As we've done before, please post your concerns, questions, and suggested updates/fixes to the 1.9 CCG that you'd like to see included in the next version.
Further - please limit debate/discussion in this thread to a minimum. On request (or as needed) the VCL team can move discussion and debate into it's own thread.
Firstly, if I'm understanding the intent of the document, the core document contains rules for all RPGA play, and the appendices add to or modify those rules for specific game types. If that is true, then there is no mention of backgrounds in the core document. Are backgrounds legal for things like one-shots, any potential non-pregen WWGDs, et cetera?
Secondly, the D&D Championship: Shards of Galifar section in Appendix 1 specifically allows Dragonmark backgrounds, but what about backgrounds in other convention specials if there's no base rule in the core document?
Thirdly, both Page 7 and page 8 of the LFR Appendix reference backgrounds in different sections for no apparent reason. A player may se e only the reference on page 8 and never notice the full rules on page 7.
Fourthly, page 7 says "You must choose a
region within the FORGOTTEN REALMS for your character.
Most of the regions for your character are found in the
Backgrounds chapter of the Forgotten Realms Player’s
Guide; it’s the place where they hail from, might define
their personality or looks, and gives them a small game
benefit. You may choose additional backgrounds from
other legal sources (such as race, occupation, etc. from
Player’s Handbook 2), but you only gain a game benefit
from one background of your choice. Choosing a region
that offers regional adventures may provide you with
additional benefits as you play those adventures, or may
qualify you for additional game benefits (like regional feats
or paragon paths)."
Is the intent that you list one LFR "region" then choose to either gain it's (or any other background's) bonus? This seems complicated and unintuitive and definitely isn't clear on the first read through of that paragraph.
Finally, please, please add backgrounds to the list of things you can train when you level up. They are intended as you primary region and a 1st level fighter may be "born in Chessenta" then end up liking Cormyr adventures, playing in them constantly, and want to "live" in Cormyr, become a knight there, etc. but wouldn't be able to take associated feats and PPs because he's stuck with what the palyer decided before new content released containing the feats and PPs he's interested in and that fit his new background.
The rules for character backgrounds in RPGA play are as clear as an iron door.
It appears that wholesale re-writing of paragraphs is more difficult to get approved that just edits and modifications, so what we're left with is occasional awkward wording caused by orphaned sentences and concepts.
Here's how it should be phrased:
- Select a character region. Choose a region within the Forgotten Realms for your character. This is the place where your character hails from or considers their place of origin. Once you've chosen a region for your character, that choice remains for the rest of your character’s life. It’s as much a part of your character as its race. You may choose any region from the Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide, but be aware that choosing to come from one of the regions in which regional adventures are set may provide benefits when adventuring in those regions or qualify you for additional game benefits (such as region-specific feats or paragon paths). The regions in which regional adventures are set are: Aglarond, Akanûl, Baldur’s Gate, Cormyr, Dalelands, Dragon Coast, East Rift, Impiltur, Luruar, Moonshae Isles, Tymanther, and Waterdeep.
- Select a character background. You may choose a character background benefit from any player resource. You may gain a background benefit from your character region (if the region has a benefit listed in the Forgotten Realms Player's Guide) or one based on your race, occupation or other background (as listed in Player's Handbook 2 or other sources). However, you only gain the mechanical benefit of one background, not from both your region and another source.
Thirdly, both Page 7 and page 8 of the LFR Appendix reference backgrounds in different sections for no apparent reason. A player may see only the reference on page 8 and never notice the full rules on page 7.
Originally, you could only choose a character region from the list of sixteen regions, with the section on page 8 indicating that you could pick from another background if you got a Rewards card saying you could. That idea died and the page 8 reference is an orphaned remnant.
And I'd be surprised if the next CCG is v2.0 instead of v1.10. I'd love to see a real v2.0 where they start from scratch and rewrite the whole thing, but I doubt we'll get to see that.
And I'd be surprised if the next CCG is v2.0 instead of v1.10. I'd love to see a real v2.0 where they start from scratch and rewrite the whole thing, but I doubt we'll get to see that.
I certainly hope that a rewrite is the plan and the only reason 1.9 is so jumbled together.
The one question not really answered in CCG 1.9 is what to do if two rules sources contradict - in particular because CustServ is now considered an official rules source, and has the reputation (deserved or not) of contradicting other rules.
This is explained rather clearly, actually:
When there is contradiction or confusion on a ruling at a table, the DM is the final arbiter, although the most recent rules should be used when possible.
The table DM is the final arbiter of how to make a ruling.
In the case of a conflict the DM should consider the sources, the relevant argument at the table at the moment, and the "just have fun/don't be a jerk" rules.
From there they make a ruling and play continues. In light of conflicting information, the table DM (or if you must appeal - the Senior DM) will determine which source/ruling/interpretation(s) to consider/discard.
The table DM is the final arbiter of how to make a ruling.
Yes, but.
On the one hand this is good; the DM's word is final and people should stop arguing and continue playing.
On the other hand, it is quite plausible that people build a character based on rules subject to multiple interpretation. The result is that their character works on some tables, but not on others.
For an easy example, I could build a genasi wizard whose primary trick is Thunderwave + Lightning Pillar (both level-1 powers). Now according to the rulebooks this combo does work, and according to custserv it does not. I'm sure there are other examples. So this character may or may not be useful at any given table, depending on which rules source the DM prefers at the moment.
Perhaps this is not about RPGA but about D&D in general - players would like to have some way of clearing up discrepancies if and when two rules sources contradict. WOTC is still notoriously slow in updating their FAQs on such issues, and RPGA is just the biggest and most obvious place for the contradictions to become visible.
Perhaps this is not about RPGA but about D&D in general - players would like to have some way of clearing up discrepancies if and when two rules sources contradict. WOTC is still notoriously slow in updating their FAQs on such issues, and RPGA is just the biggest and most obvious place for the contradictions to become visible.
And this is the key problem. The only rules the RPGA makes/edits is RPGA rules.
That said, I'm getting the impression from those I have contact with that WotC is getting better at updates (be they rules updates, FAQ updates, or other).
This comes in the double-edged sword format of regularly scheduled updates (I've heard 3 times a year bandied about by several sources - but don't recall any official word on it, so take it with a grain of salt and the knowledge that "plans change").
On the upside this means that they can take the laundry-list of items submit to them via CustServ, the Errata forums, RPGA gripes, and more - and address them all in an organized, reasonable, item-by-item review, and they've set aside a specific time period to do so. Before it kinda felt like "Oh, Bob in R&D says he heard is broken - we should update that in a couple weeks".
On the DOWNSIDE - this means we have to wait a few months for each set of updates. Of course, when something is broken exploits happen pretty quickly, and waiting 3-4 months for an update can feel like a lifetime if someone is exploiting a perfectly valid rules option (or if, to borrow your example, you're effectively playing a different character from table to table).
The best we can do is to let WotC know where the rules are unclear/ambiguous - and where conflicting answers are coming from, and then let them update the rules.
In the meantime, I think the "DM as arbiter" combined with the "just have fun/don't be a jerk" guideline is the best option available.
For an easy example, I could build a genasi wizard whose primary trick is Thunderwave + Lightning Pillar (both level-1 powers). Now according to the rulebooks this combo does work, and according to custserv it does not. I'm sure there are other examples. So this character may or may not be useful at any given table, depending on which rules source the DM prefers at the moment.
The answer to using builds that are potentially problematic is DON'T. If you design a character to use a known problematic combo like that, then do so expecting - and being accepting of - table variance. If you designed it that way by accident, you should still be accepting of table variance as that is one of the number one things that will always happen as long as DMs are human and should perhaps also consider retraining into something else useful but less problematic if you don't like dealing with table variance that much.
Also, as a general 4e thing to keep in mind when building your living character: if it's broke, expect it to stop working at some point. As WolfStar eluded, they are getting better and better about "fixing" problematic rules via errata and usually fix them to be far less powerful. You don't want your living character to suddenly be completely useless or useless until you can retrain two or three times.
The table DM is the final arbiter of how to make a ruling.
Indeed. Which means that if a DM doesn't like a particular rule or combo, all he has to do is cherry-pick through the various sources to find the one he wants, and even if a player has a build that other sources say is completely fine, the DM can pull out one e-mail to invalidate it.
There are some pretty blatant differences of opinion between the various sources. To pick two that took about 30 seconds to track down:
- The FAQ says that a thrown magic weapon automatically returns after each attack in an area of effect attack. CustServ says that a thrown magic weapon only returns after a ranged attack, so if used in an area of effect attack (like a , you need one weapon per target (and magic item bonuses naturally only apply to the target they're used on) and the thrower then has to go pick up the weapon.
To a rogue using Blinding Barrage, it's a bit important to know which one is true.
- The FAQ says that a magic weapon used as an implement allows the user the benefit of whatever is listed under Enhancement, Critical and Property. CustServ says that you can use powers as well, explicitly having stated that you can use weapons that convert into energy types when using the weapon as an implement.
A sorcerer built around using a frost dagger to deal cold damage (the specific example that CustServ says is perfectly fine) would really like to know which interpretation he's going to be dealing with.
This is even without getting into the fact that there's no official archive of CustServ responses, so a DM looking at one has no way of verifying its authenticity.
Show
Q: In my last game, someone disagreed with my interpretation of a rule. Were they wrong?
A: Yes. In all situations, whatever interpretation of the rules you prefer is the correct one. If your DM disagrees with you, he's wrong.
Please let me know if you need anymore help!
We would appreciate your feedback on the service we are providing you. Please click here to fill out a short questionnaire.
To login to your account, or update your question please click here.
Paul
Online Response Crew
Wizards of the Coast
1-800-324-6496 (US and Canada)
425-204-8069 (From all other countries)
Monday-Friday 9am-6pm PST / 12pm-9pm EST
Saturday-Sunday 10am-4pm PST / 1pm-7pm EST
A: Yes. In all situations, whatever interpretation of the rules you prefer is the correct one. If your DM disagrees with you, he's wrong.
Please let me know if you need anymore help!
We would appreciate your feedback on the service we are providing you. Please click here to fill out a short questionnaire.
To login to your account, or update your question please click here.
Paul
Online Response Crew
Wizards of the Coast
1-800-324-6496 (US and Canada)
425-204-8069 (From all other countries)
Monday-Friday 9am-6pm PST / 12pm-9pm EST
Saturday-Sunday 10am-4pm PST / 1pm-7pm EST
I just don't see a huge problem.
I play a warlock that uses the Rod of Reaving and Corruption. While most experienced players and DMs no longer have a problem with it, I had to, as a player, deal with DMs that came up with wild house rules because they didn't like it. Now I can pull up the multiple CS rulings that defend this on my phone and show it to any DM. By the CCG, they really should use that. (They might not, but a DM might also force me to play upside down; there isn't much we can do about contrary DMs.)
Before this update, CS was something that DMs could use if they wanted to. This gave it little value and thus little reason for anyone to care if it was right. Let's face it, we turn to CS because something can be argued. We desire clarity, which we want to turn around and have at the table. Now, that clarity extends to the table more completely.
And, now there is a reason for WotC to continue to push for quality in CS. This mirrors comments by WotC that they take errata seriously. So, by making CS a rules source they are accepting greater ownership and responsibility for the errata process, which is good. In the long run we will likely see better improvements.
And, the vast majority of CS comments are sound (when the question is asked carefully). Having CS rulings be official is better for the game.
Sure, a player could try to take on incorrect CS ruling and use it as an excuse... but they could also have previously taken the lack of a ruling or the non-binding nature of CS to do the same. If anything, now there is an increased chance that someone at the table has seen a correct ruling (such as by subscribing to this thread) and will correct them. This should prevent such problems, not cause them!
And, while a DM could bring the version they want to the table, if they do so you are already dealing with a very poor quality DM. Best to accept this and pray for a quick 4 hours (and switch characters), because this is likely the least of your issues with such a DM!
And, now there is a reason for WotC to continue to push for quality in CS. This mirrors comments by WotC that they take errata seriously.
These two statements are very funny.
In addition, you
cannot permanently alter another player’s magic item (or
other equipment) in any fashion. You can, however, cast
rituals (including Enchant Item or Transfer Enchantment)
for a another player’s character if that character can
provide your character with the ritual scroll and pay for
the cost of the casting.
Disregarding the typo as minor (a another), there is a contradiction in this section.
Is the older part, in anyfashion, still binding, or should it be overwritten by the new part below, describing the use of EMI and TE for another player's PC?
Maybe say ", in any fashion EXCEPT the following: "
Also, as another debate going on brings up, can a PC have a higher level PC in his party make him an item of higher than his own level, as long as the lower level PC provides the EMI scroll and the component cost?
Note that this also raises the related question of Artificers with the feat that allows them to use EMI to create items of their level plus their Int mod, and whether that can also allow them to create items at those levels for other PCs, all other requirements being met...
These two statements are very funny.
I can see that, but it is a common thing to do as a company. You realize something could be better. Sometimes, trying to fix it in the background is not very productive. Excuses come up and motivation is lacking. So, you decide to make it a live tangible thing that customers expect from you in order to achieve success. You take on some risk, but the employees realize they are being held to a higher standard and more serious steps are taken to achieve the goal.
I suspect this is what is taking place, and it mirrors what some of us encouraged WotC to do. "If you are going to be serious about CS being quality, and about your monthly errata review meetings and increasing the links between CS and R&D, then you need to update the CCG to make it a rules source. Otherwise, it isn't a priority and we don't take it seriously."
I suspect this is what is taking place, and it mirrors what some of us encouraged WotC to do. "If you are going to be serious about CS being quality, and about your monthly errata review meetings and increasing the links between CS and R&D, then you need to update the CCG to make it a rules source. Otherwise, it isn't a priority and we don't take it seriously."
I'll start believing that as soon as we get errata that clears up the inconsistencies created by custserv.
Get rid of the "Players may create items for other players" rule that was introduced in this version. Considerign that players can buy a scroll and do it themselves, then they should just do so. Also, it bypasses issues such as: the rules gray area where an artificer coudl possibly craft an item several levels higher than the PC he is making it for, or where the crafter can make the item at a reduced cost.
Both issues coudl be fixed by adding wordign sayign that the one requestign the crafting has to pay full price (and the crafter can't pocket the difference) and they can't craft an item the requester couldn't normally buy/craft themselves. However, again, they can just buy a scroll and do it themselves. So there really is no point to having another PC craft an item for you.
Unless this is intended. In which case, nevermind.
My wish for the next CCG:
Get rid of the "Players may create items for other players" rule that was introduced in this version.
Or at the very least reword it so that it says what they mean. I figure that what they actually mean is that you can get another PC to do Enchant Magic Item or Transfer Enchantment for you, providing you pay for it yourself. A straightforward enough concept - you save the cost of the ritual (175 gp) if you have a companion who already has the ritual in his book.
They appear like they are trying to be clever with the wording to close some loophole that I haven't thought of that would allow one PC to contribute gold toward another PC's gear, while providing an exception to the "you can't alter another PC's gear" rule, but in the process the actual rule ends up being less than clear, and less than useful.
Frankly, I'd scrap the entire section (the bits about not altering another PC's gear, lending consumables, and crafting) and start over, rather than try to add more text to clarify it further.
-At Origins this weekend, it was confirmed to me by Chris Tulach (and this is from Con Memory so may not be perfectly accurate) that rules items (powers and items in particular) that are not reprinted in the final book are not RPGA legal. I think this needs to be explicitly stated in the section addressing playtests if I am recalling correctly.
-In the event that the above is true, those of us that own Cannith Goggles and Reparation Apparatuses need to know what to do with our non-existant purchased items. Sell for full? Half? They just vanish? I suspect this may not be the last time we get to purchase playtest items, so a general rule is needed.
Let's make it clear that using playtest options is gambling a little bit.
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.
WRT playtest Dragon articles, I have a couple requests:
-At Origins this weekend, it was confirmed to me by Chris Tulach (and this is from Con Memory so may not be perfectly accurate) that rules items (powers and items in particular) that are not reprinted in the final book are not RPGA legal. I think this needs to be explicitly stated in the section addressing playtests if I am recalling correctly.
-In the event that the above is true, those of us that own Cannith Goggles and Reparation Apparatuses need to know what to do with our non-existant purchased items. Sell for full? Half? They just vanish? I suspect this may not be the last time we get to purchase playtest items, so a general rule is needed.
Yes! This is definitely a concern; clarity on the issue would be nice.
Keith
DALE1-5 contains an item that's not from a legal player source (the drow house insignia). Now it seems obvious that if I complete the adventure, I'm allowed to pick that item - but this does technically contradict the CCG.
What's less obvious is (1) supposing I played the adventure but didn't pick that item, can I then buy it later, and (2) supposing I obtained that item somehow, can I boost it from e.g. +3 to +4 by paying the difference, assuming I am of sufficient level?
If you play the mod and don't take the item, then you cannot buy it later. It doesn't blanket open it up. You personally are still restricted to only being able to buy items off the Player Resource list of acceptable sources. You can increase it's enhancement bonus as usual.
It technically doesn't contradict anything in the CCG.
Yes. And that is why I suggest that it should be made explicit in 2.0. Whenever something "technically doesn't contradict", then people are going to be misunderstanding it.
Class Features: When you would normally make a retrain choice, you can instead choose to take a class feature retrain. When you retrain for a new class feature (and only for a class feature), you are able to retrain up to 2 powers and 2 feats with the class feature retrain. Each
character is only allowed one class feature retrain. If you choose to retrain in this manner, make a note of it on your
...your?
your documentation. Somewhere were it can be checked if a DM ever asks to see your character's history.
Is this even a requirement any more? The CCG now specifically allows for using the Character Builder Journal instead of a log sheet, and if there's even a way to print that off, it's sufficiently unobvious that I haven't noticed it.
As far as I can tell, the only requirement is to show up at the table with a character sheet. While you're required to track a lot of other information, it does not appear that you're actually required to show any of it to a DM.
(No, by no means am I saying that this is a good thing.)
The CCG now specifically allows for using the Character Builder Journal instead of a log sheet, and if there's even a way to print that off, it's sufficiently unobvious that I haven't noticed it.
[off topic]
Under the Options tab of the character sheet viewer (the tab where you can choose to include power cards for basic attacks and normal items) is an entry (second from the bottom) called Show Journal Pages.
[/off topic]
...your?
your documentation. Somewhere were it can be checked if a DM ever asks to see your character's history.
Ideally your Adventure Log (which, if you keep your info stored in the Character Builder is quite ideal, IMHO).
There are some things that are really campaign-specific and should remain in their home campaigns. Kalashtar and Dragonmarks (and in many ways, Warforged) for Eberron make them Eberron. The Dragon Kings of Dark Sun, preservers, and defilers make it for that campaign settings. Spellscars, drow as major players (instead of savage jungle dwellers), the intimate involvement of the gods with the world, those do it for LFR.
Coming up with some justification is really screwed up. Sure, if you're going to do it you could do the bit about Abeir and Torilian spirits mixing...but I don't really think that works. There's really no precedent for it in the Realms, and the knowledge we have of Abeir in all existing sources does not point to any sort of juxtaposition of spirits in the past or even currently. The Quori and the Dreaming Dark are essential elements of this character race as well.
Melding Eladrin into the world was easy (various types of elves; moon/sun etc); same with Warforged (they had an article about it, but even before then gnomes in warforged battlemechs, old Gondian creations, and the stuff in Grand History of the Realms that speaks of constructs similar to these existed).
Kalashtar? I think not.
At the very least, write an article that tells us where they fit in. I like this option least, but there you go.
What is going to happen if this isn't done is that, with their stat bonuses, you are going to start seeing a great deal of Kalashtar clerics--I suspect they'll rapidly become one of the most used types of Leader characters--in the game. And having a race that does not fit in with the world guiding the worship of the people of Faerun is just ridiculous.
I would much prefer:
-An LFR document, complete unto itself and
-A general RPGA document for everything else, also complete unto itself
The difficulty with this is updating both documents when something changes, but that should be easy enough to manage.
The recent CB updates give rise to an interpretation that they could be.
List as player sources 'All content from dragon except the hybrid rules from issue 375'
Assuming the hybrid rules come out in PHB3, then assuming the PHB3 is listed as a legal source there will be no problem.
Could we have absolute clarification that hybrids are not legal?
The recent CB updates give rise to an interpretation that they could be.
List as player sources 'All content from dragon except the hybrid rules from issue 375'
Assuming the hybrid rules come out in PHB3, then assuming the PHB3 is listed as a legal source there will be no problem.
This isn't needed for a couple of reasons:
1) The CB access rules give access to "D&D Insider Character Builder debut content", not all PH3 content, so that doesn't include access to Hybrid rules since they were in Dragon and not a CB exclusive.
2) In 4e a specific rule beats a general rule. The CCG gives access to all Dragon content, which is a general rule, but the article itself says that Hybrid rules are not allowed in RPGA, which is a specific rule.
This does, however, point back to my issue of a need to note that "CB is not a rules source" and to "check that CB wordings are correct" as I keep seeing people picking anything they see on CB without checking the original source for full rules & running characters that are far better or far worse than they should be due to a CB error that doesn't exist in the original text or the Compendium.
1) The CB access rules give access to "D&D Insider Character Builder exclusive content", not all PH3 content, so that doesn't include access to Hybrid rules since they were in Dragon and not a CB exclusive.
While correct (in a way) you're still working off the uncorrected CCG. It was changed from CB exclusive content to Cb Debut content. A fine but necessary distinction.
"Exclusive content" was too broad. Debut Content was very specific since the content in question labeled as such.
Are there any other changes?
Could you clarify whether or not the "class feature retrain" can be used to retrain to the same build again (for the one time retraining of 2 feats and powers) or not?
Though the majority of the people speaking in favor of it seem....off, I was originally under the impression that we could and would like to know whether or not its legal.
I almost feel bad asking.... its another case of, if you give 1 player a cookie, you better (according to the other players....) give every player one. Unfortunately, you guys have a LOT of players. :-)
Some recent posts have mentioned confusion over whether the rule on picking an item that is 4 levels above your level or less applies to using the item in the module. If during the module you find an item above that, can you use it during the adventure?
Some recent posts have mentioned confusion over whether the rule on picking an item that is 4 levels above your level or less applies to using the item in the module. If during the module you find an item above that, can you use it during the adventure?
If an item's level is more than four levels above his charactor the PC can use the found item during that mod only . The PC may take the item at the end of the adventure just like any other bundle but the PC can't use it untill he is within four levels of that item. The item still takes up a found item slot which mean the charactor is going to have this item that he can't use. So a first level PC who plays up and gets a 7'th level item is going to have to wait untill the charactor hit's third that's a long time to wait before an item become useful.
If an item's level is more than four levels above his charactor the PC can use the found item during that mod only . The PC may take the item at the end of the adventure just like any other bundle but the PC can't use it untill he is within four levels of that item. The item still takes up a found item slot which mean the charactor is going to have this item that he can't use. So a first level PC who plays up and gets a 7'th level item is going to have to wait untill the charactor hit's third that's a long time to wait before an item become useful.
There an actual rules citation for this? The only time it has come up, I went with the above thinking, but I would love an actual "official" source for that decision.
As to a 1st level PC taking a 7th level item and having to wait, it isn't really that long...
If an item's level is more than four levels above his charactor the PC can use the found item during that mod only . The PC may take the item at the end of the adventure just like any other bundle but the PC can't use it untill he is within four levels of that item. The item still takes up a found item slot which mean the charactor is going to have this item that he can't use. So a first level PC who plays up and gets a 7'th level item is going to have to wait untill the charactor hit's third that's a long time to wait before an item become useful.
I agree with Kinevon. There is no actual rule. (I realize my post came across as a question. I meant it to be a request for a clarification). I've looked into the issue after it came up in a mod and it is pretty open to interpretation. There needs to be clarification in the next CCG.
A suggestion, and a comment.
Suggestion: Relax the adventuring company requirements, and allow the extra action point if there are three members of the same company at the table. I play (and I imagine many people play) with a large weekly group, and there are different people at the table every time I sit down. Getting four people from the same company at the same table is difficult, if not impossible. I think lowering the action point requirement would (1) make adventuring companies more useful, (2) prevent adventuring companies with 40-character rosters just to get 4 at the same table, and (3) prevent players from forming a company right before the mod starts just so they can get the extra action point.
Comment: To whoever said Kalashtar shouldn't be in the LFR - seriously? LFR is a world-wide campaign that's designed to get people together who wouldn't normally do so. It's meant to be FUN, and giving people more options is more fun. "Kalashtar don't fit into the canon" doesn't cut it for me when (1) no one I've played LFR with gives a crap about narrative fidelity, and (2) WotC has gone out of its way to fit all the races into all the settings. Start a home game if you want to tell your players what they can and can't play.
If the point of Adventuring Companies is to have a "home base" and comaraderie, I see no way to do that in LFR without allowing more than one PC per player to join an AdvCo. Unless each player only plays the exact same adventures and never misses sessions (if one person attends a game day or convention, everyone must attend!), they will find their AdvCo falling apart.
If the point is to have some means to dispense action points, then the current system is fine, and people will just get the benefit when they level and join new AdvCos. You could lower the number of members to increase the benefit's occurence, but that will do little for story since PCs will still level at different rates.
Another reason to change the rule about 1 PC per player is to increase the value of participating in ADCP adventures. You want that AdvCo to be famous and successful! That's both an IC and and OOC enjoyment, meaning you want to play those adventures often and be able to pick which PCs are part of the AdvCos you like. If you want all of your Dwarves to join the Sundered Hall, and all of your non-Dwarf Aglarond PCs to join Le Poison Fromage, that should be encouraged, not nerfed. ADCPs have some awesome possibilities. I can imagine, over time, some neet rewards such as the Lair items or other aspects. You could link to an idea like the DMG2 game day and have some really interesting adventures.
Instead, the vast majority of tables of ADCP1-1 are currently run for players that barely know what an AdvCo is, let alone care or RP it during that adventure. I've DMd groups where I was the only one that remembered the AdvCo's name...
A suggestion for a long overdue clarification:
Can crafters make wands not listed in the books? Rules are given in the Wand section of the PHB for doing so, however, the rules on crafting in LFR are vague on the subject. Does it count as a DM adjudication issue? Is it counted as restricted? Is it considered making your own magic item and therefore not allowed? Is allowed since we have rules for doing so? etc.
almost forgto this one:
Official word on the disposition of playtest/preview items that then do not show up in a printed product would be appreciate. (a la cannith goggles fromt he artificer playtest and dual arrows fromt he AV2 preview)
Regarding backgrounds, some consideration for 'swapping' background benefits.
Something similar to the once per career class trait swap would be useful - as new backgrouns are released, it would be nice to have the option tochange your character to one that is more fitting from either a story or mechanical standpoint.
It would be nice if you could retrain background benifits.
Allow Paragon Paths that require a dragonmark. Just let us ignore the dragonmark prerequisite.
Also, allow Eberron mounts.
The CCG should clarify, as Tulach did today, that you cannot print copies of cards not in a pdf, such as those earned at a convention but not yet collected in the pdf. The remaining question is whether a player can share cards (either actual cards or copies).
My final request is that a rule be added to retrain a non-hybrid LFr character to a hybrid LFR character, even if it's just short mention that it counts as your one-time class feature retrain.
Thanks!
I thought of another one. If the name RPGA is being dropped, let's make that an official statement and make it clear what the new name is. This should be in the CCG, web site, forums, etc. I hate to see the name go, but it is what it is!
Yes! My players and especially newbies are more confused now than when it was jusrt RPGA with a DCI card.
I've received word that we can expect a new "LFR Rules Update" (aka the CCG 2.0) early next week.
The update won't be effective untill February 1st, however, so DDXP attendees don't have to worry about last-minute changes.
Thanks!
Watch my twitter feed (shameless plug for @wolfstar76) for the first news when it hits - though I'll be sure to post it here in RPGA General (or make one of my minions do it) shortly thereafter.