V.A.L.U.E. rules, now taking feedback

Also I am assuming now that background subclasses races and spells are allowed from Guildmasters guide to ravnica and the upcoming Eberrron book. I am asking this as some races and backgrounds do not exist in fearun

Correct, Eberron and Ravnica content is included, as well as all future published content from non-Forgotten Realm books.

Regarding DM rewards: If a DM uses the reward does he gain all other associated features of a level up (TCP, Gold) If so, then the second part regarding only getting TCP is moot, as leveling gives you the same amount of TCP.

Regarding TCP: Just so all are clear: there is no TCP limit for characters. A character gains 4 TCP and gold at the end of EVERY session, whether they level or not.

I’ll sit down tomorrow and rewrite the Doc into neuttal language and try to clear up any unclear phrasing.

dmreward for only tcp is not entirely moot, would allow to get more tcp at a lower level (just as if a player would choose not to take level progression)

What I mean is that DM would choose level up reward, gain all regular rewards for playing a session, choose not to level character, like other players can. Basically, word it into one reward instead of having 2.

yeah that probably could be done, but the way it’s written atm the level up reward is not a mix and match thing :smiley:

Sorry just coming back the flying point. All AL adventures are created with the preconditions that there are no flying chars (at least at t1 in S9, in t1-4 for S1-8) can this not create some misbalance if there are now T1 flying chars?

Here is my take. I am presuming the what is on the VALUE sheet will be amended and everything else is according the season 9? Please do correct me.

  1. Flying characters - i would stick with official Season 9, i.e. disallowed until Lv 5. For OP issues and clear advantages it creates in early games. Yes, you can play an Aarakora but your wings are not strong enough until lv 5.
    Note: uncommon races can and may be mistreated depending on the setting and adventure itself, and it is fair to warn the newer players.
  2. Standard Array - would honestly advise sticking to the standard array in the PHB. Balancing PC options and Monsters/NPC’s is a big part of 5e. There are already so many races available, some being overpowering, that with the changes in magical items accessibility and possession, each PC will have a variety of power options.
    Afterall we are role playing and not war crafting, no?
  3. UA class options - a great idea, even though not so much for the new player, but let’s vote wisely. I previously played the Revised Ranger and Theurgist classes (till lvls 10 and 15 )and can say that both are overpowered (OP). IMO revised classes of official classes should be disallowed. I would say that only classes which do not exist be considered (i.e. the Psionic), and possibly a few interesting sub-classes.
  4. Magic items - the player that finds an item gets to keep it or give it to another member of the adventuring party who has better use of that item (on principle of collegiality) … Unlocked items should be noted on a list and made available for purchase for players of corresponding tiers or players with enough gold. Story specific items and legendary items should not be available for purchase, but should be noted on the list of found items (more as evidence to avoid cheating). All unlocked items should be priced equally according to rarity.

In summary. Allowing players to use all hardcover books is great. Everything else in addition from that, such as UA stuff and changing stat options opens space for overpowered PC’s and an unbalanced game. Similar could be said of the proposed magical items rule, because it opens space for cheating (who keeps track of all the non-attunement magical items a PC can have),. Unlocking all found magic for everyone helps mitigate that, but still it very much depends on a player’s discretion.

Again IMO, just doing the following is an overall improvement:

  • removing the restriction on hardcore books,
  • increasing the number of magical items a PC can have (but still limiting it) and,
  • unlocking all items found (except story specific and legendary)

I’m not in favor of the who find it keeps it rule, would always mean an advantage for louder players because they will always say first that they search the room or body :wink:

Just another issue: Will there a way to convert season 8/9 chars into V.A.L.U.E or has everybody to start over again?

#1 Flying Characters: Yeah, that does sound reasonable, as Variant Winged Tiefling is a thing I know I will be playing xD

#2 The Point Buy we set up is still Standard Array. All we did was expand the bottom/top caps, so you still use the same amount of points as Point buy. We did plan for Races such as Kobold and Orc (Not half) that get -2 to Str and Int respectively. Thus even 6 Base -2 Racial Modifer Orc will still have 4 Int and be sentient. The same is set for starting, so that 17 Base +2 Racial will still cap at 19 starting and only lvl 4 will give a player their first Nat 20 Ability. Remeber, 7 and 6 only give 1 point each, while 15+ costs 3 points each. One does need to take SIGNIFICANT negatives to get that 16/17 in a stat.

#3 Revised Ranger will be a no I think because of how all UA Sub Classes of the Ranger only interact with the PHB Ranger and no the UA Ranger. The Mystic classes has already been deemed a very clear NO from multiple DMs. An experienced player can break the game with Pure PHB, UA does NOT break the game nor is it OP. What we look to curb is players playing characters that are good at too many things. No Rogue wants to play with a Monk Warforged with Expertise in Thieves Tools who does all the sneaking, lockpicking and basically frontline Rogue. Our goal is that play is FUN, so that a hardcore min/maxer and the newb can sit at the same table, and both feel impactful and important to the session and the story.
#4 When a party finds a magical item, people who want the item can discuss who gets it, but the DM does have the right to award the item if there is no consensus (whether by dice roll or awarding the item to the player with the least amount of magic items)

We do plan to balance players: not by restricting the players mechanically, but by educating and teaching them game etiquette. We trust our players to not cheat and players who do cheat will be restricted and/or removed if they are not remedial.

Magic items would be permanently distributed at the end of the session, DM will of course be obliged to assist in mediating. Despite what the PLAYER may want, the CHARACTERs are obliged to ALWAYS put the party first, otherwise the Player may be restricted (as per Season 9 AL Rules)

Thus magic items should be rewarded to Characters with #1 Most Benefit and #2 With Least Amount of Magic Items.

Yes, it is easy to convert to VALUE, just be sure to keep track of Sessions played. I have this weekend off and plan on actually doing VALUE related stuff :stuck_out_tongue:

Hi Rayce,

  1. Maxing out a stat on lvl 4 is rather a big deal in itself. It wouldn’t normally happen until level 8 or higher levels in some other cases. I believe that this was not the intention of standard array in PHB, nor was it to max out a stat and then focus on feats. All I see is lower dump stats (and earlier maxed out key stat(s)) which unfortunately hardly have effect on players actions/decisions in shorter AL games. IMO this is great for players who like power play.
    Kobolds, Orc’s - great - while it is fun watching one walk through a town in Fauerun, even more so than Duergar, i believe that many players will focus on a bunch of other cooler races - Shadar’kai, Fallen Aasimar, Feywild elves, Genasi etc.and some have pretty cool racial powers. Take that and factor in the VALUE array.
    There will also be magical items available earlier which was previously not the case, magical armors and such. Players also do not have to find them like in regular adventures, but will be able to buy them much earlier from the evergreen and unlocked items lists… which is fine.
    Also the revenant feat/revenant blade will also be available… but just imagine, for example, how all this factors with Lvl 4 maxed out dex melee class.
    Sorry man, the kobolds and orcs argument doesn’t do it for me.

  2. Believe you described the problem in itself. Some DM’s rule this way and that way and over the years a lot UA stuff has accumulated, some does break the game especially when two and more UA OP classes get together - it happened in our group over the last years… Anyways, there will be a vote and hopefully some fun classes will be introduced, and others not.

  3. That’s fine…

I wasn’t able to make it to the meeting, but I am glad that this was posted for public review and feedback. If there is another one, will definitely try to make it. I hope these comments will be considered for the betterment of the game, and not a critique of work done.

Btw, I do like most of the suggestions, and appreciate your work and the work of everyone involved…

Hey Atoh-nym,

#2 18 and 20 really dont make much of a difference statistically, its mostly about players having the satisfaction of getting that 20, or being able to more freely take feats without having to try to balance feats and ASI to strictly. Lower dumpstats are a great way to RP. Having higher base Ability Scores also allows for suboptimal Races.
As mentioned before, we arent planning on restricting mechanics to prevent powergaming, but teaching our players to be reasonable with their powergaming.
#3 As point #2, we dont plan on restricting players just because the possibility of powergaming exists. There are UA options that are themselves unreasonable or overstep their class bounds.

i will weigh in exactly once as i’m tired of all the discussion to be honest:

#1 If we restrict flying for races that have it at level 1 (as far as i know that is only the Aarakocra) without giving out a replacement, they have nothing, all other races that get the option to get flying at level 5 (tiefling, aasimar) have to give up another racial for it at that level (with AL rules), so I’m strictly against introducing this restriction <- a DM can always talk to the players at his table, V.A.L.U.E. is not AL so the DM is in fact empowered again to utilize other options to restrict flying if it would fully circumvent a problem in a dissatisfying way)

#2 i agree with @Rayce_Kaiser on this

#3 Personally I would plan for all UAs are forbidden, the voting will take time and most likely it will be a select few UAs that might have a chance of making the cut

#4 i’m not a friend of “to the one with the least magic items” because that would dissuade players from using their TCP, we are a small enough community that i don’t see it as a problem to have a discussion with a rolled decision if push comes to shove

Point 2 could go on and on, I am an old school gate keeper sort to say and don’t favor high stats brewing for stated.reasons concerning powerplay… never much liked the last editions for that matter. From a players point of view, I agree that it is more fun as it provides more options early on and many players if not most do not play beyond T3… After all we are a small group, and I will roll with it.

I agree with the other points as noted by Tersidian, especially no.3 and the flying argument is a valid one for me.

About #4 okay but I makes some not so nice experience in my first AL game where it if was not per many and we found a rapier +1 which was useful for at least 3 chars in the group.

Maybe the following would be a solution:
Every player have to track in their log sheet the magic items in three categories:

  • awarded magic items: found magic items which the player can keep
  • bought magic items: all items bought with tcp
  • consumables: all scroll / portions one time use items.

If the conflict can be solved by the players, the player with the least awarded items get the item in case of a draw the dice decides. Would not discourage players and still ensure an fair distribution over the community.

Also the tracking must be done in any case for consistency.

the following post is just a proposal and in no way final, i would advise everybody not to use it for now, or if used make sure to keep a very solid record because the costs might be changed in the near future and should be applied retroactively!

as it has started to come up and it looks like nobody else is going to try to offer a solution, here is my proposed TCP cost (and evergreen list)
the items are now sorted by item name, if you want to filter you can add a temporary filter view to your session by clicking: Data > Filter Views > Add Temporary Filter View
google sheets is smart enough to create it on the correct area, you are then able to click the column headers (they get an arrow symbol) and select the filter for that (for example to only see the items that are set to unlocked you click the arrow next to the ‘Unlocked’ column and select ‘TRUE’)

the evergreens are straight from the Season 8 ALCC for forgotten realms, i need to check the eberron one too, but haven’t gotten around to that yet, Armor+1 is split into 3 as that was the way it was done in season 8, the fields have a note about which types of armors are included in that row

my proposed formulas are based on rarity and at which tier an item shall be available. the exact values can be found in the configuration tab of the sheet, an item’s cost is the simple formula of: base cost * tier multiplier * rarity multiplier


I like it

Very nice looks fine for me, too

Also if the DMs would add comments to the items that have been unlocked since AL season 9 started, preferable with the info which adventure they were found in