TOPIC: Class selection. First time and have some?

Mike Steele wrote: it's pretty hard to argue against having it be "highest level wins" because you can't verify the level, when the basic rule of "all players 3rd level or higher" has the exact same problem of not being able to verify whether players are 3rd level or higher.

That's a fair critique. However, "highest level wins" doesn't provide for a resolution when two players of equal level can't agree.

It also just states that +3 only get first pick before 1-2. That means if you lose your first pick it would mean you are now picking at the same level as 1-2 and anyone else that did not get their first pick. At least that is how I read first pick. Not pick first. Or am I reading that incorrectly?

Druegar wrote:

Mike Steele wrote: it's pretty hard to argue against having it be "highest level wins" because you can't verify the level, when the basic rule of "all players 3rd level or higher" has the exact same problem of not being able to verify whether players are 3rd level or higher.

That's a fair critique. However, "highest level wins" doesn't provide for a resolution when two players of equal level can't agree.

That is true, players of equal level would still have to roll off. But I'd guess that would happen a lot less often with "highest level wins" than with the current method. I'd guess the majority of many groups are 3rd level or higher, it doesn't take too many dungeons to get to third level.

jedibcg wrote: It also just states that +3 only get first pick before 1-2. That means if you lose your first pick it would mean you are now picking at the same level as 1-2 and anyone else that did not get their first pick. At least that is how I read first pick. Not pick first. Or am I reading that incorrectly?

? Really?

(All 3rd level+ players will roll off for order of choosing.)*

I read it as technically:

All 3rd level+ players roll off, and use that to determine their class choice. After that, level 1 and 2 figure out what class they want.

Most of the time (i.e. if there is only one dispute), you won't need to have *everyone* 3rd+ roll off, but that's technically part of the procedure.

I still see the institution of a complicated process as creation of a problem, and not the solution to an issue that does not seem to come up too often. I've yet to hear from anyone in this thread that they've seen big issues come up frequently in the past. Adding a "roll-off" to the already hectic coaching experience could be a huge turn-off to new players.

Incognito wrote:

jedibcg wrote: It also just states that +3 only get first pick before 1-2. That means if you lose your first pick it would mean you are now picking at the same level as 1-2 and anyone else that did not get their first pick. At least that is how I read first pick. Not pick first. Or am I reading that incorrectly?

? Really?

(All 3rd level+ players will roll off for order of choosing.)*

I read it as technically:

All 3rd level+ players roll off, and use that to determine their class choice. After that, level 1 and 2 figure out what class they want.

Most of the time (i.e. if there is only one dispute), you won't need to have *everyone* 3rd+ roll off, but that's technically part of the procedure.

I was combining it with the second part.

"If two or more 3rd-level or higher players can't amicably decide who gets to play a disputed class, roll a die. Whomever rolls highest may play that character class. Re-roll ties. If nobody in your group has a die, ask a TD volunteer if they can get one for you.

Note: Being a higher player level than 3rd does not bestow any bonus to this roll. E.g., if a 6th-level player and a 3rd-level player are rolling-off against each other, they both have an equal chance at getting the character they want."

With the second part it talks about a die roll. I agree with just the first part it would be a die roll for all and there is no issue. When I read it with the second I thought it applied to just first picks. So to answer your question yes Really. I read it incorrectly and thought I might have and was looking for clarification. Thank you, though I think the really was unneeded.