja" every item in the pass 4 week. by the time he reach lvl 5 (for tier 2 game) Jimmy shoul dknow what he like to play so he shouldn't have to change class/race every week. Once he reach lvl 5 with this cleric, he can create a new character level 1 but this character level 1 will be stuck at level 1 untill his cleric lvl 5 reach lvl 11 (so that way he cannot ninja more loot from the tier 2 adventures.
This way this shoudn't impaired honest player (they can still change caracter untill they find what they like, they can still play multiple different game using different character) but will block loot **** from abusing the system by creating a new character everytime they get a magical item so they can hoard all the certificate, and by rolling on item that their character will NEVER be able to uses, just so he cna have the certificate and trade it later with a different character.
Judge rewards need some luv...
QwertyAzerty wrote:
"If LFR is any indicator"
I really liked the late-run LFR treasure rewards which basically said "pick anything useful to your character out of Adventurer's Vault 1 - 2 that is your Level or less. Write the item here:__________". Doing this again would be easier to deal with than handing out certs for items by name.
Skerrit wrote:
BRJN wrote:
(removed obvious baiting.)
To everyone part of this discussion,
I almost forgot i started this thread. no i was just kind of missing the way pathfinder society set it up to where you recieved a gold amount at the end of each adventure and the experience system was modified for organized play. You leveled every 3 adventures. It was simple enough, plus you get gold at the end of the adventure for completion and any bonus objectives earned and any magic items you found became unlocked for you to buy at any point. It is very gamey but for an organized play i think it served it well. As of right now the magic items ive seen mostly involved the DM rolling a random number on a dice if a deal has not been struck ahead of time.
The system as it is now encourages this level of asshattery because magic items are tradeable, and the rules as written for adventureres league punishes you for having magic items in number. So things like Wand of Detect magic ive seen get thrown in the trash every game because it would give them too many magic items and would weigh equally when the character found something like armor, a trinket, a weapon, or something that cant be done for free as a ritual anyway. The extra responsibility on the DM is great for home games but requires a bit more of a heavy hand when it comes to organized play as many of the DMs i have seen are very unfair in their distribution especially with players all vying for loot regardless of its use to them. The DMG does have rough expectations in terms of how much loot if you look under "Tiers of Play" as well as in the treasure section for loot hordes it tells you how many hordes they should run across give or take.
Kalani wrote:
Aribeth wrote:
This may be yet another case where organized play might not be the right game for everyone -- the types of item distribution systems proposed would be great for a home game, but unworkable on the level needed for an extensive, world-wide OP program.
Ocule wrote:
RCanine wrote:
Aribeth wrote:
Avross wrote:
I’ve removed content from this thread because of multiple violations of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code of Conduct here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
Undrhil wrote:
Yeah, at most tables, a roll-off is perfectly acceptable and most players will abide by it. Each person rolls a d20 and whoever rolls highest gets the item. Done.
Back on topic: I mean i do appreciate the effort of having an organized play but I think it does require a few decisions that work better for facilitating strangers. Currently the guidelines are little better than just run Rules as Written whenever possible and distribution is done very similar to home games. In home games you have to deal with that player each week and the DM has freedom to to fix item distribution if a player finds it unfair so there is more incentive to collaborate. The current system reminds me of MMO play where you roll need, greed or pass so we are getting the same kind of behavior of trying to "Need" everything. Except you can lawyer the DM on top of it. But just like MMOs you have players who only get 1 shot at an item then they roll up new characters just to play through it for the item they actually desire. Which I've also seen frequently because if it only counts your current character these new characters whose only purpose is to farm items in those tiers are taking it from players who it is their first play of that adventure. So im really in favor of allowing magic item purchasing once the items have been unlocked through play whether its for finding it in the adventure or having enough renown to open the resources up to you. Spend 10 days of downtime, and pay the cost relative to the item's rarity as per the DMG to track it down. Consumable items are at a reduced price. This would keep magic items as standard fantasy levels and ensure that everyone gets a fair shot at any given item.
Also the Zhentarim really shouldn't be playable. Ive been reading up on forgotten realms lore and their lore makes it a stretch for them to be working with the other organizations and I wouldn't even let players in a home game play Zhentarim characters unless i trusted them as good roleplayers that aren't going to use it as an excuse to kill the fun of the other party members.
If a DM runs a DMPC, the DMPC gains no awards (outside of DM experience). They do not gain a share of treasure, and do not gain any XP from the module themselves. DMPCs count as NPCs in AL, and should only be used if the party is in need of NPC assistance. This has been clarified previously by the admins in response to a question on the forums.
I sincerely hope it is also listed on the dndadventurersleague.org website, but I would not fault someone for being unable to find it (its not the easiest website to navigate unless you already know what you are looking for).
Undrhil wrote:
Undrhil wrote:
I would like to remind everyone that thread discussions are open to all forums users and any attempt to discourage a particular user from participating in a discussion can be considered a violation of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code of Conduct here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
Quite frankly, I think the problem of fighters rolling on staves is self-correcting under the current AL rules, in that those players will be much less likely in the future to get another magic item and they're stuck with having chosen a +1 AC staff when they could instead have gotten something more valuable.
That isn't to say that the current AL rules are perfect, but I think a lot of people on this thread are showing a basic misunderstanding of how the current system is meant to work.
Ocule wrote:
Oraibi wrote:
Oraibi wrote:
madscientistlabrat wrote:
When you block someone, all it does is hide their posts from you. It does nothing to censor their ability to post in a thread. If someone quotes them in thread, you will still see the quoted text, but you won't see when the blocked person actually posts.
Blocking someone does not bar them from the thread. That level of censorship would be going too far and could be easily abusable.
I’ve removed content from this thread because of violations of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code of Conduct here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
Oraibi wrote:
Oraibi wrote:
Aribeth wrote:
Ocule wrote:
Here's the interview with the Harper faction contact: http://dndadventurersleague.org/2015/01/conversations-with-olisara-lightsong/
In it, she specifically mentions why they work with the Zhentarim. The Order of the Gautlet Interview should be out soon as well.
Skerrit wrote:
Skerrit wrote:
Mommy_was_an_Orc wrote:
Skerrit wrote:
Skerrit wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Mommy_was_an_Orc wrote:
Oraibi wrote:
Kalani wrote:
You missed my point. Yes the game assumes you will find magic items..... The game's MATH however, does not. It is built on the assumption you have zero +X items. If you have one, congratulations - the game just got easier.
A game whose math assumes a certain scaling frequency of +X items requires players to gain said +X items to remain on par with the system math (IOWs, the players are forced to run an item treadmill which scales with difficulty without making any progress). 5E is not such a system.... 4E was such a system taken to the extreme.
Look at both systems and you will see what I am referring to. In 5E, Armor Class does not scale just because a creature is higher level. It scales based on the difficulty to penetrate said armor, with most creatures (even at higher level) having between 14 and 20 AC. In 4E, a level 1 creature might average 15AC, while that same creature scaled to L20 might average 20AC. See the difference?
The same applies in respect to Attack Bonus and Saves.... Many high level monsters have Save DCs, and Saving Throws in the 15-20 range, while AB scales slightly with level (but at a much flatter curve compared to 3.5 or 4E, in which the discrepency can be as much as +20 or more).
Kalani wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Actually, I am not wrong. The math does not change regardless of magic items. A +1 weapon is relevant at all levels (+5% accuracy, +1 damage). It does not experience diminishing returns. The fact that a +2 weapon is superior is irrelevant.
In 4E a +2 weapon is worth +2 at 1st-9th level (+10% accuracy, +2 damage). At 10th level, it diminishes in value so that it is equivalent to a +1 weapon, as the games math scales by +1 across the board. At 15th level, the game's math again scales up by +1 across the board, so that your +2 weapon is now equivalent to a mundane weapon. At 20th level, it scales again so that your +2 weapon is now equivalent to a -1 weapon, (-5% accuracy, -1 damage)..... I could be off on the exact levels in which this occurs (as I have not played 4E in over 2years), but the general idea is there.
At 30th level, a +5 weapon is essentially no different than a +1 weapon was in the hands of a 5th level character, due to the extreme diminishing returns built into the 4E system math - and it wasn't just reserved for monsters either. Skill DCs increased across the board as well with increasing level, which many players found jarring and out of sync with reality. Why should the DC to unlock a door increase just because the PCs are higher level? Oh its because high level PCs no longer encounter regular doors. Now, every door they unlock is inexplicably an enchanted adamantine door with a diamond combination lock...... um, what?
In 5E, a +2 weapon is always equivalent to a 10% accuracy boost, as the game's math does not scale. HPs and proficiency bonus increase, and monsters gain new and more powerful abilities, but the game's inherent math does not scale simply because the party is at X level. As I stated previously, many high level opponents in 5E have less than 15AC. The same is not true in 4E, with even a goblin minion gaining a +5 bonus to AC simply because it is a 20th level minion.
If you don't believe me, look at both systems yourself and you will see the clear difference in math scaling. This was a key component of the bounded accuracy system the Dev's discussed at length during the playtest, and which is still clearly visible in the final product.
You are looking at a single passage of text and taking it out of context, while I am looking at the underlying mechanics of the game. 5E math simply does not take magical items into account. In fact, it barely takes proficiency bonus into account, using static DCs, and static defenses regardless of whether the challenge is faced by a 1st level party, or a 20th level party.
The one thing I'm getting from the last several posts is that I'm really glad I never played 4e. 
I like the system 5E uses.... Having a magic item should make the challenge easier than it would otherwise be. You shouldn't be expected to have magic items just to remain par with the expected difficulty. Increasing in level (and gaining increased proficiency bonus and/or ability score increases) should make opening a lock easier than what a rookie can accomplish. PCs should feel epic, and that they can accomplish epic tasks while trivializing easier tasks.
Kalani wrote:
Using the chart for random treasure distribution to indicate that the designers think that players should have the equivalent of magic item X by level Y makes no more sense than looking at the random dungeon table and coming up with the notion that designers think dungeons should be designed in a certain way. Those charts are there to help DMs who need to make up something. I really doubt that the people who design adventures for AL use them
That said, while the math has been designed without taking magic items into account I also doubt that the people who make the AL modules use things like totalling monster CRs to build encounters. They use experience to build encounters that they feel will make for a compelling adventure and that will provide a certain amount of challenge. I am fairly certain that part of that process takes into account the number of magic items that they feel the average player will have. Even if they didn't you simply cannot argue that a character run by a DM who has no items won't be at a bit of a disadvantage compared to the people who have played their characters through a dozen levels and who have the magic items they have earned over that period.
I'm not saying that the current system is an unmitigated disaster or anything like that. I am simply saying that under the current system a character who has been levelled up because his player has been doing a great deal of DMing is going to be at a disadvantage when compared to a character who has levelled up through the traditional route and who has several magic items.
Is the DM character completely neutered and ineffective? No. The new edition is much 'flatter' than previous editions in terms of power creep. I was able to jump into a game as a brand new first level ranger when the other characters were fourth level and I was able to feel like I was contributing. Likewise if I was to jump into a game with twelth level characters and I was playing a character who had no magic items I am sure I would still feel like I was able to contribute. That said, I would still be weaker than the other characters. There's just no way you can argue that I wouldn't be.
In short, yeah, there probably should be some kind of change made so that people who DM a significant amount don't fall too far behind other players. I don't think it is such a significant issue that it requires the use of an exclamation mark in the thread name or is anything to rant over but by the same token I think pretending that it's a complete non-issue sort of does a disservice to DMs. These are the people who make it possible to play and it's not an easy job.
PFS has way better magic item management for organized play. I'm with this person I like DnD Next better than PF rule system, but.....
"Dungeon Masters are getting nothing for running games. The DM experience is miniscule and frequently too low."
I agree 100% in PFS you actually got more than the players, they need to fix this if they want to encourage people to DM
"Since nothing in the DMG is technically allowed such as buying magic items, gold is nigh worthless. Players have had obscene amounts of wealth by level 5 and nothing to spend it on."
again I agree, my group is playing through Horde of teh Dragon queen and I am DMing them. They are 6th level and have no magic items they can use. They can't sell the +1 leather (which is the same ac as studded leather.. pffft) I think they need to allow players to buy Magic items.... maybe do like PFS and allow +1 items at a certain level and +2 at another level.
I know magic is less common now, but still a lvl 10 character should have some bloody magic items! even if only +1!!!!!!!!!
The system is so broken I'm thinking about scrapping teh AL and going back to PFS... or maybe just running home campaign DnD next, but we really like playing our characters at CONS...
Just seems very broken you have nothing to do with the gold and you can't even SELL magic items and/or buy magic items...
I'm not saying buy all magic items, limit it! But let a 10th lvl guy buy a +1 item! comon!
(As for the original posts thing about Zhents and porn and all that... that's all on his store... I haven't seen anything like that.)
Mommy_was_an_Orc wrote:
MATT_STUDER wrote:
Depending what you are running.
LMoP got something like 12 magical item? and some of them are very powerfull (staff of defense give +1AC, 10 charge to cast mage armor and shield), Hew (+1 battle axe that do Max damage against wood object and plant creature), gauntlet of strenght 19 (useless for PC who's main stat is strenght (like barbarian) they they most likely already got 18 at that point, but for a cleric who might still only have 14 in strenght, or a paladin who decide to focus on his charisma first, might found this gauntlet very handy) breatplate (best medium armor) +1 and dragon breath resistance (in a story arc all about dragons)
HotDQ got 1 item in chapter 5 but you need to do everything perfectly to find it, then 1 in chapter 6, then 1 in chapter 7, then you have many in chapter 8 (last chapter)
The DDEX give you 1 magical item per 600XP (an advanture give you a maximum of 600Xp and usually if you do everything you receive the magical item)
In LMoP and HotDQ, being one big adventure, people try to come everyweek to continue the story they began and there for the item can be distributed easily.
In DDEX being modular, some people change character every week (when playing tier 1 games) or they show just once per month and new player join and leave, so you might need to run 7 adventure, if you want your core group of 4 players (those there every week) to each have an item (since the other item get lost on player who never come back or player who change constantly of character.
For the most part, I like the magic distribution system in AL. I like that you don't always find exactly what you want, magic becomes something really cool, instead of an Amazon order form.
I think there is room for some "+1 Weapon" items, where the DM/Player gets to decide what it is; but the special items should stay as they are.
BUT....... I do have a suggested improvement:
1) When it is time to allocate the magic items, all of the unassigned items are put into a 'pool' of items.
2) Every character has a chance to 'give away' his items to go into that same pool.
3) Items are now allocated based on the current AL system.
Note A: Once you give them into the pool, they are no longer yours, you may or may not get them back. In some situations, you may lose them and get no item in return.
Note B: This may necessitate modifications to the Certification system.
The idea behind this is to allow folks to take less-useful items without fear they cant' get what they want later.
My example is the Tankard of Plenty in HotDQ. It would be a fun magic item to have on occasion. Not *really* fun, but at least interesting. But... is it worth not getting a later, better, item?
With the above proposal, I could toss it back into the pool, and have a shot at the +1 longsword...
Skerrit wrote:
QwertyAzerty wrote:
All legal for the DnDAL: Tyranny of Dragons books (HotDQ and RoT), the starter set (LMoP), ALL the Expeditions adventures (10 right now), ALL the Epics (1 right now).
Thats another thing, DMs are running just the episodes that loot dump. Didn't have to play anything up to it beforehand just hop right in and grab all the loot. Its been said plenty of times that the game functions well from 1-20 without a single magic item. So its getting even more off when you have a small handful of players glowing like christmas lights because of all their new shinies. Now that the whole book of HotDQ is available im sure people are just running the episodes that have the treasure hordes. I would like to see some more official responses regarding the organization of AL and addressing these issues.
Sounds like gamers gaming the system, to me. Kinda like cheating in a board game with your friends.
Yeah no one will likely notice, and sure it might make you feel good. But does it really accomplish anything, considering you risk alienating others?
But hey, people are weird, and some would likely brag about that sorta thing!
Ocule wrote:
Timborama wrote:
I'd be interested to see what kind of rules you would actually write. Organized play is really, really hard to organize especially on a worldwide level.
Ocule wrote:
Ocule wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
You realize people run more than a single character. You can only run once so running and then trying to take loot for another character or something of no use to them but to trade to another player is what is actually occuring. Didn't you read the thread.
The AL-created content, however, has a decent distribution of magic items, 0 or 1 per adventure, and thus are just fine. I mean someone could cherry-pick to run only the ones with magic items, but that isn't a big problem -- players with enough choices (e.g. large game store, a con, etc) can already cherry-pick what they want to play!
So, it doesn't seem like a big deal. Hopefully the problems in HotDQ will be solved next season.
How is players playing games and trading items (legally, with a cert, I assume) hurting you, anyway? Do they exclude you from this activity? If so, that sucks -- but the AL rules can't force anyone you play with to be your friend.
Ocule wrote:
Oraibi wrote:
Oraibi wrote:
RCanine wrote:
Ocule wrote:
Oraibi wrote:
Ocule wrote:
The 'penalty' for taking an item, is you don't get first dibs on the next item. So sure the mage can grab the magic chainmail he can't use; but then he won't get the Winter Wand from the next adventure.
Just a bit ago we had a long thread about how people were leaving magic 'in the dirt' because they wanted to wait for just the right one. Now we have a thread about people taking things they don't want....
And the mage can only get that magic armor if he has (or is tied) for the least amount of magic in the party... he can't do it every time.
I guess he may be hoping to trade it, but honestly that isn't a big problem so far. It might be in the future, but this all strikes me as arguing over hypothetical situations.
RCanine wrote:
My Dragon Sorc picked up a Wand of Magic Detection in a mod previously. Tonight, we ran through a mod that had a Ring of Fire Resistance. I would have loved to have gotten that ring, but since I have this wand, I can't take an item.
What's worse is that I might never play at a table where everyone else has a magic item. I might always end up being unable to take an item since the other players have been deciding to not take items when they played through mods. Or, simply because there are going to be people who simply weren't lucky enough to get an item.
What happens if I everyone passes over a magic item? Does that item then come up for grabs to someone who already has a magic item? I know it's a corner case, but it's possible that the other players might all decide to pass up on something which seems lackluster to them. If that happened and I have a magic item, would I then be unable to take the item, if no one else chooses to take it? The DM doesn't have to force the item on someone, right?
Undrhil wrote:
Yeah but why is it necessary to have items that should be passed up by everyone at the table. Its just kind of absurd in a metagame sort of way. Like the wand of detect magic is basically a trap that would deny a new player something they actually wanted later on. Especially when an item does drop the entire party jumps on the item like the last cup of water in the desert justifying in any way they can on why it should be their character that gets the item.
Well, if someone was playing the math they could always create a main character and load them up with the useless discarded items, providing they come with tradable certs. Then, the player could create a lot of satellite characters with no magic items and aim for the good stuff, trading it onto the main character. Such a system would only work if you have access to certs, and are running the good treasure runs on a regular basis (to increase your odds of scoring the item u want).
Is it metgamey to abuse the intent of the honor system this way - sure, but some people would do it regardless, and it is the only way to really profit off the discardable trash items.
That is, unless you are clever with your use of items..... A fighter (or even wizard) with a wand of detect magic (pretty sure that doesnt require attunement by a spellcaster) may seem like a waste, except that it allows the wizard to cast another magic missile or shield.
In a party with a detect magic warlock however, it is definately a waste. In a party without said warlock, it saves party resources for better spells.
I’ve removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting/personal attacks are violations of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code of Conduct here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
Undrhil wrote:
Let me start off... here is a way to Abuse The System....
You and your 3 friends ( Tim, Bob, Mary, John) each create a character and go to AL.... you run all the way through LMoP, then run HotDQ from 5-8. You give *all* of the Magic to Tim.
Now you all create another new character, those 4 run through LMop then HotDQ, give *all* of the Magic to Bob.
Do it 2 more times, for Mary and John.
Now you can make a party of 4, where each character has every available magic items from the adventures.
Is anyone actually concerned about this...???
(Of course, still only have uncommon items... if they start adventuring together...what happens with the first Rare item..??
Kalani wrote:
RCanine wrote:
No, it's not actually abusive, but it can look that way when the bard takes his perfectly 100% legal AL character to a convention next weekend.
Really, my point was mainly to be aware of making too many assumptions. That character with lots of magic could be perfectly legit.
Frankly, most of the theoretical abuses I've seen would be way too much work for any but a dedicated cheater. And there's a way easier way to cheat: simply convince the DM to give you the certs out of hand. You need to collude with fewer people, and if the place gets more packets of certificates than they end up running tables, no one else would ever know. Since your logsheet can say whatever you want it to, and doesn't need to be signed by anyone, you'd be free.
Of course, you'd still be a dirty rotten cheater.
RCanine wrote:
RCanine wrote:
TheBreen wrote:
Although I think your suggestion has merrit, it is a little clunky as written. I wouldn't change the cert situation however. You simply fill out the tradelog as normal for the item that got returned to the pile. Once both slots are full, the item locks to its current owner.
Coredump00 wrote:
How about this for a solution that exchanges access restrictions for inventory limitations? Each player may take a copy of permanent magic items available, but can't have an amount of permanent magic items greater than one half of their character level, rounded up. An approach like that maintains control of the overall magic item economy while eliminating a metagame that encourages you not to play together if two people are going into the adventure wanting the same item.
RCanine wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Kalani wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
TheBreen wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
Ocule wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
There are 2 players in our 6 man group that dont have a magic item yet. My wizard and our warlock.
Someone spoiled that there is a magic staff somewhere before the end, so my mage is passing on anything else until then. From what i gather there are a few other weapons and a couple sets of armor along the way. So it is likely there will be several characters with 2 magic items before i get my first one.
I dont know if thats good or bad. But i know i will be super pissed if the warlock gets the fire staff over the evoker wizard.
Byakugan01 wrote:
ZHDarkstar wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
I guess that I should've phrased that better. I hate it when a system creates a metagame situation that can take the mood of a table south quickly. I would rather have a system where the wizards in the party didn't turn into politicians campaigning the table for votes because a Headband of Intellect was the magic item of the week. Tonight, I had to move players around at the tables I organize to prevent that from happening. One table originally had three wizards, while the other had no one with Int as a primary/secondary stat. I hid the move under the guise of party balancing, but it was really to prevent excessive argument and debate.
I dont think anyone in the party wants to split up the table...not just for an item. I mean we only have like 5 DMs at our LGS and a couple unreliable backups. Every table runs 6-7 players.
Plus how is a party of 3 supposed to finish HotDQ? We need each other to not die horribly. The encounters seem to usually be either trivial or deadly. Not much middle ground.
I'll definitely be pointing out that i can 'best' utilize the big bang staff. Pretty amazingly great for the evoker with spell shaping, actually. If the warlock contests it then ill have to hope the GM agrees with me.
If i lose i will be very mad, but eventually something as good will show up and then it'll be my turn.
Byakugan01 wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Ironically, the headband of intellect isn't really that good of an item for a wizard -- a wizard should already have a 16 or 17 starting Intelligence, and so by 4th level can have a 'natural' Int with as high of a bonus as the headband allows, and thus the headband will have no effect.
The same is true of gauntlets of ogre power and primary melee fighters -- unless you're using the item to defer your normal stat-bumps in lieu of feats, it's not really very useful.
--
Pauper
Pauper wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Woe is my -1 INT modifier, forever shall you stay a -1.
My FLGS situation is a bit unique in that the store's expansion plans include expanding our AL offerings to draw in midweek foot traffic. Therefore, an extra emphasis on player retention is vital in the coming weeks. Half of the players from this season were completely new to D&D, while the rest fell mostly on the extremes between RPer and power gamer. Because there's no real guideline as to how long the party can discuss magic item distribution before I have to check logsheets, I tend to give them 5 minutes to discuss it while I have a smoke and calculate gp/xp.
Over the past few months, I've noticed behavior patterns in my players regarding the various ways that they disrupt the tables: magic item greed, inability to acknowledge dead ends, excessive crosstalk, lack of basic system comprehension, etc. Not saying that all disruptions are negative, as most people who don't know all of the rules of the game end up becoming those who point out little things I may have overlooked. With these disruptive behaviors noted, I frequently find myself in the wedding planning cliche of having to adjust seating arrangements to mitigate chaos.
For the record, 3 person parties are not the predictable TPK parties that one might imagine. I've run through most of the Expeditions with parties of various sizes and levels. If the APL is equal to the adventure's APL and the party is sufficiently balanced, a 3 person party should be able to hold their own, barring the divine will of RNGesus. Admittedly, adjusting HotDQ for smaller parties isn't as fine-tuned in comparison to Expeditions. I know it's too late to make any adjustments to EE materials, but I would like to see the difficulty variations from the Expeditions appear in the Encounters materials. It would make it easier for DMs to keep track of what changes need to be made on the fly. With the second season approaching, we're going to see more variance in APL. Most of my original players have begun designing a new 1st level character, whereas the more recent players plan to take their 3rd and 4th levels into Ep 1 of the new season.
Clarification: Last night's session saw 10 players show up, so the group was already going to split into two tables. Three wizards, one sorcerer, one bard, two clerics, two fighters, and a monk. Keeping both tables with 5 players of roughly the same APL allowed both tables to end at the same time, instead of having to get a group of 6-7 done before store closing long after the group of 3-4 left.
Ocule wrote:
This is not a problem with AL guidelines or protocols. This is a problem with the store where you play.
I travel for work and really enjoy being able to go into a FLAG and find a game. I have expereienced many different stores, players and issues. I take it all with a grain of salt. Most of the games if not all of them have been fun. There are times that the game has been so poorly run that I feel bad marking in on my log but alas I do. I try to play by the rules as best I can given the situations I find my self in. Overall the system is sound and would be better if it wern't for people. LOL There will always be folks that break or bend the rules so they can get a "shinny" think on paper. I however, only play for the enjoyment of the game (well it also keeps me from being alone in a hotel room).
Wick wrote:
caecafortuna wrote: