Why is there a rule on Book usage for Adventurer's league?

[CrackedChair]

I am wondering, that if I brought my Tabaxi Swashbuckler Rogue (Tabaxi being from Volo's guide to monsters, and Swashbuckler subclass being from Sword Coast Adventurer's guide), would they forbid my entry?

That sounds rather unreasonable, honestly. Just as long as you have those books, I think!

[Vaz]

Don't play Adventurer's League. Find a group that plays DnD properly rather than arbitrarily banning books wholesale.

But yes. They would ban that from being played.

[DracoKnight]

I am wondering, that if I brought my Tabaxi Swashbuckler Rogue (Tabaxi being from Volo's guide to monsters, and Swashbuckler subclass being from Sword Coast Adventurer's guide), would they forbid my entry?

That sounds rather unreasonable, honestly. Just as long as you have those books, I think!

They would forbid your entry. The PHB + 1 rule supposedly keeps power creep from happening, as now the Designers only have to balance things against the PHB, instead of every other sourcebook out there. The problem with this (IMO) is that it drastically limits character possibilities, like the one you pointed out, or like an Air Genasi Storm Sorcerer, or a Yuan-Ti Bladelock with green-flame blade.

[DivisibleByZero]

It's future proofing against balancing issues.
Whenever they create new material, they don't have to try to balance it against every single other thing that has ever been released. They only have to balance it against the PHB and the other items in the same book. This prevents unintended consequences from strange combinations that they might not otherwise think of, which keeps things more balanced.
It also keeps things simple from the players' perspective. You don't have twelve different source books to keep track of for your character.

[CrackedChair]

Don't play Adventurer's League. Find a group that plays DnD properly rather than arbitrarily banning books wholesale.

But yes. They would ban that from being played.

Well, uh, sure.

[Kane0]

It's also partially derived from the old 'Core +2' rule commonly applied to 3.X games for the same reasons (though more pronounced back then).

[Naanomi]

There are Certificates you can get at Cons and the like that let you break some of those rules... but in any case you couldn't just bring any random character you had been playing before to an AL event; to be legal the character has to be played *only* at AL games (with proper logging and everything).

As mentioned above, is is a pain largely not worth the effort. If you travel a lot or go to lots of conventions it is interesting, but if you have a good gaming group established in your area I wouldn't bother.

That being said, I like AL way better than the old 'Living Greyhawk' or 'RPGA' stuff that preceded it

[Chugger]

At least where I live, there is a lot of consistency to Adv L. The modules we play are generally creative, fun, challenging and well-thought-out - some are excellent. The DMs so far have been good. I could quibble about having a hard time getting a reaction attack when DMs use theater and not miniatures - that's a DM option w/ AL. But it's a quibble. I can also quibble about a handful of strange rule interpretations, but it's on the usual suspect kind of spells (illusion) that are often abused and DMs often are a bit harsh on (for good reason sometimes - so it is forgivable). With AL you also have some "DM insurance" in that if a DM makes a screwy ruling, you can say "the previous three DMs I had (and name them) ruled otherwise" and try to pressure the DM into conforming - and you can get a "well, that's how I rule it in my private game, but if other AL DMs have been consistently ruling it this other way, I guess I could live with it" - it lets the DM save face and saves the head-butting over rules that can (and should not) occur.

Back to the modules - they are not at all hack n slash n zap oriented, though there are challenging fights in them. They are often story oriented - some moreso than others - and they have mind-challenges. If you just wanna dungeon crawl and kill kobolds and then orcs and then a carion crawler and more orcs - AL is not for you. And yes, they have some rules that you may not like - in this case you draw upon Zolo iirc for one aspect and SCAG for the other - they allow some of that but frown upon maximizing from both or something like that (you can ask them). They do allow all sorts of crazy races.

And if it's not for you, hey - don't play AL. I like meeting people I otherwise wouldn't have met - and you can always "use" AL - play it a bit to "fish" for good and nice players - and network with them - and then try to build your own home game on the side - or find out about good home games through this network of players and see if you can get in and try it out. I don't work for AL - I get nothing for this endorsement. AL is what it is, and parts of it are very good imho. Parts won't work for everyone, but that's life. Good luck.

[Chugger]

Ignore people who say don't play AL. Or pretend they're saying "try it out and see if you like it and quit if you don't." They are wrong, imho, to tell you flat out "don't play" - they are not psychic, and you'll only know if you like it by giving it a try. It's not like you're going to lose much if you try and it turns out bad - a few hours of your life. At least you weren't watching TV or binging on Youtube.... :smallsmile:

[imanidiot]

It's too keep characters from becoming too complicated for inexperienced DMs to keep up with. The easiest way to "beat" a DM is to cram as many options as possible on your sheet so he just ends up ignoring them and balances around a generic character.

If I show you a Water Genasi Fighter/Paladin/Warlock with Curse Bringer you're going to be so busy keeping 3 class' s abilities in mind you may just forget that I can breathe underwater too.

I let a lot slide in my games and I still use PHB+1.

[Fflewddur Fflam]

The ironic thing about PHB+1 supposedly preventing broken combos is that the only broken combos in 5e come from certain feat combinations, and the feats are all in the PHB!

[mgshamster]

The ironic thing about PHB+1 supposedly preventing broken combos is that the only broken combos in 5e come from certain feat combinations, and the feats are all in the PHB!

There aren't any broken feats in the PHB.

[Cybren]

There aren't any broken feats in the PHB.

they probably mean "the feats designed to make characters better at combat make them better at combat"

[mgshamster]

they probably mean "the feats designed to make characters better at combat make them better at combat"

Oh, right. That's fair. It also ignores the other two pillars - which are fairly representative in AL - but yeah, there are feats which make a PC better at combat.

They're still not broken, though.

[Easy_Lee]

There aren't any broken feats in the PHB.

The old quarterstaff + shield + dueling + polearm master build is, arguably, broken. But if so, only to a small degree.

My issue with the PHB+1 rule is twofold:
It's lazy
Priorities

Lazy
WotC doesn't want to balance everything against everything else, only against the PHB. That means they want to do less balancing work than they would have to otherwise. They limit player choice out of convenience.

Priorities
Balancing is the game equivalent of socialism. This is the developer wanting to make sure all play styles, and thus all players, are roughly equal.

A little of this is good. Every option should be good for something. But taken to extremes, as it is in 5e, leads to major problems. Game balance is the reason why the original beast master was so bad. WotC didn't want to risk BMs breaking action economy. So, they destroyed the flavor and usability of the archetype trying to balance it.

Balancing also creates a feedback loop, where players keep demanding more of it the more balance they get. Look how annoyed we all get about TWF being underwhelming. Back in 3.5e, entire classes were underwhelming. But that didn't stop players from finding creative ways to use them.

And that's the issue with WotC. They have gone out of there way to make sure nothing interacts in a way they don't intend. Reaction attacks vs opportunity attacks, inconsistent reaction timing, concentration, feats tied to class level, powerful features like evasion moved to later levels, careful phrasing to ensure features must be used independently, unclear definition of words like "attack", all of it is a product of rampant balancing.

If they have to errata the book to make sure evoker wizards only get to add their Int to a spell's damage once, they'll do it. If a feature like whirlwind attack needs to count as one attack to prevent players from moving during it, but multiple attacks to prevent spells that trigger on the "next attack" from hitting all of whirlwind's targets, then by golly whirlwind attack can be both at once. If an ability needs to count as an attack for the purpose of breaking invisibility, but not count as an attack for Hex or Hunter's Mark, then that's what happens. Mearls and Crawford don't even agree on how the rules work.

WotC hates unintended interactions this edition. They'll practice D&D doublethink just to avoid them.

And that's a real shame. I bet us players could find a way to fix TWF, with some special ability interactions or feats, if WotC hadn't been so gung ho about balancing. But because they've closed every gap, player creativity is severely limited. Just look how excited people get when they think they've found a way to get a little more damage, like greenflame blade on a rogue. It's because all of the really cool stuff we could do back in 3.5e is gone.

This edition has the exact opposite problem of 3.5e. Whereas 3.5 was too imbalanced, 5e is too controlled. And that control is exactly why there will be no tabaxi swashbucklers in AL.

But at least this game isn't as controlled as WoW.

[Cybren]

The PHB +1 rule theoretically doesn't change the amount of effort they do to balance their products, it puts a complexity arms race ceiling in place for Adventurer's League, a product partly intended on introducing new players to D&D. Everything in every future book can be balanced just fine, but knowing a clear set of limitations means people bringing in new characters don't feel like they're diving into the deep end.

[Pex]

The old quarterstaff + shield + dueling + polearm master build is, arguably, broken. But if so, only to a small degree.

My issue with the PHB+1 rule is twofold:
It's lazy
Priorities

Lazy
WotC doesn't want to balance everything against everything else, only against the PHB. That means they want to do less balancing work than they would have to otherwise. They limit player choice out of convenience.

Priorities
Balancing is the game equivalent of socialism. This is the developer wanting to make sure all play styles, and thus all players, are roughly equal.

A little of this is good. Every option should be good for something. But taken to extremes, as it is in 5e, leads to major problems. Game balance is the reason why the original beast master was so bad. WotC didn't want to risk BMs breaking action economy. So, they destroyed the flavor and usability of the archetype trying to balance it.

Balancing also creates a feedback loop, where players keep demanding more of it the more balance they get. Look how annoyed we all get about TWF being underwhelming. Back in 3.5e, entire classes were underwhelming. But that didn't stop players from finding creative ways to use them.

And that's the issue with WotC. They have gone out of there way to make sure nothing interacts in a way they don't intend. Reaction attacks vs opportunity attacks, inconsistent reaction timing, concentration, feats tied to class level, powerful features like evasion moved to later levels, careful phrasing to ensure features must be used independently, unclear definition of words like "attack", all of it is a product of rampant balancing.

If they have to errata the book to make sure evoker wizards only get to add their Int to a spell's damage once, they'll do it. If a feature like whirlwind attack needs to count as one attack to prevent players from moving during it, but multiple attacks to prevent spells that trigger on the "next attack" from hitting all of whirlwind's targets, then by golly whirlwind attack can be both at once. If an ability needs to count as an attack for the purpose of breaking invisibility, but not count as an attack for Hex or Hunter's Mark, then that's what happens. Mearls and Crawford don't even agree on how the rules work.

WotC hates unintended interactions this edition. They'll practice D&D doublethink just to avoid them.

And that's a real shame. I bet us players could find a way to fix TWF, with some special ability interactions or feats, if WotC hadn't been so gung ho about balancing. But because they've closed every gap, player creativity is severely limited. Just look how excited people get when they think they've found a way to get a little more damage, like greenflame blade on a rogue. It's because all of the really cool stuff we could do back in 3.5e is gone.

This edition has the exact opposite problem of 3.5e. Whereas 3.5 was too imbalanced, 5e is too controlled. And that control is exactly why there will be no tabaxi swashbucklers in AL.

But at least this game isn't as controlled as WoW.

https://s26.postimg.org/txdf74gx5/applause.gif (https://postimg.org/image/mhe5lbt7p/)

[Chugger]

I just came back from an AL game. Everyone was nice - first time DM but he did a great job - moved it along w/out rushing it - we finished - and the magic item was an obvious benefit for only one of the players, so the rest of us were nice and just let him have it. I met some cool new people and had fun. It's not the same experience gaming with a group of like-minded friends (or friends who at least sorta are all on the same page) w/ a very experienced DM - but it's way better than 'not bad' and a great way to meet the gaming community in my city. It's not for everyone, but some readers here might really enjoy adv L. As I said above, you can always give it a chance - and what have you risked? A few hours.

[Contrast]

Lazy
WotC doesn't want to balance everything against everything else, only against the PHB. That means they want to do less balancing work than they would have to otherwise. They limit player choice out of convenience.

I don't think the real issue is balancing. They certainly are trying to balance the books against each other. I imagine the vast majority of people playing D&D aren't doing it in Adventurers League so apart from anything else it would be bad business if they were making no effort to balance for non-AL rules.

My guess is that a large part of it is just trying to keep things simple for AL. They don't want a DM looking at your character having to spend 30 mins figuring out if your character is legal or not, with you pulling out every rulebook they've ever produced. They want you to be able to sit down and instantly play with a DM who has never seen your character before. They don't want the DMs to have to spend time looking up/discussing rules on weird interactions. They want the simplest possible sit down and go rule set.


A little of this is good. Every option should be good for something. But taken to extremes, as it is in 5e, leads to major problems. Game balance is the reason why the original beast master was so bad. WotC didn't want to risk BMs breaking action economy. So, they destroyed the flavor and usability of the archetype trying to balance it.

...I mean I'd rather they made something underpowered than overpowered. And you've also highlighted one of the specific issues they're actively in the process of trying to officially address.


Balancing also creates a feedback loop, where players keep demanding more of it the more balance they get. Look how annoyed we all get about TWF being underwhelming. Back in 3.5e, entire classes were underwhelming. But that didn't stop players from finding creative ways to use them.

Are you trying to suggest they should purposefully make underwhelming classes to encourage players to be creative? :smallconfused:

You're accusing 5E of being lazy for not doing enough balancing and, at the same time, complaining they put too much effort into balancing. Pick one?


And that's a real shame. I bet us players could find a way to fix TWF, with some special ability interactions or feats, if WotC hadn't been so gung ho about balancing. But because they've closed every gap, player creativity is severely limited. Just look how excited people get when they think they've found a way to get a little more damage, like greenflame blade on a rogue. It's because all of the really cool stuff we could do back in 3.5e is gone.

How exactly does 5E prevent a DM house ruling how TWF works if they think they have a better solution? What you really seem to be saying here is 'I wish there was more imbalance between characters so I could optimise my character to be better than a normal character'. I disagree that that is a good goal for a company making an RPG to aim towards. Its a good idea for a computer game where players progressing towards a skill cap and playing with other players of their level is normal. RPGs which are normally played in peoples living rooms with their friends for the fun of experiencing a shared story are a whole different beast.

Maybe if you're playing a pure CaW strategy style game (where character creation and optimisation is seen as part of the 'skill' of playing the game) maybe that would make sense but I've always been confused why people who play like that don't just play tactical war/board games or the like which seem better suited to scratch that itch to me.

[Easy_Lee]

I'll put it simply.

WotC wants 5e to be balanced. They've let the need for balance trump variety, player agency, and above all else, clear rules. There's a reason why we've had three RAW threads now. There's a reason why Mearls and Crawford don't always agree on rules. And there's a reason why AL has the reputation it does.

WotC is trying very hard to control this edition. This is what happens.

And my point about TWF was this: if the rules weren't so wonky, ability interactions discouraged, and everything so tightly controlled, we could have come up with legal builds to fix it. We did that kind of thing all the time back in 3.5, using odd ability combinations to make an underpowered concept work. It doesn't work anymore.

To the OP's point, why the rule book limit? Because 2+ optional rulebooks would create too many combinations for WotC to adequately control and balance. There would be some unorthodox feature combo that resulted in maybe 15% better damage, and they'd feel obligated to errata it.

[Cybren]

I'll put it simply.

WotC wants 5e to be balanced. They've let the need for balance trump variety, player agency, and above all else, clear rules. There's a reason why we've had three RAW threads now. There's a reason why Mearls and Crawford don't always agree on rules. And there's a reason why AL has the reputation it does.


WotC wants a lot of things for 5E: successful, profitable, popular, fun, easier to play probably all rank above balance in their internal Caring About Things budget.



WotC is trying very hard to control this edition. This is what happens.

And my point about TWF was this: if the rules weren't so wonky, ability interactions discouraged, and everything so tightly controlled, we could have come up with legal builds to fix it. We did that kind of thing all the time back in 3.5, using odd ability combinations to make an underpowered concept work. It doesn't work anymore.


I think that specific thing is something they don't want in their game. They've implied if not outright said that their research showed that as much as players did combine esoteric combinations of abilities and powers and classes and feats to make their character not awful, they hated doing it. (obviously in the aggregate, and not any particular individual)


To the OP's point, why the rule book limit? Because 2+ optional rulebooks would create too many combinations for WotC to adequately control and balance. There would be some unorthodox feature combo that resulted in maybe 15% better damage, and they'd feel obligated to errata it.
You can make that argument, but I don't think the "it's PHB +1 for balance" is more compelling than "it's so that players and DMs can get the game started faster".

[Pex]

I'll put it simply.

WotC wants 5e to be balanced. They've let the need for balance trump variety, player agency, and above all else, clear rules. There's a reason why we've had three RAW threads now. There's a reason why Mearls and Crawford don't always agree on rules. And there's a reason why AL has the reputation it does.

WotC is trying very hard to control this edition. This is what happens.

And my point about TWF was this: if the rules weren't so wonky, ability interactions discouraged, and everything so tightly controlled, we could have come up with legal builds to fix it. We did that kind of thing all the time back in 3.5, using odd ability combinations to make an underpowered concept work. It doesn't work anymore.

To the OP's point, why the rule book limit? Because 2+ optional rulebooks would create too many combinations for WotC to adequately control and balance. There would be some unorthodox feature combo that resulted in maybe 15% better damage, and they'd feel obligated to errata it.

My applause stands, but in 5E's favor at least its version of Balance Above All results in significant differences enough among the classes and characters instead of everyone doing the same thing only with different labels of color damage.

[mgshamster]

I think balance was a design goal of 4e, not 5e.

5e has kept a lot of balance philosophy, because that's what a lot of players have said they wanted, but the true design goal of 5e is rulings over rules. They want the DM to make the decision, not the rulebook.

I think that this is why there are so many RAW threads and rules questions - not because of balance and control, but because they specifically wanted the DM to make those calls, not the book. You can't find the rules answer in the book, so there ends up being rules questions in forums by people who look to the book for the rules, when they should be looking to the DM.

Some people aren't fond of that (like Pex), but it explains the phenomenon of rules questions much better than balance and control, while also staying true to the design philosophy that's been stated.

[DivisibleByZero]

I think balance was a design goal of 4e, not 5e.

Balance is always a design goal.
Balance was such a ridiculous priority in 4e that it overshadowed the game actually differentiating the classes.
WotC eventually saw this, and now we have 5e trying to straddle the line between the two.

[mgshamster]

Balance is always a design goal.
Balance was such a ridiculous priority in 4e that it overshadowed the game actually differentiating the classes.
WotC eventually saw this, and now we have 5e trying to straddle the line between the two.

Fair point. It's still a design goal, just not the number 1 priority to the point that we have conspiracy theories to explain the intent of absolute control, like what it being espoused here.

I think 'Rulings Over Rules' is a much simpler explanation for the phenomenon seen, and is also one of the top priorities of the edition as stated by the designers.

[DivisibleByZero]

Fair point. It's still a design goal, just not the number 1 priority to the point that we have conspiracy theories to explain the intent of absolute control, like what it being espoused here.

I think 'Rulings Over Rules' is a much simpler explanation for the phenomenon seen, and is also one of the top priorities of the edition as stated by the designers.

My turn now.

https://s26.postimg.org/txdf74gx5/applause.gif (https://postimg.org/image/mhe5lbt7p/)

[mephnick]

I can appreciate the decision. It's hard to get people to DM these things so any way to make it more managable needs to be considered.

DMing a group of random people every week still sounds like my nightmare .

[Easy_Lee]

I think balance was a design goal of 4e, not 5e.

5e has kept a lot of balance philosophy, because that's what a lot of players have said they wanted, but the true design goal of 5e is rulings over rules. They want the DM to make the decision, not the rulebook.

I think that this is why there are so many RAW threads and rules questions - not because of balance and control, but because they specifically wanted the DM to make those calls, not the book. You can't find the rules answer in the book, so there ends up being rules questions in forums by people who look to the book for the rules, when they should be looking to the DM.

Some people aren't fond of that (like Pex), but it explains the phenomenon of rules questions much better than balance and control, while also staying true to the design philosophy that's been stated.

That's valid. Honestly, I think it's a combination. The original BM is the most obvious example of game balance gone wrong. But balance probably isn't the full story. Rulings over rules, like you say, also contributes.

I'm not fond of rulings over rules just because it creates too much discrepancy between tables. Different DMs already have their own house rules and quirks. We don't need more DM variety, just more DMs.

[Naanomi]

Balance is always a design goal.
Umm... *glances as 1e and 2e* let's just agree that at the very least; it may have been less important at some points in the game's history

[Anonymouswizard]

I believe the reasoning goes like so:
-We want Adventurer's League to help people get into D&D.
-Therefore AL should be as simple as possible. The game gets intimidating if you made a cool champion fighter and then I show up with a Goliath Paladin of Conquest/Storm Sorcerer/Grave Cleric, even if I'm less optimal than you (for whatever reason).
-However we want to encourage people to buy more than just the core.
-Core+1 retains simplicity while encouraging people to buy an extra book.

I don't think Core+1 is that much to do with balance. It makes balance easier, in that in the place where you have to rely on RAW/errata there's a lot less interactions (conversely, if two abilities from splats make a game breaking combo in a home game, it can be houseruled*). But I don't think it's primary intent is balance, it's just a nice side effect.

* This does not mean it is not an imbalance or problem, just that it can be fixed then and there. I'd expect the worst interactions to have been spotted before release.

[Cybren]

Umm... *glances as 1e and 2e* let's just agree that at the very least; it may have been less important at some points in the game's history

Balance means too many things to be a valuable term in this conversation. Balance between different character building options in character creation isn't the same as balance between different character building options in play, nor is it the same thing as balance between wildly different character building options that act on asymmetrical axis, which is why I always had a problem with the D&D paradigm of "everyone is at least pretty good at murder".

[Easy_Lee]

Umm... *glances as 1e and 2e* let's just agree that at the very least; it may have been less important at some points in the game's history

Older games in the D&D style had a different sort of balance. They tried to make each class the best at something, instead of making them equally good at a given thing (such as combat). EverQuest was a great example. Every class was better than anyone else at some specific task.

Modern balance usually means everyone hitting the same numbers. The trendsetter was WoW, where the worst DPS class is only about 10% away from the best, if that far. And that's unfortunate, because it destroys niche builds. As with real life, players don't want to be equal.

5e has a combination. Every class can be built for DPR, but different builds excel in different contexts. And that's fine.

The problem occurs when WotC flips out about someone doing something WotC didn't think of. They don't want that happening in AL. Hence, the limitation. Testing everything against the PHB is much easier than testing everything against everything, as others have said.

All that said, I get the feeling WotC doesn't pay much attention to the fourth tier of play.

[Cybren]

Older games in the D&D style had a different sort of balance. They tried to make each class the best at something, instead of making them equally good at a given thing (such as combat). EverQuest was a great example. Every class was better than anyone else at some specific task.

Modern balance usually means everyone hitting the same numbers. The trendsetter was WoW, where the worst DPS class is only about 10% away from the best, if that far. And that's unfortunate, because it destroys niche builds. As with real life, players don't want to be equal.

5e has a combination. Every class can be built for DPR, but different builds excel in different contexts. And that's fine.

The problem occurs when WotC flips out about someone doing something WotC didn't think of. They don't want that happening in AL. Hence, the limitation. Testing everything against the PHB is much easier than testing everything against everything, as others have said.

All that said, I get the feeling WotC doesn't pay much attention to the fourth tier of play.

I'd argue that Everquest actually established that when they distinctly modeled their game on the DikuMUD paradigm of class roles, and that games like Ascherons Call or Ultima Online would be better examples, and better mirrors the progress of "We made this game where you can live in this world" vs "we made this game where you can kill things in this world". Obviously, EQ is still not WoW with regards to its overall design, but largely WoW was codifying a lot of the principles that grew out of everquest and catering specifically to the kind of gameplay that everquest inadvertently created in their PvE focused MMORPG.

But I could probably talk for hours about the design evolution of early MMOs.

[mgshamster]

1e and 2e also tried to balance things out with different XP charts (less powerful classes leveled more quickly), and by having level limits for stronger races.

It may or may not have worked, but those were there for game balance reasons.

[Naanomi]

Older games in the D&D style had a different sort of balance. They tried to make each class the best at something, instead of making them equally good at a given thing (such as combat).
To a degree, but they were also fine with the concept of 'you rolled well so you are just better'... Ranger and Paladin being the prime examples

(As an aside, all damage in WoW within 10% between classes and builds? You must have played at a different era of the game than I did... the Holy Priest I played from release through Burning Crusade couldn't DPS their way out of a wet paper bag even with top raiding gear from the era)

[Easy_Lee]

To a degree, but they were also fine with the concept of 'you rolled well so you are just better'... Ranger and Paladin being the prime examples

(As an aside, all damage in WoW within 10% between classes and builds? You must have played at a different era of the game than I did... the Holy Priest I played from release through Burning Crusade couldn't DPS their way out of a wet paper bag even with top raiding gear from the era)

Off topic, but I played vanilla through early Catalyst. Wrath of the Lich King is when the heavy balancing act began. That's also the point that their subscription numbers started dropping. Coincidence? Maybe, maybe not.

Back on D&D, I agree about early rangers and paladins. Rolling for stats is not just unbalanced, it's unfair. Games ought to be fair when possible, whether life is or not.

[mgshamster]

In 2e,there were rolling methods that would guarantee you made the stat requirements. You just had to use the splat books for them.

For example, in the Complete Paladin Handbook, in chapter 1 there is a table of pre-generated stats. Roll a d12 to see which stats you got, and you have a set that meets the requirements for paladin. You couldn't rearrange them or alter them, but you met the minimum requirements to play that class.

2e was like 5e in that regard - there were a ton of variant rules you could use, you just had to talk it out with the DM.

[DivisibleByZero]

1e and 2e also tried to balance things out with different XP charts (less powerful classes leveled more quickly), and by having level limits for stronger races.

It may or may not have worked, but those were there for game balance reasons.

Indeed.
The rules form 2e for creating new classes basically laid every potential ability out with a point score. You added up the cumulative scores to get a total, and compared that total against a chart to see how much XP would be required to level.
XP/leveling differentials were totally for balance reasons.

[Naanomi]

Indeed.
The rules form 2e for creating new classes basically laid every potential ability out with a point score. You added up the cumulative scores to get a total, and compared that total against a chart to see how much XP would be required to level.
XP/leveling differentials were totally for balance reasons.
Custom Classess were amongst the most unbalanced things in the game... take access to a few schools/spheres of magic and nothing else; never spending points to take you above the minimum XP table... sure your defenses sucked; but you are dropping Shapesift and the like when other classes are barely out of their diapers

[Pex]

My turn now.

https://s26.postimg.org/txdf74gx5/applause.gif (https://postimg.org/image/mhe5lbt7p/)

Tee Hee Tee Hee

[Beelzebubba]

They would forbid your entry. The PHB + 1 rule supposedly keeps power creep from happening, as now the Designers only have to balance things against the PHB, instead of every other sourcebook out there.

Supposedly? :smallwink:

Go look at the number of source books it takes to make a Pun-Pun or Hulking Hurler.

3.x went absolutely bonkers with the source books, and it created a huge imbalance in character power for casuals vs. optimizers. A certain degree of that is understandable, but it made for tremendous differences in character power, which both 4.x and 5.x intentionally addressed in different ways.

It also created a system knowledge burden that increase the number of 'trap' options far faster than the 'demigod' options. It sucks to build a character that sounds good in flavor but actually sucks in use. IMO it's a good way to prevent that kind of disappointment from happening.

[Finieous]

It also created a system knowledge burden that increase the number of 'trap' options far faster than the 'demigod' options. It sucks to build a character that sounds good in flavor but actually sucks in use. IMO it's a good way to prevent that kind of disappointment from happening.

Especially in an organized play format whose reason for being is to attract new players and DMs. Most constructed events for collectible games also have set restrictions.

[Contrast]

The original BM is the most obvious example of game balance gone wrong.

You'd have me more convinced if basically every other RPG game I'd ever played didn't make it possible (indeed often not just possible but easy) to make characters far more imbalanced, broken or boring than the Beast Master (when compared to other possible character at the same table).

I'm likely to soon start playing in a game where a lack of carefully applied system knowledge (a lot of which is counter-intuitive to what the rulebook gives you guidance on) at character creation (with decisions which cannot be changed later) could easily result in one player with the same basic character concept as another character having to pay twice or three times as much XP for advancement.

If you think the Beast Master is the most egregious example of game balance gone wrong, I'd suggest sitting down and refreshing yourself on what exactly the tier system from 3.X was like. That is game balance gone wrong.

[Easy_Lee]

You'd have me more convinced if basically every other RPG game I'd ever played didn't make it possible (indeed often not just possible but easy) to make characters far more imbalanced, broken or boring than the Beast Master (when compared to other possible character at the same table).

I'm likely to soon start playing in a game where a lack of carefully applied system knowledge (a lot of which is counter-intuitive to what the rulebook gives you guidance on) at character creation (with decisions which cannot be changed later) could easily result in one player with the same basic character concept as another character having to pay twice or three times as much XP for advancement.

If you think the Beast Master is the most egregious example of game balance gone wrong, I'd suggest sitting down and refreshing yourself on what exactly the tier system from 3.X was like. That is game balance gone wrong.

I think my meaning was unclear. I wasn't saying that they failed to balance BMs with everyone else. Rather, trying to balance BMs caused them to gut the archetype of its flavor and usability.

3.X wasn't an example of game balance gone wrong, but an example of balance not happening at all.

Put another way, I believe the ideal point for game balance is for each class to be the best at something. In such a system, balance no longer matters because everyone is useful in a different way.

3.5e failed because casters were the best at everything. I don't think anyone would contest that.

5e fails more gracefully, but still misses the mark by:
- not letting certain classes and archetypes do things they ought be able to do out of fear of unbalancing class DPR
- failing to consider anything but class DPR when balancing (see bard vs fighter)

[Pex]

3.5e failed because casters were the best at everything. I don't think anyone would contest that.



Stops applauding.

Raises hand.

3E didn't fail. Some people may not like it, but it didn't fail. Spellcasters are only the best at everything because some people wrongly assume they always have the exact spell needed at the moment it's needed with any applicable feat applied, always get through spell resistance, and monsters always fail their saving throws. Meanwhile, they say non-spellcasters autofail because a situation might come up where they don't get to use one of their feats or class abilities so they never get to use their feats or class abilities and they always fail their Will saving throws. Actual game play shows otherwise.

[mephnick]

Spellcasters are only the best at everything because some people wrongly assume they always have the exact spell needed at the moment

Actual game play shows otherwise.

Ehhhhh.... Sort of.

It's overblown a bit of course, but summons could be stronger than a PC easily. I've been in parties where it was pretty clear the Druid could have finished the campaign without the other PCs. That was without much optimization taking place on his part. Things like that aren't uncommon in 3.5 and Pathfinder.

[Easy_Lee]

Stops applauding.

Raises hand.

3E didn't fail. Some people may not like it, but it didn't fail. Spellcasters are only the best at everything because some people wrongly assume they always have the exact spell needed at the moment it's needed with any applicable feat applied, always get through spell resistance, and monsters always fail their saving throws. Meanwhile, they say non-spellcasters autofail because a situation might come up where they don't get to use one of their feats or class abilities so they never get to use their feats or class abilities and they always fail their Will saving throws. Actual game play shows otherwise.

I meant that it failed in the balance department. And spellcasters didn't need to have the right spell for everything. See the various druid and cleric builds hitting harder than fighters and getting perpetual bonuses to everything.

It didn't break the game, it just forced the players to balance it and make tiers themselves. And so, 3.5e failed to be balanced.

[tenshiakodo]

Ok, it's OT, but now that we're discussing the editions of D&D:

In all fairness, if you look at the various editions of D&D, you can see that there IS a stated goal of balance, but it's a specific kind of balance.

One of the complaints I heard (a lot) with regards to 4e is that "it didn't feel like D&D". And it didn't, though a percentage of people who said that weren't able to articulate what the real problem was.

D&D has a very specific paradigm it encourages. Some characters have a great deal of raw power out of the gate, but that power is limited in scope. Other characters have less raw power out of the gate, but that power is broad in scope.

As characters progress in level, characters in the first group tend to get more of what they started with, with a few new options, and limited "narrative power" (defined as what the class abilities they acquire can do to change the world around them).

Characters in the second group get many new options, and great "narrative power".

When D&D was first created, this was the paradigm. It wasn't "casters vs. martials"- you'll note the early incarnations of the Thief class align far closer to the second group than the first, with greater abilities to skulk, hide, bypass obstacles of all kinds (traps, sheer walls, eventually even decipher weird languages) and use magical items normally intended for use by magic-users.

What I've observed, over the years, that any attempt to adjust character archetypes even slightly from one group or the other has always resulted in insane backlash, because it's altering the original state of the game.

People will lament that the largely Type A Fighter only ever gets more ways to murder foes more efficiently, and eventually take a backseat to the largely Type B Wizard. Most attempts to adjust this start moving the Fighter closer to Type B, and a great deal of vitriol is spewed because the Fighter now doesn't "feel" like a Fighter.

The reverse is also true. Take away any power the Wizard traditionally had of old, no matter how ridiculous in scope- we hate it, Wizards don't "feel" like Wizards!

There's really only so much you can do to rebalance the game and maintain it's paradigm. 3e, I submit, was never intended to change the paradigm, which is why it's balance seems so all over the place- Fighters in 3e gained quite a bit over the Fighters of old, while Wizards in 3e actually didn't gain a lot (actual concentration checks, which many groups houseruled in anyways, limited ability to wear armor which most Wizards didn't bother with, better weapon proficiencies- second verse, same as the first, and bonus spell slots based on high Int). Some of those changes were a big deal, but compared to that, Fighters were now designed around a whole new subsystem of character customization options.

In WotC's eyes, the game was about letting Fighters fight, and Wizards nuke things as they always did. They weren't trying to create a new paradigm, just let the characters do what they always did, but better, cleaner, smoother.

And it wasn't just them, why look, now Rogues have a better combat trick, and are built around a vastly improved skill system!

And it would have worked out fine, if people were still playing D&D the way they had 10 years previously. But almost immediately, players started doing things in new ways- save or suck spells, which were laughable in 2e because higher level enemies were MORE likely to save against these things as the Wizard got higher level, now actually worked against enemies of all levels. Blasting spells now sucked because everyone had more hit points, but Fireball was doing the same damage it did in 2e!

Fighter players found that while the Feat system was neat, it took ridiculous investment to get it pay off- the ability to hit every enemy in reach on your turn came online the same time the Wizard got Fireball, and it took every Feat you had, plus investments in Dex and Int. And it would have been fine, since you can do this every turn now, where the Wizard can cast all of 2 Fireballs per day...

Except the Wizards weren't casting Fireballs to take chunks of hit points out of enemies. They were ending fights entirely with Stinking Cloud and the like.

Now, back on topic:

PHB+1 is not about balance. Because the PHB isn't about balance, when you get down to it. There are still, as they have always been, characters who get more options, with greater impact on the game. You can't even say "well, they only have so many uses of those options", as AL modules cannot always, due to time restraints, force players to use these resources the way they would in a home game. The most powerful things in the game are likely still found in the PHB.

And the sad part? Outside of cantrips, PHB+1 doesn't even prevent Wizards from gaining spells outside of the PHB. Spells still being, overall, the most problematic rules element in the entire freaking game.

PHB+1 may be about "future proofing" and preventing unintended interactions between rules elements. It may be the result of the development team being unable to provide new classes and subclasses that cannot have unintended interactions with multiclassing or non-PHB races. I think it's going to fail hard though, because when a book finally fixes flaws in the PHB (like a better Ranger), it's going to lock off that option from any race that's not in the PHB.

And then we'll get PHB+1* or PHB+2, and then the evil overlords at Hasbro will give down the order to kill the game by year 5 and after 2 years of development we'll get 6e...

[The Shadowdove]

Prior to this year I had zero AL experience. I thought the limitations would make playing d&d too simple, boring, and limit the potential to enjoy the game.

I was wrong.

I have met so many local people from the gaming community, and they have in the introduced me to all sorts of events and locations that I hadn't dreamed about.

Adventurer's League will always lack the open world of a homebrew, where a DM gets to know your characters in depth backstory before play and work it in.

However, the modules that are run can be challenging yet very fun. There aren't just combat encounters, but traditional traps and riddles. Skill checks that reward your choice in tools/abilities .

I have played as DM a couple dozen times now and am actually thankful for the phb+1. You don't know who is going to show up sometimes. I can give players the attention I need when I don't need to cross reference many books to keep their characters abilities and actions relevant. It also makes for an easy introduction to tabletop or transition into a new edition.

In short, AL really does focus on making traditional d&d adventures into a place where people can easily pick up their character and have an enjoyable time with people they may or may not know too well.

Some measures are taken to make the experience seamless, less effort to maintain flow/fun factor, and balanced (as it is difficult to do in rpgs).

I appreciate balance. D&d would not be fun if everything were lacking challenge.

Of course starting with multiple 20's in stats is fun and empowering. But I got over my fear of being less than capable, as the point buy system is often perfectly balanced for the monsters in the books.

[Pex]

I appreciate balance. D&d would not be fun if everything were lacking challenge.

Of course starting with multiple 20's in stats is fun and empowering. But I got over my fear of being less than capable, as the point buy system is often perfectly balanced for the monsters in the books.

You had to go there. Your defense of AL was fine, but you had to ruin it by inferring those who don't care for AL or don't use Point Buy only care about the POWER! and 20s!, not wanting to be challenged and fear anything less than that.

[mgshamster]

You had to go there. Your defense of AL was fine, but you had to ruin it by inferring those who don't care for AL or don't use Point Buy only care about the POWER! and 20s!, not wanting to be challenged and fear anything less than that.

I think he was referring to himself. As in, he personally had a fear of being less capable and wanted to always start with multiple 20s. That's why he said that he got over his fear and tried it out. And then he was pleasantly surprised that it was still a lot of fun and he had no reason to fear it.

[ZorroGames]

You had to go there. Your defense of AL was fine, but you had to ruin it by inferring those who don't care for AL or don't use Point Buy only care about the POWER! and 20s!, not wanting to be challenged and fear anything less than that.

Whole lot of inference there.

[Anonymouswizard]

I appreciate balance. D&d would not be fun if everything were lacking challenge.

Of course starting with multiple 20's in stats is fun and empowering. But I got over my fear of being less than capable, as the point buy system is often perfectly balanced for the monsters in the books.

I've discovered in my time that likely the best ways to generate stats in 'vanilla' D&D are point buy (I consider the standard array to be a variant), followed by 4d6b3. 3d6 also works, but only if you intentionally want to struggle.

This is because every other method I've seen gives too much power to the characters, has too much variance, or both. I once used a rolling method (roll 8d20, reroll any under 8, take the best six) that generated a Barbarian with two good stats and four average stats in a party where two PCs had multiple twenties and no stat below an 11. It's really hard to generate a good encounter for such a party, because they'll effortly defeat things several CRs higher by having another level or two of hp and up to six additional levels worth of accuracy (but a smaller boost in damage). while 4d6b3 might give you all 18s, the likelihood is you'll likely have one +4, maybe two, and a bunch of stats around +0 to +2, not massively different to point buy (where you'll end up with one or two modifiers of +3)

[Pex]

I think he was referring to himself. As in, he personally had a fear of being less capable and wanted to always start with multiple 20s. That's why he said that he got over his fear and tried it out. And then he was pleasantly surprised that it was still a lot of fun and he had no reason to fear it.


Whole lot of inference there.

If it's clarified to that, then fine.

I personally am not fond of AL because the world doesn't remember what I did. However I save the day in a particular module, in the next module the NPCs don't know it was me. It has to be written that way because it inherently can't assume any player was in a previous module play at that table. In a home game the world is more dynamic. The gameworld knows I was there and reacts accordingly.

When I played Lost Mine Of Phandelver in a home game, the party fought two goblins guarding the cave entrance. By the dumbest of luck, even though the entire party went before them in initiative we all missed in our attacks. They survived to round two. We were able to convince them to surrender anyway. They told us about Little Boss wanting Big Boss gone. We allied with the goblins to get rid of Big Boss, with those two goblins helping us to convince the goblins we met on the way that's what we were doing, so we never fought them. We got rid of Big Boss. The goblin tribe went on their merry way but those two goblins who weren't supposed to survive even half of round 1 asked if they could join us. Two goblins became friendly NPC party members, one eventually promoted to semi-PC when campaign and real world developments led to players having two characters. I loved that. That couldn't happen in AL.

[Sariel Vailo]

If it's clarified to that, then fine.

I personally am not fond of AL because the world doesn't remember what I did. However I save the day in a particular module, in the next module the NPCs don't know it was me. It has to be written that way because it inherently can't assume any player was in a previous module play at that table. In a home game the world is more dynamic. The gameworld knows I was there and reacts accordingly.

When I played Lost Mine Of Phandelver in a home game, the party fought two goblins guarding the cave entrance. By the dumbest of luck, even though the entire party went before them in initiative we all missed in our attacks. They survived to round two. We were able to convince them to surrender anyway. They told us about Little Boss wanting Big Boss gone. We allied with the goblins to get rid of Big Boss, with those two goblins helping us to convince the goblins we met on the way that's what we were doing, so we never fought them. We got rid of Big Boss. The goblin tribe went on their merry way but those two goblins who weren't supposed to survive even half of round 1 asked if they could join us. Two goblins became friendly NPC party members, one eventually promoted to semi-PC when campaign and real world developments led to players having two characters. I loved that. That couldn't happen in AL.
Ah yeah homegames where being a folk hero means something