Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JoeNotCharles" data-source="post: 4937934" data-attributes="member: 79945">Ok, so if I'm counting right, as of today, everything a month old or older is legal!  That includes Divine Power - go nuts!Here's the change I plan to make to the charter.  Does it look right?-----New material published by Wizards of the Coast is automatically approved one month after it is published.  (For Dragon and Dungeon articles, this means the time that the full issue download is made available.)  The exceptions are:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> Official updates as published <a href="http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/updates" target="_blank">here</a> are approved immediately.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> Material marked "playtest" or "preview" is not approved.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> Material published online but marked as a "debut" from an upcoming print product is not approved until one month after the print product is published.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> Anyone may propose that material be amended or excluded, using the proposal system described above.  In this case, the material under discussion is not approved until voting is finished.</li> </ul>New material from third-party sources must be proposed and voted on using the proposal system.The following is the current list of house rules and exceptions:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> From Player's Handbook: Amendment: All characters may take one extra multiclass feat as long as it is a Weapon Training feat. (Discussion <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/living-4th-edition/258982-proposal-weapon-training-feats-not-multi-class-feats.html" target="_blank">here</a>)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> From Player's Handbook 2: Amendment: The Implement Expertise and Weapon Expertise feats are disallowed, but are replaced by a free +1 bonus to all attack rolls for all characters at level 5 (this bonus increases to +2 at level 15 and +3 at level 25). Amendment: The Strength of Valor feat lasts until the end of your ally's next turn, not your next turn. (Discussion <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/living-4th-edition/256974-proposal-ph2-sorcerer.html" target="_blank">here</a> and <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/living-4th-edition/259358-proposal-make-strength-valor-useable.html" target="_blank">here</a>)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> From Adventurer's Vault: Not allowed: The double weapons from this book are not allowed mechanically, because the judges feel they are too powerful. (But two weapons can be flavored as one).  Amendment: Weapons with the Brutal property cannot be used in conjunction with the Oversized feature. (Discussion <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/living-4th-edition/247882-proposal-adventurers-vault.html" target="_blank">here</a>)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> From Eberron Player's Guide: Not allowed: Dragonmarks are not allowed, because the judges feel they do not fit the setting. (Discussion <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/living-4th-edition/263953-proposal-exclude-eberron-dragonmark-feats.html" target="_blank">here</a>)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> From Forgotten Realms Player’s Guide: Not allowed: The FR Regional Benefits are not allowed, because the judges feel they do not fit the setting. Amendment: Dark Pact warlock powers that damage allies require consent from affected players. (Discussion <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/living-4th-edition/250784-proposal-forgotten-realms-players-guide.html" target="_blank">here</a>)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> From Player's Handbook Heroes Series 1 (miniature pack). Amendment: Warlocks can choose Eldritch Strike in place of either Eldritch Blast or their pact at-will. (Discussion <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/living-4th-edition/258571-proposal-ph-heroes-series-1-a.html" target="_blank">here</a> and <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/living-4th-edition/258920-proposal-warlock-wills.html" target="_blank">here</a>)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> From <a href="http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drtoc/364" target="_blank">Dragon 364</a>: Not allowed: The "Wolves of Maldeen" article is not allowed, because the judges feel that the Wolfen Weapon is too powerful. (Discussion <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/living-4th-edition/244973-proposal-1-dragon-364-made-legal.html" target="_blank">here</a>)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> From <a href="http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drtoc/365" target="_blank">Dragon 365</a>: Not allowed: The "Ecology of the Dragonborn" article is not allowed, because the judges feel that the Hurl Breath feat is too powerful. Not allowed: The "Bazaar of the Bizarre - The Treasures of Ashardalon" article is not allowed because the judges feel that the Belt of Mountain Endurance and Ring of the Ghost Knight are too powerful. (Discussion <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/living-4th-edition/248032-proposal-dragon-365-made-legal.html" target="_blank">here</a>)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> From <a href="http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drtoc/367" target="_blank">Dragon 367</a> Article - Playing Gnolls: Amendment: In the "Playing Gnolls" article, in addition to all listed bonuses, the Claw Fighter feat gives claws the off-hand keyword, and "class features" is added to the list beginning "For the purpose of...", alongside powers and feats. Amendment: In the "Class Acts: Swordmage" article, when sliding a creature with Icy Sweep, it must be moved to the target square by the shortest available path. Not allowed: The Epic Faerun article is not allowed, because the judges do not expect the Epic Destinies in it to come into play and so haven't examined them closely. (Discussion <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/living-4th-edition/254703-proposal-dragon-367-a.html" target="_blank">here</a>)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> From <a href="http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drtoc/372" target="_blank">Dragon 372</a>: Amendment: In the "Playing Shadar-Kai" article, "Shadar-kai" is added to the prerequisites of the Reaper's Touch feat. Not allowed: In the "Masters of the Planes" article, the Punisher of the Gods epic destiny is not allowed, because the judges feel that the Immortal Curse feature is too powerful. (Discussion <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/living-4th-edition/257010-proposal-dragon-372-a.html" target="_blank">here</a>)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> From <a href="http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drtoc/373" target="_blank">Dragon 373</a>: Not allowed: In the "Ecology of the Sharn" article, the Orb of Entropy is not allowed, because the judges feel that it is too high level to come up in play. (Discussion <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/living-4th-edition/258650-proposal-approve-dragon-373-a.html" target="_blank">here</a>)</li> </ul>The following is the list of material which is not currently approved because voting has not concluded:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> From Arcane Power: Not allowed: Grease, Illusory Wall and Planar Gateway are not allowed, because the judges have not come to an agreement about how their mechanics should work. (Discussion <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/living-4th-edition/258002-proposal-arcane-power.html" target="_blank">here</a>)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> From Divine Power: Not allowed: The Hero of Faith and Taunting Visage feats, and the Astral Seal and the Recovery Strike powers, are not allowed because they have been proposed as being too powerful and the judges have not voted on them yet. (Discussion <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/living-4th-edition/259629-proposal-divine-power.html" target="_blank">here</a> and <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/living-4th-edition/260690-hero-faith-broken-just-unbalanced-need-meds-you-decide.html" target="_blank">here</a>)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> From <a href="http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drtoc/364" target="_blank">Dragon 364</a>: Not allowed: The "The Ashen Covenant" article is not allowed, because at the time it was proposed the judges did not agree on whether articles with only magic items should be approved or not. (Discussion <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/living-4th-edition/244973-proposal-1-dragon-364-made-legal.html" target="_blank">here</a>)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> From <a href="http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drtoc/368" target="_blank">Dragon 368</a>: Not allowed: In the "Running Gladiatorial Campaigns" article, the whip, net and associated feats, and the Called Shot, Staff Fighting, Arena Specialist, Catspaw Style, Exotic Fighting Style, and Grudge Style feats are not allowed, because they were proposed as being too powerful and the judges have not yet voted on them. Not allowed: In the "Running Gladiatorial Campaigns" article, the Binding Style, Hunting Spider Style, and Starlight Duelist feats are not allowed, because they need to be amended to work with the new mechanics of Dual Strike and the judges have not yet voted on them. (Discussion <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/living-4th-edition/258979-proposal-dragon-magazine-368-a.html" target="_blank">here</a>)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> From <a href="http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drtoc/369" target="_blank">Dragon 369</a>: Not allowed: The "Playing Minotaurs" article is not allowed, because it removes the Oversized ability which several players have already taken, and the judges have not agreed on whether we should follow suit. (Discussion <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/living-4th-edition/259210-proposal-dragon-magazine-369-minotaur.html" target="_blank">here</a> and <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/living-4th-edition/250246-forked-thread-proposal-minotaur-race-dragon.html" target="_blank">here</a>)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> From <a href="http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drtoc/369" target="_blank">Dragon 369</a>: Not allowed: In the "Bazaar of the Bizarre" article, Ghoststride Boots and Giantkind Gloves are not allowed, because they were proposed as being too powerful and the judges have not yet voted on them. (Discussion <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/living-4th-edition/259486-proposal-dragon-369-except-diabolic-stratagem-minotaur.html" target="_blank">here</a>)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> From <a href="http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drtoc/371" target="_blank">Dragon 371</a>: Not allowed: In the "Legacy of Acererak" article, the backgrounds are not allowed, because they were proposed as being more powerful than the PHB2 backgrounds and the judges have not yet voten on them. (Discussion <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/living-4th-edition/264290-speaking-broken-discussion-over-items-needing-proposal.html" target="_blank">here</a>)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> From <a href="http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drtoc/372" target="_blank">Dragon 372</a>: Not allowed: The "Masters of the Planes" article is not allowed, because some judges feel that Epic Destinies will not come into play and the judges have not agreed on whether to ban only Punisher of the Gods (see above) or the entire article. (Discussion <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/living-4th-edition/257010-proposal-dragon-372-a.html" target="_blank">here</a>)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> From <a href="http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drtoc/374" target="_blank">Dragon 374</a>: Not allowed: The "White Lotus Academy" article is not allowed, because some of the powers in it were proposed as too powerful and the judges have not agreed on whether to ban them. (Discussion <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/living-4th-edition/259410-proposal-dragon-magazine-374-a.html" target="_blank">here</a>)</li> </ul>Note that the final collected PDF's of Dragon magazine often have differences from the individually published articles, and some entries in the Compendium are different from what is published in the books and magazines.  Be sure to use the published and collected versions.-----A couple of those things in the first list were just disallowed because they were epic-level and we didn't want to think about them at time (in at least one case, we just "didn't want it cluttering up the list" - and now it's cluttering up this list instead!)  A couple of the full articles are excluded just on the basis of a few items in them.  We might want to revisit those in order to simplify this list.  (That would take new proposals.)The bottom list is mostly stuff where a proposal was made, at least one person said they had a problem with an item (often it was me...), and we never got around to voting - although there are a few where the voting was deadlocked.  It would be great to go back and vote on those and clear some of them out.</blockquote>

Verification