D&D 5E Should PHB +1 apply to spells?

[Herosmith14]

So, I ran into a kink when brainstorming for a character. He's a Paladin/Warlock that I'm planning on giving the Booming and Green Flame Blade cantrips from SCAG, but I was planning on using the Celestial patron (assuming that winds up in XGE), and I was hoping to keep him AL legal.

This got me thinking, should PHB +1 really apply to spells. I know the rule is there to keep the game balanced, and I'm perfectly fine with it for classes, races, and backgrounds, but would allowing the full list of spells really make the game broken. I will admit, I don't know nearly all the spells inside and out, but I don't think allowing a Bladesinger to use Ice Knife would take a sledgehammer to balance. Think about it, most spell casters can only know X amount of spells from there spell list anyway, so would allowing more options really hurt?

The only problem I see here is with Clerics, Druids, Paladins, and, to an extent, Wizards, who know (or can know) all the spells from their spell lists, but can only have Y amount of them prepared at one time. I don't see this as much of an issue. So your (possible) Shepherd Druid has access to Beast Bond. Yeah it gives a little more versatility that you wouldn't have otherwise, but is it really that OP? Heck, in the case of Wizards, there's a chance for Bladesingers to come across a scroll of Earthbind to copy into their spellbooks.

If there's something here that would actually wreck the balance of the game that I missed, please tell me. I still don't believe lifting PHB +1 from spells would be catastrophic, but I made this thread to start a discussion.

P.S. I realize this might not be one of my best formed arguments, but I'm really having a hard time finding a solid argument for the opposing side of this. Maybe that's because of bias, and if it is and you guys can think of one, then feel free to post.

 

[Jester David]

It's not a problem now with the two books. It probably won't be a problem in the fall with three books.
It's more of a problem when you have six or seven books. When you get the 3e situation where the cleric player pulls out book after book, looking through every spell to choose what they're memorising for the day.

The PHB + 1 rule would really be better for 3e/4e/PF. It's not *really* necessary at the moment for 5e. However, it's a good rule to have now, rather than one to try and force onto the fans in four or five years when there's far more books.

 

[Tony Vargas]

So, I ran into a kink when brainstorming for a character. He's a Paladin/Warlock that I'm planning on giving the Booming and Green Flame Blade cantrips from SCAG, but I was planning on using the Celestial patron (assuming that winds up in XGE), and I was hoping to keep him AL legal.

This got me thinking, should PHB +1 really apply to spells.

Yes.

I know the rule is there to keep the game balanced

It's not like the game is all that balanced to begin with, but it limits cross-pollination and outre combos and keeps the optimization bar for AL play from rising too high, and thus helps keep organized pay welcoming to new/returning players.
Frankly, I'm not so sanguine with AL allowing multi-classing & feats.
JMHO.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

This would’ve been great back in the day, and probably would’ve radically helped my 4e campaign be less of a pain. At this point, if I ever ran a Pathfinder game, that’s the route I’d go.

At my home table, I don’t really care about the PHB+1 rule, but for AL play, I’m perfectly fine with adhering to more stringent guidelines. But as more options develop, that may very well change.

The PHB + 1 rule would really be better for 3e/4e/PF. It's not *really* necessary at the moment for 5e. However, it's a good rule to have now, rather than one to try and force onto the fans in four or five years when there's far more books.

 

[jgsugden]

I've always had core book elements be available as stuff people commonly know about, and everything else (secondary books from WotC/TSR, 3rd party books, homebrew) be stuff that you had to find or go through an effort to add to your options. In terms of spells, that meant either finding a scroll or creating the spell as a scroll.

If applied to the PHB+1 rule, I'd say that this meant that you could freely take the spells from a PHB+1 setting when advancing, etc..., but you could gain access to any other material by finding it within the course of the game.

 

[happyhermit]

I wouldn't be surprised if they let the rule go, just as I wouldn't be surprised if they give up on their low bloat strategy. The biggest argument against getting rid of the rule is in fact that there is almost no going back or at least doing so would be problematic, whereas the benefits to ditching the rule aren't exactly overwhelming.

 

[Argyle King]

Yes

 

[CapnZapp]

Let's just mention that there's no such rule outside of AL.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[schnee]

Yeah, I run it that way. Books are balanced vs. the PHB, not each other.

I can't think of a single insane 3.X build that didn't involve half a dozen splat books.

 

[schnee]

Double post.​