LEB Discussion Thread '09

renau1g · Jun 22, 2009

stonegod said:
I think we want to provide a method for ensuring things are w/in reason. Maybe a 100/150gp mundane allowance. That way we won't have infinite arcane reagents.

IIRC the DMG says assume the PC's have whatever non-magic items they need. That said, I wouldn't allow infinite regs, probably cap at like 1 of each and then they buy the rest.

Oni · Jun 22, 2009

Walking Dad said:
(Underlining by me)

And the problem is...?

The DMG encourages DM's to ask player's for a 'wishlist'. No magic gear would underbalance the PCs for their level.

A wishlist is just that, not a guarantee. When a character has come up from first level organically rather than just being created on the spot, they won't always have exactly what they want. And I know it's underbalanced, that was intentional for the reasons that I explained.

covaithe · Jun 23, 2009

I always thought that reagents didn't count as mundane items that you got for free, you had to pay for them even at higher levels. I don't know that I have any real basis for that (other than "no infinite reagents").

Walking Dad · Jun 23, 2009

Oni said:
A wishlist is just that, not a guarantee. When a character has come up from first level organically rather than just being created on the spot, they won't always have exactly what they want. And I know it's underbalanced, that was intentional for the reasons that I explained.

Weaker chosen items sounds the better way to go then. And it's only as long organic a long as the PCs learn the crafting and de-crafting rituals.

stonegod said:
I think we want to provide a method for ensuring things are w/in reason. Maybe a 100/150gp mundane allowance. That way we won't have infinite arcane reagents.

Infinite arcane reagents sounds crazy. Doesn't one already get gold = cos of level-1 magic item? Is the 100g extra?

EvolutionKB · Jun 23, 2009

I just always assumed that mundane was exactly that: an adventurer's kit, a crossbow, a dagger...etc, the stuff not covered by the magic item of n+1, n, and n-1, and the gold of n-1. I think arcane reagents, rare herbs, and special blessed incense don't count.

renau1g · Jun 23, 2009

I guess it's technical non-magical, but it's not mundane, maybe we can just say, any ritual components need to be purchased?

stonegod · Jun 23, 2009

The DMG only states "anything in the adventuring equipment tables" which includes reagents on that table. By the same argument, one could get infinite everburning torches.

I think thing anything sellable at more than 20% (reasonable things like reagents and everburning torches) probably shouldn't be included in the "reasonable". Likely, put a "judges have the right to reject unreasonable mundane item selection" in the character charter and be done with it.

Another order of business: Modifying/nerfing anything in the sources we are about to import (from my post above, anything in a hardcover book that isn't setting specific). We could just do anything L4W did, but perhaps things seen as broken then are not so much any more. Or we could look at them again. Thoughts?

Oni · Jun 24, 2009

stonegod said:
The DMG only states "anything in the adventuring equipment tables" which includes reagents on that table. By the same argument, one could get infinite everburning torches.

I think thing anything sellable at more than 20% (reasonable things like reagents and everburning torches) probably shouldn't be included in the "reasonable". Likely, put a "judges have the right to reject unreasonable mundane item selection" in the character charter and be done with it.

Another order of business: Modifying/nerfing anything in the sources we are about to import (from my post above, anything in a hardcover book that isn't setting specific). We could just do anything L4W did, but perhaps things seen as broken then are not so much any more. Or we could look at them again. Thoughts?

I was really hoping my goblin chef could have infinite oregano.

Anyway, regarding modifying/nerfing thigns. The less changes that have to be noted the easier on everyone. I would suggest a different approach for LEB. If it's bad enough that the judges feel the need to alter, just ban it instead it's easier that way.

1. Easier to digest and remember.
2. Simplifies the decision making process when it comes to okaying new rules. Instead of getting fiddly mucking about with a lot of different changes it either gets voted up or down. It's either broken or its not broken and leave it at that.

stonegod · Jun 24, 2009

Oni said:
Anyway, regarding modifying/nerfing thigns. The less changes that have to be noted the easier on everyone. I would suggest a different approach for LEB. If it's bad enough that the judges feel the need to alter, just ban it instead it's easier that way.

While it is easier, it is sometimes easy to make a few changes to have something workable. This was done a lot in 3.5 (we tweaked a few things that seemed too powerful). I agree that a ban should be done if there is not easy alternative, but I think that's going to be a case-by-case call the judges make. I think codifying full accept or full reject may be a bit too limiting.

That being said, I can't think of anything that'd I'd want to tweak other than ban outright. And my personal list of things to ban is less than what L4W does now (I have a battlerager PC in the game I run at home, for example); but we need to keep in mind what is best for the community.

Oni · Jun 24, 2009

I've been thinking about this a lot since the nerfing thread in L4W. Really you're right a strict yes/no policy without recourse for alteration probably isn't a good idea. I just kind of want to push the consideration process away from tweaking to fine tune balance because it kind of clouds the ultimate issue, which is if something is game breaking or not.

Try this on for size. In the review process, if some section of the rules comes under question as to its balance, after suitable debate the judges will either vote to allow it into LEB as written or ban it from play.

Only once a rule has a rule been banned from play may it be submitted for alteration, and subsequent vote to be allowed in play or not.

This approach forces to the judges to ask if any given rules actually disrupts play or not, rather than if it is perfectly balanced against the other rules. It also allows for alterations to be made in the event something is worth saving.

IMHO if a rule passes the first test, it's not worth being nitpicky and changing it.