Exempting Races from the +1 rule

[skerritthegreen]

Of course, these past couple of seasons are seeing the admins kind of getting out of the business of providing an overall meta-plot for AL,

That's because starting with s7 and continuing in s8, with the admins made part of the D&D team, we are much more involved in the season with the company, so we have brought the DDAL adventures in line to reflect that.

 

[CapnZapp]

The PHB+1 has been stated by WOTC as a core design philosophy that is core to the game. As such, I wouldn't expect a change anytime soon.

Note to everybody: read the preceding quote in the context that this is the AL forum.

"PHB+1" is certainly not mentioned by the game in general. It is an AL rule.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[skerritthegreen]

Note to everybody: read the preceding quote in the context that this is the AL forum.

"PHB+1" is certainly not mentioned by the game in general. It is an AL rule.

Actually from my conversations with the designers as an admin about why its an AL rule, I do actually mean the above as a guideline for D&D in general. When the designers create a new rule, they balance it assuming the PHB plus the rules in the book the rules item will go in. They do not consider other books. They do this assuming the your DM can say No, I'm not let you mix those books.

 

[CapnZapp]

Actually from my conversations with the designers as an admin about why its an AL rule, I do actually mean the above as a guideline for D&D in general. When the designers create a new rule, they balance it assuming the PHB plus the rules in the book the rules item will go in. They do not consider other books. They do this assuming the your DM can say No, I'm not let you mix those books.

It's great they're abandoning the strategy to require as many other splatbooks as possible, something that was prevalent last decade. Even the "if you have Book XYZ..." wasn't popular, even if it let the publisher hide behind the fig leaf that it's "voluntary".

But that's a far cry from presuming there's a PHB+1 rule for D&D in general.

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of gamers have never even heard of the idea.

Here on the forums it happens with some regularity that posters conflate the AL environment for general D&D 5E use. Suggestions that AL rules are fit for general consumption are however met with irritation since it mostly betrays an inflated sense of AL's importance.

(Not that this is a problem here in the AL forum, or that you are guilty of it, Skerrit. I'm talking in general)

Of course WotC wants everyone to buy all their books, and they don't have an issue with characters using features from many books simultaneously, since that would detract from sales.

The AL, however, had a balance issue last time around.

But it's going way too far to suggest WotC is only balancing their content with PHB+1 in mind. I can't believe that; when they want as many players to pick up and combine as many books as they can afford (and then some).

The PHB+1 rule is specific to the AL, and is replacing a DM's authority to say no.

If you want to suggest it is more than that, I'm afraid I will need to ask you to source your claims.

Let us remember the difference between RAW and RAI in this regard; I don't question your designer discussions, but if what you're saying is that they have stopped balancing content outside a PHB+1 framework I would be greatly dismayed, and as such I'd like to hear it directly from the source, if you don't mind.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[skerritthegreen]

But that's a far cry from presuming there's a PHB+1 rule for D&D in general.

If you want to suggest it is more than that, I'm afraid I will need to ask you to source your claims.

I think you are mixing up "design philosophy" with "game rule." I never said it was intended as a game rule. It a design philosophy that they only balance rules items against the PHB and the book that has the rules item in it. As for sourcing my claim, I regularly talk to the Designers and sitting in a meeting with them flat out asked "Why do we do this in AL?" and that's what I was told by Mike Mearls. I also recall not that long ago having alphastream ask Crawford the same question on Twitter and getting the same answer.

It exists in AL as a rule because there needs to be a universal DM to say yes/no for an Organized Play campaign, but also because the concept of balance at WOTC is PHB+1, and the designers assume that if a DM wants more or less in their campaign, they say so. So I am NOT saying the PHB+1 is an official D&D rule, but rather one of the philosophies behind how those rules are created with then the DM riding herd over exceptions to that philosophy in their personal campaign. If you want to believe I am lying to you, that's cool as it doesn't change reality that the AL rule is not going away which is really all this forum is about. If would rather the admins give you less insight into what goes on behind the scenes because you assume they are spinning tales, I am happy to frequent this forum even less.

 

[CapnZapp]

I think you are mixing up "design philosophy" with "game rule." I never said it was intended as a game rule. It a design philosophy that they only balance rules items against the PHB and the book that has the rules item in it. As for sourcing my claim, I regularly talk to the Designers and sitting in a meeting with them flat out asked "Why do we do this in AL?" and that's what I was told by Mike Mearls. I also recall not that long ago having alphastream ask Crawford the same question on Twitter and getting the same answer.

It exists in AL as a rule because there needs to be a universal DM to say yes/no for an Organized Play campaign, but also because the concept of balance at WOTC is PHB+1, and the designers assume that if a DM wants more or less in their campaign, they say so. So I am NOT saying the PHB+1 is an official D&D rule, but rather one of the philosophies behind how those rules are created with then the DM riding herd over exceptions to that philosophy in their personal campaign. If you want to believe I am lying to you, that's cool as it doesn't change reality that the AL rule is not going away which is really all this forum is about. If would rather the admins give you less insight into what goes on behind the scenes because you assume they are spinning tales, I am happy to frequent this forum even less.

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.



Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[kalani]

You do realize that it becomes increasingly more difficult to balance new rules mechanics against all existing options. With just the options in the PHB to consider, there are thousands of rules interactions that any new rule/subclass/feat/etc needs to be benchmarked against. With each new book released, that effort becomes exponentially more difficult and the odds of the dev's overlooking a broken combo increase exponentially.

While 5e has a much slower product release schedule than previous editions, this fact still remains true. Every new book increases the number of permutations/combinations exponentially. It is unrealistic to expect the WotC dev team to consider every major product release as part of their core rule set for balancing and play testing purposes.

Even if they only expanded their "core" playtesting by each book of XGE/PHB+ size, that would still become untenable after more than say 2 or 3 books. As it stands, PHB has about 50 subclasses that must be playtested alongside new material, and that isn't even considering multiclass variations or level benchmarks (even the humble Fighter/Wizard has about 5 different level benchmarks that play very differently, without taking subclasses or tri-class characters into consideration).

 

[Pauper]

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.

Congratulations, then! The designers have explicitly stated, on multiple occasions, that all 'secondary' D&D books will only require the PH, DMG, and MM to be playable -- the next hardcover adventure will not require Xanathar's Guide for play, and thus isn't guaranteed to be tested against material in Xanathar's Guide. (The AL allows Xanathar's material, but any DM running a game as a non-AL game is free to disallow Xanathar's material, so it's effectively optional.)

In addition, new splatbooks will not add material released in previous splatbooks -- if a new book revisits a previous bit of material, it will be wholly republished and replace the previous material (as is the case for the EEPG vs Volo's Goliath, for example).

In effect, anything that's not in the PH is 'optional' material. I haven't yet found a specific statement (in text -- someone might be able to point something out in a podcast or video interview) that verifies that non-PH material isn't considered in playtesting, but given the comments to the AL admin team and various other similar statements across the internet related to 'optional' material, it seems pretty silly to assume, sight unseen, that WotC is playtesting everything new against everything that already exists.

--
Pauper

 

[CapnZapp]

You do realize that it becomes increasingly more difficult to balance new rules mechanics against all existing options.

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

 

[CapnZapp]

Congratulations, then! The designers have explicitly stated, on multiple occasions, that all 'secondary' D&D books will only require the PH, DMG, and MM to be playable -- the next hardcover adventure will not require Xanathar's Guide for play, and thus isn't guaranteed to be tested against material in Xanathar's Guide.

The one does not follow from the other.

You make it sound like you're bringing me news here, but you can cut that right out - if you had bothered to read my earlier post you would already know I'm all aboard with requiring only the core set.


Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app