SCAG Thread

[StinkyEttin]

In the case of Elemental Evil, you must still choose a book; either the EEPC or SCAG to include on the list of Allowed Rules.

 

[Mirtek]

3rd Sentence - No

Sure about that one? If one finds a shop selling those spells, aka this shop and it's display is spelled out in the PDF, why would one not be able to buy them? I don't think any such a shop is mentioned in any current adventure, but if it were I'd think buying those EE spells would be valid.

I also regularly seen players with ToD origin request EE spells as their free cloak spell scroll just to copy them during a long rest rather than using the scroll itself (even multiple spells in a single session if adventuring with other cloaks who lend them their scrolls) and no DM ever denied it, one DM even recommended this way of aquiring EE spells for a non EE character to a player

 

[kalani]

Rank 3: The character may obtain one spell scroll of a 1st level spell on the character’s spell list found in the Player’s Handbook, to be used during the adventure.

EE spells are not a valid option for the scroll. Copying the scroll into your spellbook however, is legal - providing it is a 1st level spell from the PHB (and only the PHB).

Rank 3 Zhentarim characters can use their Procure Illicit Goods downtime activity to acquire a 1st level scroll of their choice. This scroll can be from any source (including the EEPC), but such characters can only perform this downtime activity while playing a tier 2 Mulmaster adventure (as characters must be 5th level or higher before reaching rank 3 in a faction).

Are you sure they were using their cloak benefit, and were not instead using their procure illicit goods benefit?

 

[Mirtek]

EE spells are not a valid option for the scroll. Copying the scroll into your spellbook however, is legal - providing it is a 1st level spell from the PHB (and only the PHB).

Wow, incredible that I had no one ever pointing out this caveat before, it's really obvious.

I admit I missed it myself, but since my only cloak is a non-tome warlock I never cared about copying my cloak scroll and use to only skim all rules than don't affect myself.

But as I said I've seen a lot of wizards and tome warlocks do just that

Are you sure they were using their cloak benefit, and were not instead using their procure illicit goods benefit?

Yes, unfortunately I am. I even was accomplice a few times since I did not care that much about one extra spell per day (at lowest level and with worse DC than my own spellcasting DC to boot) and when someone asked me to request a specific scroll and then "lend" it to him I always did the favor

 

[Burticusb]

I'm cool with the ruling, but in general, the ruling of this material is valid for this session vs that session, seems a bit more complicated than it is worth.

I mean, most of the options present in the SCAG are fluff based at best to get players more into role-playing.

These rules feel more exclusive than inclusive just in nature, and that feels opposite of what the Adventurer's League is all about.

I understand that their existence is mostly due to trying to curb those who will try to break the game or power game.

However, really, this reminds me so much of an old saying...

Door locks are really only there to keep out the honest folk, those who want to break in will get in either way.

Basically, power gamers are gonna power game, with or without these restrictions.

I just think these extra rules on top of rules are a bit silly, and really feel only in place to arbitrate the power of those in charge...

There really shouldn't be restrictions from one book to the next, If WoTC produces it, it should be considered "Legal" for play.

I mean, they test all this stuff a head of time, and sure somethings may be unbalanced in the right build, but that's just the way it is...

Just my 2cp worth...

 

[Mithreinmaethor]

I'm cool with the ruling, but in general, the ruling of this material is valid for this session vs that session, seems a bit more complicated than it is worth.

I mean, most of the options present in the SCAG are fluff based at best to get players more into role-playing.

These rules feel more exclusive than inclusive just in nature, and that feels opposite of what the Adventurer's League is all about.

I understand that their existence is mostly due to trying to curb those who will try to break the game or power game.

However, really, this reminds me so much of an old saying...

Door locks are really only there to keep out the honest folk, those who want to break in will get in either way.

Basically, power gamers are gonna power game, with or without these restrictions.

I just think these extra rules on top of rules are a bit silly, and really feel only in place to arbitrate the power of those in charge...

There really shouldn't be restrictions from one book to the next, If WoTC produces it, it should be considered "Legal" for play.

I mean, they test all this stuff a head of time, and sure somethings may be unbalanced in the right build, but that's just the way it is...

Just my 2cp worth...

The EE options were not printed as a book originally they are an Appendix in a Module meant for DM's.

WotC and AL decided to allow options in that Appendix to be playable in AL and even offered a print on demand option to purchase it.

So you can be PHB + SCAG or PHB + EEPG but you can not be PHB + SCAG + EEPG. Yes it can seem arbitrary but it is what we have fortunately or unfortunately.

My 2 Genasi's backstories and character concepts are better expressed if I was able to use some of the new SCAG options for them but alas it can not be ... Fire Genasi Light Cleric/Sun Fire Monk of Amaunator and Air Genasi Barbarian / Swashbuckler Rogue would be great for me....just cant happen. Believe me there is nothing broken about either combination....hell most people complain about my DEX based Barbarian swinging a scimitar around because its not a huge damage dealer. But it is part of my character concept, I just have to imagine they mechanically are what I want

 

[Pauper]

Door locks are really only there to keep out the honest folk, those who want to break in will get in either way.

You know what, you're right! I'm going to take the locks off the front doors to my apartment complex as soon as I get home!

(/sarcasm)

--
Pauper

 

[Burticusb]

You know what, you're right! I'm going to take the locks off the front doors to my apartment complex as soon as I get home!

(/sarcasm)

--
Pauper

Lol, fair point, but still the fact remains, if I wanted to break into your house, locks or not, I'm getting in.

I'm just saying making arbitrary rules for arbitrary reasons doesn't lend itself to an inclusive experience.

People who want to power game will, and to be honest the more you tighten them down, the more they will seek a way to do it.

I think most people would get upset at your comment, but I'm a pretty laid back kind of guy and I get the humor... still doesn't change that really, these rules are pointless... I mean a 24 Page post is a pretty solid testament to that...

Just a waste of time/effort all around if you ask me, and likely will cause more of a turn off for some...

Again, just my 2... well maybe now 3cp worth...

Yeah, I'm a cheap date...

 

[Pauper]

Lol, fair point, but still the fact remains, if I wanted to break into your house, locks or not, I'm getting in.

Maybe, or maybe having to get through the front door locks, the locks on the apartment door, etc., will take so much time that one of my neighbors will spot you and ask what you're up to. You might get so spooked you run away, or give the neighbor the ability to give your description to the police so that you can be caught and anything you took brought back.

Careful what you wish for in an analogy! ; )

I'm just saying making arbitrary rules for arbitrary reasons doesn't lend itself to an inclusive experience.

Forgive me, but I don't think you're really interested in an inclusive experience -- I think you're interested in *your* experience, no matter how much you (and people like you) playing the game you want to play prevents other people from playing the game they want to play.

Previous Organized Play campaigns have, for whatever reason, been influenced by the 'inclusiveness gambit' and suffered as a result. It's encouraging to me that the current OP admins have declined the gambit, so that we can see how the game plays out.

Going back to your analogy on the locks, my decision to remove the front door locks forces everyone to live in an environment where they likely feel less secure. Why should the building owners let me do that? Likewise, your desire to power-game interferes with the enjoyment of the game of every player who doesn't care about power-gaming. Why should the admins of the campaign let you dictate how the game is going to be played?

--
Pauper

 

[Mirtek]

Forgive me, but I don't think you're really interested in an inclusive experience

Neither are you

-- I think you're interested in *your* experience,

As are you

no matter how much you (and people like you) playing the game you want to play prevents other people from playing the game they want to play.

See? You recognize that there are two irreconcilable playstyles, the campaign has to chose one and naturally you lobby for your prefered style to be adopted/kept by the campaign.

That's totally OK and is the sensible thing to do. Heck it's the bedrock of the democratic political system. Just don't pretend it anything other than that (like altruistically just striving for the more inclusive).

There are as many people feeling excluded by the Pathfinder Core Campaign than by the standard Pathfinder Campaign (core campaign characters can also always switch to the regular campaign, althought it's a strict one-way-ticket with no going back)

Why should the admins of the campaign let you dictate how the game is going to be played?

AKA, they should let your side dictate how the game is going to be played