Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Coredump00 Feb 15, 2015 9:14:40	So there is a somewhat of a problem with people gaming the system to get just the item they want.    What if each Expeditions adventure had 4 magic items, and at some point in the adventure, the DM randomly determines which item will be awarded for that adventure.   So instead of everyone with an internet connection knowing that Adventure Q awards Goggle of Night, you will know there is a 25% chance of GoN, and 25% chance of either +1 sword/Boots of Elvenkind/wand of Winter.   Now playing the adventure is for playing the adventure, and not to grind the adventure for some specific loot.   It also allows the designers to repeat certain items in multiple adventures.  LIke perhaps 3 of the 9 would have the Goggles as an option.
#2 Temporaryfriend Feb 15, 2015 11:49:25	Coredump00 wrote:
#3 ZHDarkstar Feb 15, 2015 16:32:01	Plus there haven't been many AL items that are "OMG! gibme pl0x!" for most builds outside of the Cloak of Elvenkind for Rogues and the 19 Str/Int gauntlets/headband for builds that use Str/Int as secondary stats.
(Reply to #2) Coredump00	Temporaryfriend wrote:
#5 Kalani Feb 15, 2015 17:50:36	Coredump00 wrote:
(Reply to #5) Coredump00	Kalani wrote:
#7 Kalani Feb 17, 2015 11:39:43	Coredump00 wrote:
#8 Primarchx Feb 17, 2015 12:12:23	What's wrong with playing and hoping you'll get the magic item?  Magic items are fun and nice to own.  In fact the potential to get a particular magic item may motivate a player to play in a particular adventure.  AL is a game, don't penalize people for treating it like one.
#9 Oraibi Feb 20, 2015 2:51:08	I can't detect what problem you think this idea would solve.
#10 Mommy_was_an_Orc Feb 20, 2015 14:00:57	Kalani wrote:
#11 Kalani Feb 20, 2015 14:19:43	In respect to foreknowledge - I would not consider it cheating to have foreknowledge, providing you do not metagame extensively at the table. With that being said, the admins have clearly stated their pov in respect to players spoilering items/facts of missions, especially in lists on the forum - they have asked us nicely not to do it.   Metagame knowledge has always been a tricky issue, but I would hope most DMs have enough decency to compartmentalize their knowledge for the sake of the adventure.
#12 Byakugan01 Feb 21, 2015 2:22:03	There are lots of people who would create multiple characters and run an adventure multiple times to get a specific item...this is not cheating and people are pretty much incentivised by the rules to do just this.     HotDQ is really fun, but it is extremely magic-anemic.  I think they erred on the side of caution and went a bit overboard.  Hopefully RoT will be a bit better.
#13 imaginaryfriend Feb 21, 2015 2:55:26	Byakugan01 wrote:
(Reply to #12) TheBreen	Byakugan01 wrote:
#15 BRJN Feb 21, 2015 14:51:35	Core, Why do you have a problem with another player seeing that an effective item for his character concept is to be found in Module X, and therefore signing up to play that character in the Module?   There is no guarantee that he will GET the item - indeed if the table is crowded he has less chance - but he is incentivized to be a help to the group so they will want to reward him with it.
#16 QwertyAzerty Feb 24, 2015 9:36:31	The problem is inherent to the players.   Most of the more active person on these forum are going to say: "Play for fun", "magical item are not neccessary so don't worry about it", "you shouldn't replay the same adventure twice to get the item" (using 2 different character), "play a concept you like, and donT' care about optimzation" etc...   What they forget is a lot of player (even the new player) like magic item, they found it fun to receive a cool magical item working on their character (yeah my sorcerer don't care about the longbow +1, but my archer love it) And this come from all those other game that we all know, all those RPG game (MMORPG like World of Warcraft) or single player RPG (like Final Fantasy) where getting better equipement is MANDATORY to the game progression, and this is imprinted on us, and no matter how manny time people will come on these forum saying: "magical item are not necessary, they are not included in the balance curve of the monster, magical item are just a bonus, they are not mandatory" When I face a monster resistant to non magical weapon, I greatly feel like if I had win that longsword +1 I would be a lot more usefull to my party then I am currently with my mundane longsword doing half damage.specially with rogue who see there sneak attack reduce by half.   This feeling get even worst when you lost the item to a player who bring a new character every week, or a player who never come back to the table, or to a player who is not even using the weapon, (the elf wizard just wanted a longsword+1 because it's cool or he might have been a fighter back then but then reroll wizard after, and never go in melee)   An other problem (but this one is purely Murphy Law based and often have no bad intention) is caracter duplication. DUe the the inherent nature of AL where anyone cna join the table with any character, Murphy Law dictate that often you'll end up with 2 wizards and no rogue for example. and that week the magical item at the end of the episode was a wizard item where both wizard have a legit and non abbusive claim to it, or a rogue item that no one else in the party want/can use.   Here are some solution to solve thoses problem:   - Expedition should give out item usefull by many character like the goggle of night vision that even drow can use to increase their sight to 180ft, cloak of elvenkind that even a fighter with a heavy armor can use to have a chance to not warn the entire dungeon that he is approaching etc... and avoid item like longbow+1 (which only medium size, dex base character will be interested in) or headband of intellect which would interest only Eldritch knight and Arcane triscker (since wizard will use their ASI to reach 20 Intellect, making the item USELESS at level 8, and the other class have no uses for Intellect other then knowledge check and investigation, but I'm pretty sure the fighter will wait for a longsword +1 instead of a +4 Intellect modifier on knowledge and investigation check.) Yes RPer will be happy to gain those "useless" item but RPer are those player saying that magical item are not necessary so they don't care about the item. By having more general purpose item, there is more chance that one of the party member will be happy to get the item.   - Avoid magical item that can be replace by a mundane item: Why woudl I take this leather armor +1, when I could simply buy a mundane studded leather giving me the SAME AC bonus, and the studded leather do not prevent me from rolling on the goggle of nightvision next week. Not only does magical armor will be use by a limited amount of character (who will use a splint armor +1? only those character in heavy armor, who do not have 1500gp to buy a full plate yet? and when they do get that 1500gp, then what? they have a useless magical item that will be very difficult to trade and we cannot get rid of magical item in AL even if we loose it, get it stollen from us or throw it down a volcano, the item still count on our permanent magical item count)   -Increase the amount of magical item in an adventure: if in the adventure there is 1 goggle of night vision, 1 ring of fire resistance,1 cloak of elvenkind and 1 pearl of power, then even the abusing player will simply gain one item, and the other player will be able to choose among the other 3. Even if my wizard really wanted that pearl of power, by the cleric win it, I can still roll on the elven cloak allowing me to be stealthy or the ring of fire resistance to help me survive the fireballs that the ennemy will throw at us. So player with the lowest amount of magical item choose first the item he want. Then the player with the second lowest amount of magical item (cannot be the same player even if he had 2 item fewer then everyone else to avoid the abuse of people bringing new character every week with no item) choose second pick etc... Once the item are distributed they can be trade between player (same rule applied 1 item for 1 item, but you can ignore the rarety factor for this roll) without using the trading log ont he certificate (my halfing rogue and the human ranger are both interested in both the goggle of nightvision and the cloak of elvenkind, my rogue gain the cloak of elvenkind and the ranger win the goggle, but my rogue prefer the goggle and the ranger prefer the cloak so we can trade BEFORE THE END OF THE SESSION without using the trade log even if both item are not the same rarety.   -Then add a "priority list". SO if the party do not agree on who should take the item, instead of going to a blind stupid luck roll, we try to give the item who will be able to use it. For example, for the cloak of elvenkind, give priority to player who stealthed often during the game (so the rogue who hide every round in combat to gain advantage, the ranger who scouted ahead of the group etc....) Yes I know the fighter in heavy armor could us it so he could follow the rogue and protect him if something goes bad, but nothing is preventing the rogue to lend the cloak to the fighter for the special case scenario, then take it back. Or the pearl of Power give priority to the spellcaster class, instead of allowing the champion fighter ro roll on it "because he could trade it with his friend" For sure if none of the spellcaster want the pearl then the fighter can roll on it, To make it simple the "priority list" could be weaved into the adventure: NPC A give the group the goggle of nightvision and say: this will help your scout friend trying to hide in the shadow without being able to see in them. or even more simply in the item description at the end of the episode: If the team do not agree on who should have the item, allow the character with a races without darkvision (dragonborn, human, halfling) and who try to hide in the shadow to roll first. If none are present or interested then anyone can roll.   I think those ideas would solve a lot of problem in the item distribution