Think you've got what it takes to edit the CCG? Post your comments here on what you think should change in the next version of the CCG.
While I'm not going to be super-strict on discussion here, I'd ask that we keep things light and limit to one-or-two replies on a suggested edit. More than that and I'll be requesting the debaters take it to another thread.
In return for keeping this relatively on-topic, I'll do my part to alert Chris Tulach to this thread, so that he can be aware of suggestions and with a little luck, post his thoughts from time to time.
That said, a sticky request is in, so go to it.
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 not usable until they appear in a publication listed above. If permitted, 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.
Although personally I'd rather see them valid at the end of the month, an acceptable alternative to allow for classes previewed well in advance of publication would be something like:
If a class does not appear in the compiled version of Dragon Magazine, and it is to be part of a permitted publication, the class becomes valid one month prior to the date that publication is valid.
- New DME language
- I would like to see it clearly mentioned whether DMs can make up or change rules, or whether they are bound by core rules.
- Along those lines, I would like to see the FAQ join the list of official rules sources. While I don't always agree with the FAQ, I do think LFR would be better for using the FAQ.
- The limit on Adventuring Companies of one PC per AC seems counterproductive to players that play regularly having fun together. It isn't hard for one player to level up enough or fall behind enough that a backup PC becomes part of the team... but then the AC falls apart because you can't keep all players using the same PCs. I know the idea is to limit shenanigans, but there should be a better way to prevent that without hurting play.
- It would be great if there were an official place to list ACs, their requirements, and perhaps their roster. The sticky isn't bad, but you can't search it easily. The FR Wiki is a bit easier to view, but adding reqs or rosters gets complicated. I guess this isn't a CCG item, but if it were done there could be a link within the CCG.
Having a few hundred or thousand extra sets of eyes could easily catch problems with a new ruling that just the RPGA folks alone might miss or not realize.
-karma
Describe rules for upgrading items in a manner other than adding a plus to them.
And please, include concrete examples so we can know what isn't allowed, and trace the costs of what is allowed.
Keith
If you want to make any other change to a magic item, you must use the Transfer Enchantment ritual found in the Adventurer’s Vault and pay the appropriate costs for use. You can transfer any magic item quality to another legal item, as long as you have access to the quality (see the Transfer Enchantment ritual for more details).
This is leading people to believe that you cannot upgrade a generic weapon/implement/armor/neck slot item with a property with the EMI ritual as the rules state. (or worse, that you use the Transfer Enchantment ritual for it)
Page 3, the section on reward cards isn't clear on whether I can use multiple copies of the same card (e.g. two "daring exploit" cards). Some DMs around here claim that you may not use reward cards unless you've explicitly told them before the session; I'd like to have clarified whether or not this is required.
Page 6 states (for the FRPG) that "the only material in the book not allowed ... [is] some of the character backgrounds". This is no longer the case.
Page 7 (about deities) doesn't specify what to do with a "deity-specific" item (such as those in the AV) if that deity doesn't exist in the FR, but has an equivalent deity with another name.
Page 9 doesn't specify whether you can use a potion or other consumable that was bought by another player. If he lends it to you, you must return it - but if you use it, you can't return it. Are you required to buy him a new potion? What if you can't, because it's out of your level range?
I know several people who use a text file or spreadsheet on their laptop to keep track of character advancement. As far as I'm concerned, as long as their logs are clear and legible, it doesn't matter what shape they take. However, I've heard some people claim that the trackers in the CCG must be printed out and filled in by hand (although they are unable to explain why this should be mandatory). It would be nice to have this clarified.
Page 2. Since I've heard questions about the matter, it might help if the retraining block explicitly said that you can't retrain your race, class, or ability scores.
That's all covered by the core rules for retraining though, which we follow (with the exception of retraining your class feature now allowed as of 1.8). Such things should probably left out of the CCG lest we add more and more stuff already covered in the core books for clarification purposes... then it becomes an unwieldy document like the old Campaign Standards from LG and other 3e campaigns. (*cough*Arcanis*cough*)
People with those questions shoudl be pointed to the retraining rules in the PHB.
A.Veteran's armor (from Adventurer's Vault) changed very significantly in a recent update to the rules. For this magic item only, you may remove it from your list of found items and select another found item you have access to of equal or lesser value to the suit of veteran's armor you selected. For example, if you selected +1 veteran's armor (2nd-level magic item), you could remove it and take any other accessible 1st- or 2nd-level magic item. Since the adventures with veteran's armor have been updated, you may only exercise this option if you played an adventure with veteran's armor prior to February 1, 2009"
What about those that purchased Veteran's Armor with gold before Spec 1-1 became available? Are they stuck with the item, can they sell it back for full value, or can they use the 520 gp towards the purchase of another item?
Clarify in explicit words in the CCG that dead gods cannot be chosen as a patron deity. It supposedly got "clarified" before, but it's clear as mud.
There is much debate/discussion about how/when a mount dies (0HP or negative bloodied - though this may be a Core Rules issue), as well as debate/discussion about what happens if/when they die in the RPGA.
Are they auto-magically replaced between mods? Can they be raised? Tough luck, chuck - buy another?
Clear RPGA rules would be greatly appreicated.
So can we post a link to an edited, text version of the 1.8? I was just going to do a superficial run-through, but the opening paragraph is obsolete, just for starters. RPGA Rewards. Heh.
I wouldn't say no to a link to "Kinevon's Suggestions"
Mounts!
There is much debate/discussion about how/when a mount dies (0HP or negative bloodied - though this may be a Core Rules issue), as well as debate/discussion about what happens if/when they die in the RPGA.
Are they auto-magically replaced between mods? Can they be raised? Tough luck, chuck - buy another?
Clear RPGA rules would be greatly appreicated.
The issue about what happens when a mount is at 0 hit points is a core issue. It is out of the RPGA hands. As for replacement, right now players need to follow the core rules. It is a living creature. If it dies it is dead and not automatically brought to life. Can it be raised? I don't think the raise dead ritual excludes animals, does it? I know Open Grave contains a monster that is created when a Raise Dead rituatial is performed incorrectly on pets...
The issue about what happens when a mount is at 0 hit points is a core issue. It is out of the RPGA hands.
Ok, so this belongs in the errata/clarifications forum rather than the CCG requests. Nevertheless, according to a poll I've seen, the community is pretty much split on the issue whether mounts use the "PC dying rules" or the "monster dying rules".
Anyway, by its current wording, the Raise Dead ritual applies to a creature, so it would work on mounts. However, the increased cost-by-level applies to paragon or epic characters, so does not apply to mounts. Also, the AV contains a skeletal horse as a mount. It would be pretty weird if you were able to use Raise Dead on that...
Getting back to the CCG at hand - as Alphastream mentioned, "I would like to see it clearly mentioned whether DMs can make up or change rules, or whether they are bound by core rules." In particular, if some option is clearly allowed by the rules, but a DM considers it cheesy or overpowered, is he within his rights to forbid it at his table? Can a DM disallow Righteous Rage of Tempus, or using the Intimidate skill to make a monster surrender, or Earthroot+Phrenic+Imposition save penalty stacks?
Getting back to the CCG at hand - as Alphastream mentioned, "I would like to see it clearly mentioned whether DMs can make up or change rules, or whether they are bound by core rules." In particular, if some option is clearly allowed by the rules, but a DM considers it cheesy or overpowered, is he within his rights to forbid it at his table? Can a DM disallow Righteous Rage of Tempus, or using the Intimidate skill to make a monster surrender, or Earthroot+Phrenic+Imposition save penalty stacks?
Or ruling that Drow darkness can be seen through by any creature (monster) with darkvision, according to the judge, just because "that's the way I rule it. I think it's more fun that way." (This happened at DDXP. It certainly was not fun for the players at the table. )
Or ruling that Drow darkness can be seen through by any creature (monster) with darkvision, according to the judge, just because "that's the way I rule it. I think it's more fun that way." (This happened at DDXP. It certainly was not fun for the players at the table. )
wow... considering that the only creature the power specifically excludes from its effects is 'you' (aka, the caster).
As for Intimidate, the core rule actually states the DM is free to modify the DC based on circumstances and monster. So a DM is free to raise the DC to such a high number that it becomes impossible.
Pieter Sleijpen
LFR Global Administrator
As for Intimidate, the core rule actually states the DM is free to modify the DC based on circumstances and monster. So a DM is free to raise the DC to such a high number that it becomes impossible.
I don't see any difference between outright forbidding intimidate-to-surrender and raising its DC to 500; that's just using a loophole to forbid it after all.
Likewise, there's little difference between outright forbidding the save penalty stack, and arbitrarily giving the affected monsters +5 to saving throws.
Likewise likewise, there's no apparent difference between outlawing Rage of Tempus and adding more hit points to a monster to nullify its effects.
So the question still stands. If the players expect to be able to do something, and the DM doesn't want them to, how far does DME go?
The core question
If the players expect to be able to do something, and the DM doesn't want them to, how far does DME go?
just translates to "Does DME allow for a DM changing core rules?" which has been answered.
The rest simply boils down to the age-old debate of 'WHAT do the core rules say and/or mean?". I don't think we are going to solve that question here and now though.
The continuous rephrasing of questions regarding DME, that I have sofar seen in all online LFR debate, is often airmed at getting specific answers regarding core rules. I think it gets us nowhere.
Just because DME does not allow a DM to deviate from the core rules, this in no way shape or form guarantees the DM and the players will agree on what the core rules say and/or mean.
Of course, there were the rules are less clear, a DM makes the ruling. The DM is still the DM. The CCG is NOT a document about how to run a game. That is what the DMG is for.
No, a DM cannot just change a core rule just because he feels like it. Why should we want to put that into a specific rule?
I can't properly explain how pleased I was to actually read you saying the above! It is that necessary to spell it out. DMs are constantly stating on the boards that they do not have to follow core rules. They find something they don't like (warlock 2-rod combo, warlord Guileful Switch) and they say "Well, I'm gonna change it to work like this...". They aren't necessarily trying to break rules, they just honestly think they can use their version in the name of their perception of game balance.
I tried to find something in the CCG or in the old RPGA guidelines that clearly stated that core rules must be followed, and while the intention can be seen therein, it isn't clear. It should be. Clarifying will remove a lot of frustration.
(And, I really feel it is worth repeating that it would be awesome for LFR to use the FAQ... we could use that clarity over the rules vs. having so many open issues that have no clarity at the table.)
I can't properly explain how pleased I was to actually read you saying the above! It is that necessary to spell it out. DMs are constantly stating on the boards that they do not have to follow core rules. They find something they don't like (warlock 2-rod combo, warlord Guileful Switch) and they say "Well, I'm gonna change it to work like this...". They aren't necessarily trying to break rules, they just honestly think they can use their version in the name of their perception of game balance.
I tried to find something in the CCG or in the old RPGA guidelines that clearly stated that core rules must be followed, and while the intention can be seen therein, it isn't clear. It should be. Clarifying will remove a lot of frustration.
(And, I really feel it is worth repeating that it would be awesome for LFR to use the FAQ... we could use that clarity over the rules vs. having so many open issues that have no clarity at the table.)
Check out pg 3 of the General Rules, under section 2. Event Responsibilities
"Knowledge Responsibilities
GMs and players participating in RPGA-sanctioned events are responsible for knowing and following the most current version of the RPGA General Rules and any other applicable regulatory documents, including any game rules for the appropriate system or campaign."
The reason why you won't see anything else about following "core rules" in previous documents is that they did NOT contain DME and were supposed to follow ALL rules. RPGA events were guided by the existing rules of whatever game was being played. In theory, DMs were not allowed to deviate from them (or the published module); this way, players would receive a consistent game, no matter where they played.
That said, DMs still found ways to 'creatively' interpret rules they didn't like. Then they would justify their interpretation by saying there was nothing in the FAQ that went against it, mainly because it was so off base that few would see it that way - see the above Cloud of Darkness as an example. I had a LG character I had played for almost 2 years completely nerfed when I moved to a new region this way (and when CS dismissed his interpretation as nothing close to RAW, he ignored them).
So even with the statement that DMs are not allowed to use DME to bypass Core Rules, it will still happen. "Interpretation" is still the prerogative of the DM.
As far as the FAQ goes, in the past, it WAS counted as official. Now, its up to the individual DM to decide if its used. I agree that it would be nice (for sake of consistency) for this to be expressly stated in the Campaign document.
For example, I personally feel the intent of the rules is not to allow two rods to work at the same time (and you can use the rules in the book to argue both cases). I also think that because the book litterally states a DM can modify the DC for Intimidate, the DM can decide whether or not it works. I just make sure my players are aware of it before the start of the game, assuming of course, they do not even know about it.
I also think that because the book litterally states a DM can modify the DC for Intimidate, the DM can decide whether or not it works. I just make sure my players are aware of it before the start of the game, assuming of course, they do not even know about it.
That is something that should be addressed in the guidelines. It seems clear to me that modifying the DC refers to applyinging a circumstance modifier to the difficulty in some circumstances, not to a blanket increase in the DC to an outrageous value in order to stop it from ever working. An ocational +5 or even +10 to the DC makes sense, but making the DC 500 or some such in order to stop it from ever working does not seem to conform to the spirit of the rules.
LFR needs guidelines on how free the DM is to modify the rules in such cases.
It seems clear to me that modifying the DC refers to applyinging a circumstance modifier to the difficulty in some circumstances.
Exact quote: "Your Intimidate checks are made against a target's Will defense or a DC set by the DM." I don't think it could be any clearer than that. Later is says that attitude or other conditional modifiers might apply to the DC. The Unfriendly/Hostile modifiers (+5/+10 to the DC) are automatic. Everything else is DM discretion.
Shawn
Exact quote: "Your Intimidate checks are made against a target's Will defense or a DC set by the DM." I don't think it could be any clearer than that.
Putting on my devil's advocate hat, from the context this can be read as to mean "Your Intimidate checks are made against a target's Will defense (during combat) or a DC set by the DM (during a skill challenge)."
But personally I agree that intimidate should not be used against major opponents during a fight, if only because it's a really lame way to end an encounter. And really, the last thing I want to see in LFR is a wave of characters optimized for intimidating (you know, flensing weapon + skill focus + some item bonuses + whatever).
For example, I personally feel the intent of the rules is not to allow two rods to work at the same time (and you can use the rules in the book to argue both cases).
However, this one is contradicted by the WOTC FAQ (question 19). On the one hand, I am aware that the FAQ is not an official rules document. On the other hand, as Madfox claims, consistency is important. So personally I would be disinclined to diverge from this prominent FAQ.
And this brings us to the actual problem here: WOTC has way too many channels for rules updates. There's the rulebooks themselves, and the updates (which are official) and the FAQ (which is not). There's also the Q&A section on the WOTC page, which is different from the FAQ. Then there's the rules compendium (which is official, but only available to DNDI members) and the character builder (which everybody is supposed to use heavily, but is non-official). And then there's semi-official forum posts by prominent WOTC people that we're supposed to pay attention to, and blogs by the same, and stuff only mentioned at conventions. Oh yeah, and Dragon magazine columns. By my count, that's ten different channels.
This is very confusing! And that is a Bad Thing. WOTC needs to realize, as soon as possible, that they need to clean this up before it becomes worse.
I therefore suggest several things:
(a) The CCG 1.9 should recognize (for the sake of consistency) that yes, the Q&A on the WOTC page as well as the FAQ are official, and that no, forum posts or blog entries are not, regardless of who wrote them.
(b) The next CCG should clearly prioritize which of the "official rules sources" takes precedence in case of a contradiction (and that making the top one the Rules Compendium is not going to be a good publicity stunt!)
(c) It should take very little work for WOTC to put every issue from the Q&A section and aforementioned semi-official forum and blog posts into the FAQ, so at least people can find things in a central place.
(d) And anything that is in the FAQ that is really a non-obvious interpretation of the rulebooks needs to be put into the Official Updates as well.
Rules disuptes for any game can't be avoided, and given the overall nitpickiness of the internet they are quite inevitable. However, that doesn't change the fact that WOTC has been needlessly sloppy with their rules, and could clean up the above in a matter of hours should they be so inclined. This is the company that writes the rules for Magic: the Gathering, for crying out loud.
I tried to find something in the CCG or in the old RPGA guidelines that clearly stated that core rules must be followed, and while the intention can be seen therein, it isn't clear. It should be. Clarifying will remove a lot of frustration.
I doubt you'll find it and it would surprise me if WOTC added it.
Core D&D is not about the DM being bound by the rules. Core D&D is about the DM using the rules as a guideline, but deviating from them when he thinks the particular situation is one that the rules weren't intended to cover or flat-out making up house rules to suit his particular set of circumstances. This is even more true in 4e, where the philosophy seems to be that spending time on getting the small details of the rules is not only unimportant (because you have a DM to deal with that) but actively bad (because it bogs down the rules in minutiae and corner cases).
You are never going to see a statement in the DMG that DMs must religiously and blindly follow the rules as written, because that's not what core D&D is all about.
Traditionally, it has implicitly been understood that living campaigns require a different mindset and that campaign staff operate as DMs of the campaign, not the people running an individual table. Just as a DM may modify or interpret the rules to suit his campaign, so too must campaign staff modify or interpret the rules to suit their particular campaign.
This is no longer the case. The newRPGA philosophy is that living campaigns strictly follow the core rules. A D&D player should be able to pick up a published module or an LFR module and assume that they are run exactly the same, according to what he finds in the books. If anything needs to be interpreted or modified to fit the circumstances, that's what the DM at the table is for.
You are never going to see a statement by the RPGA that DMs must religiously and blindly follow the rules as written, because that's not what core D&D is all about, and the core rules are perfect.
I expect, however, that we'll see some attempt at modifying DM empowerment, simply because WOTC has two competing interests here. They don't want DMs to be bound to blindly follow a module text, but they also want players to receive the WOTC-sanctioned approved-by-multiple-stages professionally-done RPGA adventure experience. The two do not coexist well together.
I tend to think that any modifications to DM empowerment will fail.
Why? It's what I (thanks to Lore Sjöberg) now call the "infinite oregano" problem.
If the rules are that a DM can make modifications to an adventure in order to maximize fun, that assumes that you and he have the same definition of 'fun' or that you're willing to walk away from the table if it turns out your definition varies. Neither of these are really givens.
DMs either have discretion or they don't. If they can modify the adventure to deal with circumstances, they can decide that a creature is immune to Intimidate (heck, enough module authors already do that in skill challenges) or that it has a +300 DC bonus. If they can modify creatures for an appropriate challenge, they can decide that the creature is immune to critical hits from priests/paladins of Tempus or just turns out to have X extra hit points after taking that hit.
I find it unlikely that there is any way you can limit a DM's discretion only to those areas and in the ways you intend for them to use the discretion. That's kind of the entire point of it being discretionary.
While this discussion focuses on DME being used to what some would see as the detriment of particular players, I'm still in an oldRPGA (modules are objective measures, a PC of X level with Y rewards has objectively earned all of that) mindset, which means I think that DME being used in collusion with players (to legally accomplish the effects of, say, 7-member tables, 30-second modules or gold/equipment shifting) is a more significant problem.
-- Brian Gibbons.
Exact quote: "Your Intimidate checks are made against a target's Will defense or a DC set by the DM." I don't think it could be any clearer than that. Later is says that attitude or other conditional modifiers might apply to the DC. The Unfriendly/Hostile modifiers (+5/+10 to the DC) are automatic. Everything else is DM discretion.
Shawn
With clear intent that the DM make a fair attempt at setting a DC that is appropriate for the situation - not a DC that makes the skill impossible to use regardless of the PC's skill or mitigating circumstances. If LFR is not a campaign where fair DCs are expected, the guidelines should say so.
Core D&D is not about the DM being bound by the rules. Core D&D is about the DM using the rules as a guideline, but deviating from them when he thinks the particular situation is one that the rules weren't intended to cover or flat-out making up house rules to suit his particular set of circumstances. This is even more true in 4e, where the philosophy seems to be that spending time on getting the small details of the rules is not only unimportant (because you have a DM to deal with that) but actively bad (because it bogs down the rules in minutiae and corner cases).
I hear you. I get the concept. But, that concept works in a world where everyone is reasonable. With reasonable players making reasonable requests and reasonable DMs considering them and making reasonable calls, there is no reason to get bogged down in minutiae. But, in a real table, you have people that greatly care about the details - they want to discuss the issue at length and make the right call, because how the battle shapes from a single power/feat/skill/etc. can be a big deal (to them, to the ego, to the point of the PC, to the concept of the encounter, etc.).
There is also a huge difference between making these examples of not being bound by core rules:
- "I'm going to let the creature use acrobatics instead of athletics because it has the right body shape and backstory for what it is trying to do."
- "I'm going to rule that the creature can use the immediate reaction to redirect your attack after I see your attack roll. The monster works better that way."
The first is a judgment call based on specific situations. It is the type of thinking that is encouraged by the rules (the example of a PC wanting to jump and hang from a rope or candelabra). Generally, this type of decision-making is, in fact, used to let the PCs act on ideas they have.
The second is just a DM changing something because they disagree with the written rule or think it works better. This type of decision tends to drive players insane and have bad experiences at the table.
It is that second case that needs clarification. Can a DM just tell someone that a PC's power works a different way at their table? That a monster's power can work a different way at their table?
Because, it seems to me, the RPGA should assume the WotC developers know what they are doing. It seems to me play is better if there is a common set of rules with very little variance. It seems to me that DME should not in any way allow the modification of core rules.
With clear intent that the DM make a fair attempt at setting a DC that is appropriate for the situation - not a DC that makes the skill impossible to use regardless of the PC's skill or mitigating circumstances. If LFR is not a campaign where fair DCs are expected, the guidelines should say so.
You are correct of course, but what is your point? There are no hard rules about these DCs (luckily), and we already tell the DMs to run the game in such a way that all the people at the table have maximum enjoyment. So what do you expect we add to the document in this regard?
You are correct of course, but what is your point? There are no hard rules about these DCs (luckily), and we already tell the DMs to run the game in such a way that all the people at the table have maximum enjoyment. So what do you expect we add to the document in this regard?
How about clarifying what DM empowerment allows with somethig like:
The DM is empowered to make a fair attempt at adjusting details and setting DCs as appropriate for the situation and the enjoyment of the players. He is not empowered to change core rules nor to set DCs that make a skill impossible to use regardless of the PCs' skill or mitigating circumstances when the players present a good case for a skill being applicable.
The DM is empowered to make a fair attempt at adjusting details and setting DCs as appropriate for the situation and the enjoyment of the players. He is not empowered to change core rules nor to set DCs that make a skill impossible to use regardless of the PCs' skill or mitigating circumstances when the players present a good case for a skill being applicable.
The problem is that there is a huge gray area between "changing the core rules" and "interpreting the rules in situations where they are unclear".
By definition, you can't make rules for what DMs should do in situations where there are no rules (or no clear rules).
What WOTC should do instead, is locate common rules disputes (which would be obvious from these forums here) and give a clear answer to those. They've recently clarified the Forced Movement + Wall of Fire debate, which was a good step forward. There's just five or six other major debates, the rest is entirely too situational.
How about clarifying what DM empowerment allows with somethig like:
The DM is empowered to make a fair attempt at adjusting details and setting DCs as appropriate for the situation and the enjoyment of the players. He is not empowered to change core rules nor to set DCs that make a skill impossible to use regardless of the PCs' skill or mitigating circumstances when the players present a good case for a skill being applicable.
Tom, this seems to me to be a general "don't be a jerk" clause. Such clauses are great, except for one thing: It seems that the people who are already not jerks don't need that statement (keep in mind that with the Intimidate example, a monster that's already trying to kill you is undoubtedly already Hostile, and Will Defense +10 is a pretty large DC for Intimidate), and the people who are jerks are just going to do what they want anyways, still quoting your statement as "appropriate for the situation". In LG, where the rules on this sort of thing were way clearer, I still encountered DMs who ran us against monsters that were 2 tiers higher than the PCs were, etc, etc. No amount of rules/clarification regarding DME is going to stop the sort of DM who wants to set an Intimidate DC arbitrarily high from doing so.
How about clarifying what DM empowerment allows with somethig like:
The DM is empowered to make a fair attempt at adjusting details and setting DCs as appropriate for the situation and the enjoyment of the players. He is not empowered to change core rules nor to set DCs that make a skill impossible to use regardless of the PCs' skill or mitigating circumstances when the players present a good case for a skill being applicable.
Which, as always, is dependent on ones definition of "appropriate for the situation", "fair", "mitigating circumstances" and/or "a good case". I really do not think there is any agreement on what those terms mean. Actually I am a 100% sure that there is violent disagreement on what those terms mean..this thread alone proving it repeatedly
So either the campaign management tells us what those terms will mean within the LFR framework. Which considering the extremely broad scope of the terms I dont see happening..
Or we accept the fact that there will be disagreement and stop trying to fix it all in one go. Fix what clearly needs fixing...
And yeah I know, after all that typing I have basically used a lot of words to copy Kurald_Galain's reply
sue me
What WOTC should do instead, is locate common rules disputes (which would be obvious from these forums here) and give a clear answer to those. They've recently clarified the Forced Movement + Wall of Fire debate, which was a good step forward. There's just five or six other major debates, the rest is entirely too situational.
That about covers it..
So if we could please get answers to the big questions like "Are Warlocks meant to completely invalidate/trivialize the concept of minions with the reaving/corruption rod combo of cheddar?" that would be cool.
Ok so maybe a little less colouring in the questions
Thank you, everyone for keeping the discussion/debate on what to include not to include light as requeested in the OP. I'm still going to use this post as a reminder that if you want to go more in-depth on a request that you're encouraged to start a new thread rather than filling up this one.
I reserve the right to move posts into new threads as I see fit as well.
As for core rules issues (IE - dual rod wielding) those are not within the RPGA's domain to clarify/errata/rule on. We support the system rules except where the nature of our playstyle forces a change (XP, GP, Found Items, etc).
There's some talk about giving the RPGA a rules question hotline in the future - a way for us to "fast track" questions that see a goodly amount of debate and discussion on mailing lists or here in the forums, but unless this actually surfaces - your best bet for raising flags on rules issues is still to contact Customer Service (http://www.wizards.com/customerservice). You'll get a ruling (that you can use, ignore, or debate as you see fit) and with enough questions being asked, a Rules Update can't help but follow. "Enough" is a value that's subject to interpretation as well, of course.
I'd also encourage people with Rules Update suggestions to visit the Errata forums, here: http://forums.gleemax.com/forumdisplay.php?f=938
Thanks again, everyone - and please don't hesitate to keep CCG suggestions, or your own examples of changed text coming!
"DMs are expected to follow core rules for RPGA play. RPGA games should follow the core rules at all times unless noted otherwise."
"DME does not allow DMs to change core rules."
1) DM is running a high level (1-4) mod for 5 characters (level 3, 3, 1, 1, 1), 2 of which are completely new to LFR/4E (a mod he already knows to be fairly difficult). He scales the adventure for 6 players and increases the monster numbers by 50% on top of that (without telling us). Justification: he wanted to show how great of a PC killer DM he was. As you can imagine, the mod didn't last very long, plus, he only gave us the listed XP for the encounters we did and skipped some of the gold. The 2 new players haven't returned.
2) DM is annoyed at a player, so he springs an encounter on them while they are taking a short rest (and I'm not talking about a written-in situation like with WitR). No healing, no power recovery. Encounter can be 'next one' or one he creates himself.
3) DM ignores 'new' stealth rules for NPC skirmishers (when in previous mod's he's educated players on the changes).
I fully appreciate DME and what it means for LFR vs the problems with 'breaking the mod' in LG. IMO, DME is for things like "great idea! Its not in the rules, but take a +2 on your skill check." or "hmm... that option isn't in the mod, but I can see that working..." Its for dealing with unaccounted for situations. Its for rewarding creative thinking. It shouldn't be to screw the PCs just because you can (or because you don't like the mod).
Without being there we can't judge what went on, but DME isn't an excuse to be a bad DM.
To be fair, I see the primary use of DME to be a tool for bad DMs.
Generally speaking, good DMs don't need DME. If everyone is actually on the same page of having fun, and the DM makes the module more challenging or adds in a roleplaying encounter because of player actions the module author didn't anticipate, no one is going to complain, even without DME.
If the DM isn't actually on the same page as the players, though, then without DME, the players always have a justification for appealing to a con coordinator or further up the chain, since there are clear rules and the DM is breaking them.
With DME, the good DM doesn't really change that much. He gets a little more latitude, but to be honest, player trust already gave him most of the latitude he needed. (And, in fact, since the extra latitude lets him now make the module unrecognizable instead of just slightly tweaked, this is probably more than WOTC wanted to give him, anyway.)
Bad DMs, however, now have no check on their behavior. If they think that increasing the level and numbers of enemies, giving all of the bad guys +20 circumstance modifiers to Stealth or running encounters back-to-back without rests is fun, then he can do so, and no one can gainsay him.
My believe is that the overwhelming majority of the time, DME makes no difference whatsoever (and the small minority largely involves usages that were entirely unintended and would likely horrify WOTC, like rewriting the module or turning it into an interactive) on what DMs actually do. Its real use comes up after the fact, perhaps when questions are raised after players read the module and DME rears its head as justification.
-- Brian Gibbons.
Bad DMs, however, now have no check on their behavior. If they think that increasing the level and numbers of enemies, giving all of the bad guys +20 circumstance modifiers to Stealth or running encounters back-to-back without rests is fun, then he can do so, and no one can gainsay him.
-- Brian Gibbons.
I strongly disagree, bad DMs have a huge check on them, the players. Do you play again and again with bad DMs? Of course not.
As to the rest I have seen DME used many times now and never once have I seen it abused. I respect your lockstep by the book lawful approach Brian but I have seen many good DMs take liberty with what was in a game and every time it was was to improve the game, not to kill the PCs or be macho. I also don't believe there is a world of DMs who would suddenly meet your approval if there were tighter rules so I think we will have to continue to disagree on DM discretion, I like it, you don't.
Generally speaking, good DMs don't need DME. If everyone is actually on the same page of having fun, and the DM makes the module more challenging or adds in a roleplaying encounter because of player actions the module author didn't anticipate, no one is going to complain, even without DME.
Except that making the changes you describe is DME.
Good DMs need DME, or they get stifled. If DME was outlawed, they'd either do it anyway, or go play another RPG instead. Our loss.
Mediocre DMs never use DME and never deviate from the rules. That doesn't work, as this isn't MtG or chess. Rules can't account for everything, and sometimes need deviating from. Once they realize that, based on DME, they become better DMs.
Bad DMs use DME to be a jerk. But they would be jerks even without DME.
So DME is a net positive, and a big one at that.
IE when a module states you can pick a found magic item of your level or lower from the Player's Handbook it should include all Player's Handbooks.
This will allow for specific new classes or races to pick items appropriate for them. Shamans using totems would find it impossible to get a new totem from this reward is the best example of the need for this rule update.
--Chris
I believe now that PH2 is out, that a change to the text or a blanket rule for LFR to include PH2 as a source for the generic magic item issued in some adventures would be in order.
That affects, what, two of the adventures printed so far?
Will there be any clarification of which background are and are not available for LFR? Can we make our own backgorund? Can we use Scales of War backgrounds? What if Dragonlance and Dark Sun backgrounds appear in a future issue of Dragon? Are all backgrounds okay if their source is on the
Also, the CCG1.8 still limits FRPG backgrounds to Aglarond, Akanûl, Baldur’s Gate, Cormyr,
Dalelands, Dragon Coast, East Rift, Impiltur, Luruar, Moonshae Isles, Tymanther, and Waterdeep, but word came down form the admins long before it's release that the other backgrounds are playable now.
While the CCG could be worded more clearly, and it is perhaps confusing because the rule used to be that you could only choose one of the twelve backgrounds, the words in the CCG are capable of only one interpretation: choose one background from the FRPG.
All other character
backgrounds are not allowed unless otherwise made
• available through RPGA Rewards cards.
They do actually need to fix the fact that backgrounds are talked about in two different places on pages 6 & 7, combining them into one Character Backgrounds subheading under Special Character Creation Rules, and that extra bullet point in the middle of the paragraph doesn't help. ^_^
I still suggest that they remove the reference to the specific FR backgrounds I listed before if we're allowed to use any FR backgrounds now.
Please, you have no idea how often this comes up, and it's happening more and more as more people subscribe.
The next CCG is looming over the horizon.
I'm going to remind The Wise and Powerful Tulach about this thread, so if you've got any issues you'd like to see included in 1.9, your deadline approacheth.
I'm going to TRY and implant a suggestion that we get some sort of preview of the next CCG as well, though I don't know if that will fly or not. Asking can't hurt (much) - but I hear WotC Staff is required to have a high Will Defense.
"Rules Updates: Periodically, Wizards of the Coast will
release rules updates with corrections to existing rules.
These updates are official for RPGA play on the 4th Tuesday
of each month, when the online Rules Compendium is
updated. The online Rules Compendium is considered an
official rules source for RPGA play."
I believe this is talking about the errata information. Having one URL for this or whatever "Official" rules updates they are talking about would be great. If this doesn't referance the errata then somewhere in the CCG it should talk about the printed books errata and how it relates to RPGA.
If it hasn't been suggested before, there is a section of the CCG that needs to provide a link to where the information is so people can find it easier. Here it is:
"Rules Updates: Periodically, Wizards of the Coast will
release rules updates with corrections to existing rules.
These updates are official for RPGA play on the 4th Tuesday
of each month, when the online Rules Compendium is
updated. The online Rules Compendium is considered an
official rules source for RPGA play."
I concur that the updates bit should link to the updates page for when the document is viewed digitally. I also think that this is where it should specifically point out that while the Rules Compendium is an official rules source, the character builder is not and only contains references to rules and mechanics, not the full text or related rules.
A list of rules sources, in order of which takes precedence over the others.
We had this sort of list in previous games, dunno why not in LFR.
-karma
"You can't receive treasure from another player character. You can pay for expenses as a group (like ritual costs, bribing for information, paying for passage, etc.), but you can't receive gold, magic items, rituals, or any other treasure from another character. You can lend another character an item for use for the adventure, but it must return to the owner at the end of play. In addition, you cannot permanently alter another player's magic item (or other equipment) in any fashion."
The wording implies that anyone can pay during the adventure for any ritual costs, even for another PCs item to benefit from Enchant Item or Transfer Enchantment. This shuld be reworded to indicate that the PC must pay the ritual costs to permanently alter his own possessions.
The last sentence can be read as not allowing you to assist another character in permanently altering his own items, such as by lending him a scroll of Transfer Enchantment (though he pays the full materials cost), or by casting a ritual for him at his expense, even though he can hire an NPC to do the same thing for him. This does not seem to me to be what is intended. This should be altered to clearly allow an ally to cast a ritual at the owner's request and expense to allow the character to permanently alter his own magic item, if it is with a rititual that the character could purchase or hire an NPC to cast.
Treasure and Rewards
After you finish an adventure, your DM will award you with XP, gold, and a pick of another treasure. You can also buy magic items or rituals at the beginning and end of your adventure (and during, if your DM allows it). Here’s how treasure and rewards work:
"After you finish an adventure, your DM will award you with experience points, gold [editor's note: or "XP and GP", stay consistent] and your pick of another treasure. You can also buy some magic items and rituals between adventures (and during, if your DM allows it). Here's how treasure and rewards work:"
• At the end of the adventure, you can select one magic item or ritual bundle from a list the DM gives you of things you found during play. It’s OK if you and another player select the same item for your character. If you select a weapon or suit of armor, you might have to choose what type it is when you make your selection. Simply write down your choice of item on your adventure log, and you’re all set. However, there’s one very important rule you must observe when selecting a magic item (see below).
"At the end of the adventure, you can select one (and only one) bundle from a list of rewards the DM gives you of things your group found during play. It's okay if you and another player select the same item for your characters. You can always choose to take the 'more gold' option or select a bundle that does not count as 'found magic items'. However, taking a magic item as a reward usually requires that you have not taken too many found magic items in the past."
• You can only possess a number of found magic items equal to your character level. In 4th Edition D&D, your character finds about one item every level or so. Therefore, in Living Forgotten Realms, characters cannot possess more found magic items (that is, items acquired at the end of an adventure) than their level. If you sell or discard a magic item you’ve found, it still counts against your total number of found magic items. Make wise choices about what magic items you select, and remember if you can’t or don’t want a magic item you can always select another option. Every adventure contains an option to select more gold, and many contain options to select consumables (such as potions) plus gold or rituals. Rituals, formulas, and consumables do not count against the found magic item limitation.
"Over the course of your character's career, you can only choose a number of found magic items equal to your character's level. In 4th Edition D&D, your character finds about one item every level or so. In this campaign, therefore, you cannot acquire a magic item as a reward at the end of an adventure if, over all of your character's previous adventures, you have already taken as rewards a number of magic items equal to your character's current (after counting any XP earned during the adventure) level. It does not matter if you have sold, discarded or otherwise no longer have a magic item you once took as a reward, it still counts against your character's total number of found magic items. Bundles that consist of more gold, consumables (such as potions), ritual books or scrolls, or alchemical formulas, and bundles that specify that they do not count as a 'found magic item' are not considered 'found magic items' and do not count against this total."
[next paragraph unchanged]
• You may need to choose a specific form for some magic items when you select a found item. Often magic weapons and suits of magic armor are found and not given a specific form (and more rarely, magic implements). For example, you might find a flaming weapon +2. Whenever you select one of these items for your character as a found item, choose the form the weapon/armor/implement takes when you select the item. Write down the exact form of the item on your
adventure log. Using the example above, if you wanted the flaming weapon +2 to be a short sword, you’d write “+2 flaming short sword” on your adventure log. For magic armor, you may select a masterwork property for your armor when you select the item if one is available for that item’s enhancement bonus. You should always consult the item’s description to ensure that you are selecting a legal form for the item, as many items cannot take the form of just any armor, weapon, or implement.
"You may need to choose a specific form for some magic items when found or purchased. Magic weapons, implements and suits of armor are sometimes awarded as treasure without specifying the particular form. When you select one of these items, you must choose the form the item takes and write down the exact form of the item on your logsheet. For example, if you purchase or select as a reward a flaming weapon +2, you would decide which particular weapon you wanted it to be, and write it down on your logsheet (e.g., +2 flaming short sword). If a type of masterwork armor is available for armor of a given enhancement bonus, you may choose a valid type of masterwork armor when purchasing or selecting magic armor. A magic item is often restricted in the type of weapon, implement or armor it is allowed to be, so you must consult the item's description to ensure that you are selecting a legal form for the item."
• You can purchase any magic item that is equal to or less than your level with your gold, as long as you have access to it. See “Player Resources” on page 2 of the RPGA Character Creation Guide to determine what magic items and rituals/formulas are accessible by your character. Other items are restricted resources, meaning that you need to gain access to the item to purchase it, even if you are of the same level as the item. If you have a character option that allows you to create items of a higher level than your character, you may also purchase items of the higher level specified as long as you have access to the items.
"You can purchase any item that is equal to or less than your level, so long as you have access to the item and sufficient gold. See the "Player Resources" section on page 2 of the RPGA Character Creation Guide to determine the sources from which you are allowed to purchase magic items, rituals and other items. You cannot purchase any items from any other sources or purchase items of higher level than your character, unless you have campaign documentation specifically allowing you to do so. If you have a character option that allows you to create items of a higher level than your character, you may also purchase items of the higher level specified as long as you have access to the items."
• You can sell magic items for 20% of their market price. You cannot sell mundane gear. You can sell unused ritual books, ritual scrolls, and alchemical items for 50% of their market price. Consumable magic items are sold for 20% of their market price. Remember, if you sell a found magic item, it still counts against your total number of found items.
"At the end of an adventure (or during an adventure, if your DM allows), you can sell magic items. Unused ritual books, ritual scrolls and alchemical items can be sold for 50% of their market price. All other magic items are sold for 20% of their market price. You cannot sell mundane gear. Remember that, even if you sell a found magic item, it still counts against your character's total number of found magic items."
• Magic items that have an enhancement bonus can be upgraded. If you have purchased or found a magic item with an enhancement bonus (like a weapon or suit of armor), you can pay the difference in cost to upgrade your item to the next enhancement bonus. You cannot upgrade the item until you are the same level or higher as the item you want. You don’t need access to a higher level version of the item to upgrade it. If you upgrade a suit of magic armor, you may select a new legal masterwork quality for the armor. If you want to make any other change to a magic item, you must use the Transfer Enchantment ritual found in the Adventurer’s Vault and pay the appropriate costs for use. You can transfer any magic item quality to another legal item, as long as you have access to the quality (see the Transfer Enchantment ritual for more details).
"You can upgrade many magic items. If the level of the upgraded version of the item is equal to or less than your current character level, you can increase the enhancement bonus or tier of an item by paying the difference in cost between the item and its upgraded version. If you upgrade a suit of magic armor, you may select a new legal masterwork armor type for the item. You cannot change the nature of a magic item when upgrading, only its enhancement bonus or tier. So, for example, you could change a +3 thundering weapon into a +4 thundering weapon by paying 68,000 gp, but you could not turn a thundering weapon into a thunderburst weapon; you could change a bashing shield (heroic tier) into a bashing shield (paragon tier), but could not turn it into any other type of shield."
"You can use rituals you know to make other changes to your magic items. The Enchant Magic Item ritual, for example, allows you to take a plain item like a +1 magic longsword and turn it into a +1 flaming longsword, and the Transfer Enchantment ritual (from Adventurer's Vault) allows you to move the magical properties of a +1 flaming longsword from the longsword to a javelin. Make sure you abide by the restrictions on these rituals (for example, you can only transfer a magical quality to an item for which it is legal) and pay the appropriate costs for uses of the ritual."
• You can’t receive treasure from another player character. You can pay for expenses as a group (like ritual costs, bribing for information, paying for passage, etc.), but you can’t receive gold, magic items, rituals, or any other treasure from another character. You can lend another character an item for use for the adventure, but it must return to the owner at the end of play. In addition, you cannot permanently alter another player’s magic item (or other equipment) in any fashion.
"At the DM's discretion, NPCs may be available to perform rituals during an adventure. Whether an NPC is available and their skill level is at the discretion of the DM. The NPC may charge whatever fee the DM thinks appropriate, except that the NPC must charge at minimum the cost of any components expended in the ritual. Most often, the fee for an NPC to perform a ritual is simply 120% of the cost of the components expended in the ritual. At the end of an adventure (or, at the DM's discretion, during an adventure), a player character may peform rituals for other characters (even rituals that may have permanent effect, like Enchant Magic Item). However, the character who will be affected or whose item will be affected must provide any components expended during the ritual, and the character performing the ritual cannot receive any other monetary compensation."
"You cannot receive treasure from another player character. You can lend another character an item for use during an adventure, but the item must be returned to the owner at the end of play. If a loaned item is destroyed, consumed, used as a ritual component, sold or otherwise unable to be returned, the borrower must compensate the lender for the market value of the item. You can pay for expenses as a group (like ritual costs, bribes or paying for passage), unless the ritual is one that will have permanent effect (such as Enchant Magic Item). Otherwise, you can't receive gold, magic items, rituals or any other treasure from another character. Aside from using allowed rituals for which the affected character has provided any components expended in the ritual, you cannot permanently alter another character's magic item or other equipment in any fashion."
This was a quick draft, so I'm sure there are some typos or rough spots that can be smoothed out, but I think this would be an improvement on the status quo.
" If a loaned item is destroyed, consumed, used as a ritual component, sold or otherwise unable to be returned, the borrower must compensate the lender for the market value of the item.
This has a problem. It allows a character to (from his point of view) sell a magic item for full market value instead of just 20%, or a ritual scroll for full value instead of just 50%.
What happens when a lent item is destroyed, consumed, or otherwise made nonreturnable needs to be handled in some way other than the payment of full market price by the borrower to the lender.
At the end of an adventure (or, at the DM's discretion, during an adventure), a player character may peform rituals for other characters (even rituals that may have permanent effect, like Enchant Magic Item).
We already have the rules that says you cannot permanently alter another player's equipment. So scratch this. Besides, if they really want to they can do it themselves since anyone can use ritual scrolls.
What happens when a lent item is destroyed, consumed, or otherwise made nonreturnable needs to be handled in some way other than the payment of full market price by the borrower to the lender.
While I think paying full market price has problems, not having to pay anything at all seems to me to be cause for greater concern.
What other way would you suggest?
Not only that but... no, just no. 99 times out of 100 it's going to be a consumable that gets "loaned." If you give a potion of healing to a teammate in case they need it and then they need it, you shouldn't expect to receive compensation for it. If you do, then don't lend the item out in the first place.
After two modules or so, if someone doesn't have a healing potion, it's because they deliberately chose to take more gold instead of buy potions, so I'm fine with them having to pay for it rather than allow them to take advantage of someone else's good nature.
Plus, my concern is more with the ability to conspire to effectively pass treasure to other PCs. I lend a +1 weapon to another PC who sells it (or, if you like this better, I lend 5000 gp worth of alchemical reagents to another PC, who then uses them in an Enchant Magic Item ritual). The item I lent is no longer in the PC's possession, so they cannot return it. Indeed, they are not even allowed to compensate me, since that would be a transfer of treasure.
Is this against the spirit and intent of the rules? Absolutely, no question. Have any rules been broken? Not unless you read them strictly to say that you're restricted from drinking someone else's potion. Consuming a potion or consuming 5000 gp of alchemical reagents is just a matter of degree.
We already have the rules that says you cannot permanently alter another player's equipment. So scratch this. Besides, if they really want to they can do it themselves since anyone can use ritual scrolls.
If you believe that a DM is not allowed to have an NPC show up to perform a Cure Disease or Transfer Enchantment ritual (and because of the lack of rules saying that he can, I'm sympathetic to this argument), then it makes sense that PCs can't either, that an individual PC needs to perform the ritual on his own via a scroll.
If, however, you follow the campaign staff's advice and believe that DMs can have NPCs perform rituals for the PCs, then I don't really see any reason that PCs can't also perform rituals for other PCs, so long as resource-shifting is guarded against.
My suggestion is to include rules specifically delineating how a DM can include a ritual-performing NPC, if they so choose. Once you have that, restricting PCs from doing the same ritual you could get from an NPC doesn't make sense, though I'd consider it a relatively unimportant issue.
(0) DME needs to be clarified. I think the two salient points are that (a) the DM may not ban any feat, item, or whatever else from his sessions, but (b) in any case where the rules are unclear or subject to multiple interpretations, the DM has final say as to which interpretation goes.
This is really important. We are about to hit paragon levels, which means that we will start to see orb-wizards with stacking save penalties, and daggermasters with escalating critical hit cycles. This will annoy some DMs, and if they do something about it that will annoy some players. We can all recite the MST3K mantra ("it's only a game, just relax") but this is something that needs clarification to avert much strife at certain tables.
(although the obvious way to fix this is by finding the four or five Big Rules Disputes on these forums and clarify those in the FAQ or errata. Yes, it really is only four or five Big Disputes. I realize that this goes beyond the scope of the CCG, though)
It needs to be explicitly stated that
(1) whether or not the FAQ (this one: http://wizards.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wizards.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=1397) is an official rules source (I hope it is, because it would help a lot)
(2) whether the Q&A section on the WOTC main page counts as an official rules source (even though this section appears to be gone for now)
(3) whether or not statements made by RPGA personnel somewhere on the WOTC boards (or on their blog) count as an official rules source. If they are, I'm sure the Gleemax community will take care they are listed somewhere. I believe that Chris Tulach's statements have been treated as official in the past.
(4) whether or not Customer Service counts as an official rules source, and if so, what happens when they contradict another rules source, or for that matter contradict themselves? CustServ has an (arguably undeserved) reputation of unreliability.
(5) what to do when the DDI compendium or character builder conflicts with any other rules source (there are allegedly numerous bugs in there, so I would hope that the other rules source takes precedence).
It needs to be clarified whether
(6) rituals other than Raise Dead can be performed by NPCs, and if so, at what cost (in particular, Enchant Item, Transfer Enchantment, and Remove Condition)
(7) the Enchant Item ritual can be used to convert a Sword +1 into a Flaming Sword +1. The present CCG mistakenly lists Transfer Enchantment for that.
(8) a player can use multiple copies of the same reward card (e.g. two Daring Exploit cards)
(9) players are obliged to show their reward cards to the DM prior to the session (because I've heard of DMs forbidding cards because "they weren't told the players had them")
(10) all backgrounds from the Forgotten Realms book are allowed, because page 6 says that only "some of them" are.
(11) for that matter, whether the PHB2 backgrounds are allowed; I think they aren't, but that isn't clear from the CCG.
(12) you can use the deity-specific holy symbols from the Adventurers Vault, given that the deity in question doesn't exist in the Forgotten Realms
(13) whether it is mandatory to print out the trackers in the CCG and use exactly those, and no other kind of paperwork, as character records
(14) what the replacement rules are if you had a pre-nerf Veteran's Armor. It is likely that WOTC will at some point in the future post errata for another item, so we'd like to know how to deal with that.
(15) what happens if a mount that your character has purchased dies (does it auto-resurrect at the end of the adventure, do you pay for a raise ritual, do you have to buy a new mount...)
(16) for that matter, whether mounts die at 0 hp (as monsters do) or at negative bloodied (as player characters do)
(17) healing potions can be given to another player, and if so, who pays the cost for getting a new potion
...that pretty much summarizes the thread so far, I think. Yes, it's a lot of points, but it'd take someone official all of fifteen minutes to write a clarification for that in the CCG. The main point is "Stuff is ambiguous, this causes unnecessary disputes, please clarify".
Plus, my concern is more with the ability to conspire to effectively pass treasure to other PCs. I lend a +1 weapon to another PC who sells it
This falls under "Receiving treasure form another PC." You can't lend an item to someone and then they sell it and pocket the gp. Or if they do (which would be against the rules), the gp goes back to you. You cannot transfer wealth between PCs in LFR even in an underhanded way. Now maybe that could stand some clarification. It even says that lent items must return to their owner at the end of play. So technically, the rules already disallow lending an item then the receiver selling it.
(or, if you like this better, I lend 5000 gp worth of alchemical reagents to another PC, who then uses them in an Enchant Magic Item ritual).
The rules allow for paying for ritual costs as a group and it doesn't have any restrictions. I would agree to wanting to make a clarification that paying for someone's EMI ritual is a no-no. That is effectively a way for a group to help someone buy a magic item. That is most definitely against the spirit and intent of the campaign rules.
The item I lent is no longer in the PC's possession, so they cannot return it.
The campaign rules state they have to return it. That prohibits them from getting rid of it. (voluntarily)
If you believe that a DM is not allowed to have an NPC show up to perform a Cure Disease or Transfer Enchantment ritual (and because of the lack of rules saying that he can, I'm sympathetic to this argument), then it makes sense that PCs can't either, that an individual PC needs to perform the ritual on his own via a scroll.
If, however, you follow the campaign staff's advice and believe that DMs can have NPCs perform rituals for the PCs, then I don't really see any reason that PCs can't also perform rituals for other PCs, so long as resource-shifting is guarded against.
My suggestion is to include rules specifically delineating how a DM can include a ritual-performing NPC, if they so choose. Once you have that, restricting PCs from doing the same ritual you could get from an NPC doesn't make sense, though I'd consider it a relatively unimportant issue.
I feel that saying that because an NPC can do it a PC can do it is not a valid argument. The campaign has strict rules on treasure distribution. Allowing a PC to use the EMI ritual is breaking those rules. As I stated before, it allows a group to purchase a magic item for someone which is clearly against the rules. (resource shifting/receiving treasure from other players) It also means a PC is permanently altering another PCs gear (also against the rules). The TE ritual is less problematic, although it does technically fall under the alteration rule.
The biggest problem comes with the EMI ritual. Other rituals are less problematic. If they were to allow PCs to do the EMI ritual for each other, I could see a rule being implemented saying that the material costs for the ritual must be borne fully by the PC the magic item is being created for and cannot be split between party members.
The easiest way is to just say that the EMI ritual cannot be used for another PC. Which, the rules technically already disallow.
I really see it all as a non-issue. If rituals could only be performed by a PC with the Ritual Caster feat or a specific class, then yes, it would be a problem. But anyone can use ritual scrolls. So needing someone to cast it is a non-issue.
I don't know if this is really that big of an issue.
I think the greater concern is that no one gives cast off magic items to another character who ends up with a lot more items than they should given their level.
Keith
I feel that saying that because an NPC can do it a PC can do it is not a valid argument. The campaign has strict rules on treasure distribution. Allowing a PC to use the EMI ritual is breaking those rules.
Er, I think you're missing the point. My post was a paragraph-by-paragraph revision of that entire section of the CCG, to suggest possible changes. This entire thread is about suggestions for CCG 1.9, not interpretations of CCG 1.8.
(Not that I expect those in charge to make these changes or necessarily even ever see my post, but since a valid response to my complaints about the poor quality of the CCG would be "Hey, if you think it's that easy, you try writing up character guidelines!", so I thought I would.)
I'm not saying that a PC can currently use the EMI ritual. I'm saying that the campaign should have rules governing how NPCs can perform rituals, and as a very minor point, that letting PCs perform rituals that players could get from NPCs wouldn't cause any harm, but that you need to guard against resource-shifting.
If they were to allow PCs to do the EMI ritual for each other, I could see a rule being implemented saying that the material costs for the ritual must be borne fully by the PC the magic item is being created for and cannot be split between party members.
Right, that's actually the suggested rule you're responding to. I believe we're violently agreeing with each other here.
The campaign rules state they have to return it. That prohibits them from getting rid of it. (voluntarily)
I don't really see any difference between voluntarily drinking a potion and voluntarily selling a potion. If you want to say that both are not allowed, I think that's a viable argument, but I can't really see the argument for treating them differently.
I think a PC (A) can lend another PC (B) a potion during the adventure. If PC (B) ends up drinking the potion, then PC (B) should pay PC (A) the gp, or effectively buy a replacement potion for PC (A). The only campaign rules issue would be if the potion was a higher level than what they could buy.
I think that follows the spirit of the rules, but the letter of the rules either (a) forbids entirely PC B from giving any money to PC A because that's resource-shifting, or (b) absolutely requires PC B to replace the potion he drank (perhaps by refusing to allow PC B to take a found magic item and take the 'potion + gold' option instead).
Since these are diametrically opposed interpretations, and I would find it difficult to say with any certainty the correct one (save that I don't see any support at all for "PC B can compensate PC A if he wants, but doesn't have to"), I think clarification is not unwarranted.
Right, that's actually the suggested rule you're responding to. I believe we're violently agreeing with each other here.
Maybe I missed somehting...
It may be better to say: Divine characters must choose a paton deity.
Clerification on deities in LFR shoudl be made. specifically whether or not: Dead gods can be listed as a patron deity, or if Divine PCs can opt to not choose a patron deity at all (for example, worship a whole pantheon).
It may be better to say: Divine characters must choose a paton deity.
From CCG1.8 page 7: "See the Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide or Player’s Guide for a list of deities available in the Realms."
It would be helpful if that line also included page citations, but I think it's pretty clear from that text that you can pick any deity listed in the FRCG or FRPG, and only those deities.
From CCG1.8 page 7: "See the Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide or Player’s Guide for a list of deities available in the Realms."
It would be helpful if that line also included page citations, but I think it's pretty clear from that text that you can pick any deity listed in the FRCG or FRPG, and only those deities.
Indeed, given that, in at least one thread on the LFR board, someone decided to be a rules lawyer and argued that, because Mystra was named in at least one place in the FRPG, and because that citation in the CCG doesn't give a particular page citation, that Mystra could be considered a legal LFR deity.
So a CCG clarification would be nice.
Neither do most people. That's why the majority of those threads end up with most people saying 'go for it' and everyone else saying 'go for it but you're screwed the first time you run into an picky DM'.
So a CCG clarification would be nice.
FWIW - I've heard it said that WotC is somewhat wary of listing page number references - if only because updates are known to make later printings have different pagination than earlier books.
That said, they could still reference, say "The Deities table(s) in this(/these) book(s)".
1. CCG- giving rules to the players and DMs on what character options are available for play as well as rules pertaining to Characters themselves.
2. Code of Conduct- this tells event orginizers what they should expect from players and DMs as well as sets the penalty guidline for DM and player repremands for violations to these codes.
3. RPGA DM guide- this tells a DM how he is to DM an Event and should be pointed at in the Code of Conduct as something he should follow and what will happen to him if he doesn't. this also tells him how to use the DME to help players and is the main source for rulings in the RPGA. this means taking the boiler plate rules out of the mods and putting it here where they can be updated as a whole and automatically updated in all mods by result.
4. Writers guidlines- this tells DMs hwo to write mods for the RPGA and what rules they need to follow in writing those mods.
In addition I would like to see a change in the way mods are writen to give DCs in the form of easy, moderate and hard. and to not list success and failure requirements just the complexity of the challenge. This is due to the changes in official documents by WoTC. Useing this and placing hte boiler plate rules in the RPGA DM guide will help keep mods up to ate and ensure that the core rules are more closly followed.
For the CCG1.9 I would like to see Articles marked as Playtest in DDI allowable in RPGA events unless otherwise noted as in the Hybrid class playtest. We are WoTCs main playing group why are we not helping playtest?
Red
4.
For the CCG1.9 I would like to see Articles marked as Playtest in DDI allowable in RPGA events unless otherwise noted as in the Hybrid class playtest. We are WoTCs main playing group why are we not helping playtest?
Because the last thing most publicly run games want are a bunch of half-baked playtest characters with rules no one quite understands and massive typos and omissions showing up at events.
I am currently collecting the data form this thread (and a few other posts left and right) in a compilation document for easy reference.
This will be turned into the globals admins at Wednesday, may 20.
If you have anything you want to have added, please post before that date. While I am sure globals will continue to check this thread after that date, that will be the most certain way that the feedback will end up on Chris's desk.
Gomez
Heya,
I am currently collecting the data form this thread (and a few other posts left and right) in a compilation document for easy reference.
This will be turned into the globals admins at Wednesday, may 20.
If you have anything you want to have added, please post before that date. While I am sure globals will continue to check this thread after that date, that will be the most certain way that the feedback will end up on Chris's desk.
Gomez
Thanks Gomez!
Because this thread had been so popular, I'll almost certainly start another similar thread after the next CCG is out - just so we can keep consolidating our feedback to campaign administration and WotC Staff alike.
However, as Gomez says - if you want to get your thoughts in on THIS revision, best to do it sooner rather than later.
This may have been mentioned, but perhaps more specific language on verification of quest completion for mods like QUES 1-1?
Not sure what you mean here... do you mean the rules that say who qualifies for the quest adventure?
Not sure what you mean here... do you mean the rules that say who qualifies for the quest adventure?
There is no real way to check that a character played the correct modules with the quest card in the stack at the time. Maybe it doesn't matter, but the "scout's honor" system seems weak to me.
If someone needs to "cheat" like this - so be it.
If I only beat thanks to cheat codes, and you beat it through hard work and toil - does my cheating really make your accomplishment less? Or does it instead lessen my (already weak) claim?
If you sit at a table that has people who've cheated their way to the mod, and you earned it, just look back on your progress, and recall the fun and work you put into it - and be glad of your accomplishments.
Back to the Regional Backgorund chat, I hope Chris is reading this threa,d because a newbie just pointed out to me another place that he read that he could choose from only the 12 primary regions: the Welcome to Living Forgotten Realms introductory pages for new players. =\
I don't know if Chris is reading it directly, but gomeztoo is compiling a list of notes to give to the Globals, who will undoubtedly pass that note along to Chris.
So keep the feedback coming while we have time!
AS A REMINDER we have time until Wednesday the 20th - that's when gomez is due to turn in his report.
I'm contemplating locking this thread after I hear from the admins that the report has been submit - and will then open a new thread after we get the next CCG to start compiling feedback for the *next* version.
====
RPGA CHARACTER CREATION GUIDE v1.9
Collated Suggestions for Changes
General Request: Institute a public review period for each new CCG.
General Note: the Welcome to Living Forgotten Realms introductory pages are inaccurate. I.e. it implies that you can only select backgrounds from 12 regions. It is best to remove any CC rules from these pages. Also update the community pages with recent contact information.
In this document, original quotes form the CCG are in dark yellow. Suggestions for text are in teal.
Player Resources
FAQ: Add the FAQ to the list of official rules sources.
Clarify whether the Q&A section on the WOTC main page counts as an official rules source.
Clarify whether or not statements made by RPGA personnel (i.e. Chris Tulach) somewhere on the WOTC boards (or on their blog) count as an official rules source.
Clarify whether or not Customer Service counts as an official rules source, and if so, what happens when they contradict another rules source, or for that matter contradict themselves?
Clarify what to do when the DDI compendium or character builder conflicts with any other rules source.
Character Builder: Clarify that the Character Builder is not a rules source, and that players are expected to build their character using the rules in the resources listed.
Suggested to explain where to report discrepancies between the printed rules and the Character Builder.
Priority: Prioritize which of the "official rules sources" takes precedence in case of a contradiction. Apparent preference is to NOT put the rules Compendium first.
Retraining:
Add that you can't retrain your race, class, or ability scores (or state in general to follow core rules unless otherwise noted).
Preview Classes:
Clarify that the perviews/playtests need to be part of the compiled Dragon (currently ambiguous).
Suggested text :
These classes are not usable until they appear in a publication listed above. If permitted, keep in mind that some features and powers of the class may change when the final version of the class is published.
Request to add (regarding Preview classes, not Playtest classes):
If a class does not appear in the compiled version of Dragon Magazine, and it is to be part of a permitted publication, the class becomes valid one month prior to the date that publication is valid.
Rules Updates: Add a link to this section pointing to the errata page at the WotC site.
RPGA Rewards Cards
Clarify whether a player can use multiple copies of the same card (e.g. two "daring exploit" cards).
Clarify if a player is required to tell the DM that he uses reward cards before the session starts.
APPENDIX: ONE SHOT CONVENTION SPECIALS
What are One-Shot Convention Specials?
- Update list of available adventures
APPENDIX: LIVING FORGOTTEN REALMS
What You’ll Need
The Forgotten Realms Players'Guide:
The text states :
The only material in the book not allowed for the campaign is the spellscarred rules and some of the character backgrounds.
This is no longer the case. Rephrase, such as:
The only material in the book not allowed for the campaign is the spellscarred rules.
Special Character Creation Rules
Select a character background:
Clarify if PCs may choose to not take a background (such as if they are from a region that doesn't offer any).
I.e. add:
You may choose a region that does not offer a background benefit (such as Dambrath or Turmish), but do not gain other benefits for doing so.
OR:
You may not choose a region that does not offer a background benefit (such as Dambrath or Turmish.)
There still seems to be some confusion with people on whether the PHB2 backgrounds are allowed.
Select a deity for your character, if applicable:
This is unclear. Clarify who needs to pick deities, and which deities. Clarify in explicit words in the CCG that dead gods cannot be chosen as a patron deity.
I.e.:
Select a deity for your character, if applicable: Characters with a divine class or multiclass must select a patron deity. Characters of other classes may select a patron deity.
The diety has to be a living deity from the 'Pantheons of the World' deity list in the Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide or the Dieties of teh wodl chapter in the Forgotten Realms Player’s Guide.
If you’ve chosen a deity from the Player’s Handbook, convert your character's choice to the appropriate campaign-specific deity using the equivalency chart listed below.
You may need to alter your character’s alignment slightly to align more properly with the Realms deity. If you have a Channel Divinity feat from the Player’s Handbook, it is a
valid character option for the Realms-equivalent deity. The Forgotten Realms Player’s Guide has Channel Divinity feats for all the Realms deities listed on the chart.
Specify what to do with a "deity-specific" item (such as those in the AV) if that deity doesn't exist in the FR, but has an equivalent deity with another name.
An alternative is to list, at the end of the CCG, the deity’s (and their alignment and spheres) a PC can choose.
Special Access Rules
Clarify rules on purchasing rituals from NPC spellcasters.
The Adventure Log
Clarify that you may make alternate adventure logs, and the rules for it (what they should contain).
Consider replacing the adventure log in the appendix with one that is more printer friendly, and that can hold more adventures (compact sheet available form the LFR yahoo group holds up to 20).
The Advancement Tracker
Clarify that you may make alternate tracker sheets, and the rules for it (what they should contain).
Consider replacing the advancement tarcker in the appendix with one that is more printer friendly.
Treasure and Rewards
Rewording: There were a few suggestions on the list for rewording. Most requested rules changes or clarifications included therein are listed below. The reworded text can be found at:
http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=18518506&postcount=59
Level when selecting items: Clarify that the PC’s new level (after gaining xp) is determined before bundles are chosen.
Receiving Treasure:
You can't receive treasure from another player character. You can pay for expenses as a group (like ritual costs, bribing for information, paying for passage, etc.), but you can't receive gold, magic items, rituals, or any other treasure from another character.
The wording implies that anyone can pay during the adventure for any ritual costs, even for another PCs item to benefit from Enchant Item or Transfer Enchantment. Reworded this to indicate that the PC must pay the ritual costs to permanently alter his own possessions. I.e.:
You can't receive treasure from another player character. You can pay for expenses as a group (like ritual costs, bribing for information, paying for passage, etc.), but you can't eceive gold, magic items, rituals, or any other treasure from another character.
You can lend another character an item for use for the adventure, but it must return to the owner at the end of play. In addition, you cannot permanently alter another player's magic item (or other equipment) in any fashion.
The last sentence can be read as not allowing you to assist another character in permanently altering his own items, such as by lending him a scroll of Transfer Enchantment (though he pays the full materials cost), or by casting a ritual for him at his expense, even though he can hire an NPC to do the same thing for him. This does not seem to me to be what is intended. Clarify whether an ally can cast a ritual at the owner's request and expense to allow the character to permanently alter his own magic item, if it is with a ritiual that the character could purchase or hire an NPC to cast. I.e.:
You can lend another character an item for use for the adventure, but it must return to the owner at the end of play. In addition, you cannot permanently alter another player's magic item (or other equipment) in any fashion, though can cast rituals (including Enchant Item or Transfer Enchantment), for a PC if that PC can provide the ritual scroll and pays for the ritual’s cost.
NPC Spellcasting: Clarify that a DM can provide NPCs to cast rituals (such as Enchant Item) on the PCs’ behalf. Also add how much these castings cost.
Consumables: Specify whether you can use a potion or other consumable that was bought by another player. If he lends it to you, you must return it - but if you use it, you can't return it. Are you required to buy him a new potion? What if you can't, because it's out of your level range?
Upgrading magic items: Reword the statement on Upgrading magic items on page 9. The part where it says:
If you want to make any other change to a magic item, you must use the Transfer Enchantment ritual found in the Adventurer’s Vault and pay the appropriate costs for use. You can transfer any magic item quality to another legal item, as long as you have access to the quality (see the Transfer Enchantment ritual for more details).
The Enchant Item ritual can be used to convert a Sword +1 into a Flaming Sword +1. This text mistakenly lists Transfer Enchantment for that. Suggestion:
If you want to make any other change to a magic item, you must use the Transfer Enchantment ritual found in the Adventurer’s Vault and pay the appropriate costs for use. You can transfer any magic item quality to another legal item, or add a quality to a magic item that does not have one, as long as you have access to the quality (see the Transfer Enchantment and Enchant Magic Item rituals for more details).
Describe rules for upgrading items in a manner other than adding a plus to them. Include concrete examples so we can know what isn't allowed, and trace the costs of what is allowed.
Mounts: What happens to a mount when it dies? Are they replaced between mods? Do they work like familiars or beast companions? Can they be raised? Is there a RPGA rule for this?
Also clarify whether mounts die at 0 hp (as monsters do) or at negative bloodied (as player characters do).
(Note: comments with the rust monster indicate that loosing equipment should be temporary, so a RPGA house rule for recovering mounts seems well advised by the Core rules).
Organizing and DMing for Living Forgotten Realms
DME: Add Information regarding DME.
Clarify whether DMs can make up or change rules, or whether they are bound by core rules.
Clarify that a DM may not ban a feat, item, or other core rule item from his sessions.
Clarify that in any case where the rules are unclear or subject to multiple interpretations, the DM has final say as to which interpretation goes.
Adventuring Companies
Request to reconsider the limit on Adventuring Companies of one PC per AC. Argument : It seems counterproductive to players that play regularly having fun together. It isn't hard for one player to level up enough or fall behind enough that a backup PC becomes part of the team... but then the AC falls apart because you can't keep all players using the same PCs.
It would be great if there were an official place to list ACs, their requirements, and perhaps their roster. This may not be a CCG item, though if such a place is created the link need be provided in the CCG.
Adventure Log
Suggested to replace with a printer friendly version, preferably one that holds more adventures.
Advancement Tracker
Suggested to replace with a printer friendly version
FAQ, Errata and Specific Rules:
SPEC1-1/Vetran's Armor: Include official errata to SPEC1-1's rewards bundles, and the official "replacement" policy toward Veteran's Armor.
Also, clarify what happens with those that purchased Veteran's Armor with gold before Spec 1-1 became available. Are they stuck with the item, can they sell it back for full value, or can they use the 520 gp towards the purchase of another item?
Favor of Clan Melairkyn: Add the Favor of Clan Melairkyn.
PH/PH2 access: Clarify whether PH2 is a valid source for the generic magic item choice from the PH, as issued in some adventures.
Quest adventures: Explain who qualifies for playing QUES1-1 (i.e. if everyone has to have finished the task).
In this document, original quotes form the CCG are in dark yellow. Suggestions for text are in teal.
(Obviously, this didn't translate when I posted - but you should probably be able to guess what is a quote and what is a suggestion)
A view of the document can be found here:
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dhnzjt5p_2gmg9dvtm
Gomez
"Players must bring with them a copy of any character option rules that they plan to use in the adventure."
Seriously, that rule used to be in all the previous editions of CCGs for other living games for a REASON.
-karma
A little late, but:
"Players must bring with them a copy of any character option rules that they plan to use in the adventure."
Seriously, that rule used to be in all the previous editions of CCGs for other living games for a REASON.
-karma
Late, but thanks to the Holiday you got in before the lock. ;)
Which is happening now-ish.