SCAG Thread

[Burticusb]

Maybe, or maybe having to get through the front door locks, the locks on the apartment door, etc., will take so much time that one of my neighbors will spot you and ask what you're up to. You might get so spooked you run away, or give the neighbor the ability to give your description to the police so that you can be caught and anything you took brought back.

Careful what you wish for in an analogy! ; )



Forgive me, but I don't think you're really interested in an inclusive experience -- I think you're interested in *your* experience, no matter how much you (and people like you) playing the game you want to play prevents other people from playing the game they want to play.

Previous Organized Play campaigns have, for whatever reason, been influenced by the 'inclusiveness gambit' and suffered as a result. It's encouraging to me that the current OP admins have declined the gambit, so that we can see how the game plays out.

--
Pauper

Okay, I'll bite...

If I were a professional burglar, trust me, neither of those locks would be an issue. And likely, I'd plan it at a time that your neighbors were either not home or were engaged in some other thing...

So, yeah, we can go back and forth at this all day, but that just seems silly... my point is still valid.

Many people live in small communities and they still leave their front door wide open...

And to your second point, I am interested in an inclusive environment, not a rules free environment, but something that does invite all areas of creativity.

I actually don't have a character who is really even affected by this ruling... but I can see the side of those who are.

It's not a gambit to trust the source material of the company in which your are partnering with...

I can see your point if we look at past organized play, however, this game is not OGL, and it would be very easy to set the restriction to, only products from WoTC are considered "Legal"

...but to rule "one or the other" for no apparent reason other than, well it doesn't fit into this season.

I just don't see this as such of a "gambit" I guess, but sure lets all be scared of the big bad splat books that will Herald the beginning of the 5E AL Power Gamer era...

That's just silly...

 

[Pauper]

AKA, they should let your side dictate how the game is going to be played

You may be right. Assuming you are (and that is an assumption), what you're missing is, you've had your campaigns -- plural.

I'm still waiting for mine. If you get your way here, I'll still be waiting.

--
Pauper

 

[Burticusb]

And let's look at how the responses have come to this point... nothing.

There are zero arguments that hold any light as to a real good reason as to why there is this ruling.

...other than our "top" men looked into this and made such and such call.

I'm not really that upset with the ruling itself, just that there are zero grounds to base it upon.

This is Dungeons & Dragons folks... and the company responsible for it's current iteration just came out with an "official" rulebook.

And we are now going to say, well, you can use either this book or this other one, but you can't use both...

Again, I can understand the ruling on specific things, like Tieflings with wings... but to say it's all or nothing, for no reason whatsoever...

That just seems silly... and non-inclusive.

We want to attract new players into this hobby, not push them away because they purchased the "wrong" book...

Yes, we can all play however we want in our home games, but Adventurer's League was created to get new folks into the hobby(WoTC Advertising scheme if you will)...

This just feels like a large step back from that goal...

And thus, it is silly...

 

[kalani]

It's not a gambit to trust the source material of the company in which your are partnering with...

For the upteenth time: With each and every new release, the odds of a broken combo occurring increase exponentially. It doesn't matter how much you trust a company, there is only so much playtesting that can be done before it reaches a point of diminishing returns. Many combo's aren't even readily apparent, and are not discovered for months or years after release (Pun Pun for example).

The only way to 100% guarantee that a new feat, class ability or other option is not broken, is to playtest it combined with each and every other feat, class ability and option already in existence. This must be repeated for each new option added to the game - which is unrealistic even at this point, with only a handful of options.

As such, companies only run balance playtests on new material combined with the options in the core rulebooks. It is unrealistic to expect them to playtest each and every product and option with each new release. That would just increase development time exponentially. Worse yet, if they do find a problem - they need to run the entire playtest again for the changed entry to make sure that the "fixed" issue doesn't cause additional problems with other features.

Even if companies did engage in such rigiorous and unrealistic playtesting, some things would still slip past them due to the fact that they interpret a given rule differently than the general public.

The ruling is to prevent power creep.
It would be arbitary to say that EE characters can combine SCAG + EEPC, but some future story origin can't combine SCAG with another product (which does cause a problem when combined).

 

[Tia Nadiezja]

For the upteenth time: With each and every new release, the odds of a broken combo occurring increase exponentially.

I'll bite, because, while I agree with the ruling, this here isn't true.

5e sandboxes options from each other, and does so hard. Subclasses basically don't interact with each other. Spells basically don't interact with each other. Racial abilities outside ability increases (which are linear and predictable) don't interact with either of those things. "Broken combos" in 5e are obvious and easily dealt with, because they require moments when that sandboxing breaks and breaking sandboxing is so out of the ordinary for the system that it stands out like a neon sign.

Feats are the exception, but we've seen zero new feats since launch. I expect feats to remain rare precisely because they break sandboxing.

 

[kalani]

Interesting, because while I wouldn't call it broken - here is an example of how a single spell from SCAG can be combined with existing rules to create an unintended result.

War Cleric + Magic Initiate

• Choose: Green-Flame Blade, Booming Blade, and Find Familiar with your feat.
• Divine Strike: 8th level War Cleric grants you Divine Strike.
• Green-Flame Blade + Divine Strike: 2d8+Str damage (one handed) or 1d8+2d6+Str damage (2-handed). Both primary and secondary target take an additional 1d8 fire damage. At 17th level, this maxes out at 3d8+Str damage (or 2d8+2d6+Str), plus an additional 3d8 fire damage to each target.
• Familiar (owl): By choosing an owl familiar, your Divine Strike GFB gains advantage (help action). Your owl has fly-by attack, and so avoids opportunity attacks.
• Channel Divinity: On the off chance you do miss, you can add a +10 to your hit bonus and likely hit anyway.

This took me very little effort to figure out, as stealing find familiar with MI has been an optimization strategy since day 1. I could take this combo a step further by adding GWM, allowing me to add an extra 10 damage on top if desired. Elemental Adept is unnecessary, as you simply switch to booming blade when facing targets immune/resistant to fire.

I could easily take this combo further by combining it with hex/hunter's mark, sneak attack, colossus slayer, or maneuvers (although doing so at the expense of cleric levels); and it wouldn't be very difficult for a later product to release a feature which takes this combo from powerful to broken. Alternatively, I could take 6 levels of Fire Sorcerer, and take MI (Sorcerer) instead; in which case I can also stack CHA damage on top.

One spell. That is the difference that one spell can make to an existing character.

 

[Burticusb]

For the upteenth time: With each and every new release, the odds of a broken combo occurring increase exponentially. It doesn't matter how much you trust a company, there is only so much playtesting that can be done before it reaches a point of diminishing returns. Many combo's aren't even readily apparent, and are not discovered for months or years after release (Pun Pun for example).

The only way to 100% guarantee that a new feat, class ability or other option is not broken, is to playtest it combined with each and every other feat, class ability and option already in existence. This must be repeated for each new option added to the game - which is unrealistic even at this point, with only a handful of options.

As such, companies only run balance playtests on new material combined with the options in the core rulebooks. It is unrealistic to expect them to playtest each and every product and option with each new release. That would just increase development time exponentially. Worse yet, if they do find a problem - they need to run the entire playtest again for the changed entry to make sure that the "fixed" issue doesn't cause additional problems with other features.

Even if companies did engage in such rigiorous and unrealistic playtesting, some things would still slip past them due to the fact that they interpret a given rule differently than the general public.

With much sincere respect kalana, I can appreciate your position.

And to be honest even the Adventurer's Leagues as well.

However, realistically, citing play testing as the source of this ruling only furthers my point.

Power gaming will happen no matter the deterrent you place.

Maybe entrust/empower your DM staff to watch for these builds, and act on the behalf of the Adventurer's League as representative of the group make executive decisions at his table.

D&D has worked like this for decades on its own... I seriously feel that this is why these types of organizations come and go so often.

When did "play tests" start controlling our creativity?

Seriously, so what if someone creates a "pun pun"?

How much fun is he/she going to have playing it... and eventually everyone will know about it and say... Oh wait your playing a "Vengeance" Paladin wielding a Greatsword/Glaive with great weapon style and Great Weapon Master Feat.... Oh yeah, that's already there and it's broken as all get out.

Maybe a better approach is to encourage creativity in character creation and role playing.

There's just way to much focus in this group on rule mitigation... Again, 25 Pages is a pretty telling sign that this is a pretty wasted venture.

All those posts about waste in AL with Certs and other such things, pale in comparison on the cost in wasted time on this very debate.

Instead, why not just make it easy and say all official WoTC material is AL Legal...

Again just my few coppers worth...

 

[kalani]

And as we said before - This was the approach taken in LFR (everything is legal), and it was a disaster for OP.

 

[Burticusb]

And as we said before - This was the approach taken in LFR (everything is legal), and it was a disaster for OP.

Yeah, but how many splat books went with that, according to WoTC this will not be the case this edition. Anyways, I realize that nothing will change with this discussion, just voicing my opinion... and in that everyone is entitled to it.

Also, let's also not fault LFR with just that as its fault... I mean we had 4E, that was a ridiculous edition with so many problems in itself...

 

[Mirtek]

It would be arbitary to say that EE characters can combine SCAG + EEPC, but some future story origin can't combine SCAG with another product (which does cause a problem when combined).

Actually it would only if it just excludes the whole future story origin rather than specifically banning broken parts (like aarakoa and winged tieflings)

Interesting, because while I wouldn't call it broken - here is an example of how a single spell from SCAG can be combined with existing rules to create an unintended result.

War Cleric + Magic Initiate

• Choose: Green-Flame Blade, Booming Blade, and Find Familiar with your feat.
• Divine Strike: 8th level War Cleric grants you Divine Strike.
• Green-Flame Blade + Divine Strike: 2d8+Str damage (one handed) or 1d8+2d6+Str damage (2-handed). Both primary and secondary target take an additional 1d8 fire damage. At 17th level, this maxes out at 3d8+Str damage (or 2d8+2d6+Str), plus an additional 3d8 fire damage to each target.
• Familiar (owl): By choosing an owl familiar, your Divine Strike GFB gains advantage (help action). Your owl has fly-by attack, and so avoids opportunity attacks.
• Channel Divinity: On the off chance you do miss, you can add a +10 to your hit bonus and likely hit anyway.

This took me very little effort to figure out, as stealing find familiar with MI has been an optimization strategy since day 1. I could take this combo a step further by adding GWM, allowing me to add an extra 10 damage on top if desired. Elemental Adept is unnecessary, as you simply switch to booming blade when facing targets immune/resistant to fire.

I could easily take this combo further by combining it with hex/hunter's mark, sneak attack, colossus slayer, or maneuvers (although doing so at the expense of cleric levels); and it wouldn't be very difficult for a later product to release a feature which takes this combo from powerful to broken. Alternatively, I could take 6 levels of Fire Sorcerer, and take MI (Sorcerer) instead; in which case I can also stack CHA damage on top.

One spell. That is the difference that one spell can make to an existing character.

Actually there is nothing even merely strong about this combination, the only thing that divine strike added in this combination to this a paltry 1d8 more to the primary target. It's actually weaker to an warlock or bladesinger adding +5 from a second ability (and weaker than both just doing 2 attacks and especially three in the case of the warlock). It's an almost unoticeable combination.

And most you suggest could be also added is made weaker by comibning it with greenflame or booming blade instead of doing extra attacks

GFB and BB actually max out at +2d8 to primary target and +2d8+Ability to secondary target

Step 1: nothing to primary target / +ability to secondardy target
Step 2: +1d8 to primary target / +1d8+ability to secondary target
Step 2: +2d8 to primary target / +2d8+ability to secondary target

So you max at 5d8+Str (or 2d6+4d8+Str) vs. primary and 2d8+Int vs. secondary target

As opposed to using war priest for 3d8+Str and 1d8+Str with the possibility of triggerting stugg like hunters mark and hex twice

I can't see anything unintended when a spells that's supposed to add 2d8 damage ends up adding 2d8 damage