Can somebody explain the AL rule of PHB +1? I'm confused.

[Klorox]

I think it means you can only use stuff from the players handbook +1 other book.

Can it be any official book? Is it only the latest book? I'm confused.

[jaappleton]

I believe it depends on what the table is running. If it's Princes of the Apocalypse, it's PHB + Elemental Evil Player's Companion, for example.

[rooneg]

No, it has nothing to do with what the table is running. When you create your character you chose one source other than the PHB. You may use options in that book, plus the PHB, to make your 1st level character. In the future, when you level up, you continue to use options within that book. For example, if you picked the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide you could use some of the subclasses and races there, or the new cantrips. If you picked the Elemental Evil Player's Companion you could pick the races there and/or the new spells. If you picked Volo's Guide you could use the new races there (with the caveat that you have specific faction and background options you need to use along with them).

The restriction is just that once you've picked that +1 you can't use another. So if you picked SCAG you can't also grab spells out of EEPG when you level up. (If you're a wizard or a warlock with a spellbook you can still copy spells from other sources, but you have to find them in play the old fashioned way, you can't just get them by leveling up.)

And yes, it has to be an official book. So these days it means SCAG, Volo's, Elemental Evil Player's Companion. I think that's it.

Oh, and Backgrounds are a special case, the PHB+1 rule doesn't apply. You can get them from any official source, it doesn't just have to be from your +1.

[jaappleton]

Let's say Dave is the DM, and Bill, Bob, and Jeff are the players. Do they all have to use the same book, or can Bill use Volo's, while Jeff has EE and Bob has SCAG?

How does that work with spells available? Would only Bob have access to Booming Blade?

[DrDinocrusher]

No, it has nothing to do with what the table is running. When you create your character you chose one source other than the PHB. You may use options in that book, plus the PHB, to make your 1st level character. In the future, when you level up, you continue to use options within that book. For example, if you picked the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide you could use some of the subclasses and races there, or the new cantrips. If you picked the Elemental Evil Player's Companion you could pick the races there and/or the new spells. If you picked Volo's Guide you could use the new races there (with the caveat that you have specific faction and background options you need to use along with them).

The restriction is just that once you've picked that +1 you can't use another. So if you picked SCAG you can't also grab spells out of EEPG when you level up. (If you're a wizard or a warlock with a spellbook you can still copy spells from other sources, but you have to find them in play the old fashioned way, you can't just get them by leveling up.)

And yes, it has to be an official book. So these days it means SCAG, Volo's, Elemental Evil Player's Companion. I think that's it.

Oh, and Backgrounds are a special case, the PHB+1 rule doesn't apply. You can get them from any official source, it doesn't just have to be from your +1.

Yep this is correct. You basically have to choose what cool stuff you get outside the PHB. Note however that the restriction applies to character creation/leveling options - a Hobgoblin wizard who finds EE spells in a spell book can still copy them into their own book. Or you can buy them from Fai Shen's Fantastical Faire if they're at your store. That character cannot choose EE spells as their 2 spells learned for gaining a wizard level however, they must come across them in the game world to learn them.



Let's say Dave is the DM, and Bill, Bob, and Jeff are the players. Do they all have to use the same book, or can Bill use Volo's, while Jeff has EE and Bob has SCAG?

How does that work with spells available? Would only Bob have access to Booming Blade?

It's per character. Each player independently chooses what +1 they're taking. If you use Volo's you cannot use the SCAG cantrips, and vice versa. So in your example yes, only Bob would be able to access booming blade.

[Falcon X]

I can't believe I never knew about this rule, but it sounds fantastic. It solves many minmaxing problems while allowing the flavor of supplements. Now if I had just used this in 3.5...

[LordFluffy]

I can't believe I never knew about this rule, but it sounds fantastic. It solves many minmaxing problems while allowing the flavor of supplements. Now if I had just used this in 3.5...

But at the same time, it means things like you'll never have a Kobold Sorceror casting Lightning Lash or have an Aasimar Bladesinger. That seems less minmaxing and more arbitrary restriction.

[DeAnno]

It's a terrible, ham-handed rule, really there for no other reason than reactionary anger against 3.5e/4e optimization.

[Breashios]

It's a terrible, ham-handed rule, really there for no other reason than reactionary anger against 3.5e/4e optimization.

Hmm. Let me consider the meaning of ham-handed. "clumsy, bungling, incompetent, amateurish, inept, unskillful, inexpert, maladroit, gauche, awkward, inefficient, bumbling, useless". Nope. I must respectfully disagree. It is far from a perfect rule, but I think it comes closer to simple and effective for the purpose it is intended. As it is an AL rule, nothing stops individual Dungeon Masters outside of AL play from allowing any options that will make their games fun.

I believe Dungeon Masters with varying player composition from game to game have enough to track and deal with at AL events and may have some trouble modifying encounters for some super combo builds to keep them challenging and fun.

[tsuyoshikentsu]

I believe Dungeon Masters with varying player composition from game to game have enough to track and deal with at AL events and may have some trouble modifying encounters for some super combo builds to keep them challenging and fun.

What, like GWM and Sharpshooter? There's nothing possible with all released books that's significantly stronger than that. At all. DeAnno's right; the rule is terrible and ham-fisted. Especially because Wizards get to basically ignore it.

The combos it disallows are things like Tritons not being able to be Storm Sorcerers, Genasi not being able to case Green-Flame blade when they canonically invented it, aasimar not being allowed to be Sun Soul Monks, hobgoblins (some of the most lawful creatures in Volo's) not being able to take the Oath of the Crown... the list is idiotic and practically interminable.

[Oramac]

It's a terrible, ham-handed rule, really there for no other reason than reactionary anger against 3.5e/4e optimization.

For AL, it is a good rule that makes the whole experience simpler for new players/DMs, and still allows experienced players some choice in how they create their character.

I like the rule, but I will say that with 3 supplements published and a fourth rumored, it should probably change to PHB + 2 at some point.

[jaappleton]

I believe the PHB +1 rule is there for one reason:

It's not for what exists right now. It's to prevent abuse of things in the future. A product that might come out a year later from now might have some seriously OP stuff if it were to be stacked with what's available in two other books.

[Slipperychicken]

But at the same time, it means things like you'll never have a Kobold Sorceror casting Lightning Lash or have an Aasimar Bladesinger. That seems less minmaxing and more arbitrary restriction.

I'm not losing any sleep over it.

[tsuyoshikentsu]

I believe the PHB +1 rule is there for one reason:

It's not for what exists right now. It's to prevent abuse of things in the future. A product that might come out a year later from now might have some seriously OP stuff if it were to be stacked with what's available in two other books.

Right, because fictional bogeymen from the future are the best grounds upon which to restrict organized play options.

[Arkhios]

That rule alone would've been enough for me to not even try playing AL by the book. Then again, the supply and demand for AL in Finland is a joke. There are a few games every now and then, but very far between, and we seem to lack the appropriate premises for games/hobby stores to hold officially supported tables regularly. There are also so few games/hobby stores (that I know of) in here, and the biggest local store has literally one table for players - constantly claimed by MtG-players.

I'm yet to find any official tables happening in libraries, and I doubt there ever will be since AL rules are so ridiculous. Pathfinder Society is much better organized and also has bigger audience around here. Maybe WotC team should pull their heads out of their behinds and learn from example.

[jaappleton]

Right, because fictional bogeymen from the future are the best grounds upon which to restrict organized play options.

I'm not saying that I agree with it. Just throwing out my theory.

[Oramac]

I almost exclusively play AL, and I can say with certainty that, in that medium, it is a good rule. If you don't like it, don't play it.

[rooneg]

Note however that the restriction applies to character creation/leveling options - a Hobgoblin wizard who finds EE spells in a spell book can still copy them into their own book. Or you can buy them from Fai Shen's Fantastical Faire if they're at your store. That character cannot choose EE spells as their 2 spells learned for gaining a wizard level however, they must come across them in the game world to learn them.

FWIW, I said essentially this right in the text that you quoted ;-)

[rooneg]

I'm not losing any sleep over it.

Likewise. I mean it's annoying (he says, as he takes a level of Wizard earlier than planned for his Deep Gnome Eldritch Knight, just on the off chance he encounters someone who knows Absorb Elements), but it's not the end of the world, and I totally understand the desire to keep the rules for what's legal as simple as possible.

[Spiritchaser]

So an Aasimar cannot use Green Flame
Blade...

I'm not going to enforce this, but I can see the argument for simplifying the options.

And yes it does feel ham fisted but... Simple.


Ah well... Not my problem

[DrDinocrusher]

FWIW, I said essentially this right in the text that you quoted ;-)

I'm afraid I missed it, as I am a Yuan-Ti and reading comprehension is in a different sourcebook :P

[RickAllison]

One of the reasons I theorize for it is it reduced cross-referencing rules. As it stands now, a DM has to reference the PHB (which s/he should be familiar with anyway, as it is the primary rules compendium) and a book that the player should have handy anyway. No referencing the VGtM's racial abilities against a class ability in SCAG. The player pulls out the relevant text for the +1, the DM should know where to check it against the PHB to ensure it is kosher. In that format where you can have the players having to show this to multiple DMs, it would greatly simplify things.

Not that I have to like it. No, I want to use my VGtM race with the spells from the EEPC, and then be a Bladesinger. And of course that wouldn't fly for AL anyway because it wouldn't be an elf (for BS's racial restriction), but I'm spoiled by being in home games :smallbiggrin:.

[DivisibleByZero]

The rule exists to simplify AL play and to preemptively disqualify any potential shenanigans in the future. This way, when writing material for a new book, they don't have to consider how the new material interacts with anything outside of the PHB and the book they're currently writing.
Strange interactions with material from other sources don't need to be considered, because they won't be allowed in AL games.

[mgshamster]

What, like GWM and Sharpshooter? There's nothing possible with all released books that's significantly stronger than that. At all.

The funny thing is, even that isn't OP.


I'm not going to enforce this, but I can see the argument for simplifying the options.

You don't have to unless you're playing an official AL game. And even then, it's only an issue if you ever try to use that character with another AL DM or bring the character to a convention or event.

For your home games, it doesn't matter.

[Klorox]

I believe the PHB +1 rule is there for one reason:

It's not for what exists right now. It's to prevent abuse of things in the future. A product that might come out a year later from now might have some seriously OP stuff if it were to be stacked with what's available in two other books.

It's got to be this.

Oh, I'm posting from a mobile phone, so I'm not going to go through multiple quotes, but SS/GWM are two amazing feats. Are they OP? Borderline, IMHO.

[rooneg]

It's got to be this.

Oh, I'm posting from a mobile phone, so I'm not going to go through multiple quotes, but SS/GWM are two amazing feats. Are they OP? Borderline, IMHO.

SS/GWM are the line. They are very good and everyone knows it. If you can definitively say something is better than those two then it's clear that it's over the line.

[Toadkiller]

That rule alone would've been enough for me to not even try playing AL by the book. Then again, the supply and demand for AL in Finland is a joke. There are a few games every now and then, but very far between, and we seem to lack the appropriate premises for games/hobby stores to hold officially supported tables regularly. There are also so few games/hobby stores (that I know of) in here, and the biggest local store has literally one table for players - constantly claimed by MtG-players.

I'm yet to find any official tables happening in libraries, and I doubt there ever will be since AL rules are so ridiculous. Pathfinder Society is much better organized and also has bigger audience around here. Maybe WotC team should pull their heads out of their behinds and learn from example.

Well- it's not like they have roving squads of goons enforcing this (or any) rules. So you could just start a game at the library and do what you want.

[Nicodiemus]

Hold on while I grab my cane and stroke my beard.

All you young whiney whippersnappers don't even know what restricted options are. Back in MY day you had 7 options. Only 7. Fighter, Cleric, Magic User, Thief, Elf, Dwarf, or Halfling. There was no race, class, background and path. If you were a fighter you swung a weapon every turn and you were HAPPY.

But seriously, it's a matter of streamlining play and trying to maintain balance in a very open format. When you create a character you pick a splat. Then anyone can review your sheet and check for anomalies quickly. And considering that AL characters are eligible for tournament play, that can be important. Be creative while in AL, then start a home game and go buckwild. And quit whining.

[RickAllison]

Hold on while I grab my cane and stroke my beard.

All you young whiney whippersnappers don't even know what restricted options are. Back in MY day you had 7 options. Only 7. Fighter, Cleric, Magic User, Thief, Elf, Dwarf, or Halfling. There was no race, class, background and path. If you were a fighter you swung a weapon every turn and you were HAPPY.

That was beautiful. Just so beautiful...

[Fflewddur Fflam]

It's the stupidest rule ever, especially when the only OP combos in 5e come from certain feats, which are all in the PHB.

[bid]

But at the same time, it means things like you'll never have a Kobold Sorceror casting Lightning Lash or have an Aasimar Bladesinger. That seems less minmaxing and more arbitrary restriction.
Not exactly.

IIRC, that limitation is called "story origin" and does not apply once you start playing. For instance, you could learn lightning leash when you level, or pick bladesinger once you reach level 2. Assuming that is possible in your campaign.

[Fflewddur Fflam]

Not exactly.

IIRC, that limitation is called "story origin" and does not apply once you start playing. For instance, you could learn lightning leash when you level, or pick bladesinger once you reach level 2. Assuming that is possible in your campaign.

You recall incorrectly.

[DivisibleByZero]

SS/GWM are the line. They are very good and everyone knows it. If you can definitively say something is better than those two then it's clear that it's over the line.

Thank you for your opinion.
Many upon many of us disagree and believe SS/GWF are already over that line.
The common way that many of us fix it is to have those feats replace the -5/+10 feature with prof bonus.
You lose your prof bonus to the attack roll and gain twice your bonus to the damage roll (personally I use 1.5x your bonus rounded up).

[JAL_1138]

In my view it's probably not so much to do with balance issues (yet, anyway) and more for quicker and easier verification of character legality. Cuts down on the number of things the DM or organizer has to check if a character needs to be scrutinized for some reason. As more supplements come out (if they do), that'll get trickier than it already is.

[rooneg]

Thank you for your opinion.
Many upon many of us disagree and believe SS/GWF are already over that line.
The common way that many of us fix it is to have those feats replace the -5/+10 feature with prof bonus.
You lose your prof bonus to the attack roll and gain twice your bonus to the damage roll (personally I use 1.5x your bonus rounded up).

Sure, it's your table and you can house rule as you like. I was only speaking for RAW D&D, and in that version of the game, if we start to see builds that are clearly better than SS/GWF then I'll feel like we've got a serious issue with power creep on our hands.

[IShouldntBehere]

In my view it's probably not so much to do with balance issues (yet, anyway) and more for quicker and easier verification of character legality. Cuts down on the number of things the DM or organizer has to checuk if a character needs to be scrutinized for some reason. As more supplements come out (if they do), that'll get trickier than it already is.

I remember being a 3.5 game rather late into the lifecycle of that product, playing under a GM with an "Any Official Source" character creation rule. I had just discovered CharOP and felt really clever about the whole situation. I remember making some characters and turning over a character sheet with a laundry list of citations. There must have been at least a dozen sources per character, and one that must have been 20+. It would have been impossible to vet such a character had the GM wanted to. It's crazy.

It also keeps down the number of interactions you can be aware of. You only ever have to think about how new material interactions with the PHB, not the PHB and each book that came before it or how three books or four books might interact in a way any 2 on their own might not. Thinking back to 3.5 again...

Night Sticks alone breaks little.
Persist Spell alone breaks little.
Divine Metamagic alone breaks little.

Even any of these two together doesn't really break that much. Each of them on their own is actually a pretty cool little feature (particularity DMM, imo) All of sudden when you bring three different source books together however...

[rooneg]

Not exactly.

IIRC, that limitation is called "story origin" and does not apply once you start playing. For instance, you could learn lightning leash when you level, or pick bladesinger once you reach level 2. Assuming that is possible in your campaign.

Story Origin is no longer a thing in current AL rules, and even when it did it didn't let you pick from any old source when you leveled up. As soon as there started to be multiple sources for player content beyond the PHB (i.e. when SCAG was published) you had to pick one and stick to it, not cherry pick from them all as you leveled up.

[mgshamster]

In PFS (Pathfinder Society), the rule is that you can use any source (from a list, which was almost every book) that you personally owned.

When you showed up to an official game, you either had to bring a copy of each book you were using or prove you owned the PDF with your name attached to it. If you didn't, you couldn't use that source. Yes, this included the phb. And no, you couldn't just use the SRD (aka PRD). You also couldn't share; so if you and a buddy were both playing in the same official game, you had to show two copies of the PHB so you could both play.

In addition to that, there was a very long list of sections of books that were not allowed. You had to cross reference that list to ensure the specific section of a book you were using was allowed in official games.

Simply saying "PHB+1" is so much easier. Also, there's no requirement to prove you own the source you're using in AL, like there is in PFS.

[Tectorman]

The rule does not cut down on what the DM has to be familiar with, since every single player is allowed to have a different +1. And the explanation that the rule is in place to guard against unanticipated interactions so that every new book only needs to be written with the PHB in mind wears very, very thin given how slowly the source books have been coming out. Slightly over one per year is more than enough time to check how everything interacts with everything. It also rings hollow when Wizards get to ignore it anyway when it comes to their spells. Add to that the fact that it disallows race/class/feature combinations that have every damned right to exist (Genasi and GreenFlame Blade, Sun Soul and Aasimar, Tritons and Storm Sorcerer), and there becomes absolutely nothing redeemable about this rule.

They've been testing a redo for the Ranger. How's that going to work out? Will it be in a new book and therefore ineligible for anything besides the PHB? Considering that it only exists because the current Ranger is under par, it should be able to stand in substitution for the current Ranger, regardless of how it's released.

And that's the real middle finger of this rule. Everything that's been released, no matter if it's in one book or four or if they'd all been released as hundreds of two-page pamphlets, exists in the same shared headspace. That they didn't get printed in the same book is pure coincidence, an out-of-universe concern that should have less than zero bearing on what goes on in-universe.

[rooneg]

The rule does not cut down on what the DM has to be familiar with, since every single player is allowed to have a different +1. And the explanation that the rule is in place to guard against unanticipated interactions so that every new book only needs to be written with the PHB in mind wears very, very thin given how slowly the source books have been coming out. Slightly over one per year is more than enough time to check how everything interacts with everything. It also rings hollow when Wizards get to ignore it anyway when it comes to their spells. Add to that the fact that it disallows race/class/feature combinations that have every damned right to exist (Genasi and GreenFlame Blade, Sun Soul and Aasimar, Tritons and Storm Sorcerer), and there becomes absolutely nothing redeemable about this rule.

They've been testing a redo for the Ranger. How's that going to work out? Will it be in a new book and therefore ineligible for anything besides the PHB? Considering that it only exists because the current Ranger is under par, it should be able to stand in substitution for the current Ranger, regardless of how it's released.

And that's the real middle finger of this rule. Everything that's been released, no matter if it's in one book or four or if they'd all been released as hundreds of two-page pamphlets, exists in the same shared headspace. That they didn't get printed in the same book is pure coincidence, an out-of-universe concern that should have less than zero bearing on what goes on in-universe.

I don't think you're going to find anyone who is arguing against the idea of this rule being completely arbitrary and having a lot of interactions that don't make any sense at all (like the Genesi/Green Flame Blade thing). There are absolutely cases that are utterly nonsensical.

You're also correct that the DM does have to know (at least in broad strokes) all the rules. They don't have to know all the interactions between all the non-PHB sources (mostly...), but they have to at least be familiar with all the sources to some degree.

As for how this will work with the new classes they're clearly prepping for release, we just have to wait and see. Maybe when the PHB2/Unearthed Arcana/Whatever They Call It comes out AL will decide to be PHB+NewBook+1 going forward. Maybe NewBook will happen to reprint some stuff from previous supplements (like SCAG did with Deep Gnomes that had already appeared in EEPC, or VGtM did with Goliaths), so you'd finally get a chance to have Genasi and Green Flame Blade in the same +1 source. Who knows? We'll just have to wait and see.

[IShouldntBehere]

The rule does not cut down on what the DM has to be familiar with, since every single player is allowed to have a different +1.



Two Games. In both cases there are 10 total sourcebooks released. Game A uses the PHB+1 Rule. Game B uses FFA rule.

Doug. The DM is familiar with books 1, 3 & 5.

In game A

Bill Brings his character using just the PHB
Tom Brings his character using PHB + Book 1
Sam Brings his character using PHB + Book 6
Eric Brings his character using PHB + Book 7
Becky brings her character using PHB + Book 4

Doug must now familiarize himself with books 6, 7 4 and he doesn't know these well.


In game B

Bill brings his character using just the PHB
Tom brings his characer using the PHB books 3, 5 and 10.
Sam brings his character using the PHB and book 4
Eric brings his characer using the PHB, Books 6 and 7
Beck brings her character using the PHB, book 8, 9 10 and 2

Doug must now familiarize himself with books 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 10, 2.

[DivisibleByZero]

Sure, it's your table and you can house rule as you like. I was only speaking for RAW D&D, and in that version of the game, if we start to see builds that are clearly better than SS/GWF then I'll feel like we've got a serious issue with power creep on our hands.

And what I'm trying to explain to you is that many of us think that SS/GWM are already OP, so your idea of what constitutes power creep is different than ours.
You stated that SS/GWM was the line.

I explained a common houserule to fix it because the problem with them is that it's a flat bonus. That flat bonus is to high in the early game, which is why many people consider it OP. Shaking it over time fixes it.
We contend that those two feats are already over your line, so using them as a base is inherently flawed.

[Klorox]

Hold on while I grab my cane and stroke my beard.

All you young whiney whippersnappers don't even know what restricted options are. Back in MY day you had 7 options. Only 7. Fighter, Cleric, Magic User, Thief, Elf, Dwarf, or Halfling. There was no race, class, background and path. If you were a fighter you swung a weapon every turn and you were HAPPY.

But seriously, it's a matter of streamlining play and trying to maintain balance in a very open format. When you create a character you pick a splat. Then anyone can review your sheet and check for anomalies quickly. And considering that AL characters are eligible for tournament play, that can be important. Be creative while in AL, then start a home game and go buckwild. And quit whining.

I started with the red box. <3

[Socratov]

While I think that the PHB+1 rule is a bit constraining, I find the excuse to balance against only 1 source book (i.e. PHB+Errata, and that ranger rework better be an errata) one that holds water: it makes things a lot easier from a development perspective. That is, if it wasn't a smarter business decision.

is it a good business decision? Well, that depends on wether or not you buy the book or sell it. Let's value the content of the books on the amount of combinations you can use. Let's say each book has 10 options (for ease of calculations). Releasing a second book raises the number of interactions from 10 to 10*10=100. Publishing a 3rd choice raises that to 10*10*10=1000 interactions between them. Now, that 3rd book is going to last you a lot longer then the first 2. In fact with every 10 options you add, you add an order of magnitude in interactions. So from a buying perspective that's great: you get an order of magnitude of content for every purchase you make. From a selling perspective, you give away an order of magnitude for every publication.

So along comes a clever marketeer: what if you restricted the interaction between sourcebooks, now what if you restrict the optional sources to only 1!

Well, with every purchase you add the exact same number of interactions for the exact same price. What's more, the interactions run out at exactly the same pace and you will have the time to get a new 10 options ready to sell. And because the interactions are restricted you get to experience content fatigue later. What's more, as you grow bored with the interactions you have, you will look forward to the coming interactions. A simple marketing scheme with the leaking of information and preview material taunting some of the options will only increase that longing as well as make you vocal about your expectations. Suddenly as a company you get 2 things you want: a customer estimation (it's always nice to know how much you are going to sell so you know hom many to produce) and the critical succes factors of the coming publication served on a silver platter (i.e. what it will take to make your product successful).

This is where the truly nefarious business administrator rears his head: content regulation. You see, if I sell you a book for $25,- the buyer wants maximum content. The seller wants minimum content. A clever businessman will grant exactly the amount of content that you will pay $25,- for the publication. And if the community tells you what it wants you can mix and match the content to make sure people will gladly pay $25 for the content the asked for during one UA. Spread the popular stuff around, include some sham content and profit.

This, ladies and gentleman (and whatever you consider yourself these days) is how you get rich in the game book publishing business.

[mgshamster]

While I think that the PHB+1 rule is a bit constraining, I find the excuse to balance against only 1 source book (i.e. PHB+Errata, and that ranger rework better be an errata) one that holds water: it makes things a lot easier from a development perspective. That is, if it wasn't a smarter business decision.

is it a good business decision? Well, that depends on wether or not you buy the book or sell it. Let's value the content of the books on the amount of combinations you can use. Let's say each book has 10 options (for ease of calculations). Releasing a second book raises the number of interactions from 10 to 10*10=100. Publishing a 3rd choice raises that to 10*10*10=1000 interactions between them. Now, that 3rd book is going to last you a lot longer then the first 2. In fact with every 10 options you add, you add an order of magnitude in interactions. So from a buying perspective that's great: you get an order of magnitude of content for every purchase you make. From a selling perspective, you give away an order of magnitude for every publication.

So along comes a clever marketeer: what if you restricted the interaction between sourcebooks, now what if you restrict the optional sources to only 1!

Well, with every purchase you add the exact same number of interactions for the exact same price. What's more, the interactions run out at exactly the same pace and you will have the time to get a new 10 options ready to sell. And because the interactions are restricted you get to experience content fatigue later. What's more, as you grow bored with the interactions you have, you will look forward to the coming interactions. A simple marketing scheme with the leaking of information and preview material taunting some of the options will only increase that longing as well as make you vocal about your expectations. Suddenly as a company you get 2 things you want: a customer estimation (it's always nice to know how much you are going to sell so you know hom many to produce) and the critical succes factors of the coming publication served on a silver platter (i.e. what it will take to make your product successful).

This is where the truly nefarious business administrator rears his head: content regulation. You see, if I sell you a book for $25,- the buyer wants maximum content. The seller wants minimum content. A clever businessman will grant exactly the amount of content that you will pay $25,- for the publication. And if the community tells you what it wants you can mix and match the content to make sure people will gladly pay $25 for the content the asked for during one UA. Spread the popular stuff around, include some sham content and profit.

This, ladies and gentleman (and whatever you consider yourself these days) is how you get rich in the game book publishing business.

The works if all the material costs money. Considering that 33% of the +1 content is free, it's a little less fitting.

I think it has more to do with 5th edition's philosophy.

They don't want people to focus so much on the mechanics and the rules, and focus more on the gameplay and the character. That's why everything is simplified - so you don't have rules lawyers and mechanics hunters pouring over every last detail trying to squeeze out every last fraction of DPR or some unintended mega-win mechanic hidden across multiple texts.

Instead, they keep it simple. PHB + 1. They're saying, "Don't worry about finding the 'best' option or the most optimized CharOp by pouring through every last book you can possibly buy. Just relax and enjoy the game."

It's the same reason they allow free character build changes up to level 5 - if you discover that you don't enjoy the character, you can rebuild without question (just have to keep the same Logsheets). It's also why a DCI Number is no longer required and why the entire Logsheet system is built on a trust system - you monitor yourself rather than registering your character and Logsheets.

They're saying, "Don't worry about the legal stuff, don't worry about registering, don't worry about the best you can find across multiple texts, don't worry getting the wrong build - just enjoy the game."

It's not a nefarious marketing scheme, it's just that they're business model is based on trying to get people to play "old school," and that means focusing less on the rules and more on the story and setting with a lot of leeway for the DM.

[rooneg]

The works if all the material costs money. Considering that 33% of the +1 content is free, it's a little less fitting.

I think it has more to do with 5th edition's philosophy.

They don't want people to focus so much on the mechanics and the rules, and focus more on the gameplay and the character. That's why everything is simplified - so you don't have rules lawyers and mechanics hunters pouring over every last detail trying to squeeze out every last fraction of DPR or some unintended mega-win mechanic hidden across multiple texts.

Instead, they keep it simple. PHB + 1. They're saying, "Don't worry about finding the 'best' option or the most optimized CharOp by pouring through every last book you can possibly buy. Just relax and enjoy the game."

It's the same reason they allow free character build changes up to level 5 - if you discover that you don't enjoy the character, you can rebuild without question (just have to keep the same Logsheets). It's also why a DCI Number is no longer required and why the entire Logsheet system is built on a trust system - you monitor yourself rather than registering your character and Logsheets.

They're saying, "Don't worry about the legal stuff, don't worry about registering, don't worry about the best you can find across multiple texts, don't worry getting the wrong build - just enjoy the game."

It's not a nefarious marketing scheme, it's just that they're business model is based on trying to get people to play "old school," and that means focusing less on the rules and more on the story and setting with a lot of leeway for the DM.

I think you're both assuming that this is a bigger part of the D&D team's strategy than it really is. AL play cannot possibly be the majority of D&D 5e games in the world. Most people play in home games and can use whatever the heck their DM allows. The PHB+1 rule is AL only, and is designed to help keep WotC's designers from having to worry about accidentally inserting power combos that would break organized play without requiring the AL maintainers to keep a banned list up to date (which would have the negative implication that occasionally they would ban things and have to retroactively change existing characters to make them legal). That rule isn't needed for a home game because in a home game if there's some power combo and the DM isn't ok with it then they tell the player not to use it and move on with their lives.

[mgshamster]

I think you're both assuming that this is a bigger part of the D&D team's strategy than it really is. AL play cannot possibly be the majority of D&D 5e games in the world. Most people play in home games and can use whatever the heck their DM allows. The PHB+1 rule is AL only, and is designed to help keep WotC's designers from having to worry about accidentally inserting power combos that would break organized play without requiring the AL maintainers to keep a banned list up to date (which would have the negative implication that occasionally they would ban things and have to retroactively change existing characters to make them legal). That rule isn't needed for a home game because in a home game if there's some power combo and the DM isn't ok with it then they tell the player not to use it and move on with their lives.

That's true. But also, the entire philosophy I posted is the general 5e philosophy. The entire game is built around getting people to just enjoy the game and not focus so much on rules and mechanics.

In AL, it's just a bit more stricter in enforcing it (by limiting the books).

Also, they have reduced personnel. In Pathfinder, they actually employ a group to pour over the rules and mechanics and piece-mail sections out of PFS. "You can use this book, except pages 15-26, the second paragraph on page 29, and pages 30-31. You can use this other book, but only pages 18-30." And so on. They actually have to cross reference every new book with all other available material to ensure nothing gets so far out of whack that it's unusable for organized play. And considering that you actually have to own a book to use it in PFS, that's a marketing tactic that brings in money.

That's why I don't think the limitation is a marketing tactic, but rather in keeping with the philosophy of the system.

[Socratov]

The works if all the material costs money. Considering that 33% of the +1 content is free, it's a little less fitting.

I think it has more to do with 5th edition's philosophy.

They don't want people to focus so much on the mechanics and the rules, and focus more on the gameplay and the character. That's why everything is simplified - so you don't have rules lawyers and mechanics hunters pouring over every last detail trying to squeeze out every last fraction of DPR or some unintended mega-win mechanic hidden across multiple texts.

Instead, they keep it simple. PHB + 1. They're saying, "Don't worry about finding the 'best' option or the most optimized CharOp by pouring through every last book you can possibly buy. Just relax and enjoy the game."

It's the same reason they allow free character build changes up to level 5 - if you discover that you don't enjoy the character, you can rebuild without question (just have to keep the same Logsheets). It's also why a DCI Number is no longer required and why the entire Logsheet system is built on a trust system - you monitor yourself rather than registering your character and Logsheets.

They're saying, "Don't worry about the legal stuff, don't worry about registering, don't worry about the best you can find across multiple texts, don't worry getting the wrong build - just enjoy the game."

It's not a nefarious marketing scheme, it's just that they're business model is based on trying to get people to play "old school," and that means focusing less on the rules and more on the story and setting with a lot of leeway for the DM.


I think you're both assuming that this is a bigger part of the D&D team's strategy than it really is. AL play cannot possibly be the majority of D&D 5e games in the world. Most people play in home games and can use whatever the heck their DM allows. The PHB+1 rule is AL only, and is designed to help keep WotC's designers from having to worry about accidentally inserting power combos that would break organized play without requiring the AL maintainers to keep a banned list up to date (which would have the negative implication that occasionally they would ban things and have to retroactively change existing characters to make them legal). That rule isn't needed for a home game because in a home game if there's some power combo and the DM isn't ok with it then they tell the player not to use it and move on with their lives.

Ehm, no. if the publication of DnD was all about enjoying to play the game WotC wouldn't send out the C&D orders it hands out to anything that steps out of bounds of publishing the SRD/basic rules. The SRD itself claims they published one subclass for homebrewing purposes. This, to me, sounds like crowdsourcing of UA material. Then there is the fact that while some stuff is free (notably UA and EE), but SCAG, Volo's, Zendikar and the greater campaign books are paid material. Now not every book has player options, but they do generally feature some stuff for character generation (SCAG details the factions of Waterdeep/Sword Coast) and I'll hazard a guess that future material is going to be paid more then free. WotC are not a philantropic entity, no they want to make a profit. 5e is designed to appeal to both 4e players (balance between casters and martials, if only a bit) and 3.5 players (customisable choices and a lot of different stuff to use) since 4e failed to appeal to a good portion of the 3.5 player base.

WotC is a publishing company: they publish editions of cards for MtG and books for DnD. AL is an expression for that: a way for WotC to make sure people have a way of entering this magical world of DnD thus introducing new people to the hobby (i.e. creating more customers). If they truly wanted to keep it simple they would have made AL PHB+1 of the DM's choice. That would really ease the burden of DMing. No instead they introduced the rule PHB+1 of the player's choice. Per player. The DM will still have to know the rules of all of the sources used, as soon as someone picks the source in question.

I wouldn't dream of being so naïve that WotC would want us to just play the game and relax. No they sell books to us for money. They want us to use them and keep enticing us with new content. However, they can't tell you how to run your home games (no, not even with the DMG in hand). The fact that they set up an officially licensed set of games (for what that is worth as there is zero control on the AL rules being kept by the AL DMs) and give certain rules and directions is what they CAN do. It also functions as an example. Someone who has little DM experience and 'graduates' from AL games to home games will likely keep the same restrictions "...'cause that's how WotC does it and that should be good enough for you.". It's a subtle form of influence which propagates the buying of content. (and one I don't expect to be loosened that soon)

[BW022]

It's a terrible, ham-handed rule, really there for no other reason than reactionary anger against 3.5e/4e optimization.

No. It is a simple rule designed to not overwhelm new players or DMs. It isn't about limiting optimization.

I've been in a lot of Adventure's League games. It is open to new players. This includes children, those used to previous systems, parents, random people on the street, people without even a PHB, etc. Many are making up characters minutes before the game starts. The last thing you want to do is confuse them with a pile of books and options. Likewise, if you have a new DM at the table, you don't want players pulling all sorts of weird things at the table, nor do you want everyone having six books at the table or spending table time looking up obscure stuff through a half-dozen books.

Lots of AL rules are designed around new players. For example, you can rebuild characters up until 5th-level. AL obviously doesn't care if this rule can be abused. It is there for new players.

[rooneg]

I wouldn't dream of being so naïve that WotC would want us to just play the game and relax. No they sell books to us for money. They want us to use them and keep enticing us with new content. However, they can't tell you how to run your home games (no, not even with the DMG in hand). The fact that they set up an officially licensed set of games (for what that is worth as there is zero control on the AL rules being kept by the AL DMs) and give certain rules and directions is what they CAN do. It also functions as an example. Someone who has little DM experience and 'graduates' from AL games to home games will likely keep the same restrictions "...'cause that's how WotC does it and that should be good enough for you.". It's a subtle form of influence which propagates the buying of content. (and one I don't expect to be loosened that soon)

I have to admit, I have absolutely no idea how "you're only allowed to use the PHB plus one other book for that character" somehow turns into a subtle way to get people to buy lots of content. If they really wanted to encourage more content they could just not have that restriction and I'd be showing up to the table with both my Volo's Guide to Monsters and my Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide so I could play my Tabaxi Swashbuckler.

(Of course, at this point the stream of player oriented content they're releasing is so small that the difference between someone who buys a PHB and one source and someone who buys literally all the non-adventure sources that have player oriented content in them is a difference of one book. If they're trying to get me to buy a lot of books they're going to need to have more books!)

[Socratov]

I have to admit, I have absolutely no idea how "you're only allowed to use the PHB plus one other book for that character" somehow turns into a subtle way to get people to buy lots of content. If they really wanted to encourage more content they could just not have that restriction and I'd be showing up to the table with both my Volo's Guide to Monsters and my Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide so I could play my Tabaxi Swashbuckler.

(Of course, at this point the stream of player oriented content they're releasing is so small that the difference between someone who buys a PHB and one source and someone who buys literally all the non-adventure sources that have player oriented content in them is a difference of one book. If they're trying to get me to buy a lot of books they're going to need to have more books!)

Simple: if you can sue the sourcebooks without limits you have a lot more content to play with at the same time. By limiting the simultaneous sources you can limit the amount of content a player can use at the same time. It restricts the combinations you can make with the sourcebooks.

[rooneg]

Simple: if you can sue the sourcebooks without limits you have a lot more content to play with at the same time. By limiting the simultaneous sources you can limit the amount of content a player can use at the same time. It restricts the combinations you can make with the sourcebooks.

Yes, but how does that encourage the average player to buy more content? I get that it reduces the complexity of the game for the DM, and for the designers, but from the point of view of the average player who plays one character at a time for extended periods of time they have zero incentive to buy a new book until they happen to want to make a new character that requires the new book. It's the opposite of encouraging them to buy more content.

[Spellbreaker26]

Simple: if you can sue the sourcebooks without limits you have a lot more content to play with at the same time. By limiting the simultaneous sources you can limit the amount of content a player can use at the same time. It restricts the combinations you can make with the sourcebooks.

They haven't restricted particular sourcebooks because they don't want to penalize someone for buying books, but at the same time they're restricting it to one book so they don't accidentally create an uber-broken build. Seems pretty reasonable for me for league games. WoTC are a company, not a conspiracy.

[Mandragola]

I like the rule and am applying it to campaign I'm running with friends.

The main thing that this does is mean that different splat books don't have to all be balanced with every possible combo. When designing a book, you only have to balance it with the phb. That's all it's going to be used with.

This can actually give more freedom to design cool stuff, rather than less. Designers don't have to worry about creating the locate city bomb by accident, so they can go to town.

My group has been playing since 1st edition (though I only joined in 3.X). We've seen all kinds of awful combos. Until we saw this rule we'd decided to only play using the phb, but now we feel like we can "safely" go outside it. And that's good for wizards because it means we've bought the SCAG and Volo's.

I hate the SCAG cantrips, FWIW. I don't like how they are a no-brainer choice for any character who only makes one attack per round, like clerics or rogues. If the intention was that wizards and sorcerors would use them that seems to have failed.

[Joe the Rat]

Do the award certs count as a "+1?" If not, there's a way to get your Green Flame Aasimar.

[Naanomi]

Certs can and do break the rules about +1

[rooneg]

Certs can and do break the rules about +1

Certs can break any rules they want, due to the whole "specific beats general" thing.

[Socratov]

They haven't restricted particular sourcebooks because they don't want to penalize someone for buying books, but at the same time they're restricting it to one book so they don't accidentally create an uber-broken build. Seems pretty reasonable for me for league games. WoTC are a company, not a conspiracy.
Oh come on, the most powerful stuff is written into the PHB. The interaction of certain PHB feats, PHB classes and subclasses and PHB (sub)races makes for the most powerful stuff. Consider Simulacrum and Wish, both PHB. Paladin 2/Eldritch Knight 18 for a class that could attack with 8 smites in 1 round (all GWM and thus possibly including a 9th attack) to be used smite on for a massive nova is all PHB. I have yet to see a book offering options like those in splatbooks. I see no reason whatsoever to restrict the number of splats for the sake of balance. This was true for 3.5 and still holds true for 5e (can't speak about 4th since I haven't played that)

Yes, but how does that encourage the average player to buy more content? I get that it reduces the complexity of the game for the DM, and for the designers, but from the point of view of the average player who plays one character at a time for extended periods of time they have zero incentive to buy a new book until they happen to want to make a new character that requires the new book. It's the opposite of encouraging them to buy more content.
By reducing the number of combinations to be made you are sooner to run through them. Unless you like to reuse a particular combination. By sooner running through the combinations or the content you are sooner stimulated to buy more content once it's released. By restricting the amount of content you can use at once, you are stacking the content additive instead of stacking the content multiplicatively.

[rooneg]

By reducing the number of combinations to be made you are sooner to run through them. Unless you like to reuse a particular combination. By sooner running through the combinations or the content you are sooner stimulated to buy more content once it's released. By restricting the amount of content you can use at once, you are stacking the content additive instead of stacking the content multiplicatively.

That's fair, I guess, but I expect that effect would be minor in the grand scheme of things. I guess it depends on how often people create new characters relative to how long they play them. It's also limited by the glacial pace of new content being released. Your argument makes for a much bigger difference when there are 20 non-PHB sources you can buy than when there are 2.

[Spellbreaker26]

Oh come on, the most powerful stuff is written into the PHB. The interaction of certain PHB feats, PHB classes and subclasses and PHB (sub)races makes for the most powerful stuff. Consider Simulacrum and Wish, both PHB. Paladin 2/Eldritch Knight 18 for a class that could attack with 8 smites in 1 round (all GWM and thus possibly including a 9th attack) to be used smite on for a massive nova is all PHB. I have yet to see a book offering options like those in splatbooks. I see no reason whatsoever to restrict the number of splats for the sake of balance. This was true for 3.5 and still holds true for 5e (can't speak about 4th since I haven't played that)

By reducing the number of combinations to be made you are sooner to run through them. Unless you like to reuse a particular combination. By sooner running through the combinations or the content you are sooner stimulated to buy more content once it's released. By restricting the amount of content you can use at once, you are stacking the content additive instead of stacking the content multiplicatively.

That's quite a lot of mental gymnastics to be had to arrive at that conclusion.

1. First of all, the vast majority of players don't do adventurer's league. Secondly one of the smaller ones was actually free (EE).

2. I have never met anyone who thought that the splatbooks worked in 3.5. They were from every account I've heard or read about the main problem with that edition.

3. People are fine with the content in the PHB being competitive because any player not using the very basic rules uses that anyway. They're less fine with Games Workshop style power creep - where each successive splatbook is overpowered, so you have to buy to keep up. That sort of power creep is what happens when the company is trying to go after short-term profit at the expense of long-term stability, not instituting rules at the AL.

[mgshamster]

By reducing the number of combinations to be made you are sooner to run through them. Unless you like to reuse a particular combination.

This is the mentality 5e is trying to get away from.

A character concept isn't a just collection of mechanics, but rather an entire person and a personality.

You can have two wildly different characters with the exact same set of Mechanics. That's the style of gaming 5e is trying to bring back. Limited rules, DM freedom, ease of play, limited splat books, the focus on backgrounds - it all points to the design philosophy that is about enjoying the game and the story and not worrying about the mechanics and the rules.

So "reusing" a combination of mechanics shouldn't be a problem; and if it is, then maybe you're approaching the game in a way not intended by the designers. But then, that's you're choice.

[Socratov]

That's fair, I guess, but I expect that effect would be minor in the grand scheme of things. I guess it depends on how often people create new characters relative to how long they play them. It's also limited by the glacial pace of new content being released. Your argument makes for a much bigger difference when there are 20 non-PHB sources you can buy than when there are 2.
Of the top of my head the follwoing books ahd content for players in them:


SCAG
Curse of Strahd (ok, background but still)
Volo's guide to Monsters
Zendikar (couple of races)

I expect that list to grow at the glacial pace it does.

That's quite a lot of mental gymnastics to be had to arrive at that conclusion.
I try to keep a flexible mind to avoid mental rigidity :smalltongue:

1. First of all, the vast majority of players don't do adventurer's league. Secondly one of the smaller ones was actually free (EE).
I have no idea about the split, but this is a matter of presentation. WotC presents a way of playing, and sanctions it. That creates a precedent and indication. For your second point, as pointed out above I know currently of 4 sources that offer player options that are paid (as opposed to EE which was indeed a nice thing WotC did for us even though I could spin sheep's worth of yarn about marketing and the psychological effect of giving a freebie, but I'll spare you that).

2. I have never met anyone who thought that the splatbooks worked in 3.5. They were from every account I've heard or read about the main problem with that edition.
Hi there, Socratov, nice to meet you. I thought a lot of the splats were a great idea, for one because it made the Bard a solid T3 and gave it some truly cool toys as well as some flavourful options. it also gave us ToB (I beleive the precursor for Battlemaster Fighter) which was a way for martials to at least get on a level where they could contribute in a pasty with casters. some splats were less then fortunate options like ToM with the Truenamer which was a horrible trainwreck and I believe complete psionics which if I recall correctly some 3.5 lovers are still ignoring it;s existence on par with my ignoring the existence of M. Night Shamaladindong adaptation of Avatar the Last Airbender (hint: it does not exist and any words to the contrary are blatant lies)

3. People are fine with the content in the PHB being competitive because any player not using the very basic rules uses that anyway. They're less fine with Games Workshop style power creep - where each successive splatbook is overpowered, so you have to buy to keep up. That sort of power creep is what happens when the company is trying to go after short-term profit at the expense of long-term stability, not instituting rules at the AL.
And yet people are assuming splats are going to ruin the game balance while I have yet to see such evidence (and PHB is enough to break the game over what any splat has brought to the table)

This is the mentality 5e is trying to get away from.

A character concept isn't a just collection of mechanics, but rather an entire person and a personality.

You can have two wildly different characters with the exact same set of Mechanics. That's the style of gaming 5e is trying to bring back. Limited rules, DM freedom, ease of play, limited splat books, the focus on backgrounds - it all points to the design philosophy that is about enjoying the game and the story and not worrying about the mechanics and the rules.

So "reusing" a combination of mechanics shouldn't be a problem; and if it is, then maybe you're approaching the game in a way not intended by the designers. But then, that's you're choice.
I don't like identical builds, it makes me feel as if I'm not paying a specific character but some of my other character's cousins, despite the different name and story bonds. Though I acknowledge that this is personal taste.

[Spellbreaker26]

I try to keep a flexible mind to avoid mental rigidity :smalltongue:I have no idea about the split, but this is a matter of presentation. WotC presents a way of playing, and sanctions it. That creates a precedent and indication. For your second point, as pointed out above I know currently of 4 sources that offer player options that are paid (as opposed to EE which was indeed a nice thing WotC did for us even though I could spin sheep's worth of yarn about marketing and the psychological effect of giving a freebie, but I'll spare you that). Hi there, Socratov, nice to meet you. I thought a lot of the splats were a great idea, for one because it made the Bard a solid T3 and gave it some truly cool toys as well as some flavourful options. it also gave us ToB (I beleive the precursor for Battlemaster Fighter) which was a way for martials to at least get on a level where they could contribute in a pasty with casters. some splats were less then fortunate options like ToM with the Truenamer which was a horrible trainwreck and I believe complete psionics which if I recall correctly some 3.5 lovers are still ignoring it;s existence on par with my ignoring the existence of M. Night Shamaladindong adaptation of Avatar the Last Airbender (hint: it does not exist and any words to the contrary are blatant lies)
And yet people are assuming splats are going to ruin the game balance while I have yet to see such evidence (and PHB is enough to break the game over what any splat has brought to the table)

The PHB for 5e is a damn sight more balanced than the core of 3.5e. The only real outlier is the weak beastmaster Ranger and some good feats but aside from that it's pretty well put together.
Therefore it doesn't require fixes to the bard since it got them right the first time. It doesn't require the Tome of Battle to make martial classes good because they got martial classes right the first time.

If WoTC really were out to destroy our wallets they would be really pushing splatbooks by making them OP (the only thing I can think of that's really broken is some of the stuff in the SCAG, cough, Bladesinger, cough) but they've been showing a remarkable amount of restraint. The player who buys all the books does not have a really big advantage in mechanical terms over one who does not, and that's the most important thing to get right (and they did get it right).

[rooneg]

Of the top of my head the follwoing books ahd content for players in them:


SCAG
Curse of Strahd (ok, background but still)
Volo's guide to Monsters
Zendikar (couple of races)

I expect that list to grow at the glacial pace it does.

Backgrounds aren't part of the PHB+1 thing, you can use them from any source, so CoS doesn't count. Zendikar is not on the list of approved sources in the current AL Player's Guide. The one you missed is the Elemental Evil Player's Guide, which is a free PDF so it's terribly relevant to an argument about incentivizing players to buy content.

So we're down to two physical books they could be incentivizing us to buy, SCAG and VGtM. I expect it to grow, but not at a rate greater than about 1 book per year.

[Veldrenor]

For your second point, as pointed out above I know currently of 4 sources that offer player options that are paid.

When did they make paid Zendikar D&D content? They published a paid Zendikar art book, which gathers together art and lore from the plane but isn't a D&D book (no character options, no stat blocks, no rules or encounters, just setting). They also published a free Zendikar-themed D&D supplement to advertise the fact that they'd published the art book. Was there a third Zendikar book?

[rooneg]

When did they make paid Zendikar D&D content? They published a paid Zendikar art book, which gathers together art and lore from the plane but isn't a D&D book (no character options, no stat blocks, no rules or encounters, just setting). They also published a free Zendikar-themed D&D supplement to advertise the fact that they'd published the art book. Was there a third Zendikar book?

They didn't. The Zendikar D&D thing is a free PDF.

[Knaight]

Hold on while I grab my cane and stroke my beard.

All you young whiney whippersnappers don't even know what restricted options are. Back in MY day you had 7 options. Only 7. Fighter, Cleric, Magic User, Thief, Elf, Dwarf, or Halfling. There was no race, class, background and path. If you were a fighter you swung a weapon every turn and you were HAPPY.
Then GURPS came out in 1986.


Sure, it's your table and you can house rule as you like. I was only speaking for RAW D&D, and in that version of the game, if we start to see builds that are clearly better than SS/GWF then I'll feel like we've got a serious issue with power creep on our hands.
We already see plenty of builds more powerful than SS/GWF warriors. They're called caster classes.


2. I have never met anyone who thought that the splatbooks worked in 3.5. They were from every account I've heard or read about the main problem with that edition.
That the most broken things in 3.5 were in core is pretty widely known.

[Naanomi]

That the most broken things in 3.5 were in core is pretty widely known.
Eh... Core balance was way off, and there was some broken stuff in the basic books... but jumplomancer, nanobots, pun-pun, find-city plane annihilation... most of that sort of thing took cobbling together several books

[Knaight]

Eh... Core balance was way off, and there was some broken stuff in the basic books... but jumplomancer, nanobots, pun-pun, find-city plane annihilation... most of that sort of thing took cobbling together several books

Everything listed there is TO, and some of it (the jumplomancer) isn't even all that practical and is just in there because it's bizarre. Core also had its fair share of that - Solar chain gating comes to mind. The bigger problems were in stuff meant to be used, with the Cleric, Druid, and Wizard classes all standing out as freakishly powerful.

[Naanomi]

Everything listed there is TO, and some of it (the jumplomancer) isn't even all that practical and is just in there because it's bizarre. Core also had its fair share of that - Solar chain gating comes to mind. The bigger problems were in stuff meant to be used, with the Cleric, Druid, and Wizard classes all standing out as freakishly powerful.
Yeah, I agree to a point. With a much better 'Core' this time around, and a seemingly better eye for *general* non-interaction based balance, I think the PHB+1 rule may be geared toward stopping the next pun-pun more than the next CODzilla

[Knaight]

Yeah, I agree to a point. With a much better 'Core' this time around, and a seemingly better eye for *general* non-interaction based balance, I think the PHB+1 rule may be geared toward stopping the next pun-pun more than the next CODzilla

I suspect it's less a matter of balance and more a matter of keeping characters simple enough that the DM can deal with them easily. The danger of a 5e pun-pun at all seems comparatively slight.

[RickAllison]

I suspect it's less a matter of balance and more a matter of keeping characters simple enough that the DM can deal with them easily. The danger of a 5e pun-pun at all seems comparatively slight.

Believe us, we've tried...

[IShouldntBehere]

By reducing the number of combinations to be made you are sooner to run through them. Unless you like to reuse a particular combination. By sooner running through the combinations or the content you are sooner stimulated to buy more content once it's released. By restricting the amount of content you can use at once, you are stacking the content additive instead of stacking the content multiplicatively.

This assumes that players broadly have a goal of "Try every combination exactly once". However this isn't the way the vast majority of players play. At least in my experience most players have 1-3 Archetypes they really like and want to stick to those and only those. The guy who plays the big gruff warrior type with a big axe always plays that has little interest in exploring things that aren't "Axe Guy". They might tweak a number or two, or maybe go for a book if it's got a really new cool big axe.

Of the dozens of players I dealt with I've met exactly zero that primarily engage with the game for the purposes of exploring all the combinations for the sake of just having something new every time. Even folks inclined to mess with mechanics and charOP usually find the one or two wombo-combos they like and just hammer those to death until they get barred from the table.

Limiting source books means that trying something new is the same as giving up their old favourites. It disincentives trying new material if you have to give up the stuff you're already familiar with and like to do so.

[Socratov]

The PHB for 5e is a damn sight more balanced than the core of 3.5e. The only real outlier is the weak beastmaster Ranger and some good feats but aside from that it's pretty well put together.
Therefore it doesn't require fixes to the bard since it got them right the first time. It doesn't require the Tome of Battle to make martial classes good because they got martial classes right the first time.
and I don't disagree, but you claimed that nobody thought that splats were a good idea in 3.5. I diasagree as I did see the value in splats in 3.5 and then proceeded to explain why I liked the spalts in 3.5.

If WoTC really were out to destroy our wallets they would be really pushing splatbooks by making them OP (the only thing I can think of that's really broken is some of the stuff in the SCAG, cough, Bladesinger, cough) but they've been showing a remarkable amount of restraint. The player who buys all the books does not have a really big advantage in mechanical terms over one who does not, and that's the most important thing to get right (and they did get it right).
Except that you risk ruining the game altogether and turning away people from the game if one would do so. Contrary to popular belief in 3.5 not every progressive book that came out was more OP then the former. Since 3.5 it has come to WotC attention that people would like at least a semblnace of balance. since 4e they have learned that not everyone wants a completely level playing field, but a bit more difference between classes to not compltely make a generic game.

This assumes that players broadly have a goal of "Try every combination exactly once". However this isn't the way the vast majority of players play. At least in my experience most players have 1-3 Archetypes they really like and want to stick to those and only those. The guy who plays the big gruff warrior type with a big axe always plays that has little interest in exploring things that aren't "Axe Guy". They might tweak a number or two, or maybe go for a book if it's got a really new cool big axe.
I take it that our experiences in the matter are wildly different. In my experience I find that some popel don't play a subclass or 3 but want or have played the rest. YMMV. The point is that with more interactions (by multiplying options) you have more opportunities for different characters then when you use options additively (as in phb+1 other)

Of the dozens of players I dealt with I've met exactly zero that primarily engage with the game for the purposes of exploring all the combinations for the sake of just having something new every time. Even folks inclined to mess with mechanics and charOP usually find the one or two wombo-combos they like and just hammer those to death until they get barred from the table.
Well then, pleased to meet you, I generally go by Socratov online and I like exploring different options. Do I have a favourite class? Well, yeah I love bards and have a general liking for warlocks, but I also like wizards to some extent, have ridicilous fun with my WM sorc, get people ROFLing with my barbarian deluded wizard Thrusk.

Limiting source books means that trying something new is the same as giving up their old favourites. It disincentives trying new material if you have to give up the stuff you're already familiar with and like to do so.
Now this is an interesting thought and I can understand that if you are wedded to the idea of goliath that you don't want use another source. However, if the features in the new source are cool enough that might change. Whch is Why I told you about the content curation to make sure every book has some cool stuff to ensure sales.

As for publishing pace being slow, well, it would only stand to reason that WotC wants to seel the books to everyone and not force a choice. They are farming, not razing. If they can make sure we view buying DnD books as the occasional purchase as opposed to a monthly subsription they are not enticing us to choose between books, something that a quicker publsihing schedule would.

[Spellbreaker26]

In the Players Handbook there are 12 core classes (we'll stay off of subclasses to make things easier).
There are 8 races. Let's ignore backgrounds.

Let's take this easy and assume that you only have to play from levels 1-10 to be satisfied with an experience. Let's assume it takes two weeks to get to level three and two weeks after that to gain a level. Let's assume none of the characters die before level ten. Let's assume you play every week.

8*12 = 96
96 possibities.
That means you would exhaust the possibilities of the core handbook after playing 96 characters. How long would that take?
The number of weeks to get to level ten is 16.
16*96 = 1536.

To exhaust the possibilities of the core handbook will take 1536 weeks.
Or over 29 years.

This isn't counting the fact that the free EE guide adds three new races, raising the bar even higher. (EDIT: and deep gnomes, but they're a subrace)

Even if you had to play a different combination every time you played, you would still be fine operating just off of the player's handbook.

[mgshamster]

In the Players Handbook there are 12 core classes (we'll stay off of subclasses to make things easier).
There are 8 races. Let's ignore backgrounds.

Let's take this easy and assume that you only have to play from levels 1-10 to be satisfied with an experience. Let's assume it takes two weeks to get to level three and two weeks after that to gain a level. Let's assume none of the characters die before level ten. Let's assume you play every week.

8*12 = 96
96 possibities.
That means you would exhaust the possibilities of the core handbook after playing 96 characters. How long would that take?
The number of weeks to get to level ten is 16.
16*96 = 1536.

To exhaust the possibilities of the core handbook will take 1536 weeks.
Or over 29 years.

This isn't counting the fact that the free EE guide adds three new races, raising the bar even higher. (EDIT: and deep gnomes, but they're a subrace)

Even if you had to play a different combination every time you played, you would still be fine operating just off of the player's handbook.

What if he played daily; one session per day? Then it would only take four years to exhaust all the possibilities in the PHB. Not including subraces or archetypes.

Heck. Using the subraces and archetypes, that's 855 different combinations (19 sibraves, 45 archetypes) just in the phb. If we only played each combo for a single session and played one session a day, that's still 2.4 years of new and unique mechanics and characters.

That's not including EEPG, SCAG, or VGtM.

EEPG has five new subraces (subtracting Aarakocra because AL doesn't allow flying races, and subtracting deep gnome because I included it in SCAG). That's another 0.6 years and 225 combinations.

SCAG adds three new subraces and eight new archetypes. So that's an additional 287 combinations. Plus two more for dwarven battle rager using the two dwarf subraces, and four more for elven bladesinger, for using half elf or the three elf subraces. So 293. PHB+1 adds another 0.8 years of gameplay.

VGtM adds 14 new playable subraces (skipping Goliath, used that race in EEPG). This adds 630 new combinations, or another 1.8 years.

So with all the current PHB+1 combinations you could make, if you played one session per day every day and never used the same mechanical combination for more than a Single session, you could play for 5.6 years without ever playing the same character, using a total of 2003 combinations.

How many unique subrace-archetype combinations have you played since 5e came out 2.5 years ago? Have you 100% exhausted just the PHB yet? So far we have three expansions to double your unique playing time, and by the time you're done, we'll probably have three more. And that's just with PHB+1.

[Tectorman]

Two Games. In both cases there are 10 total sourcebooks released. Game A uses the PHB+1 Rule. Game B uses FFA rule.

Doug. The DM is familiar with books 1, 3 & 5.

In game A

Bill Brings his character using just the PHB
Tom Brings his character using PHB + Book 1
Sam Brings his character using PHB + Book 6
Eric Brings his character using PHB + Book 7
Becky brings her character using PHB + Book 4

Doug must now familiarize himself with books 6, 7 4 and he doesn't know these well.


In game B

Bill brings his character using just the PHB
Tom brings his characer using the PHB books 3, 5 and 10.
Sam brings his character using the PHB and book 4
Eric brings his characer using the PHB, Books 6 and 7
Beck brings her character using the PHB, book 8, 9 10 and 2

Doug must now familiarize himself with books 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 10, 2.

Ten books (well, 10 plus the PHB)? So, by 5E's release standards, we're talking a game that has been out for about a decade, and Doug has had over a year or more available to be familiar with all but book 10 (assuming it only recently got released). In your example, Doug is not unfamiliar with the notion that the players may want material from books he isn't familiar with and he explicitly allows it. In your example 1, he wasn't familiar with three books but was willing to I guess gloss over them at least for the sake of the players who wanted material out of them. In your example 2, nothing has changed except the number of books this guy's supposed going to be glossing over for functional familiarity. Given he's had a decade to do so beforehand, and given his apparent willingness to expand his familiarity by three books (potentially five, but Bill and Tom ever-so-coincidentally opted not to use anything outside Doug's familiarity); I find it contrived that seven is some kind of breaking point. If you've ever read DM of the Rings, this is the point where Aragorn would start talking about it being a highly specific level of tired.

It's like revealing the spoiler that Neo dies (briefly) at the end of The Matrix. Jerk move over a decade ago, but it can't honestly be called a spoiler now.


The works if all the material costs money. Considering that 33% of the +1 content is free, it's a little less fitting.

I think it has more to do with 5th edition's philosophy.

They don't want people to focus so much on the mechanics and the rules, and focus more on the gameplay and the character. That's why everything is simplified - so you don't have rules lawyers and mechanics hunters pouring over every last detail trying to squeeze out every last fraction of DPR or some unintended mega-win mechanic hidden across multiple texts.

Instead, they keep it simple. PHB + 1. They're saying, "Don't worry about finding the 'best' option or the most optimized CharOp by pouring through every last book you can possibly buy. Just relax and enjoy the game."

It's the same reason they allow free character build changes up to level 5 - if you discover that you don't enjoy the character, you can rebuild without question (just have to keep the same Logsheets). It's also why a DCI Number is no longer required and why the entire Logsheet system is built on a trust system - you monitor yourself rather than registering your character and Logsheets.

They're saying, "Don't worry about the legal stuff, don't worry about registering, don't worry about the best you can find across multiple texts, don't worry getting the wrong build - just enjoy the game."

It's not a nefarious marketing scheme, it's just that they're business model is based on trying to get people to play "old school," and that means focusing less on the rules and more on the story and setting with a lot of leeway for the DM.

Except that's exactly what I'm trying to do. Pick race (Tabaxi), pick class (Monk), pick archetype (Sun soul). Done and done. Now I can go almost entirely on autopilot with regards to leveling up and relax and play the character. I am absolutely not trying to create the best build. I'm just trying to play the character I envisioned.

Except with the PHB +1 rule, now I have to go back to creating a build. Do I let Magic Initiate handle this or do I multiclass? If so, which class? Cleric? Which domain? Which spells? How many levels of Cleric? What am I giving up out of my higher Monk levels in order to get these levels in Cleric? What am I delaying out of my lower levels of Monk? How long do I delay them? In what order do I take all these levels? What am I getting from my Cleric levels that has absolutely nothing to do with my character concept and so isn't something that I'd ever use and therefore functionally do not have (nor do I have anything to take its place)? For that matter, what will I be getting out of the archetype I actually did take for the Monk and is it equally irrelevant and functionally absent?

So out come the Excel spreadsheets. It was simple, but now it's a mess. It was a character, now it's a build. The system was emphasizing relaxing and playing the game; "PHB +1" ruined that relaxation. Not 5E, not the game, that one specific rule.

The game wants me to relax and play the game? The developers want me to relax and play the game? You're suggesting relaxing and playing the game? Well, that's exactly what I'm trying to do. That's what "PHB +1" actively impedes.

[Spellbreaker26]

Except that's exactly what I'm trying to do. Pick race (Tabaxi), pick class (Monk), pick archetype (Sun soul). Done and done. Now I can go almost entirely on autopilot with regards to leveling up and relax and play the character. I am absolutely not trying to create the best build. I'm just trying to play the character I envisioned.

Except with the PHB +1 rule, now I have to go back to creating a build. Do I let Magic Initiate handle this or do I multiclass? If so, which class? Cleric? Which domain? Which spells? How many levels of Cleric? What am I giving up out of my higher Monk levels in order to get these levels in Cleric? What am I delaying out of my lower levels of Monk? How long do I delay them? In what order do I take all these levels? What am I getting from my Cleric levels that has absolutely nothing to do with my character concept and so isn't something that I'd ever use and therefore functionally do not have (nor do I have anything to take its place)? For that matter, what will I be getting out of the archetype I actually did take for the Monk and is it equally irrelevant and functionally absent?

So out come the Excel spreadsheets. It was simple, but now it's a mess. It was a character, now it's a build. The system was emphasizing relaxing and playing the game; "PHB +1" ruined that relaxation. Not 5E, not the game, that one specific rule.

The game wants me to relax and play the game? The developers want me to relax and play the game? You're suggesting relaxing and playing the game? Well, that's exactly what I'm trying to do. That's what "PHB +1" actively impedes.

This is probably the best argument in the thread against PHB+1 rule, but I still have to disagree.

First of all, they probably don't want to intimidate new players who just got the PHB. If they turned up to a load of people with both races and classes that they didn't have access to - well, that might be a little off-putting. (or a very off-putting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_alternative_Dungeons_%26_Dragons_classes#3 rd_and_3.5_editions )

Secondly, it's a lot more hassle for the writers to balance based off of every other supplement and the PHB than just the PHB. In a normal game that wouldn't matter as much because house rules could come into play. For AL, everybody needs to be using the same rules so that can't happen. If you want to play a Khajit Goku that's possible in most games but not in AL, where they have other concerns.

Remember, AL is specifically not how most games are supposed to be played. They are a set of rules for a specific set of circumstances. I'm pretty sure WoTC does not expect home games to take Adventurer's League as the basis of the rules.

[TurboGhast]

Ten books (well, 10 plus the PHB)? So, by 5E's release standards, we're talking a game that has been out for about a decade, and Doug has had over a year or more available to be familiar with all but book 10 (assuming it only recently got released). In your example, Doug is not unfamiliar with the notion that the players may want material from books he isn't familiar with and he explicitly allows it. In your example 1, he wasn't familiar with three books but was willing to I guess gloss over them at least for the sake of the players who wanted material out of them. In your example 2, nothing has changed except the number of books this guy's supposed going to be glossing over for functional familiarity. Given he's had a decade to do so beforehand, and given his apparent willingness to expand his familiarity by three books (potentially five, but Bill and Tom ever-so-coincidentally opted not to use anything outside Doug's familiarity); I find it contrived that seven is some kind of breaking point. If you've ever read DM of the Rings, this is the point where Aragorn would start talking about it being a highly specific level of tired.

It's like revealing the spoiler that Neo dies (briefly) at the end of The Matrix. Jerk move over a decade ago, but it can't honestly be called a spoiler now.

-snip-

In addition, the majority of each book is going to be irrelevant to the game at hand. The DM doesn't need understand features that nobody at the table takes.

[PeteNutButter]

I am on the side that the rule is unnecessary and fails to achieve its intention.

Here are my problems with it:

1.) As mentioned, most of the strongest things that players can do come from the PHB at the moment.

2.) It throws the baby out with the bath water, preventing many cool character builds for some mystery future thing.

3.) The idea that it is there to prevent some future exploitation is ridiculous, as it implies that (a) those future books will not be balanced against other splat books and (b) that the system itself cannot handle the combination of these splat books. These are both very alarming as the game should be balanced around everything available, since it is only AL that has this rule. Failure to balance future books against each other while result in 3.5 all over again.

4.) It makes certain options significantly weaker, notably Volo's races. The other splat book choices offer things like spells such as absorb elements and GFB, while the Volo's races are already struggling to compete with the old variant human... So a Volo race is now not only weaker than PHB race it also comes with the restriction that I can't ever GFB? As an avid gish player, this hurts my heart.

5.) The exploitations in 3.5 that busted the game were almost all combining things which were themselves individually imbalanced. Essentially characters cherry picking abilities which were already imbalanced, to make a further imbalanced character. (I get to make all six of my attacks when I charge instead of just one like everyone else. Why? Because pounce is busted. I get to multiply my power attack damage when I charge. Why? Because leap attack is busted... etc.)

I do recognize that two abilities can be individually balanced, but become overpowered when properly combined, but it is far far more often that at least one of those abilities was imbalanced to begin with.

6.) The juggling book argument is kind of silly, as we are in a digital age. I have most relevant abilities, items, spells saved as a picture on my phone/tablet for quick reference so I don't have to go flipping pages. Failing that there are tab markers etc. Admittedly I had a duffel bag of 3.5 books that hurt to lug around.

That's just my 2 cp though. :smallbiggrin:

[Doug Lampert]

5.) The exploitations in 3.5 that busted the game were almost all combining things which were themselves individually imbalanced. Essentially characters cherry picking abilities which were already imbalanced, to make a further imbalanced character. (I get to make all six of my attacks when I charge instead of just one like everyone else. Why? Because pounce is busted. I get to multiply my power attack damage when I charge. Why? Because leap attack is busted... etc.)

I do recognize that two abilities can be individually balanced, but become overpowered when properly combined, but it is far far more often that at least one of those abilities was imbalanced to begin with.

I'm inclined to agree, wish/simulacrum in 5th edition (the only broken combination I'm aware of) also uses two of the items most overpowered single items.

PunPun basically started with "infinite wishes" are broken, and then piled on with other broken abilities.

Broken combinations are almost always a result of broken elements. You don't really need a rule to stop broken combos, you need a rule to stop broken elements.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I can't believe I never knew about this rule, but it sounds fantastic. It solves many minmaxing problems while allowing the flavor of supplements. Now if I had just used this in 3.5...

This rule comes from the many many many home games that play with the same rule of PHB + 1. I recall 2e, 3e, and 4e games that did the same. It just keeps things simple and stops 3e level of shenanigans.

[Knaight]

In the Players Handbook there are 12 core classes (we'll stay off of subclasses to make things easier).
There are 8 races. Let's ignore backgrounds.

Let's take this easy and assume that you only have to play from levels 1-10 to be satisfied with an experience. Let's assume it takes two weeks to get to level three and two weeks after that to gain a level. Let's assume none of the characters die before level ten. Let's assume you play every week.

8*12 = 96
96 possibities.
That means you would exhaust the possibilities of the core handbook after playing 96 characters. How long would that take?
The number of weeks to get to level ten is 16.
16*96 = 1536.

There's possibilities and then there's meaningfully distinct possibilities. If your goal is in mechanical novelty the race distinctions will usually not matter, and that drives the number of possibilities way down, and mechanical exhaustion could easily happen fairly quickly. This only matters to some players, but it's a real concern.


6.) The juggling book argument is kind of silly, as we are in a digital age. I have most relevant abilities, items, spells saved as a picture on my phone/tablet for quick reference so I don't have to go flipping pages. Failing that there are tab markers etc. Admittedly I had a duffel bag of 3.5 books that hurt to lug around.
Not everyone has a tablet or smart phone, and even then there's the matter of how much you have to reference. Well chosen excerpts count for a lot and are easier to do in the context of a digital file than printouts, but if you're actually flipping through a book? A physical book is still vastly faster to search than a .pdf or similar.

[Spellbreaker26]

There's possibilities and then there's meaningfully distinct possibilities. If your goal is in mechanical novelty the race distinctions will usually not matter, and that drives the number of possibilities way down, and mechanical exhaustion could easily happen fairly quickly. This only matters to some players, but it's a real concern.

Let's try this with just subclasses, take away races (even though many races totally change how the mechanics work).

Just from the core:
12 Classes divided into about what - 29 subclasses?

Same thing, levels 1-10. 16 weeks.

16*29 = 464
464 Weeks.
8.9 Years.
So maybe you do have something to worry about if you've been playing every week since it came out because the core will be exhausted in about another six years.

But otherwise, no, this is not a real concern; and if you're exhausted with the mechanics of 5e allowing you to use Volo and SCAG at the same time will likely not fix that.