Creation Guide:
"Playtest Classes: Occasionally, D&D Insider subscribers
to Dragon Magazine may have playable “playtest” or
“preview” classes previewed to them months before they
actually see print. These classes are usable when the
compiled monthly issue is available, but keep in mind that
some features and powers of the class may change when the
final version of the class is published. If the class isn’t
presented in a playable state when the compiled monthly
issue is released, it is not legal for RPGA play."
...OK, these say "when the compiled monthly issue is available". I get that...but!
The Character Builder has a built-in set of campaign settings/rules that you can load which restricts what is available in the character builder to things which are legal (and not legal) in the LFR world.
For example, this restricts Draconomicon content as well as lots of other things that aren't kosher in the Realms.
What it does NOT restrict is PHB2 content. So the Bard, Invoker, Druid, Sorcerer, and Warden preview/playtest characters are all playable *according to the Character Builder's implementation of RPGA LFR rules*.
So...what's the deal here? Is the character builder wrong? Is the Creation Guide wrong? From the wording of the Creation guide, I can see it either way ("If the class isn’t presented in a playable state when the compiled monthly issue is released, it is not legal for RPGA play." does not neccessarily imply that the presentation in a playable state has to be in the compiled issue ITSELF; it's being presented as playable in the CHARACTER BUILDER when the content from Dragon is put into it).
Thoughts? Answers?
The Character Creation Guide is always the latest character generation rules source. It isn't always as clear as it should be, which is why there is a thread on suggestions on how to clarify someof the content for the next revision, but it is the sole source for LFR-legal determination.
Bard is legal, no other PH2 content is legal. Yet.
The LFR forum has an FAQ which includes a section on how to correct the Character Builder LFR campaign setup to make it match the correct rules for an LFR legal character. This forum needs to have a section added to the FAQ that covers how to make the non-LFR general campaign fit the RPGA guidelines, since I recall that it allows content to be selected as legal that is not yet legal per the same character creation document.
One of the main differences between RPGA legal PCs (for things like Return to the Moathouse) and LFR legal PCs is that the FRPG backgrounds are the only legal backgrounds for LFR PCs and the FRPG backgrounds are the only non-legal backgrounds for other RPGA PCs. ;)
The included LFR setup in the Character Builder is wrong. Very wrong.
...
Bard is legal, no other PH2 content is legal. Yet.
Well, barbarian is for a start...
Bottom line is that those things listed as legal in the CCG are legal, those things not listed in the CCG are not legal, even if they are noted as such by the Character Builder.
Until such time as the CCG rules otherwise.;)
However, when in doubt - the CCG is what is legal. The Character Builder is a tool to help you, but is not a valid source of rules by itself.
Below is Dragon9's list of ruleset changes.
Q. The Character Builder says that my character is legal/illegal, is this valid?
A. The Character Builder has an option to allow or disallow rules items from its sources under the Manage -> Campaign Settings tab. This can only be done int he full version of the Character Builder. If you have the full version, you can make the following changes to the RPGA_LivingForgottenRealms.dndcamp file:
First: Go to manage, Campaign Settings then click Load Campaign. Choose the RPGA_LivingForgottenRealms.dndcamp file.
Make the following changes to it (Updated for the Feburary '09 update):
- AV2
- Uncheck the entirety of AV2
- PHB2
- Uncheck all classes except Bard.
- If you really want to, you can go through and uncheck all the non-Bard powers and class features, but since you won't have the option for choosing the other classes under the campaign settings, you won't have access to them without "houseruling" it which would make the character illegal.
I will keep this list up to date as things change. Also note that the Bladeling, Orc, Gnome, and Shadar-Kai currently require a Rewards Card to play.
However, when in doubt - the CCG is what is legal. The Character Builder is a tool to help you, but is not a valid source of rules by itself.
[Devil's advocate mode]
Considering that LFR campaign staff have made it abundantly clear that they're not the ones calling the shots, that the hierarchy is quite clearly LFR campaign staff < RPGA < WOTC, I think one could make the argument that if WOTC is making a declaration that something is LFR-legal, that trumps any documents or statements put out by RPGA staff or LFR campaign staff that it's not.
If I'm getting contradictory information from local campaign staff and global campaign staff, I'm going to be following the one who's in charge; why shouldn't it be the same if campaign staff and WOTC staff are contradicting each other?
[/Devil's advocate mode]
-- Brian Gibbons.
[Devil's advocate mode]
Considering that LFR campaign staff have made it abundantly clear that they're not the ones calling the shots, that the hierarchy is quite clearly LFR campaign staff < RPGA < WOTC, I think one could make the argument that if WOTC is making a declaration that something is LFR-legal, that trumps any documents or statements put out by RPGA staff or LFR campaign staff that it's not.
If I'm getting contradictory information from local campaign staff and global campaign staff, I'm going to be following the one who's in charge; why shouldn't it be the same if campaign staff and WOTC staff are contradicting each other?
[/Devil's advocate mode]
-- Brian Gibbons.
Because the CCG is, as the name implies, the Character Creation Guide. The Character Builder is just a tool intended to assist in that creation. There is nothing official about what it outputs, however it *attempts* to monitor legality based on the rulesets that are included.
However, the simple fact that these rulesets can be tweaked to change legality is reason enough for the Character Builder to be unofficial. I could, for example, tell my copy of the LFR Ruleset to allow items from Manual of the Planes, and print out a "legal" character (IE - it wouldn't show as houseruled, nor would it print out as houseruled on the page).
Now, if/when they come up with a way to "lock" their included rulesets against editing I'll *start* to consider the Builder as a candidate for legality - after they then produce at least 3 months of accurate rulesets.
Until then, it's a guideline tool only - albeit a very good one. Players are still responsible for verifying that their characters conform to the rules put forth in the CCG.
[Devil's advocate mode]
Considering that LFR campaign staff have made it abundantly clear that they're not the ones calling the shots, that the hierarchy is quite clearly LFR campaign staff < RPGA < WOTC, I think one could make the argument that if WOTC is making a declaration that something is LFR-legal, that trumps any documents or statements put out by RPGA staff or LFR campaign staff that it's not.
On top of what Wolfstar said: the CCG is not a creation of the LFR admins (unlike the LGCS was in Living Greyhawk). It is a WotC publication and is, on its own terms, the definitive guide to character creation in all RPGA events.
WotC appear to be saying (and it makes most sense of the combination of rules to assume that they are, indeed, saying) that the CCG is the statement about how to create a character for an RPGA event. Anything else they say may well be based on a mistake by the individual saying it, and should be judged against the text.
To use a real-world example: in the UK, most Acts of Parliament are written under the direction of government ministers. But if a government minister makes a public statement contradicting an Act he drafted and got passed through Parliament, the law doesn't change: even though the same person was responsible for both 'statements', the Act is the definitive statement of the law, and the later comment is in error.
Of course, WotC could alter this. The CCG could say that the Character Builder is an accurate statement of what is and is not legal in LFR. Similarly, in my real-world example, an Act of Parliament might give the minister the final decision on an issue, or empower him to make binding statements. This wouldn't be a contradiction, of course: the CCG/Act would still be the definitive document, but on its own terms it might elevate other sources of information above it.