Maybe.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.
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.Why would the rule change?
It's exactly why the rule exists: so people don't stack sources.
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.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
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....
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.
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".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.
Okay, I'll try a more blunt approach: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 is never a source you can choose to forego. It's always PHB+1 for obvious reasons.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.
So far we've been given much breadth but almost no depth.If an existing option is the character you want and gave wanted for months, the new shiny is irrelevant.