Core+1

[jgsugden]

But it does function well?

No. Hey, you asked.

After all, Core + 1 only applies to a tiny, tiny, tiny percentage of games played (tournament + AL + other games that affirmatively want it)...

So? It applies to all D&D that some players play.

...and if you don't like it, play FG, or Roll20, or a pickup game, or find a table that's not AL. I fail to see the problem in a rule that the vast majority of D&D players aren't even aware of.

If the rule doesn't impact your gaming, you need not have an opinion about it. If it does, it can have a large impact. It unnecessarily limits many of those players.

I don't understand the argument that if the role doesn't apply to most players, it doesn't need to be designed we'll to provide the best game experience for players that fall under it. That is like saying you Don't need to design a good monk class because only a small number of people play monks.

 

[Yaarel]

Core+1 is a ‘rule’, only in the sense of Adventure League and so on make it a rule. So, many home games wont follow it.

However, Core+1 seems a ‘policy’ that WotC implements for 100% of official D&D products. The implementation seems to relate to quality control and republication of content. In this sense, every home game is affected by it, whether they subscribe to it or not.



@jgsugden

There might already be a drift toward what you are proposing. In addition to ‘core’, you want to see something like ‘standard’ and ‘exotic’.

Apparently, certain options from noncore rulebooks are considered legal even if not using it for the plus-one. For example, someone mentioned the ‘Blessing’ elf trait to change sex per long rest, as legal, even using an other noncore, besides Mordenkains Tome.

Various clarifications probably fall into this ‘standard’ category. Certain thematically-related options for race and class, should probably be ‘standard’, even if in separate books. And so on.

 

[jgsugden]

I would also note that the Core +1 rule has been cited as a reason for the direct reprinting of a number of spells, features, etc... We're killing trees or wasting space that could have been used for something else.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

I think WotC should release a document for Al with a list of ''favored class'' for all playable races, giving each race a specific archetype that wouldnt not count as +1 if taken:

Shadar-Kai Shadow Sorcerer
Asimaar Divine Soul or Celestial Warlock
Etc

 

[The Crimson Binome]

That's not to say that other things aren't OP (are "offensive" whatever that might be); it just means that you don't have to worry about it in the extremely small subset of play-cases where it's an issue.

To phrase that another way, if you're playing in a situation where you might be using multiple supplements together (such as in a home game), then you are already empowered to house rule things to your liking. The core+1 rule only exists to handle those situations where you wouldn't be able to address those things through house rules.

 

[BookBarbarian]

I don't know if PHB+1 is a good idea or bad idea, because I have never tried it.

I can barely get my players to read what they've put on their character sheets.

 

[Parmandur]

As a design principle, it is quite sound, as with making Feats or multiclassing variant rules, so that the number of combos that need be considered in design is limited.

 

[Shiroiken]

Is there a better system that could have been used? Probably. Like many aspects of 5E, WotC decided to use a simple system that works fairly well for the largest number of people. I considered using it for my West Marches style game, but honestly don't feel there is enough bloat in the game yet to require it. Eventually I could see it becoming more common in home games, but at the current rate of publication that might be a long time coming.

 

[Blue]

While I don't mind it, I see enough people who do that I'd be fine with getting rid of PHB+1 - as long as their solution keeps the same low barrier to entry to new players in AL.

3.x and 4e had a huge collection of splatbooks that introduced a large amount of power creep. New players getting in with just the core books (or just the SRD back in 3.x days) were at a severe disadvantage. It was a large barrier to entry new players as well as a turn-off.

AL is the organized play society that is the easiest way for new players to walk in to a store and sit down at a game. We need to maintain an ease of new players joining.

So, without increasing the barrier to entry (such as but allowing "pay to win" of more owning more books gives better characters), how would you recraft the rule for the AL organization? Without having a solution, everything else is angry muttering.

Let's stay within the scope of realistic actions - we can't assume all books will be available for free, or that playtesting is incredibly better then it was in the 4e & 3.5 days (when there were a larger D&D teams) such that no possible combination of powers works better. But also that DMs at AL are supposed to play by the letter of the rules so don't have the authority to ban/fix a "broken" build like a DM in a home game would.

I'm not being facetious - I see enough grumbling about it I'm good with replacing it. As long as it can keep that barrier of entry just for AL as low as it possibly can go.

 

[gyor]

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.