The State of Mulmaster article is up on dndadventurersleague.org, and contains full rules on the Edict of Arcane Banishment that forbids spellcasting within the city of Mulmaster.
Thanks to Skerrit for writing it, and I'm really looking forward to the first time I get to roll 22+ on the Sentencing table for a PC casting an arcane spell in the city!
--
Pauper
I. Love. This. Article.
I was afraid that the whole arcane ban would be downplayed as fluff, but these rules are really impactful. Dude, you could be burned, have your ashes dispersed, and your soul cursed to the nine hells if you "crit" your sentencing after casting skywrite.
On the other hand, you can get free scrolls by joining the cloaks.
This is some really cool stuff.
Oh, look, let's screw over wizards again. :P
On another matter, High Elf Wizard Cantrip: I've never read it as an innate racial ability, more as a childhood training issue (much like Elf Weapon Proficiency). So, is it or isn't it? Because I think that would matter in Mulmaster.
Warlock Invocations that allow spellcasting without expending a spell slot: Arcane Magic? None of those spells are on the spell list for Warlock.
Same question for Bard non-spellcasting abilities like Inspiration and Song of Rest, and the other arcane classes that have abilities that are clearly magical in nature that aren't spells.
If they are, how do you define the 'spell level' for them (if it isn't defined)?
Ainulindalion wrote:
For those who aren't reading the other Mulmaster thread - here is a minor clarification regarding rank advancement during your first cloak adventure (the adventure in which you become a cloak).
Ainulindalion wrote:
So in other words, if a druid would be prevented from using the ability while in Wild Shape, the authorities in Mulmaster will toss you in the clink for using it without authorization.
--
Pauper
Pauper wrote:
This is very interesting. I'm playing a Lawful wizard who is part of the Lord's Alliance. That means I will be joining the cloaks so I don't get arrested every time I sneeze and then once I get to rank 3, I will be recruited into the Hawks like the rest of the Lord's Alliance...
Now, will I be a Hawk, spying for the Cloaks or a Cloak, spying for the Hawks? Or will this turn into Yojimbo or A Fistfull of Dollars...
The Cloaks over there, the Hawks there, and me (or "us") right smack in the middle. There's money to be made in these parts.
Which one is stronger?
Thanks for the answers, Skerrit.
Isn't this adding a source of interparty conflict between Cloaks and non-registered arcane spell casters in the party? Are PCs who are members of the cloaks supposed to report unregistered party members during/after an adventure even if there are no other witnesses?
Could a cloak be in trouble when witnesses report a party member for unauthorized magic use while the cloak failed to report him?
I suspect the answer to both questions would be "Yes", if it can be proven.
Interparty conflict is fine (it adds dramatic tension), as long as the party "works together" toward a common goal. A LE zhentarim is not required to be "best buddies" with the LG paladin, nor is my Paladin of Tiamat (Taevyn) supposed to be friends with the party Paladin of Bahamut (yes this did occur, and created competitive rivalry between the characters). It does require a level of maturity however, to downplay the conflict so that it does not become disruptive.
Regarding Cloaks vs. non-cloak PCs
As per the sidebar in DDEX2-3 - characters do have a grace period in which they can sign up for the Cloaks. Party cloaks should encourage PC wizards to sign up, especially if they are using spells above 3rd level. It is not their place as low-ranking Cloaks to bring them to justice per se, and you can easily rule that such characters "look the other way", or strongly rebuff the spell use.
Should said characters be caught however, the PC cloaks would be expected to follow the law and not interfere - but they could always act as the PCs lawyer/representative. With that being said, Mulmaster is a city rife with corruption. As long as you don't get caught, you can pretty much do anything - including breaking your non-cloak PCs out of prison before they are sentenced and/or bribing officials for leniency.
The following is a spoiler-free quote of the sidebar (DDEX 2-3, p7), and can be easily used as a guideline for how PC Cloaks should react to their fellow non-cloak wizards.
The use of arcane magic is tightly regulated in Mulmaster. If any of the characters used arcane magic during the fight, consult the following.Level 3 or Lower Spells. After thanking them for coming to his aid, he asks how long the mage has lived in the city.
- If the answer is less than three months, he smiles benignly and reminds them that they need to register and join the Cloaks before their six months are up.
Level 4 or Higher Spells. After thanking them for coming to his aid, he asks how long the mage has lived in the city.
- He is very stern and informs them that even though it saved him such magic should not be used in the city and the character should consider joining the Cloaks immediately even if their three months are not yet up.
Note that if the character is a member of the Cloaks he thanks them by name before any introductions are made.
How long is a month in the forgotten realms? How do we determine how long we've been in town?
IIRC, the Faerun calander aligns with ours - a year is 365 days, and a month is 30 days (give or take). Unlike our calander though, Faerun makes use of 3 ten-days in a month (instead of 4+ 7 day weeks). Also, as per comments Greg made - characters get one free adventure before the trouble starts (regardless of how long they have been in Mulmaster).
Interesting to note that the article itself does specify that a Cloak who violates his oath to uphold the Edict of Arcane Banishment is burned, scattered to the Moonsea, and his soul consigned to the Hells -- so if another member of the party is found to have violated the Edict by being found out by an NPC and the PC Cloak is discovered to have turned a blind eye, it could end up much worse for the Cloak than for the non-Cloak!
DMs should be on the lookout for situations like this that might exacerbate inter-party tension or allow players to troll other players (a non-Cloak arcane spellcaster could literally put other PC Cloaks on the hot seat).
--
Pauper
imaginaryfriend wrote:
To what extent are DMs required to enforce the spellcasting rules, as opposed to the rules being a recommendation?
For example, it's not uncommon to have first-time players in Encounters or meetup games, including some who have not actually gotten to read the ALPG first (let alone keeping up with the web site on a regular basis). Such players are usually assigned pregens. Could the DM decide to just give them a pass rather than rolling, even if they cast an obvious arcane spells in front of a magistrate?
I've found it's quite common for Expeditions to run kind of long, especially if there are 6 or 7 players. Would it be acceptable for the DM to just gloss over these spellcasting rules instead of taking the time to enforce them, if it means slowing down her game to do things by the book? (A group of the Watch and/or Soldiery and Cloaks showing up could lead to a fight, and possibly to a TPK, not even counting the time spent sentencing and so forth.)
Is it acceptable for a DM to give out a lesser sentence instead of rolling, or is she required to roll on the table?
My concerns include being merciful to players who aren't as plugged in as we are, and are thus casual players, who might still stand a chance of getting their character executed, corpse burned, ashes spread, and soul damned forever based on something they weren't fully aware of when they sat down at the table.
Does DM empowerment cover bending these rules when appropriate for making a better gaming experience?
(Honestly, if I didn't know about these rules and I got my character's hands chopped off for using her class abilities ... I wouldn't play AL ever again. Heck, even if I did know, I might not play AL again in such a situation; I think it's a questionable way to run an Organized Play campaign.)
Oraibi wrote:
We need to start a roll of the Handless or Ashes.
(Ie we need to create a list somewhere people can add to for characters that either lose their hands for being naughty or for characters who are publicly burned)
Oraibi wrote:
Stormborn20 wrote:
Oraibi wrote:
To be honest, this wont stop me playing a spellcaster. Localy at any rate, we have a huuuuge amount of Martial characters with a warlock and wizard here and there. Mainly thats because very few of the local players own a PHB. They are mostly casual gamers who borrow someone elses PHB before/after the game to level up with. Obviously not own a PHB would really also stop them being able to flip throught it during the game to check up on spells, so they dont bother and stick with the martial ones.
I love that AL is doing this. I think it makes for a much more interesting OP experience.
Look, you really have to try for this to be a pain. Its just not that hard to avoid problems, especially at low levels.
Though I don't see anything listing this a 'optional'......
Coredump00 wrote:
abanathie wrote:
Oraibi wrote:
Oh cool, thanks, abanathie!
Oraibi wrote:
There's a sixth one as well:
- Have a good friend who is a rank 3 Harper in the party.
Harpers can spend downtime days to get characters released from prison for illegal spellcasting, at a cost of one downtime day per level of the spell(s) that got the character arrested.
As a DM, I would rule that any Harper in the party would need to decide whether or not to spend these days prior to the Sentencing roll; if the Harper does, then the arrested character is freed without penalty or punishment, as if he had rolled a 1-3 on the Sentencing table.
I'd also make a note if the Harper used this ability to free a caster arrested for casting against a noble or other high-ranking Mulman official -- that person would likely spend resources to find out who sprung the guy who tried to charm him and hold a grudge against that person.
Much as I hate to admit it, having a Harper around is likely going to be a helpful thing in Mulmaster.
--
Pauper
QwertyAzerty wrote:
Oraibi wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Do you think it would be possible to create a form fillable version of the logsheet?
My handwriting is pretty terrible, and I like to type things up.
QwertyAzerty wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Oraibi wrote:
Mirtek wrote:
Mirtek wrote:
Mirtek wrote:
MasterNamer wrote:
MasterNamer wrote:
Convienently that's covered in the article as well (true res isn't found for sale at this point):
"The character can only be returned from the dead using a true resurrection spell cast by another character during the session in which the Sentencing roll was made.The character can only be returned from the dead using a true resurrection spell cast by another character during the session in which the Sentencing roll was made."
Greg Marks
Associate Resource Manager
Skerrit wrote:
Skerrit wrote:
Knight_Marshal wrote:
MasterNamer wrote:
MasterNamer wrote:
Knight_Marshal wrote:
Related question: During your 3 days of downtime for each module that you're being a Cloak, can you accomplish other tasks, or are you too busy on Cloak business to do other things?
Other related question: Could a high-elf or other character who is not an arcane caster but has the racial ability to cast 1 or more spells (particularly from the arcane lists) use that ability to pretend to be an arcane caster and join the Cloaks?
Ainulindalion wrote:
Thanks, Skerrit. I could see both of those things coming up as questions. The RP value of pretending to be a Cloak could be awesome, after all.
I assume that the wealthy lifestyle requirement is the minimum standards and that a cloak could spend 30gp to live an aristocratic lifestyle if they chose (and between 22.5 and 15gp at ranks 5+)
Kalani wrote:
What exactly is the extend of the legal power/authority of a cloak?
Does a cloak deal with the watch as equals or are cloaks generally ranked as superiors (or depending on rank of both cloak and watchmen)?
Can a cloak arrest citizens, seize goods and search houses (even for non-spellcasting related matters)?
PS: I also find the cloak log a little confusing. If I start with DDEX2-2 as my first Mulmaster adventure, do I put it in twice for both gaining rank 0 (at the beginning) and rank 1 (at the end)?
They are solely involved in enforcing magic laws. The Watch is incharge of the rest. They also get sent on missions for the city as ordered by the Blades (e.g. go identify this magic item, read this arcane tome for me, hunt down this rogue devil that fled the city, teleport to Zhentil Keep and get me a cold beer, etc...)
The more I keep reading it, the more I love it!
Also, a character who joins the Cloaks and spends no other downtime during his time playing Season 2 adventures will qualify to 'upgrade' his lifestyle to Wealthy after his tenth such adventure, since that will incorporate 30 days of maintaining a Wealthy (or greater, as Kalani notes) lifestyle.
Might be obvious to some, but not necessarily everyone.
--
Pauper
Skerrit wrote:
Stormborn20 wrote:
One other question.
Beginning at Rank 5, your lifestyle costs in Mulmaster are decreased by half your Rank (rounded down).
What are the units for this? I assume that they gp/day. Or is it sp/day? Is there a minimum lifestyle cost? 0 gp/day?
(ok, that's more than one question)
Lifestyle costs are in gold, and so is the reduction. The minimum cost is zero, assuming you raised yourself to high enough rank.
Greg Marks
DnDAL Associate Resource Manager
Stormborn20 wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Stormborn20 wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Thanks for the input, Kalani. That is certainly how I would prefer to handle the situation, but I want to be sure that I won't be punished by the cloaks for aiding and abetting a criminal.
Thanks Skerrit! The PHB does list a few lifestyles in sp/day rather than gp/day, which is why I wanted to check. Even right at Rank 5, 2 gp/day is huge reduction, granting you a comfortable lifestyle completely free of cost. By Rank 8 you can be living a wealthy lifestyle for free, including your cloak maintenance. Wow. Joining the oppressors in a totalitarian dystopia certainly has its perks.
Stormborn20 wrote:
Stormborn20 wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Skerrit wrote:
Stormborn20 wrote:
Ainulindalion wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Stormborn20 wrote:
Stormborn20 wrote:
As Pauper, thankfully, keeps reiterating, disruptive does not have a fixed definition. What is disruptive at one table, may be totally fine at another. As a DM it is much more important to use or learn ways to both get a read of your table and form consensus with the players, than it is to define some arbitrary set of monochrome rules. If a cloak wants to turn another party member in and ALL players at the table are fine with it, any DM who would still insist the Cloak is being disruptive or undermining is themselves being a disruptive factor. Always make sure you find out the players intent before jumping to conclusions. And attempt to facilitate an in character at the table resolution before bringing in nuclear options like "disruptive" labels. Its a tricky, but very interesting issue, Give it some room to play out first.
Having a lot of in game situations not fit a rules-sourced mould is one of the big assets of this game. These threads often seem filled with attempts at whittling that aspect down to set of semi mandatory guidelines. It saddens me at times as I feel its a risk to balanced DM development..
imaginaryfriend wrote:
Mirtek wrote:
imaginaryfriend wrote:
Mirtek wrote:
I agree with the general sentiment that the arcane casting rules in Mulmaster feel like they cause more AL problems than they solve, but I suspect they will ultimately lead to far less intraparty conflict than is being presumed by some in these threads.
If the risks associated with the Edict of Arcane Banishment feel too great to you, and you envision a serious likelihood of unresolvable conflict with other players, don't play an arcane caster in season 2 mods. Problem solved. Those more willing to take risks with their PCs will be happy to fill the void, and all will be well.
Mirtek wrote:
Mirtek wrote:
Pauper wrote:
imaginaryfriend wrote:
Mirtek wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Mirtek wrote:
My two coppers...
First, it's an organized play envirnoment. As such, it should promote rules to create a fun envirnoment for all players. Some players will enjoy the Cloak rules. Some players won't care either way. Other players will dislike them due to the severity. Other players will try take advantage of them to troll other players; there's always "those people" in every crowd. The problem I have with the Cloak rules is that it can used to specificially enable that last group. Organized play rules, as a general rule, should avoid rules that can be twisted like that. This situation was easily avoided; the AL failed to avoid it. Actually, it looks like they happily walked into it.
Personally, I've decided that I don't really like the last type of player and have adjusted my playstyle, in regards to AL play, to include them. If I feel that a player is trolling me; my Cloak character will report him to the authorities after the adventure, and I won't use my Harper feature to help him out. As long as the adventure is successful, stuff that happens afterwards... Let's just say all actions have consequences, whether they are good or bad. Likewise, I have a bard that pointedly refused to grant a bardic inspiration citing, in character, his lack of trust for another character. This character had, up to this point, killed three party members with "intelligently" placed AoE attacks over the span of three sessions. Healing resources were also allocated in a manner to exclude him. It's unfortunate that the AL has adopted a ruleset that forces decent team players to combat poor behavior with poor behavior; I guess that's the breaks.
Personally, I'm hoping that there is some official ruling that a cloak's oath, for whatever reason WotC decides, does not compel him to turn in his teammates.
I love these rules otherwise. I'm looking forward to joining the cloaks. I'm looking forward to playing a character who defies the cloaks (and accepts the consequences). But I do not want to cause intraparty strife. That does not sound fun.
Pauper, Mirtek, and Imaginary.... Based on my reading, you guys are in almost 100% agreement. What I am hearing is the equivalent of
Hey, 5 is good, but 7 is too high
Well, 4 is too low, but 5 is okay
Yeah, but don't go 6, stay around 5
Who said anything about 6, 5 is good, and 2 is absurd.
Of course it is, but lets not go crazy and say 7, stick with 5.
etc.
I have had my share of similar conversations.... so I thought I would point it out.
I would also like to suggest that there is still a DM to account for..... The Rogue tries to be sneaky and cast on the sly, the Cloak Warlock sees him. The Warlock turns him in, the DM 'happens' to roll a small bribe, and off we go. Everyone got to play his character, no one lost their hands.
I've got two characters who are in the Cloaks.
As much as I question these rules, I don't know what any DM is likely to do to my character,so when I'm in Mulmaster, yes, my character will definitely snitch out any other PC who violates the edict.
Because if I don't know the DM, I don't want them deciding that for failing to report someone in my party casting a cantrip, I've now lost my character.
There is one part of Kalani's analysis I will support -- if a PC casts a spell in violation of the Edict, a different PC Cloak should only be implicated for failing to uphold the Edict if the DM knows that there is some other NPC witness to the act. While the Cloaks do have access to arcane divination magic, they're not omniscient. If the PCs deal with any potential witnesses, or there aren't any to begin with, then the DM should not push the issue unless some explicit event in the adventure tells her to.
Coredump00 wrote:
most of that discussion (and for the sake of avoiding disruptive play) PC Cloak members should be allowed to "oversee" non cloak PC caster.
here what I mean:
My Cloak character receive a non cloak mission to go do DDEX2-4. I ask the DM if any other cloak member will join me (if there a cloak member at the table he'll be assign to the team by defnition of everyone sitting at the table play together in the same team, but the DM cannot give me NPC cloak member to assist me unless those are specified in the module) since no cloak member (other then other cloak PC and NPC given by the module) are available/willing to join my character to do the mission, I then need to recruit from non cloak adventurer. I'll take the PC fighter, the PC rogue, and a non cloak PC bard.
Yes I will strongly suggest him to join the cloak, but for the purpose of the mission I should be allowed to give him temporary permission to use his arcane ability since he's helping me saving Mulmaster from the danger in DDEX2-4. If the bard decide to use his magic and kill a city guard or an innocent noble, then yes as a cloak I'll have to bring him to trial, but so does any lawful character should bring to trial any PC who kill innocent people on purpose. I saw a player once trying to burn Feona tea kettle INN because her daughter refuse to sleep with him, the tabel quickly turn that character to the black fist, no need to be in the cloak to do that.
But as long that he's using his spell in a way that do not threathen Mulmaster (it even help Mulmaster) then you are upholding your oath of protecting the high blade and mulmaster since that bard his helping and you did suggest him to join the cloaks.
Interesting idea, but...
QwertyAzerty wrote:
QwertyAzerty wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
QwertyAzerty wrote:
Getting away from players messing with each other for a moment, a question about the Cloaks' free scroll benefit. Does a warlock with the Book of Ancient Secrets invocation consider all ritual spells to be on their class list for the purposes of getting a scroll? Since there are absolutely no rules or suggestions for finding written versions of non-arcane spells, it would be a nice benefit for these warlocks to be able to scribe some divine rituals.
MasterNamer wrote:
Flavor-wise, these rules seem pretty awesome. But I have concerns.
First of all, why aren't these rules mentioned in the D&D ALPG? The ALPG doesn't tell DMs to check the D&D AL site for rules updates, and if I was a player and my character was killed or maimed based on rules defined in this article, I would politely remind my DM that the section on "Rules For Dungeon Masters" says that optional or variant rules are not allowed in D&D AL. Similarly, the Brotherhood of the Cloak is not an allowed character option as defined in the ALPG.
And if you'd like to argue that these blog posts are legal rules, then so is adding in my own treasure rewards.
I'm not trying to be obtuse or a jerk, but this stuff is super confusing to a casual DM. Flipping through the blog, I also discover there's a wiki. Poking through the wiki, I also discover there's a 20-page Google doc with errata. Kalani's also posted screenshots of rule clarifications from Facebook here that aren't mentioned in the blog or the wiki.
Why are rules clarifications from facebook not making it into the blog or the wiki?
Why isn't the errata in the wiki?
Why isn't the wiki in the site's navigation?
Why isn't the site listed as a resource for players or DMs in the ALPG?
I love that you guys are doing all of this social media outreach, but it's getting overwhelming to try and keep up. Please pick one: The ALPG PDF, WotC's community, your site, Facebook, Google, MediaWiki; I don't care what it is but give me one place to look.
Secondly, these rules seem to encourage intra-table conflict, both between PC vs PC and PC vs DM. That's fine, but are you guys measuring the effect these rules have on the the game?
- Do PCs who have been killed or maimed rate DMs lower in evaluation forms?
- How many players are killed or maimed in the last convention slot/encounters game they play? (I.e. are players quitting)
- How many players and DMs are even aware of these rules? In how many sessions are they actually implemented?
When I attend a convention at the end of the month, I'll also pay careful attention to whether or not I see any kids brought to tears.
@RCanine - Only the blog posts with the AL Legal tag (shown below) are official documentation (as per the definition on p3 of the ALPG). The rest of the articles are simply guidelines and suggestions to help DMs run their games, written by various campaign staff.
The Big A$$ Sign is cool and all, but that does not adress Rcanine's comments about the lack of a clear
central repository let alone official rules source. If the Mulmaster casting rules are meant to be optional `"if the DM happens to know about them" material, fine. If its meant to be used all over we would have issues. Of course Skerrit has already indicated that in this case it was and is intended to be included in the expeditions adventures, so it will be fine.
Doesn't mean Rcanine isn't right that having updates, information, rules clarifications etc all over the social sphere (like common sence isn't, social media aint) without someone recentralizing it is far from ideal. If we want to give DMs a treasurehunt experience, but I for one would prefer a clear link to all this information added to the expeditions adventurers with a "if at all able you must read this" label.
As I understand it (based on Roberts comments on the AL public facebook page) - the Mulmaster Casting rules are not optional. The restrictions on arcane spellcasting (and its associated consequences) should have been listed in the ALPG but was left out (for reasons I do not know). It was also supposed to be included in the various S2 Expeditions, but again was left out - I suspect that the latter expeditions may include this information.
So... Once again the AL has set itself up in the situation where rules are mandatory but not always going to be known because... They aren't very organized?
And yes, I'm poking the AL... It's one way of encouraging them to get... Organized...
Kalani wrote:
Kalani wrote:
RCanine wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
RCanine wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
This may be a silly question, but I just want to be clear about the status of magic users in Mulmaster. If i'm a wizard, socrcerer, warlock, EK, AT, or bard, and I walk around casting spells, i'm gonna get snatched up by the hawks and have to pay stiff fines or potentially, be burned alive. However, If i'm a druid, cleric, paladin, or way of the elements monk, and I walk around casting spells in broad daylight, no one cares?
Mirtek wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Ainulindalion wrote:
To my knowledge, there is nothing that allows this. Even if there was, there would need to be specific guidelines as to how much a person could charge (and no such guidelines exist). IMHO, this is covered by the Exchanging Wealth rules on p6 - which prohibit such monetary exchanges between characters.
While no such guidelines exist, it is easy enough to formulate ones that don't actually exchange any wealth.
Let's use the example of a LA Wizard (sage background) wants a Zhent Fighter to get him a scroll. The Zhent fighter (sailor background) doesn't use scrolls or poisons, so isn't going to get anything for themselves.
Wizard: Hey, Zhent buddy, are you using your Mulmaster DT activity for anything this module?
Fighter: Nope. Don't use poison or scrolls.
Wizard: Do you think you could get me a scroll of X spell? I'll cover your expenses.
Fighter: Sure, but I'm not going to jail for your scroll, so you'll have to bail me out there, too, if that happens.
Fighter rolls appropriate dice.
Fighter: That's two downtime days at a modest lifestyle, 100 gp fines, and 40 gp for a prayer of healing at the temple so I'm not crippled during the adventure. Here's your scroll.
Wizard marks off 2 DT days, 144 GP (wizards' lifestyle expense, fighters' lifestyle expense, cost of fines, and cost of the spell needed) and gets scroll of X for the adventure. Fighter marks off 2 DT days.
No actual exchange of wealth. It's the purchase of a service.
To be honest, I don't think the admins really care about modest and reasonable GP exchanges. My guess it is meant to stop high level PCs dumping gold onto lower level ones, or other cheese methods of gaming the system.
My PC saved another PCs life. In gratitude, he bought my PC a new fighting tabard embroiered with my diety's symbol on it.
I just can't see the admins having a problem with that.....
We are continually 'giving' healing potions to each other.... if that becomes illegal there are going to be issues....
NamelessHero wrote:
Oraibi wrote:
imaginaryfriend wrote:
Oraibi wrote:
Oraibi wrote:
Generally an Arcane spellcaster can tell the difference between an Arcane and Divine magic. The effects are normally different, one user needs to use a holy symbol and so on. Even the verbals components of a lot of magic would be invoking the name of the God providing the juice.
'Bane commands the unbelievers to heel!' (Command)
'Talos brings the fury of the storm to those who would not listen to his demands!' (Lightning Bolt)
RCanine wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Pauper wrote:
RCanine wrote:
RCanine wrote:
In addition to what pauper said - most of the information can be found in one of three sources (including all compulsory information)
- The ALPG
- dndadventurersleague.org (official website)
- The AL FAQ (which is linked to in the above website)
Having access to social media is nice but not required.
There is no excuse for DMs to have not read and familiarized themselves with the ALPG at their soonest convenience. Likewise, organizers should stay aprised of the official website which lists all changes to the FAQ as well as all articles (including the Mulmaster one), and disseminate information as required to their table DM(s).
In fact - I encourage DMs who are semi-serious to check the website weekly to see if any new FAQ entries or articles are released. Staying aprised of website articles is semi-compulsory for any DM which runs Expeditions
By semi-compulsory, I meant that the articles on the website will make any Expedition DM that much better (as there are frequent articles which relate to Expeditions, and articles from Faction Leaders which give additional background).
So long as their Event Organizer disseminates the required information (eg. Mulmaster Backgrounds, State of Mulmaster) it is not strictly required for an Expeditions DM to stay current on the website, although I strongly recommend it.
There is one other document I forgot to mention - the Unofficial Expeditions Errata, which is maintained by the campaign staff (which contains a list of all errors noticed in the Expeditions adventures, as well as suggested guidelines for running the various encounters/adventures).
I am not sure however, if I am allowed to provide a link to that document (as it is on google docs) so at this time I will refrain from doing so.
I feel it would be a good idea to create a flyer with all the official information sources and a few paragraphs on how to use them. This flyer could then be distributed to all the organizers to give to their DMs. Make it a one page flyer and get it included in the next ALPG and we should be in a better situation when it comes to ensuring DMs are informed.
Right now we have a very rich landscape of resources for rules stuff, information, background and most everything else. But that landscape lacks a navigation system and important stuff is not being discovered. Which is a shame when the information and background is concerned. But when you want to have DMs use the rules additions and updates you publish, you need to give them a map and some strict guidance.
I realize this will take some time, but I hope that in future this can be improved.
Oh and make it simple enough that it can do without the WoTC editorial process? They are great people, but their timetables........ooofs
RCanine wrote:
imaginaryfriend wrote:
The campaign staff are currently working on a supplementary Article offering DM advice/suggestions for adjudicating the Arcane Edict (and PC cloak vs. non-cloak interactions).
Pauper wrote:
RCanine wrote:
If these situations ever occur in AL, here is the appropriate response in each instance.
abanathie wrote:
While it is always dangerous to make value judgments, especially about people, I can agree with abanathie that all three of the players he describes are 'low-quality'; in this case, there's a commonality -- all three described players are selfish, holding their enjoyment paramount over anyone else's at the table. Selfish players are not the only 'low-quality' players out there, but they are among the more common ones.
Also, while Kalani's response to the first described scenario is admirable, I'd limit my involvement to simply informing the player that he's done playing for the day and asking the store owner/manager to remove that player from the premises; this is exactly the kind of 'aggressive player' the Code of Conduct in the ALPG is meant to identify. However, I would only involve law enforcement if a player were actually injured and required medical attention; in most cases, especially where the parties involved are minors, calling the cops is going to be an over-reaction.
--
Pauper
As I said - at the Victims or Store Owners request (I would not contact them otherwise). If children were involved, yes I would be hesitent to involve the authorities, and would instead substitute Police with Parents (leaving the ball in the parents court whether any further action is warranted). Personally, I highly doubt I would ever need to contact the police, as that particular duty would likely fall to the Store Owner (I am the Event Organizer).
I was not implying that the DM should be the one notifying the police - only that the Police / Parents should be notified in cases of Assault (this duty would most likely fall to the store owner and/or Event Organizer).
Skerrit wrote:
Kalani wrote:
shivafang wrote:
shivafang wrote:
I referred to that section in my comment. Defining those classes as Arcane Magic and saying "Your power source is arcane." are different things. Lets not use incorrect terminology to avoid muddying the issue. "Warlocks are Arcane spellcasters and thus spells they cast from any of their features count as Arcane Magic even if they cast them without expending spell slots." would have been more accurate - that's all I'm saying. Throwing 'power source' into the mix muddies things.
I am a huge fan of this type interaction with the laws on magic on pcs I real do hope in the next season Rage of Demons if expeditions are in a drow city that the rules of Loth and the matriarch society rules come into play!
Part of me is starting to wonder if posting the consequences of magic use in Mulmaster was we did is part of the issue. I haven't gotten a chance to adventure there yet (two weeks and counting!), but from all reports it seems like reality is far less harsh than it seems.
We spent a ton of time in Phlan in season 1, so it's not that much of a leap to assume the same of Mulmaster. Had PCs been told simply what the penalties could be they may have assumed that, as usual, the rules did not apply to them (because, you know, murder is usually illegal too, but I've never once seen that stop a PC).
If PCs would have been handed out escalating fines and punishments at the table, rather than just reading about and assuming the worst online, it might have seemed less dire.
Not sure this is worth changing now, but definitely something to learn from for next season.
Kalani wrote:
Thank you. I tried to make it as comprehensive as possible while still keeping the article short.
It went live on Friday and I have been intensely curious to hear what people thought of it. I appreciate the feedback.
The most important point about the article - is that the DM should keep the players guessing and fearful for their characters.
If players expect the edict to not apply to them - it loses its power of dramatic suspense. If this occurs - my advice to DMs would be to have the PCs fall foul of the Edict and suffer some sort of consequence or close call (such as requiring a Harper PC bail them out or an error with the witness statements/reports - eg. The wrong name listed on the Cloaks report).
If the PCs have means of overcoming a harsh punishment (such as severed hands or death, but not a 22 roll) - I would even go so far as to allow it to occur should the roll come up. It will only be a setback (eg regeneration or raise dead) which the character can afford.
I would reserve the 22 roll for NPCs, for repeat offenders who have already been sentenced before, and for PCs which are willing to RP the possibility of permanent-death (some players see death as a fitting end to their characters story).
Cloak PCs would only be at risk if they repeatedly abused their position. The first handful of times a Cloak is caught aiding their friends, a benevolent (or Harper) superior falsifies reports, covers for them or otherwise keeps them safe.
Its a good article. I am a little sad that it is needed quite as much as it is as I would think most of those options would be obvious to DMs. But I guess between 4e, LFR and the percieved strict dependance on the words as written, the ability to look beyond the worlds will take a while to make it back into the mainstream
Thanks, Kalani! I like the article. I'm fortunate enough to have a good DM and regular players that generally don't go out of our way to cause trouble... but it's nice to have defined rules in case we have a wandering arcane spellcasting murder-hobo drop in on the game.
imaginaryfriend wrote:
Oh don't get me wrong, even if it was less needed, it would still be good. There is never too much DM guidance.
But reactions like the one right after mine, referring to your advice document as "defined rules" make me despair a bit.
imaginaryfriend wrote:
Well, I think the other poster is using 'defined rules' as 'something in writing I can point to so that the player doesn't think I'm doing this as a power-trip'. Mulmaster is supposed to be a dangerous place for good-aligned adventurers, but some players will blame the DM for any setback their characters encounter unless there's explicit text telling the DM to mess with the PCs.
If someone wants to bring a copy of this article to their DM to show that DM what options are available, that's fine and encouraged - but if the player is bringing it to try and 'rules-lawyer' the DM into making specific rulings in a Mulmaster adventure, I'm pretty sure that's not kosher, nor the intent of the article.
I think the article hit just the right tone -- not assuming the DM has all the information, but not talking down to the DM for not thinking of this stuff herself. I think that's the best tone for keeping articles like this relevant for DMs of all experience levels.
--
Pauper
Yes, Pauper. When I said "Defined Rules", I should probably have chosen different phrasing. Basically it's just about having someone else make say something... all the regulars for our game get along, but sometimes we get a wandering player that gets disruptive (although we were all wandering players once, before settling there) and pulls out rules. I like having a nice place they can't argue with to point at while the game goes on.
Pauper wrote:
abanathie wrote:
Pauper wrote:
abanathie wrote:
That may be your experience. Nonetheless - the harpers have officially sided with (read: infiltrated) the Cloaks. For what purpose, has yet to be revealed. Given how each Harper acts largely autonomous - the reasons ultimately vary. Suffice it to say - spell casting harpers are strongly encouraged to join the Cloaks by their superiors.
Guys guys guys guys guys. If you're going to discuss an article on the Internet, please to link to it.
http://dndadventurersleague.org/the-arcane-edict-in-mulmaster/
It's a nice article. I'm not sure how any of this would play out at a convention, but I think it would be awesome in a home game. It would be cool to create some random roll tables or premade encounters from DMs could have on-hand out of these bullet points. These are great guidelines, but I feel like new DMs might struggle at ad libbing something like this, especially if time is short.
imaginaryfriend wrote:
Its not meant as an edition war argument. I enjoyed 4e and all editions before it and not looking to debate it or any other D&D system 
If anything its a war versus the idea that the DM should run organized play adventures exactly as written and never venture beyond the literal. Venturing beyond was totally possible and allowed in LFR and LG both (and I did so then as I will now). Fact is however that previous OP outings like LFR, through little fault of their own, seem to have taught a lot of players and DMs that there is to be nothing beyond the literal text.
Its a good article, and I am glad it is there to provide guidance for people who, without it, might have not dared or felt empowered to come up with alternative solutions because "its not in the adventure or text". But I would really like for DMs and players alike to understand that the things Kalani describes were always available. That a DM can and should work with their table and the adventure to create a good experience and that that can and probably should include some calls that are not in the text.
Rules nor adventure designers can predict all situations, and from my experience they do not think they can. They rely on the DM to translate, to solve the (players + DM + rules + adventure) / interaction = fun equation. Right now I see DMs being scared of including themselves in that equation, and players actively looking to eliminate the DM from that equation. I think its a shame. Thats all
imaginaryfriend wrote:
My only problem with the article is the table -- it goes against the core mechanic of D&D, which is that high rolls on a d20 are good for the person making the roll. (Unless the DM makes all rolls on the Getting Caught table!)
--
Pauper
I think it was written with the assumption that the DM would be making the roll, because the DM is 'the world', and this is a decision that 'the world' makes, not the player.
Ainulindalion wrote:
Skerrit wrote:
TheBreen wrote:
imaginaryfriend wrote:
Skerrit wrote: