Proof that PHB +1 is a completely unneeded rule

[Mistwell]

Nothing stops him from giving out tressyms and other minor certs. I do think the charity is good thing to do, but this makes it two tiers of players. And it's a lot more options, not a little more. And this is something that should have been an AL rule for day one. Trying to make out it as if I am against raising money for hospitals is a low blow and cheap shot.

I have no problem with two tiers of players where one tier is up to ten people across the nation who all donated massive sums to charity, to gain this minor benefit for one campaign.

And yes, it's a minor benefit. Because it COSTS $10,000 and relative to that expense it's incredibly minor.

It's not that I think you are against charity - it's that I find your objection so incredibly hugely overblown as to be mind numbing. It appears to be an entirely vacuous objection, as if "two tiers of players" is inherently objectionable without the details that it's UP TO TEN PEOPLE ACROSS THE NATION WHO ALL DONATED MASSIVE MONEY TO CHARITY FOR A BENEFIT THAT LASTS ONLY 6 MONTHS IN ONE CAMPAIGN.

I mean, if they created an exemption which allowed a second source book, but only for astronauts who have actually orbited the moon, would you still be objecting?

 

[gyor]

I have no problem with two tiers of players where one tier is up to ten people across the nation who all donated massive sums to charity, to gain this minor benefit for one campaign.

And yes, it's a minor benefit. Because it COSTS $10,000 and relative to that expense it's incredibly minor.

It's not that I think you are against charity - it's that I find your objection so incredibly hugely overblown as to be mind numbing. It appears to be an entirely vacuous objection, as if "two tiers of players" is inherently objectionable without the details that it's UP TO TEN PEOPLE ACROSS THE NATION WHO ALL DONATED MASSIVE MONEY TO CHARITY FOR A BENEFIT THAT LASTS ONLY 6 MONTHS IN ONE CAMPAIGN.

I mean, if they created an exemption which allowed a second source book, but only for astronauts who have actually orbited the moon, would you still be objecting?

When it's a feature that should be be universal rule having too tiers creates a problem, there are so many other things he could offer to charity, that wouldn't cause this problem because a lot of us think it's a bad rule to begin with and was never jusifible in 5e.

Aren't all the astronauts who orbited the moon dead now? I'd still object to them getting phb +2 without it being a universal rule, but honestly they'd have to raise them from the dead, and I draw the line at arguing with zombie astronauts or worse vampire astronauts. Too dangerous. But I'd still object from a safe distance. ;D

 

[cmad1977]

Sounds like a non issue.

 

[aramis erak]

How?

I mean, if the DM doesn't have Xanathar's, then PHB+XGE is just as much a problem as PHB+SCAG+XGE, isn't it?

Technically, the PLAYER is required to bring the +1 book with them.

1 book, generally, someone has brought it, even if player X who needs it has it not. The GM is only required to have the PHB and MM (not even the DMG is required)...

+2 won't be too abusive, but it also means players are less likely to have all their books with.

 

[Remathilis]

Man who sees reward for a $10,000 donation to charity complains he should get it too for free.

 

[oknazevad]

Nothing stops him from giving out tressyms and other minor certs. I do think the charity is good thing to do, but this makes it two tiers of players. And it's a lot more options, not a little more. And this is something that should have been an AL rule for day one. Trying to make out it as if I am against raising money for hospitals is a low blow and cheap shot.

No it should NOT have been the rule from day one. You seem to be willfully ignoring the fact that AL is as much if not more for new players to try out D&D than any experienced player who can't find any other game. The rule is invaluable in keeping the program open to new players instead of getting swamped with optimizing power gamers that run off newbies with their attitudes, as has happened with the Pathfinder Society. PHB+1is a great rule that I hope they never change.

 

[Blue]

No it should NOT have been the rule from day one. You seem to be willfully ignoring the fact that AL is as much ic not more for new players to try out D&D than any experienced player who can't find any other game. The rule is invaluable in keeping the program open to new players instead of getting swamped with optimizing opeergamers that run off newbies with their attitudes, as has happened with the Pathfinder Society. PHB+1is a great rule that I hope they never change.

That's been pointed out to him earlier in this thread by me and he never addressed it then, either. I don't know his reasons, but having another legitimate reason for the PHB+1 rule does invalidate his original post since it's dependent on that rule only being for balance reasons.

 

[AmerginLiath]

BTW, regardless of how one agrees/disagrees on the PHB+1 issue, one thing does grind my gears here: this would be EVIDENCE regarding the question at hand, not PROOF. Folks today really don’t understand logic and reasoning...