Inxanity
Explorer
It's finally come, the updated information for Faction ranks!
http://dndadventurersleague.org/a-guide-to-the-factions-of-faerun/
http://dndadventurersleague.org/a-guide-to-the-factions-of-faerun/
New Faction Rank Document!
- Thread starter Inxanity
- Start date
warfteiner
First Post
I'm SO happy we finally got this wrapped up and posted 
Enjoy!
Enjoy!I have mixed feelings about this update.
On the one hand, it's good to have the system finally fleshed out, answering questions like 'what does being a mentor entail' and covering all five tiers of faction rank.
On the other, I'd have been happier if the faction rank benefits were more 'soft' or RP benefits rather than mechanical advantages like gaining Advantage on rolls or being able to buy magic items. I'm sure mechanical advantages will prove more popular with those who enjoy min-maxing the system, but I'd hoped AL was serious about moving away from promoting min-maxing as a style of play; I suspect within a few months there will be advice about certain classes being 'obviously' intended for certain factions that's likely not intended (for instance, historically there are plenty of bards who are members of the Harpers, but mechanically, between the faction training and item procurement benefits, I could see new players being advised that the Zhents are the only 'logical' faction for a bard to join, and if you don't, you're gimping your character).
So I appreciate the work that went into the document, but I wish more of the benefits were more RP-focused, or more like the Faction Philanthropist benefit to make faction membership more compelling as an adventuring choice, not mechanical benefits that simply add another layer of crunch for new players to have to navigate.
--
Pauper
On the one hand, it's good to have the system finally fleshed out, answering questions like 'what does being a mentor entail' and covering all five tiers of faction rank.
On the other, I'd have been happier if the faction rank benefits were more 'soft' or RP benefits rather than mechanical advantages like gaining Advantage on rolls or being able to buy magic items. I'm sure mechanical advantages will prove more popular with those who enjoy min-maxing the system, but I'd hoped AL was serious about moving away from promoting min-maxing as a style of play; I suspect within a few months there will be advice about certain classes being 'obviously' intended for certain factions that's likely not intended (for instance, historically there are plenty of bards who are members of the Harpers, but mechanically, between the faction training and item procurement benefits, I could see new players being advised that the Zhents are the only 'logical' faction for a bard to join, and if you don't, you're gimping your character).
So I appreciate the work that went into the document, but I wish more of the benefits were more RP-focused, or more like the Faction Philanthropist benefit to make faction membership more compelling as an adventuring choice, not mechanical benefits that simply add another layer of crunch for new players to have to navigate.
--
Pauper
Steve_MND
First Post
Those arguments have already started over on the FB groups; people are whining about how certain Volo races can't get the 'good' stuff now, blah blah blah.
Having had a bit more time to go over the document, I have to say my least favorite part is the 'magic item store' -- it's weird, but between the '500 downtime days to catch up to level 17' and this, I find myself with less confidence that the WotC folks in charge of this really understand the design of their own game.
Here's part of what I mean: The design of 5e monsters, particularly in the lower CRs presumes certain things about the game. Monsters with resistance to non-magical weapon damage are expected to last a certain number of rounds (on average -- not every party will see that, I know) and thus deal a certain amount of damage to the party, consuming some of their resources. Some parties may be able to account for this by expending other resources (say, using a second-level spell slot to cast 'magic weapon'), but again, that's a choice being made by the party on how to spend the resources they need to spend to get through the encounter.
Now, there's no reason for any character who uses a weapon not to just pick one up as soon as they qualify -- which means that every 5th level character will have a magical weapon as soon as they finish their first special mission (unless some events like the D&D Open make it more common for special missions to be offered in Tier 1 adventures). Now, every adventure designed for Tier 2 characters has to take into account that magic weapons will be significantly more common than before, and that parties don't need to expend resources to be able to be more effective against those sorts of monsters. This will likely drive those monsters more heavily into Tier 1 modules, where they'll be even more irritating to players who've been complaining about them, because Tier 1 will be the only chance adventure designers get to use those monsters at their written effectiveness.
It's weird, because I just watched a video on exactly the advantages and disadvantages of this kind of design -- 'design by accretion' -- and the stated design philosophy of 5e doesn't match the style of development that this sort of design is good for. Design by accretion is good when you need to crank out lots of content on a shortened development schedule and are willing to prioritize existing players who have buy-in over acquiring new players who will become intimidated by the growing amount of accreted content in the game, yet every time I hear Mearls, Crawford, or Perkins talk about 5e design, they like to talk about the new player experience and designing for the 'long term'.
Maybe the designers are treating Adventurers League differently from the game as a whole? AL does have more of the traits that the 'design by accretion' strategy seems to favor, if you assume that AL has already picked up about all the new players it's going to have. It still seems weird, though, that the organized play campaign is designed and operated so much differently from the game as a whole.
--
Pauper
(Edit: Mis-typed 'accretion' as 'attrition' in the original post.)
Here's part of what I mean: The design of 5e monsters, particularly in the lower CRs presumes certain things about the game. Monsters with resistance to non-magical weapon damage are expected to last a certain number of rounds (on average -- not every party will see that, I know) and thus deal a certain amount of damage to the party, consuming some of their resources. Some parties may be able to account for this by expending other resources (say, using a second-level spell slot to cast 'magic weapon'), but again, that's a choice being made by the party on how to spend the resources they need to spend to get through the encounter.
Now, there's no reason for any character who uses a weapon not to just pick one up as soon as they qualify -- which means that every 5th level character will have a magical weapon as soon as they finish their first special mission (unless some events like the D&D Open make it more common for special missions to be offered in Tier 1 adventures). Now, every adventure designed for Tier 2 characters has to take into account that magic weapons will be significantly more common than before, and that parties don't need to expend resources to be able to be more effective against those sorts of monsters. This will likely drive those monsters more heavily into Tier 1 modules, where they'll be even more irritating to players who've been complaining about them, because Tier 1 will be the only chance adventure designers get to use those monsters at their written effectiveness.
It's weird, because I just watched a video on exactly the advantages and disadvantages of this kind of design -- 'design by accretion' -- and the stated design philosophy of 5e doesn't match the style of development that this sort of design is good for. Design by accretion is good when you need to crank out lots of content on a shortened development schedule and are willing to prioritize existing players who have buy-in over acquiring new players who will become intimidated by the growing amount of accreted content in the game, yet every time I hear Mearls, Crawford, or Perkins talk about 5e design, they like to talk about the new player experience and designing for the 'long term'.
Maybe the designers are treating Adventurers League differently from the game as a whole? AL does have more of the traits that the 'design by accretion' strategy seems to favor, if you assume that AL has already picked up about all the new players it's going to have. It still seems weird, though, that the organized play campaign is designed and operated so much differently from the game as a whole.
--
Pauper
(Edit: Mis-typed 'accretion' as 'attrition' in the original post.)
Last edited:
Steve_MND
First Post
Honestly, I think pretty much all OP has this sort of power creep to some degree, largely because the more vocal complainers about not having stuff tend to be those that tend to prioritize number-crunching over other aspects.
As a result, over time, more and more items are introduced, which makes scenarios easier to overcome for those that have them, which means that those people start complaining that the scenarios are too easy, which in turn cause the authors to create more dangerous scenarios, which, of course, come with bigger and better rewards, which in turn feeds back into the loop.
Which would be fine in and of itself, until you begin to add in the new players, or the rarely-get-to-play players, or the non-optimized characters, who routinely have a harder time of it and a less fun.
It's happened -- in varying degrees of rapidity and extent -- in virtually every OP campaign I've ever played in. I'm not surprised that it ended up happening in here either.
As a result, over time, more and more items are introduced, which makes scenarios easier to overcome for those that have them, which means that those people start complaining that the scenarios are too easy, which in turn cause the authors to create more dangerous scenarios, which, of course, come with bigger and better rewards, which in turn feeds back into the loop.
Which would be fine in and of itself, until you begin to add in the new players, or the rarely-get-to-play players, or the non-optimized characters, who routinely have a harder time of it and a less fun.
It's happened -- in varying degrees of rapidity and extent -- in virtually every OP campaign I've ever played in. I'm not surprised that it ended up happening in here either.
That's exactly the point -- the more you open up the game to min-maxing and other optimization games, the less attractive it becomes to new players who aren't already committed to that playstyle.
Given that recent changes to AL were given as a way for WotC to prioritize the AL experience, I have to wonder if these changes aren't going to end up working at cross-purposes to their stated intent with those changes.
On the other hand, if the first couple of seasons of AL modules are basically rendered obsolete by the new faction rules, then I guess there will be less of an outcry when they are eventually retired.
--
Pauper
FWIW, I'm told that the "500 downtime days" thing is going to be reduced in the next season's player's guide. It probably hasn't been that high of a priority, what with the lack of actual tier 4 play until very recently.
Steve_MND
First Post
What exactly is said 'stated intent' specifically that you are referring to?
From the 'RC and LC Roles' post on the D&D Adventurers League Organizer's Page:
From the 'Local and Regional Coordinators Are No More' thread on this site:
skerritthegreen said:
The 'stated intent' appears to be that WotC wants to improve the AL experience -- specifically in the case of the changes to the organization by making the people responsible for that experience more accountable, in the sense that they're actually on the WotC payroll.
While I can see why they'd want to do this, stuff like opening up the magic store goes against the very design of the game, much less the campaign, and doesn't necessarily make it a better experience for the people they really want to attract -- the folks who aren't regular D&D customers, and who have been 'scared off' things like Living Forgotten Realms and Pathfinder Society exactly because those are optimization playgrounds where you have to already know what you're doing to have a good time there.
Time will tell, of course, but it's not an encouraging first step.
--
Pauper
Similar Threads
AD6_gamerati_skyscraper
Recent & Upcoming Releases
-
April 16 2024 -
May 31 2024 -
June 3 2024 -
June 4 2024 -
June 18 2024 -
July 16 2024 -
September 17 2024 -
October 1 2024 -
November 12 2024 -
February 18 2025
