TOPIC: The negative effects of running 10 CoA's

I lent one person, the girlfriend of a fellow build team member, my CoA for one run. She had forgotten to bring her AoTF for that run. She took it through the dungeon with her, as is required by the rules I believe, and gave me the difference in pulls.

I think the key is that I have always assumed the tokens you equipped went through the dungeon with you so that the same pile of tokens couldn't be equipping multiple characters though multiple dungeons.

As far as the loaning CoAs to all players, if the 10 are going into the dungeon, that should be okay. Asking for the difference should be made clear in the coaching room, and all of that math should be settled before the group hits the epilogue room. Offering Charms to people, but not taking them with you creates the appearance of impropriety, even if there isn't an intention.

And we were both grateful for the optimization of our run.

To the Original Poster:

This has nothing to do with CoAs. It sounds like you are are just assuming it does.

It's like:

a + b = 17

You're assigning CoA to the 'a' all the time. 'a' could be anything in each instance.

For example:

When I'm a Combat DM I don't care about how many Treasure Pulls are in that column on the Party Card. There is waaaay too much other stuff to worry about at the time. And, the first thing I look at on the Party Card when it's given to me is what level the Party is doing (Non-Lethal, Normal, etc).

I'm not saying you are wrong about how you feel you were treated. I'm just saying don't assume it's because your group had 10 CoAs was the reason.

Barry Welling wrote: As the AC for the Beholder Side, let me clear up some misconceptions:
1. No the Beholder doesn't do 50 points of damage (even on Nightmare) on Normal it should be 10
2. The room 4 puzzle with the sliding words, was NOT supposed to click when you completed each step, so the previous trip, you were given extra help (still an issue from the standpoint of consistency)

10? Pretty sure the beholder did 15 to me on Saturday night. I remember it well because I had exactly 15 HP. (We did have clicks, though, so I guess it evened out.)

The volunteer was way out of line, and I hope that's emphasized in training next year.

It is a bit troubling that you said you don't own 10 CoA, but have access to them. Did someone loan them to you? I think it's inappropriate for someone to loan loot tokens out for runs they aren't on. Jeff made that clear when people started talking about doing that with Horns of Plenty. Loot tokens should never be on runs without their owner. Unless the person has 20 CoA, 10 for their use and 10 for yours.

Mike Steele wrote: It is a bit troubling that you said you don't own 10 CoA, but have access to them. Did someone loan them to you? I think it's inappropriate for someone to loan loot tokens out for runs they aren't on. Jeff made that clear when people started talking about doing that with Horns of Plenty. Loot tokens should never be on runs without their owner. Unless the person has 20 CoA, 10 for their use and 10 for yours.

How do you define ownership?

Another thing which sometimes happens is that a group of players pool together their resources and "share" a token.

So in such a case, who "owns" that token. If 10 players pool together to create a Charm of Avarice, is it wrong or right for each of the 10 players to have access to it (especially if they do separate, individual runs)?

If for some reason you are unable to make GenCon, would it be proper for you to give your loot tokens to your friends who will be going?

(It is interesting that there is actually a precedent with Gertz's artifact. Although a group of players pooled together their GP, it is still soulbound to a single individual.)

Barry Welling wrote: As the AC for the Beholder Side, let me clear up some misconceptions:
1. No the Beholder doesn't do 50 points of damage (even on Nightmare) on Normal it should be 10
2. The room 4 puzzle with the sliding words, was NOT supposed to click when you completed each step, so the previous trip, you were given extra help (still an issue from the standpoint of consistency)
3. The DM should be referencing the Party card even if they are tallying notes in their head. it's possible they had that all straight in their head... but unlikely.

All of these problems, and the other ones you listed could have been sorted out at the time, if you had simply requested an AC.

I'm sorry you had a poor experience, but there's little I can do about it after the event.

Interesting. I also took more damage than 10. I was running a 5th level Paladin and the DM hit me with 15 pts of damage on normal. It didn't really bother me since I had a lot to spare, but it is interesting to know that DM's can change the rules with no consequences. I know I can ask for an AC but the thought didn't occur to me since 15 points seemed reasonable to me from a beholder.

I find unlikely the DM changed the rules, so it speak in this case. They probably just made a mistake. Still something that should be brought to the attention of an AC so it can be fixed, but just because DM didn't do what they were supposed to doesn't mean they did it on purpose.

The 50 damage is another story all together.

jedibcg wrote: I find unlikely the DM changed the rules, so it speak in this case. They probably just made a mistake. Still something that should be brought to the attention of an AC so it can be fixed, but just because DM didn't do what they were supposed to doesn't mean they did it on purpose.

The 50 damage is another story all together.

Along the lines of it being an honest mistake...
Is it possible the DM said "Fifteen damage" and not "Fifty damage" and was heard incorrectly?

I know my old ears have a hard time hearing every detail in the dungeon.

jedibcg wrote: I find unlikely the DM changed the rules, so it speak in this case. They probably just made a mistake. Still something that should be brought to the attention of an AC so it can be fixed, but just because DM didn't do what they were supposed to doesn't mean they did it on purpose.

The 50 damage is another story all together.

I know for a fact one DM actually did take it upon her self to change to rules as she felt.

I wont give names, or times to identify this person. But our party half of which were mostly new players decided to do our run on normal. She was giving out damage according to the nightmare level. When another DM pointed out she shouldn't be, I heard her say she didn't care and felt the damage at normal wasn't enough. This was on the BHM Puzzle run.

She also did a few other things I felt she shouldn't have. But won't go into it.

Phiswiz wrote: Interesting. I also took more damage than 10. I was running a 5th level Paladin and the DM hit me with 15 pts of damage on normal. It didn't really bother me since I had a lot to spare, but it is interesting to know that DM's can change the rules with no consequences. I know I can ask for an AC but the thought didn't occur to me since 15 points seemed reasonable to me from a beholder.

At least some of the Beholder damage was clearly indicated - it was on the board on the wall for all to see!

That indicated which classes would take damage if the save was failed and how much damage based on difficulty level. (It was mainly fighty classes that took damage. Spellcasters would have other effects, and Rogues would count their dirty gold.)

Rebeg wrote:

jedibcg wrote: I find unlikely the DM changed the rules, so it speak in this case. They probably just made a mistake. Still something that should be brought to the attention of an AC so it can be fixed, but just because DM didn't do what they were supposed to doesn't mean they did it on purpose.

The 50 damage is another story all together.

I know for a fact one DM actually did take it upon her self to change to rules as she felt.

I wont give names, or times to identify this person. But our party half of which were mostly new players decided to do our run on normal. She was giving out damage according to the nightmare level. When another DM pointed out she shouldn't be, I heard her say she didn't care and felt the damage at normal wasn't enough. This was on the BHM Puzzle run.

She also did a few other things I felt she shouldn't have. But won't go into it.

See I think she should be identified to an AC, even if it is after the fact now. This is not the type of DM we want in the dungeons and TD should be informed so they can decide if they want her back or not or at least talk to her to make sure she is not changing things in the future.