As always, please try to keep the focus of posts here on things you'd like to see addressed, and/or how you would personally address the issues.
While there's certainly room for discussion herein, long back-and-forth replies will be asked to kindly step outside the thread.
Clarification of "new, legal item of the appropriate type" for item and item-related errata.
This last CCG was a very minor update, so it may be valid to still have the Powers that be look at the old thread.
I still would like to see AdvCos no longer have a limit of one PC per player in any one AdvCo. It really limits play because the members can level out so easily. In my area the rule has practically killed AdvCos.
Other threads:
Creating wands.
Clarifying what reward cards can be printed/duplicated.
Clarifying the term RPGA and whether it should be used.
MYRE and rust monsters.
Enchanting for others. And here.
Clarify the language for harming another PC to make it clear you need to ask and get approval?
TPKs and whether this can mean irrecoverable.
I know that the Globals will be keeping an eye on this thread, so everyone may certainly feel free to copy/paste or link to previous comments (unless of course it's just as quick/easy to retype them here - keeping the comments/feedback "fresh" and in one location couldn't hurt). ;)
Collecting the Domain mappings for LFR dieties in the CCG would be great, it's a pain to have to open Dragon 378 (and remember which Dragon had the domains) when looking up a god's domain.
I'm constantly having to explain to people how they are limited to one found magic item per level. I really don't know how to clean up the language, but it seems to confuse a lot of people.
A perfect example of why starting CCG 2.0 from scratch is a better idea than continuing to modify a badly-written one.
The CCG orginally said "You can only possess a number of found magic items equal to your character level", after which it was discovered that campaign staff really didn't mean that. Instead of scrapping the wording and redoing that section, they instead added a paragraph to clarify that they were using 'possess' in a way that differed from the way in which any reasonable person would ever use it.
FWIW, I think the proper phrasing should have been (after explaining what a 'found magic item' was):
"If your character, since he started play, has taken a number of found magic items equal to his level, he cannot take any more found magic items until he gains another level. So, for example, if a 5th level character has taken 5 magic items as bundle choices over his adventuring career, he cannot take any more magic items as bundle choices (until he hits 6th level). It does not matter if a found magic item has since been sold, discarded, destroyed or he otherwise does not possess it. Once you choose a found magic item, that forever counts as one of your choices, so choose wisely."
I'm constantly having to explain to people how they are limited to one found magic item per level. I really don't know how to clean up the language, but it seems to confuse a lot of people.
While I don't know how to word it better in a rules document like the CCG, here's the "Found Magic Items for Noobies" example I've used in these forums (and in person at conventions).
---------------------
Picture it like this: at every level, including level 1, you get a coupon/ticket. On that coupon, it says "Good for one free magic item".
You can spend that ticket any time you like - holding on to it for multiple levels, or cashing it in the very first time you end an LFR Adventure.
When you cash it in, it's gone forever - no refunds, BUT, now you have a new magical item to enjoy.
Every time you gain a level, you get a new coupon - and there's no limit to how many of these coupons you can have.
--------------------
While that makes a handy-dandy example (IMHO), it isn't the right language for a rules document (well, maybe as a sidebar?).
You could, easily enough, have a table of 6 PCs, in which 3 are members of Adventuring Company A, while the other 3 are members of Adventuring Company B.
With the change in 1.95, allowing for the "bonus" action point if only 3 members of an Adventuring Company are present, it would seem that it'd be possible for that table to get 2 bonus action points (one from AdCo A, one from AdCo B). The CCG does say, "Your group can only have one bonus action point in this manner", but it's not clear if "group" refers to the Adventuring Company, or the table.
A perfect example of why starting CCG 2.0 from scratch is a better idea than continuing to modify a badly-written one.
If that ever happens, they should absolutely have you read over it. I'm completely serious. No one I've met has a mind for the document like you do. If I were an admin, I would ask you to write it...
I am sure there are a lot of people here who read and review documents for a living and would be perfectly willing to provide that service for the CCG voluntarily. I am but one of many in this/
I know this has been suggested before by many others, but feel it remains ever valid and so I am suggesting it again. Get some extra eyes involved. Put a/the draft in Google wave or some other collaborative document creation platform and invite some people to take it apart.
And indeed to be sure, include bgibbons in the invites
I'd like to see using the Alchemist feat to make your own alchemical items not be *more* expensive than going to a store and buying them. Perhaps language making purchasing alchemical items being like purchasing ritual casting would be appropriate...
Maybe it is needed at a higher level than the CCG, but taking the Alchemy options when your class provides Rituals for free should have some clarification.
I'd like to see using the Alchemist feat to make your own alchemical items not be *more* expensive than going to a store and buying them. Perhaps language making purchasing alchemical items being like purchasing ritual casting would be appropriate...
Maybe it is needed at a higher level than the CCG, but taking the Alchemy options when your class provides Rituals for free should have some clarification.
Just to clarify - what I was referring to is that an Alchemist needs to first buy the formula and then pay the component cost to make the item, where anyone can just pay the component cost. It makes Alchemist, a weak feat to begin with, mechanically useless.
Just remember: we cannot change the core rules. Your problems with the alchemist ritual is the same as with any other item creation ritual. Although if you create enough of the items that extra costs becomes neglible. In theory we could add the +20% to the price we also add to ritual casting, but that might be a lot more difficult to implement. For example, why don't do that for normal magic items? (If people are really interested in discussing this, though we need to start a new threat...)
That's the weird thing, Pieter - the core rules (at least, the ones in Adventurer's Vault) don't directly address the purchase of alchemical items *at all*; it was a campaign decision (or possibly a CS reference) that the prices were for purchase as well as creation.
However, a home DM is free to, and frankly we probably could have, and maybe should have, set a bump of 20% for local mark up by the vender, which over time might help the alchemist justify learning the formula. The other aspect in a home campaign, it would be reasonable to say the items are not available in many locales (also true for magic items) and introduce scarcity. However, that level of detail is debatable value for LFR.
Keith
I'm open to either scenario. From discussions, it didn't seem that wrong to the people I was bouncing the issue around with. Possibly the worst aspect would be that an author could A) be disruptive... but I see that as a small chance given that they would want the table to be a good one... correcting the DM would not go over well and the author should know that... in all likelihood, an author would play their adventure as part of playtesting or with a friend or when other options are not available and announce that they are the author... small chance of issues, I would guess. B) The author could deliberately write in items they want as treasure bundles. This is what I would pick as the biggest issue. Others have said it isn't, since there are now a number of "pick any item level x" choices, but I still worry about it. The easy solution would be that authors can play their adventure but not pick a bundle (just more gold).
On the plus side, it is a pain to write for a new tier, because you then have one less chance to play with your buddies and stay at the same level. This is especially true if you write an adventure that is two rounds or that has higher XP for its tier.
For me, I would want the bundle issue addressed. I am, however, curious to how my PCs would do in the encounters I've written. It could be a fun experience.
the retrain change is a great start, but i really think it would be great if we could change our race at least once. i made my character a long time ago and all kinds of cool options have opened up since then. further, from a tracking and book keeping stand point it makes sense to me.
only one copy of a reward card per deck! lucky shot is broken enough at one copy, giving an epic tier feat at level 1 with no prerequisites. 3 copies of that'll do shut down any skill challenge.
while i know that modifying core rules is an iffy subject, using intimidate to force a surrender is hard core, in your face broken. especially with the above mentioned that'll do reward card. just a tiny little nudge to take away that overwhelmingly problematic mechanic would really help, especially with the new retrain rules allowing the intimidators to retrain afterwards.
finally, a subject i have never seen brought up is the restriction on purchasing items. currently you can only buy an item your level or lower, but this works to make money largely valueless. i will explain. lets say i want to buy a frost weapon or a dwarven armor. by the time i am the appropriate level, i will have already gotten a weapon or armor with a higher enhancement bonus so i will have effectively no reason to make the purchase.
ie: by the time i am level 8 and able to purchase a +2 frost weapon, i will already have access to +3 weapons from modules.
changing this to allow players to buy items higher level than they are would make a world of difference, and open up new builds and options.
thank-you in advance for you efforts in this matter.
while i know that modifying core rules is an iffy subject, using intimidate to force a surrender is hard core, in your face broken.
Not only isn't Intimidate broken, it isn't even unbalanced.
The default DC is the target's Will+10 (which is likely to be non-trivial unless you've focused on optimizing Intimidate, which is a foolish thing to do), but if the DM thinks that is too low, he can just set the DC to whatever he wants.
Basically, trying to intimidate someone into surrendering just allows the DM to get the combat over with quicker if he's ready to move on. If he doesn't want them to surrender, he sets the DC too high for you to beat and you just wasted your turn.
while i know that modifying core rules is an iffy subject, using intimidate to force a surrender is hard core, in your face broken.
Not only isn't Intimidate broken, it isn't even unbalanced.
The default DC is the target's Will+10 (which is likely to be non-trivial unless you've focused on optimizing Intimidate, which is a foolish thing to do), but if the DM thinks that is too low, he can just set the DC to whatever he wants.
Basically, trying to intimidate someone into surrendering just allows the DM to get the combat over with quicker if he's ready to move on. If he doesn't want them to surrender, he sets the DC too high for you to beat and you just wasted your turn.
While I totally agree with the assessment, it leaves one problem.
Not all DM's in LFR feel they can make calls like that. On top of that there is a vocal if not rowdy minority of players actively working on convincing DM's that they indeed can not.
I do not think this is something easily addressed in the CCG, but it would not hurt to try and create some more sanctioned and topical DM guidance material (DMG 2.5, DM guide to LFR "Reed in a tempest").
Beyond that, I practically never see intimidate (I did early on, but I seldom see it now). The DC is fairly high unless it becomes a major trick by the player. Even then, it is a standard action on a bloody foe... is it that unlikely that the PC could instead have focused on damage and taken it out that way? If they are focusing on intimidate, isn't that likely to take away from their other contributions? And, it is generally more fun to attack a foe than to intimidate it... unless the combat is really boring and the critter loaded with HPs... in which case everyone wins with intimidate. It all ends up seeming pretty balanced to me.
As to DM's call.. I don't approve of DMs fudging DCs. Do you then keep that new higher Will and make it harder on every PC that targets will? Rather, if you think it will blow the fight (make it anticlimactic, unfairly impact things, etc.) just tell the player that and give them back their standard action (assuming they don't have a big issue with it... they might if this is their one trick, and I can understand that and would be likely to let them have it even if it hurts the combat... it is core rules!).
finally, a subject i have never seen brought up is the restriction on purchasing items. currently you can only buy an item your level or lower, but this works to make money largely valueless. i will explain. lets say i want to buy a frost weapon or a dwarven armor. by the time i am the appropriate level, i will have already gotten a weapon or armor with a higher enhancement bonus so i will have effectively no reason to make the purchase.
ie: by the time i am level 8 and able to purchase a +2 frost weapon, i will already have access to +3 weapons from modules.
I don't think this is a problem. Treasure and gp distribution seems pretty fair. You aren't supposed to be able to buy a high level item, but rather you can use the gold as a means to gain at-level items. You could save up gp, then sell items, then buy what you want. More typically, you use gold to get items of lower level that complete the PC's build. Having more gold would be overpowering.
The CCG should not change core rules.
Did not see anyone proposing it should, but agreed nonetheless (except of course where it already does.. like...retraining?
and I like those rules mostly). Beyond that, I practically never see intimidate (I did early on, but I seldom see it now). The DC is fairly high unless it becomes a major trick by the player. Even then, it is a standard action on a bloody foe... is it that unlikely that the PC could instead have focused on damage and taken it out that way? If they are focusing on intimidate, isn't that likely to take away from their other contributions? And, it is generally more fun to attack a foe than to intimidate it... unless the combat is really boring and the critter loaded with HPs... in which case everyone wins with intimidate. It all ends up seeming pretty balanced to me.
Essentially what bgibbons said, and I agree with both assessments. Intimidate is generally a gimmick at best. Given the right situation win through intimidate can be an awesome thing for a party.
As to DM's call.. I don't approve of DMs fudging DCs. Do you then keep that new higher Will and make it harder on every PC that targets will? Rather, if you think it will blow the fight (make it anticlimactic, unfairly impact things, etc.) just tell the player that and give them back their standard action (assuming they don't have a big issue with it... they might if this is their one trick, and I can understand that and would be likely to let them have it even if it hurts the combat... it is core rules!).
You are focusing on the specific while I made a general statement. Now I understand you want to make your point on intimidate and I agree with your point*, but what you are doing right here is what I am asking for. You are providing guidance on how certain situations can be dealt with in a positive way. I feel a collection of such guidance would make a valuable addition to the CCG. In hindsight I should have found a better example to tack on to than Intimidate. Anyway, let me try again.
I feel there is room, in addition to the 99% player aimed CCG, for a document with DM guidance. We see the same debates and the same player <> DM issues pop up again and again. From all that a lot of wisdom could be distilled and put in a document, on a wiki or someplace.
Such a document could provide advice on frequently encountered situations in LFR and details on what a DM can't and, more importantly, can do. From what I have seen in LFR across the globe there is never a lack of people to tell a DM what not to do, what they can't do, what they shouldn't do. If there is someone advising DMs on how to handle something, then that is often tinted by major league projection of personal interpretations. It becomes hard to find the signal amongst the noise.
A lot of advice can be gathered from these boards, but it is often drowned in debate. I think an attempt could be made to lessen the shouting and confusion. To emphasize the positives and present a more neutral view of some things. Not claiming I know exactly how, but I surely would offer my help in making an attempt.
*- i think the ! on the "its core rules!" is a bit much as the exact wording of those core rules are: Your Intimidate checks are made against a target's Will defense or a DC set by the DM" (PHB p. 186, emphasis mine
). I agree though that in most situations the vs Will does just fine and needs no change. As fudging DC's and advocating it.. less pleased with that implication, but I may be over interpreting (an eternal hazard with D&D rules). Regardless; I don't on either count .while i know that modifying core rules is an iffy subject, using intimidate to force a surrender is hard core, in your face broken. especially with the above mentioned that'll do reward card. just a tiny little nudge to take away that overwhelmingly problematic mechanic would really help, especially with the new retrain rules allowing the intimidators to retrain afterwards.
I have an Intimidate-focused character, and have played with another. If your table fails to focus fire, and you're up against something intelligent enough to be intimidated, then it can be a neat trick. But that happens pretty rarely, in my experience. My character is level 7 and has successfully intimidated only 3 opponents (although I don't use it on solos on principle).
As to DM's call.. I don't approve of DMs fudging DCs. Do you then keep that new higher Will and make it harder on every PC that targets will? Rather, if you think it will blow the fight (make it anticlimactic, unfairly impact things, etc.) just tell the player that and give them back their standard action (assuming they don't have a big issue with it... they might if this is their one trick, and I can understand that and would be likely to let them have it even if it hurts the combat... it is core rules!).
It's core rules that the DM can set the DC. No fudging needed. If the player's only trick is something that inherently depends on DM discretion, he needs a new trick.
Even if the rules didn't explicitly say that the DC can be whatever the DM sets, I think this is a perfect situation for circumstance modifiers--a last creature standing, who knows he doesn't have a chance to get out alive, his DC should take significant penalties; a solo brute, where his abilities just got better because he's bloodied, who knows most of the PCs are bloodied as well, his DC gets significant bonuses.
It would make absolutely no sense to say that a creature is just as willing to surrender if four PCs are unconscious and the last one's bloodied, as compared to when he's surrounded and has no chance.
Fortunately, that's not what the rules say.
The CCG should not change core rules.
Beyond that, I practically never see intimidate (I did early on, but I seldom see it now). The DC is fairly high unless it becomes a major trick by the player. Even then, it is a standard action on a bloody foe... is it that unlikely that the PC could instead have focused on damage and taken it out that way? If they are focusing on intimidate, isn't that likely to take away from their other contributions? And, it is generally more fun to attack a foe than to intimidate it... unless the combat is really boring and the critter loaded with HPs... in which case everyone wins with intimidate. It all ends up seeming pretty balanced to me.
As to DM's call.. I don't approve of DMs fudging DCs. Do you then keep that new higher Will and make it harder on every PC that targets will? Rather, if you think it will blow the fight (make it anticlimactic, unfairly impact things, etc.) just tell the player that and give them back their standard action (assuming they don't have a big issue with it... they might if this is their one trick, and I can understand that and would be likely to let them have it even if it hurts the combat... it is core rules!).
(I apologize in advance for the rather long rant.)
I agree that Intimidating a foe into surrendering is not particularly broken or even all that powerful. It costs a standard action to do, the foes have to be bloodied, you attack their Will +10, and if you fail absolutely nothing happens (no "half damage" or anything - you wasted your turn). If there was a power for one of the classes that said "Make an attack with a -10 penalty" no one would ever take it. The That'll Do reward card doesn't really help at all if you're trying to intimidate a foe into surrendering. Since their Will is at a +10, giving you a "10" on your skill check means that your basically comparing your normal skill bonus to their normal will. I haven't gone through the math and checked all the monster's stats, but I doubt that would force a foe into surrendering at any tier. (Perhaps it'll work rarely, if the monster's Will is pathetic.) There are ways you can maximize your Intimidate, but then you've spent a lot of resources on Intimidate which means you didn't spend your resources on any number of powerful things.
The only time Intimidate can really be "broken" is if it is used against an entire room of bloodied foes. But if you weren't focusing fire, that's not a smart tactic and is it's own penalty! I'd much rather have half a room of guys at max HP than an entire room full of bloodied foes in any fight, especially if the monsters have regen or any other way to heal themselves.
As for whether Intimidating a foe into surrender is fun for the table or not... I have heard lots of complaints from various people about "grindy" fights (especially at paragon tier when everything has a ton of hit points). If a fight is boring and taking a long time, intimidating the baddies into surrendering can be more enjoyable for everyone. It's also more fun for players than just "calling" a fight. Then they still felt like they won fair and square. I can see where using Intimidate could be anti-climatic or un-fun for the others at the table in certain situations. But D&D is a social game. If everyone at the table is enjoying the challenge of a fight and a player comes along and "ruins" everyone else's fun by Intimidating the fight to an early end... Well, the other players should provide feedback that they do not find that to be a fun tactic ("We're enjoying this fight, please don't try to intimidate them."). If the player does it anyway after his table asks him not to..., he may soon find that no one wants to play with him.
A year ago my husband and I made an intimidating duo for LFR designed to be maxed out with Intimidate and be able to force foes to surrender. He had a CHA-based Warlock and dumped a bunch of resources into getting his Intimidate really high and I had a Paladin of Waukeen that would let him reroll his check. Even though we had dumped many of our resources into this tactic, we quickly learned that it wasn't all that powerful. Many times there were better things to do (like attack). If there was only one enemy that was bloodied, it was hardly worth potentially wasting your entire turn. (Even if you're down to at-wills at least you can use your rewards cards to reroll the attack.) Many times we found that the only "good" time to use Intimidate was when the fight was close to being over anyway.
The worst part was that, the few times we did find a good time to use Intimidate, almost no DM would let it work. The DM ruled that Intimidating didn't work just because they personally weren't a fan of it. Sometimes they wouldn't even tell us that it was impossible to Intimidate the monsters at their table until after we had already wasted our turns trying. The DMs didn't care what the rules said, how many resources we had put into the combo, or how high our check was. They didn't want it to work so they just refused to let it. Especially in LFR when you can potentially have a different DM next week, that is definitely not cool. That's like telling a Rogue that all the monsters are immune to Sneak Attack. "I'm sorry, your build doesn't work at my table because I don't like it." Once or twice a judge let us use Intimidate when it was actually useful (to cheers from the other players), but most of the time DMs either said it automatically didn't work or they only let us do it if the monster was at 5 hit points and was going to die if they sneezed too hard anyway. (I've also seen judges let players Intimidate as a minor action and not apply the +10 bonus to their Will..., but that was just their cheap way of "calling" the fight.) [The end result of all of this was a series of frustrating and unenjoyable gaming experiences followed by me finally giving up on my now-useless character.]
When everyone sits down at an LFR table they expect the rules to be the rules. Now, if the Powers That Be decide that Intimidating during combat is too powerful and decide to change how it works in the next Errata, that's fine. But LFR DMs can't arbitrarily change the rules or increase a monster's defenses against some attacks but not others just because they don't like a rule. Having a DM change the rules to fit their fancy can trash entire builds and make the game un-fun for their players. In a home game this is fine. The DM can tell players in advance that they think power/item/feat/combo X is overpowered and that it works a different way in their campaign. That's still fair to the players because the player knows ahead of time and can plan around it (i.e. not take that item). If the ruling is too harsh/unfair then the player can decide that they don't enjoy playing with that DM and go find a different group to game with. In LFR, however, that's just not cool.
However, your assertion that the DMs somehow changed the rules on you i can not support. The rules are simple and I already quoted them in my previous post. When i comes to the intimidate skill DM's
can set their own DC. No errata need to come into play, that is how it is written, that is how it works. Building a character or character combo on a rule that guarantees table variation (and a rule where the DM explicitly gets to decide the DC if she/he wants to is such a rule) comes with player responsibility. You chose to build on an unstable foundation so when the house falls down you cant shift all the blame on the DM. I would say its at least shared.
Now, again. Just because a DM CAN set a DC in situations like this, does not mean she/he should. You give several reasons why it quickly becomes annoying and not fun.
Sure, as a DM it can be hard. There you have your big solo'dragon that just got bloodied but still has some 300HP left. Five of its upstart opponents are down for the count and it is but one breath weapon recharge away from claiming a meal and new shiny stuff for the hoard. There comes the Dragonborn paladin, last one standing, bleeding from the dozen gashes the dragon decorated it with and still swinging on their feet from the dazing blow it just received. They square off in front of the dragon, stare into its eyes and go "boogaboogaboooga". And now the dragon is supposed to be scared and surrender......
Does it make sense? Nope. But! Will the players have a victory they will remember and recall for years if the dragon surrenders? Oh heck yeah! And that is what matters, or should.
As for the "in LFR that is just not cool"stuff:
I apologize for sounding like a broken record, because I have written this many times before. The role of LFR DM, i.e. someone(s) making the rules interpretations and setting boundaries for the campaign, is not really filled. Every place where there is interpretation room in the rules you can and should expect table variation because of this. Yes, a DM should run LFR strictly by the rules, but that does not mean "by the rules as interpreted by the players". Where there are no clear rules, the DM makes the call. That is their responsibility. It should be done with the fun of the table (note; table, not just players) in mind and I realize it does not always work out that way. It is however the situation we have to live with at this time.
I for one would love to find ways to improve that situation, but as these debates always show, its not all that easy.
If the PCs are all in good shape, just blasted a couple of the monsters with single hits, and the lone, bloody monster is intimidated, assuming he is not some mindless undead or construct, I would see the DC as being lower than Will + 10. (His hostility is turning to fear.)
If the PCs are missing like crazy, some of the PCs are bloodied and mostly the monsters are in good shape (i.e., they are winning), yes, I think the DC should be higher than Will + 10. The monster is confident they will win, and does not regard your threats as credible.
Such variability is the reason D&D has DMs.
Keith
I think the inclusion in core rules in the PH that the DM can set the DC for the intimidate is good because the outcome should be very situational dependent.
If the PCs are all in good shape, just blasted a couple of the monsters with single hits, and the lone, bloody monster is intimidated, assuming he is not some mindless undead or construct, I would see the DC as being lower than Will + 10. (His hostility is turning to fear.)
If the PCs are missing like crazy, some of the PCs are bloodied and mostly the monsters are in good shape (i.e., they are winning), yes, I think the DC should be higher than Will + 10. The monster is confident they will win, and does not regard your threats as credible.
Such variability is the reason D&D has DMs.
Keith
Good points.
Perhaps then the next CCG should include standard guidelines about how DMs should handle intimidating monsters in LFR. [Example: "The DC is normally Will + 10. If the monster is a solo, increase the DC by another 10. Increase the DC for elites by an extra 5. If the monster is at 1/4 HP, decrease the DC by 5. If all the monster's allies are dead, decrease the DC by 5." It doesn't have to be this complicated, but that's just an example.] Even a clarification on the rule in the next CCG would be helpful. Or maybe LFR mods should regularly include the DC to intimidate monster X into surrendering as part of their stat block or list it in the tactics section. [Example: "Orcus cannot be intimidated into surrendering. He's Orcus! He is immune to intimidate." or "The DC to intimidate Monster X is his Will + 10 unless he is at a quarter of his hit points and all his allies are dead in which case it is his Will + 5."]
The problem in LFR is that there is extreme table variation in how LFR DMs handle intimidating in combat. As I said, I've had DMs let us use Intimidate as a minor action against the target's unmodified Will defense and I've had other DMs basically decide that all monsters are immune to Intimidate no matter what. There's a big difference between increasing the DC slightly because of the circumstances and having the DM decide that all their monsters are immune to it (or setting the DC at something absurd, like a DC 80).
I've noticed that the DC that LFR judges set seem to be directly related to the amount of resources a player has spent on Intimidate. If the player has pumped all their feats/items/powers into Intimidate so they can be phenomenol at it, the DC always seems to be MUCH higher than if a regular CHA-based character tries to Intimidate someone. ("Oh, the player has an item that increases their Intimidate by 5? Well, I'll just increase the DC by 5 to counteract that because I don't want them defeating this enemy so fast.") That's the part that's really not cool because it means that the player has wasted all their resources on nothing, just because the DM doesn't like their little trick. And this is why we need some sort of uniformity in how LFR handles Intimidate.
Part of the problem is that the rulebooks, as always, aren't entirely clear. I originally thought it was pretty obvious that if you used Intimidate in combat you were targeting the bloodied enemies' Will defense + 10, always, no questions asked. The "DC set by the DM" part seemed to apply to skill challenges using Intimidate, not combats. After I've heard from some other people on here, I reread the Intimidate entry several times and discovered that it's not really as clear-cut as I thought and is open to interpretation. The PHB intermingles its discussion on the use of Intimidate in and outside of combat, so it's not really clear what applies to what. I still maintain my interpretation that Intimidate used in combat is always against the target's Will + 10 and that Intimidate used outside of combat is against a DC set by the DM (or against the target's Will if the DM wants to use that). The rules aren't all that clear, but that's how I (and others) have read it. I do, however, understand how other people could interpret it differently. I also understand that having the DC be Will + 10 doesn't always make sense. (Just because I interpret the rule this way doesn't mean I think it's the best rule.)
The vague wording is good enough for a home campaign. The DM is intimately familiar with his player's, what style of gaming they enjoy, etc. and can make fair decisions about how he will let Intimidate work in his combats. (Maybe the DM will let the party Intimidate most enemies if the group enjoys doing that but will draw the line and not let the player's intimidate the one BBEG in the huge boss fight at the end of the campaign.)
I'm uneasy though about vague rules being used in LFR that make the effectiveness of a (potentially extremely powerful) combat "attack" completely up to the whim of the DM. That's kind of like saying a zombie dies on a crit only if the DM feels like letting it work and the DM can decide that his zombies are immune to crits. Intimidating foes into surrendering can either be extremely powerful (doing effectively hundreds of points of damage if it's a high-level solo) or it can be extremely useless (essentially wasting your standard action - you might as well have been stunned). A player takes a gamble every time they try to intimidate a foe. Whether they succeed or not can be game-changing. Something that can so drastically change the game one way or the other shouldn't be completely left to the whim of each and every LFR DM.
I don't know if my interpretation of this rule is correct or not. But I actually don't even care which interpretation is right. What I really want is to be able to sit down at any LFR table and know with some certainty that my character build will work the way I think it does. If the rule really means that the DM can set whatever DC they feel like setting - that's fine! I just need to know that when I'm building my character. (Then, as others have suggested, it's not a great tactic and maybe I should consider spending my resouces on other things.) As long as I know that beforehand I can make educated decisions about my characters and accept the consequences of any choices I make. (People may still decide to build characters based on this concept, but then at least it's not a "Gotcha! Ha - your build doesn't work at my table!" moment when the DM sets absurdly high DCs for all the monsters. The player would know that that could happen and is taking a gamble by trying to focus on this one tactic.) If I know in advance that the attack is always against Will + 10, then I can take that into account when I'm designing a character. If there are some standard LFR guidelines that are given to DMs or used in modules (like the DC decreases based on the number of monsters left or increases if they're a solo or elite), then I can use that information to weigh my options.
I just want some consistency in LFR so I can make informed decisions about how to build my character. It's frustrating to play in one LFR mod and have your super-cool-combo that you worked really hard on be an awesome tactic and extremely effective... And then go to another LFR game with a different DM and have them essentially tell you that your entire build is worthless at their table because they have a pet peeve against letting you use Intimidate in combat.
I agree that there are a lot of issues where either global rules clarification through for instance errata or LFR specific rulings would really help with consistency, player and DM enjoyment. Nobody likes the debating team matches at the table. Unfortunately that road would also lead to a LOT of work for the already busy admins. While I would like it to happen I have few if any ideas to the how.
On the other hand I do not think Intimidate is a very good example. I agree with Keith that intimidate is better left situational. I do not agree with the view that Intimidate is some sort of at-will combat power with a "any bloodied enemy" target line.Which is not to say I would hose it if a player built on it, generally I am in favor of just letting things work. I feel the lack of a clear mechanical ruleon how Intimidate works in combat is on purpose. And I like it like that.
Not everything can and should be reduced to mechanics like add 4 here, subtract 2 there and if the monster has blue eyes it auto-fails. The DM is a major mechanic in the game of D&D. If you try to reduce the game to a set of mathematical rules without room for a DM to work in then you have essentially created a very intricate version of checkers. If that your preference, that is fine, but then what is that DM there for? To roll dice and follow the script? We could ask WotC to just write some software for that and put it in DDI.
Hmm. Well in case they decide to do just that i call copyright.
Again we agree and disagree
I'm fine with agreeing and disagreeing at this point.
We both have some good ideas/insights on the subject. I think it ultimately depends on the quality of your DM. Since there's some confusion about it, I'd still like to see some clarification or general guidance so that there's a shared understanding in the community about how it's really supposed to work. It takes a lot of stress out of the game if the rules don't keep changing on you every time you sit down at a new table. (It's a game - it shouldn't be stressful or frustrating.) I know there's always going to be some table variation (and that's not necessarily a bad thing), but it's never fun to sit down for a game and find out that some key things you thought worked one way don't actually work like that at all. Someone mentioned that they saw a lot of intimidate checks in combats being made early on but don't see it much anymore. I think people (1) realized that it wasn't that powerful of an option and/or (2) got tired of DMs just saying it automatically didn't work (and got tired of trying to argue about it).I also don't think the CCG should address how DMs should use core rules. I hear what lorika and imaginaryfriend are saying, but honestly, that's what these boards are for. We should not clutter the CCG with how to interpret/adjudicate core rules. Instead, these forums will perpetually rehash the classic issues (such as DM's right to make a call) and those involved will be smarter for it.
I used to be a completely "must-challenge" DM in LG. I worked hard to provide every table with a challenging run and would almost always rule for the monsters when a dispute came up. No CCG changed my opinion on that. Instead, over time, I came to listen to what others were saying and what I experienced at tables. I adapted based on what seemed like the most fun. The overall tone of 4E and what designers and admins shared also played a factor, but not any particular wording in the CCG. These seemingly endless forum discussions do help change the collective RPGA consciousness, in my opinion.
I honestly do not think these forums are that great a place to share the how either. The constant rehash would be fine and possibly educational if the signal to noise ratio was better, but it is not. There is an incredible amount of positive material here, but it takes a lot of digging through ehm.. dust.. to get to it. I still think a document or wiki with advice, relevant examples and maybe even something as corny as testimonials, would provide added value to both DMs and players. If only to provide a ..dust.. filter.
I realize there is nothing stopping me from trying to create such a wiki (except maybe time constraints), but I also feel such a place would need to be a part of an LFR whole. Maybe something to consider for the LFR community site if that is to be more prominently positioned?
The RPGA uses core rules. No rulings should be issued on non-RPGA stuff. The work will never end if the CCG begins to issue rulings on intimidate and copies of items.
I think that limiting the number of copies of items characters can have is completely reasonable/within the rights of LFR without violating the core rules. The process of buying items is definitely hand-waved in LFR. Between games we all go to an infinitely big mythical store that happens to only have items of our level or lower. ("Wow! This store is huge! It has thousands of copies of every item!!")
In a home game if you tried to do something cheesy like buy 15 copies of Quickcurse Rods, the DM could easily just say that the store you're in only has one or two copies in stock. The DM is completely in his right to say that and is not breaking any rules. You are correct, the core rules do not forbid using/owning multiple copies of items. But you can't use your 10 copies if you couldn't find them in a store to purchase them in the first place.
LFR can easily do the same thing and be completely within the rules. Having a CCG rule that says "You can only purchase one (or two?) copies of an individual item" is just a representation that we're not all heading to our own personal mega-Walmart after every game, but that we're going to a real shop in Faerûn that doesn't have infinitely many copies of every item on its shelves.
I think an LFR rule like this would enhance the gaming experience greatly and could be implemented without changing or violating the core rules.
The RPGA uses core rules. No rulings should be issued on non-RPGA stuff. The work will never end if the CCG begins to issue rulings on intimidate and copies of items.
Others have already noted how the CCG (and mods) has rules/rulings that are not 4E, so I don't see how a simple rule about multiple copies about the same item would ruin anything more/worse/else.
I'm all for not having pages and pages of restriction list and rulings about every little thing that could go wrong, that's what the D&D errata are for.
But let's be ABSOLUTELY clear. There -are- pages and pages of rulings that the RPGA and LFR use. They just come from WotC.
And the rules already provide significant limitations to both items mentioned, since, in general, a Warlock can only curse the closest enemy, a dozen quickcurse rods are not going to help much; and the usage of Salves of Power is limited already by the number of times a PC can use item daily powers; unless the DM and players both forget/ignore those core rules...
As a matter of fact, in my local games, after another GM started using poker chips to help track Action Points, I started using a different color chip to help track daily item power uses. It has been a big help, both in tracking usages available, and in reminding players both that there are limited usages, and for new players so that they even know about it at all.
Yes, there is a daily item cost (and healing surge cost) to using a Salve of Power. A paragon tier character will probably have 3 daily item powers in a given game. That means you can cast your 5th level daily power as many as 4 times in an adventure. (Yes, I know that means you can't use any other daily item powers.) That's essentially turning a daily power into an encounter power (or a twice-an-encounter power). Such a use unbalances the game and I don't think that was the intent of the Salve. This is especially a problem when the daily power has an effect that lasts for the entire encounter as it basically gives a character the ability to ALWAYS be under the effect of whatever the daily power is. (For example, a Ranger multiclass Cleric that's constantly under the effects of Weapon of the Gods.)
Those are just two examples (and not necessarily the best examples). I'm sure there are plenty of other items out that can be abused if a character has a dozen copies of them. Items with encounter powers can easily become overpowered and unbalanced since they were intended to only be used once an encounter and there's no resource cost in their use (i.e. you don't have a limited number of "encounter item powers" like you do with daily item powers). Home campaigns have a DM to limit/prevent such abuses (which is why the items probably won't be errated). LFR has the CCG.
Potions, ammunition, and other consumables? Just don't include those in the rule. The rule could say something like "A character cannot own more than 2 copies of a non-consumable magic item."
I'm all for fixing the problem. Several of us raised it with WotC. But it needs a core fix, not an RPGA fix. Let's hope for Tuesday...
I've heard rumors from several people that errata is coming out today. (Where are these rumors coming from?) Where will the errata show up - on the official 4e updates section of the Wizards website? (Things don't always appear in the "official" place first.)
I'm all for fixing the problem. Several of us raised it with WotC. But it needs a core fix, not an RPGA fix. Let's hope for Tuesday...
I've heard rumors from several people that errata is coming out today. (Where are these rumors coming from?) Where will the errata show up - on the official 4e updates section of the Wizards website? (Things don't always appear in the "official" place first.)
Greg Bisland mentioned it on Twitter yesterday, but the March 2nd date has been scheduled for a while. I forget where it first came up.
I'm all for fixing the problem. Several of us raised it with WotC. But it needs a core fix, not an RPGA fix. Let's hope for Tuesday...
I've heard rumors from several people that errata is coming out today. (Where are these rumors coming from?) Where will the errata show up - on the official 4e updates section of the Wizards website? (Things don't always appear in the "official" place first.)
Well, the content calendar points to a Character Builder update. I don't know of an update, so I assume it's just the monthly norm which in this case includes Martial Power 2 and Dragon.
only one copy of a reward card per deck! lucky shot is broken enough at one copy, giving an epic tier feat at level 1 with no prerequisites. 3 copies of that'll do shut down any skill challenge.
I think this is a nice, simple change that reigns in the effect of cards on the game without gutting the program as a whole.
finally, a subject i have never seen brought up is the restriction on purchasing items. currently you can only buy an item your level or lower, but this works to make money largely valueless. i will explain. lets say i want to buy a frost weapon or a dwarven armor. by the time i am the appropriate level, i will have already gotten a weapon or armor with a higher enhancement bonus so i will have effectively no reason to make the purchase.
ie: by the time i am level 8 and able to purchase a +2 frost weapon, i will already have access to +3 weapons from modules.
changing this to allow players to buy items higher level than they are would make a world of difference, and open up new builds and options.
I wouldn't be behind this change. I think having the "right" item at a lower bonus generally offsets the -1 to attack and damge, AC, defenses or what have you. It wouldn't really opening up many new builds unless the player is a slave to maintaining the highest bonuses possible.
Of course, the example has to be correct. And it has to be updated if the rule it's illustrating every changes.
But I think a lot of the confusion around, say, upgrading a plussed magic item could be eliminated with one or two good examples.
I would like to see characters have the option to get their Found Item Slot back when an item is errated.
I wrote a thread about it here:
community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...
Found magic items: When a found magic item is affected by an official rules update, the player does not receive any "compensation." They can keep it (using the new rules), they can sell it at 20% of market price, they can drop it for free and regain the previously used found item slot, or they can replace it with a new, legal item of the appropriate type whose item level is less than or equal to the old item’s level.
I would like to see characters have the option to get their Found Item Slot back when an item is errated.
I wrote a thread about it here:
community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...
Found magic items: When a found magic item is affected by an official rules update, the player does not receive any "compensation." They can keep it (using the new rules), they can sell it at 20% of market price, they can drop it for free and regain the previously used found item slot, or they can replace it with a new, legal item of the appropriate type whose item level is less than or equal to the old item’s level.
I would like to never see the above happen. It would turn getting a found item errata'd into a huge benefit and create an even more sizable disparity between the people that are not lucky enough to get their stuff errata'd and those that are.
The rules as they are now are already very very very generous.
I would like to see characters have the option to get their Found Item Slot back when an item is errated.
I wrote a thread about it here:
community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...
Found magic items: When a found magic item is affected by an official rules update, the player does not receive any "compensation." They can keep it (using the new rules), they can sell it at 20% of market price, they can drop it for free and regain the previously used found item slot, or they can replace it with a new, legal item of the appropriate type whose item level is less than or equal to the old item’s level.
I would like to never see the above happen. It would turn getting a found item errata'd into a huge benefit and create an even more sizable disparity between the people that are not lucky enough to get their stuff errata'd and those that are.
The rules as they are now are already very very very generous.
How does that give a huge benefit or result in a disparity? Sparks is not talking about selling it for 100%, nor being able to trade it in for another item bundle or more gold, but rather trading it in for...nothing, except freeing up the found item slot. If anything, those who took "more gold" will be the ones ahead, since they'll have more gold and the same number of open found item slots.
As the rules stand now, what if you had filled all of your slots with now-updated items? (I'm not sure how that might have happened, but it's possible.) You're either completely hosed (having to keep everything or sell at 20%) or you have far more options (congratulations...you can choose appropriate replacements for all of those, and they're not limited to the items from the original bundles).
I can build worse examples than the following, but it should suffice to illustrate:
Lets say for arguments sake that at level 5 I used my found item slot for a bloodclaw +2 weapon. I have since moved on and am now level 12 and have found a bloodiron +3 that I use. All my found item slots are used.
The bloodclaw +2 has become a backup at best and is on the list to be sold for 20% of its 2600g value, i.e. 520g.
But wait, it got errata'd. Well now I can replace it with a different +2 weapon. Ok not really useful, but I might want a different backup weapon. Or i can sell it at 20%, no change there.
Now if I could reclaim the found item slot I could pick just about any item next adventure, lets keep it civilized and pick up a crusader weapon +3. I don't want the weapon, so I will just sell it at 20% giving me 4200g.
So compared to someone who has made exactly the same item choices I have, except for picking a different l7 weapon with their level 5 found item slot, I am 3680 gold ahead simply by getting to reclaim my found item slot.
And thats just using gold as a comparison. Bring in some of the more interesting items available in Paragon mods and it gets worse..
Quite simply put: the found item slots are not level limited. If you get the slot back you get to use it to pick from the items at your current level of play. A huge advantage.
Just like the person who refused to take found items at low level and instead took the "more gold" option from every adventure he/she played. (And I know some players who do exactly that in LFR until around the H3 level band.)
On the other hand, I can see the position that, having had the benefit of the item for the time you had it, you should still have the found item slot taken...like a fee for having used the item in question.
In any case, it's already potentially a huge benefit to be able to trade out an updated item for any appropriate item of that level or lower. I say "potentially" because it's not that great a benefit in the case you describe, in which you've already moved on to a higher-level weapon. But if your primary weapon got nerfed, you're scouring the books looking for an equal-level weapon with which to refit your character...not limited to the item bundles (or even item sources) listed in the adventure from which you took the original item.
Of course, if the items in question are wondrous items, and the OP couldn't find a desirable replacement, there's something wrong there. It doesn't have to be equal level but can be lower. Now, selling = 20% cost = 5 levels lower, so I'd be looking primarily at between -4 and 0 to the original item level in the same category (in this case, wondrous items), since anything lower can just be bought and you'd come out either even or ahead. If there's nothing at all you'd want within that level range, that tells me that the updated item needed to be updated, or that other items need to be updated to be more useful, or that the selection of items isn't there (which could be argued, with the caveat that a bunch came out in AV and AV2).
Quite simply put: the found item slots are not level limited. If you get the slot back you get to use it to pick from the items at your current level of play. A huge advantage.
Of course, if the items in question are wondrous items, and the OP couldn't find a desirable replacement, there's something wrong there. It doesn't have to be equal level but can be lower. Now, selling = 20% cost = 5 levels lower, so I'd be looking primarily at between -4 and 0 to the original item level in the same category (in this case, wondrous items), since anything lower can just be bought and you'd come out either even or ahead. If there's nothing at all you'd want within that level range, that tells me that the updated item needed to be updated, or that other items need to be updated to be more useful, or that the selection of items isn't there (which could be argued, with the caveat that a bunch came out in AV and AV2).
In my case I already have all the wondorous items that I want or need at that level or lower. So I'm stuck with selling the item.
Here is another one of my concerns. Since when has D&D been about penalizing people because of there mistakes? Seriously, I should have the option to get my Found Item Slot back. Even then I'm taking a penatly because I could have taken the more gold option instead of the item. So in essence I'm losing out on a handful gold, which is fine because we could consider it a usage fee. What about a player who picks up an item and one mod later it gets nerfed? They never even got a real chance to use the item and now they gave up a Fond Item Slot for something they don't want.
In my opnion it just doesn't seem like a big deal to give somebody their Found Item Slot back, especially in a game where the errata is handed out like candy on Halloween. They already let characters retrain pretty much everything, I don't see any harm in giving players the chance to get their Found Item slot back.
The problem I would have is if I'm level 16, and the item I took at level 1 gets a rules update.
If I were to get my Found Item Slot back, I can now freely trade what was a (max) level 4 item, for a (max) level 20 item. This is a sizeable boon, especially as I was probably no longer using that "Slot 1" item any longer.
Under the current rules if my (max) level 4 item gets updated, I can (at best) replace it with a level 4 item of my choice. A boon, but not nearly as strong a boon as adding 16 levels to the item.
2) I agree. I do not believe that returning slots for items taken previously is a good idea. I've said it before, it rewards those on the bleeding edge of cheese for playing with the cheese.
Playing devils advocate:
The problem I would have is if I'm level 16, and the item I took at level 1 gets a rules update.
If I were to get my Found Item Slot back, I can now freely trade what was a (max) level 4 item, for a (max) level 20 item. This is a sizeable boon, especially as I was probably no longer using that "Slot 1" item any longer.
Under the current rules if my (max) level 4 item gets updated, I can (at best) replace it with a level 4 item of my choice. A boon, but not nearly as strong a boon as adding 16 levels to the item.
how about something simple
An item that is your level or higher (or maybe your level -2 or higher) gets errata'd you can take the slot back, otherwise swap for equal level or lower item, or sell at 20% etc.
Playing devils advocate:
The problem I would have is if I'm level 16, and the item I took at level 1 gets a rules update.
If I were to get my Found Item Slot back, I can now freely trade what was a (max) level 4 item, for a (max) level 20 item. This is a sizeable boon, especially as I was probably no longer using that "Slot 1" item any longer.
Under the current rules if my (max) level 4 item gets updated, I can (at best) replace it with a level 4 item of my choice. A boon, but not nearly as strong a boon as adding 16 levels to the item.
I suppose with my chracters I never hang on to any item that I am no longer using. It's possible that somebody could hang on to an item hoping for the Errata lottery to come through, but in my opinion that's kind of silly. I honestly don't think enough people would do that to be concerned about it, and if a few people do, well is it really that big of deal? The people who haven't had their items Errated should be happy anyway, no reason to be jealous because somebody else got their item blown up and was able to free up a slot as compensation. Ultimately I would just rather my items not be Errated. I just can't see myself envying the guy who just got his item nerfed.
A Quickcurse Rod lets you curse any target in sight, not just the closest. They're super cheap too (2nd level), so a character (especially at paragon tier) can easily buy 10 copies of them. The Hexer paragon path is all about being able to curse most/all of the enemies on a battlefield. Being able to buy essentially the same thing in the form of a bunch of cheap rods really unbalances the game (and devalues a whole paragon path). I don't think the item itself is flawed or needs errata. So you can curse that caster in the back? Ok, fine. That's a nice, useful little trick. Items like these only become broken and overpowered when someone can buy a dozen of them.
Using the Quick Curse Rod encounter power is a Free Action. The rules allow for DM's to limit the number of Free Actions a character can take (PHB page 267). Typically when I am DMing I don't concern myself with the number of Free Actions a character takes, but if something starts to sound broken then I would step in and say that's enough.
A Quickcurse Rod lets you curse any target in sight, not just the closest. They're super cheap too (2nd level), so a character (especially at paragon tier) can easily buy 10 copies of them. The Hexer paragon path is all about being able to curse most/all of the enemies on a battlefield. Being able to buy essentially the same thing in the form of a bunch of cheap rods really unbalances the game (and devalues a whole paragon path). I don't think the item itself is flawed or needs errata. So you can curse that caster in the back? Ok, fine. That's a nice, useful little trick. Items like these only become broken and overpowered when someone can buy a dozen of them.
Using the Quick Curse Rod encounter power is a Free Action. The rules allow for DM's to limit the number of Free Actions a character can take (PHB page 267). Typically when I am DMing I don't concern myself with the number of Free Actions a character takes, but if something starts to sound broken then I would step in and say that's enough.
True, but (1) not all LFR judges would rule equally on the number of free actions a player can take, so you could have a lot of table variability, and (2) even if the DM limits a player to using only one Quickcurse Rod a round a player can still have 10 of them and curse an extra enemy every single round of the combat which still significantly alters the game dynamic.
(I'm not a big fan of the errata trend to just make every single item in the game a daily power.)
A Quickcurse Rod lets you curse any target in sight, not just the closest. They're super cheap too (2nd level), so a character (especially at paragon tier) can easily buy 10 copies of them. The Hexer paragon path is all about being able to curse most/all of the enemies on a battlefield. Being able to buy essentially the same thing in the form of a bunch of cheap rods really unbalances the game (and devalues a whole paragon path). I don't think the item itself is flawed or needs errata. So you can curse that caster in the back? Ok, fine. That's a nice, useful little trick. Items like these only become broken and overpowered when someone can buy a dozen of them.
Using the Quick Curse Rod encounter power is a Free Action. The rules allow for DM's to limit the number of Free Actions a character can take (PHB page 267). Typically when I am DMing I don't concern myself with the number of Free Actions a character takes, but if something starts to sound broken then I would step in and say that's enough.
True, but (1) not all LFR judges would rule equally on the number of free actions a player can take, so you could have a lot of table variability, and (2) even if the DM limits a player to using only one Quickcurse Rod a round a player can still have 10 of them and curse an extra enemy every single round of the combat which still significantly alters the game dynamic.
(I'm not a big fan of the errata trend to just make every single item in the game a daily power.)
Is this really a worry? Is anyone in LFR or even 4E truly packing a golf bag of these?
This is a very bad idea, and I never even realized it was a rule until now because everyone I play with ignores it. If the CB is a rules source, then every miscalculation and error in it is a "rule." There are still a ton of bugs in it, like applying modifiers to static damage (and not applying them to secondary damage rolls). One player who plays with me regularly decided that she couldn't use Healer's Mercy anymore because the CB decided it was illegal that day (it was a bug from the March update), and she never applies Healer's Lore correctly because the CB doesn't either. Then there's also the issue of "stealth errata" that appears in the CB, if you happen to spot it, but isn't in the update document.
Take out that line, please. It's an unmitigated mess, and it's completely unnecessary, since, in theory, everything in the CB has appeared elsewhere first.
Is this really a worry? Is anyone in LFR or even 4E truly packing a golf bag of these?
I haven't seen this exact abuse (yet), but I know players who would definitely do something like carry around 10 Quickcurse Rods. And I've seen people carting around sackfuls of other items (like pre-errata Salves of Power).
Apparently Wizards thinks that people running around with many copies of an item is a serious problem too. Unfortunately their solution is just to make everything a daily power. For example - the explanation of the errata of the Flute of the Dancing Satyr is that it was too powerful if multiple characters have it or if one character has multiple copies of it. If the problem was really people having multiple copies of it, why not just restrict the number of copies? There are many more people who weren't being cheesy with an item like this than people who were abusing it, but making it a daily power hurts both groups. It seems unfortunate that we have to punish people who were using an item as intended in order to prevent a small group of people from being jerks. Having a limit on how many copies of an item you can have would still prevent abuses of the item, but wouldn't penalize anyone who was using the item in a reasonable fashion.
I don't necessarily think that a limit on the number of items a character has would be an appropriate change for the game as a whole, but it seems reasonable for LFR. In a home campaign the DM can just say "No, that's stupid. You can't do that." or "No, this store doesn't have 10 copies of _____." Or the other players can use peer pressure if they think something is particularly cheesy and unreasonable. (Or, if all else fails, they can find someone else to play with.) In LFR we can't do any of that. If someone sits down at the table with a legal character that abuses all the rules, the DM can't do anything - the character is technically legal.
- We have a guy with 5 grasping weapons. He has the feat so that an enemy has to break his grab before standing up. He hits with knockdown assault, and then activates the item. If someone breaks the grab AND stands up, he drops the weapon, quick-draws another and does it over again. That's a minimum of 5 rounds of frustration.
- I was kind of surprised when I came to this thread. I was expecting that judges would be clamoring for a repeal of the extremely liberal retraining rules. Instead, I'm getting hints that people want to expand them. What we had before was already bad enough. Now I know of players who are planning out their characters' advancement in discrete stages: "For the first 6 levels, I'll have these stats, get these feats, etc; When I'm 8th level, I'll switch everything to this configuration..." These aren't characters anymore, they're just builds. There is no personality or character evolution; not even a semblance of role playing. Honestly, I blame WotC for not following through on their promises. There was no attempt to reign in power creep in this edition, no attempt to manage new game additions, and beyond the initial core books, no real dedication to playtesting or quality control. (The monthly Dragon Magazine content is especially bad for this.) What ruined living games in past additions? The constant building and rebuilding of characters to take advantage of new broken combinations. People find it hard to stick with their initial concept when new game additions are obviously better than older ones, and when unforseen interactions between feats, powers, etc break the game so frequently. ...Sorry; my rant is over
There is no personality or character evolution; not even a semblance of role playing.
[joking around]
I didn't see the part where you were allowed to retrain your character's personality, only the game stats. Personally, I only link personality to stats in the most tenuous way, if at all. Retrains do nothing to change the way characters behave.
[/joking around]
Two things:
- We have a guy with 5 grasping weapons. He has the feat so that an enemy has to break his grab before standing up. He hits with knockdown assault, and then activates the item. If someone breaks the grab AND stands up, he drops the weapon, quick-draws another and does it over again. That's a minimum of 5 rounds of frustration.
- I was kind of surprised when I came to this thread. I was expecting that judges would be clamoring for a repeal of the extremely liberal retraining rules. Instead, I'm getting hints that people want to expand them. What we had before was already bad enough. Now I know of players who are planning out their characters' advancement in discrete stages: "For the first 6 levels, I'll have these stats, get these feats, etc; When I'm 8th level, I'll switch everything to this configuration..." These aren't characters anymore, they're just builds. There is no personality or character evolution; not even a semblance of role playing. Honestly, I blame WotC for not following through on their promises. There was no attempt to reign in power creep in this edition, no attempt to manage new game additions, and beyond the initial core books, no real dedication to playtesting or quality control. (The monthly Dragon Magazine content is especially bad for this.) What ruined living games in past additions? The constant building and rebuilding of characters to take advantage of new broken combinations. People find it hard to stick with their initial concept when new game additions are obviously better than older ones, and when unforseen interactions between feats, powers, etc break the game so frequently. ...Sorry; my rant is over
Keep in mind the hard core posters are often the ones that get the most out of the constant flow of information... this is not so true for the role-players (outside of maybe the Realms lore forums). Thus, you will see the posts here slant towards optimization, power gaming, etc. People that have 14 PCs feel differently about retraining than do people with one to two PCs, in general. (I'm generalizing, and you also will see a lot of DMs or just plain big fans that want to keep up with the developments of the campaign.)
For the specific guy you talked about, I'm surprised there is no peer pressure to have the guy pull back on that approach. It sounds non-fun for the table.
Keep in mind the hard core posters are often the ones that get the most out of the constant flow of information... this is not so true for the role-players (outside of maybe the Realms lore forums). Thus, you will see the posts here slant towards optimization, power gaming, etc. People that have 14 PCs feel differently about retraining than do people with one to two PCs, in general. (I'm generalizing, and you also will see a lot of DMs or just plain big fans that want to keep up with the developments of the campaign.)
For the specific guy you talked about, I'm surprised there is no peer pressure to have the guy pull back on that approach. It sounds non-fun for the table.
It seems mostly unfun for the DM to get his guy(s) pwn't so bad. I imagine other players love it because it takes some heat off of them and let them focus on assembling their nova-round.
It seems mostly unfun for the DM to get his guy(s) pwn't so bad. I imagine other players love it because it takes some heat off of them and let them focus on assembling their nova-round.
This might totally shock your world view, but not everyone is concerned with nova rounds. And while a lot of DMs do find this sort of behavior unfun this is rarely because they are getting their guys ... pwn'd .. A good working knowledge of the rules will generally let a DM rain on most players parade and counter ... pwn .. They just choose not to because it leads to urination contest and other unfun situations. That and they often have this weird idea they are there to make the players have fun. Silly maybe, but true.
If the entire table is made up of optimizers and this is what they like.. cool. Everyone can get their time in the spotlight and a good time is had by all. Often however the obsessive optimizer will bogart said spotlight which makes things less fun for others. It can get even worse when there are people at the table who don't know a nova from a hole in the ground, but who can roleplay the socks off a kender. The resulting tension between the optimizer(s) that wants to get to the combat and the non nova bound can really be a major pain.
I may bear repeating that there is truly no way to win D&D. There are however many ways to make other people lose.. (time, enjoyment, patience and even sanity
)It seems mostly unfun for the DM to get his guy(s) pwn't so bad. I imagine other players love it because it takes some heat off of them and let them focus on assembling their nova-round.
Here's where I tend to have a problem. I used to be the DM for whom it was unfun, then I realized that the DM's job is to help the other players have fun. I'm not saying it ought to be a gimme, but if the players can find ways for their team to shine, I really think the DM--and the adventure authors and the devs--ought not destroy that. I see two options in D&D4e/LFR:
- Either...the adventures are heroic (in a broader sense of the word than the heroic tier) stories in which the main characters are the PCs--not the monsters--and at least occasionally the main characters have exactly the right tools for the job. Character development might lead to a non-optimized set of stats which would still allow each character to contribute to the team's efforts. It may be that the team fails occasionally, but that's already written into the rules.
- OR...we should stop pretending that this is anything other than an adversarial miniatures game with DM vs. players. No story, no roleplaying, just a series of combats and dice rolls. Player powers and items are changed regularly to "rebalance" PCs, while monsters typically retain their powers. No, wait, that's what happens at a lot of tables now...
Okay, there's my rant...
Due to some weird circumstances with playtests, specials and the ADCP i found myself in the situation where I leveled to 11, knew I would be 12 in one adventure and then 13 almost immediate too. With this in mind I decided to play around with my paladin a bit.
For level 11 I turned my paladin in to a pure STR based damage build. I found out it is definitely viable and the Son of Mercy PP combined with the Thug Specialist feat is situationally broken. Found it fun to play, but a little too static for my taste. Hit things, hit them again, hit them again.. I used to love that in LG, but I have grown to enjoy variation.
For level 12 I went all out and made a Champion of Order (pp) BALadin. Unsurprisingly the ability to make the BBEG weakened and dazed for the entire encounter, every encounter turned out to be a little OTT. I did find out I really love the versatility of the BALadin though.
I stayed away from the Morninglord (radiant cheese) and Champion of Correlon (white lotus cheese) simply because my paladin may be confused (some say crazy) and religiously misguided (some say heretical and a race traitor), but there is no way in Baator that he would forsake Bahamat (some say Tiamut) as his deity of choice. And through all of this his personality stayed every bit as annoying as it ever was
Now for level 13, I am in doubt. Do I go back to my old CHA based build, or stick with BAL.. Don't know yet and it will probably be a while till I get to play again so I have time to ponder it. I like having the choice to try stuff out though. Will I play either builds in their OTT version again? Probably not, its not my thing, but I think having that option for people can be fun enhancing.
As long, of course, as people remember this is a social game. What you do with your character can affect others. I know it is cheesy (different kind), but it does pay to be considerate even in rebuilding wholesale.
- bobloper - that's a rather binary view of things. Honestly, I don't think that there's just one road to player happiness. I know that I myself enjoy a good, tough, hard-won fight, and that I've been thanked for providing those sorts of fights when I judge. I many cases, I don't think that the players went into those games thinking that their tricks weren't going to work, or that the monsters would have some tricks of their own, but in the end, they've generally been happy and enjoyed pulling out a tough victory. That said, I've also judged tables where the PC have totally over-matched the bad guys, and the players have openly reveled in the brokenness of their character builds. In those cases, as long as no one feels left out, the players at those tables have generally seemed to enjoy themselves. In all honesty though, on many such occasions, there ARE usually players who do feel left out or don't enjoy walking all over the monsters. In short, it has been my experience that when all PCs survive and the combats are challenging then everyone has fun, but when the PCs own every combat then there's usually someone bored or disappointed - not always though.
- imaginaryfriend - I honestly see where you're coming from---trying out different builds can be a lot of fun---but at the same time the CCG retraining rules are so far removed from the PHB retraining rules that it begs several questions: Why have set characters at all? Why be stuck at any specific level? Why not simply use the RPGA rules for creating characters at any level, and just let people play whatever they want whenever they want? If you're worried about continuity, or a lack of PC background, I say that the CCG retraining rules preclude all but the barest assumptions of continuity and largely only serve to force the tracking of magic items, and so why not do away with that as well. Seriously, if you have Character X, and Character X looks radically different from one level to the next, how can you say that the new Character X accomplished (or could have accomplished) any of the things the old Character X accomplished? As far as I'm concerned you really can't. It almost seems that people want to be able to say "I've masterfully brought my character up from level 1 to level n, and look how awesome he turned out (wink, we all know that's not true, but let's just pretend it is and we'll all have more fun - k?)."
Back to my two things:
- bobloper - that's a rather binary view of things. Honestly, I don't think that there's just one road to player happiness. I know that I myself enjoy a good, tough, hard-won fight, and that I've been thanked for providing those sorts of fights when I judge. I many cases, I don't think that the players went into those games thinking that their tricks weren't going to work, or that the monsters would have some tricks of their own, but in the end, they've generally been happy and enjoyed pulling out a tough victory. That said, I've also judged tables where the PC have totally over-matched the bad guys, and the players have openly reveled in the brokenness of their character builds. In those cases, as long as no one feels left out, the players at those tables have generally seemed to enjoy themselves. In all honesty though, on many such occasions, there ARE usually players who do feel left out or don't enjoy walking all over the monsters. In short, it has been my experience that when all PCs survive and the combats are challenging then everyone has fun, but when the PCs own every combat then there's usually someone bored or disappointed - not always though
Binary? Yes. Exaggerated? Not nearly as much as I might wish. I've played at too many tables of the second kind lately, at which it's actually hurt that I tried playing a character I liked instead of an optimized killing machine. My experience of late has been that there are too many mods in which the "story" is a backdrop for the combat...which makes it a miniatures game and not a roleplaying game. I started playing LFR because it was the best way I had to develop a character, since too many home games around here go for a few months and then die out...but now the definition of character development seems to be "How do I optimize this build in response to the new rules so I can still break encounters?".
...but now the definition of character development seems to be "How do I optimize this build in response to the new rules so I can still break encounters?".
I've got to agree with you here, and I'll add that the retraining rules have just fed this!
Where I play, as soon as WotC releases an errata update, we try to clamp down on things by asking that the players voluntarily adopt all changes immediately. (We run tables three times a week, anywhere from 2 to 4 tables at a time, with several dozen on again off again players, so it's a fairly large community to deal with.) This had been helping to cut down on the cheese ... that is until the new retraining rules came out. Now our worst cheese offenders both rail against the "nurfs" WotC imposes on their characters and at the same time revel in their ability to plow the furtile cheese fields of un-playtested content (mostly from Dragon Magazine articles). I'm not exaggerating when I say that many players are now just bringing a character name and the build of the week when they come to the table. They still repeat the some spiel at the beginning of each game, but after that it's all about "let me show you how broken I am now." Quite honestly, some of our best players/judges are losing interest ... and you know it's getting bad when some of them actually see Magic as a more "honest" game!
Let's say we have a new player, didn't have many friends at home, comes in with this first level Warlock, and has both Charisma and Constitution based powers running over their sheet. Third level roles around, and that player is even further subdivided. One of the other players, who has played with him a few times, starts to finally see this, and gives the new player some pointers. Now, instead of having to scrap the character because they have too many powers to retrain at 4th, they have the chance to just rebuild the character into something more playable.
This player is not looking to optimize the rules. They really are not that interested in "Gaming the System". They just needs a break and this rule allows for that.
The current rules are for more then just "Hey, there is something neat that came out that I want to try". They are the safety net for the inexperienced, also.
Just something to think about.
We don't itemize all the equipment you can buy. Are mounts different?
Actually, there is one reference in the CCG to mounts, that if they die during an adventure, you get them back alive at the end of the adventure. Personally, I am not pleased about the free raise dead animal (as it badly distorts how PCs treat mounts IMO), but that is the LFR rule.
Keith
So what rule(s) doe you feel is needed for mounts in the CCG, and why?
I'm pretty sure that MindWanderer is referring to this thread over in the LFR General board:
community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...
In short...can a mount be taken with an "Any item of Level X or less" treasure bundle?
is there a minimum level to use a mount? How much do you get for selling a mount? Do they count against your found items? What happens if a mount isn't killed, but is otherwise crippled or unrecoverable (e.g. not teleported with the party, petrified and buried, etc.)? What if the mount is wearing a magic item and is then subject to such an event?
(a) No, but many mounts have abilities that can only be used by riders of a certain level.
(b) You cannot sell a mount. It is mundane equipment and not a magic item, so no one wants to buy it.
(c) Nothing you buy counts against your found items. If it is given out in an adventure, the rewards section will specify if it counts as a found item. If it doesn't specify, assume that it does count as a found item.
(d) The spirit of the rule (as bizarre and unbalancing as that rule may be) seems to be that buying a mount means you start afresh each adventure with that mount. Technically speaking, you don't recover it until the DM declares it dead, but in most situations (lost, teleported away from you) it would be reasonable to assume it died (or found its way back to you) before the start of the next module.
(e) You might as well ask what happens to all of your magic items if you're eaten by a dragon and need to use the Death Charity clause, since nothing says you get any of your magic items back. Spirit of the rule (see above for complaint about rule) is probably that your mount's magic items mysteriously come back; letter is silent.
(b) You cannot sell a mount. It is mundane equipment and not a magic item, so no one wants to buy it.
As currently written, correct, but not being able to sell an "item" worth half a million gp is probably not RAI.
If it is given out in an adventure, the rewards section will specify if it counts as a found item.
Not true. Rituals don't count, but the rewards section doesn't specify this, only the CCG does. As written, mounts aren't magic items, and thus don't count; however, the CCG does specify that rituals, formulas, and consumables don't count, with no mention of mounts.
As currently written, correct, but not being able to sell an "item" worth half a million gp is probably not RAI.
Mounts are intended to be consumables. Given the (bizarre and unbalancing) CCG rule is that you get a fresh mount back every adventure means that you probably are getting multiple copies of a mount for your buck, I'm fine with the rule being that you can't sell them after you're done with them.
Not true. Rituals don't count, but the rewards section doesn't specify this, only the CCG does. As written, mounts aren't magic items, and thus don't count; however, the CCG does specify that rituals, formulas, and consumables don't count, with no mention of mounts.
To be knowledge, there exists one module that gives out a mount as a reward, and it specifies whether or not it counts as a found magic item. I'm reasonably confident that if mounts are given out in other adventures, the rewards section will specify whether it does. And, as I said, if it doesn't, the default would be to assume that it does count.
Keith
Clarify if game content was in a playtest or preview DDI article, but did not appear in final printed publication, unlike the majority of the article, is that original material still legal for LFR or not.
Keith
Remove Customer Service as a rules source. Too much confusion.
Keith
Disagree. We had more confusion back when CS was not legal. Any DM could cherry pick the CS they did or didn't want to use or ignore all of it. Informed players could do nothing when playing with an uninformed DM. "Actually, it was clarified that it works this way"
"Sorry, that's not in a book."
"But it is really reasonable and comes directly from WotC..."
"Sorry, at my table it works this way..."
CS creates a common ground. Sure, there will be some bad CS posts. Sure, sometimes a person may be working with an outdated response. For every one of those cases you will have many more where the information gets out correctly and averts wild interpretation and crazy table rulings.
If LFR wants to reflect core rules and if WotC is serious about CS quality improvements, then CS should be an official source for the campaign.
Remove Customer Service as a rules source. Too much confusion.
I strongly agree.
Now that Customer Support is answering questions by phone, a player could just say "CS told me that...", and it would be impossible to determine whether the ruling is out of date, or even legitimate.
If something is to be a useful rules source, it must be published and accessible by players and DMs at any time. CS already maintains FAQs for various sourcebooks, and puts up rules clarifications there -- only the FAQs should be explicitly listed as RPGA rules sources, not general CS responses.
I agree that CS is a poor source as it currently stands. In an ideal world, there would be a WotC-published database of rulings, and each CS ruling would be tagged with the rules component (power, feat, etc.) it addresses. In many cases, there'd be multiple tags, obviously. The Compendium would include a link to the CS rulings for each individual item.
The whole "I saved my CS response" is currently both annoying and necessary.
- Can the author ?
- Can the editor ?
- Can other administrators of the region?
- Can the playtesters of an adventure?
Gomez
Clarify who can play an adventure (the general RPGA rules list these, I think, but they may be outdated):
- Can the author ?
- Can the editor ?
- Can other administrators of the region?
- Can the playtesters of an adventure?
Gomez
In the other thread on this topic, it was also asked what rewards should be appropriate for playtesters. Do they pick rewards across all tiers when asked to play a certain tier? Do they get XP/rewards/bad stuff now or when it comes out?
How to reward playtesters seems more fit for the writer's guidelines, though it can't hurt to have it in the CCG - it makes it easier to arrange for playtest groups on short notice if you do not need to send over the guidelines.
I think that, in general, we need to make rules as unobscure as possible. Let's not hide rules in obscure documents, and let's avoid situations like these:.
"But Mr Dent, the plans have been available in the local planning office for the last nine months."
"Oh yes, well as soon as I heard I went straight round to see them, yesterday afternoon. You hadn't exactly gone out of your way to call attention to them, had you? I mean, like actually telling anybody or anything."
"But the plans were on display ..."
"On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them."
"That's the display department."
"With a flashlight."
"Ah, well the lights had probably gone."
"So had the stairs."
"But look, you found the notice didn't you?"
"Yes," said Arthur, "yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'."
Edit, apparently somebody had already brought this up in this thread. I should find that guy and beat him up for taking my idea..... Maybe you should clarify the Warforged status in LFR?
Since the RPGA Home Page is blank and RPGA.com now refers you to Events section of WPN, all references to the RPGA should be completely removed from the character creation document. If I was a new player or long past returning player I wouldn't be able to find new information on the RPGA using Internet search engines. If you type in RPGA on WOTC's own Wizards.com you get "No results available." under shortcuts. Further down on the Web search part it does show links for DCI/RPGA rankings.
Talk about confusion and secrecy or poorly maintained Internet image maybe. Everything needs to refer to the new program either, "D&D Organized Events" or "World Play Network".
Thanks.
The "Character Death" section needs to be completely rewritten for simplicity. In any case this line, "However, death for your character is usually a temporary situation." needs to be removed since character death is always temporary unless the player desires otherwise.
Honestly just about the whole section could be reduced to:
"If your character or his group does not pay for the Raise Dead ritual or your character's body was lost, the player can choose to return his character back to life at the end of the adventure for free. Doing so forfeits all rewards (including treasure and story rewards) earned for the adventure except experience points gained prior to the character’s death (the character receives the experience point award for the encounter in which they died). The character can not participate in the same adventure a second time."
The passage should start something like this: "In the event of a Total Party Kill (TPK), the characters affected are not removed permanantly from play, but may invoke the Death Charity Clause as normal......" or something to this effect...
I understand that arguements over this don't happen at every gaming table, but it's happened enough where I game that I'm sick of e-mailing customer service, global admins and posting on the forums to prove my point that TPK does not automatically equal permanant death of pc's.
PLease seriously consider this matter in the next update...
Again we agree and disagree
I'm fine with agreeing and disagreeing at this point.
I think a mention should be made of the way information should be given in the case of DME. If a DM is using DME to modify the DC of a particular skill such as Intimidate (so as to make it effectively impossible, or even much more difficult than usual), he should warn the character before the character wastes his action. Building up a character for a particular schtick is quite expensive in feats and skills, as well as costly in terms of other more frequently used abilities going by the wayside. Having to waste an action finding out that the DM has "changed the rules" is definitely not fun.
That said, I was never a fan of one-trick-pony builds such as the 3.5e tripper. I am glad 4e does not encourage such a plethora of quirky builds. I personally don't see Intimidate as a game changer, although I have heard (and never seen) storyies of its effective use.
To me, this would fit in with the "transparency" theme that is at the heart of the 4e play experience.
Back to my two things:
imaginaryfriend - I honestly see where you're coming from---trying out different builds can be a lot of fun---but at the same time the CCG retraining rules are so far removed from the PHB retraining rules that it begs several questions: Why have set characters at all? Why be stuck at any specific level? Why not simply use the RPGA rules for creating characters at any level, and just let people play whatever they want whenever they want? If you're worried about continuity, or a lack of PC background, I say that the CCG retraining rules preclude all but the barest assumptions of continuity and largely only serve to force the tracking of magic items, and so why not do away with that as well.
For one - the RPGA web interface is so broken it cannot be used to track character advancement. DMs are not able to verify that characters are legal beyond a cursory inspection. Therefore, any retraining rules are unenforceable.
Secondly, limiting retraining puts the brakes on players being able to use new books.
Thirdly, most players have some kind of a concept that they are building their characters towards. Most players are not wildly re-engineering their characters every level, because they don't think that is fun.
Lastly - even if they are re-engineering their characters every level, who are they hurting?
That said, this is very different in spirit from allowing people to create characters at any level (not that I am advocating for or against that). It is just a different thing.
finally, a subject i have never seen brought up is the restriction on purchasing items. currently you can only buy an item your level or lower, but this works to make money largely valueless. i will explain. lets say i want to buy a frost weapon or a dwarven armor. by the time i am the appropriate level, i will have already gotten a weapon or armor with a higher enhancement bonus so i will have effectively no reason to make the purchase.
changing this to allow players to buy items higher level than they are would make a world of difference, and open up new builds and options.
I wouldn't be behind this change. I think having the "right" item at a lower bonus generally offsets the -1 to attack and damge, AC, defenses or what have you. It wouldn't really opening up many new builds unless the player is a slave to maintaining the highest bonuses possible.
I agree here that this should not be changed. The idea is that you can get through good fortune, a few items every now and again that are well suited for your character, that are 1-4 levels higher than your character. You can also "fill in the gaps" with well chosen items that fit your character perfectly but are no higher level than your character. This fits pretty well with the power curve as expressed in the DMG. Being able to buy higher level items would skew this curve and allow characters to be significantly more powerful, which in turn would unbalance the game.
I can't remember if I posted this ever, so I will now:
I think it would be cool if three-person tables had the option to play with a companion character (as per DMG 2). The primary benefit of this is that you'd avoid the uncomfortable problem you have when there are eight or nine people at your game day. There'd be a substantial amount of work for the globals or some volunteer, since someone would have to write up a set of characters for each level band, or possibly for each tier, so I'm not expecting it to happen, but I thought I'd suggest the idea.
My other clever idea has been hashed out already, so I won't belabor it, but I note that the DMG 2 also has rules for temporarily boosting your character up or down several levels so you can play with groups that are higher or lower level. The application of this should be obvious.
As of the latest Dragon Magazine, there are boons that are part of a player resource, and we have already had at least one module give one as a reward. We need some basic rules for how they're handled in the campaign.
For example:
* Can you buy them, if they're from a player resource?
* How long do they last? I think this was a huge oversight not to include in the module which gave out a boon--according to DMG2, boons automatically go away after five levels... but this rule is found only in a book that is not a player resource, and the DM is free to modify the duration however he'd like. Without any warning in the rewards section, it strikes me as a bit unfair to retroatively declare that your boon automatically fades away after a certain number of levels/adventures... except that the boon is overpowered if it doesn't.
Currently, getting the right magic item depends on luck and/or looking up spoilers. The DMG makes it pretty clear that in home campaigns a DM should pick items that are going to be useful to the characters involved. With hundreds of items available it's impossible for mods to give out even a fraction of the items people might want. People end up playing (or replaying) mods just for the item selection, etc.
I know that if you play the right mods, you can get this, but that just goes back to my "looking up spoilers and playing just to get specific items".
Allen.
A clarification on the matter of objects are/aren't creatures for the purposes of marking, taking damage from lightning weapon's daily, attacking with powers that target one "creature", etc. would be nice. There's been table variation on this since the launch of the campaign at GenCon 2008, where Andy Collins said yes but individual table DMs said no.
Multiple Effect & Action Resolution Timing Rules
A set of timing rules would be very helpful, especially at higher-level play.
Example Beginning of turn effects: A warden begins his turn in a swarm's aura. What order do these happen in? His free Font of Life save, taking going damage, a swarm attack that deals that same ongoing damage, an AC buff from the cleric that ends "at the beginning of your next turn", an enemy's charge readied action for the beginning of his turn.
Certainly Font of Life says it happens before taking ongoing damage, but what about the rest? And what about resolving other things in between the save and taking the damage, as long as the save happens prior to the damage?
The order these things happen in can be the difference between Total Success and Total Party Kill and having an official answer that eliminates table variation and lets players plan their actions accordingly would help a lot.
The Initiative & Ownership Rule: I suggest having effects resolve in initiative order of the creature that created the effect, and when there are multiple effects from the same creature, the creature that created the effects decides what order his effects resolve in.
So, for instance, if that was the rule in the above example and the initiative order was swarm, warden, cleric, charger, it would play out like this:
The swarm would choose to have his ongoing damage happen, the warden would interject becuase his specific rule, Font of Life, beats the general rule about initiative & ownership and he gets his save, then the swarm would have to attack his buffed AC and try to put the ongoing damage back on him, but it's too late for the warden to take the damage this turn, the cleric's buff would end, and finally the charger's readied charge would go off, attacking the wardens normal AC. After resolving the charge and any effects and actions it triggers, the "beginning of the turn" would be resolved and the warden could take his actions.
It would need to be worded openly enough that the same rule would apply to end of turn effects, end of encounter effects, and any similar effects that might get added in future books.
Oh, I'd like to see the mount change unwound. People can buy Raise Dead rituals for their mounts if they're concerned about losing the purchase price. It's a small but significant effect on the roleplaying aspects of the campaign because people will treat the damned things as disposable robots, they'll joke about it, all that fun stuff.
I think requiring Raise Dead would amount to turning them off in the campaign as virtually no one would use mounts given the prevalence of AoEs in 4e and the already tactic-damaging effect of the DM killing a mount in the middle of an encounter. There's a point where they wouldn't be worth the trouble and when you can already be knocked off of them easily and left on the ground if they're killed, adding an upkeep cost that would occur after most adventures would certainly gets mounts to the point where I would no longer look at them as viable player resources worth my character's GP and energy dealign with upkeep. Besides which, there's still the Familiar Mount ritual that wouldn't be affected.
A rewrite of the guide, from scratch, is something I would strongly urge. Followed by a round of reviews from this group in order to make sure that things make sense.
If possible, I would also urge the creation of a seperate guide for DMs to use - one that helps guide a DM in beomcing 'certified', selecting modules, scheduling events, getting players to the table, adjucating certain LFR specific rules, incorporating quest cards and story awards more fully, etc. There are several parts of the current guide that are only relevant to the DM, and it creates confusion for players. At least break the guide into two parts - a players portion and a DMs portion... clearly broken out a bit better than it is now!
Here are a few things I would like to see in the players portion of the CCG.
- Please restructure the document for better flow!
- Clarity on the use of RPGA vs. DCI and the RPGA/DCI #
- A better explanation of how to get an RPGA/DCI # for new players
- An entire section dedicated to explaining retraining
- The ability to retrain race and/or class on a conditional basis (like maybe a rewards card)
- Make the section on creating higher level character into an appendix!
- Greater clarity on the use of printed rewards cards
- A better explanation of how to use a general card
- Better guidance to players on how to track their progress
- Get rid of all references to outdated forms like the advancement tracker
- Some guidance on character creation to help players optimize for LFR sessions
- Get rid of all the 'year 1' references and dates
- Do a better job of explaining regions and the importance of region selection
- Clarify the 'Found Items' section - this is a huge issue for players
- Do a better job of explaining how to upgrade or transfer enchantments
- Do a better job of explaining how armor upgrades work (i.e. chain vs. finechain, etc)
- Change the rules on purchased magic items to up to 4 levels higher as well
- Figure out some way to make rituals and consumables more attractive to players
- Include more clarity on diseases and other things that carry over between adventures
- Give adventuring companies more life and flexibility - have them be something more!
- Please include a table of contents and an index!
- Please include an LFR map as an appendix!
Overall, rewrite the guide in way that captures the same tone as the FRPG and FRCG - including the way things are outlined and explained...
Thanks, and if you need help I am happy to assist
-Brad Bemis
Letting players start at higher levels would let more people ahve more fun and I don't see how it could harm the campaign.
I don't expect you will ever see this.
The short answer would be that, yes, some people do believe it would harm the campaign. Indeed, I'm of the opinion it would essentially signal the death knell for the campaign, so it's the kind of change that should only be made if the campaign is planning on wrapping up shortly.
Discussing this at length would take over the thread, so if you're interested in discussing it further, I would suggest reviving one of the many threads in the general LFR forum discussing this issue.
Example Beginning of turn effects: A warden begins his turn in a swarm's aura. What order do these happen in? His free Font of Life save, taking going damage, a swarm attack that deals that same ongoing damage, an AC buff from the cleric that ends "at the beginning of your next turn", an enemy's charge readied action for the beginning of his turn.
This is a D&D rules issue. You are unlikely to ever see a D&D rules issue clarified in the CCG, as campaign staff have stated they are not interested in making up their own house rules (though whether that's a good position is a separate discussion) and even if they were, the CCG isn't really the place for those sorts of things.
(To answer the question, though, I'm unsure why you think the current rules are insufficient:
* His Font of Life save happens first (it's specified that this happens before taking any damage: PH2, p. 153)
* If he did not successfully save, he then takes ongoing damage (first thing to happen at the start of your turn: PH, p. 268)
* The swarm attack then happens ("any other effects that occur at the start of your turn": PH, p. 268)
* Then his AC buff goes away ("End Effects: Some effects end automatically at the start of your turn": PH, p. 268)
* A DM that allows a readied action based upon a metagame event like the beginning of someone's turn is on pretty shaky ground, but leaving that aside, readied actions are immediate reactions, so they happen last, after the start of your turn is fully resolved.)
I think requiring Raise Dead would amount to turning them off in the campaign as virtually no one would use mounts given the prevalence of AoEs in 4e and the already tactic-damaging effect of the DM killing a mount in the middle of an encounter.
You're merely pointing out how the mount rules for LFR are overpowered as compared to the core rules.
I continue to find it mindboggling that the first house rule the campaign instituted was to make mounts more powerful. Were I to make a list of the things the campaign could change to make the core rules fit the unique nature of a living campaign, or simply to make the rules better, making mounts more attractive to buy wouldn't be in the top 10, or even the top 100.
In a core rules campaign, when you buy a mount, it will eventually be killed. If your DM is very kind, he will decide that the creature has a soul and is willing to return to you after you spend at least 500/5000/50000 gp to raise it; otherwise, you go out and buy another one.
Mounts in the core rules are essentially consumables. At some point, they will die and need to be replaced.
In LFR, mounts are permanent magic items. Not only don't you need to spend money to buy a replacement, you don't even need to spend money to raise them.
Even just specifying that PCs could use Raise Dead to resurrect a dead mount would have been a house rule to make mounts more attractive options. Having them automatically raised for free is bizarre and inexplicable.
I can not comprehend the thought processes of whoever took a look at griffons, blade spiders and (pre-errata) riding lizards and said, "You know, there just aren't enough PCs taking mounts in the campaign. They're just too weak of an option. If I could make just one change to the core rules, it would be to make mounts a more attractive choice."
I don't think mounts are mover-powered in LFR, just more useful. In a home game I wouldn't bother with a mount 90% of the time unless I had some sort of the agreement with the DM that it wasn't target #1 a-la sunder rules in previous living campaigns that got people upset and were just NOT FUN. If mounts became "consumables", I think there would be even more of a stigma of them not being something important, which seems to be Thanlis's original reasoning.
Oh, and in addition to familiar mounts, there's also the FoWP in a recent Dragon and likely more to come. Making the mounts in AV1 perma-die would only make them crappy choices, it wouldn't remove Thanlis's perceived issue as power gamers that want to use mounts as interesting tactical options would simple move to the ones that would at that point be better resource management options as well.
If people named their steed and cried when it died things might be more realistic, but this is a game and the current LFR mount rules lead to more people having more fun.
I would like to have a MUCH clearer division between a core RPGA CCG document that is for ALL RPGA PLAY and a series of appendices for each major, repeated RPGA offering like LFR, Encounters, Ultimate Delve, etc. That way, it could be clear that certain standards exist for all RPGA play, not just LFR and things like player resources, artifacts, evil characters, etc. aren't legal in Ultimate Delve or Encounters any more than they are in LFR. There is way too much table variation and misunderstanding at non-LFR events and the CCG is often thought of as simply an LFR document. *
As others, I would also like to see a separate RPGA DM document that contains the DM's boilerplate from the adventures ONCE instead of having to print it every time, the DM-only text from the CCG like DME rules and suggestions, and other important implied or understood standards posted here and elsewhere that most DMs know and use but new ones may not, with the goal of reducing table variation and giving new DMs one place to find RPGA-specific DM rules, explanations, etc. This one would also need a core document and separate appendices so that it's clear that DME isn't allowed in Ultimate Delve or the Championship but is in LFR, etc. *
* I think clearly talking about the specific rules for each type of RPGA play separately would also lead to more people playing and offering to DM those events as they read about how things are handled differently in each events and think "Hm, I'd like to try that."
A clarification on the matter of ...
The campaign does not make rulings on specific game mechanics unless they are directly affected by our organized play shared world environment. This means that yes, DME or table variation, is possible.
I would like to have a MUCH clearer division between a core RPGA CCG document that is for ALL RPGA PLAY and a series of appendices for each major, repeated RPGA offering like LFR, Encounters, Ultimate Delve, etc.
We are making a completely seperate document for LFR, as opposed to an appendix to the original CCG. I hope that is clear enough.
I would like to see DMs have the option of getting credit for one of their characters in the appropriate level band (if any) every time they run a session of LFR. This is far more important than any stupid cards, etc. for DMs, especially when DMing at a con or local table is the thing that will get you left behind your friends, so your only option is to not DM and if that means the event can happen, then oh well, at least you didn't get left behind. This happens far too much and I don't see why they couldn't get credit.
I completely agree with this suggestion. Not only would this help current DMs stay up on character progression, it would also help encourage others to DM since they no longer have to sacrifice thier own character's progression.
Obviously something like this would need to be carefully handled - and it would require some sort of special handling mechanism for it to mesh into the game...
Perhaps something like a story award card for the DM at the end of each adventure... an 'Organizer Award' if you will, that tells a short story about how the DMs own character may have played a supporting role in the background of the adventure, entitling that character to an appropriate XP award and a special bundle (or just a choice from the bundles offered to the PCs).
For the xp and special bundle you could award the DM the full experience for the adventure - depending on if the players went high or low, and grant them the choice of any one items that is within 2 levels of their own, selected from any legal source. It's a little more restrictive with the +2 levels instead of the +4, but it does allow a DM to customize his or her item choices quite significantly, and I think it would also serve as a great motivator for more people to DM.
This can be fleshed out a bit more to make sure its doable and still maintains some semblance of balance - I honestly don't see how this would be a big issue though...
Something to think about at least
Thanks,
-Brad
It is imperative that players be able to join the campaign at higher levels. Make it clear that they permanently skip any story awards and magic item picks they would have had from the levels they skipped, make ongoing quests a big deal in epic tier for artifacts so that people who have been following storylines the whole way get cool stuff, but please let players start a new character at any level so that tables can make more often and people can play more often. I've seen a dozen people fail to play at the same time because they're missing one spot at each table and there are players that would've played if they ahd the appropriate characer and it counted for him. I don't think I know anyone personally who doesn't have "trash" lvl1s they made because those were the only tables that can definitely make sometimes, and I've seen people get entirely excluded from the campaign because a regular local table is the only place they could have played, but the local table is currently at a higher level and doesn't want to start over. I even seen people quit the campaign because regular tables did start over to add others in and the player who quit was tired of playing Heroic tier all the time. Letting players start at higher levels would let more people ahve more fun and I don't see how it could harm the campaign.
I suggested the same thing in a RPGA LFR thread. Every time I've run a home campaign, once the PCs were past about 3rd level and a new person joined, the new person started out at higher than first. It never caused a problem. Other people disagree saying that it would destroy the integrity of the campaign. Of course I also heard that about ending TU limits, changing what magic items you could buy, full retrains when a character gains levels, etc.
The problem I see currently is that as we gain more and more tiers you need a bigger and bigger group to support all tiers. After a while it's unmanageable. A smaller group that wants to support new players end up never getting out of H1 or new players just can't play very often. Even with a medium size group getting much past P1 is probably not realistic. At some point the organizers have to decide if they really want to support all levels of play.
My recommendation was that you could start a new character at the lowest level for a tier and the new character would start with 0 item slots available.
Letting judges get XP for characters when they judge is just another variation on the auto-level scheme.
Allen.
We are making a completely seperate document for LFR, as opposed to an appendix to the original CCG. I hope that is clear enough.
Definitely the right way to go... I still think there is enough material to write one up for players and a seperate one for DMs. And maybe get away from calling it the Character Creation Guide - it's more than that now:
An Adventurer's Guide to the Living Forgotten Realms
1. Welcome - introduction to the document and its purpose
2. What is Organized Play - Explain this at a high level
3. What is the Living Forgotten Realms - Explain this at a high level
4. Joining In - Explain how to register and how to find a game
5. What You Need to Play - A list of the basics (books, dice, character, etc.)
6. Creating a Character - Everything explained from a 1st level perspective...
...Include all of the basics, regions, rewards cards, adventuring companies, etc.
7. Playing in Adventures - Everything related to how adventuring works in LFR
8. Finding Treasure - Everything about bundles and how FOUND items work
9. Tracking Your Progress - Give a good solid writeup on what players should track
10. Advancing Your Character - Anything special related to character advancement issues
11. Spending Your Gold - Everything related to what you can BUY/spend gold on
12. Recovering From Tragedy - Dealing with character death, disease issues, etc.
13. Telling Your Tale - Story awards and building storyline continuity for their characters
Appendix A. Player Resource Guide
Appendix B. Playing in Special Events
Appendix C. Starting a Higher Level Character
Appendix D. Map of the Realms
An DM's Guide to the Living Forgotten Realms
1. Welcome - introduction to the document and its purpose
2. What is Organized Play - Explain this at a high level
3. What is the Living Forgotten Realms - Explain this at a high level
4. Becoming a DM - Overview and step by step instructions
5. What you Need to DM - Explain the basic resources a DM should have at hand
6. How to Select an Adventure - How they are organized and described, etc.
7. How to Schedule a Session - Step by step instructions
8. How to Find and Invite Players - Maybe just some pointers here
9. How to Prep for the Session - General prep, plus modification options and advice
10. How to Run the Session - Rules adjudication, etc.
11. How to Reward Players - Story awards, bundles, xp, etc.
12. How to End the Session - Dealing with character death, disease, ongoing issues, etc.
13. How to Report the Session - Step by step instructions, including options to provide feedback
Appendix A. DM Resource Guide
Appendix B. DMing for Special Events
Appendix C. Map of the Realms
It is imperative that players be able to join the campaign at higher levels. Make it clear that they permanently skip any story awards and magic item picks they would have had from the levels they skipped, make ongoing quests a big deal in epic tier for artifacts so that people who have been following storylines the whole way get cool stuff, but please let players start a new character at any level so that tables can make more often and people can play more often. I've seen a dozen people fail to play at the same time because they're missing one spot at each table and there are players that would've played if they ahd the appropriate characer and it counted for him. I don't think I know anyone personally who doesn't have "trash" lvl1s they made because those were the only tables that can definitely make sometimes, and I've seen people get entirely excluded from the campaign because a regular local table is the only place they could have played, but the local table is currently at a higher level and doesn't want to start over. I even seen people quit the campaign because regular tables did start over to add others in and the player who quit was tired of playing Heroic tier all the time. Letting players start at higher levels would let more people ahve more fun and I don't see how it could harm the campaign.
I suggested the same thing in a RPGA LFR thread. Every time I've run a home campaign, once the PCs were past about 3rd level and a new person joined, the new person started out at higher than first. It never caused a problem. Other people disagree saying that it would destroy the integrity of the campaign. Of course I also heard that about ending TU limits, changing what magic items you could buy, full retrains when a character gains levels, etc.
The problem I see currently is that as we gain more and more tiers you need a bigger and bigger group to support all tiers. After a while it's unmanageable. A smaller group that wants to support new players end up never getting out of H1 or new players just can't play very often. Even with a medium size group getting much past P1 is probably not realistic. At some point the organizers have to decide if they really want to support all levels of play.
I agree there are some valid issues being addressed here - Again, I think if we look at addressing this problem within the existing framework, there are some interesting options available. For instance, maybe a Creation card could be added to address this issue. The creation card would be structured in a way so that the character starts at the minimum level required for the adventure they are playing in with the minimum XP required for that level, and follows all of the rules fro creating a higher level character - the card would include a section for the player to identify what the starting level of the PC was - which becomes a permenant part of the characters record.
This method would allow new players to get started without slowing everyone down - it would NOT be a way to make up for a lack of play, so if someone starts a character like this, they don't get to level their character again later...
-Brad
Here are some thoughts...
If an item is being replaced because the errata for that item has fundamentally altered its function as part of the character build, that item can be traded in for another item of equal or lesser value that is of the same type.
For example, my really cool level 12 sword just got nerfed and it no longer supports my build - okay, I can sell it (following the basic rules), or I can trade it in for another WEAPON of my choice that is level 1-12.
As an alternative, the player could select a different bundle from the adventure that the now defunct items was selected from, but this is a bit more problematic...
Just a couple of thoughts...
-Brad
A clarification on the matter of ...
The campaign does not make rulings on specific game mechanics unless they are directly affected by our organized play shared world environment. This means that yes, DME or table variation, is possible.
I think the things I referenced have a direct and major effect on the campaign and how encounters play out, especially in special events like the Battle Interactive, where a DM handling things as majorly different as the
I would like to see DMs have the option of getting credit for one of their characters in the appropriate level band (if any) every time they run a session of LFR. This is far more important than any stupid cards, etc. for DMs, especially when DMing at a con or local table is the thing that will get you left behind your friends, so your only option is to not DM and if that means the event can happen, then oh well, at least you didn't get left behind. This happens far too much and I don't see why they couldn't get credit.
I completely agree with this suggestion. Not only would this help current DMs stay up on character progression, it would also help encourage others to DM since they no longer have to sacrifice thier own character's progression.
Obviously something like this would need to be carefully handled - and it would require some sort of special handling mechanism for it to mesh into the game...
Perhaps something like a story award card for the DM at the end of each adventure... an 'Organizer Award' if you will, that tells a short story about how the DMs own character may have played a supporting role in the background of the adventure, entitling that character to an appropriate XP award and a special bundle (or just a choice from the bundles offered to the PCs).
For the xp and special bundle you could award the DM the full experience for the adventure - depending on if the players went high or low, and grant them the choice of any one items that is within 2 levels of their own, selected from any legal source. It's a little more restrictive with the +2 levels instead of the +4, but it does allow a DM to customize his or her item choices quite significantly, and I think it would also serve as a great motivator for more people to DM.
This can be fleshed out a bit more to make sure its doable and still maintains some semblance of balance - I honestly don't see how this would be a big issue though...
Something to think about at least
Thanks,
-Brad
I think you're adding complication where there needn't be any. Just let the DMs have full credit just like a player, with no extra hoops or paperwork. The only decent argument I've heard against doing just that is that isn't realistic that a character that wasn't present should be treated as if he performed the same actions. But then, is it any more realistic that a dungeon resets itself after each run? That Jonster Yate will remaing sitting on a raft in the middle of a meadow until December 2011 when CORE1-2 expires? It's a game, we ignore some things to people can have as much fun as possible.
I agree there are some valid issues being addressed here - Again, I think if we look at addressing this problem within the existing framework, there are some interesting options available. For instance, maybe a Creation card could be added to address this issue. The creation card would be structured in a way so that the character starts at the minimum level required for the adventure they are playing in with the minimum XP required for that level, and follows all of the rules fro creating a higher level character - the card would include a section for the player to identify what the starting level of the PC was - which becomes a permenant part of the characters record.
This method would allow new players to get started without slowing everyone down - it would NOT be a way to make up for a lack of play, so if someone starts a character like this, they don't get to level their character again later...
-Brad
I don't understand exactly what you're suggesting, but I think requiring a cmapaign card is exactly the WRONG way to handle this. Steps should be taken to make LFR more accessible to more people more of the time, and things like you're suggesting complicate things and make it less clear, especially to the newbies that would benefit most form being able to stat at higher-level.
I think the caveat of LFR moving forward should be more fun, more of the time and if that's not the primary concern, then LFR has failed as a game.
That Jonster Yate will remaing sitting on a raft in the middle of a meadow until December 2011 when CORE1-2 expires?
Actually, I think very few people in New Velar would be surprised if he did exactly that.... not a very good example ;P
I think the problem of crediting a character with the adventure is not so much about other PCs positions. As a DM, I would wonder how my character got the xp and treasure and story awards. I mean... what did she do in the adventure?
If you abstract it and only radd xp+gold, crediting the gained xp/gold to training and/or work between adventures, it makes it easier. You get credit, your character progresses, (mostly) everyone is happy.
Gomez
I think it would be cool if three-person tables had the option to play with a companion character (as per DMG 2).
IIRC, the CCG cannot change this rule, it is a RPGA general rule, not a cmapaignr ule.
Gomez
I think it would be cool if three-person tables had the option to play with a companion character (as per DMG 2).IIRC, the CCG cannot change this rule, it is a RPGA general rule, not a cmapaignr ule.
Hm. If the RPGA rules document is immutable, that implies the CCG is also locked into the "no replays, no playing an adventure you've DMed" rules. I mean, you'd know better than I, but...
Definitely the right way to go... I still think there is enough material to write one up for players and a seperate one for DMs. And maybe get away from calling it the Character Creation Guide - it's more than that now:
Actually most of that belongs in the general RPGA CCG. The LFR document (whatever I end up calling it) will have only what you need for you LFR character. All the general info about the RPGA and what you need and how to find games, etc... belongs in the general document.
Actually most of that belongs in the general RPGA CCG. The LFR document (whatever I end up calling it) will have only what you need for you LFR character. All the general info about the RPGA and what you need and how to find games, etc... belongs in the general document.
Understood. Maybe that is part of the problem though - I have a lot of players who are often confused by which documents apply and which ones don't, and just where to find the information they need. Having a standalone document for players (or DMs) could be a way to minimize some of that confusion. My suggestion would be to at least include some high level references to those things in the LFR specific materials, with links to the appropriate sections of the main guide to get more detailed information...
Above all, I think clarity in the guides should be the primary goal - a player with minimal familiarity with the game should be able to pull down a single document, read it, and be ready to play.
However you guys do it though, I am excited to see some changes being made... Thanks for all your hard work on this.
-Brad
I don't think mounts are mover-powered in LFR, just more useful.
I am baffled as to how you can make this claim.
bgibbons' comparison of mounts and permanent magic items is quite correct. If you compare mounts and magic items, a mount gives far more benefits to a character than a permanent magic item of the same cost. In a home game, the fact that mounts can die is the only thing keeping them balanced.
I agree entirely with Thanlis and bgibbons: there needs to be some sort of cost to the character if a mount dies.
I would like to see DMs have the option of getting credit for one of their characters in the appropriate level band (if any) every time they run a session of LFR. This is far more important than any stupid cards, etc. for DMs, especially when DMing at a con or local table is the thing that will get you left behind your friends, so your only option is to not DM and if that means the event can happen, then oh well, at least you didn't get left behind. This happens far too much and I don't see why they couldn't get credit.
For the xp and special bundle you could award the DM the full experience for the adventure - depending on if the players went high or low, and grant them the choice of any one items that is within 2 levels of their own, selected from any legal source. It's a little more restrictive with the +2 levels instead of the +4, but it does allow a DM to customize his or her item choices quite significantly, and I think it would also serve as a great motivator for more people to DM.
This can be fleshed out a bit more to make sure its doable and still maintains some semblance of balance - I honestly don't see how this would be a big issue though...
This works fine for the limited set of DMs that play periodically. Amongst most hard-core or even judge-duty-sharing groups this would result in DMs getting a free ride. Judge the mod, get rewards, play the mod, get rewards?
The issue is really confined to groups where there are no DMs because no one wants to judge. For those situations, the best solution is really to rotate. Providing free XP/etc. will just mean those that have it all will get even more. The other alternative is a small band-aid. For example:
- A DM gains just low (regardless of tier played) XP, gold, and more gold for judging, but cannot play the adventure with that PC.
- A DM receives half of the above. This may sound harsh, but is in-line with some living campaigns (Legend of the Five Rings, for example).
But, honestly, I just don't see the need for any compensation like that. Judges should want to judge or should make sure everyone rotates the responsibility.
I think the things I referenced have a direct and major effect on the campaign and how encounters play out, especially in special events like the Battle Interactive, where a DM handling things as majorly different
If there is no clear rule in the RAW or from CS, then the DM makes a ruling. It is our duty as players to live with that ruling. If in doubt as a player, get advice on how the thing works on the forums and CS before you play. There is very little that escapes the CharOps when it comes to the logic of how something works. And, if it is something you know to be broken, expect some DMs to disagree with RAW and not honor it... some DMs work that way and it is the price of using questionable rules/powers/etc.
I don't think mounts are mover-powered in LFR, just more useful.
I am baffled as to how you can make this claim.
bgibbons' comparison of mounts and permanent magic items is quite correct. If you compare mounts and magic items, a mount gives far more benefits to a player than a permanent magic item of the same cost. In a home game, the fact that mounts can die is the only thing keeping them balanced.
I agree entirely with Thanlis and bgibbons: there needs to be some sort of cost to the character if a mount dies.
I agree as well. Mounts are arguably intended as something DMs will use in home campaigns to get PCs from point one to point two. We could argue they shouldn't be in a living campaign.
They are one of the most broken things a PC at all levels can choose and provide a ridiculous benefit when compared to similar cash expenditures. They can, have, and will break various adventures as well as ruing the challenge intended by the campaign.
Mounts are firmly in my "I wish players would not choose this" category. I would be very happy to never see one again at my tables. Now, I've seen one or two that weren't ridiculous (mainly because the player did not focus on cheesing the mount beyond gaining a free movement or similar benefit), but that is the minority. The cheese is made all the greater since they don't die. Having them die would be the first step towards balance. Compare any mount to an average consumable of that same gp cost and you can see how much stronger the mount is... with no recurring cost.
But, honestly, I just don't see the need for any compensation like that. Judges should want to judge or should make sure everyone rotates the responsibility.
There's a nasty edge between 10th and 11th level...
I've got a group that plays weekly. We do rotate the DM duties, but I probably DM 1/3 of the time. I can make up some of the missed game play at the area monthly game days (where I DM 1/2 the time), but then I can't play other characters at those game days. It's a logistical pain in the rear to figure out a schedule that keeps everyone in the same games.
for any compensation like that. Judges should want to judge or should make sure everyone rotates the responsibility.
Sadly, "should be" doesn't always mean "is". If we could count on people to always do what they should, we'd hardly need any rules at all.
for any compensation like that. Judges should want to judge or should make sure everyone rotates the responsibility.
Its a nice idea and I wish thats the way things were, but we often have shortages on DMs.
I am actively coordinating monthly gaming sessions and most folks are more interested in their characters progression than in Dming - and its always the same people that end up Dming...
Including some sort of mechanism for DMs to advance their own characters would help greatly. I am less concerned about what specific mechanic is used - but something applicable to a character of my choice would be most appreciated.
I am not looking for a way to 'game' the system, I just don't want to get left behind because I am willing to DM - DMs should be rewarded, not penalized for their contribution.
Just my opinion anyway
-Brad
I don't think that a system-wide reward system for judge's characters is the correct solution.
Local communities can find ways to reward their DMs. (I also don't agree that DM's are "penalized" for judging, but that's a separate discussion.)
Some ideas:
• Rotate judges.
• Charge a nominal fee to players (for minis/props/supplies/etc.)
• Guarantee/prioritize seating so judges get first choice in the games they play
• Offer special events that only judges can participate in
No. The problem should be resolved at the local level. You have replay and other rules in place that no DMs had in the past. Thus, there is no eating of mods and the problem can be resolved locally. DMs should DM because they want to, and when they want to play they should find someone to step up. The group needs to understand that this is how the game works. It is true of home campaigns and of any RPG play.
In our area, some of us really like to DM. We DM more often. At times we really want to play, and everyone here knows they will take a turn periodically. This is especially true at gamedays, where we make it clear that everyone should come with a "I will DM x" mentality. The load must be shared.
I have seen super-friendly living campaigns not work well. Living Spycraft gave DMs huge benefits for eating a mod (no replay) and then more XP each time they ran it again. It was ridiculous. DMs that judged often stopped tracking the XP because they would never play with their friends otherwise. It is a can of worms to offer free XP for judging.
I would still ask that WotC and the writers of this guide look into a mechanism for helping make sure DMs have some sort of in-game reward system that helps make sure they won't fall behind other players in their groups... at least give it some consideration.
Next topic please
Thanks,
-Brad
The game suffers when you auto-level...
I think this particular sub-thread comes back to 2 issues.
First is how to reward DMs. DMs used to get quite a bit - extra cards, free minis, etc. Now we get a cardboard box I will never use. I get it if I judge a little bit or judge a lot. I don't see that changing from a WOTC perspective, if anything I expect the DM reward program will be decreased more. I don't see how this can be addressed from a campaign perspective.
The second is that if you have someone who can only play sporadically - because they judge, because they can't make it to the majority of games or whatever - they never get to play in higher level games because they don't have high level characters. Particularly with small groups, there is no option for people who do not already have a higher level character to get in on the action unless everyone else abandons current characters and start new characters. Judges not keeping up with their friends is just one variation on that theme and I see very limited solutions.
Part of it just depends on perspective. Do you view playing a higher level character as a "right" that you've "earned" or do you just have fun getting together with like-minded players to have fun playing a mod? People who oppose any kind of auto-leveling are probably in the first group. I firmly belong to the latter camp. IMHO LFR should not try to be WOW. I like free mods. I really like the fact that I get to play with/judge a variety of people. I think LFR should be as inclusive as possible while still following the rules of the game. So bring on auto-leveling (with restrictions to discourage it unless it's necessary), retrains at every level, etc. Let's have fun playing a game, not turning away people because we're tired of creating ever-more new characters or playing the same H1 mods over and over.
I've said just about everything I can think of on this topic ... next!
Allen.
The game suffers when you auto-level...
I think this particular sub-thread comes back to 2 issues.
First is how to reward DMs. DMs used to get quite a bit - extra cards, free minis, etc. Now we get a cardboard box I will never use. I get it if I judge a little bit or judge a lot. I don't see that changing from a WOTC perspective, if anything I expect the DM reward program will be decreased more. I don't see how this can be addressed from a campaign perspective.
Rewards should encourage play but not break play. There is a lot that can be done that way. While you may not use the box, the condition cards are cool for most DMs. Not everyone will like every reward. I still think discounts on WotC products is the best reward. Make the game happen = save a bit on buying more = everyone wins. Tools (condition cards, templates, storage, minis, tiles, etc.) are good ways to aid the game and DM-centric.
The second is that if you have someone who can only play sporadically - because they judge, because they can't make it to the majority of games or whatever - they never get to play in higher level games because they don't have high level characters. Particularly with small groups, there is no option for people who do not already have a higher level character to get in on the action unless everyone else abandons current characters and start new characters. Judges not keeping up with their friends is just one variation on that theme and I see very limited solutions.
Except that anyone that plays a lot will end up with several PCs, so the person that plays infrequently can play with everyone's low level PC. No, you don't get a free "play at any tier" pass... no living campaign I am aware of has given that. But, you should still be able to play periodically. If not, you start your own group. When I moved to Houston I found most LG players had played every mod out there. It took two months of work, but I started my own group and the experienced guys sometimes DMed. It worked fine. Nothing is perfect... when I wanted to start up a Dark Sun campaign in Philly I had to find players that liked the world, etc. A few people will always be left out if they aren't willing to do some work to get tables together.
Part of it just depends on perspective. Do you view playing a higher level character as a "right" that you've "earned" or do you just have fun getting together with like-minded players to have fun playing a mod? People who oppose any kind of auto-leveling are probably in the first group.
It isn't about "earning", so much as the preservation of a proper style of play. PCs bouncing around in levels hurts the game, and not because of entitlement but because of lack of RP development, lack of story involvement, lack of mechanical understanding, lack of tactical capability, lack of contributing to the living environment.
I firmly belong to the latter camp. IMHO LFR should not try to be WOW. I like free mods. I really like the fact that I get to play with/judge a variety of people. I think LFR should be as inclusive as possible while still following the rules of the game. So bring on auto-leveling (with restrictions to discourage it unless it's necessary), retrains at every level, etc. Let's have fun playing a game, not turning away people because we're tired of creating ever-more new characters or playing the same H1 mods over and over.
I don't think you want a living campaign. Why play one? Just take the delve book and make PCs and roll dice. Run Dragon and hop from one thing to the next at any level. It just sounds like you want something other than an LFR campaign.
I've said just about everything I can think of on this topic ... next!
Ok, fair enough. I'll quit too. Feel free to respond so I don't claim "last word"... though I am sure the topic will resurface, like all topics.
It isn't about "earning", so much as the preservation of a proper style of play. PCs bouncing around in levels hurts the game, and not because of entitlement but because of lack of RP development, lack of story involvement, lack of mechanical understanding, lack of tactical capability, lack of contributing to the living environment.
I just have one question - have you ever played a home campaign where a new person joins the group? I have on a few occasions. We always let them write up a character of the appropriate level and they did just fine. Were they brilliant tacticians, masters of their role the first game? Maybe not, but we still had fun and after a combat or two they were fine.
Listen, I'm glad that you were able to form your own LFR group. Kudos. The vast majority of people won't. If we want LFR to be about getting easy access to a D&D game we need to give new players a chance to join an existing group.
Allen.
we need to give new players a chance to join an existing group.
There is such a means. Everyone creates characters again and continues. Once person X is up to the appropriate level, everyone can continue playing their original PCs. For very small groups, this is non-optimal, but it is a means provided in the current set of rules and procedures.
But I get what you're saying and wouldn't mind your option, but I just don't think it will receive a lot of support.
I just have one question - have you ever played a home campaign where a new person joins the group? I have on a few occasions. We always let them write up a character of the appropriate level and they did just fine. Were they brilliant tacticians, masters of their role the first game? Maybe not, but we still had fun and after a combat or two they were fine.
Every now and then. To be honest, I don't really like to add people to an existing campaign unless I really know them well and can trust they will come in without creating a disruption. It is hard to come into a really good campaign with low knowledge and quickly become part of the setting, part of the team, and OOC work well with the other players.
When I have, we work really hard to bring that person up to speed. I have at times done things like have solo sessions for the new player where their PC goes through an initial solo experience that gives them a way to become part of the setting and helps them understand the story thus far. I like to give them a visceral connection up front to try to compensate for what they have missed. I mean, they are at "blank slate" and everyone else is "if we ever get our nemesis x, they will pay for what they did to y!".
You just can't do that in LFR and you can't do it consistently. If I recall correctly, you run a bunch of game days each week, and you want to seat everyone regardless of how often they play, but without having players make new PCs to accommodate that. Someone else wants to fill tables at a con and wants low-level and scale-able adventures. Someone else wants high level content because they always play together and are max level. Another wants an emphasis on story and for PC actions to matter more. Not everyone can get what they want.
As tirianmal said, you always have the option of making a lower level PC that plays with the "infrequent" players. I have my Artificer that only plays within the level band of my old DC gang that only plays at Gen Con. My first PC I played with them is 16th... their PCs are 4th. So, now my Artificer stays at 4th and will only level with them. When our local Portland group plays, we have tons of PCs because we play often. Almost any one of us can play any tier. When a very infrequent player joins, we play whatever tier they can play, no issues. In the rare occasion that one person can't play a tier and everyone else wants to, they DM. But, we have worked to create that culture - everyone gets that they are not above themselves and to have everyone playing you need to be flexible. In exchange, we get to enjoy the results of playing the adventures with our PCs and getting to know each other better.
Listen, I'm glad that you were able to form your own LFR group. Kudos. The vast majority of people won't. If we want LFR to be about getting easy access to a D&D game we need to give new players a chance to join an existing group.
I've just never seen it as that hard. Nor do I see it as an imperative that a living campaign create a table for you. Just like you have to buy your own dice and PHB, you have to work to get a table of players. Sure, some people won't... but I don't think the rules should compensate for that, especially at a cost to story/RP/tactics/etc. It's the same thing as the argument for tables of 3 or 7... some days, you won't get to play. It won't happen often, but the rule is there to make the play that does happen better.
If judges can take the high rewards for any character of appropriate level who has not been through the adventure before the judge would not have an incentive to push the characters to play high. Bundles, story rewards, etc. are likewise not a problem. Simply assume the character went through the adventure with some hypothetical group.
Judging certainly gives as much game knowledge and adventure knowledge as playing so it would not result in players with more levels than experiance although knowledge of a particular class might be limited if the judge leveled the character mostly by running games. I think this solution creates less conflict of interest than judges running a character through a module they are judging.
There is extra incentive because if you absolutely want a particular reward for a particular character judging the adventure is one way to make sure you get it. It would not be unreasonable to allow double experiance and rewards for judging but that is perhaps too much incentive. Personally I would rather get rewards from playing and judge for the fun of it but allowing character rewards to judges removes some conflicts and that means more games and fun for more players.
Judging certainly gives as much game knowledge and adventure knowledge as playing so it would not result in players with more levels than experiance although knowledge of a particular class might be limited if the judge leveled the character mostly by running games.
I do not find this in my experience. My Battlemind is completely different than my Psion, than my warlock, than my taclord, than my bard, than my... etc. I recall around Gen Con last year a number of us complaining that we felt rusty playing our paragon PCs because they had sat idle for a month or two. The same thing happens to me when I level a PC (making certain new choices) and then don't play for a bit... and that's without any auto-leveling. Free XP or auto-leveling will just make the problem worse. I think there are very few people that can skip a level and not suffer IC or mechanically. The more free XP, the more it will be felt.
There is extra incentive because if you absolutely want a particular reward for a particular character judging the adventure is one way to make sure you get it. It would not be unreasonable to allow double experiance and rewards for judging but that is perhaps too much incentive. Personally I would rather get rewards from playing and judge for the fun of it but allowing character rewards to judges removes some conflicts and that means more games and fun for more players.
Trust me, even equal XP is way too much unless you place limits on how it is awarded (for example: a single PC can only receive XP for one specific adventure; you cannot bank XP for future use when a PC reaches a future level). Spycraft gave generous rewards and DMs didn't track them - they were too generous. I tracked it for a brief period and suddenly realized I would out-level my friends and stopped tracking it.
Moreover, there is a real conflict of interest with regards to DMs selecting rewards. DMs already provide more cues than I like about optimal choices "take the left fork, easier and you get a cool item." If they have something personal invested it could get out of hand. This is, after all, a campaign where people abuse rust monsters... can you imagine DMs getting that benefit? Good grief! "Ok, so the Artificer crafts some stuff... oh, and for me, I want...". I strongly suggest no item rewards and only low-tier XP to avoid issues.
After I played the P2 modules at DDXP, there was only CORE2-3 for P2, which is still not available for private play. Now there is DALE2-2, so I am looking at 3 months minimum to play that. I guess you want me to do P2 public play, but there are no opportunities for P2 public play in my area, it is usually just H1 or H2 once a month. I play my higher level characters online, which you classify as private play even though signups are open to anyone.
Your average LFR player probably has close to 80+ adventures they could still play... they don't need to go to a store to play the latest mod. And, is it of any real benefit to force the tiny minority hanging on P2 to assemble at a store? The only real benefit is cons... but cons are basically unable to schedule upcoming releases for fear they won't be released on time... so the whole thing isn't working.
Furthermore, the D&D Encounters program takes care of stores. The only thing you want is to keep cons happy and the best way to do that is to release mods on time. If mods come out even every other week then cons are happier than they are now. Very few players can play every other week reliably.
I play my higher level characters online, which you classify as private play even though signups are open to anyone.
Even if the rules for online games don't change, it would be worth adding some updated information about them. For example, the ruling about online games only counting as private came from an admin's message board post; this is the sort of information that should be in the offical RPGA/LFR document.
Part of the problem with online games is that they're "semi-private". Typically, players join in from the comfort of their own homes, but the games are organized through public forums.
Part of the problem with online games is that they're "semi-private". Typically, players join in from the comfort of their own homes, but the games are organized through public forums.
That depends on the online game, of course. I've been playing LFR online with a group for a year now (it's folks with whom I've been playing RPGA games online for nearly a decade). They're absolutely private games; we never post on public forums to find additional players.
I think the bigger problem with being able to make online games "public" is that, as I understand it, the system now only recognizes play at a WPN-registered location as a legitimate public event. That would need to be changed to allow for "public" online play.
I don't have a good counter solution to contribute, unfortunately.
community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...
Basically, should the CCG retraining allow characters once they reach Paragon to replace all feats with Paragon feats.
Clarify which backgrounds a character qualifies for. By my reading, a character needs to come from a specific region in order to qualify for that regional background, but some players claim that the text is insufficiently clear on this point.
If this hasn't already been put up for CCG clarification, it should be.
community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...
Basically, should the CCG retraining allow characters once they reach Paragon to replace all feats with Paragon feats.
I don't think that's a problem the CCG should be bothered with. LFR is about ahving more pwoer than a 4e homegame in so many other ways that this is hardly worth noting.
This works fine for the limited set of DMs that play periodically. Amongst most hard-core or even judge-duty-sharing groups this would result in DMs getting a free ride. Judge the mod, get rewards, play the mod, get rewards?
emphasis mine
Forgive me if I'm missing something, but so what if they do?
And is it really a "free" ride if they've been putting in more work than the players, likely understand the story better than the players, etc. etc.?
Also, ditto on what others said about having enough regular DMs to cover rotating being a nice dream that might be true for some people, the gap between 10th and 11th being an issue for rotating DMs, and I'd like to add in that the only way to get enough judges to cover special events like the BI is if you have enough local guys that happened to play it elsewhere or you have enough people that just don't give a crap (always the best DMs =\), or you run a slot 0 table for DMs that doesn't at all involve them in the BI experience.
From what I've seen, as LFR has added new and interesting ways to play, everyone wants to actually play them, mostly because they're worried they would "miss" something for their character. I think DMs getting credit for one of their PCs would solve that issue as well.
Will this result in some GMs with higher level PCs that didn't "play" to get to that level? Sure, but I'll tell you what, it might make me GM more (and I GM f-ing plenty as it is) because I won't have to balance play with GMing if I know that sometimes I can step up a bit more and still not have to worry about my friends outleveling me.
And yes, I do find that to be an issue and not one that is minor to me, but so far I've mostly been willing to stick to the side of the conversation that is against changing to this or other rules.
I suggest that the campaign staff review how other "living" campaigns past and present have handled this issue and act accordingly.
LFR seems to have fewer people willing to judge, mainly due to the replay rule. Without replay, experienced players are frequently willing to judge any adventure they have already played. With replay, they may be more hesitant to volunteer, since they can replay and get rewards for a different character.
Judges seem to be limited to people who truly like to judge or are peer-pressured into judging.
I agree that judges should receive low-tier XP and GP for running, but not bundles.
I suggest that the campaign staff review how other "living" campaigns past and present have handled this issue and act accordingly.
LFR seems to have fewer people willing to judge, mainly due to the replay rule. Without replay, experienced players are frequently willing to judge any adventure they have already played. With replay, they may be more hesitant to volunteer, since they can replay and get rewards for a different character.
Judges seem to be limited to people who truly like to judge or are peer-pressured into judging.
Or give them the equivalent of MYRE rewards of the appropriate level for a character of their choosing. They may not have a character that could have played the mod. That way you don't have to worry about story awards or in-game choices that affect treasure bundles/xp.
Allen.
Start including a rewards card for the DM of the adventure, with the following caveats:
- Use of the card is entirely optional
- The card is applied to one of the DMs characters that is in the appropriate level range.
- That character counts as having played the adventure.
- The XP and Gold is based on the LOW version of the adventure.
- The Treasure bundles can be high or low - it doesn't matter.
Here is an example of a Judge's card based on this model:
www.bradleyb.net/dnd/samplejudgecard.pdf
-Brad Bemis
I don't understand why there's a prevailing need to limit what the DM would out of a module when compared to the players. Did he not attend as well? Did he not likely spend more time and effort on the module than the players?
A concern I can see is that you don't want even the impression that a DM would steer a mod in a specific direction when they may be rewarded for choices that PCs make in the mod. A DM should be impartial as to how the mod plays out.
Also, there's the possibility that the DM doesn't have a character in the correct tier for the mod. If a judge is running an H3 mod, but they only have H1 and P1 characters, what reward to they get? Does taking the reward for Mod X mean that you can't play Mod X with the character that received the reward already?
Allen.
Listen, I'm glad that you were able to form your own LFR group. Kudos. The vast majority of people won't. If we want LFR to be about getting easy access to a D&D game we need to give new players a chance to join an existing group.
I've just never seen it as that hard. Nor do I see it as an imperative that a living campaign create a table for you. Just like you have to buy your own dice and PHB, you have to work to get a table of players. Sure, some people won't... but I don't think the rules should compensate for that, especially at a cost to story/RP/tactics/etc. It's the same thing as the argument for tables of 3 or 7... some days, you won't get to play. It won't happen often, but the rule is there to make the play that does happen better.
In order to play LFR regularly here in HI I've had to cobble a group together and talk them into playing LFR. Thankfully the rest of the group seems to be enjoying it. Unfortunately our GM is moving and now our group will be down to 4 people.
we need to give new players a chance to join an existing group.
There is such a means. Everyone creates characters again and continues. Once person X is up to the appropriate level, everyone can continue playing their original PCs. For very small groups, this is non-optimal, but it is a means provided in the current set of rules and procedures.
But I get what you're saying and wouldn't mind your option, but I just don't think it will receive a lot of support.
Which is what our groups is undertaking right now. Fortunately, in a way, our group just started H2 play so we have to take a step back to get the new guy up to 4th so he can join the main group. I am not upset by it since it gives me a chance to GM some and play some of my other characters.
Or give them the equivalent of MYRE rewards of the appropriate level for a character of their choosing. They may not have a character that could have played the mod. That way you don't have to worry about story awards or in-game choices that affect treasure bundles/xp.
Allen.
That would be all well and good, but personally I'd rather actually play my character than watch him sit in a stable and level with the group as I GM'd. Luckily we've spread out the GMing in our group some. Even the guys who've not been playing long or who have been out of the game a while have GM'd. But I know this is not the norm, though it probably should be.
This leads me to want to talk about entitlement culture, selfishness and the lack of team-work. I will refrain from ranting on that topic, but I will say this. 4E is about teamwork, but the teamwork should not stop at the PC level, it should extend to the player-GM level too.
The biggest/most obvious issue is that certain mods offer treasure bundles that are inappropriately powerful (such as the +2 vicious weapons in H1 mods). This creates a ripple-effect of problems. PCs become more powerful than they should be for their level. This means that later mods may be too easy. Also, those PCs will have more open found item slots than the system intended which, in turn, makes the PCs even more powerful. It also creates the "haves/have nots" issue. PCs that have played those mods will be much more powerful than PCs that have not. "Have nots" can include new players, people who don't have access to or choose not to look at treasure bundle spoiler lists, players who are trying to immerse themselves in the storyline and not meta-game to play certain mods just because they have good treasure bundles, etc. Another (although less important) issue is that certain mods with over-powered treasure bundles are replayed over and over again ad nauseum while other perfectly good, fun, well-written mods with mediocre or sub-par treasure bundles are rarely replayed.
I also do not think different treasure bundles should be offered for going down different paths in a module. While this is a great idea in theory and thematically (ex. you helped the dwarves instead of the elves so you get a dwarf-related treasure bundle), in practice it can end up diminishing the play experience. What happens is that replayers or players who have looked up treasure bundle spoiler lists may try to influence the direction of the module (regardless of the story or other outcomes) solely so that they can get the treasure bundle they want. This can become even worse when Player A wants to go through Door #1 because treasure bundle X is behind it while Player B wants to go through Door #2 to get treasure bundle Y and poor Player C who is playing the mod for the first time just wants to do whatever makes the most sense for his character. This can make the campaign feel more hollow and mechanical. (DM: "The council is looking at you expectantly. The future of nations and the lives of millions are in your hands. You have heard all of the evidence. What is your decision in this important matter?" Player: "Hey guys, I read online that that guy gives out much better loot. We should totally side with him.")
There is also the problem of extremely unbalanced tables playing modules that have excellent treasure bundles for a specific type of character. For example, I once saw a table of 6 wizards playing a mod just because it had a very good wizardy treasure bundle.
It would be nice to be able to play/replay mods because they are well-written, have a good story, are fun, make sense for the character, etc. instead of because they have good treasure bundles. I would recommend a more generic system such as "Any item up to your level"-type treasure bundles. (Yes, I know this has already been done in some mods.) That would save some time in the mod-writing and review process since no one has to figure out which treasure bundles are appropriate, not too powerful, not too specific, make sense for the story, are something that people would actually want, etc. Also, players generally like being able to play with the toys they've been admiring instead of whatever happens to be in the mod. Specific and/or higher level treasure bundles could still be offered in special mods or for completing big major quests.
I would love to see a change to the treasure bundle system.
I agree for a couple of reasons. Treasure bundles are very unequal. Some mods give out Vicious +2 weapons to 1st level characters, in another mod I ran recently the highest level item was level 6 in a 4-7 mod and most were all wizard-specific items. We recently did a quick poll of our group to see which mods people wanted to replay while we wait for more new mods and people voted solely on what the bundle was.
The other aspect is that there are hundreds of magical items out there. Mods can't reward even a fraction of the options, particularly for newer classes or unusual builds.
Allen.
I don't understand why there's a prevailing need to limit what the DM would out of a module when compared to the players. Did he not attend as well? Did he not likely spend more time and effort on the module than the players?
A concern I can see is that you don't want even the impression that a DM would steer a mod in a specific direction when they may be rewarded for choices that PCs make in the mod. A DM should be impartial as to how the mod plays out.
Also, there's the possibility that the DM doesn't have a character in the correct tier for the mod. If a judge is running an H3 mod, but they only have H1 and P1 characters, what reward to they get? Does taking the reward for Mod X mean that you can't play Mod X with the character that received the reward already?
Allen.
1) I would suggest keeping it as open for the DM as possible in this situation as well. He gets access to anything from the treasure bundle and any/all story awards witha couple caveats: a) if there's an either/or pair of story awards or bundles he picks one and doens't get the other. and b) if there's a bundle tied to a story awards like, he MUSt take the story award to get the item.
2) I would only allow a mod to be applied to a character the DM currently has in that could legally paly that adventure. (So in the instance of SPEC2-1 H1 we would ahve ot apply it to an H1 character but in the instance of running the H1 version of ADCP2-1, he could apply it to his P1 character).
Furthermore, when it comes to quest completion and related awards, I would only allow the DM to ean that if he's applying the mod to a character that would have completed the quest if that character has the prerequisites the mod specifies for quest completion.
In this way, the DM's character's results could be entirely different fomr the players at the table he ran, but that doens't matter because his character was in a different instance anyway, just like all the other tables running the same mod.
My problem with them is that they exist at all. It continues to be a problem since Living City that people shcedule their character's career, their plans at cons, etc. around bundles instead of around storielines, etc. I've seen more than once where someone decided to paly a mod at a con with friends but had less fun becuase he felt he was "missing" something for his character from another mod he would have played instead.
I'd be happy with generic GP/treasure value/etc. and rules on how many items you can buy, up to what level, etc. in the place of bundles. It seemed to work fine in Xen'drik and other campaigns and led to more people at the table having fun, knowing what the heck was going on, etc. Almost every paragon table I've played at or DMed featured a majority of players who had no idea what was going on in the ongoing questlines involved becuase their heroic-tier play consisted of a random smattering of "the same mods everyone plays" for vicious weapon +2, iron armbands of power, etc.
I just wanted to keep everyone in the loop. I have finished the initial draft and it is currently with the Globals. The draft will go to the Regional admins early this week and should be up for the public by the end of this week.
Any Spoilers?
As the draft is now in review, would you like me to ask to have this thread locked?
That is probably a good idea, unless you would like to use it for discussion of the new CCG as well, though its likely that someone will start a different thread for that.