So adventure's spirit, not the spirit of the rules, but the adventure.
A good observation, since it is correct by the letter of what was written, but not by the spirit of it.
I mean, not really. The FAQ is very clear about which variant rules are allowed. Any thing beyond rules as written is a houserule,
Let's not get into this discussion again -- there are many things the rules don't cover:
- How much falling damage do you take when falling into water?
- What's the minimum hit point maximum a character can possess?
- How many pages does a spell take up in a spellbook?
- Can a Circle of the Moon druid still use Wild Shape as an action, or can he only use it as a bonus action?
The game quickly becomes unplayable if you claim that any ruling not listed in a rule source is a 'house-rule'. What the AL admins are saying when they ask DMs not to 'house-rule' is not to make up rules that contradict the rules in the PH or the various AL governing documents. And, as rooneg notes, there's a fair amount that you seem to think is ironclad spelled out in AL documents that actually is cobbled together over a fair amount of conjecture and implication. For example (if I may skip a bit), this:
If you aren't interested in the portability that makes AL what it is, then you can play the hardcover as a non-AL easily enough.
Literally the only thing that the current (6.0) ALPG says about portability is "You can create a character and bring that character to any D&D Adventurers League game." It does not say that the DM is required to accept all aspects of your character as gospel, that you have the ability to dictate play style to an existing table, or any one of a number of other things you presume to be 'true' about AL because they are the way you play AL.
Who said that's what is going on? Wanting to have a min-maxed character has nothing to do with wanting the game to be about me.
And here we go. I'm very much on record as stating that optimization is a flawed playstyle that I don't support at my table, so rather than hash out that argument all over again, I'll just point out that your idea of what the game should be ("where everyone is as strong as they can be within the rules and uses good strategy and teamwork when taking down challenging encounters") is not the single 'right answer' of what a game is supposed to be. This is particularly true in Season 4, among folk who are Ravenloft vets and have fond memories of that setting in earlier D&D editions. So sitting down at a Curse of Strahd table with a character who keeps coming in more powerful and with more magic items than the last session is almost exactly going against the social contract of what I'd consider a Ravenloft game to be about, even if it is technically legal.
If having a min-maxed character is being a dick, then so be it.
Your statement, not mine, though I do agree.
If you want to play an optimized character, then don't play at my table. Simple as that.
--
Pauper