L4W Charter, Draft 2

[elecgraystone]

I'd vote a big NO to a person having more than one character in an adventure. It's far to easy to set up your other characters actions, even if you don't mean to.

 

[Halford]

I am still 100% in favor of a level penalty, if I were unsatisfied enough with a character to want to retire him, or was disinclined to bring him back from the dead I would have no problem sucking up a level loss.

Frankly I find the idea that two characters of tenth level could exist, one who played through adventures, etc., and another who was swapped out for long standing character x, galling in the extreme. For me a single level penalty should be the bear minimum.

As for equipment selection I still believe that it a HUGE advantage. Not all DMs will give their PCs the items they would wish and I have yet to see a wish list used - personally I am against the idea, yes characters should get something that works well for their character, but the ought not to be allowed to pick the exact items, etc. I would rather not allow new PCs to select their own equipment, though I am not sure how that could be implemented - and feel I will be in the minority in such an opinion, and so don't need to worry about coming up with a plan.

 

[covaithe]

Uhm...also, I guess having more than one character in the same adventure should be prohibited?

Yes, there used to be language in there saying your characters can't interact at all (no being in the same place at the same time, no trading, no trading through proxies, etc.) but it seems pointless when you can only have one character. We'll definitely put it back when we add more characters.

 

[covaithe]

I think a time limit makes more sense than a level penalty (ie. no more than one retirement in time period X). It attacks the concern about people skipping from character to character directly and feels less like an arbitrary punishment.

I'd also say that if you're retiring a character (except on death of your previous character) you can't post with the new one until it's fully approved. That stops people from assuming their retirement will be accepted.

I'd thought about the "only X retirements per Y months" idea. It addresses the problem of continually tweaking characters, but doesn't address the flavor-of-the-month class problem. I'd prefer to see a level penalty, but if that isn't popular a limit on the frequency of retirements might be useful.

I'd rather not put restrictions on people posting for their new characters, though. That seems... I don't know, I don't think it really helps much.

 

[elecgraystone]

As for equipment selection I still believe that it a HUGE advantage. Not all DMs will give their PCs the items they would wish and I have yet to see a wish list used - personally I am against the idea, yes characters should get something that works well for their character, but the ought not to be allowed to pick the exact items, etc. I would rather not allow new PCs to select their own equipment, though I am not sure how that could be implemented - and feel I will be in the minority in such an opinion, and so don't need to worry about coming up with a plan.

I'm on the other side of this debate. I see not getting what you want a HUGE disadvantage. Everyone is balanced on the idea that you have at least three items that work well with your character. If you don't your not going to be able to pull your weight. Also a player can be well and truly boned if he doesn't have the equipment he's used feats and/or class abilities for. A thief with wintertouched and lasting frost without a frost weapon or a frost longsword? A player with a bastard sword and heavy blade feats with a magic hammer? A magic shield for a two handed fighter? A magic staff for an orb wizard?

It's as simple as the magic creation feats to get the items you want. I'd rather just get gold instead of items if the items aren't a match for anyone. That way I could just get someone to make me what I want.

At worst the new player might be a bit more powerful as start, but after a few levels, he's either kept his old equipment or he's traded up with found stuff. Either way, he quickly ends up no better than people that just found magic.

 

[Voda Vosa]

I'm with Halford here in the items thing. I don't think manipulating the threads of destiny in such way youy find the exact item you wish to be something logic. "Oh I killed the ogre king, and fortunately he was using the tunic of the white archimagi, crazy eh?"
No, definitely not.

 

[covaithe]

Yeah... I would expect DMs to be fairly accomodating in dropping items that players are likely to want, but not to the point of helping them optimize. I mean, if you take the 2h weapon feats, I would expect the DM to include 2h weapons as part of the rewards, but not necessarily that +2 Frosty Craghammer of Naughtiness which synergizes perfectly with your high Con score and the feat you expect to take in 2 levels.

This may be yet another example of me thinking in a 3e mindset, but I think if you want to have specifically tailored items, you should do it the old fashioned way: spend cash on them. This will be easier in L4W than in most 4e games, because there is likely to be a market for secondhand items that gives much better prices than rendering them down for magical residue.

 

[Atanatotatos]

Yeah... I would expect DMs to be fairly accomodating in dropping items that players are likely to want, but not to the point of helping them optimize. I mean, if you take the 2h weapon feats, I would expect the DM to include 2h weapons as part of the rewards, but not necessarily that +2 Frosty Craghammer of Naughtiness which synergizes perfectly with your high Con score and the feat you expect to take in 2 levels.

This may be yet another example of me thinking in a 3e mindset, but I think if you want to have specifically tailored items, you should do it the old fashioned way: spend cash on them. This will be easier in L4W than in most 4e games, because there is likely to be a market for secondhand items that gives much better prices than rendering them down for magical residue.

Yeah, but if a player did choose weapon proficiency for a superior weapon as a feat, he'd better not find the martial version!

 

[ukingsken]

I'm on board with Covaithe here. You shouldn't just get to optimize but you should also not have a dm giving out gear no one can really use. In the last campaign I played instead of asking for specific items the players compiled a list of the kind of bonus or abilities theyd like with an emphasis on not being too specific. worked really well.

 

[JoeNotCharles]

Maybe we should tweak the exchange rate from the PHB so that it's easier to exchange items, but still not 1 to 1. That way people can customize their characters better without relying so much on DM's giving them exactly what they want.

Say, magic items can be exchanged for residuum for half their purchase price, and residuum can be bought for 5 gp per 1 gp worth of residuum. The vendors of magic items only take residuum. So if you get a level 5 item you don't want, you could trade it in for 500 gp worth of residuum, and then spend 100 gp for 20 gp of residuum. Now you have 520 gp worth, enough for a level 2 item. As written in the PHB, you need to trade in a level 6 item to get a level 1 item, which is pretty steep.

If we want to keep a close eye on what items are available in the world, one of the judges could run a market thread, listing what items are available on a weekly basis (determining them randomly, possibly looking at what players have recently levelled up and seem in need of items) and letting players bid. (This would also give players who aren't out adventuring another thread to RP in outside the tavern.)