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?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.
For myself, I feel it is reasonable for WotC to request the DM becomes responsible for quality control if combining multiple noncores.
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.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.
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.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from the magic item list, etc...), and a banned list (for anything they do not want in AL at all - which would just be unpublished materials like UA articles, I think).
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).
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.
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.
If you don't play in the AL, there is no PHB+1.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.