Core+1

[Mistwell]

Yes, I should have said that he gets to level 6, etc...

And regardless, the underlying problem at the core is that he wants to play something and is told "NO." Not because it breaks the game. Not because it gives him an unfair advantage. Just because the features happen to be in separate books.

You can achieve all the benefits of the Core +1 system with a properly packed but more versatile system. There are a lot of options. It is an oversimplified system that annoys a lot of players needlessly.

And yet it does not appear to annoy a lot of players, while the current system is hooking epic levels of new players.

I also know two players who, when Xanathar's was released, did some binge gaming at a convention with new characters and followed it up by some game store gaming and power leveled their new PCs back to the level they were prior to Xanathar's coming out in a single week. And they were pleased as punch.

I really don't think your proposal would hook as many new players and you're hand waiving those draw backs, and simultaneously I think you're exaggerating the number of people who are truly bothered by this or who cannot get around this issue.

Finally, I think we've been ignoring the elephant in the room - a vast majority of the new options we're talking about either must be chosen at level 1 anyway (a race or background, and the background can be manufactured with almost any source anyway) or must be chosen prior to level 5 anyway (a subclass). Of course there are exceptions (like a subclass of a multiclass taken later), but the overwhelming majority of the choices you'd need to make which might involve switching to a different expansion book take place prior to level 5 anyway. We're really talking about a subset of a subset of a subset of players out there where this would be a real issue anyway.

 

[jgsugden]

....I really don't think your proposal would hook as many new players and you're hand waiving those draw backs, and simultaneously I think you're exaggerating the number of people who are truly bothered by this or who cannot get around this issue.

As you quote your incidental observations, I quote mine: Players are frustrated when they can't play options because a seemingly arbitrary rule.

And as for whether a well presented version of a rule along the lines of my proposal would hook more or less players than Core +1: We'll never know for sure. However, as people can sell pretty much anything - even real @#$% - with a good marketing campaign, I feel comfortable in my position. Offering comfort to new players, as you note, is a matter of optics, and relying upon new players to Deduce that Core +1 significantly levels the playing field, when in fact that is actually not true (as you can 'lock' in your character into a bad choice when you don't know the game - and even if you have the option to rebuild, you're losing the investment you had in the character as built when you rebuild - it is a restart rather than a continuation), is a weak approach compared to explicit rules that show they were built explicitly to meet those goals.

And I will point out that the issue that concerns me will escalate with scale. The more you introduce, the more you exclude. Right now a player electing Core + XGtE gets most of the options. What happens when another book with as much as XGtE is introduced and players have to choose between the books? The longer the rule exists, the larger the pool of denied options.

 

[Mistwell]

As you quote your incidental observations, I quote mine: Players are frustrated when they can't play options because a seemingly arbitrary rule.

And as for whether a well presented version of a rule along the lines of my proposal would hook more or less players than Core +1: We'll never know for sure. However, as people can sell pretty much anything - even real @#$% - with a good marketing campaign, I feel comfortable in my position. Offering comfort to new players, as you note, is a matter of optics, and relying upon new players to Deduce that Core +1 significantly levels the playing field, when in fact that is actually not true (as you can 'lock' in your character into a bad choice when you don't know the game - and even if you have the option to rebuild, you're losing the investment you had in the character as built when you rebuild - it is a restart rather than a continuation), is a weak approach compared to explicit rules that show they were built explicitly to meet those goals.

And I will point out that the issue that concerns me will escalate with scale. The more you introduce, the more you exclude. Right now a player electing Core + XGtE gets most of the options. What happens when another book with as much as XGtE is introduced and players have to choose between the books? The longer the rule exists, the larger the pool of denied options.

What exactly are the options involving three books (PHB +2) that you're seeing?

 

[jgsugden]

What exactly are the options involving three books (PHB +2) that you're seeing?

Well, my suggestion above addresses the situation entirely. The number of books does not matter if you're only restricting offending options within books rather than blacklisting books as a whole upon selecting one of the other books.

Obviously, you can just allow everything and address the optics that the Core +1 addresses with a sales pitch that everything is balanced, even if you just have the PHB - thus no limitations are necessary. The other books provide more options, but you don't need them to have fun, be competitive or otherwise be in a balanced and equal footing. By your perspective (which only worries about selling them at the moment they decide to play), it doesn't even matter if it is true as long as they believe it.

That addresses a tailored approach that only targets offending material, and a broad approach that says the limitation is not worth the actual benefit of the rule - both of which can be gussied up with good optics to appear to meet whatever initial perception you want.

 

[Mistwell]

Well, my suggestion above addresses the situation entirely.

That's nice. What exactly are the options involving three books (PHB+2) that you're seeing?

We seem to have a recurring problem here. I say something, and then you respond to me but appear to be responding to some other thing in your answer. It's like I asked what your favorite color was, and you answered "I like soup."

I guess I will rephrase and try again? You said you observed "Players are frustrated when they can't play options because a seemingly arbitrary rule." What is it your players wanted that they couldn't do under the existing AL rules? Not in the hypothetical, but what did you observe?

 

[jgsugden]

That's nice. What exactly are the options involving three books (PHB+2) that you're seeing?

The options when a player wishes to use three plus books that I am suggesting are listed above. If you're asking something other than what I would suggest should be the rule if people wish to use content from more than core + 1, be clear about what you want because that is what you seem to be asking.

We seem to have a recurring problem here. I say something, and then you respond to me but appear to be responding to some other thing in your answer. It's like I asked what your favorite color was, and you answered "I like soup."

Again, if you feel like people are not answering your question, consider that you might be failing to ask it clearly.

I guess I will rephrase and try again? You said you observed "Players are frustrated when they can't play options because a seemingly arbitrary rule." What is it your players wanted that they couldn't do under the existing AL rules? Not in the hypothetical, but what did you observe?

Putting aside all of the complaints on the boards:

* On multiple occasions players that took a Volo or Elemental Evil race were told they could not take spells from or Multiclass into options from XGtE. That has been the biggest complaint: Being told XGtE content is off limits.
* T]However, the loudest complaint was from a rogue Scout that was told he could no take the melee cantrips from EE/SCaG because they were not reprinted in XGtE like almost every other spell from EE was. There was yelling there.
* A Bladeslinger that was told he couldn't take spells from XGtE was frustrated, but I can't really count him as he was not a legal PC (Human Bladesinger - didn't read the FAQ).
* I clarified for someone that they could not rebuild to be a Gith War Mage, despite War Mage seeming like an obvious choice for a Gith Wizard. When I told them that a Gith Wizard of any type would be limited to just the PHB spells, they were disappointed and asked me, "Why allow the class if you're not going to make it playable?" I thought that was excessive, and pointed out that they might find XGtEspells while adventuring. They continued with their elf wizard, but it was disappointing.

These are the ones I've seen in store games, but I see a lot more examples on these boards. I'd say the most repeated frustration I've seen has been lack of access to the GFB or BB melee cantrips for rogues, clerics, and other melee non-multiattackers built using XGtE.

I will also point out that if a player has access to a fully stocked DNDbeyond character builder, the PHB+1 rule is far from clear. I made the mistake of allowing someone access to my content so that they could build a PC for an AL game and then had to review it for them to see if it was legal. It was not. They were a good sport about being denied, but I wish DNDbeyond had an "AL" button.

I'm done with this discussion. However, one more time:

These rules prohibit combinations that would be fun to play and would cause no harm. They are simple in some senses, but not in all, and it could be just as clear to have a restricted list in the ALPHB ... and if well written, that should not scare anyone away, but instead offer comfort that they thought through the situation to make sure the game is fun.

 

[Mistwell]

* On multiple occasions players that took a Volo or Elemental Evil race were told they could not take spells from or Multiclass into options from XGtE. That has been the biggest complaint: Being told XGtE content is off limits.

WHAT. SPECIFIC. THINGS. DID. YOUR. PLAYERS. WANT. THAT. THEY. COULD. NOT. DO?

"race" and "spells" and "Multiclass" are not specific, they are general. When people around here are speaking in hypotheticals about something they think could be a problem but they have not actually been playing so much that it really came up, they tend to answer the way you're answering right now. Someone says, "Specifcs?" and they answer "Theory". Asked again "Specific?" and they answer "generalities". Usually by the time you get to "Specifics?" a third time, you get a manufactured answer of what they've read on the boards a couple times.

* T]However, the loudest complaint was from a rogue Scout that was told he could no take the melee cantrips from EE/SCaG because they were not reprinted in XGtE like almost every other spell from EE was. There was yelling there.

WHAT. CANTRIPS?

* I clarified for someone that they could not rebuild to be a Gith War Mage, despite War Mage seeming like an obvious choice for a Gith Wizard. When I told them that a Gith Wizard of any type would be limited to just the PHB spells, they were disappointed and asked me, "Why allow the class if you're not going to make it playable?" I thought that was excessive, and pointed out that they might find XGtEspells while adventuring. They continued with their elf wizard, but it was disappointing.

Is Gith even out yet? I thought that's in a book that what, is coming out right now?

I will also point out that if a player has access to a fully stocked DNDbeyond character builder, the PHB+1 rule is far from clear. I made the mistake of allowing someone access to my content so that they could build a PC for an AL game and then had to review it for them to see if it was legal. It was not. They were a good sport about being denied, but I wish DNDbeyond had an "AL" button.

The player had to physically select more than one additional sourcebook to get that to happen.

 

[cbwjm]

WHAT. SPECIFIC. THINGS. DID. YOUR. PLAYERS. WANT. THAT. THEY. COULD. NOT. DO?

"race" and "spells" and "Multiclass" are not specific, they are general. When people around here are speaking in hypotheticals about something they think could be a problem but they have not actually been playing so much that it really came up, they tend to answer the way you're answering right now. Someone says, "Specifcs?" and they answer "Theory". Asked again "Specific?" and they answer "generalities". Usually by the time you get to "Specifics?" a third time, you get a manufactured answer of what they've read on the boards a couple times.



WHAT. CANTRIPS?



Is Gith even out yet? I thought that's in a book that what, is coming out right now?



The player had to physically select more than one additional sourcebook to get that to happen.

I dunno, a race seems like a pretty specific option, so does a subclass. Reading about the gith and then reading about the war mage and thinking that would be awesome but then finding out you can't play that option would be a bit of a bummer.

The cantrips are likely the SCAG cantrips which were never an option in elemental evil.

I don't believe DnD beyond has an option to limit content by books which is what the player mentioned was using to build their PC, no physical books needed.

 

[Mistwell]

I don't believe DnD beyond has an option to limit content by books which is what the player mentioned was using to build their PC, no physical books needed.

It does. It's not in the character builder part, but in your campaign section. You turn off the content you don't want for your access to the campaign prior to using the character generator.

 

[jgsugden]

I'm blocking Mistwell, but if anyone else has a question about my position let me know.