New Season 7 Death Curse rules posted

[Enevhar Aldarion]

I usually consider myself non-incompetent. I can spell out somewhat complicated in game mechanics, but I am having a little difficulty with this.



So, OK, probably just assume We are affected and move on.



Don't Die, pretty easy.. DDHC.. , starts 20 days after.. can't be increased or restored...



So this is a new bullet, so via the powers of english can be taken without the previous bullet, all downtime activities now reduce your HP Max by 1/day? With no listed limit? So Level 4 catchup is actually level 4 suicide?

I still have not figured out how to double quote so that it shows what you are quoting, but anyway.

Basically, if your character has never had to be resurrected at all in any way, including revivify, then your character is fine and normal and not yet affected by the Curse, other than to not be able to be resurrected til the listed conditions have been met by you in-game. There is no HP loss from the Curse, either in-game or through the use of downtime days, unless the character has been resurrected prior to the start of the Curse.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

Are there any previous AL artifacts that would interfere with possible soul devouring? One of my PCs had part of his soul taken by Hallaster (cert from last year's Open) and I'd like to know if Hallaster would take exception to Acererak taking something that's already belongs to him.

 

[Pauper]

OK, let's try this one again without the rudeness:

There is a certain portion of the AL player base which has gotten accustomed to being told, "Hey, there's this heinous thing happening, but if you complain about it loudly enough, it won't apply to *your character*." Best example I can think of is the 2016 D&D Open, when characters that otherwise would have been trapped in Barovia were exempted from that mechanic to be allowed to participate in the Open, as opposed to requiring their players to run different characters.

While I'm sure the folks in charge at that time thought they were doing a nice thing for these players, they were also setting a precedent that something unpleasant that happens in AL can be undone by fiat if only the powers-that-be get enough complaints about it. I don't want to imply that this means the AL admins should never be criticized -- I've done enough of that myself -- and I also think that most (though not all) of the changes to the Death Curse rules are well-intentioned and better reflect the flavor of the curse.

Still, I can't help but think that if the campaign had stuck to its guns on other decisions, then it wouldn't have to face so much criticism over this one, because people would be more accustomed to the AL making decisions that they feel confident enough in to stand behind those decisions.

Just my $0.02US.

--
Pauper

 

[Warmaster Horus]

I don't mind the curse. But since we're still in the 'Beta' phase I'd like to get a good feel for its' bounds now and provide feedback. I've got tickets to cons in the next few months and am reserved for several games Tier 1 through 4. It would be good to understand the situation so I can plan which PCs to play.

Since I can't have a 'pregen' Tier 3 or 4 PC, the loss of one of those characters in curse-qualified mods (CCC for example) can have a cascading effect on games I'm already signed up and paid for, which in turn could impact my entire con. Of course this is a risk to some degree anyway, since recovery from some sorts of death - disintegration or the like - is typically beyond the reach of most PCs. But with the absence of all resurrection magic, and the penalty for any PC that has been raised from death in the past, greatly expands the bounds of risk I normally plan for.

My concern isn't so much about losing a character to the curse, which I like because I enjoy the challenge. But, the retroactive impact it has on cons and games I've already committed to before we had any mention of the curse, is not insignificant.

 

[jprepo1]

There's a lot of con organization chatter revolving around that very scenario.

 

[skerritthegreen]

a giant red flag should be that the admins, who write the Authors Only adventures, excluded their AO adventures from the rule

Exempting the AOs was because for many payers, getting the chance to play one at a con is a once in a lifetime opportunity. You simply might not ever be at a convention again that has one or get lucky enough to get one of the few tickets. This means you cannot just choose to pause and play later like you could with other adventures that are always available. We didn't want those who were avoiding the curse to have to also have to pass on what might be their only chance at a DDAO.

 

[skerritthegreen]

Actually, the season will likely end in the spring of next year, as every other odd-numbered season has to date, with the release of the next hard-cover:

Tyranny of Dragons (Season 1): August 2014 - March 2015
Rage of Demons (Season 3): August 2015 - March 2016
Storm King's Thunder (Season 5): September 2016 - April 2017

So not so bad.

--
Pauper

Nope, its about a year in length.

 

[skerritthegreen]

That sounds like an assumption. Princes of the Apocalypse is set in 1491 (as per the hardcover), but the State of Hillsfar document notes that Torin Nomerthal expelled all non-humans from Hillsfar in 1487 DR, while the Harried In Hillsfar adventure begins "two years after the expulsion" (so in 1489 DR). (Not to mention that the event that triggers the Rage of Demons storyline -- Gromph Baenre accidentally summoning the demon lords into the Underdark -- happens in late 1485/early 1486 according to RA Salvatore's book 'Archmage'.)

I suspect the real reason for the Season 4/5 dividing line is that is when AL largely left the Moonsea and turned it over for CCC content.

--
Pauper

Its actually was because the s7 specifically mentions it happens at the same time as s5 and s6, though we did away with the dividing line since it seemed the over desire was for less story connections and more choice in what to play without the curse.

 

[jprepo1]

I mean, I get why you'd want the multiple simultaneous storylines, as it gives it more of a living campaign feel, but I think, overall, the living campaign has given way to flexible, regional groupings of players.

 

[jprepo1]

Exempting the AOs was because for many payers, getting the chance to play one at a con is a once in a lifetime opportunity. You simply might not ever be at a convention again that has one or get lucky enough to get one of the few tickets. This means you cannot just choose to pause and play later like you could with other adventures that are always available. We didn't want those who were avoiding the curse to have to also have to pass on what might be their only chance at a DDAO.

I 100% believe you, but, for a moment, put yourselves in the shoes of a content creator doing CCC's. An extremely divisive rule comes out, and it affects everything you're writing, but the things being written by those making said divisive rule is not. I don't think it was intentional, but the optics weren't great.

Now that season 7 is affected on its own, I also think its less of an issue, as, as previously written, CCC's would have given people looking to forego season 7 an expanded catalog of content with which to do so.