So, this is what I rolled. I start him in the RPGA this coming Saturday, so if you have any advice on modifications I should make, let me know!
GANDLIN THE WISE:
Race: Elf
Class: Invoker (Preservation Covenant)
Ability Scores: Str 8, Con 10, Dex 13, Int 16, Wis 18, Cha 13
Deity: Oghma . . . Region: Impiltur (Use Wis instead of Con for HP)
Feats: Ritual Caster, Arcane Initiate (aiming for Oghma's Recall and Astral Fire)
Trained Skills: Arcana, Diplomacy, History, Insight, Religion
At-Will Powers: Sun Strike, Grasping Shards
Encounter Powers: Scorching Burst, Blades of Astral Fire
Daily Power: Summon Angel of Fire
Intended Paragon Path: Simbarch of Aglarond
I don't have a sub, so I can't be sure, but:
If it wasn't in the final version, you can't use it until PH2 comes out on Beer Day.
Other than that, it looks really nice.
I thought Invoker wasn't included in the compiled version of Dragon.
I don't have a sub, so I can't be sure, but:
If it wasn't in the final version, you can't use it until PH2 comes out on Beer Day.
Other than that, it looks really nice.
Crap! You're right, it wasn't. Darnit, and I made the character sheet all nice and stuff, too...
Crap! You're right, it wasn't. Darnit, and I made the character sheet all nice and stuff, too...
Well, you've only got to wait until Beer Day.
But, yeah, that bites.
Glad to help.
Well, you've only got to wait until Beer Day.
But, yeah, that bites.
Glad to help.
Yeah, but I don't want to wait til then to join in on my new LFGS's Saturday afternoon games...
I'd play some other class you want to play until then... What's the worst that can happen?
Just as a note - Deva will be legal at that point, so it isn't a horrible thing.
I'd play some other class you want to play until then... What's the worst that can happen?
It sounds like it's just going to be one party for a while. So whatever I pick, I'm stuck with unless I want to fall behind or try to make up the level by going to a bunch of cons.
It's odd, though. The Invoker is in the Compendium. Isn't that considered an acceptable source? I remember someone making some argument (based on the Compendium being an RPGA source) somewhere about something having to do with Warforged or what not... /shrug
It's odd, though. The Invoker is in the Compendium. Isn't that considered an acceptable source? I remember someone making some argument (based on the Compendium being an RPGA source) somewhere about something having to do with Warforged or what not... /shrug
The Compendium is considered the latest and most updated version of the 4E rules...but the fact that a rules item is in the Compendium isn't enough to make it a legal rules item for LFR; said rules item has to have originally appeared in another LFR-legal source.
It's odd, though. The Invoker is in the Compendium. Isn't that considered an acceptable source?
It's an acceptable rules source, not a player resource. Big difference.
The compendium is not listed on the chart of player resources on page 2 of the CCG. So it would have to be in another player resource (such as PHB2 which is legal as of its release date, or a compiled version of Dragon which would be legal as of the compile date) to be legally usable.
I shoudl put this in the FAQ since it seems to get a lot of people.
The Compendium is considered the latest and most updated version of the 4E rules...but the fact that a rules item is in the Compendium isn't enough to make it a legal rules item for LFR; said rules item has to have originally appeared in another LFR-legal source.
... or, at least, that's the general consensus.
The truth is that we have no idea what saying the Rules Compendium is a "rules source" means. The obvious interpretation (if something is a rules source, you're allowed to use any rules found within it) does not appear to be the intended one, because that makes the entire chart of things called "player resources" meaningless.
We can define "rules source" as "You can use the rules from this source to contradict something found in a player resource, but you can't use the rules from this source to add to the options found in a player resource", which is probably what the CCG author was thinking, but we should admit that we're essentially making up definitions out of whole cloth in order to try to make the CCG as a whole make sense.
Personally, my take is that a DM is free to interpret the term "rules source" however they'd like, until those writing the CCG decide to start writing rules that are clear and precise. If your DM wants to interpret the rules to bar invokers from the table, they can; if they want to interpret the CCG more expansively, they can (though I can't say that I would).
You'll likely be in good company, anyway. Either because of DM ignorance or simply because of DMs not wanting the hassle of trying to explain to players that just because WOTC's official character generator says that the PC is LFR legal does not make it so, each of the last couple of tables I've sat at (other than those with just my usual gaming group) has had at least one illegal PC using content from not-yet-compiled Dragon articles or a preview article.
-- Brian Gibbons.
... or, at least, that's the general consensus.
The truth is that we have no idea what saying the Rules Compendium is a "rules source" means.
It's not a consensus. They are distinct. They have been explained to those who don't understand multiple times both by those who do and by campaign admins. If you choose to make up your own definitions, that's not a fault of the campaign.
It's not a consensus. They are distinct. They have been explained to those who don't understand multiple times both by those who do and by campaign admins. If you choose to make up your own definitions, that's not a fault of the campaign.
What I'm saying is that we have to make up our own definitions, and that is most certainly the fault of the campaign.
Now, I'm fine with making up the definition of "official rules source" to mean "you can use rules from this source to contradict player resources, but not to add to them", and as I said above, that's the definition I actually use.
However, it's pure nonsense to claim that this is the obvious and only meaning of the term.*
Standing alone, were I to tell you, "Manual of the Planes is an official rules source for RPGA play", one would imagine that your likely interpretation of that sentence would be that one could (and indeed, must) use all of the rules in the Manual of the Planes in RPGA play. (This might lead into a discussion of what is and is not a rule, but that's a separate issue.) I find it hard to believe that such a proclamation, standing alone, would cause you to believe that you could only use the rules from Manual of the Planes that were already found in some other approved book.
Basically, the only reason we don't use that definition here is deductive reasoning:
- Calling something a player resource and something else a rules source implies that there must be some difference between them. If being an official rules source means that we can use all of the rules in the Rules Compendium, then having a list of specific resources usable by players and the dates they can use them is meaningless;
- We assume that the writers of the CCG are competent, and would therefore not use two separate terms for the same thing or include a meaningless list, so that must not be the true interpretation of that term.
I'm fine with operating under that second assumption, but I don't know that I'd say that someone is violating the rules of the campaign if they don't.
-- Brian Gibbons.
*
It's worth noting the other thread in which CS gives their opinion that being an "official rules source" means, well, pretty much nothing--if, as CS says, the books+errata always trump the Rules Compendium, then being an "official rules source" pretty much just means "If no one has the books at the table, you can go online and look up something from an approved book and use that, and it'll be correct. Probably."
In that case, even our made-up definition of "official rules source" to mean "something which can be used to contradict existing player-approved books" is completely wrong.
But whether CS is wrong or right, it's at least the case that your interpretation is not completely clear and obvious to them.
In that case, even our made-up definition of "official rules source" to mean "something which can be used to contradict existing player-approved books" is completely wrong.
But whether CS is wrong or right, it's at least the case that your interpretation is not completely clear and obvious to them.
So what you're saying is, show up at the table, say "I'm playing an invoker", and if the DM doesn't stop me, cool beans? :Plol
lol
I suppose it's worth a shot.
But bring someone besides the invoker.
What I'm saying is that we have to make up our own definitions, and that is most certainly the fault of the campaign.
Wow. It absolutely amazes me how people can take something so simple and make it way more complicated than it is and deliberately try to obfuscate it.
If the DM doesn't know it is against the rules, you intentionally cheated.
If the DM does know it is against the rules, you are putting the DM in the uncomfortable position where the DM either has to tell you to play that you can't play your character or has to let you cheat.
Either way, not cool
-SYB
Don't be that guy.
If the DM doesn't know it is against the rules, you intentionally cheated.
If the DM does know it is against the rules, you are putting the DM in the uncomfortable position where the DM either has to tell you to play that you can't play your character or has to let you cheat.
Either way, not cool
-SYB
heh, I guess my smilies and lol's didn't make it clear enough...
I was kidding, dude.
Don't be that guy.
If the DM doesn't know it is against the rules, you intentionally cheated.
If the DM does know it is against the rules, you are putting the DM in the uncomfortable position where the DM either has to tell you to play that you can't play your character or has to let you cheat.
Either way, not cool
-SYB
But I AM the guy! I spent all that time...
...
*insert world-rending curse storm*
I haven't actually played that game. I'm not Masochistic enough. My Halfling Bravura Warlord, OTOH...
heh, I guess my smilies and lol's didn't make it clear enough...
I was kidding, dude.
I probably should have quoted Darkwolf. I wasn't really suggesting you were as much as arguing against his advice.
-SYB
I'm in a similar position where I'm creating a fighter/sorcerer for LFR play.
I probably should have quoted Darkwolf. I wasn't really suggesting you were as much as arguing against his advice.
-SYB
I probably should start pointing out when I'm being faceitous(sp)...