Exempting Races from the +1 rule

Runny · Nov 3, 2017

CapnZapp said:
I believe we have the full exhaustive answer from the admins.

Do you have a reason for continuing the thread as if you did not have that full exhaustive answer?

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

Isn’t having conversations about AL rules the entire point of this forum? There were several responses after the AL admin laid down the law. I️ responded to one of those responses.

The answer was hardly exhaustive, btw. They gave a reason for saying no: fear of a slippery slope. That is a real concern in all manners of regulation. It seems to me that AL needs to fear slippery slopes less than most regulatory bodies, as the AL admins have shown themselves to be quite capable and active in integrating new material into the AL framework. Another way of saying this is that AL admins are on top of the situation. The downside of taking a hardline on rules is that sometimes exceptions make sense.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

KahlessNestor · Nov 4, 2017

Runny said:
Isn’t having conversations about AL rules the entire point of this forum? There were several responses after the AL admin laid down the law. I️ responded to one of those responses.

The answer was hardly exhaustive, btw. They gave a reason for saying no: fear of a slippery slope. That is a real concern in all manners of regulation. It seems to me that AL needs to fear slippery slopes less than most regulatory bodies, as the AL admins have shown themselves to be quite capable and active in integrating new material into the AL framework. Another way of saying this is that AL admins are on top of the situation. The downside of taking a hardline on rules is that sometimes exceptions make sense.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If there is some race combination you want to play that isn't AL legal, you are more than welcome to work it up and join a PBP here on EN World. Or play on Fantasy Grounds/Roll20 or a home game. No need to change AL rules.

CapnZapp · Nov 4, 2017

KahlessNestor said:
If there is some race combination you want to play that isn't AL legal, you are more than welcome to work it up and join a PBP here on EN World. Or play on Fantasy Grounds/Roll20 or a home game. No need to change AL rules.

I believe the posters of this thread wants to combine a race from one supplement with a subclass, spell or other feature from another, and to do so within the Adventurers League.

If they just wanted to play a combination that happens to not be AL legal outside of AL none of this thread would be necessary...

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

Remathilis · Nov 4, 2017

Exempting races would effectively kill the +1 rule. If you exempt races...

EEPG is basically no longer an option, as all the spells are in Xanathar and the races would be free choice. Similarly, there are no other PC options in Volo but races; its effectively no longer a viable pick.

That leaves SCAG vs Xanathar. And the SCAG would be limited as the race options (duergar, deep gnome, ghostwise) and backgrounds would be free to pick anyway, and four of the subclasses (sunsoul, mastermind, swashbuckler, storm sorcerer) are in Xanathars as well. So unless you really want to be a PDK, bladesinger, battleranger, long death monk, undying warlock or arcana cleric, or you want the four cantrips, there is no reason to pick SCAG.

So exempting races basically makes Xanathar the only +1 worth taking, unless your hell-bent on a SCAG subclass.

Runny · Nov 4, 2017

Remathilis said:
Exempting races would effectively kill the +1 rule. If you exempt races...

EEPG is basically no longer an option, as all the spells are in Xanathar and the races would be free choice. Similarly, there are no other PC options in Volo but races; its effectively no longer a viable pick.

That leaves SCAG vs Xanathar. And the SCAG would be limited as the race options (duergar, deep gnome, ghostwise) and backgrounds would be free to pick anyway, and four of the subclasses (sunsoul, mastermind, swashbuckler, storm sorcerer) are in Xanathars as well. So unless you really want to be a PDK, bladesinger, battleranger, long death monk, undying warlock or arcana cleric, or you want the four cantrips, there is no reason to pick SCAG.

So exempting races basically makes Xanathar the only +1 worth taking, unless your hell-bent on a SCAG subclass.

Thank you for actually looking at the practical effect of the suggestion. I️ agree that the suggestion removes EEPG as a +1. Good riddance. XGE reprinted most of it anyways.

That would leave the choice between SCAG and XGE. That is a fair choice, IMO. SCAG is no slouch because of Greenflame Blade and Booming Blade, the cornerstone attacks of most low level Gish builds. While I️ love those spells, it is perfectly reasonable to say that all future subclasses and feats should not have to be designed to play well with them.

A concrete example: at my table the Bladesinger wizard (level 3) has been thinking about changing to War Wizard, but will probably not do it because he doesn’t want to lose Greenflame Blade. That is a reasonable either or decision. Contrast this with the Paladin/Bard that will change from EEPG to XGE because the only thing he was using from EEPG was Thunderclap.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

CapnZapp · Nov 4, 2017

Runny said:
Thank you for actually looking at the practical effect of the suggestion. I️ agree that the suggestion removes EEPG as a +1. Good riddance. XGE reprinted most of it anyways.

That would leave the choice between SCAG and XGE. That is a fair choice, IMO. SCAG is no slouch because of Greenflame Blade and Booming Blade, the cornerstone attacks of most low level Gish builds. While I️ love those spells, it is perfectly reasonable to say that all future subclasses and feats should not have to be designed to play well with them.

I on the other hand think we would let WotC awfully easy off the hook if we can't even expect the little crunch they have offered for this edition to work well together. It is perfectly reasonable to ask that all future subclasses and feats should be designed to play well with Greenfire and Booming Blades.

(That has, of course, nothing to do with the AL. And since we're in the AL forum, let me move on to my next point:

As regards the AL "+1" rule, races have seldom been part of abusive combos, so I'm not sure we're doing ourselves any favors on focusing on them, in their abusive potential. (I do understand why they're the focus of this thread...

)

To be honest, I would say that the main reason for restricting races is to keep the rule simple, and in order to avoid having to create exceptions.

In other words - not what Remalithis is noting. It may be true that exempting races would essentially nullify the rule, yes, for the moment. But that loses sight of the bigger picture - which is that races seldom make enough of a difference for a combo to be abusive, and indeed that there aren't really any abusive combos that justify the rule. Yet.

The main reason for the overall +1 rule is instead to safe-guard against future splats and future powercreep. The fact this took way longer than in previous editions (and arguably hasn't even happened yet) can't be taken to mean the rule is useless.

Unless I'm forgetting something, races are mostly just an incidental casualty, rather than the focus of the rule. (As an absurd example - I can't believe Pun-Pun, say, depended on an otherwise-AL-allowed racial Kobold ability)

kalani · Nov 5, 2017

Regarding reskinning - the general guidance from the Admins is that you shouldn't be reskinning your character (or abilities) so that they might be confused for an existing race/class/monster simply by hearing the label.

Some of the examples in this thread would not count for reskinning purposes.... A kobold spear is just a spear. It isn't a reskinned rapier. Likewise, a wingless Aarakocra isn't a reskinned Tabaxi, it would be an Aarakocra which lacks the flight speed but would otherwise be idenfifiable with the stats of an aarakocra.

Good examples of reskinning are changing one weapon into a SIMILAR weapon - such as calling your longsword a katana, or a dao; or reskinning a race into a similar race.... such as a forest gnome into a leprechaun (which IIRC doesn't exist as a monster yet).

It's a slippery slope when you reskin a human into a non-venomous yuanti, as while purebloods can "pass" for human, they aren't. Their appearance is just easily disguised as such, and they are masters of deception (it also helps that purebloods were all human once). OTOH, reskinning a yuanti into another snake-like race would be perfectly acceptable, as would reskinning it to be some kind of toxic bog race of your own cosmetic design.

People are really stretching the point of believability, and definitely crossing the line of confusion when it comes to some of these more outlandish reskins. If you want to play an aarakocra, you need to have completed the DM quest to obtain a L5 aarakocra in a previous season. Reskinning a tabaxi won't suffice.

Actually, if you want to play a flightless bird race, play a Kenku and reskin it to be a different bird such as a crane, eagle, or something.

Runny · Nov 5, 2017

kalani said:
Regarding reskinning - the general guidance from the Admins is that you shouldn't be reskinning your character (or abilities) so that they might be confused for an existing race/class/monster simply by hearing the label.

Some of the examples in this thread would not count for reskinning purposes.... A kobold spear is just a spear. It isn't a reskinned rapier. Likewise, a wingless Aarakocra isn't a reskinned Tabaxi, it would be an Aarakocra which lacks the flight speed but would otherwise be idenfifiable with the stats of an aarakocra.

Good examples of reskinning are changing one weapon into a SIMILAR weapon - such as calling your longsword a katana, or a dao; or reskinning a race into a similar race.... such as a forest gnome into a leprechaun (which IIRC doesn't exist as a monster yet).

It's a slippery slope when you reskin a human into a non-venomous yuanti, as while purebloods can "pass" for human, they aren't. Their appearance is just easily disguised as such, and they are masters of deception (it also helps that purebloods were all human once). OTOH, reskinning a yuanti into another snake-like race would be perfectly acceptable, as would reskinning it to be some kind of toxic bog race of your own cosmetic design.

People are really stretching the point of believability, and definitely crossing the line of confusion when it comes to some of these more outlandish reskins. If you want to play an aarakocra, you need to have completed the DM quest to obtain a L5 aarakocra in a previous season. Reskinning a tabaxi won't suffice.

Actually, if you want to play a flightless bird race, play a Kenku and reskin it to be a different bird such as a crane, eagle, or something.

Thank you Kalani. Your description of proper reskinning makes more sense given what I️ know of AL.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Exempting Races from the +1 rule

Runny

First Post

KahlessNestor

Adventurer

CapnZapp

Legend

Remathilis

Legend

Runny

First Post

CapnZapp

Legend

kalani

First Post

Runny

First Post

Similar Threads