AL VS LFR of 4th and why I'm so disappointed

[Steve_MND]

Since AL has stated several times you are not taking the time to evaluate the content separately and relying on your blanket rule to keep things in line, you might as well leave it to Wizards. As long as they hold to their promise to balance content against the Player's Handbook, all should be good.

Which is why they are not relying on Wizards, because we know Wizards will end up going back on that the first time they feel they can make more money off of not bothering to stick with that, whether it be an intentional decision, or unintentionally just by not playtesting/editing as throughly as they had been. D&D has had literally decades of that same cycle, and I see no reason to think it'll just magically stop now. I agree it's annoying you can't have the oft-referenced genasi green-flame-blader in the campaign, but on the other hand, if you see a particular character idea as literally only viable with a single, solitary trick, you have bigger design questions to ask yourself when creating your character.

I don't think that it can get much more broken than a character with archery fighting style with the Sharpshooter feat on a Fighter/Vengeance Paladin/rogue wearing boots of flying.

Well, I'll agree with you on the Boots of Flying bit. AL has let two or three really, really broken items into the campaign, and the Boots are definitely one of them. Which also shows perfectly why a myRealms sort of blanket access to a range -- even a restricted one -- is not a good idea. But otherwise, I'm not seeing anything especially broken about your fighter-paladin-roque build. It's very costly to multiclass into to that with the point buy in place, meaning while you can do it, you're definitely stripping your potential in other spots.

I think the vast majority of players will say this rule was over the top while the Admins will pat themselves on the back for a job well done. I'm sorry, but I just don't think you are listening. I think you guys are too busy telling us we don't understand and how you know better.

Well, in a very real sense, the Admins/WotC DO know better (remember that an awful lot -- much more than I had originally anticipated -- of how AL has been run on decrees from WotC). That's because they have access to more information and material than we do. They have records and survey results and firsthand-experience on how other large-scale campaigns worked or didn't work (from the admin side of things, not the player side of things, which is important because those two tend to be terribly different). Not to say they can't make mistakes -- they are only human, after all. You can't please everyone, and to even try is sheer folly. Best you can do is ply a middle ground that works best for as many people as possible, knowing that you're going to lose some outliers on both ends of the spectrum.

And I'm okay with that. I personally don't like about half the decisions made by the AL campaign, and I think other approaches would have done better. But I also understand that those changes would also, coincidently, make it much more along the lines of what I personally would like to see in an OP campaign, which automatically makes it suspect that I'm not looking at it completely objectively.

Any OP-style campaign is about two things -- first, pleasing the corporate masters, because without them, there's no campaign to offer to the players in the first place. But after that, it's about the player base, because without them, there's no point to the campaign either.

But the player base isn't about you. And it isn't about me. It's not about Pauper, it's not about Kalani, and it's not about any of us individually. Rather, it's about the player base as a whole. Individually, we'll all have issues we don't agree with. But the goal is get something that works collectively, even with the individual disagreements factored in. Not an easy task even in the best of situations.

 

[ArlenFrostlockes]

I appreciate the support ArlenFrostlockes. Lets keep it friendly.

There was nothing unfriendly about this. It was an observation from the replies being provided by many of the opposite viewpoint. There is a large part of the playerbase not being represented. When a lot of questions are being asked by players to their DM's and the answers we get back are "balance issues" or because "that is what the AL leaders ruled" it gets frustrating. Personally, the EE races do not intrigue me that much, but Know many who are disappointed at this ruling.

 

[ArlenFrostlockes]

And honestly, when a prominent personality in this community tells another community member to basically "don't like the rules go play home games" then announcing "welcome to ignore list" does not do much to support the belief that this is a friendly, let alone inclusive, community.

 

[skerritthegreen]

That may be the case Kalani - But having come back to Playing D&D at the start of 5th edition from a time D&D still utilized "To Hit Armor Class 0" some of these rulings did not make sense. Are there aspects of AL I do not agree with, sure, but for the most part I am enjoying the organised play style and the fact that I can take me characters anywhere AL is being played. That is important to me as I tend to move frequently. I appreciate the feedback and you actually taking the time to show me the why and what AL leadership is doing.

For everyone's info, not just ArlenFrostlockes, the future proofing idea was not the Admins, it was WOTC's. They said "We expect that each expansion is balanced only with the core rules, not other expansions because a DM can just say no if a combo is broken. Since AL might not have that option, we want AL to use the story origin mechanic." So you while some players might say there are no current broken combos, we shouldn't use this, WOTC has told us that its a likely possibility show we should do this to future proof.

 

[ArlenFrostlockes]

Any OP-style campaign is about two things -- first, pleasing the corporate masters, because without them, there's no campaign to offer to the players in the first place. But after that, it's about the player base, because without them, there's no point to the campaign either.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...-why-I-m-so-disappointed/page10#ixzz3z1qnPvA2 Steve - I believe the importance of this should be the other way around. The consumer - in this case the playerbase - is what is important as without them there would be no corporate masters. The corporate masters may be in this for financial reasons, but the money comes from us, the playerbase. If enough players decide that this is too restrictive and decides to just homebrew or worse yet, decides to not play at all, the corporate masters will just pull the plug.

 

[kalani]

Taking off my official cap for a moment and speaking from a purely personal PoV
Am I happy with every rule or ruling in the AL campaign? Hardly. I do understand the need for such rulings however, and understand and support the rationale behind those decisions (even though I myself disagree with the end result).

There are other rules and rulings in AL which I don't think went far enough. The same holds true for everyone.... The campaign simply will not cater to any given player perfectly. As a player and as a DM who has participated in two previous OP campaigns (Living Greyhawk and Living Forgotten Realms), I know full well the pitfalls that those campaigns fell into.

LFR in particular hamstrung DMs and did not allow even the slightest flexibility when it came to making rulings at the table (AL is a breath of fresh air in comparison, as the admins stay out of making rulings on general rules issues), even if those rulings would improve game balance for the particular characters that session. Furthermore, whenever a broken combo came out, we had to wait for the errata to be released in order to correct it. During the meantime, we had to simply bite the bullet and allow the broken combo at our tables - and allow the broken characters to run roughshod over all other characters (often stealing the lime light in the process).

Worse yet, this errata was applied as a blanket rule to the entire game (not just the LFR program), and came with ever increasing frequency. This greatly annoyed home groups who wanted to play by the RAW, never ventured into the broken combo territory, yet saw the single feature of said combo(s) their character used be hit with the nerf bat with considerable frequency (just because it could be used in a broken combo if X + Y + Z were combined, the players who only used Y by itself were equally punished).

It also got very expensive with the printing costs, and the amount of loose-leaf pages that were tacked into our books became excessive. I personally found this frustrating, especially when the same features would be errata'd no less than 3 or 4 times over the course of the product line (this was especially true in respect to Skill Challenge DCs and +X items).

I enjoyed LFR, and I enjoyed 4E - but I was not fooled to believe it was a perfect system. The magic item system used in LFR specifically, was an appropriate fit for that program (given the fact that 4E had magic item expectations [esp. those relating to a steady flow of +X items] built into its system math). Allowing players to choose the +X item that was most needed for their character allowed players to remain on par with the game math while also allowing them to tailor their characters around the secondary features of their items.

5E is a much different beast.
Firstly, I was part of the D&D Next playtest from packet 1 and followed the development cycle closely from the very first announcement (much as I did with the 4E development cycle, and would have with the 3.X development cycle if I had access to such information). One of the key design features for 5E was to step back from the "christmas tree effect", and remove +X items from the core math (something that 1E and 2E players disliked about 3.X and loathed about 4E). Secondly, they wanted to bring back lapsed players from every edition of D&D, and to that end - needed to recapture the essence of earlier editions (inc. 1E, 2E, and 3E).

While 4E characters suffered if they did not get the +X items at the indicated levels, 5E characters can go their entire career without a single magic item - and the only difficulty will be against creatures immune to non-magical attacks, and dealing 1/2 damage against those with resistance. This issue itself is easily overcome, once you consider cantrips such as green flame blade, magic stone, and shillelagh and spells like magic weapon. The list of features which allow a character to temporarily transform non-magical weapons into magic weapons will only continue to grow as the 5E development continues (the mystic playtest for example includes yet another method that might make it into print - allowing the mystic to use their psychic focus to make one weapon a +1 weapon while focused).

In 5E a +1 weapon is just as valuable to a 20th level character as it is to a 1st level character.
This is the first edition where this particular statement is true (and something I love about 5E).

In 1E - 3.X: many creatures were immune to damage from weapons less than +X. As such, a +1 weapon would eventually become obsoleted once the party started facing creatures immune to weapons of +2 or lower.

In 4E: the game's math increased the AC, Saves, Save DC, and Attack Bonus of all monsters (across the board) at regular intervals. This meant that, over time - a +1 weapon at 1st level would eventually become the equivalent of a +0 weapon at 5th level, a -1 weapon at 10th level, and a -3 weapon at 20th level. This system required ever-increasing +'s in order to break even with the system math (let alone get ahead) and greatly annoyed DMs who prefer a low-moderate number of items in their campaign

You can't compare the 5E magic system used in AL with the 4E magic system used in LFR. They are like comparing apples and oranges, as they both had different elements behind the scenes. Cherry picking items was something that came in with LFR and the latter parts of 3.5 RPGA..... Back in the days of 1E, 2E, and the earlier days of 3.X - players got the magic items that the DM wanted them to have. The thought of cherry picking items never entered the equation, and discussion like that would often be met with derision and the player being labeled a munchkin.

Again, I won't pretend that I love every aspect of the Adventurers League ruleset. I do however, like it a lot better than its predecessors.

Personal Rant over. Replacing the official cap

 

[ArlenFrostlockes]

For everyone's info, not just ArlenFrostlockes, the future proofing idea was not the Admins, it was WOTC's. They said "We expect that each expansion is balanced only with the core rules, not other expansions because a DM can just say no if a combo is broken. Since AL might not have that option, we want AL to use the story origin mechanic." So you while some players might say there are no current broken combos, we shouldn't use this, WOTC has told us that its a likely possibility show we should do this to future proof.

While I understand the reasoning you have provided, I believe this is, to use an analogy, Do not cross the street because you may get hit by a car. sure, you will remain safe, but at the cost of expanding your horizons.

 

[ArlenFrostlockes]

Taking off my official cap for a moment and speaking from a purely personal PoV
Am I happy with every rule or ruling in the AL campaign? Hardly. I do understand the need for such rulings however, and understand and support the rationale behind those decisions (even though I myself disagree with the end result).

There are other rules and rulings in AL which I don't think went far enough. The same holds true for everyone.... The campaign simply will not cater to any given player perfectly. As a player and as a DM who has participated in two previous OP campaigns (Living Greyhawk and Living Forgotten Realms), I know full well the pitfalls that those campaigns fell into.

LFR in particular hamstrung DMs and did not allow even the slightest flexibility when it came to making rulings at the table (AL is a breath of fresh air in comparison, as the admins stay out of making rulings on general rules issues), even if those rulings would improve game balance for the particular characters that session. Furthermore, whenever a broken combo came out, we had to wait for the errata to be released in order to correct it. During the meantime, we had to simply bite the bullet and allow the broken combo at our tables - and allow the broken characters to run roughshod over all other characters (often stealing the lime light in the process).

Worse yet, this errata was applied as a blanket rule to the entire game (not just the LFR program), and came with ever increasing frequency. This greatly annoyed home groups who wanted to play by the RAW, never ventured into the broken combo territory, yet saw the single feature of said combo(s) their character used be hit with the nerf bat with considerable frequency (just because it could be used in a broken combo if X + Y + Z were combined, the players who only used Y by itself were equally punished).

It also got very expensive with the printing costs, and the amount of loose-leaf pages that were tacked into our books became excessive. I personally found this frustrating, especially when the same features would be errata'd no less than 3 or 4 times over the course of the product line (this was especially true in respect to Skill Challenge DCs and +X items).

I enjoyed LFR, and I enjoyed 4E - but I was not fooled to believe it was a perfect system. The magic item system used in LFR specifically, was an appropriate fit for that program (given the fact that 4E had magic item expectations [esp. those relating to a steady flow of +X items] built into its system math). Allowing players to choose the +X item that was most needed for their character allowed players to remain on par with the game math while also allowing them to tailor their characters around the secondary features of their items.

5E is a much different beast.
Firstly, I was part of the D&D Next playtest from packet 1 and followed the development cycle closely from the very first announcement (much as I did with the 4E development cycle, and would have with the 3.X development cycle if I had access to such information). One of the key design features for 5E was to step back from the "christmas tree effect", and remove +X items from the core math (something that 1E and 2E players disliked about 3.X and loathed about 4E). Secondly, they wanted to bring back lapsed players from every edition of D&D, and to that end - needed to recapture the essence of earlier editions (inc. 1E, 2E, and 3E).

While 4E characters suffered if they did not get the +X items at the indicated levels, 5E characters can go their entire career without a single magic item - and the only difficulty will be against creatures immune to non-magical attacks, and dealing 1/2 damage against those with resistance. This issue itself is easily overcome, once you consider cantrips such as green flame blade, magic stone, and shillelagh and spells like magic weapon. The list of features which allow a character to temporarily transform non-magical weapons into magic weapons will only continue to grow as the 5E development continues (the mystic playtest for example includes yet another method that might make it into print - allowing the mystic to use their psychic focus to make one weapon a +1 weapon while focused).

In 5E a +1 weapon is just as valuable to a 20th level character as it is to a 1st level character.
This is the first edition where this particular statement is true (and something I love about 5E). In 1E - 3.X, many creatures were immune to damage from weapons less than +X. As such, a +1 weapon would eventually become obsoleted once the party started facing creatures immune to weapons of +2 or lower. In 4E, the game's math increased the AC, Saves, and Attack Bonus of all monsters (across the board) at regular intervals. This meant that, over time - a +1 weapon at 1st level would eventually become the equivalent of a +0 weapon at 5th level, a -1 weapon at 10th level, and a -3 weapon at 20th level.

You can't compare the 5E magic system used in AL with the 4E magic system used in LFR. They are like comparing apples and oranges, as they both had different elements behind the scenes. Cherry picking items was something that came in with LFR and the latter parts of 3.5 RPGA..... Back in the days of 1E, 2E, and the earlier days of 3.X - players got the magic items that the DM wanted them to have. The thought of cherry picking items never entered the equation, and discussion like that would often be met with derision and the player being labeled a munchkin.

Again, I won't pretend that I love every aspect of the Adventurers League ruleset. I do however, like it a lot better than its predecessors.

Personal Rant over. Replacing the official cap

personal rant makes very good points. I absolutely agree with your assessment regarding magic weapons. The relevancy of a t-1 magic item does not diminish as you progress in tiers so far ( there is only one t-3 expedition so my viewpoint is limited by that)

5E is totally a different beast from the ground up compared with 4E. though again, I have only played a few sessions utilizing 4E, and the sessions were not organized play.

 

[kalani]

Ultimately, the best way to have your voice heard in the Adventurers League is to join our social media groups (FB, Twitter, Google+, etc), join the official AL playtest group and give feedback on upcoming adventures, communicate with your local coordinator (or regional coordinator if lacking an LC at this time), or step up and become a Local Coordinator for your region yourself.

Complaining however, doesn't create results. We do however, take all feedback on board (both positive and negative), and regularly discuss ideas, suggestions, and solutions to problems that are put forth by the community.

Season 4 in particular will see a major change to the DM rewards offered for running adventures..... This change has come about after listening to countless feedback on the DM rewards program, suggestions and discussions on the forums and social media platforms by the community, and no less than 2 separate think tanks to address this issue over the past year. I will state for the record that we honestly do listen, but that we can't simply wave a magic wand and change things suddenly.

In fact, as a rule - we only make changes to the AL ruleset at the start of each season (although we will make rulings as necessary throughout the season).

 

[skerritthegreen]

While I understand the reasoning you have provided, I believe this is, to use an analogy, Do not cross the street because you may get hit by a car. sure, you will remain safe, but at the cost of expanding your horizons.

I view it more like the car company saying we plan to eventually make an addon for completely silent cars and another for completely invisible cars. We know that could result in lots of accidents, but we don't intend for those addons to be used together but we'll sell both of them cause hey, a local municipality can say no to selling cars with one or the other, except for yours. Yours has to allow what we make cause we own you. So because of that, We (WOTC) recommend your town (AL) have a law that says you can't have silent invisible cars or everyone will die. We don't know when we are putting out this car addon, but we will eventually so its prolly better to warn people ahead of time.

The story origin limitations are not something the AL admins created (though I strongly agree with them, as a power gamer I will destroy every mod you put in front of me if you let me, its my nature), but rather a limitation WOTC put in place because they foresaw what they plan to do in the future and wanted to protect against it.