SCAG Thread

[Burticusb]

Lol, fair enough Tyranthraxus... I guess I just feel like I'm just beating up on a dead horse... I'm just going to move on...

 

[darjr]

[MENTION=6791242]Burticusb[/MENTION] I think you do have some good ideas and I like the instinct. And the debate is always cool. I do think the delivery could use some work.

 

[Burticusb]

[MENTION=6791242]Burticusb[/MENTION] I think you do have some good ideas and I like the instinct. And the debate is always cool. I do think the delivery could use some work.

Thanks [MENTION=52905]darjr[/MENTION], I'll work on on the presentation

 

[Burticusb]

[MENTION=6791242]Burticusb[/MENTION] I think you do have some good ideas and I like the instinct. And the debate is always cool. I do think the delivery could use some work.

Thanks [MENTION=52905]darjr[/MENTION], I'll work on on the presentation

 

[Tyranthraxus]

Mostly everyone has a good idea, its just how they present that idea. If you start from a negative tone, 9/10 I wont pay any attention to it. If you present an idea and say 'X is how you could do it instead' Ill pay attention. Sadly too many posters out there office nothing constructive in replacement.

 

[Pauper]

I have no problem with discussion. That's how you share ideas and come up with different and possibly better ways of doing things.

My problem is when discussion turns to argument, and thus someone feels as though they have to 'win' in order for the discussion to be valuable. Additionally, in an argument, people tend to pull out all kinds of things that have nothing to do with the ideas and everything to do with trying to manipulate or guilt people into supporting their side ("It's unfair!").

I'm not always as good at avoiding crossing that line as I could be, but it's getting easier for me to recognize when someone else has crossed the line and to disengage from the argument, not because I want to concede the argument, but because once a discussion becomes an argument, it loses nearly all its value as a place to foster ideas and turns into your typical internet-based rhetorical stew.

--
Pauper

 

[Burticusb]

So, I can appreciate what is being said here, as I like to think I'm a pretty reasonable guy...

And maybe, there was a few too many back and forth posts that did not have enough time to be digested correctly.

However, I don't feel I "attacked" anyone, nor do I feel I was using a negative tone, the worst thing I called something was silly... so I don't see where this changed from a simple debate to an argument, the only thing I have noticed is that there appears to be less and less rebuttal.

Which to me feels like people are just tired of this debate and that it likely doesn't matter to them, because this will not change anything.

Anyways, it's not a big deal...

I just want everyone to know that I totally respect everyone's view, even if they are wrong... lol j/k

Seriously though, I really did not mean to come off negative, but after reading some the earlier posts on this thread, I can see why folks would be apprehensive.

I do think we need to simplify these rulings a bit more, and I feel that keeping the core set (which includes all basic setting books) as Legal, and only the Seasonal books kept separate for origin sake...

...and only for origin sake. All options should be available from WotC, since really, there is no true way to power game to the level of "pun pun" in 5e...

And if there is, it would be so rare that it could easily be flagged by itself, instead of all of this wasted play testing...

Anyways, I truly apologize if a offended anyone with my earlier posts... there was zero intent for it to come off like that, please in the future always read my posts as a happy go lucky kind of guy who has a sense of humor...

 

[Steve_MND]

And if there is, it would be so rare that it could easily be flagged by itself, instead of all of this wasted play testing...

I think therein is half the issue. Yes, it could be flagged, if the staff running the campaign actually had that power. But they don't.

The AL staff is in the unenviable position of being the 'front' for the campaign, but they have very, very little actual say in how it's operated when it comes to rules, rulings, errata, etc. They don't even have any direct control over what goes in the AL Player's Guide each season; they best they can do is make a request to WotC to have something changed, and then cross their fingers that it'll be in the next version that WotC publishes.

if WotC had dedicated people running the campaign, or alternatively, if WotC gave actual legitimate control of the campaign over to the AL staff, things could (and likely would) operate much differently. But alas, such is not the case, nor is it likely to be under the current way things are operating.

But yeah, this is all stuff that's been argued many many times before over the last year-and-a-half.

 

[Burticusb]

I think therein is half the issue. Yes, it could be flagged, if the staff running the campaign actually had that power. But they don't.

The AL staff is in the unenviable position of being the 'front' for the campaign, but they have very, very little actual say in how it's operated when it comes to rules, rulings, errata, etc. They don't even have any direct control over what goes in the AL Player's Guide each season; they best they can do is make a request to WotC to have something changed, and then cross their fingers that it'll be in the next version that WotC publishes.

if WotC had dedicated people running the campaign, or alternatively, if WotC gave actual legitimate control of the campaign over to the AL staff, things could (and likely would) operate much differently. But alas, such is not the case, nor is it likely to be under the current way things are operating.

But yeah, this is all stuff that's been argued many many times before over the last year-and-a-half.

Hmmm... you have some good points, however I'm not sure that it is all true. I agree that they likely don't have any say in the material being produced by WotC, but I don't believe that they have little say so when it comes to what rules are AL Legal... or else we would have Flying Tieflings and Aarakocra in the game.

...and like I said, in reality, a "pun pun" power level of a character build is going to be extremely rare. And it could just as simply be made to be considered inappropriate for League play.

 

[kalani]

We can make suggestions - but all rulings must be approved by WotC. We have some autonomy when it comes to writing articles (although articles which introduce new rules or character options, even backgrounds - must be approved). We also have some autonomy regarding FAQs which clarify existing rules. FAQs which introduce new rules must also be approved.

The SCAG amendments page for example - would likely have been written by the admins/RCs and then approved by WotC. If it wasn't approved, they would have had to make adjustments until it was. It was WotC who wanted aarakocra banned. I expect winged tieflings were included in the suggested ruling by U.S. As the admins would have assumed the same restriction applied (supposition on my part as I had little to do with that particular ruling as it was above my pay grade lol).