What are these?
The Recommended Rulings are a set of rulings recommended for use by Adventurers League DMs. The hope is that, with a common set of recommended rulings, the experience of players in Adventurers League will be more uniform and players will have a better idea of what to expect at a table where they haven't played before.
The Recommended Rulings can't (and aren't intended to) eliminate all table variation, but they do provide a decent baseline for DMs who aren't sure how to rule on a specific issue.
Why provide these rulings?
When I was a DM for the Living Forgotten Realms organized play campaign, I often found myself wishing that there was a single, easily-accessed location where I could review controversial or complex rules to get an idea how other DMs had ruled in their games. For Adventurers League, I decided to make that resource instead of waiting for someone else to do so.
Don't think of these as 'Pauper's House Rules'; think of them more as a starting point for considering how you will rule on these same questions. Though some of the items listed aren't really up for debate (since they're cribbed from official sources such as the ALPG or the dndadventurersleague.org FAQ), many of them are arguable. I recommend reading down through the thread to pick up the gist of any discussion regarding arguable rulings to get a better idea of the context of that ruling. This will allow you to make a better ruling than simply parroting what I've written in the main text. Experience has shown me that this discussion is actually more valuable than the rulings themselves.
If you're interested in seeing more discussion regarding these rulings, feel free to browse the original '1.0' version of the thread.
Why do we need these when we have Sage Advice?
The Sage Advice column can be a useful resource for DMs looking for generic rules questions. However, Sage Advice never answers questions regarding Adventurers League-specific rules (such as those in the Adventurers League Player's Guide), and some of the Sage's rulings aren't applicable to Adventurer's League because they involve rules that AL either doesn't use or uses in a different way from the 'normal' use. Lastly, in many cases, Sage Advice boils down to 'however your DM wants to rule', which isn't very helpful from the standpoint of a DM coming to this board looking for guidance on how to rule in a given situation. In other words, if the Sage can't help you, perhaps this set of Recommended Rulings can.
Campaign-specific questions
I have a question that needs an official answer -- where do I go to find it?
Of course, if you can't find an official answer in the FAQ, you may find an unofficial answer here that can help you make or understand a ruling. If an official answer exists, however, that answer takes precedence over anything in these Recommended Rulings.
Feat questions
So I have the Crossbow Expert feat, and I'm wielding two hand crossbows. Can I take the bonus action described by the feat with my off-hand crossbow after firing my main-hand crossbow?
With that said, if the off-hand crossbow is loaded (PH, p.165: "[Y]ou can use a bonus action to attack with a loaded hand crossbow you are holding."), then yes.
Wouldn't the hand crossbow always be loaded?
Not necessarily. Note that the rules for attacking with a ranged weapon with the Ammunition property (BR, p.45, PH, p.146) allow you to draw and load your ammunition as part of the attack. This means that it doesn't really matter if your crossbow is loaded or not when you attack with it normally; if it isn't loaded, the rules let you draw and load it as part of the attack, and if it is loaded, the rules let you draw and re-load it as part of the attack. However, for purposes of this feat (and for using a sling as a melee weapon, BR, p.46, PH, p.147), it matters whether your weapon is loaded or not when you make the attack, because you don't get to make the attack if the weapon isn't already loaded.
I'd use a simple rule of thumb -- if a character begins the encounter wielding a ranged weapon, that weapon is loaded (so, for example, while exploring a dungeon, a character would have her hand crossbows out, and it would make sense that they are loaded). If a character begins the encounter not wielding a ranged weapon, that weapon is not loaded until the character specifically takes an action to load it (so, for example, if the party is ambushed while camping for the night, the character's hand crossbows are not loaded until she says she's loading them).
Note that you can only pick up and load one hand crossbow at a time unless you have the Dual Wielder feat. ("You can draw or stow two one-handed weapons when you would normally be able to draw or stow only one." PH, p.165)
What if I'm wielding a shield and a loaded hand crossbow?
If you have the ability to attack with your shield (such as using the shield as an improvised weapon, BR, p.47, PH, pp.147-148), there's no reason the DM couldn't allow you to attack with your loaded hand crossbow using the Crossbow Expert feat after you attack with your shield.
However, based on the recent errata to the Player's Handbook, you would not be able to make a bonus attack with your hand crossbow after firing it while holding a shield; you'd need a free hand to reload the hand crossbow, and since you don't have a free hand, the hand crossbow would not be loaded when it's time to make the bonus action attack. If your off-hand was not wielding a weapon or shield, you could reload the hand crossbow after making an attack with it (by the Ammunition rule), and thus still take the bonus action attack with the same hand crossbow. This appears to be the only situation in which such an attack is actually legal.
Can I use the Interacting With an Object rules to reload my hand crossbow while dual-wielding or wielding a shield?
Not while the hand crossbow has the Ammunition property -- without a free hand, you're not allowed to reload a one-handed ranged weapon with the Ammunition property, no matter how much of an action you take to do so.
Further clarification from Skerrit regarding the new ALPG
DM Awards: DMs will now be awareded GP in addition to XP and downtime. If you have any unclaimed DM rewards from season 1, and you apply them to a S2 character - you do not gain GP. In fact, based on what Skerrit said - if you run any S1 adventure, you gain the rewards listed in that adventure only. The GP award is only for S2 adventures forward.
Edit: June 9, 2015
To anyone coming to this thread new... please be aware that these 'recommended rulings' are simply the personal opinion of one person. They are often presented as 'fact' when they are not. They are often presented as 'fact' when the designers themselves have stated the exact opposite. I fully believe the author started this with noble intent, and I fully supported the endeavor while he was staying honest and neutral. The author is not one of the Admins, nor even any part of the staff. Some of his suggestions may be good, but be very careful while reading since he makes little effort to distinguish his personal opinion from his version of 'the facts'.
Kalani wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Note that some of these recommendations have changed from v1.0. The biggest one I can think of is the multiclassing recommendation for warlock invocations, as I've seen official recommendations that the intent for the warlock invocations was not to be different from other class-specific features.
--
Pauper
Re: Clerics of evil deities taking Life domain.
As I pointed out in the other thread, the ALPG specifically allows for this. Specific beats general. Recommended ruling: allow the Cleric of (evil deity) to take the Life domain.
I would make a simple change to the Crossbow Expert feat entry. You have it listed that the feat requires a "loaded crossbow" and link to the feat text which states as much. However Jeremy Crawford has explicitely stated that the text where it reads that it requires a loaded crossbow is actually fluff. As such, it should never be considered rules text and should not be held as a requirement to make the attack. Link to the twitter conversation below:
https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/524703008718721024
I think that would change the rest of the entry for that feat as well since you reference the need for a loaded hand crossbow multiple times. I know there were other tweets from Jeremy Crawford regarding this particular feat and the interacting between it and either hand crossbow + shield, double hand crossbow, 1 handed weapon + hand crossbow and so on.
EDIT: Btw I find it hillarious that my joke scenario about transporting rats to keep up hex has been posted here as an actual question. That's awesome.
You rule for crafting potions of healing is incorrect. Based on player demand (and some confusion), we changed the rules to ALLOW crafting of the potion of healing if you are proficient in an Herbalism Kit. This is unique to the DnDAL.
Greg Marks
DnDAL Associate Resource Manager
If we're starting up hand-crossbow whack-a-mole again, this is also incorrect:
"In this case, you're technically using the attack from your hand crossbow to enable the bonus action attack with the same hand crossbow, which the designers have suggested is not the intent of the feat."
Jeremy Crawford also tweeted:
"Crossbow Expert does allow a character to shoot a hand crossbow as an action and again as a bonus action."
http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/01/12/crossbow-expert-bonus-action/
A question that might be worth looking into is if a druid uses Wildshape to transform into a beast, can he/she be affected by the spell Dominate Beast since the druid's creature type changes to beast or does he/she retain his humanoid creature type meaning that it wouldn't work. It's a question that was recently discussed on the rules forum that I can see might lead to some confusion at AL tables. The bottom line seemed to be that Wildshape did not say you retained your type, which is considered a statistic in the DMG + MM. So your creature type would change depending on the creature you wildshape into.
Skerrit wrote:
We are specifying that even though its a magic item and we have a rule that you can never craft a magic item, in the DnDAL we make an except for potions of healing.
Skerrit wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Skerrit wrote:
correct
CahPahkah wrote:
Pauper wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Doesn't look that silly to me, Pauper's reasoning is internally consistant. Crawford nor Mearls (nor even Sage Advice unless that got changed) are AL rules sources. None of those will take organized play in account when explaining/clarifying and that can create some unique problems for OP. This is an area where past experiences have taught us to err on the side of caution.
imaginaryfriend wrote:
You appear to be operating under the misconception that all D&D rules translate verbatim to organized play. They do not and there are very good reasons for that. D&D outside of OP comes with a built in filter for undesired effects, the DM. In OP the DM has decidedly less options (a lot more in AL than in some previous programmes, but less non the less), thus requiring a high level filter.
Noctaem wrote:
wow I did not realize that. Well nevermind then, seems I'm the silly one after all.
Pauper wrote:
Pauper wrote:
So which armors are made of metal and which aren't?
I don't think you can just state that studded leather and/or Ring mail is 'legal'. It is using metal to protect him, using metal as armor.... I am not saying it does quality as metal armor... but I don't know how it can be determined for sure.
Can I purchase custom equipment? For instance, my dwarf bard would like to have a lute-axe that can be used as a lute or as an axe as needed.
You are still claiming that no 'custom' item purchased can ever give any mechanical advantage. This is not stated in the PHB nor the ALPG.
You already discuss needing DM permission/approval, this just continues from there. The DM needs to take into account the scope of the advantage when making their rulings.
Skerrit: can a cleric of an evil deity take the Life domain? Based on the ALPG, any cleric can take a domain offered by their deity, or the Life domain. Based on the PH, "most" evil deities do not offer the Life domain.
So, does the ALPG trump the PHB in this regard?
Undrhil wrote:
Undrhil wrote:
I think your stance on Crossbow Expert is perfect.
The druid armor ruling is still ridiculous. It's a buttered cat paradox. The simplest ruling is that, unless the the druid gains proficiency with armor from another rule source, he's subject to the normal penalties from not being proficient with the armor.
I think, as an homage to LFR, you should reword the Unearthed Arcana question to: "Are warforged legal in D&D AL? What about other material presented online in Unearthed Arcana?" The answer can stay the same, it'll just give everyone a chuckle when they read it.
Coredump00 wrote:
RCanine wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Skerrit wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
These are all great points. Let me comment on them in order.
RCanine wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
imaginaryfriend wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Mirtek wrote:
Kalani wrote:
@Coredump: I truly empathize with you. Honestly I do. But until we get confirmation down the pipeline on exactly how to address custom items, our answer is not going to change.
I personally have no issue at all with winter clothes, 4-man tents, or any other innoculous item.
Will I still prohibit them?
- Yes: Because to do otherwise is to open the door to a slippery slope to which no guidelines exist. Opening that door creates far more problems than it solves, and I personally don't want to deal with the headache of another five-headed baby dragon. Nor do I want to deal with two-handed, heavy, finesse weapons such as the naginata; or weapon-implements such as the axe-lute.
If guidelines are created, not only would I allow such items - I would strongly encourage my players to create culturally specific items to help mesh their character with the world and increase verisimilitude.
Sadly, the only way I can foresee the Admins allowing custom items - is if they have no inherrent mechanical effect. This would allow winter clothes, 4-man tents, and the like but would prohibit (or severely restrict) new implements, weapons, tools, mounts, etc.
With that being said: You keep bringing this up in every thread which is remotely related to the topic. We get it. Stop bringing it up and beating it to death. We know your viewpoint on this. I personally share your viewpoint that it is silly - but silly or not, I understand why they must be prohibited until such times as guidelines or rules are introduced.
We have no such guidelines/rules - so the point is moot
Harping on about a point that we were asked by the Admins to drop is bad form.
Kalani wrote:
You did not read my message did you?
I do not have an issue with it in principle.
- You seem to think I have an issue with such items. I don't. I am a highly experienced DM and have confidence in my ability to handle almost anything the PCs come up with - baby tiamat's included.
- You seem to think I want to restrict such items. I don't.
- I restrict them because I must. To do anything else is to invite a slippery slope, and to put unfair pressure on other DMs.
I share your viewpoint that:
- The restriction is silly
- And breaks verisimilitude.
I however believe the restriction is:
- Necessary in order to maintain a consistant play experience. At least until such times as:
- We have rules which cover this issue: removing the necessity.
Coredump00 wrote:
After reading the copious points and counter-points in this thread, here is my own "recommended ruling." I've read, understood and even sometimes sympathized with alternate viewpoints, but ultimately I find them unconvincing.
----------
Q: I want to purchase something that's not listed in any of the rule books. Can I?
A: You can try. The basic way D&D works is:
1. The DM describes the environment.
2. The players describe what they want to do. (In this case, to buy some particular thing.)
3. The DM narrates the results of the adventurers' actions.
(Player's Handbook, p. 6; also PlayerDnDBasicRules_v0.2 p. 3)
That means that it's up to the DM to determine—either by rolling dice or just by deciding—the outcome of any particular attempt. So you may seek to purchase anything you can imagine, your DM will determine whether that thing is available, and if so how much it costs, and what it does (i.e., whether it has any in-game effects of note). DMs are cautioned to think about possible unforeseen consequences of allowing particularly unusual items, and it is recommended that DMs rule somewhat conservatively in order to avoid disappointing the player in future sessions with another DM.
Because it's up to the DM to determine outcomes, and you may not have the same DM from session to session, players must be aware that different DMs may have different ideas on how an item works, or what in-game effects items might have. This is known as "table variation." Players are expected to abide by the decision of the DM at each particular table and not disrupt play by arguing, or claiming a previous DM ruled in a particular way.
Note that in Adventurers League play you cannot start with any non-standard items; starting equipment is determined by your starting class and background. (DDALPG_EEv1, p. 4)
I like the approach, TheBreen, yet I'm left a bit cold for one reason -- the question appears targeted at players, but the Recommended Rulings are meant for DMs.
The point of having the question in the recommended rulings is to give the DM an idea on how to deal with the question when it's asked by her players. So saying 'it's up to the DM to decide' isn't really helpful -- what's needed is to give the DM guidelines on how to handle that question without upsetting the campaign. I think the existing answer does that, but it could probably be improved, as the discussion makes fairly clear.
--
Pauper
Edit: Just realized, with the number of 'I am a (player)/(character)' questions, that it's not entirely clear that the rulings are targeted at DMs -- will consider the proposed wording on those merits.
I played in an AL event recently with a very experienced DM who's been in on 5E since the early play tests. I noticed that he only allowed fighters to take ONE attack when they used Action Surge to take an additional attack action but also had an Extra Attack (5th Level PC), instead of TWO additional attacks they should of gotten. When I asked him about it he said that was what was supposed to happen. I told him I didn't agree but I wasn't playing a fighter so it wasn't a big deal to me at the time.
The way I think it should be played, and have seen it played, is that Action Surge provides an addtional Action on the Fighter's turn. They can then use that Action to make an Attack. Extra Attack at 5th level allows you to attack twice when you use an Attack action on your turn. So in a 5th Level fighter's turn they can use their standard Action to Attack, which allows them to attack twice, and then Action Surge, which provides another Action which can be used to Attack, again allowing them to attack twice as allowed by their Extra Attack class ability.
Action Surge ... Starting at 2nd level, you can push yourself beyond your normal limits for a moment. On your turn, you can take one additional action on top of your regular action and a possible bonus action. Once you use this feature, you must finish a short or long rest before you can use it again. Starting at 17th level, you can use it twice before a rest, but only once on the same turn.
Extra Attack ... Beginning at 5th level, you can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn. The number of attacks increases to three when you reach 11th level in this class and to four when you reach 20th level in this class.
Actions in Combat ... When you take your action on your turn, you can take one of the actions presented here, an action you gained from your class or a special feature, or an action that you improvise. Many monsters have action options of their own in their stat blocks. When you describe an action not detailed elsewhere in the rules, the DM tells you whether that action is possible and what kind of roll you need to make, if any, to determine success or failure.
Attack ... The most common action to take in combat is the Attack action, whether you are swinging a sword, firing an arrow from a bow, or brawling with your fists. With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack. See the “Making an Attack” section for the rules that govern attacks. Certain features, such as the Extra Attack feature of the fighter, allow you to make more than one attack with this action.
I did notice that the Haste spell says this...
...and it gains an additional action on each of its turns. That action can be used only to take the Attack (one weapon attack only), Dash, Disengage, Hide, or Use an Object action. When the spell ends, the target can’t move or take actions until after its next turn, as a wave of lethargy sweeps over it.
Could this be the source of his confusion? Was there a time in playtesting when taking Attack Action due to Action Surge only gave you one weapon attack (like Haste)? Or am I completely off base in my thinking that the action provided by Action Surge does allow Extra Attack(s) if used as an Attack action?
You are correct, Action Surge allows another action, if that is the Attack Action then Extra Attack will come into effect, allowing 2 attacks.
Maybe the confusion stems from things like two weapon fighting or polearm master. AS does not provide a second bonus action, so those other additional attacks don't happen
Primarchx wrote:
"It is possible to argue, based on the descriptions of studded leather and ring mail in the Player's Handbook, that those armors are not 'made of metal' in the same way that other armors are described, which is why I include them in the ruling. I have made an edit for v2.0 to point out that DMs can rule that studded leather and ring mail are actually 'made of metal', but should make that explicit prior to the game so that druid players who have interpreted the PH descriptions of those armors to be non-metallic have the ability to adapt to the ruling (by changing armor or changing characters).I think that's the best compromise."
You have this backwards. A DM does not have to state that they are enforcing the Druid Armor rule. The studs are made of metal, the rings are made of metal. The difference between leather and studded appears to be 3 pounds of metal studs or spikes according to the PHB, If a player comes up with a cert or other documentation confirming they have found/bought/acquires some form of "exotic" studded leather armor (as an example) that doesn't use metal, great. If they somehow found a 1st Edition Wizard to cast an 8th level Glassteel spell on their Ring Mail, more power to them (with documentation, of course).
There is a nice example of a shield made from a dragon scale as a basis for this kind of thing.
"It is possible to argue" isn't a very good starting point for a recommended ruling. I have already pointed out the long history of Druids and armor in D&D. Your interpretation is new and novel.
Kajamo
Coredump00 wrote:
RCanine wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
RCanine wrote:
@Coredump: IMHO the situation has been resolved (and not in a way you will be happy with). According to the text of the new ALPG, you are limited to purchasing mundane items found in your rules (sources).
Choose Equipment (ALPG p4)Purchasing Items. You can purchase any mundane item found in your rules for character options.
Coredump00 wrote:
RCanine wrote:
To all concerned - I have escalated Coredumps question to the admins, and will let you know what the official response is (if any).
UPDATE
I have discussed this issue with the other Regional and Local Coordinators.
Disclaimer: This post should not be interpreted as an official ruling. It is simply the general consensus of how the RCs and LCs feel on the issue. RCs and LCs do not make the rules, and our opinions carry no authority.
The general consensus is this:
- There is unlikely to be an official answer to this question by the Admins/HQ.
- This is an issue of DME.
- Your DM might allow you to purchase custom items.
- If they do: The DM should inform the player that future DMs are under no obligation to honor any custom item, or any mechanical rules associated with the item. If they do honor the item, they might rule that the item functions differently at their table.
- As a general rule - DMs should look at existing items for inspiration when making custom items. In respect to the winter clothes for example, if the player paid 4x the cost than regular clothes, it might grant them advantage.
- Most of the RCs/LCs did not like the idea of an axe-lute and saw it as an unreasonable suggestion. One person liked it and said they would allow it.
Most of these answers are similar to the answers we have given on the forum.
Kalani wrote:
You are correct. RCs and LCs don't make the rules. My response was not supposed to project authority and I apologize if it came across that way. I was just giving the general consensus on how they felt about the issue. I will add a disclaimer to my previous post.
The only thing that is true, is that the admins are unlikely to weigh in on the debate, and so it is left squarely in the hands of DMs how they feel on the issue at their table.
"Expect table variation."
Ask your DM, don't expect another DM to respect a ruling that your DM made.
That goes for ambiguous rules; rules that are clearly defined, however, are not open to such interpretation. (Damn you my familiar can totally use the help action, *shakes fist*)
Kalani wrote:
I've removed content from this thread because flaming/baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code of Conduct here: http://www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_company_about_codeofconduct&menu=Awards
Please remember to keep posts polite, on topic and within the confines of the Code of Conduct. While a great debate can lead to some fantastic answers, derailing a thread with "i said, you said" remarks is never approrpriate. Let's remember we're all part of this community, play nice!
I was never really worried about all this hullabaloo. All the DMs (and players), at every table I played with at the last convention, were very cool.
I'm just glad of one thing. Maybe I'll stop seeing something like the following in multiple "pseudo-official-sounding DM advice threads":
"ChrisCarlson's dwarven bard lute-axe example."
- "Nope. It's badwrongfun and you might get in trouble if you allow it."
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Crushing a man's hopes so quickly? That's low. So very low.
As I said above, the general consensus among the RCs/LCs was that the axe-lute was all kinds of unreasonable. Only one of them liked the idea. The others gave a whole range of picture memes voicing their incredulousness.
Oh, I'm sure. 
Doesn't matter even if that were true. The point remains that these supposedly "advice threads" where my exact idea is poo-pooed as badwrongfun can hopefully stop. Clearly it's an attempt to shoot down something on personal aesthetic grounds. Not in any rules-standing way. And that is the only badwrongfun I see here.
I get it, some of you take thing too seriously to allow any sort of light-hearted fun into your games. That's fine. But you are encouraged to keep that to yourselves. Yours is not the only way to play. Not even the only way to play AL. The RCs/LCs supposed responses (and everyone I've played my dwarven bard with thus far) say as much.
I also find it a bit ironic that there is so much axe grinding over an item that happens to be an axe...
I find it a bit ironic that a poster is baiting responses in the very next post after an ORC says content has been removed for baiting.
--
Pauper
Pauper wrote:
Just be glad there's an entry for 'knife' in the Equipment list, rather than one for 10,000 spoons.
--
Pauper
SInce our bickering got deleted.... let me at least commend Kalani on posting results that went against how she thought it was written. Didn't have to do that. She didn't get the answer she wanted, but still presented the results.
So it's "baiting" to expect that you will quit inappropriately using me to further your agenda now that your assumptions have been shown to be in error?
Go it.
Coredump00 wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Pauper wrote:
ZHDarkstar wrote:
Hey! That was my character concept for one of my season 1 characters. (Where is the blasted like button for the forum lolol)
Forest Gnome Entertainer Wizard (conjurer) - think leprecaun (as that is how he acted/talked). He thought of himself as a bard.
In keeping with the leprecaun theme, I took the Lucky feat at 4th level.... Oh have I had so much fun with minor conjuration. It might be considered a weaker tradition, but I find this ability is insanely good in the hands of someone imaginative.
Such as creating a small, balsa-wood box with an automatically locking catch while you are adjacent to an enemy. Step inside said box (without leaving the enemy's threat area), and close the lid. Guaranteed to take no damage on the next hit!
Noctaem wrote:
Kalani wrote:
True, but it was the best of a bad situation. My choices that turn were:
- Cast firebolt with disadvantage (I was rolling poorly that night, and didn't feel confident I would hit).
- Disengage and move away from the enemy, who would simply follow me and attack next turn, thereby wasting my efforts. I was also concerned about being separated from the party more than I already was.
- Move/Dash: And hope he didn't hit me with an OA.
- Dodge
- Use Minor Conjuration creatively
Of the main options available, dodge was my best option. Coming up with the creative use for minor conjuration however, resulted in the first attack destroying the box, and the second missing.
If they set the box on fire, it would simply disappear (same result as attacking it and doing damage). While I wouldn't take fire damage from the initial attack, as soon as the box disappeared I would be in the AoE of the oil, and would prob require a dexterity save for half damage.
Kalani wrote:
It's interesting how much DM leeway you'd need to rely on (i.e., table variation swinging in your favor) in order to play your gnome in that way at an AL game...
ChrisCarlson wrote:
First, yep. Cuz I've played in games with plenty of DM's who would slap down such "abusive" attempts to use that spell in that way. Funny how that's what I said. how DM leeway affects how your gnome would play. You even said as much above. Don't know why it requires an argument.
Second, you are really fixated on custom equipment. I made no mention of it. I thought you said repeeatedly you wanted to drop that debate. Why can't you?
Third, you are still being entirely too serious. Not everything is a life-or-eath debate.
ChrisCarlson wrote:
If anything it was a allusion to the perceived disparity between how you'd rule in one regard, yet another when it comes to something you want to play.
The topic, specifically, is irrelevant. It's the double standard that is being cited. That and I was poking you in the ribs over it. Not roasting you on a spit.
ChrisCarlson wrote:
*hummmmMMmmms a well known Beatles tune containing the words Be, It and Let*
Kalani wrote:
With regards to custom equipment, I would think that a player could purchase the equipment permanently. They would write down what the DM who let them purchase it said it cost, and what it could (and couldn't do). When they sat at a table with another DM, they could hand them a note card with that info on it and say "Another DM let me buy this in a previous session. Is it okay if I use it at your table?" The DM would have a couple of options - they could modify the item slightly, offer an alternative item, remove X GP from play for the session (not permanently) if they feel it should have cost more, allow the item as written, or completely disallow the item.
For example:
Claw Gauntlets: 1d4 slashing damage, finesse, light, grant advantage to prevent you from being disarmed, cannot be thrown. You can wield a weapon, shield or other item in a hand wearing claw gauntlets, but cannot also use the gauntlets. Set of two, cost 15 GP.
Kukri: 1d4 slashing damage, finesse, light, thrown (15/40), 2 gp each.
Dagger 1d4 piercing damage, finesse, light, thrown (20/60), 2 gp each.
Dagger Rig: Consists of leather ties and forearm sheathe for a dagger or kukri. When used correctly, helps prevent loss of daggers to being disarmed in combat (you have advantage on any roll made to contest being disarmed). Must be custom fitted to the wearer. A dagger attached to a rig cannot be thrown. 5 gp each.
DM1 lets you buy Claw Gauntlets, but DM2 doesn't like them because DM2 thinks 'reason', proposes the Kukri instead if player really wants slashing damage. To give the advantage of having the weapons attached to you like gauntlets, DM2 also proposes the Dagger Rig. The cost is basically the same, and player and DM2 are happy. DM3 thinks the Claw Gauntlets are bad because of 'reason' and wonders why player can't be happy with two daggers. Insists on two daggers. Player is slightly annoyed and probably decides not to play the PC with DM3 in the future. DM4 likes the idea of the claw gauntlets, but thinks DM1 was too generous in pricing. Tells player that PC has 15 more GP removed from their inventory for this session. Again, probably not a big deal in the grand scheme of things. DM5 likes the Claw Gauntlets and adds them to his home game the next week.
So, logistically, in a 4-hour convention AL slot that's already tight on time, with seven players seated at the table waiting for the game to begin, how much time should the DM devote to ruling on your custom equipment?
Let's say that six players sit down with four homebrewed items that previous DMs allowed them to take, along with documentation in their Adventure Log regarding how much they paid and what benefits the item conveyed. So the con DM now has 24 never-before-seen items to review and rule on, engaging in a dialogue about player expectations and making adjustments as necessary, before the game -- which is already time-constrained -- can even begin.
...but there's also one player at the table who built their character using the allowed rules, has properly logged the adventure rewards they've received, and who isn't doing anything rules-questionable.
So, how much of the DM's time is fair to waste with your custom equipment? How much of your fellow players? How much of a given adventure are you willing to skip, because the clock ran out, so that we can all come to a consensus of just how much those winter clothes of yours -- which do nothing in this particular mod -- should cost?
And why should we be willing to do this at every single table?
The problem with custom equipment is that it's ultimately only interesting to the player who's forcing the issue, and it wastes the time of the DM and every other player at the table. That's not what the AL is for.
Like with any other aspect of the game, you have to ask yourself: "Are the other players at the table having fun because of my behavior, or despite my behavior?" Basically every instance of PCs trying to use homebrewed elements in an AL that I've ever encountered -- both as another player at the table and as a DM -- has fallen into the second category.
Logically, the answer is: Less than five minutes. I can't imagine that specific table necessarily happening (though I understand it was purposely taken to the logical extreme to make the point). In that case, was I the DM, I'd say, "Nope." to everything unless it was very very small type changes, i.e. the kukri instead of the dagger. It shouldn't take a DM any longer than reading the description of the custom item to make a call on it. You're the DM, you make a call. If for whatever reason you're suddenly expected to make a lot of calls outside the regular box, you just say "No" and move on.
If you want the custom equipment, you should always be prepared (and willing to play) with alternatives within the strict rules text rather than your custom stuff - don't make a custom item that you can't duplicate the effects of with normal equipment. If you want your custom stuff, you have to be willing to not play or play without it. I'd venture a guess, given the setup of the rules, more people would rather play without their 'cool thing' than not play at all.
In AL play I would probably not allow you to have any custom equipment that gave you a direct benefit in the adventure. For fluff? Sure whatever.
The idea of an OP is for everyone to be on the same playing field.
CahPahkah wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Ravix wrote:
It's essentially this. You have people that restrict their characters to what is allowed within the rules, by allowing DMs to just handwave away certain rules and give others mechanical benefits that do not exist within the scope of the rules you could be making a less than ideal game experience for that player.
For that reason, I see fit to personally play strictly within the allowed rules.
I know I've said that I'm not a big fan of Jeremy Crawford's Twitter stream, but here are two relevant tweets to this discussion:
I wouldn't go so far as to say DMs have the ability to tweak rules in the PHB and the DMG in AL, they have the ability to tweak the adventures. The PHB, DMG, and ALPG are all the same across the board for everyone.
Ravix wrote:
Ya know, I just erased a substantial reply. Because at the end of the day, I really don't care that you think you are some kind of authority, telling other people how they should or shouldn't run AL games.
It just doesn't affect my world. The DM's and organizers, at our conventions, don't attribute any weight to your opinions. Heck, I don't think they even come to this forum. So have at it. No skin off my teeth.
I only ask that you stop using me, or my specific character(s), as named examples in your little crusade.
Thank you, and happy gaming.
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Does this mean we have to stop calling it Carlson's Law?
Oh, don't misunderstand. I didn't expect you would be able to stop being the person you are. I just felt like putting it out there. After all, it's not like you have the creativity to make up your own "custom equipment" idea as an example with which to rail against, in your quest to prove you know the rules better than others. So you needed to steal mine. I get it. Really I do.
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Taking something that existed as common mundane equipment, in multiple previous editions, isn't really "coming up with something", IMO. Although I can see how, to someone with limited creativity, it's a real accomplishment.
Is there some kind of ignore list or something? Ah, cool -- there it is.
Your hand puppet's getting a little long in the tooth, there. I think one of his button eyes might be starting to fall off.
It would be cool if this thread -- or any thread, really -- could actually be about AL rules discussion and helping DMs, rather than continually trolling over invented issues that nobody else finds interesting or in question.
Thanks.
CahPahkah wrote:
The first rules edition of Sage Advice contains a section on somatic and material components that goes against what I have written in the Recommended Rulings (under the War Caster question). I'm asking for clarification, and am considering an appropriate change to the ruling if such clarification is as I expect.
--
Pauper
(Edit: the specific confusion is that the War Caster feat explicity allows a caster to satisfy somatic components with a hand holding a weapon or shield. While a character who uses holy symbols as foci (and the holy symbol mounted on her shield) would not need the War Caster feat to cast spells with both somatic and material components, she would need it to cast spells with just somatic and no material components, which seems un-intuitive.)
He pretty much spelled that out verbatim Pauper, I don't really see the need for any further clarification.
Kalani wrote:
abanathie wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Ravix wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Pauper wrote:
imaginaryfriend wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
Adventurers League Players Guide FAQ wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Pauper wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Kalani wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
I allow anything within the allowed rules, it's not up to me to arbitrarily restrict a key class feature like that.
Then you are failing to play by the CPA* standard!
(*Certified Pauper Approved)
Kalani wrote:
Ravix wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Thanks for that Ravix
That makes sense -- if a spell makes a specific reference, then that reference is legal by virtue of being listed in a legal rules source (the spell itself). So if a spell says 'you summon a blink dog', then you summon a blink dog, because the spell says you can. (You could say this is an instance of specific beats general, where the specific spell reference beats the general rule that only items in allowed rules sources can be used.)
If a spell (or class feature) allows a choice, then the player may only choose from options that appear in legal rules sources. So if a spell says 'you summon a fey creature', then your options are limited to fey creatures in the legal rules sources (which may be zero).
--
Pauper
OK, the spellcasting question.
I had a long conversation with another DM I admire, and I think I've got my brain wrapped around the somatic/material component thing Crawford put in the first Sage Advice. Here's what I'm proposing as an alternative to the existing ruling on War Caster:
The rules for using somatic and material components in spellcasting seem confusing to me. How do they work?
There are three basic components involved in spellcasting: verbal (V), somatic (S), and material (M). Not every spell uses each component; check the 'components' line in the spell description. Based on the descriptions in the Basic Rules, somatic components are forceful or intricate gestures that are necessary to complete the spell. Material components are specific objects that are needed to complete the spell.
The rules state that 'free use of at least one hand' is required to satisfy the somatic component requirement of a spell, though the rules don't specify exactly what 'free use of at least one hand' means. In general, if both hands are occupied (carrying a bulky object, wielding two weapons, bound or manacled, etc.), then the character can be assumed to be unable to cast spells that require a somatic component.
Three things about material components are significant when determining how easy it is to cast a spell:
- A spellcaster must have free use of a hand to access any required material component, but it can be the same hand used to satisfy somatic components.
- If a material component has a listed gold piece value in the spell description, then that specific component must be supplied; otherwise, the spellcaster may substitute a spell component pouch or a spellcasting focus for the material component requirement.
- If the spell description states that a material component is consumed by the spell, then a seperate component must be supplied for each casting; otherwise the caster may continue to use the same component over and over again when casting the spell.
So how does that work if I'm wielding my spellcasting focus?
If you are wielding a spellcasting focus, you clearly have access to the focus, which satisfies the requirement for any spell that doesn't have a cost listed for its material component. The Sage appears to be saying that the rule that allows you to access material components with the same hand you use to satisfy somatic components works both ways, and that you can also satisfy somatic components with the same hand you use to access material components.
So if I'm a cleric and I have my holy symbol borne on my shield (Basic Rules, p.49), I can use my shield hand to satisfy the somatic components of my spells?
Only if the spell also has a material component, and only if that material component can be replaced by your holy symbol as a spellcasting focus. So you could cast sunbeam (requires a magnifying glass as a material component), but not stoneskin (requires 100gp worth of diamond dust). You also could not cast cure wounds, since that spell does not require a material component.
So how does this interact with the War Caster feat?
Normally, if you are wielding a weapon or carrying a shield, that hand is not considered 'free' for purposes of spellcasting (but see the 'holy symbol borne on shield' question above). The War Caster feat allows you to perform the somatic components of spells even while holding a weapon or shield in a hand. Based on the Sage's clarification noted above, this means you can also access material components with that hand, even though the feat itself does not say that this is a benefit of the feat.
--
Pauper
You had the gist of it. The only ruling you got wrong is the following:
Pauper wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
It's really quite simple.
Warcaster lets you cast VS and S spells
Spell casting foci allow you to cast VM, SM, and VSM spells that lack a consumed/expensive component.
Re: my previous post.
I forgot to add the line "that lack a consumed/expensive component" after "all spells", although I thought that was implied as an agreed upon constant.
Kalani wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Ravix wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Slightly modifying the War Caster portion of the proposed new spellcasting ruling on this page:
So how does this interact with the War Caster feat?
Normally, if you are wielding a weapon or carrying a shield, that hand is not considered 'free' for purposes of spellcasting (but see the 'holy symbol borne on shield' question above). The War Caster feat allows you to perform the somatic components of spells even while holding a weapon or shield in a hand. Since you are allowed to perform somatic components with that hand, that hand is considered 'free' (because the general rules for spellcasting require that you have "free use of a hand" to perform somatic components). Thus, that hand can also be used to access material components.
No no. War caster does not treat the hand as free. It lets you ignore the somatic components/make them with weapons. Seriously. It doesn't work how you think it does.
It does not allow u to treat weapons as a spell casting focus. It does not allow u to ignore material components. You are misreading it
You're going to need to give an explanation, Kalani, rather than just asserting that you're right.
Again,
- The rule for material components says you can use the same hand you use to perform somatic components to access material components.
- The War Caster feat explicitly lets you perform somatic components with a hand containing a weapon or shield.
The clause about needing a free hand for material components is clearly not always binding given the Sage's example of a cleric casting a spell with a shield in her casting hand. Likewise, any caster with a usable spellcasting focus or material component in-hand is not prevented from casting due to the presence of that focus/component.
Also, nothing in the text of War Caster says that somatic components are 'ignored' -- that's an interpretation, and one that isn't supported by the text which specifically uses the same language as the rules for supplying somatic and material components.
--
Pauper
Added a question regarding starting equipment. You can sell starting equipment to get different starting equipment, but all starting equipment for a given class/background is lost when retraining in favor of the new class/background starting equipment.
--
Pauper
You are reading the correct passages, but you are coming to the wrong conclusions about them.
Warcaster (p170)You can perform the somatic components of spells even when you have weapons or a shield in one or both hands.
Pauper wrote:
I would have to agree with Kalani. It says that you can perform somatic component of a spell even with a weapon(s) and/or shield in both hands. It does not say that the hands are considered free for any material component of a spell or for anything else. It doesn't even say your hands are free for the somatic component; rather, it essentially says you can use somatic components while your hands are occupied. So, "free" hands don't enter the equation.
I wish it worked the way Pauper stated; it would make my Eldritch Knight easier to manage. But, material components are ultimately a minor issue in the action economy.
Kalani wrote:
All of the debate about Carlson's Law, and this point got lost, which I think is important. Spells that conjure creatures must not be limited to only conjure creatures from player resources, otherwise most of them wouldn't work.
RCanine wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Undrhil wrote:
RCanine wrote:
abanathie wrote:
Pauper wrote:
RCanine wrote:
abanathie wrote:
Pauper wrote:
@Pauper: You are confusing two separate rules again.
To cast a spell with a material component, the spellcaster must meet one of the following conditions:
- A) The hand is free (empty/holding nothing). In which case, they can use the same hand to perform the somatic components) OR
- B) The hand is holding a spellcasting focus. This does not count as a free hand. If the spell also has somatic components, you can make those gestures with the focus.
To cast a spell with a somatic component, the spellcaster must meet one of the following conditions:
- A) Have a free hand OR
- B) Be holding a spellcasting focus, and casting a spell which has a non-costly/non-consumed material component. This does not count as a free hand. OR
- C) Have the warcaster feat. This does not count as a free hand.
You keep combining the requirements, when they are separate And/OR requirements.
Specific beats General
- A holy symbol (emblem) can be placed on a shield.
- If you use a holy symbol (emblem) you meet the requirement of using a spellcasting focus, and meet requirement B for both somatic and material components.
Does this give clerics/paladins an advantage compared with other spellcasters?
- Yes. The Holy symbol is the best spellcasting focus in the game simply due to the fact that it can be placed upon your shield.
- Combined with the Warcaster feat, a cleric/paladin can cast any spell when holding a weapon+shield, excluding those with an expensive/consumable component. They still have to drop/sheathe their weapon to cast those spells however.
- Even with the war caster feat, all other spellcasters are limited to spellcasting focus + shield, spellcasting focus + weapon, or being unable to cast some spells (either VS, or S spells, or VM, SM, or VSM spells).
Pauper wrote:
The copyright stance confuses me, the way the copyrighted rules text is used on this forum tends to be textbook nocommercial commenting and/or research.. In all probability this forum is hardly the place for a debate on the fair use provisos in that law. However, references to personal ethos like you are making tend to carry the implication that other people are doing it wrong and I can not ethically let that pass unchallenged.... 
For the purpose of the thread, the consensus amongst many if not most, and me included, seems to be that; While the feat certainly allows for the RAI interpretation that it extends to material components there is no RAW for that. War Caster simply makes no such statement. And while we all seem to be rewording our statements to that regard often, the content of those statements is consistant. We may want to skip re-rewording it once more...?
imaginaryfriend wrote:
Kalani wrote:
abanathie wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Pauper wrote:
abanathie wrote:
Depends on what direction want to go. RAI is, in my opinion, a problematic approach. A DM, to make things fit in an acceptable manner for the DM, might rule that the weapon(s) and/or shield become part of the somantic component, and improvised weapons, which could include all manners of items, could expand the options of a character, depending on the generousness of the DM. Consequently, it qaulifies as part of the material component. RAI, in many cases, can stretch the bounds of the rules; because, RAW doesn't make sense to the DM. RAI tends to add assumptions, sometimes dangerous assumptions, to provide meaning. Personally, I don't like RAI in an organized play situation. It just adds more inconsistent rulings, in a system that already promotes a certain amount of inconsistency as a fundamental feature, that a player has to deal with as he or she moves from table to table. It can be great in a home group setting though.
I would be careful though before making RAI, in this case, a "recommended" option. For a weapon wielding wizard, RAI wouldn't add much in the way of power, except possibly at low levels and specific builds. For a pure Eldritch Knight, it might not do much in the way of upsetting balance. If you multiclass the two and get into a situation of dealing with sixth level spells, it might become more problematic in regards to balance. Replace Eldritch Knight with a better combat casting class, like Paladin, you could open a bigger can of worms.
Kalani wrote:
I care about this issue very little, but I do think you're misreading it.
Imagine War Caster said "You can perform the somatic components of spells by without using your hands by making elaborate head movements." There's no reason, in that wording, to believe that material components are affected at all. Similarly, you're interpreting the feat to mean that you're still performing the somatic components with whatever weapons are currently in your hands, but that's not what the text says. All it says is that the somatic components get performed; you're adding an unsupported interpretation when you say "therefore material components can be satisfied, too".
Note that, in real life, I treat the feat (and spellcasting in general) far more liberally. But if we're talking about what War Caster says, material components aren't involved.
Pauper you are forgetting the rule on page 7
Specific beats general
The rule on page 203 is the general rule
The rule on page 170 (war caster) is a specific exception to the general rule
You are weighting both rules equally. Such is not the case. The rule on page 170 has priority and replaces the rule on page 203 for all characters with the WC feat.
Neither of those rules deals with material components. They are both specific to somatic Componnents.
Pauper wrote:
Kalani wrote:
abanathie wrote:
A rule has to say that it changes something in order for it to be specific beats general. War Caster says *nothing* about allowing access to material components. Therefore, it makes no change to the way material components are accessed. If you are casting a spell with a sword and shield and War Caster, then you are allowed to use a somatic component spell with those equipped. However, when you get to the part where you need a material component, are you holding an arcane focus or a component pouch? Do you have a free hand to access an arcane focus or a component pouch? No? Then you cannot cast that spell.
"But War caster says I can use somatic components with my spells with sword and/or shield equipped, which means I can use material components too!"
No. War caster says you can use somatic components with your spells with sword and/or shield equipped. Period. You are adding more to the feat than is actually there once you go past that point. You still need a free hand to access those material components or an arcane focus, component pouch, etc.
Pauper wrote:
Added an entry in the Campaign-Specific Rulings based on the admin comments in this post. Specifically, that a character can 'leave' an Encounters game in the middle of an episode to participate in an Expeditions adventure, but the DM can require that the character not return to Encounters until the start of a new episode.
--
Pauper
Pauper wrote:
Pauper wrote:
abanathie wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
I have no words.....
I have an abreviation? LOL?
Why? Because, I misread a poster's intent. Voicing another poster's intent could easily lead to a violation of the Code of Conduct. However, the statement that any poster should feel free to express concerns and provide alternatives is ususally good for the community. Squashing concerns and expressing judgement of other posters is usually determental to a community and is generally a negative approach. I try not to partake of that too much, but, I'm glad I could entertain someone...
abanathie wrote:
imaginaryfriend wrote:
Yeah. I'm sorry if my deadpan was a little too straight. Sometimes my sarcasm goes so deep it comes off a little too on the nose for some.
Anyways, I was just going for the funny (as usual). And maybe a little bit mocky (considering the double standards that so freely fly around these here parts). My bad if it confused anyone.
Updated the list with rulings based on the summoning selection options listed in the dndadventurersleague.org FAQ, and clarified that a DM who chooses to do so can also use the same rule for determining allowed forms for the druid's Wild Shape feature.
--
Pauper
Updated with a clarification on multiclassing:
- Once you have a class, you retain that class even if you lose enough of a stat to no longer 'qualify' for it per the rules in the Player's Handbook (p.163).
- Once you qualify for a class, if you take a level in that class, you can continue to advance in that class even if you no longer qualify to enter the class.
- If you no longer have a high enough stat to qualify in any class you possess, you cannot multiclass into new classes, since the PH requires that you meet the stat prerequisite for your current class(es) and your new class.
--
Pauper
So Pauper, could you please remove the text in the War Caster feat entry where it says:
Since, with the War Caster feat, you can perform the somatic component of a spell with a hand wielding a weapon or shield, you can use the same hand to access material components or an available focus or spell component pouch (if applicable)
You've had multiple people and rules text quoted to you. It's been explained that you're wrong about your interpretation that you get to access material components and why. The rules for specific vs general have also been explained to you and basically not a single person has thus far agreed with you. Time to take the hint, yes? If you create a resource like this one you cannot afford to be this pig headed as to not be able to recognize when you're incorrect about something. Kalani has done all the research required and submitted it along with others.
Thanks for being a team player.
Pauper wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
RCanine wrote:
Noctaem,
Again, Kalani's argument is not convincing.
The game rules do not define what a 'free hand' is for the purpose of satisfying somatic components -- we only know what doesn't count based on inference. For example, we use the War Caster feat itself to determine that holding a weapon or a shield in a hand doesn't count as a 'free hand' if you don't possess the War Caster feat.
Kalani's point basically boils down to saying that the inference remains true for a character with the War Caster feat.
My point is that the inference doesn't apply -- since the basic inference only counts for characters that don't have the feat, and that the feat specifically allows you to perform somatic components in a situation where characters without the feat are not able to.
Until new information comes in to further clarify this situation, I consider the ruling resolved -- both interpretations are defensible, and can be used.
--
Pauper
Coredump00 wrote:
And again, because it seems some folks are misinterpreting the intent here:
This is not a list of 'you must rule this way' interpretations. If a player shows up at the table with a printout of this thread and claims that the DM has to rule a certain way because "Pauper said so", then that player is wrong.
This is a list of 'I'm in a hurry, so I'll do that', or 'that's an interesting point, but I'm going to rule this other way', or 'I hadn't thought about it like that, I'll consider ruling it that way in my next game' interpretations. If you're looking for 'official' answers, the very first question in the list of rulings tells you where to go to find them.
--
Pauper
Pauper wrote:
Pauper has never pretended that this thread is anything but his personal view on things. I disagree with him on the spellcasting component stuff, but that does not mean there is no value in the debate or the thread. Heck if being wrong mattered few people would be able to post anything. Pointing out splinters seems a little redundant with all the beams going around.
imaginaryfriend wrote:
Likewise, I am perfectly capable of making up my own mind on rulings. But the debate here helps me galvanize my opinion. Sure, in my view lots of people are often full of it, but then I assume they feel the same about my opinions. I find that useful
imaginaryfriend wrote:
Its his thread, its his recommended rulings. He has every right to be totally wrong and still recommend it. And at least he is always pretty polite and engaging even when being completely wrong or, more importantly, when he totally disagrees with someone.
Since this is (apparently) still going on and I don't think anybody's posted it:
Pauper wrote:
It has always amazed me that we, as players and DMs, reach so few consensuses on these topics.
In constitutional law, I understand. Thousands of people go to school each year and take a course whose sole purpose is to argue over RAI and RAW of the U.S.'s (and other countries') constitutions or bodies of governance. In law, this is a very difficult debate as RAI are often obfuscated through details of linguistics, sociological evaluations of the era, and known education and beliefs of the authors. DnD though has, nearly always, had the benefit though, that RAI can easily be asked by its authors!
Yet, we make as many questions as answers, if not more in some cases.
Thank you Pauper for trying to put this together. What I find most valuable in these sorts of threads, as was pointed out by TheBreen, is the thought processes behind other DM rulings on these topics. It is nice to see how, as creative judges, we utilize rules that attempt to symbolize very complex (super)natural laws into a single roll.
CahPahkah wrote:
imaginaryfriend wrote:
Perhaps as seperate sections or at the very least by making it explicitely clear in the entry.
What is clear based on the previous Recommended Ruling thread is that Pauper will eventually stop posting in this thread and, eventually, post up another one, in hopes of letting this thread go away so all of the arguments go away.
With an official ruling on the matter now evident, he should make the change to reflect that, as what happened re: his ruling of Clerics of evil deities not being able to pick the Life domain.
Noctaem wrote:
Undrhil wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Wow, that was messier than I expected.
tl;dr: Jeremy Crawford, who many of you prize as the final authority, has explicitly stated that the final authority for rules decisions rests with the DM, not with him or the rulebook. Similarly, the ALPG also vests final decision-making authority with the DM. I should think that would answer the question.
--
Pauper
Unlike a home game, where the Dungeon Master makes all the campaign decisions, the administrators of the D&D Adventurers League set the rules and structure for it.
Yes, AL DMs have a lot of discretion. But players, organizers, DMs, and store owners must adhere to those rules to achieve the common campaign experience.
CahPahkah wrote:
Added a question to the Downtime Days section regarding healing Int damage from an intellect devourer -- since there are no rules for this in the Player's Handbook, I propose using the existing Recuperating Downtime activity to do so.
I also suggest that a DM might include a modifier to this roll to take into account the character's Lifestyle, which would make that choice more meaningful in a mechanical sense.
--
Pauper
Considering JC declares the DM the final arbiter on everything, is it to late to change my position on JC being declared a rules source?
I'm not sure. Are you a DM? 
--
Pauper
Pauper wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Yep I think all of those can be fine.....depending on the circumstances..
And with it depending on circumstances your "Or" is disconnected from your examples as they can both apply. Not mutually exclusive.
imaginaryfriend wrote:
Hon
Coredump00 wrote:
imaginaryfriend wrote:
abanathie wrote:
imaginaryfriend wrote:
@Abanathie - if you have other examples of commonly-overlooked (or routinely misinterpreted rules) in addition to those you just mentioned, drop me a line sometime. Might make for an interesting article on dndadventurersleague.org!
I appreciate that Pauper has taken the time to compile these resources, but I'd also like to encourage people to continue poking your Local Coordinators, Regional Coordinators, or even us on the Admin team for Adventurers League-specific rulings. Our intention is to make the experience as broad as possible without micromanaging the concept; as previously mentioned, a DM is indeed the final arbiter though they need to keep a few things in mind when filling that role
Coredump00 wrote:
imaginaryfriend wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Pauper wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
]
While I know many of your questions are rhetorical, I will speak to one in particular.
RCanine wrote:
imaginaryfriend wrote:
If you ever need to get ahold of any of the D&D Adventurers League admins, hit this link to find our direct contact information:
http://dndadventurersleague.org/campaign-staff/
AL-specific rulings will be located in the FAQ (though some small clarifications may come out in other threads). Jeremy is an awesome dude that has done a lot for the game, and we need to bear in mind that the AL may need to adjust some of the D&D mechanics so that it's a smooth rollout across the global Organized Play playerbase.
RCanine wrote:
RCanine wrote:
RCanine wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
Kalani wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
In all fairness he is technically correct.... The rules changed from no-rule to a clearly defined rule.
CahPahkah wrote:
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.
Any formal recommendation on how to handle the useless portion of the Grappler feat?
Allow for large creature to automatically escape grapples? -ducks-
SpedGuy wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Third bullet point speaks to a rule that was removed some time during playtesting (I forget exactly which packet), a rule which stated that larger creatures could automatically escape grapples from smaller creatures. That rule no longer exists, yet the third bullet point makes an exception to the (non-existant) rule, stating that they no longer automatically escape grapples.
Grappler
- You have advantage on attack rolls against a creature you are grappling.
- You can use your action to try to pin a creature grappled by you. To do so, make another grapple check. If you succeed, you and the creature are both restrained until the grapple ends.
- Creatures that are one size larger than you don’t automatically succeed on checks to escape your grapple.
In addition to the above, the second bullet point is a trap. PCs achieve better results by grapple+prone than by using the pin action.
- Pin requires an action while shove requires an attack.
- Pin grants both parties the restrained condition - which grants advantage on attack rolls - Prone grants advantage on melee attack rolls vs. adjacent targets.
- While grappled a creature's speed is zero. This prevents a grappled+prone creature from standing, and perma-prones them for the duration of the grapple.
Kalani wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Yeah restraining yourself just doesn't seem like a worthwhile use of an action. Best to knock the creature your grappling prone so they can't stand up and have disadvantage on attack rolls. The archer(s) can focus a different target if it's really an issue imo.
Noctaem wrote:
Updated the Recommended Rulings with a recommendation on Hazirawn.
DM's can use the rules provided in the FAQ to run a 'basic' Hazirawn 'as written'. DMs are also allowed to 'flesh out' the sword using the rules in the DMG for intelligent items for use at their tables (as per the cite in the FAQ entry itself), with the caveat that other DMs are not obligated to use this DM's version of Hazirawn when running their own tables.
(This ruling is justified on the basis that the DM is the final arbiter of rules at her table, as per the ALPG, that the intelligent item is not being created by the DM but rather is being fleshed out by the DM, just as a DM could take any NPC and assign personality traits or racial abilities not included in the NPC write-up, and that the rules for intelligent items are not listed as optional or variant rules in the DMG, and are thus usable in Adventurers League.)
Also noted some slight rules differences ('attuned' vs 'activated' abilities) when using the rules in the FAQ versus using the rules in the DMG.
--
Pauper
But... Table Variance is anathema to fun and should be mitigated at least, eradicated at best--with unrelenting fervor--whenever and wherever possible.
ChrisCarlson wrote:
No worries, there will not be table variance. Any table I run will be handled the exact same way. Fervor and all....
Updated the Campaign-Specific rulings with a question related to disruptive play, using a blind wizard casting fireball on enemies and allies alike as an example:
- First, figure out if the mechanics being used can be used differently or more accurately -- for instance, the blind wizard making Perception checks to locate enemies should also be able to locate any allies that are not actively trying to avoid being detected.
- If the player persists, especially if he ignores the DM's rulings and insists that 'it's what my character would do', and if the rest of the table does not agree with the player's actions, warn the player that he is being disruptive and that further disruptive behavior will be reported to the organizer and may result in his being removed from the table.
--
Pauper
Modified the Recommended Ruling for the 'I lost Int in a fight against an intellect devourer' question -- the recommended 'fix' for this condition is to have someone cast greater restoration on the character. If no one in the party can do so, the character can hire a spellcaster from a temple in his region (the temple of Kelemvor in Season 1 in Phlan, or one of the temples in Mulmaster in Season 2), as greater restoration is listed on the Spellcasting Services table in the ALPG.
--
Pauper
Modified the Recommended Rulings for summoning and Wild Shape to clarify that the player does not choose a CR for the creature he wishes to summon/Wild Shape into -- the CR limit is a restriction on the creatures that can be chosen, not a choice in itself.
--
Pauper
Pauper wrote:
Undrhil wrote:
Managing all of the stats for these creatures seems so painful that I'd prefer if the AL just banned spells that let you summoned creatures, or limited the number of summoned creatures.
I mean, how does this actually work in practice? As DM am I required to lug around a two books and a PDF on the off chance a player casts a conjure spell?
The ALPG specifically tells DMs that all they need is the Basic Rules and whatever monster stats aren't printed in the adventure.
So I'd probably tell my players that if they want to conjure something and they don't have the stats for it on-hand, then either I'll make up the stats and they have to live with them, or they can choose another spell. And if they provide me with a printout of a stat block, I'm probably not going to look up where it came from unless either it looks fishy or game-breaking. Because it would otherwise be a waste of time at the table.
Pauper wrote:
RCanine wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
RCanine wrote:
The most recent Sage Advice is highly problematic for these Recommended Rulings, so I thought I'd pre-load the changes here to get my head around them before officially updating the first page.
Crossbow Expert -
The Recommended Rulings note that it is possible for a character with the Crossbow Expert feat to fire two hand crossbows in the same turn -- one normally and the other via the bonus action granted by Crossbow Expert. The Sage Advice ruling, however, suggests that, while this may be possible in the initial round of a combat (since you'd be starting with both crossbows loaded), you would not be able to reload either crossbow since you don't have a hand free. Note that this is despite the rules text in the Player's Handbook making no mention of needing a free hand to load a weapon with the ammunition property. Since a number of the weapons listed with the ammunition property are also two-handed ("This weapon requires two hands to use."), this ruling would imply that you cannot actually reload a crossbow, longbow, or shortbow unless you somehow gain a third hand (or have access to some enabling magic such as mage hand).
A player might argue that the obvious implication is that you hold the weapon with one hand while drawing the ammunition to load, but that's not what the ammunition property says -- "Drawing the ammunition from a quiver, case, or other container is part of the attack." (PH, p.146, emphasis mine) This isn't an issue if you don't need a free hand to draw ammunition, but if you do, and you need to use two hands to make an attack with the weapon, then you don't have a free hand to draw the ammunition.
Since this part of the ruling makes no sense, I'm considering ignoring it and leaving that portion of the Recommended Ruling as written.
The second part of the ruling notes that you can explicitly fire the same hand crossbow twice using Crossbow Expert. The Recommended Ruling agrees that this is a defensible reading of the rules, but suggests that DMs not allow this. If we were enforcing the rule requiring a free hand for loading ammunition, I could see this ruling being reasonable, as the rules are basically requiring a character who might wield two hand crossbows to only wield one and leave the off-hand open for the same effect. However, if we ignore the rule on handedness, then this does allow a character to fire a hand crossbow twice while wielding a shield or spell focus with the off-hand.
So the two rulings seem to go together, but the first ruling is so nonsensical that I can't in good conscience endorse it, which argues that both rulings should be ignored in AL play.
Lucky -
There currently is no Recommended Ruling on Lucky, and the ruling in Sage Advice (that a character with Lucky who has disadvantage rolls a third die and chooses which result to accept) is pretty much directly arguable from the text of the feat. No issue with this ruling, and probably no need to add it to the Recommended Rulings.
Magic Initiate -
The Recommended Ruling is that the 1st level spell gained via Magic Initiate does not use spell slots, even if the spell is on your class spell list and would otherwise qualify. The Sage Advice ruling is that, if you chose your own spellcasting class for Magic Initiate, you can use your spell slots to cast the spell gained, just as you can use your spell slots to cast any other spell you have prepared/available. Going with the Sage Advice ruling, however, changes the scenario in the Recommended Rulings -- instead of the warlock being able to continue to use the Magic Initiate spell once per long rest, the warlock would no longer be able to use the spell at all, as she no longer has a spell slot usable to cast the spell -- note that the feat itself specifies that you cast the chosen spell "at its lowest level," which I interpret to mean that you cannot use a higher level slot to cast the spell. (This would be an example where the specific rule in Magic Initiate beats the general rule for spellcasting -- but see below.) At the very least, the warlock would need to go back to using the spell as written in the Magic Initiate feat.
The other confusing thing about the feat is that it tells you to choose a class, but the Sage Advice ruling doesn't explicitly describe what happens if you choose a class that isn't your class, but a spell that is on your class spell list. The closest the Sage comes to explaining this situation is to say "you must follow your character's normal spellcasting rules, which determine whether you can expend spell slots on the 1st level spell from Magic Initiate." This causes two confusing results:
1) The normal spellcasting rules for a class specify that, to choose a spell (for non-wizards, anyway), that spell must be on your class spell list; it is trivial for an arcane caster to choose a spell from a different class that is on her own class spell list. It's not that hard for a cleric or druid, either, since those 1st level spell lists share six spells in the PH.
2) In situation 1 above, the Sage ruling would imply that the spell could not be cast using spell slots, since that only works if you choose your own class when you take the feat -- but that becomes an example of the general spellcasting rule beating the specific rule listed under Magic Initiate.
Again, the Recommended Ruling here seems simpler to adjudicate than the Sage Advice ruling, so I'm not sure I'll adopt the latter ruling.
Polearm Master -
If you thought the last example of general beating specific was confusing, here's where the rabbit hole really opens up.
The Sage points out that the damage dealt with the bonus action attack gains extra damage for Strength. I don't really have a problem with this ruling and have used it with one of my own players who has a character with this feat. Yet the justification is that the feat doesn't specify that you don't add Strength damage for the bonus action attack, unlike the rule for Two Weapon Fighting where the specific rule for TWF beats the general rule that you add your Strength bonus to melee damage.
Yet the Two Weapon Fighting fighting style for martial classes specifies that you do add your Strength bonus to damage with the bonus attack -- which is a specific rule beating a specific rule? Is Two Weapon Fighting general when it's being contradicted but specific when it does the contradicting? And if that's true, then how do you really decide which rule is contradicting which? Couldn't you say that the rule for Two Weapon Fighting is a specific rule that contradicts the general rule for the Two Weapon Fighting fighting style (after all, that style appears in multiple classes, and the Two Weapon Fighting rule appears just once)? And if you think that's just a pointless exercise in semantics, then what about the situation where two rules are at the same 'level' -- say, the descriptions of two different spells? How do you know which spell takes priority if it's not otherwise obvious (such as one spell providing advantage and the other disadvantage on the same roll) how the spells interact?
The actual ruling on Polearm Master specifically isn't in the Recommended Rulings and doesn't need to be added, but the explantion of the ruling opens up a bigger and far more fundamental question that I'm not entirely sure how to address.
This is going to be a really challenging Sage Advice to work through, and it makes me more than a bit relieved that I've consistently taken the position that rulings in Sage Advice don't necessarily apply to Adventurer's League, as a number of items this month appear to muddy the waters more than they clear them.
--
Pauper
Pauper wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Pauper wrote:
A lot of folks seem to be OK with the idea that 'it's how it works in real life' is a valid point to make regarding the game rules. Clearly you folks haven't been involved in a game that's tried to base its rulings on 'real life' -- there are far more arguments that happen based on what constitutes 'real life' than what constitutes rules text. For instance, does something performed in a movie count as 'real life'? So what do we do when a dude pulls out a YouTube video of the guy who has trained himself to fire three arrows in rapid succession**? Allow his 1st level ranger to do the same, since it obviously can be done in 'real life'?
** - if you want to see those videos for yourself, google 'Lars Andersen'. He's either an 11th level fighter, or anybody can learn to do what he does.
That's the point regarding rules vs 'real life' -- if we have some situations where the rules take precedence, and others where an interpretation of 'real life' takes precedence regardless of the rules, then we're already being arbitrary, and how does that help a DM?
Coredump00 wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Making an Attack Rule: Most General
If you are attacking with a melee weapon, you add your ability modifier to the damage roll.
Two Weapon Fighting Rule: Fairly General, but more specific than the Making an Attack Rule
If you are attacking with two melee weapons, one in your off hand, you may use a bonus action to attack with the offhand weapon. During this bonus action attack, do not add your ability modifier to damage.
Two Weapon Fighting Style Rule: Specific
If you have the Two Weapon Fighting Style, you may add your ability modifier when making your off-hand bonus attack, in contradiction to the normal Two Weapon Fighting Rule.
Polearm Mastery: Specific
Despite the fact that the feat grants a bonus action to make an attack, it is not the same attack as Two Weapon Fighting Rule grants.
Ainulindalion wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Ainulindalion wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Mommy_was_an_Orc wrote:
Polearm Mastery =/= TWF
They are separate abilities that grant an extra attack using the bonus action. They are as related to each other as both options are to Martial Arts. All three examples have the following points in common:
- They require the Attack action
- They are a bonus action
- They grant an extra attack.
Other than that, they are each unique abilities/features. The Two Weapon Fighting style only works with TWF. It doesn't work with Martial Arts, Polearm Mastery or any other similar feature.
Pauper wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
It's kind of hilarious to me that, over on ENWorld, the early arguments were over Crawford's explanation of the Lucky feat -- most people can't seem to get their head around Lucky turning disadvantage into super-advantage. Given the text of the feat though -- "Whenever you make an attack roll, an ability check, or a saving throw, you can spend one luck point to roll an additional d20. You can choose to spend one of your luck points after you roll the die, but before the outcome is determined. You choose which of the d20s is used for the attack roll, ability check, or saving throw." -- that's a perfectly defensible interpretation of the feat. Granted, the text of the feat seems to presume you don't have advantage or disadvantage, but that's not explicitly stated. You could probably try to put together an argument that it's implicit that the roll isn't already being modified by advantage or disadvantage, but I wouldn't bother with that.
A few folks there are saying they'll interpret it as the Lucky character rolls a die and chooses between that roll and the lower of the initial d20s, or that they'll require the character to choose the two d20s from which they'll get the lower result -- but I suppose as long as those folks aren't AL DMs, it shouldn't matter to us.
--
Pauper
Kalani wrote:
Pauper wrote:
RCanine wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Updated the Recommended Rulings based on the Sage Advice discussion of Magic Initiate, as that seems to be the least controversial of the rulings.
Since the Magic Initiate feat says that you cast the spell 'at its lowest level', you can only cast the spell using your own spell slots if you have first level spell slots to cast the spell with. Thus, a warlock who gains enough levels that her first level Pact Magic slots are 'upgraded' to second level slots can only cast a first-level warlock spell gained via Magic Initiate as described in the feat (once per long rest).
If the warlock multiclasses to gain first level spell slots via the multiclassing rules, she can cast the spell gained via Magic Initiate using those spell slots; the multiclassing rules specifically allow characters with the Pact Magic and Spellcasting features to use their spell slots gained via each class to cast spells from the other class.
--
Pauper
Pauper wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Pauper wrote:
I'm DMing at a convention for the first time next weekend, but the slots aren't time constrained (weird scheduling meant 5 hour slots).
RCanine wrote:
I had an archer ranger get close in DDEX1-9, but they found some more arrows on an enemy archer when they were about to run out. They had 2 left. Those arrows, unfortunately, did not last beyond the end of the session.
A number of their arrows that would have otherwise been recoverable were judged to not be due to circumstance, though.
I guess the thing I just don't get about enforcing ammunition rules is that it always seems like "accounting for the sake of feeling bad", which just isn't how I run my games.
Either: 1.) You don't run out of ammunition in an adventure (in which case you wasted all of the time involved in tracking it) or 2.) You do run out of ammunition in an adventure (in which case the player is prevented from playing her character as she'd like to). Where's the upside?
When 10 gp in any settlement gets you 200 arrows, and there's no situation where a player's experience is improved by limiting ammunition, what's the point? It feels like an unnecessary holdover from the earliest versions of D&D, when the rest of the game has (thankfully) gotten away from that kind of fiddly-ness.
I mean, we could also keep track of how long it's been since our horses were re-shoed, when those rations we bought will go bad, and the varying weights of copper pieces minted in Waterdeep and Calimport...but that's not fun either.
CahPahkah wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Normally I don't track Twitter for updates on rulings, but the recent Sage Advice column has sparked a few good ones:
A blindfold however, would impose temporary blindness for the duration you remain blindfolded.
So you can fight a medusa with closed eyes without disadvantage?
Mirtek wrote:
Mirtek wrote:
I DM at conventions for strangers with time constrained slots. Wether I track arrows depends on the adventure. If it has limited trade opportunities (i.e. players might actually run out without a chance of buying new ones) I will likely track them... But, because I know conventions what i tend to do is check up front. Usually just referencing ammo once will get the archer to stock up to where it ceases to become interesting so I can stop it from costing time. If I remember, and that is honestly an if, I will check back at the end of the adventure just so they dont have free arrows.
Preferred is players that bother to track themselves. It happens, but its rare enough.
tldr> gotta be a certain type of adventure for ammo to matter in a time crunch environment. If i does not matter, I just ballpark cost and dont bother
(edit I realize this is way out of order.. browser mishap, sorry all)
Modified, but did not change, the Recommended Ruling on Crossbow Expert (including changing the reference from Crossbow Master). Left the original ruling as-is, but added two paragraphs clarifying that, if a player is using a build that is causing problems for the table, by being overpowered or hogging limelight that should be shared with other players, the DM is welcome to invoke the 'need a free hand to reload your hand crossbows' rule to balance the encounter, as this appears to be the way the Sage uses the rule himself.
--
Pauper
As a DM I generally rule any attempts at self-hinderance ONLY in order to get some mechanical advantage as a "bag of rats" violation. Donning a blindfold because it will allow you to use lucky without a good Combat/Roleplaying reason. Nope.
Closing your eyes to fight the medusa, still cool. Doing a blindfolded archery contest so you can use lucky, also cool (cooler if you also face the other way and stand on one leg ).
imaginaryfriend wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Shakes head.
If I ever go and play AL, and mind you reading this here strengthens my intent not to,
I will leave the table immediatly when some DMs writing in this thread turn up.
Example
You can not have winter clothes because. Your DM may just rule them away because.
Really. Adventurers are supposed to be seasoned and at least halfway intelligent.
So, I am going to the north pole, or into the mountains in winter or the like and I have no winther clothes.
Only to take cold damage or whatnot because...
This reminds me of the 2 US boys I met in the canadian rocky mountains with short trousers, T-shirt, and trainers and no dry reserve cloths no warm cloth,
light sleeping bags unprotected against rain. Must I mention I met them in the middle of a thunderstorm and wet down to their pants,
already shivering from the beginning of hypthermia. I had to give them my reserve clothes (to one) and my dry sleeping bag ( to the other).
and - in the morning after an uncomfortable night - threatened them to inform the next ranger about them
to make sure they would get the heck out of the wildernis.
Is that the way you expect adventurers to be...stupit little boys. Reading that thread her makes me wonder.
I would prefer some commen sense over the rules lawyering which is to be found here and I sincerely hope
that most AL DMs have common sense. The DMs I play with have such common sense,
so I will assume the best for those playing AL.
Really, you should take a step back and listen to yourself and your bickering.
Speaking of the Winter Clothing issue - this came up recently regarding the fact that 2 of the S2 expeditions take characters into frigid mountainous terrain. The consensus of the campaign staff (including the admins) was to allow players to purchase winter clothing for the duration of the adventure (at a cost comparable to other clothing).
As this gear is not listed in the PHB, is not listed as treasure, and is not specifically purchasable within the adventure - players cannot keep it beyond the length of the session (much like how they can use enemy weapons/armor, but they become useless after the adventure).
Keep in mind - this is not an official ruling and your DM is under no obligation to allow this - but it does create a prescident that DMs are allowed to deviate from the equipment lists for the length of an adventure/session, but that players cannot permanently keep such items unless it is found in an Allowed Rules source or Official Documentation.
DSZ wrote:
Mirtek wrote:
Pauper wrote:
DSZ wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
"I for one try to leave room in my judgements and assume that while from your words it seems there is a chip on your shoulder the size of the whole Planescape library, were we to meet and talk, it would likely be fine. Granted I am naive "
I do not know how you got the idea of the chip but now that you mention it.
My shoulder did ache a lot lately.
*Looks on shoulder* "urgh" *smashes chip from sholder*.
Thank you my imaginary friend. That's a lot better.
Kalani wrote:
The adventure in question states that characters have to make a constitution save vs. the cold, and that characters without proper winter clothing make the save with disadvantage (not an exact quote).
This implies that, no, characters are not automatically equipped for extreme weather.
imaginaryfriend wrote:
Pauper wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
Added a comment to the ruling on repairing armor damaged by a grey ooze that the rules on p.185 of the Players Handbook can also be used to damage or destroy mundane equipment, and that the ad-hoc repair rules offered for the grey ooze question can be used to repair that equipment as well. Also noted, since AL prohibits players from crafting magic items, that rule would prevent the use of the ad-hoc crafting rules to repair broken magic items.
--
Pauper
Kalani wrote:
RCanine wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Mommy_was_an_Orc wrote:
So, Pauper, are you arguing that requiring a hand crossbow to need a free hand to load is powergaming and/or munchkining? I don't understand how you could even think that. The player who is trying to use their shield hand for loading a hand crossbow is the one who is being the munchkin. The player who is trying to fire two hand crossbows at once is the one who is being the munchkin. Not the one who has a hand crossbow and a shield and says "OK, I fire my hand crossbow. I then drop the hand crossbow and pull out my longsword."
Undrhil wrote:
My preferred way to deal with this:
DM: "It's cold in the mountains you're going to. Do you have winter clothing?"
Player One: "Yep. As you know, I'm an arctic druid, and I wear a big warm parka."
Player Two: "Well, I am a dwarf wizard from the northern mountains, so I'm assuming my set of 'common clothes' would be for warmer climates, not a swimsuit."
Player Three: "Uh... I guess not. I'm a desert barbarian. How can I pick up winter clothes?"
DM: "Just pay the 2 gp cost for an outfit of traveller's clothes, and we'll say it's travelling clothes from a warmer climate."
The PHB/PBR doesn't actually define what climate the clothes are optimized for when you buy them or are given them. But I'd assume that a set of common clothes belonging to a pirate from the Moonsea would be quite different from common clothes belonging to a gladiator from Zakhara.
I really don't see why it's a big fuss, though. It's just clothes. It shouldn't be the centerpoint of an adventure, nor is it really necessary to extract a one-time cost for overpriced, disposable thermal underwear.
Modified a sub-ruling under the looting advice -- previously, I noted that a party that chose to collect gold in a common pool and distribute it after the conclusion of an adventure could do so and leave dead characters out of the distribution, effectively preserving their share of loot. This interpretation does not conform to the AL guidelines on treasure distribution, however. The treasure gained in an adventure is divided among all characters who participated in an adventure, regardless of whether or not those characters survive the adventure, and then the award going to any character returning to life via Faction Charity is lost.
Also clarified that a DM can either choose to include or exclude dead characters from the combat XP calculation for combats that occur after the characters' deaths -- all characters that do not invoke Faction Charity during a module still receive the minimum XP award regardless of how few combats they participated in.
--
Pauper
Pauper wrote:
RCanine wrote:
Pauper wrote:
I believe that characters who take faction charity forfeit the ability to gain a magic item for that adventure. Even if they have the lowest # of magic items - said character can't claim the item (it would go to the character with the next lowest)
Kalani wrote:
RCanine wrote:
abanathie wrote:
RCanine wrote:
abanathie wrote:
RCanine wrote:
I think we are heading really far down the rabbit hole at this point....
Coredump00 wrote:
abanathie wrote:
Ainulindalion wrote:
Well, that means that I don't mind Austrialian rabbit holes. I do mind non-Australian rabbit holes...
Adventurers League Players Guide, page 12:
Faction Charity. If the character is of level 1 to 4 and a member of a faction, the dead character’s body can be returned to civilization and a patron from the faction ensures that he or she receives a raise dead spell. However, any character invoking this charity forfeits all XP and rewards from that session (even those earned prior to death during that session), and cannot replay that episode or adventure with that character again.
TheBreen wrote:
Ainulindalion wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
TheBreen wrote:
Added a section under Multiclass questions regarding spells and spell slots, including definitions of 'class' spell and 'class' spell slot as they apply to multiclass casters.
Also specified that the spell slots gained via Pact Magic are distinguishable from other spell slots possessed by a multiclass caster, and thus 'count' as warlock spell slots. This means that a class feature that specifies a non-warlock spell slot be used to power it (such as the paladin's Divine Smite) cannot use these spell slots to do so. To maintain balance between features that specify class-specific spell slots (like Divine Smite) and features that don't specify class-specific spell slots (like the sorcerer's Flexible Casting feature), the recommendation is that DMs enforce that the multiclassing rules only explicitly enable a caster to cast spells with his Pact Magic spell slots from his Spellcasting classes, and thus do not explicitly allow the use of those slots to power non-warlock class features. This recommendation is provisional pending further guidance from an official source.
--
Pauper
Pauper wrote:
Pauper wrote:
RCanine wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
RCanine wrote:
RCanine wrote:
RCanine wrote:
Let me break it down to a simple rule question.
As a player, I read Font of Magic and it says I can convert a 3rd level slot into 3 sorcery points.
My Sorc5/war5 has 3 3rd level spell slots. I use one of the 3rd level spell slots gained via Pact Magic and convert it into 3 sorcery points.
Can you provide any rule that restricts that?
Please note, I have already provided the rules that permit this to occur, so I do not need more permission. The only way to stop this is to find a restriction. (IOW, just because there is no *permission* on p.164 isn't relevant.)
Divine Smite, Font of Magic, and Primeval Awareness already provide the permission to use a spell slot. Thus there is no need for that permission to be repeated on p.164. The lack of redundant permission is not the same as a restriction.
CahPahkah wrote:
A few points:
- Passive vs. Active voice
I went around on this a few times when originally writing the first recommended rulings, and I decided on the passive voice exactly because it's accurate -- folks from the admin team and coordinators have commented on the rulings, and I've changed a few of them to be more in line with their recommendations. If the admins and coordinators haven't commented on a ruling, I assume they're OK with it.
That's part of why I say that the discussion is actually more valuable than the ruling -- the discussion may reveal a ruling that's better for an individual table to use even though I don't promote it to be the recommended ruling. The whole reason I call these the 'recommended' rulings is that an AL DM is not required to use them, but if a DM finds a ruling, either in the main posts or in the discussion thread, that works for her, she's welcome to use it. It's a resource, not a requirement.
- Spell slots vs. spells
With the recent PH errata, the Divine Smite question does appear to be put to rest (and I'll need to modify the recommended ruling to account for that). However, RCanine brings up a different point with respect to certain class abilities that require spells from that specific class -- notably the Sorcerer. That limitation still exists for multiclass characters -- just because you have Sorcerer as one of your spellcasting classes doesn't mean that every spell you cast is a Sorcerer spell, even though you can use any slot to cast it.
- Balance vs rulings
I strenuously disagree that maintaining balance is not a reason to make a ruling -- maintaining balance is probably the most important reason to make a ruling. The presumption is that the existing game rules are balanced (this is why, for example, Unearthed Arcana always gets released with big neon letters saying 'use this at your own risk'); even then, though, the designers freely admit that there are going to be places in the rules that aren't as clear as they should be, and that some interactions between abilities probably haven't been explored to the degree the designers would have liked. The designers expect that the DM will resolve these issues in her own campaign.
The admins already take balance into consideration when making campaign rules -- for example, the biggest reason why the 'allowed rules' for a given storyline season exist is to avoid balance issues from players picking and choosing rules elements from multiple sources. I find it pretty non-sensical to say that the admins can set campaign rules specfiically to maintain balance, but that individual table DMs are prohibited from doing the same.
In short, it's a perfectly valid use of DM power to say, 'hey, I notice this combination of effects seems abusive and is hurting the table; I'll make a ruling to pull back the power level of that combo and let other players have fun, too'.
--
Pauper
A number of changes related to the released errata for the Player's Handbook:
- Signficant changes to the Crossbow Expert entry based on the addition to the Ammunition property that you need a 'free hand' to load a one-handed weapon with that property. In effect, the change to Ammunition makes it so that the only way to take the bonus action attack allowed by Crossbow Expert with a hand crossbow is to wield a single hand-crossbow with nothing in the other hand, which makes the original recommended ruling (that an attack from a given hand crossbow not be allowed to enable the bonus action attack with the same hand crossbow) oppressive.
- Complete change to the Magic Initiate ruling -- given the errata (the restriction on casting the spell at its lowest level only applies when using the once-per-long-rest casting allowed by the feat), there is now no reason to prevent a warlock from casting a warlock spell gained via Magic Initiate with her spell slots, regardless of what level those slots are.
- Modified the warlock multiclassing questions entry -- I have kept the ad-hoc definitions of class spell and class spell slot, and continue to note that the rules for combining spell slots between Spellcasting classes and the Pact Magic class only explicitly allow unrestricted use of the spell slots for spellcasting, not for the purpose of powering class features. However, I have removed the recommendation that DMs not allow characters to use their Pact Magic spell slots to power their non-warlock class features; instead, I have noted that this situation is subject to DM approval. A DM who finds a particular use to not be abusive or to be within the bounds of her table can allow the practice, while a DM who finds such a build to be abusive can rule that the practice is not allowed at her table, based on the rule for multiclassing Pact Magic with Spellcasting classes.
As always, respectful feedback is encouraged and appreciated.
--
Pauper
Maybe a simple disclaimer at the beginning of the first post that emphasizes that you're no one official and have some kind of code system that quickly identifies that certain rulings are from the ALPG, some are from staff, some based on rules of the game, and some are based on what you perceive to be consensus. Maybe color code the sblock text based on the source?
Mommy_was_an_Orc wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Mommy_was_an_Orc wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Mommy_was_an_Orc wrote:
I would still love someone to respond to this...
As a player, I read Font of Magic and it says I can convert a 3rd level slot into 3 sorcery points.
My Sorc5/war5 has 3 3rd level spell slots. I use one of the 3rd level spell slots gained via Pact Magic and convert it into 3 sorcery points.
Can you provide any rule that restricts that?
Please note, I have already provided the rules that permit this to occur, so I do not need more permission. The only way to stop this is to find a restriction. (IOW, just because there is no *permission* on p.164 isn't relevant.)
Divine Smite, Font of Magic, and Primeval Awareness already provide the permission to use a spell slot. Thus there is no need for that permission to be repeated on p.164. The lack of redundant permission is not the same as a restriction.
abanathie wrote:
RCanine wrote:
RCanine wrote:
The only thing that will change Pauper's mind about one of his rulings is for an official AL admin to come into the thread and directly contradict said ruling. No amount of arguing will work. (Trust me, I tried in the previous Recommended Ruling thread and it's why there is now a 2.0 thread, because Pauper didn't want to have someone disagreeing with his rulings dirting the thread.) Not until Skerrit said, unequivocably, that a Cleric of an evil deity can take the Life domain, did Pauper change his ruling.
So, good luck with your fights, RCanine and Coredump.
To keep this post on-topic, I will also point out that the official errata says that you can expend any spell slot for use with Divine Smite. Is Pact Magic giving spell slots? Yes? Then they work with Divine Smite.
RCanine wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Pauper wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Pauper, why can't I get you to give a direct answer to a direct question...??
As a player, I read Font of Magic and it says I can convert a 3rd level slot into 3 sorcery points.
My Sorc5/war5 has 3 3rd level spell slots. I use one of the 3rd level spell slots gained via Pact Magic and convert it into 3 sorcery points.
Can you provide any rule that restricts that?
Please note, I have already provided the rules that permit this to occur, so I do not need more permission. The only way to stop this is to find a restriction. (IOW, just because there is no *permission* on p.164 isn't relevant.)
Divine Smite, Font of Magic, and Primeval Awareness already provide the permission to use a spell slot. Thus there is no need for that permission to be repeated on p.164. The lack of redundant permission is not the same as a restriction.
RCanine wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Pauper wrote:
imaginaryfriend wrote:
Gods damnit Pauper.... Now you made everyone lose the game... (I am very good at the Game, as I tend to forget it exists, allowing me to go upwards of 6mo - 1yr without losing).
Wait just a minute! I am not losing...I am winning. I didn't get this tigerblood for nothing!
Wait. There's a Game?
Pauper wrote:
Pauper wrote:
abanathie wrote:
Some folks in the thread have offered up ideas for modifying or reorganizing the Recommended Rulings, and I've been considering those ideas for the v3 edition that should be coming out around the time Rage of Demons goes live. While I'm honestly not opposed to the idea of taking suggestions from the community, there are a few things that temper how I perceive those suggestions, so I thought I should make them explicit:
- I sometimes have time to visit and update these rulings during the regular work day, but ideally, anything I need to accomplish to modify the rulings should be something that can be done over half of a lunch hour. Requests for extensive modifications to the structure of the rulings (color-coding, for example) is going to be a problem, since those are things that, to me anyway, add time to the maintenance of the rulings without adding a lot of value.
- I resist referring to these rulings as 'my' rulings (though this is 'my' thread), because I am aware that not everything in them is mine; I've taken suggestions and ideas from other members of the community on a number of them. To present them as mine would be unethical. At the same time, I do edit and change some of the ideas I've gotten from the community, so while attribution would be a good thing, that, too gets to be time-consuming and wades into a grey area (how much do I need to edit someone else's idea before it's no longer really their idea?) The compromise is that I present the rulings as community rulings rather than my own. Clearly even that's not perfect for some, but that's the compromise I've gone with.
I have decided that maintaining 'official' rulings here that already exist in other sources only adds to confusion and other problems some folks have with the rulings, so for v3, I'll be removing any rulings that are wholly based on entries in the FAQ or other AL-official sources. However, some rulings refer to official sources but have additional commentary (such as the Hazirawn ruling); those will remain, but with a hopefully clearer distinction over what part of the ruling is official and needs to be followed, and what part is commentary and thus can be safely ignored if desired.
Respectful observations and suggestions are welcome; keep in mind, though, that if I read a request and my first thought is 'wow, that would be a crap-ton of work to implement', I'm not likely to look at the request favorably. Just FYI.
--
Pauper
I concur. I think you should call v3 - Paupers recommended Rulings. Then, if you include any official rulings - all you need to do to distinguish them is give them an official tag.
For example:
- Official - characters must have lycanthropy/vampirism cured before the start of their next adventure or episode.
you could even post links to the official ruling you are quoting - which would go a long way actually, as the more links to official rulings - the more likely people will become aware of them
Kalani wrote:
Pauper wrote:
I read and understand your pov. I just happen to disagree with it. The use of passive voice still gives the impression of authority even despite your frequent claims to the contrary. Most people will only read the rulings and ignore the discussion (and therefore not see that point). Even if you gave a preamble - many people skip introductions and scroll down to the rulings themselves.
This is not a face palm situation but merely our opinions (which differ from yours). Furthermore - I indicated how you might differentiate your rulings from those which are official.
Mr. P: I am going to repeatedly stab myself in the hand with this here pen!
Concerned Community Members: People should avoid stabbing themselves. It hurts, is generally not a good idea, and sends the wrong message.
Mr. P: *facepalm* Weren't you listening just now when I specifically said I was going to stab myself with a pen? Sheesh. Pay attention.
Just because you resist it does not mean its not a good idea. I personally am fine with the fact that you end up claiming some sort of community consensus by leaving it out (even if there is just about zero consensus ever to come out of this particular community, its just not how we roll ), it is and remains your choice. But lets not try to kid ourselves into thinking that it is not ALWAYS the editor that decides.
I find that what you are doing right now unintentionally unethical (obviously not to level that bothers me immensely). You, through I believe pure motives, end up presenting your editorial conclusions as the communities conclusions. Which they are not. The issue of possibly falsely projecting ownership of the rulings is a less of an issue to me. And one that can easily be avoided by a simple statement that while you are the editor, you are not always the author.
You make the choices of what and how to present rulings. The simple reality is that as Kalani says, nobody except us poor souls will bother reading the entire debate. And if you would ateempt to include the entire debate with the ruling they would soon become unreadable.
But bottom line, I am glad someone is willing to do the editing on the conclusion (well.. sorta... few debates here ever reach one).
Sorry if it seems like I'm venting my frustration on you, Kalani, but I just don't see what you guys are seeing.
For starters, while I agree that some users will just come and read the rulings without bothering to look up the context, I disagree that this means the context is unimportant. Dumbing down the rulings for the lowest-common-denominator user will make them less useful for folks who do want to take the time to interact with the discussion. If the resource is going to exist, I want it to be the best-quality resource it can be, given the restrictions of the medium and how I'm maintaining it.
Also, I think people are conflating my role in maintaining the rulings with my role in managing the rulings; if these truly were 'my' rulings, they'd look quite a bit different than they do -- the goodberry ruling would still specify that the first berry eaten by a given recipient receives the Life Domain bonus healing and no others, for example. Just because nobody else can edit what I post in the rulings parts of this thread (as they could if this were on a wiki; and let's face it, there's a reason the dndadventurersleague.org wiki is only open to staff), doesn't mean the rulings haven't been influenced by other posters. 'Pauper's House Rules' would look significantly different from these rulings, because I don't actually agree with all of these rulings, but the areas where I disagree with the published rulings aren't relevant, because it's not my opinion that makes the rulings relevant, it is the degree to which these rulings represent consensus among the community. Consensus does not mean unanimity -- and given the community we have, it's pretty likely there are very few topics on which we'd see actual unanimous agreement. At the same time, one person expressing a difference of opinion also doesn't automatically represent a consensus on the alternate opinion.
--
Pauper
As I do not wish to step on anyone's toes, but wish to offer perspective - if you guys wish, I am more than willing to start a similar threat which presents the communities suggested rulings.
Such a thread would welcome debate, and would present all competing rulings (if a general consensus cannot be reached by the majority).
That, or given my writing style would present the recommended rulings as - DMs can do X,Y, and /or Z: here are the pros/cons of each option and the option recommended by community consensus. If community consensus is not reached - I would likely say: there is split consensus on this ruling. Expect table variation.
I would remove any recommended ruling which contradicts the official rules - and would also provide a link to the FAQ. All rulings would be on issues the rules do not cover
Above all - I would attempt to maintain impartiality. While I might offer an initial suggested ruling - I would not place my rulings on any pedestal (and would happily remove them if they are not taken favourably).
The goal would be to provide a list of rulings which might further the ALs goals of creating a "mostly consistent play experience".
Kalani wrote:
I totally believe and see that you (Pauper) are attempting to be very neutral when editing and presenting these rulings. However there is no such hing as a neutral editor..
But just swapping out the "recommended" for something more supportable is also an option. "Possible" or maybe even "Proposed" may work better.
Kalani wrote:
Pauper wrote:
abanathie wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Kalani wrote:
The thing is - if I made such a thread, it would not be about whether I agreed or not - it would be about what the posters in the thread agreed to or not. All suggestions would be equally weighted. If one suggestion is found to be in error, that is one thing - but if it's just a matter of perception, preference or interpretation - they are equally weighted IMO so the recommendation would be: you can do either - here is what the community suggests.
This would be no more or less legitimate than this thread, save that it would not be me making a determination. Instead it would simply be a compilation of the suggestions from others in-thread (and any consensus based on said, if any)
Either way - I am not sure I want to do this as of yet.
Kalani wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
For example: dual handbows. Pre-errata I would have provided both interpretations. Post-errata, the erroneous one would be removed.
Another example: A ruling which directly contradicts the FAQ on an issue. Let's say - a ruling that says DMs are empowered to make any change to the rules or adventure they like. This would be erroneous. DMs are empowered to make limited changes only.
Coredump00 wrote:
I am just saying, there have been a number of threads here with differing views, both sides were using 'RAW' and both groups had a logical process to 'prove' their stance.
As I said above - if there are two or more competing viewpoints and both are legal interpretations - I would present both
Kalani wrote:
@Pauper - Calling v3 "Community Recommended Rulings" wouldn't be a bad itea. It seems that you are headstrong in believing that "you" have nothing to do with these rulings, so they aren't "your" rulings. And that's fine. So, distance yourself from them. Don't use any of your own input and only go with community concensus on the rulings.
"Community Recommended Rulings"
Coredump00 wrote:
abanathie wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Sigh... As I have said several times; Errors are only factual. If it involves interpretation/opinion, it is not an error (just a variant interpretation).
For example: A suggestion to allow longswords to deal 2d10 damage when dropped from a height.
- This is an error, as longswords have a defined damage.
- The attack would be considered an improvised ranged attack, which is also defined.
- Falling damage is also defined.
- Therefore, this ruling would be erroneous.
Correct Rulings: The DM in the above example would be free to rule any of the following:
- The attack is considered an improvised ranged attack (1d4 piercing/slashing, range 20/60). Beyond 60 ft, the attack has no chance of hitting the target. The character does not gain proficiency bonus to this attack (as longswords are not thrown weapons, nor are they similar to any thrown weapon on the weapon list).
- The attack deals falling damage (1d6/10 ft). Both the weapon and the target take this damage.
- The defender can make a dexterity saving throw to avoid damage (or take half)
- A combination of the above.
All of the above are correct rulings, and as such - were I to include such a ruling, I would include all options (as I did above). If there is a preference for one of the above rulings (by a majority of posters), I would indicate such.
Kalani wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Added a Recommended Ruling for unofficial rewards, such as the lich in Princes of the Apocalypse granting a wish to a character.
The general ruling is, unless a reward is specifically listed in an adventure or otherwise has official documentation (an example of the latter is the cert for the Death domain given out during the Season 1 Epic), it is an unofficial reward, and the ALPG gives DMs the authority to disallow rules items from unofficial sources. Simply because a DM can use DME to change an NPC's spell list to include wish does not mean that the adventure intends the NPC to cast wish on behalf of the player characters.
A DM could still allow the effect of the wish or other unofficial reward if she thinks it will add to the fun of her game, but is not required to do so.
--
Pauper
Pauper wrote:
The admins, and RCs have stated on dozens of occasions that characters can only earn rewards specifically mentioned in the adventure.
Gaining a permanent award from Wish would only be possible if it was specifically offered in the written text of the adventure itself.
We are however allowed to roll mundane treasure if it's specifically offered in an adventure (eg treasure hoard in RoT). Random magic items or magic items "chosen by the DM" are not allowed (eg. An award of "one minor item of the DMs choice" would be ignored).
This is an official stance by the admins.
Kalani wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Explaining? But that would totally go against the time honored tradition of just throwing...lets say....stuff at the wall and seeing if it sticks. I must protest this attempt at forcing brain usage!
Kalani wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Skerrit wrote:
Skerrit wrote:
I should also add that in Greg's example (an NPC will cast wish so that each character gains an artifact) - unless the specific artifacts are mentioned in the adventure, we are to ignore that entry.... DMs cannot add/subtract/modify treasure awards. Unless specific artifact(s) are included in the NPC's offer - we pretend they don't exist.
Case in point - RoT
RoT includes a "Dragon Hoard", and instructs the DM to roll treasure appropriate for X. The rule for RoT is as follows.
Rise of Tiamat does not include enough experience for characters to reach the anticipated levels for each episode and relies heavily on the milestone rule, which the D&D Adventurers League does not use, for advancement. It also leaves some treasure distribution to the Dungeon Master and to random die rolls. How should DMs handle these issues when running League games of Rise of Tiamat?.....stuff.
As far as treasure goes, DMs must only award magic items listed in the adventure and must not award random magic items. DMs may award appropriate consumable magic items, gold, gems, and art objects within the limits set by the tables on pages 136 to 139 of the Dungeon Master’s Guide.
Coredump00 wrote:
Skerrit wrote:
I see no reason why it wouldn't. Continual flame has an expensive and consumed material component (worth 50gp). That component should be listed on your log sheet as having been expended when you cast the spell. The effect of continual flame lasts until such times as one of the following occurs (making it an indefinite rather than permanent award):
- The spell is dispelled (dispel magic)
- You cast the spell using a 2nd level spell slot and the flame is brought within the radius of a darkness spell.
Continual flame is a transaction. You spend 50gp to gain an everburning torch. You could have spent that same GP on a healing potion instead. This is a far cry from wish, which can increase your GP, Magic Items, etc for "free" - the only cost being a replenishable resource and a small chance of never being able to cast the spell again.
Actually looking at the Wish spell - all of the following benefits would be perfectly allowable:
- Duplicating a spell effect of 8th level or lower.
- Heal up to 20 creatures
- Grant 10 creatures resistance to a damage type (until the end of session)
- Grant 10 creatures immunity to a single spell/effect for 8 hrs.
- Undo a single recent event (that happens in game). Wish could not be used to reroll a magic item roll as this is a metarule.
- Curing vampirism (specifically mentioned in the MM, and allowed as per the Vampirism/Lycanthropy ruling).
- Other benefits which only last until the end of session.
The following uses would break the limitations of AL.
- Wishing for an object up to 25K in value - DMs cannot add treasure.
- Permanent resistance - DMs cannot alter intangible rewards.
- Wishing for a magic item - DMs cannot add treasure
- Wishing to reroll (or automatically claim) a magic item. Magic item distribution is a metarule, and cannot be bypassed via a spell (even if you ignore the fact that the game session is "over" before items are distributed).
- Other similar effects.
- Adding/Removing a Favor/Enmity from the character (unless specified in the favor's description)
abanathie wrote:
Spell persistance between sessions, ok. DMs call, but ok. Session implies same DM, same table or at the very least same location.
Spell persistance between expeditions is going to be a horror. There is no neutral clock in AL. Nor is there any way to tell what happened in the time between expeditions. So barring the creation of AL specific rules all of this would fall to the DM to rule on. And I am not looking forward to telling a player that that teleportation circle DM X let them invest in in DDEX2-9.. no longer exists now that she is playing DDEX2-15...
While the test looks fine I would nevertheless stay far FAR away from creating recommended rulings on the topic. This problem space is very very big and varried.