(Discussion) LA+ race availability - read post first, please vote.

[Manzanita]

I do appreciate your thoughts on the wildings, there, KB. And I do not disagree at all. I think a LEW-specific race or two might be really good. But I fear a proliferation. I think we should agree to limit it to 2 or so, new races and classes, say. I think that discussion may come. For now, I'm voting 'no' categorically. But keep your wildings around. I hope you get to expand your ideas there.

 

[Creamsteak]

New monsters though, those I think we could have plenty of .

 

[Knight Otu]

New monsters though, those I think we could have plenty of .

Did I mention that I like creating monsters?

Once we get that first bunch of proposals out of the way, we should look in depth at the issue of LA races, though. Maybe even before this.

 

[Manzanita]

... The Wildlings, to push my own creation, by their very existance and history flesh out a segment of the LEW map I described in passing into political and social as well as geographic entities. If they are approved, my first move would not be to create one as a character (as I do not currently want to abandon any of mine and am already maxed out) but to use them in a campaign starting with diplomatic finagaling in the ultra ordered land of Utopia, moving on to some combat and trap dodging in the war torn border of the wilding woods, and hopefully progressing to some good RP as the characters decide what side they really want to be on. Having a non-world wise and not very bright super tracker to RP is fun, but the inclusion of the race, its home, it enemies and potential allies in the world was just as important, if not moreso. Kahuna Burger

I was thinking some more about your comments here, KB, and I really like your idea. I think that's how you could get me to vote for a new race, by integrating it into the campaign first. I don't see why you couldn't pursue this idea even if the Wildings are not a player race. Once the Wildings encounter adventurers, and vice versa, make friends (&/or enemies), and become a part of the world, then their inclusion as a PC race becomes more natural and desirable. I think this approach to creating a new PC race would make it more comfortable for all involved.

And I don't think anyone is going to challenge your NPC creations as a DM. I think DMs need to be encouraged, even coddled. Without DMs, where would we be. Here's a toast to all the DMs out there. Thanks.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

I'm suprized that PC tradeout is the highest ranked option, though I suppose it involves the least content approval (in terms of racial leveling or working out the negitive levels) and only entrusts LA+ PCs to players who have settled in a bit, which could be considerd a good thing too - less chance of making a funky raced character just to hang around the inn being weird and alien... Overall, it seems that LA+ races are a reasonable option, since only a quarter of votes cast activly oppose them.

The poll option mentioned an even XP trade, while creamsteak suggests losing one or even two levels, are there any comments from those who like the tradeout option? (since I don't know of a lot of characters above 2nd right now, a lesser tradeout will continue to restrict opertunities for a while, and I personally think if we're rewarding senority there's no need to chop it in half or more.)

Kahuna Burger

 

[orsal]

The poll option mentioned an even XP trade, while creamsteak suggests losing one or even two levels, are there any comments from those who like the tradeout option? (since I don't know of a lot of characters above 2nd right now, a lesser tradeout will continue to restrict opertunities for a while, and I personally think if we're rewarding senority there's no need to chop it in half or more.)

Speaking as one who doesn't like tradeout to begin with (I voted for either negative levels or racial levels), I'd say if we do go that route, I'd prefer that there be some offset. Basically, I don't see one character as being substitutable for another, or experience being transferrable. If we had a "one level lower" rule, then at least keeping the same character would be the easiest and fastest way to advance.

If Jo Guilan had reached second level before fleeing Orussus, I wouldn't be planning to start a character at second level in his place. (Granted, he isn't exactly retired -- I'm leaving open the possibility of reactivating him once a credible IC way to do so emerges.)

 

[Knight Otu]

I think that it is safe to say that, if we go the tradeout option, the new character will be of a lower effective character level.

One level lower would be the same penalty as dying and being resurrected (but easier accomplished). For some reason, I'm leaning to a two level penalty.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

I think that it is safe to say that, if we go the tradeout option, the new character will be of a lower effective character level.

in spite of the option that gather the votes being for "equal XP (or the XP after raising for a dead character)"? I'm not sure why that should be the assumption.

One level lower would be the same penalty as dying and being resurrected (but easier accomplished). For some reason, I'm leaning to a two level penalty.

er, did you vote for tradeout as an option? I ask because the option listed was for a full xp trade, and while I can see it being death equivelent instead, two levels lower is not what was voted for by a long shot.

I don't want to sound accusatory, and this isn't aimed at you personally, but if something I wasn't in favor of was approved over my objections, I'd like to think that I would allow it to be implemented optimally, rather than trying to "poison pill" it. If PC tradeout is the approved option for LA+ races (and I don't think it needs to be the only one, just the one with the most current approval) I think it should be implemented in a way that people can actually use in the reasonable future. (I don't know whats up in other adventures, but no characters I DM or am in games with are over 3rd right now).

Kahuna Burger

 

[orsal]

er, did you vote for tradeout as an option? I ask because the option listed was for a full xp trade, and while I can see it being death equivelent instead, two levels lower is not what was voted for by a long shot.

I don't want to sound accusatory, and this isn't aimed at you personally, but if something I wasn't in favor of was approved over my objections, I'd like to think that I would allow it to be implemented optimally, rather than trying to "poison pill" it.

Well, tradeout at a lower level wasn't one of the options; it is possible, indeed likely IMHO, that many or most of the people voting for tradeout weren't thinking much about the level. It would be fair and democratic, assuming tradeout wins the poll, to implement it with a level penalty if either another poll (taking tradeout as a given, asking about level rules) or informal discussion indicated a clear preference for that. (And said discussion would include those of us who preferred not to have tradeout at all, as well as those who voted for it.) I can't speak for Knight Otu, so I don't know on what grounds (s)he claimed "it is safe to say that" there will be a level offset, but if it might have been based on Otu's reading of LEW opinion last time the rule was proposed.

If PC tradeout is the approved option for LA+ races (and I don't think it needs to be the only one, just the one with the most current approval) I think it should be implemented in a way that people can actually use in the reasonable future. (I don't know whats up in other adventures, but no characters I DM or am in games with are over 3rd right now).

I've perused the character thread. The highest are third level, but there are a number of them, and several are close to fourth level. If tradeout with a two-level offset is adopted (the harshest I've seen proposed), some players would be able to bring in LA+1 characters if they retired their current characters at the conclusion of their current adventures, which are likely to bring them up to 4th.

Also, even if such a rule couldn't be used in the near future, I don't think it's unreasonable to be making rules with the middle-future in mind. After all, as LEW grows, it'll become harder to keep tweaking the rules as needed.

 

[Knight Otu]

I should have made it clear that those where my personal feelings and the understanding of the posts of other judges. I don't think (and I may very well be mistaken) that many of the judges would be in favor of a full level/exp tradeout. During the more active times, full tradeout might become too easy for some people's tastes.

Tradeout is quite clearly in the lead now. Do you think it would plummet in favor so much if it was not full tradeout? At -1 level, I'd think it would still be fairly popular, and a few of the current roster of characters could technically benefit from it if it were, by bringing races with a +1 LA into the fold, for a total ECL of 2.

-2 may or may not be too harsh. None of the current characters can benefit from it right now, but could in the near future. I can't really tell why I would tend into this direction, except for the possibility that it might be a bit easier to fix if it is truly too harsh (Meaning, we could either warn everyone that, if they use it now, they might lose a level if we go to -1 from -2, or we could allow those who used it at that time to add another level).

And, if I sounded as if I wanted to speak for all the judges, it wasn't my intention. I was just trying to give my impression, and worded it poorly.

(And for the record, I voted trade-out, negative levels and racial classes)