The Actual Table of Contents for Xanathar's Guide to Everything

A lot of good stuff there.

Of course, on the DM side, a lot of stuff is not there, but I like what I see.

Actually, one of the most useful things will be the appendix of sample names.

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

I feel sorry for all the home gamers sitting in a darkened room, building a character from core and two or more other sourcebooks, fearing every knock at the door is the +1 Police come to take their D&D Player Permit away.

 

[Waller]

I agree that, given those assumptions, the conclusion is logical. If their only evidence is the AL numbers, then yeah. But what none of us know is what the "evidence" of which they speak is.

Evidence of what, though? Evidence that the player base is growing? Sure, we can stipulate to that for the sake of argument. Evidence that a particular policy caused that growth? That isn't logically possible, for the reasons above. Not without an equal control group, which would by definition be equally visible to us (otherwise the conclusion would not be valid, as they wouldn't be comparing like for like). It's not a hypothesis that can logically be tested in secret.

 

[Mistwell]

They have no control group. I can definitely see it working better than the previous, even more absurd "story origin" rule, but they haven't actually tried "let people make the character they want."

They gather feedback from people who play and DM Adventure's League and apparently people have reported liking the rule. That's some evidence. It's not conclusive evidence, but it's not meaningless either.

 

[Guest 6801328]

They gather feedback from people who play and DM Adventure's League and apparently people have reported liking the rule. That's some evidence. It's not conclusive evidence, but it's not meaningless either.

No, that's not allowed. That would mean they have evidence that we forum lurkers do not have, and that would clearly be violating....something.

 

[Tia Nadiezja]

No, that's not allowed. That would mean they have evidence that we forum lurkers do not have, and that would clearly be violating....something.

I'm not saying they don't have evidence that people like the rule. Of course people like the rule! There's people here insulting me and misgendering me just to defend it. I'm saying they don't have evidence that this rule works better in the wild than just letting people make the characters they want to make. We know they don't have that evidence because we would be able to see them gathering that evidence.

And I don't care how people play in their home groups. I don't even care how they play in Adventurer's League. I do care that we have gotten a grand total of two player-focused rules supplements since this edition launched, and the way that AL has chosen to restrict character creation forced the reprinting of information from the first in the second. THAT is what I care about. AL, being D&D's organized play system, cannot exist without impacting people's home games as well. And the fact that AL has picked a terrible way to restrict the characters people in it can create and play has now wasted pagecount and time in a book I'm very much looking forward to, in order to do the D&D equivalent of "keeping things in Standard" in Magic. It's annoying to open a pack of Ixalan and get a copy of a card I've already got four copies of from each of the last four blocks, and it's BEYOND annoying to see the already-slow production of player-focused rules content for 5e get clogged up with reprints to feed AL's pointless, restrictionist philosophy.

Someone pointed out earlier in the thread that PHB+1 does ridiculous things like cut Aasimar off from Paladin subclasses that feel particularly suited to the race. Bladesingers can't use Elf racial feats. This is absurd. And now its absurdity is infecting my play, at home, away from AL, costing me content that I ought to get in a book I'm paying for.

And they have no actual evidence that restrictionism works better in the wild in this edition, because they have not tested it.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I'm not saying they don't have evidence that people like the rule. Of course people like the rule! There's people here insulting me and misgendering me just to defend it. I'm saying they don't have evidence that this rule works better in the wild than just letting people make the characters they want to make. We know they don't have that evidence because we would be able to see them gathering that evidence.

And I don't care how people play in their home groups. I don't even care how they play in Adventurer's League. I do care that we have gotten a grand total of two player-focused rules supplements since this edition launched, and the way that AL has chosen to restrict character creation forced the reprinting of information from the first in the second. THAT is what I care about. AL, being D&D's organized play system, cannot exist without impacting people's home games as well. And the fact that AL has picked a terrible way to restrict the characters people in it can create and play has now wasted pagecount and time in a book I'm very much looking forward to, in order to do the D&D equivalent of "keeping things in Standard" in Magic. It's annoying to open a pack of Ixalan and get a copy of a card I've already got four copies of from each of the last four blocks, and it's BEYOND annoying to see the already-slow production of player-focused rules content for 5e get clogged up with reprints to feed AL's pointless, restrictionist philosophy.

Someone pointed out earlier in the thread that PHB+1 does ridiculous things like cut Aasimar off from Paladin subclasses that feel particularly suited to the race. Bladesingers can't use Elf racial feats. This is absurd. And now its absurdity is infecting my play, at home, away from AL, costing me content that I ought to get in a book I'm paying for.

Oh, you mean you don't like their decision. That's cool. You have a right to that opinion.

And they have no actual evidence that restrictionism works better in the wild in this edition, because they have not tested it.

Oh, I see, you have to have evidence of it working "in the wild" to be convinced. Well, Auntie, if that's where you want to set your threshold I guess you'll just have to seethe. Doesn't sound like fun to me.

 

[Tia Nadiezja]

Yep. I don't like it. That... I thought was obvious. But before the Adventurer's League's restrictionist approach was a thing that I could simply ignore if I wasn't playing AL. Now, it's getting into one of the very, very few player-focused supplements we've gotten, and that makes it a significant issue regardless of my interest in AL play (which was nonzero - I'd likely do AL if they weren't restrictionist).

 

[Guest 6801328]

Yep. I don't like it. That... I thought was obvious. But before the Adventurer's League's restrictionist approach was a thing that I could simply ignore if I wasn't playing AL. Now, it's getting into one of the very, very few player-focused supplements we've gotten, and that makes it a significant issue regardless of my interest in AL play

I don't understand. How is this impinging on your game?

(which was nonzero - I'd likely do AL if they weren't restrictionist).

And what's that about? Taking a principled stand, or just that you can't play the exact build you want?

 

[Tia Nadiezja]

I don't understand. How is this impinging on your game?

Oh, if you read my posts you'll see
I've been waiting for so long
For another book to read
And add things to my game
But 'cause AL's got this silly rule, you see,
To make things work out there
They've got to reprint rules, you see
And waste pagespace I'd like to use
For something new
For my players
At my game
At my house
Far awaaaaaaaaaaay from them!

I'm a terrible poet, but that's been my focus my entire time in this thread. AL's PHB+1 rule means that if WotC wants people in organized play to be able to use an old rule (say, a subclass) with a new rule (say, a feat), they have to reprint the subclass in the supplement the feat's in. We seem to only get one player-focused printed supplement every two years or so; burning space in them on reprints, especially at the price point they're at (that, I'll note, I'll willingly pay because 5e is a really good game, which is part of why I dislike the PHB+1 rule in and of itself), is a significant cost to people's home games.

That's why I'm upset by this. AL wants to be restrictionist, okay, I'll not play AL, and while that might bug me I'm not going to come on the forums and gripe about it. AL's restrictions changing how WotC prints books in a way that costs me potential content? Yeah, that'll draw complaints.

 

[Tia Nadiezja]

And what's that about? Taking a principled stand, or just that you can't play the exact build you want?

I've got limited entertainment time, even more limited time for tabletop RPGs, and even more limited than that time as a player. In 5e, cutting options off from one another doesn't cut off "builds," it cuts of concepts - options, in 5e, are big broad things that all say to you, "This is what I do; this is what I say about your character, this is who you're playing if you choose me." And, quite frankly, if I'm going to spend my very limited time as a player at a game, I'm going to play the concept I want to play. So... it's both. Needless restrictions on players is bad, AL normalizing doing so is worse, AND I'm not going to play a game if I can't play the character I'm inspired to play.