Exempting Races from the +1 rule

Could we have a discussing of this? Backgrounds are already exempted as they are not consequential enough. I feel the same way about races and would dearly like to use my volo races in TOA with the new sub classes. Let me know what you think.
-Boomer

The only reason backgrounds are exempt is because you can build your own, so you could easily just duplicate a background from one book and give it a different name. WOTC has told the admins that PHB+1 is a core principle of 5e design. Given that it is a directive directly from the company, you shouldn't expect anything to change on the AL front. Your best bet would be to contact customer service and let them know you disagree with core design philosophy.

I actually was talking to another DM and I came to the same conclusion.

If the reason for the +1 limitation is to prevent complexity of requiring multiple books, the races can probably be exempt. As they typically just a short paragraph for mechanical effects.

I honestly got the impression someone at AL didn't really like Volo's when they gave out the hamstringing faction and character background document.

Lizardfolk? You are from Lizard Marsh, despite there being numerous other lizardfolk communities you could be from. Imagine if they said "All Humans are from Waterdeep."


But if the +1 limitation is handed down from on high I doubt it will change.

It would be nice to have a cleaner, inclusive method for utilizing official sources in AL play. But I also like the simplicity of PH+1 for the sanity of players, DMs and AL admins. Does this mean I can't have the Tabaxi Swashbuckler I've always wanted (Puss'n'boots, eat your heart out!)? Yes. But that's a small sacrifice to make for everything that IS supported by organized play.

I played in LFR, and the last two years trying to survive a Battle Interactive was an exercise in meatgrinding. The modules had to be set up so DPR King candidates would face a challenge, which meant that all-non-optimized groups (such as might be created from random strangers being put at a table together) were in for a VERY long haul. In at least two instances, my group was Saved By The Bell, not defeating the scenario.

Which is to say, the AL limitations are a positive thing which serve to keep possible AL builds closer together in power level, which preserves the fun for part-time players and those who do not maximize every possible point of damage out of the rules.

Yeah, the two things aren't even in the same category in a mechanical sense. Backgrounds are almost wholly inconsequential mechanically in Adventurer's League: probably the most consequential one is the Acolyte background, and even that background's effectiveness is highly dependent on season. Races aren't remotely in the same category -- they provide stat bumps which lead toward specific class choices, often provide spells or other special racial abilities, and some even unlock specific subclasses. The two are not comparable. If there were a class for which a specific background is not only a 'must-take' option, but any other option is sub-optimal, then I'd be willing to reconsider, but that's simply not the case.

With that said, I am feeling a bit of sympathy for those characters who have the EEPG as their +1, since most of the classes and all the spells are now going to be re-printed in other books, which will generally be viewed as superior choices of +1 resource. (I'm not sympathetic enough to want the admins to actually do something about it -- those 'early adopters' got their benefit at the time, after all -- but I understand how those players might have a legitimate complaint now.)

--
Pauper

thethain said:

But if the +1 limitation is handed down from on high I doubt it will change.

Click to expand...

The PHB+1 has been stated by WOTC as a core design philosophy that is core to the game. As such, I wouldn't expect a change anytime soon.

skerritthegreen said:

The PHB+1 has been stated by WOTC as a core design philosophy that is core to the game. As such, I wouldn't expect a change anytime soon.

Click to expand...

I believe you've been given that info, Skerrit, but I'm curious -- if this is truly a core design philosophy, why isn't it recommended for non-AL play as well? Is it because AL DMs aren't given the authority to forbid combinations they view as degenerate or 'broken' by fiat?

--
Pauper

Pauper said:

why isn't it recommended for non-AL play as well? Is it because AL DMs aren't given the authority to forbid combinations they view as degenerate or 'broken' by fiat?

Click to expand...

1) While not explicit in the DMG, I know that all of the designers (Crawford most frequently) have stated it in public and social media. I don't think there is really a list of the core design/guiding principles in any book truthfully, because...

2) You are correct, in a home game the DM just says no. When a rules item is balanced as part of the design process, they always balance assuming the PHB, not any other product they have also put out. If two things break the game, a home DM just says "I don't allow that. It will wreck the game I have in mind."

skerritthegreen said:

1) While not explicit in the DMG, I know that all of the designers (Crawford most frequently) have stated it in public and social media.

Click to expand...

I do follow Crawford on Twitter, and he's generally big on stating how DMs are the 'gateway' between the rules in the book and the game at the table -- he even put an explanation into the Sage Advice Compendium about how allowing the DM to be the 'filter' makes the designers' jobs easier as they don't have to explicitly list all possible interactions between abilities. I've never seen him state anything like the AL '+1 rule' for use outside AL, but it could be argued that it's implicit in the idea that the DM decides what is and isn't kosher for her own campaign, and how the kosher things work and interact with each other. And as noted, that last point doesn't really exist in AL in that same sense.

I've long thought of the DM role in AL as being 'bifurcated', in the sense that the AL admins serve the role of determining what is and isn't allowable in a rules/setting sense -- they determine the story, the adventure hooks, the allowed rules, etc. -- while the DMs at the table determine how each individual game operates within the context of the guidelines put out by the admins.

Of course, these past couple of seasons are seeing the admins kind of getting out of the business of providing an overall meta-plot for AL, so about the only role left is determining the legality of rules options and, hopefully, how to enforce those rules options at the table.

--
Pauper