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.
