Core+1

[Zardnaar]

It's basically for tournament play like mtg but the PHB is the core set.

It's also dm friendly. If I was running games for Al it would be good. No DM no game.

 

[jgsugden]

Wizards has experience with M:tG in handling an ever expanding rule set. Many new rules are introduced in Magic each year, and they have to consider how they all fit together. When they screw up, they remove or limit the offender. The same approach can be applied here. Core+1 is an easy rule, it avoids most abusive combos, but it is limiting and - when used as a design philosophy - potentially allows for WotC to introduce abusive combos without considering it, despite most groups not worrying about Core+1 and facing that abusive combo.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Wizards has experience with M:tG in handling an ever expanding rule set. Many new rules are introduced in Magic each year, and they have to consider how they all fit together. When they screw up, they remove or limit the offender. The same approach can be applied here. Core+1 is an easy rule, it avoids most abusive combos, but it is limiting and - when used as a design philosophy - potentially allows for WotC to introduce abusive combos without considering it, despite most groups not worrying about Core+1 and facing that abusive combo.

The way that they handle it with Magic is that anything older than a certain cut-off point is auto-banned unless re-printed, right? And the most recent core set is also legal?

Applying that same approach to D&D would be like saying Core +1, and that +1 must always be the most recent supplement. It would be more restrictive than the current method.

 

[Blue]

For myself, I feel it is reasonable for WotC to request the DM becomes responsible for quality control if combining multiple noncores.

This is actually one of the main points I have. I don't think this is reasonable in all circumstances.

I do find it reasonable in any home game environment, where the DM and players default to a long term relationship. Which is not where PHB+1 exists so it doesn't matter. (Regardless of Mearls & Crawford's personal opinions about how they design, it's not a rule anywhere in the core books.)

I do not find it reasonable in a large multi-DM pick-up-game environment like AL for DMs to have to make rulings on every character that comes to the table. For the player it's unfair because it can be handled inconsistently. For the DM it's unfair because they need to understand and vet every character that gets brought to them, taking time, and it's still likely that problems are not obvious (they got through design after all) and won'[t come up into play. If you're 90 minutes into a four hour slot only to be told that the character you've been running with various AL DMs for 10 months is invalid because a DM doesn't like a combo, what do you do?

 

[jgsugden]

The way that they handle it with Magic is that anything older than a certain cut-off point is auto-banned unless re-printed, right? And the most recent core set is also legal?

Applying that same approach to D&D would be like saying Core +1, and that +1 must always be the most recent supplement. It would be more restrictive than the current method.

They have Standard, Modern, Vintage and Legacy formats in M:tG. Standard is what you describe, Modern is about the last Decade of Cards, and Vintage/Legacy is from any set. Certain cards are restricted or banned in each environment.

They could do the exact same thing in D&D if they wanted to do so, although I'm not suggesting that specifically - I am suggesting a similar approach to Modern or Vintage/Legacy:

You can use any published WotC materials in character creation or level advancement, generally. However, there would be a list of restricted options where the player could use a specified number of selections from each of the restricted elements per list (1 from the class/race list, 1 from the feat list, 3 from the spell list, 2 from the magic item list, etc...), and a banned list (for anything they do not want in AL at all - which would just be unpublished materials like UA articles, I think).

 

[The Crimson Binome]

They could do the exact same thing in D&D if they wanted to do so, although I'm not suggesting that specifically - I am suggesting a similar approach to Modern or Vintage/Legacy:

You can use any published WotC materials in character creation or level advancement, generally. However, there would be a list of restricted options where the player could use a specified number of selections from each of the restricted elements per list (1 from the class/race list, 1 from the feat list, 3 from the spell list, 2 from the magic item list, etc...), and a banned list (for anything they do not want in AL at all - which would just be unpublished materials like UA articles, I think).

You could do it. I'm not sure that the added benefit of allowing more non-core options per character would outweigh the significant increase in complexity or the drama that would be associated with maintaining the restricted/banned lists, particularly from the perspective of appealing to new players.

 

[BookBarbarian]

They have Standard, Modern, Vintage and Legacy formats in M:tG. Standard is what you describe, Modern is about the last Decade of Cards, and Vintage/Legacy is from any set. Certain cards are restricted or banned in each environment.

They could do the exact same thing in D&D if they wanted to do so, although I'm not suggesting that specifically - I am suggesting a similar approach to Modern or Vintage/Legacy:

You can use any published WotC materials in character creation or level advancement, generally. However, there would be a list of restricted options where the player could use a specified number of selections from each of the restricted elements per list (1 from the class/race list, 1 from the feat list, 3 from the spell list, 2 from the magic item list, etc...), and a banned list (for anything they do not want in AL at all - which would just be unpublished materials like UA articles, I think).

That sounds to me like a large list of things for an AL DM to keep track of and enforce. Thus making a large amount of overhead for someone wanting to be an AL DM.

 

[generic]

To what end? It's been proven countless times that it is impossible to balance an ever-increasing list of options. Attempting such an impossible task would be a poor use of their limited resources.

That's not even going into sheer amount of work it would require. I don't know if you've ever worked in testing, but there's a certain point where it simply becomes infeasible. Given the nature of the material, even asking every designer to be aware of all other content would be daunting.

I disagree, have you read anything on balancing games exponentially?, I have, and I know that it isn't unreasonable to ask WotC to attempt to balance all options available. This point is made even more valid by the fact that few %e books have been produced when compared to the release schedules of other editions. Some of those 5e books, I believe three exactly, have even reprinted options from other books. Some may argue that this shows that the designers are afraid of imbalance, but I believe that it is far more valid to say that those designers are trying to offer the same options to players, whether or not they buy a specific book. But that isn't relevant, what is relevant is that balancing 5e is something WotC is equipped to do, and i think they've done well so far.

 

[Dausuul]

They have Standard, Modern, Vintage and Legacy formats in M:tG. Standard is what you describe, Modern is about the last Decade of Cards, and Vintage/Legacy is from any set. Certain cards are restricted or banned in each environment.

They could do the exact same thing in D&D if they wanted to do so, although I'm not suggesting that specifically - I am suggesting a similar approach to Modern or Vintage/Legacy.

They do not playtest Modern, Legacy, or Vintage. Only Standard.

 

[CapnZapp]

I've said and proven its a bad and illogical rule for awhile now and have dismantled all the arguements on favour of the rule, but that does not diswade true believers in PHB +1 sadly.

If you don't play in the AL, there is no PHB+1.