| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| #1Enevhar_AldarionApr 03, 2015 22:21:29 | Hey everyone,
For those who are not part of the AL Facebook group or who do not regularly check the AL Organizers site, the official FAQ there was updated today. I mainly wanted to post this here because I have seen questions asked about all four of these on the forums.
Here is the link: http://dndadventurersleague.org/category/faq/
And the new updates:
How much is a Healing Potion to craft?
Using the downtime crafting rules from p187 of the D&D Player’s Handbook, a healing potion costs 25gp and 10 Down Time days to craft.
What is a legal table size?
A legal table for a D&D Adventurers League game is one Dungeon Master and 3-7 players. A DM should be prepared to run a table of up to 7 players, however, a store/event/convention organizer can limit the table size as needed by their event and the experience of the DM.
Can a player play multiple characters and can a DM play a character during a game they are running?
No, it’s one character per player and the DM cannot play a character.
When a character casts a spell that summons or creates a creature, from which rules sources may the creature be selected?
The player whose character casts the spell may select an appropriate creature from the sources allowed by the D&D Adventurers League Player’s Guide. If, and only if, no appropriate creature is available in those sources, the player may select an appropriate creature from the Dungeon Masters Basic Rules. In the rare instance in which there is no appropriate creature in those rules, either, the Dungeon Master may select an appropriate creature from the Monster Manual.
It was further clarified by staff Admin on Facebook that the legal table size ruling applies to running the published adventures as well, not just Encounters and Expeditions. |
| #2UndrhilApr 04, 2015 5:56:38 | I don't like the 10 downtime days to craft a potion of healing, in addition to 25gp. I would have liked to have seen it be an 'either or' kind of thing, but I guess that wouldn't have been much better, depending on how you spend your cost of living. |
| #3AinulindalionApr 04, 2015 5:57:16 | Oh, look. A total dick ruling. Now Conjure Minor Elementals summons 1 gargoyle. Always. Everytime.
Screw you, theme characters who liked summoning a hoard of screaming little mephits.
Oh, well, off to play and run at Gameday. I bet I don't enforce that ruling. |
| #4Coredump00Apr 04, 2015 7:23:01 | Oooohh.... gee, aren't you the crazy rebel DM......
"total dick ruling"..??? over-react much? Sure, I don't like the ruling either, but I think I understand their logic. Hopefully they will rethink it, but in any case, it just isn't *that* big of a deal....
|
| #5KalaniApr 04, 2015 8:10:30 |
|
| #6ZHDarkstarApr 04, 2015 16:17:13 | While I understand the balance reasons for the ruling, I can see a few scenarios where either DMPCs or multiple PCs per player make sense without disrupting balance. I'll address the DMPC part first, as it's the more common set of scenarios than multiple PCs per player.
First off, not every AL DM has enough time in their schedule to sit through adventures more than once. The perils of adulthood get in the way of having enough free time to experience an adventure from both sides of the screen. The second-most common problem is that there aren't usually enough people willing to DM within a group. Without a rotating DM group, most DMs never get an opportunity to be a player unless they look outside of their current group.
Combine those problems with a DM reward system that still feels somehow incomplete, and you get a lot of DMPCs who have no real explanation for where all of their xp came other than "some people who never met me did some stuff." Forgive me for offending anyone who's okay with the status quo, but I prefer to actually have an experience to go with my xp.
The other place where allowing DMPCs (in lieu of DM rewards) comes to mind is the only scenario where multiple PCs per player makes any sense, fixing party imbalance. Sometimes you end up with a table full of wizards in adventure full of close-quarters combat. If letting the DM add a tank to the party prevents a TPK in the first 30 minutes of a 2-4 hour slot, then it's a better outcome than the stress of dealing with the complaints of the recently deceased for 90+ minutes. On the flipside, if you're running an adventure designed for five 4th level characters and only three 1st level players show up, allowing two PCs per player can turn that undersized table into a tale of attrition. |
| #7CahPahkahApr 04, 2015 18:59:17 | I'm sure it has happened somewhere along the way, but I have never seen a DMPC that has improved a session for the players, and I've never been at a table when a player running more than one PC felt like a good thing.
I'm enormously glad the admins made this crystal clear; I just hope that DMs (at least at the tables I'm at as a player) honor it. |
| #8KalaniApr 04, 2015 20:40:08 | While a DM cannot play a PC, they can always use one of their PCs as an allied NPC - especially in cases where the party needs an extra character for [reasons]. There is a major difference between a DMPC and an allied NPC however.
Said character should largely take a backseat roll, rarely saying anything in social encounters (otherwise you have two DM characters talking to each other and excluding the PCs), and taking minimal actions. DMNPCs used in this manner should never take the spotlight.
Said character will not earn XP, Renown, Downtime or treasure for their participation, but can always benefit from DM rewards as normal. |
| #9ZHDarkstarApr 04, 2015 20:58:35 | I'll admit that my last point was a set of corner cases, however the wizard example actually happened at my table last season while playing DDEX1-6. There were 3 wizards, 1 sorcerer, and the most useless fighter that I've ever seen with 10s in Str/Dex. Had I not added my Shillelagh Cleric/Ranger to the party, the party would not have survived against the specters, much less the boss fight.
The main issue I have with it is regarding the real life issues that stand in the way of DMs who also want to be players. Not every DM who wants to play has the opportunity to do so. An option to forego DM rewards in exchange for DMPC inclusions would sate the needs of those who have limited time to allocate to D&D, regardless of which side of the screen they sit on. As long as the DM plays their character with the rules for npcs in a party in mind, there shouldn't be any balance issue. The DMPC can be a storytelling tool, allowing the DM to not have to rely on a deus ex machina approach to keeping players immersed in the story when they go severely off-track.
Any arguments about potential abuse or collusion for magic item acquisition are moot, because the program already leaves itself vulnerable to such underhanded schemes in its current state. So long as it is on the honor system, those who wish to metagame and cheat have the means of gaming the system. Therefore, any potential such an option has to make things worse in that area is vastly outweighed by the amount of new DMs it could add to the ranks. |
| #10abanathieApr 05, 2015 13:30:29 | Great! So... Now you have to own the MM to determine which creatures are allowed in the basic edition DMG. Isn't that just another unnecessary obstacle? |
| #11Coredump00Apr 05, 2015 16:41:17 | Yes, how absurd to expect people to have the rules for the game. |
| #12KalaniApr 05, 2015 16:47:53 |
|
| #13CahPahkahApr 05, 2015 16:55:31 |
|
| #14abanathieApr 05, 2015 18:53:44 |
|
| #15KalaniApr 05, 2015 19:16:50 |
|
| #16abanathieApr 05, 2015 21:34:30 |
|
| #17KalaniApr 05, 2015 19:47:56 |
|
| #18abanathieApr 05, 2015 20:34:20 |
|
| #19KalaniApr 05, 2015 21:23:05 | There is no "bump in the road" as you put it.
If you lack access to the MM
Spells which require the DM Basic Rules (No targets in PHB/MM)
Spells which are limited to options in the PHB
The PHB provides the following options for animal companions, familiars, wildshape etc:
The MM provides the following additional options:
Yes, having access to the MM expands your options considerably
Therefore, your argument is invalid.
|
| #20abanathieApr 05, 2015 21:45:51 |
|
| #21KalaniApr 05, 2015 22:20:46 | Do you mean the fact that we are limited to Appendix A, or the fact that we are unable to use the dm basic rules if a legal option exists in the PHB (appendix D) or MM (appendix A)?
If the latter, I happen to like the restriction as it prevents players from mining the DM Basic Rules and Monster Manual for the most powerful (and possibly broken) creature options.
For one thing, this rule prevents druids from wildshaping into Dinosaurs. IMO that is a good thing. |
| #22RCanineApr 05, 2015 22:57:55 |
|
| #23abanathieApr 06, 2015 0:04:32 |
|
| #24MasterNamerApr 06, 2015 6:23:00 | The restriction doesn't make much sense, unless it was a typo, as the D&D basic rules, which include the dungeon master's and player's basic rules, are allowed resources for players. |
| #25SkerritApr 06, 2015 8:20:20 | I haven't been able to read this whole thread as I have been deathly ill for a week, but I would like to remind the posters that the DnDAL is provided free by a for profit company as a marketing tool to make every effort to encourage consumers to buy books. The amount of free content provided is simply staggering. In addition to free supplements like the Basic rules provided by WOTC, the DnDAL will provide 192 hours of free adventure content this first year (not counting the Starter Set or the printed adventures beyond the free Encounters content). That's 8 continuous days of play, but given that studies show most people consume it in 2-6 hours at a time, its really about about 48 different games.
If it doesn't do things to encourage people to buy books or play in stores where the players buy things to support those stores, Hasbro will not see it as worth continued support and I would expect that it would go away. As a company, they simply cannot choose to give you everything you want for free. If they do, they go out of business.
|
| #26PauperApr 06, 2015 8:23:01 | There was some discussion in another thread where I thought it was noted that the DMs Basic Rules was not considered part of the 'D&D Basic Rules' listed in the ALPG -- this is legacy information back from a time before the DM's Basic Rules were published and the 'D&D Basic Rules' were effectively synonymous with what is now the Player's Basic Rules. As such, the clarification is simply to confirm that, if a valid option exists among the beasts in Appendix A of the Monster Manual, then the player cannot choose to take an option from the DM's Basic Rules.
It should also be noted that, by the time you get to the Monster Manual, the DM, not the player, chooses what creature is summoned. I suspect this will cause some Consternation (TM) as well, as this means that certain tables will not be able to summon the most powerful available creatures in the MM because the DM won't allow it.
-- Pauper |
| (Reply to #5)Pauper |
|
| (Reply to #26)MasterNamer |
|
| (Reply to #28)Pauper |
|
| #30KalaniApr 06, 2015 11:03:36 |
|
| #31KalaniApr 06, 2015 11:06:49 | FYI, I recently created a thread listing every creature available to PCs for the purpose of wildshape, animal companion, and spells. I have also been given the go-ahead by Robert Adducci to link my list to the FAQ question (once it posts to the wiki) - making this an official list (for want of better words).
You can find the list here:
|
| #32MasterNamerApr 06, 2015 11:39:03 | Are you not bothered by the fact that the dungeon master's basic rules are already an allowed reference for player options, which would expand your list in multiple categories? |
| #33RCanineApr 07, 2015 0:28:44 |
|
| (Reply to #33)Pauper |
|
| #35RCanineApr 07, 2015 9:12:41 |
|
| #36KalaniApr 07, 2015 9:49:22 | The Admins don't make the rulings though RC... HQ does. Sometimes HQ gives the admins a reason for the ruling, sometimes they don't. The admin's suggestions carry a lot of weight, but ultimately its up to Wizards what the rulings are. The only rulings I believe we have full control over are FAQ entries which clarify existing rules.
For example - I am under the understanding that we could create an FAQ entry which clarifies the fact that the DM Basic Rules is not included in the "Allowed Rules", based on the ruling regarding summoned creatures. Prior to that ruling existing however, we would be unable to state one way or another whether the DM Basic Rules was allowed or not.
FAQ entries which introduce campaign-wide rulings however, are HQs department. The spellbook ruling, and the ruling regarding summoned creatures are two very good examples of the kinds of rulings that fall under HQs department.
With that being said, this is only my understanding of how it works based on conversations with the RCs and admins. I could be wrong on several details in this regard. |
| (Reply to #35)Pauper |
|
| #38KalaniApr 07, 2015 10:23:39 | There is another factor which has not yet been considered:
This would expand the list of available AL summons, while at the same time hedging out creatures that could be game breaking (the Basic Rules include nothing that I would consider game-breaking).
It wouldn't solve the issue in respect to spells which have one (or more) legal targets in the PHB/MM (appendix A) - but it will at least broaden the options for those spells which require access to the DM Basic rules.
Then again, who is to say whether additional sections of the MM may not be legal in future seasons? There is nothing stopping them from adding the entire MM to the allowed rules if they so choose - but I find this unlikely, as the better solution is to simply increase the creature pool from the Basic Rules. |
| #39abanathieApr 07, 2015 15:25:09 |
|
| #40RCanineApr 07, 2015 19:56:54 |
|