log in or register to remove this ad

 

5E Upcoming BBoC...

i_dont_meta

Explorer
How do we think the new Big Book of Crunch will interact with the whole "PHB + 1" limitations?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

log in or register to remove this ad



CydKnight

Explorer
I find that when I try to project such things that I cannot control, my expectations get the best of me then I am disappointed when that thing actually comes to fruition.
 



happyhermit

Adventurer
That sort of philosophy, and it extends beyond the AL rule, is a part of why I am so into 5e. Unfortunately (for me) it's likely they will break with it as time goes by. The fact that they aren't treating Vgtm as "core" in the adventures is promising though. Wotc doesn't owe me anything, they will do what they figure is best for the game, but there is a good chance I will check out of the edition as things start to feel bloaty, that's what has always happened in the past.
 

That sort of philosophy, and it extends beyond the AL rule, is a part of why I am so into 5e. Unfortunately (for me) it's likely they will break with it as time goes by. The fact that they aren't treating Vgtm as "core" in the adventures is promising though. Wotc doesn't owe me anything, they will do what they figure is best for the game, but there is a good chance I will check out of the edition as things start to feel bloaty, that's what has always happened in the past.
Maybe.
But August 2017 will be three years after the edition was released. Three years after 4e was launched, Essentials had been out for a full year. Three years after 3e was launched, they were just rolling out 3.5e.
 

thethain

First Post
From current perspective, it appears that they are entwining their books to be crunch+fluff. SCAG, EE, Volo. All had a smattering of crunch and a lot of fluff. They want to sell stories, and have some crunchy bits thrown in to assist in that story.

That said the blitz of Unearthed Arcana that has been going on for months at this point does indicate that they are at least thinking about releasing some more crunchy materials. Although the fact rune magic was released as Unearthed Arcana on 10/5/2015 and SKT implemented it 11/6/2016 means there may be a bit of lead time until we see these come to a printed source near you.

I think if they release a full blown PHB II style book, it basically would most likely necessitate invalidating the PHB+1 rule. For example if they released the Mystic as is, its spell list is 3 Wizards spells, which are contained in the PHB. If it was a full blown book featuring new spells, feats, archetypes, and classes. Then using any source other than PHB+PHB2 would be severely hamstringing the character. Volo's already highlighted this in the fact that many of the options from SCAG are pretty powerful or at the least distinctive. Cutting Tabaxi tricksters off from booming blade is rather arbitrary.

That said.. I don't think they are going to release a PHB II. I think they will release a Greyhawk setting book(eventually) which adds a handful of archetypes and variant races. And maybe a new Underdark adventure that allows some Psionic player options. I hope I am wrong tho, as I love crunching numbers on characters.
 

CapnZapp

Legend
Why would the rule change?
It's exactly why the rule exists: so people don't stack sources.
Probably because of the anticipation this book will contain so much more; completely overshadowing the existing options: Unless the rule is changed, that nobody will pick the existing options any longer.

Mind you, this is conjecture in several layers.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app
 


Probably because of the anticipation this book will contain so much more; completely overshadowing the existing options: Unless the rule is changed, that nobody will pick the existing options any longer.

Mind you, this is conjecture in several layers.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app
Except the whole damn point of the PHB+1 rule is to prevent unforeseen combinations and minimize min-maxing. Splatbooks, like the anticipated major rules expansion, are the sole reason the rule exists.

I think people who want to play a swashbuckler or goliath with continue to use the old. If an existing option is the character you want and gave wanted for months, the new shiny is irrelevant.
And two months after the book is out, and it is just one more book on the shelf, the anticipation ceases to be a thing. To new players or people still on their first or second character, the BBoC is no more exciting than SCAG or Volo.
 

The PHB+1 rule also gives the rules designers more freedom since they don't have to consider every possible combo when designing character features. As long as nothing is overpowered when combined with PHB features it's no problem. Without this kind of rule then every new character option added will lock off part of the design space, limiting future expanions to features that won't be OP when combined with anything else in the game so far.

So the PHB+1 rule will probably be a good guideline for home games as well in the future, once there are more character options for 5E.
 

happyhermit

Adventurer
...

So the PHB+1 rule will probably be a good guideline for home games as well in the future, once there are more character options for 5E.
Yeah, I know I have heard Mearls et al. talk about the idea as a general design concept, not just for AL but for maintaining accessibility. It is similar to the idea that he has expressed that everyone should be able to just have the core 3 books and be able to run any adventure they put out without issue. Also in the way they didn't hold out on popular options in the PHB or DMG as often happens, with the thought of quickly selling a PHB2 and MM2.
 

guachi

Explorer
I suspect if they add a new class that casts spells they would have to modify it to PHB + UA + 1 or the spellcaster in UA won't be able to take any spells from the PHB, which would be strange.

But so far I've liked the idea of PHB + 1 in AL. The reasons I don't play AL have nothing to with that and everything to do with the inconsistency of players at my FLGS.
 

happyhermit

Adventurer
Maybe.
But August 2017 will be three years after the edition was released. Three years after 4e was launched, Essentials had been out for a full year. Three years after 3e was launched, they were just rolling out 3.5e.
I certainly agree that the strategy is very different than previous Wotc editions, and they have stuck to their guns more than I would have expected. The lure of pumping out more content is always there though, and as time goes by the chances of succumbing increase. The biggest thing (or at least a big thing) standing in the way of bloat is the fact that Wotc (and Hasbro) seems to be as concerned about the amount of people playing/experiencing/being exposed to D&D as making massive profits off it. They are making a solid profit right now, they might make more at least in the short term by pumping out books, but at the expense of the "brand".
 

i_dont_meta

Explorer
[MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] Dude, get over it. I'm so sorry I spammed your boards with a misplaced post. So, PLEASE, will somebody help this man (or woman, I no longer care) and for the love of all that is Holy move my post to the appropriate board. Thank you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

CapnZapp

Legend
Except the whole damn point of the PHB+1 rule is to prevent unforeseen combinations and minimize min-maxing. Splatbooks, like the anticipated major rules expansion, are the sole reason the rule exists.

I think people who want to play a swashbuckler or goliath with continue to use the old. If an existing option is the character you want and gave wanted for months, the new shiny is irrelevant.
And two months after the book is out, and it is just one more book on the shelf, the anticipation ceases to be a thing. To new players or people still on their first or second character, the BBoC is no more exciting than SCAG or Volo.
Okay, I'll try a more blunt approach:

The +1 rule works if the choices are roughly similar in scope.

If one of the +1 sources contain much more crunch to a much deeper level, other sources have their opportunity cost significantly increased.

Playing a swashbuckler or goliath used to mean you sacrifice sources Y and Z of similar stature. But if playing a goliath suddenly means you can't use any number of new things, including entirely new classes, lots of items, perhaps entirely new concepts and overlays, this cost suddenly becomes stratospheric.

All the while playing a Mystic, say (assuming that's one of the additions to the new book) only means you can't choose between a relatively minor set of choices you really don't need.

I'm not saying this will happen. I'm not arguing to remove the +1 rule.

I'm trying to explain to you why the poster expressed concern. Just repeating the rule and it's original justification is beside this point.

Each source needs to contain very roughly a comparable amount of stuff. Perhaps if they amend the rule to treat the new book as three distinct sources, and then make the rule +2 instead?

(so that any given character* can at best use two thirds of the new book)

* again assuming AL play

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app
 
Last edited:

CapnZapp

Legend
I suspect if they add a new class that casts spells they would have to modify it to PHB + UA + 1 or the spellcaster in UA won't be able to take any spells from the PHB, which would be strange.

But so far I've liked the idea of PHB + 1 in AL. The reasons I don't play AL have nothing to with that and everything to do with the inconsistency of players at my FLGS.
The PHB is never a source you can choose to forego. It's always PHB+1 for obvious reasons.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app
 

CapnZapp

Legend
If an existing option is the character you want and gave wanted for months, the new shiny is irrelevant.
So far we've been given much breadth but almost no depth.

That is, more ways to create *a* character, but very few ways to customize *existing* characters.

As soon as "depth-options" finally become available, your assertion no longer holds true.


Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app
 

Mythological Figures & Maleficent Monsters

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top