## Re: Pre-LGCS 4.0 Suggestion Period

Expand Messages
• ... A table of 3,3,4,5,6,7 should play at APL 6. All the levels add up to 28. Divide by 6 and you get 4.667 and thus you round to nearest whole number which is
Message 1 of 17 , Jan 1, 2005
> They DID moderate the 1/2 xp 1/2 gold when playing down. You get
> full gold...the original proposal was half gp. What this has meant
> this year is that a table of 3,3,4,5,6,7 plays at APL4 instead of 6.
> Level 1 chars playing APL4 get 300ish gp/xp which is what we got in
> year 2 mods anyway. While I think the proposal backed by myself and
> others to allow folks playing up to earn the max xp/gp they could
> earn within the APL+2 rule is superior at making tables and
> preventing gp from flooding a lowbie playing WAY up...the simpler
> rule they introduced cut back a lot on playing up and yet we still
> seemed to be able to make tables.
>

A table of 3,3,4,5,6,7 should play at APL 6. All the levels add up to 28.
Divide by 6 and you get 4.667 and thus you round to nearest whole number
which is 5. Add 1 for a table of 6 you and get APL 6.
If it was a party of 3, 3, 4, 4, 5, 7 then they'd have a choice between 4
and 6 since 26 divided by 6 gives 4.5 which is equally near from 4 and 5
thus if you choose 4 you add 1 to get 5 giving you the choice of APL 4 or 6.

I know a friend who talked reacently about basing stuff on total hit points
of the party.

Eric
• ... Well, interesting, I suppose, but that s just as complicated and potentially-irrelevant as basing the table s APL on total skill points, total damage that
Message 2 of 17 , Jan 1, 2005
> I know a friend who talked reacently about basing stuff on total hit
> points
> of the party.

Well, interesting, I suppose, but that's just as complicated and
potentially-irrelevant as basing the table's APL on total skill points,
total damage that could be done, total BAB, etc. No single factor,
taken alone, could do a good job at accurately representing a party's
abilities.

I think the current system is decent, although I would like to see a
change such that a table, after determining the APL, could then choose
to either play at that APL, or one step down (with, of course, all the
attendant lesser rewards, such as gold, XP and access). That would be
a great boon to those terribly mismatched tables that might come
together at a con, those parties that are roleplay heavy but combat
light, etc.

Steve M
• ... see ... version is ... I agree plus the whole Core versus Limited issue with prestige classes. If they are listed as Core ANYONE who meets the requirements
Message 3 of 17 , Jan 2, 2005
--- In Living_Greyhawk@yahoogroups.com, "Ian Seale" <iseale@t...> wrote:
>
> --- In Living_Greyhawk@yahoogroups.com, Stephen Mumford
> <stevemumford@c...> wrote:
> > > -----Will we have a discussion period in Yahoo! group
> > > lg_draft_discussion_group before the next LGCS release?
> > >
> > >> ***Yes.
> >
> > While this is great, and well-appreciated, what I'd really like to
see
> > prior to the next LGCS update is a period _before_ the next
version is
> > worked on in which we can all make our suggestions or recommendations
> > to the Circle.
>
> I second this motion.
>
> There were a number of issues, mentioned during the review period last
> March for the LGCS 3.0, that were essentially ignored. My personal
> favourites are:
> - Centralized Circle rulings
> - Cohorts
> - 1/2 Gold, 1/2 XP
>
>
> Ian Seale
> Duchy of Urnst

I agree plus the whole Core versus Limited issue with prestige
classes. If they are listed as Core ANYONE who meets the requirements
should get to take levels in it. It is a minor bug that prestige
classes listed as Core have some additional hoops like contacting your
triad, documenting membership, setting up combat, etc. If it is a Core
prestige class then make it SO otherwise call it Limited.
Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.