Exempting Races from the +1 rule

[CapnZapp]

it seems pretty silly to assume, sight unseen, that WotC is playtesting everything new against everything that already exists.

What would be silly is to just accept a class/feature/other of an upcoming book that completely breaks if paired with something from Xanathar.

Of course our complains would have to be addressed by WotC. Of course saying "then don't use both books together" would be received very badly.

At least outside of the AL.

(You do realize the rest of the world isn't playing in the AL or even aware of its existence, right?)



Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[kalani]

Yes, of course.

I fully expect WotC to be able to handle it, doing a better job than in previous editions.

I do pay WotC to do difficult design for me, though.

You make it sound like I'm unreasonably asking for something nigh impossible.


Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

Assuming I am understanding you correctly, you do realize you are asking for the development and testing time of every new product to likewise increase exponentially. And what of options that 3 weeks into playtesting they realize creates a broken combo with X+Y+Z obscure combination from 3 separate books? Do you expect them to completely discard the newly created option that would otherwise be acceptable were it not for that one obscure combo?

The kitchen sink design philosophy was used heavily in 4E. The result was that with every newly released book, at least one (if not more) errata documents were issued for the entire game, meaning that even home games where it was a nonissue were frequently interrupted by the constant errata.

 

[Mirtek]

The modules had to be set up so DPR King candidates would face a challenge,

Actually they did not. The authors just chose to run along in this race. They could have been set up normally and the DPR Kings would have to deal with the boredom that comes with destroying every encounter.

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

I am fully cognizant of the difference between rule and philosophy.

We're talking about two philosophies here.

As I said, if you use "PHB+1" as shorthand for "Our books only require the core set to function" that's okay (more than okay, that's welcome). That's philosophy #1

OTOH, it would be horrible if WotC officially said they aren't balancing the next supplement against Xanathar, only against the PHB. That would essentially mean that play without the PHB+1 rule would be unsupported. To me that's clearly unacceptable.

I am certainly not saying you are lying. I am hoping your interpretation mistakes one philosophy for another.

I was not sure which of the posts here to quote and add my comments to, but this one seems as good as the others from everyone.

Now, I do have to say I remember comments from the early days of 5E that their design philosophy was that balance for new material was only being tested against the core books because of the AL +1 rule, even for general play. I am sure the info is somewhere in the early articles about 5E that had been posted on the WotC website. However, a lot of the discussion of it, and resulting quotes from official people, was probably lost when WotC shut their forums down. There is a chance some of it was saved into the section of the forums here when people transferred threads over, but I have no luck trying to search for stuff here.

 

[CapnZapp]

Assuming I am understanding you correctly, you do realize you are asking for the development and testing time of every new product to likewise increase exponentially. And what of options that 3 weeks into playtesting they realize creates a broken combo with X+Y+Z obscure combination from 3 separate books? Do you expect them to completely discard the newly created option that would otherwise be acceptable were it not for that one obscure combo?

Assuming I am understanding you correctly, you describe this as if virtually every game company ever haven't faced this challenge. Why would you give this particular company a free pass to take our money without making the same effort at balance as every other company before it?

I'm really perplexed on how much some people are willing to let Hasbro get away with in their new pursuit of profits. First the severely reduced dev team, but now they should not have to pay for that reduced capacity? And get away with treating each rules expansion as something people aren't using together with the other expansions?!? (It reminds me of the company spiel some people insist on using over in General, that "feats are optional" as if that absolves WotC from having to take responsibility for their balance, despite nearly every gamer using them...)

Mind.

Boggled.

The kitchen sink design philosophy was used heavily in 4E. The result was that with every newly released book, at least one (if not more) errata documents were issued for the entire game, meaning that even home games where it was a nonissue were frequently interrupted by the constant errata.

I'm really not qualified talking about 4E - to me everything about it was just a huge failure, so I'm having trouble identifying specific points of failure.

However, I would have assumed they reduced their 5E publishing schedule because they learned this lesson?

There is no reason to also lower our standards. Why would we ever accept such a simplification? WotC still charge industry-standard rates for their product, are they not?

Have it ever occurred to you that Hasbro could take the profit from this supposedly successful edition and, I don't know, just a random suggestion, hire more editors, if the job is too stressful for the poor darlings that work there now....? </s>

You speak as if it is our duty to think about WotC's problems first and foremost. Sheesh...

 

[briggart]

Crawford has explicitly stated that he designs with PHB+1 in mind, Mearls said he almost wanted the PHB+1 to be in the PHB (although is perspective is more along the line of making the game more accessible to new players, rather than pure balance considerations)

https://twitter.com/JamesIntrocaso/status/873201633915793408

 

[skerritthegreen]

Crawford has explicitly stated that he designs with PHB+1 in mind, Mearls said he almost wanted the PHB+1 to be in the PHB (although is perspective is more along the line of making the game more accessible to new players, rather than pure balance considerations)

This is one quote (and not even the most recent mention of it) I recall one of the devs mentioning on social media. It is definitely part of their core design philosophy.

 

[CapnZapp]

Crawford has explicitly stated that he designs with PHB+1 in mind

Yes. But some posters seem to take that as conclusive evidence that WotC has abandoned any QA ambitions regarding characters that use their official material together. (Not to mention the pressing issue as to what us customers stand to gain by accepting such a low bar for balance testing!)

You can't do that - I do hope we all agree designing with PHB+1 in mind first and foremost means "no sourcebook should require another sourcebook". At least out in the wider world, where the AL is inconsequential at best or even completely unknown.

To be clear, designing for "PHB+1" could simply mean making sure new feature "B" doesn't require or even reference old feature "A", unless "A" is either reprinted in the supplement in question or is core to PHB+DMG+MM.

(PS. In that context, PHB+1 is great. DS)

 

[Growing Brains]

This is one quote (and not even the most recent mention of it) I recall one of the devs mentioning on social media. It is definitely part of their core design philosophy.

Thanks Skerritt! I appreciate an "official" answer even if it is no. I also want to say I get and like the PHB +1 rule. I came to 5th edition from pathfinder and the splat books there were never ending. That said, disappointed that an exemption won't be made for races. WOTC has not published a broken race (not counting UA) and the race mechanics are simply not game breaking. No volo race will break 5E. For flavor reasons, I wanted to bring a yaunti to chult and play a aasimar celestial warlock in AL. I get not wanting to allow in a broken combination but, even on the optimization boards, there's little to suggest that there's anything broken in the air. If the +1 rule applied to spells, feats, and classes but not races and backgrounds, all would be well. A goliath hexblade will not break AL. No race is mechanically broken and I can't see the harm of allowing genasi whisper bards to the table.
I get that there's a rule and a process but sometimes you need to review a rule to see if it makes sense in a scenario.
Thanks again for the answer.

 

[KahlessNestor]

Thanks Skerritt! I appreciate an "official" answer even if it is no. I also want to say I get and like the PHB +1 rule. I came to 5th edition from pathfinder and the splat books there were never ending. That said, disappointed that an exemption won't be made for races. WOTC has not published a broken race (not counting UA) and the race mechanics are simply not game breaking. No volo race will break 5E. For flavor reasons, I wanted to bring a yaunti to chult and play a aasimar celestial warlock in AL. I get not wanting to allow in a broken combination but, even on the optimization boards, there's little to suggest that there's anything broken in the air. If the +1 rule applied to spells, feats, and classes but not races and backgrounds, all would be well. A goliath hexblade will not break AL. No race is mechanically broken and I can't see the harm of allowing genasi whisper bards to the table.
I get that there's a rule and a process but sometimes you need to review a rule to see if it makes sense in a scenario.
Thanks again for the answer.

Part of the reason for the rule is future proofing . Just because we see no reason for it now doesn't mean it won't come up later.

Sent from my SM-G900P using EN World mobile app