AL VS LFR of 4th and why I'm so disappointed

[kalani]

Thank you Kalani - that has answered my questions and concerns - as long as the AL Leaders are willing to revisit and re evaluate this, I am ok. Still has holes in it but at least it was not a deflection.

It may be 2-3 years before this particular issue is revisited, as it is way too early to tell whether this pre-emptive solution was warranted, as we only have the SCAG and a few spells and races from the EEPG to work with at this time. We will need to see how things look once we have a good 6-10 supplemental rules sources (at least) before we will know whether power creep and balance issues are being averted, or whether it was an unnecessary precaution.

Honestly though, based on my past history with D&D over the past 2 1/2 decades, I fully expect that hindsight will show that the Story Origin mechanic was a valid method of pre-emptively addressing power creep and balance issues.

 

[ArlenFrostlockes]

That may be the case Kalani - But having come back to Playing D&D at the start of 5th edition from a time D&D still utilized "To Hit Armor Class 0" some of these rulings did not make sense. Are there aspects of AL I do not agree with, sure, but for the most part I am enjoying the organised play style and the fact that I can take me characters anywhere AL is being played. That is important to me as I tend to move frequently. I appreciate the feedback and you actually taking the time to show me the why and what AL leadership is doing.

 

[aarduini]

LFR's kitchen sink approach ran into similar problems (although not as quite extreme as what was possible in the latter 3.5 days). AL's Story Origin mechanic is a proactive attempt to prevent issues relating to rules bloat and unintended rules interactions.

As stated by the admins, if it turns out that this rule was an overly cautious (and unnecessary) rule in hindsight, it will be revisited/revised at that time.

LFR's problems weren't with the unrestricted ruling of the organized play model. They DID NOT balance their content against the Player's handbook. The problem with 4e was the Min/Max range was much, much wider than 5e allowing for well built characters to dominate inexperienced DMs. I believe the same goes for 3.5. Since AL has stated several times you are not taking the time to evaluate the content separately and relying on your blanket rule to keep things in line, you might as well leave it to Wizards. As long as they hold to their promise to balance content against the Player's Handbook, all should be good. Broken in 5e is not the same as broken in 4e or 3.5, and you're rulings are only restricting character creation options for both lore lovers and min/maxers. There are already very "broken" builds in play, and I use that word loosely as it is all relative. I don't think that it can get much more broken than a character with archery fighting style with the Sharpshooter feat on a Fighter/Vengeance Paladin/rogue wearing boots of flying.

I think the vast majority of players will say this rule was over the top while the Admins will pat themselves on the back for a job well done. I'm sorry, but I just don't think you are listening. I think you guys are too busy telling us we don't understand and how you know better.

 

[Anthraxus]

I think the vast majority of players will say this rule was over the top while the Admins will pat themselves on the back for a job well done. I'm sorry, but I just don't think you are listening. I think you guys are too busy telling us we don't understand and how you know better.

I don't know if the majority will say it's over the top. I'm fine with limiting to one book per character.

 

[aarduini]

It may be 2-3 years before this particular issue is revisited, as it is way too early to tell whether this pre-emptive solution was warranted, as we only have the SCAG and a few spells and races from the EEPG to work with at this time. We will need to see how things look once we have a good 6-10 supplemental rules sources (at least) before we will know whether power creep and balance issues are being averted, or whether it was an unnecessary precaution.

At the rate new content is being produced, you can let the audience determine if it is balanced. All possible min/max builds for SCAG are pretty much already realized. This book should be considered the same as the Player's handbook. There is plenty of time to evaluate the produced material, and the Admins don't have to be the ones to do it. Remember that AL is for the players to enjoy the game in a public venue. Let them playlest the content . 2-3 years is an eternity. From my point of view, I'm not even confident that DnD will be in its current form in 2-3 years the way things are going.

 

[ArlenFrostlockes]

Careful Aaduini - there are those here that will ignore you for daring to question rules utilizing logic, and existing rules. They will fling deflections, ridicule, and outright dismissals of concerns that many of the playerbase have regarding restrictions.

 

[ArlenFrostlockes]

it is almost as if these people only visit their favorite local shops or cons and not get the feel for what is really happening

 

[aarduini]

I'm sorry, but I just don't think you are listening. I think you guys are too busy telling us we don't understand and how you know better.

I want to re-state the above statement a different way. You might be listening, but I really do think you're minds are made up and not open to new input. This is the way it should have been said.

 

[ArlenFrostlockes]

AL sanctioned playable races should not be restricted because they appeared in "a book that is not the PHB" While I agree that the playable race resources to draw from should be limited to the PHB + 1 other book - I see no reason why a deep gnome from EE cannot utilize the PHB + SCAG.

 

[aarduini]

it is almost as if these people only visit their favorite local shops or cons and not get the feel for what is really happening

I appreciate the support ArlenFrostlockes. Lets keep it friendly.