Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
AL VS LFR of 4th and why I'm so disappointed
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="kalani" data-source="post: 6814589" data-attributes="member: 88085"><p><strong>Taking off my official cap for a moment and speaking from a purely personal PoV</strong></p><p>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). </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p><strong>LFR in particular hamstrung DMs and did not allow even the slightest flexibility when it came to making <em>rulings</em> at the table</strong> (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).</p><p></p><p>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 <em>could</em> be used in a broken combo if X + Y + Z were combined, the players who only used Y by itself were equally punished). </p><p></p><p>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). </p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p><strong>5E is a much different beast.</strong> </p><p>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). </p><p></p><p>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 <em>green flame blade</em>, <em>magic stone</em>, and <em>shillelagh</em> and spells like <em>magic weapon</em>. 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 <em>might</em> make it into print - allowing the mystic to use their psychic focus to make one weapon a +1 weapon while focused). </p><p></p><p><strong>In 5E a +1 weapon is just as valuable to a 20th level character as it is to a 1st level character.</strong> </p><p>This is the first edition where this particular statement is true (and something I love about 5E). </p><p></p><p><strong>In 1E - 3.X:</strong> 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.</p><p></p><p> <strong>In 4E:</strong> 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 <em>break even</em> with the system math (let alone get ahead) and greatly annoyed DMs who prefer a low-moderate number of items in their campaign</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>Again, I won't pretend that I love every aspect of the <em>Adventurers League</em> ruleset. I do however, like it a lot better than its predecessors. </p><p></p><p><strong>Personal Rant over. Replacing the official cap</strong></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="kalani, post: 6814589, member: 88085"] [B]Taking off my official cap for a moment and speaking from a purely personal PoV[/B] 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. [B]LFR in particular hamstrung DMs and did not allow even the slightest flexibility when it came to making [I]rulings[/I] at the table[/B] (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 [I]could[/I] 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. [B]5E is a much different beast.[/B] 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 [I]green flame blade[/I], [I]magic stone[/I], and [I]shillelagh[/I] and spells like [I]magic weapon[/I]. 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 [I]might[/I] make it into print - allowing the mystic to use their psychic focus to make one weapon a +1 weapon while focused). [B]In 5E a +1 weapon is just as valuable to a 20th level character as it is to a 1st level character.[/B] This is the first edition where this particular statement is true (and something I love about 5E). [B]In 1E - 3.X:[/B] 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. [B]In 4E:[/B] 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 [I]break even[/I] 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 [I]Adventurers League[/I] ruleset. I do however, like it a lot better than its predecessors. [B]Personal Rant over. Replacing the official cap[/B] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
AL VS LFR of 4th and why I'm so disappointed
Top