Do you *really* not see the huge difference in what you keep claiming, and what the article actually says...??
The term "Type" has an important and distinct meaning in DnD.... and you seem to be completely ignoring it.
Lost Mines AL
Do you *really* not see the huge difference in what you keep claiming, and what the article actually says...??
The term "Type" has an important and distinct meaning in DnD.... and you seem to be completely ignoring it.
kalani
First Post
You are reading more into the article than what was actually intended. Yes, Type is a defined term in 5E, although Arthur himself used the word in a common way, as in synonymous, identical, etc. I haven't spoken with Arthur for quite a while since he stepped down as RC, but I did discuss his article at length with him and that is what he meant at the time.
KahlessNestor
Adventurer
The discussion about "type" also includes mention of "different abilities" (can't quote easily from phone). That seems to imply type=same rather than type=category, because two different undead are going to have different abilities, which makes them disallowed.
CapnZapp
Legend
Coredump, you seem to assume you're talking to just a fellow forumist.
You should consider the possibility that you're talking to the AL itself. The replies you're getting if that's the case aren't opinions to be dismissed or argued against, they're directions to be followed if you want to play in the AL.
You should consider the possibility that you're talking to the AL itself. The replies you're getting if that's the case aren't opinions to be dismissed or argued against, they're directions to be followed if you want to play in the AL.
kalani
First Post
I should add that I make every possible attempt to give accurate information on this forum, and not give misleading advice. If it was a case of my opinion, I would state it as such. If it is a ruling that has multiple interpretations, I would state "expect table variation" and "this is subject to DM interpretation".
I make every effort possible to be accurate, and to keep my personal opinion out of my advice. If I make a mistake, I own up to it and make every effort not to repeat said mistake.
I make every effort possible to be accurate, and to keep my personal opinion out of my advice. If I make a mistake, I own up to it and make every effort not to repeat said mistake.
Tyranthraxus
Explorer
Kalani: I have always found your input in both the Facebooks and forums far far more patient and concise than mine (and way more accurate to boot).
Since the early days of Hoard and onwards, Ive always made sure Ive never Added new monsters that arnt in the module/scenario only added more of the same (or less). This was what I assumed and read was required of me as an AL DM.
I do not keep my personal views out of my advice, It dosnt seem to be possible for me.
Since the early days of Hoard and onwards, Ive always made sure Ive never Added new monsters that arnt in the module/scenario only added more of the same (or less). This was what I assumed and read was required of me as an AL DM.
I do not keep my personal views out of my advice, It dosnt seem to be possible for me.
I am not reading anything 'extra', you are the one that has decided that 'same type' really means 'exactly the same'.
Not only is "type of creature" a defined term, which you have decided doesn't apply here... but 'type' does *not* mean 'identical' nor 'synonymous'.... (synonymous doesn't even make any sense in this situation) Even the 'common way' Type means 'similar but often different' Type refers to a 'category' or group, it refers to having similar characteristics...... You have decided it means 'identical'.... you are reading way more into it than the DnD rules allow, and way more than the 'common way' allows.
The writing in the article makes *no sense* if you assume he 'really' meant 'same creature' instead of what he actually wrote.
Why write "Different types of foes have different abilities" if you really meant "Different foes have different abilities"..... it makes no sense....
And again, it does not even match how the Expeditions are written.... they do change monsters, but keep the same type.
But most of all.... it would have been *easy* to say what you now claim. It would have been easy to just say "more of the same creatures"..... but he didn't.... Three times he *didn't* say 'same creatures' and instead explicitly chose to say "same TYPE of creature".
And last of all.... it follow with the rest of the article, and the ALPG, where they keep saying the main job of the DM is to focus on fun for the players.
Last edited:
You are mistaken. When reading the website, I am 'talking to AL'. An RC or LC has no authority to determine policy, or in this case, to actively change policy. When the RC says "You can never add an encounter" and the website says "You have to be careful well adding an encounter"..... the website wins..... When the website says "same type of creature", and the RC says "exact same creature"...the website wins....
Kalani had no compunction making rule decisions that were wrong when she was an LC, I don't suppose that has changed.
The problem, as it has been repeatedly with you, is that *you* think they are the rules, so you state them as the rules.....
But you also spent months claiming that it was *illegal* for a player to buy a 6 person tent in an AL game, you spent months claiming that it was illegal for a PC to buy Winter Clothes, then you claimed that....etc etc....
You have a history of making claims about what is legal and illegal.... and do not have a great track record. Yes, you do put in a lot of effort, and I have said as much many times before. And I do believe you intend well.... but you want a much more strict, much more centralized control..... and thus you often make proclamations about what is "illegal" and then have to walk it back when it turns out your 'accurate information' was, after all, just 'your opinion'.
This is true.... when an Admin or the ALPG comes out and clarifies that what you have spent months declaring as 'the rules' are not really the rules... you back down. But you never pick up on the pattern, and you just find something else to declare as 'the rules'..... until that too gets over ruled.
kalani
First Post
Actually, in respect to the 6-person tent situation - that was never my opinion (my opinion would have been to allow mundane gear with no rules associated with them, thereby allowing other DMs to determine how they functioned at their table). I was actually quoting numerous comments from RCs and admins on the matter at the time. At some later point, that decision was relaxed or the stance changed and once I learned of this fact, I adjusted my responses accordingly.
Rules in AL are not static. They do change (usually with each new PG - but sometimes because an unwritten rule was altered). The issue with the 6-man tent was an unwritten rule (keep in mind I am also very active on the FB groups and so catch most of these comments/and adhoc rulings, although I don't always have records of them - esp. if they occurred months previously). Again, I was not making an opinion on this matter... I was referencing clarifications by the articles author which had been made on FB.
With that being said, this article was written in season 1, and as such - many of the guidelines suggested in it are liable to change over time, if not outright contradicted by later FAQs, if not the PG itself. The ruling for Rise of Tiamat partially contradicts the guidelines in the article (and the FAQ has precedent in the case of a rules conflict between itself and another rules source, including the PG). In respect to that ruling in particular, it too has been clarified on FB by the admins, in respect to whether the ruling was specific to RoT or general..... (it is a generic ruling that applies across the board, and is echoed frequently by admins and RCs on FB and other social media platforms).
As with most FAQ rulings - while the ruling itself may be in response to a question about a specific product, the ruling itself is generic and applies globally (except where contradicted by other, more specific sources). The RoT ruling for example, applies to all published adventures - including Out of the Abyss. Specific still trumps general however, and the Out of the Abyss ammendment document trumps the RoT ruling for those specific entries (and defaults to the RoT ruling otherwise).
Either way, this matters little in the grand scope of things.
While DMs have the right to audit character and logsheets at their table, the AL itself does not police or audit individual players or tables. It is built on trust. If one DM is giving out more XP than another for the same adventure, it only matters to those players and any future DMs they may have. Now, with that being said -that doesn't mean I am endorsing the idea of DMs giving out maximum Xp in an Expedition (regardless of whether they earned it or not), nor am I suggesting DMs handwaive XP and give arbitary amounts. Players should still earn every XP they get. But if one DM throws an extra encounter or two in a hardcover adventure, it really doesn't impact the greater community at large.
Rules in AL are not static. They do change (usually with each new PG - but sometimes because an unwritten rule was altered). The issue with the 6-man tent was an unwritten rule (keep in mind I am also very active on the FB groups and so catch most of these comments/and adhoc rulings, although I don't always have records of them - esp. if they occurred months previously). Again, I was not making an opinion on this matter... I was referencing clarifications by the articles author which had been made on FB.
With that being said, this article was written in season 1, and as such - many of the guidelines suggested in it are liable to change over time, if not outright contradicted by later FAQs, if not the PG itself. The ruling for Rise of Tiamat partially contradicts the guidelines in the article (and the FAQ has precedent in the case of a rules conflict between itself and another rules source, including the PG). In respect to that ruling in particular, it too has been clarified on FB by the admins, in respect to whether the ruling was specific to RoT or general..... (it is a generic ruling that applies across the board, and is echoed frequently by admins and RCs on FB and other social media platforms).
As with most FAQ rulings - while the ruling itself may be in response to a question about a specific product, the ruling itself is generic and applies globally (except where contradicted by other, more specific sources). The RoT ruling for example, applies to all published adventures - including Out of the Abyss. Specific still trumps general however, and the Out of the Abyss ammendment document trumps the RoT ruling for those specific entries (and defaults to the RoT ruling otherwise).
Either way, this matters little in the grand scope of things.
While DMs have the right to audit character and logsheets at their table, the AL itself does not police or audit individual players or tables. It is built on trust. If one DM is giving out more XP than another for the same adventure, it only matters to those players and any future DMs they may have. Now, with that being said -that doesn't mean I am endorsing the idea of DMs giving out maximum Xp in an Expedition (regardless of whether they earned it or not), nor am I suggesting DMs handwaive XP and give arbitary amounts. Players should still earn every XP they get. But if one DM throws an extra encounter or two in a hardcover adventure, it really doesn't impact the greater community at large.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
