SCAG Legality is Posted

[darjr]

I don't think the poster was questioning this. I think they meant that the flying cloak has limited uses unless recharged in an air node. Which should be rare.

 

[kalani]

Read my above post. There are winged boots floating around AL (although their location will remain a secret).

 

[Inconnunom]

Not that it matters that much but there is also a pair of Wings of Flying that is AL legal.

 

[Steve_MND]

Well, they haven't errata'ed the Fly spell, so the idea of flying PCs by itself isn't the problem -- it's the idea of PCs with permanent flying abilities from level 1 that can't be taken away. (Note: there are definitely AL encounters where a motivated DM can destroy a magic item that allows flight; for actual wings, not so much.)

Well, given how unlikely it is that most DMs will explicitly target a character's permanent magic items for complete destruction, and how it is possible for a 1st level character to have said permanent item, I see little functional difference. That said, I'll agree that by the nature of the item itself, it will be much harder to obtain (altho it will happen -- one of our tables acquired it, aided by the clever and judicious use of one of the OTHER flying items in the campaign).

I'm not saying the two flight-causing abilities are the same, but just saying that the concept someone alluded to earlier of essentially 'keeping flight of of AL' isn't quite accurate.

The 'for seasons with a dedicated rules source, choose your rules source or SCAG' seems a bit confusing to me, but as I get used to it, I suspect I'll like it -- it answers the main criticism other folks seem to have about the storyline season concept, which is that Season 2 was always the no-brainer option when it came to picking character options. Now, every season has at least one rule-based set of character options available, but the blending of those rules options will still only happen when characters get ahold of things that have been explicitly authorized.

Yeah, it struck me as a little odd as well. I personally would have preferred for it to just be an evergreen option, flat out, if it was going to be allowed as such. Like some other stuff in the campaign so far, the ruling seems a little overly complicated for the actual situation that warranted it, but I can live happily with it, and appreciate them opening it up as much as they did.

My only concern with this is the possibility of something coming down the line, such as a new book or supplement that expands on options available in the SCAG. For example, new options for an Undying warlock, or a Storm sorcerer. By the 'only one splatbook' guidelines here, that would make those unusable, as you can only use those options in book 3 if book 2 is in use, but if you're using book 2, you can't use book 3 to regardless.

But I suspect that will be dealt with if and when something like that occurs. The way the SCAG was implemented here ultimately I think shows that WotC is realizing that yes, it can make adjustments on the fly in the campaign if the situation warrants it.

 

[Pauper]

I'm not saying the two flight-causing abilities are the same, but just saying that the concept someone alluded to earlier of essentially 'keeping flight of of AL' isn't quite accurate.

Over-simplifiers will over-simplify, good point.

My only concern with this is the possibility of something coming down the line, such as a new book or supplement that expands on options available in the SCAG. For example, new options for an Undying warlock, or a Storm sorcerer.

I could see that as a cause for concern, but looking over the things that have already been published, it looks like the game designers are basically taking the position that anything published is self-contained -- there are new sorcerer cantrips in SCAG useful for all sorcerers, and a new sorcerous origin that doesn't depend on the existing origins. So while it's not impossible for some later source to contain an enhancement intended for a rule in a prior source, I'm not going to hold my breath, either.

But I suspect that will be dealt with if and when something like that occurs.

Yep, that too. ; )

The way the SCAG was implemented here ultimately I think shows that WotC is realizing that yes, it can make adjustments on the fly in the campaign if the situation warrants it.

I think it's a concern that people are still conflating 'WotC' and 'the AL staff'; a lot of things people get upset about come from a belief that WotC and the AL staff are basically interchangeable, and they're really not. In this specific case, since the topic in question was clearly high priority for AL players, the WotC staff and the AL admin staff did some effective coordination to get the info put together and disseminated, but if you're thinking this is the blueprint that's going to be followed for all AL questions, I suspect you'll be disappointed in the end.

Then again, unless this was the Big Announcement hinted at a few weeks back, there still might be more news on that point coming down the pipe.

--
Pauper

 

[Pauper]

I will be at Gamehole on Friday if anyone has additional questions.

Good to hear you'll be there! Hope to run into you in the DDAL area -- I'm playing three different AL events on Friday.

--
Pauper

 

[Steve_MND]

I think it's a concern that people are still conflating 'WotC' and 'the AL staff'; a lot of things people get upset about come from a belief that WotC and the AL staff are basically interchangeable, and they're really not.

No, trust me, I know they're not, and my word choice wasn't casual. I know that there is a lot of stuff that the AL staff should be able to make rulings on their own about (IMHO), but they usually cannot because they aren't the ones who ultimately makes that decision -- WotC is (as has been explained time and time again by the AL staff themselves). So, if you'd like, read it as "I think WotC realized they don't need to be quite so tight-fisted sometimes when it comes to working with the AL staff."

Is this a one-time loosening of those reins? Maybe, maybe not. Time will tell, but I'd like to think it's not just a one-off.

 

[Orlax]

Over-simplifiers will over-simplify, good point.



I could see that as a cause for concern, but looking over the things that have already been published, it looks like the game designers are basically taking the position that anything published is self-contained -- there are new sorcerer cantrips in SCAG useful for all sorcerers, and a new sorcerous origin that doesn't depend on the existing origins. So while it's not impossible for some later source to contain an enhancement intended for a rule in a prior source, I'm not going to hold my breath, either.



Yep, that too. ; )



I think it's a concern that people are still conflating 'WotC' and 'the AL staff'; a lot of things people get upset about come from a belief that WotC and the AL staff are basically interchangeable, and they're really not. In this specific case, since the topic in question was clearly high priority for AL players, the WotC staff and the AL admin staff did some effective coordination to get the info put together and disseminated, but if you're thinking this is the blueprint that's going to be followed for all AL questions, I suspect you'll be disappointed in the end.

Then again, unless this was the Big Announcement hinted at a few weeks back, there still might be more news on that point coming down the pipe.

--
Pauper

Well I mean technically the scag has expansions to help out previous books. Mainly the cantrips in it. They make Blade lock a viable build that will actually use its weapon rather than Eldritch bolt all the time. I think that's what I'd have an issue with here; that at the moment if I was ever to play a blade lock I'm stuck in the scag and can't use other sources.

I have heard that if I pick up a spell scroll or spell book in game that I can learn a spell from another source via that method. Well that works for wizard's, is there any equivalent method by which my Blade lock (which basically must be made with the scag even if all I am using is 1 or 2 cantrips) can find spells from outside the scag and learn them?

 

[Pauper]

I have heard that if I pick up a spell scroll or spell book in game that I can learn a spell from another source via that method. Well that works for wizard's, is there any equivalent method by which my Blade lock (which basically must be made with the scag even if all I am using is 1 or 2 cantrips) can find spells from outside the scag and learn them?

A tome-warlock built using the SCAG as a rules option could find appropriate EE spells and scribe them into her Tome of Secrets, but a blade-warlock doesn't have that option.

And, since cantrips aren't contained on scrolls, a character won't ever find a cantrip from any rules source that way, thus won't ever be able to add a cantrip from an unallowed rules source (barring some other cert-enabled option that might be created in the future to allow just that).

--
Pauper

Edit: And I'm not sure I agree with the assertion that blade-warlocks have to use the SCAG to be viable -- it seems to me that the design intent of the warlock was to have Hex automatically scale as the warlock goes up in level to gain the bonus duration. Granted, combo-ing Hex and Green-flame Blade seems like it might work pretty well, but only for low levels or for blade-warlocks that decide not to bother with the invocation that gives them the equivalent of Extra Attacks. Not sure I'm a good resource for analyzing optimization stuff, though.

 

[kalani]

Characters may also find alternative rewards within an adventure which allow a non-wizard to extend their spell list. One such reward currently exists as a high-level reward in one of the hardcover adventures and allows non-wizards to learn up to 30 spell levels of spells (using the rules for copying spells). I will not say which adventure specifically, as the admins do not want lists of rewards being circulated.