Core+1

[Yaarel]

Funny enough, my Pathfinder group has implemented a rule very similar to it in our home games - each player gets the Pathfinder CRB + APG + UM, plus one “vanity book” to dip options from for their character. This was done after we realized the same thing, that throwing all the floodgates open was folly because there were just too many broken spells, feat combos, etc. that interacted with one another. It along with our other house rules made it much easier for the GM to challenge us as a group instead of watching the best minmaxers shine.

In your case, suppose the there is a player who wants − for the sake of concept − a specific option from a second vanity book. If the option seems innocuous, would the DM vet it and allow it as an exception?

 

[jgsugden]

It's a necessary evil. They want to prevent organized play from being too competitive. Making 5e in general non-competitive is one of the reasons why it has succeeded at attracting millions of new players.

It is not necessary. It is one possible approach that favors simplicity over broadness, but it does not inherently provide a more balanced environment. Also, I find this idea that monitoring it is easier than just referencing a list. Is it easier for DMs to know the contents of each different supplement out there? I bet that if we went onto Beyond and had all AL charaters identified, we'd find a good percentage with cheats.

 

[Mistwell]

It sends the message that for organized play you are not in any way "falling behind" if you opt to buy just one expansion book and that's all.

Now experienced players may believe rightly that there is no falling behind if you don't buy all the expansion books, but new players also reasonably might get that sense.

So sending that message is powerful for new players. The sense that you're entering a hobby mid-stream and need to play catch up if you want to join is a deterrent to joining and this helps alleviate it. Which makes it a wise rule.

 

[generic]

I'm not really sure what to make of that. If you think they've done a good job of keeping everything balanced so far, such that core+1 would be a superfluous restriction, then you and I have vastly different standards for balance.

Explain why you think the game is unbalanced.

I don't think 5e is perfect, it certainly has problems of its own, but I think that the game is balanced as a whole, with only a few exceptions (namely the weakness of the PHB Ranger and the strength of a few select classes).

Other editions were far less balanced than 5e, and I truly believe that it is one of the most (if not the absolute most) balanced edition.

 

[jgsugden]

It sends the message that for organized play you are not in any way "falling behind" if you opt to buy just one expansion book and that's all.

Now experienced players may believe rightly that there is no falling behind if you don't buy all the expansion books, but new players also reasonably might get that sense.

So sending that message is powerful for new players. The sense that you're entering a hobby mid-stream and need to play catch up if you want to join is a deterrent to joining and this helps alleviate it. Which makes it a wise rule.

Of course, a list that limits abusive concepts and expressly states the intent of the list is to maintain balance for players that have not bought all the books, but preserves the most options available that are not out of balance also achieves the same goal with the same message *explicitly* made. Further, a player that buys the PHB and most recent book and starts to play right now can still be quite upset when he discovers that another book has options that are perfect for his character concept... but are now unavailable to his PC.

They went with the simple rule. It favors simplicity over breadth of options. There are a lot of great options that can be played under it, but it also makes some options very hard to choose as they're isolated in a book with few other options. Do you want to play a Gith wizard knowing that you can't have Xanathar's spells? It makes the race quite less attractive than a PHB or XGtE choice... Do we think it is good to discourage Gith Wizards?

 

[pogre]

It sends the message that for organized play you are not in any way "falling behind" if you opt to buy just one expansion book and that's all.

This is absolutely correct. It lowers the hurdles for new players. It is a rule in AL for exactly the same reason they have Standard format in MtG. It makes entry into the game easy.

It is a simple and accessible rule that does the job.

I think it is a legitimate concern that it leads to some reprinting and lax game design. However, this edition is still mostly crushing it - that says something this far along.

 

[Mistwell]

Of course, a list that limits abusive concepts and expressly states the intent of the list is to maintain balance for players that have not bought all the books, but preserves the most options available that are not out of balance also achieves the same goal with the same message *explicitly* made.

No, it does not, and I think you're not addressing the point I made.

What I said had ZERO to do will abusive concepts or balance.

If players know that ALL other players can only use one extra book going in, that gives them the sense they can never "fall behind" in their choice to enter the game. That it's not a game which involves buying a lot of books. That if they only ever buy one extra book they will be on equal footing (in their mind) with all other players.

That doesn't have to be reality. I am not talking about whether the game has or should function that way when actually playing, I am talking about THE PERCEPTION IT CREATES IN THE MIND OF A POTENTIAL NEW PLAYER.

So no, no list of balancing different things and abusive versus non-abusive combinations and such. That doesn't achieve the same goal at all and in fact might feed the opposite goal. That would just look like a highly complex set of many books involved, and a system where experts can weave their way through a variety of books to make a build that fits within those guidelines, none of which gives those potential new players the sense that they will not fall behind and need to play catch up to join this hobby.

 

[BookBarbarian]

Do we think it is good to discourage Gith Wizards?

Only ones with XtGE or SCAG spells.

 

[jgsugden]

...If players know that ALL other players can only use one extra book going in, that gives them the sense they can never "fall behind" in their choice to enter the game. That it's not a game which involves buying a lot of books. That if they only ever buy one extra book they will be on equal footing (in their mind) with all other players.

Again, not true. If the book I use is great at the time, but later on a superbook is introduced, other players that have not yet used their +1 have access to those elements for their PC - and I do not for mine. It will not be equal footing if the books are not equal.

That doesn't have to be reality. I am not talking about whether the game has or should function that way when actually playing, I am talking about THE PERCEPTION IT CREATES IN THE MIND OF A POTENTIAL NEW PLAYER.

So no, no list of balancing different things and abusive versus non-abusive combinations and such. That doesn't achieve the same goal at all and in fact might feed the opposite goal.

It absolutely could meet the same goal, especially with an opening paragraph that states that the list was created for the very purpose of making sure that a new player would have a fun, competitive option that is ON EQUAL FOOTING with PCs that have access to other books while PRESRERVING AS MANY OPTIONS AS POSSIBLE (screaming is fun... wheee....) for all players.

That would just look like a highly complex set of many books involved, and a system where experts can weave their way through a variety of books to make a build that fits within those guidelines, none of which gives those potential new players the sense that they will not fall behind and need to play catch up to join this hobby.

To an unsophisticated player, it will do no such thing. They'll read the paragraph that states: We got you newbie - you can walk in and play with anyone and have a great time. You don't need to worry about being behind. We thought about this and took care of you. Then they'll see a list of stuff that shows that WotC gave thought to the situation.

Let me point out that Standard, in M:tG, is specifically designed to make players feel like they can walk in and compete without access to everything every published... AND IT HAS A BANNED LIST (wheeeee).

Optics, as you note, are important, but there are many ways to create the right optics.

I would rather they find the right optics for the right solution than settle for the solution with good optics even though they know it is not the right solution.

 

[flametitan]

I already limit books by what feels "right" for said world, so I've never been too concerned about how disallowing the combination of certain books would disallow certain "thematically appropriate" combinations. The few times I played in AL it never really bothered me either, as I still had a good box to play around in for thematicism.