PBH+1 ruling I can agree on. My AL group uses the PBH+1 and we talk about usable races. For example, Acquisitions Incorporated has a goblin race. I allowed it for one of my players. I feel if its UA it shouldnt be allowed(Since its mostly playtest) but if its in a book that WoTC published then its standard. The Dm has final say on it.
If Adventurer's League is the only D&D you can play, enjoy it as best you can. The only games I get are online, there's no local games here at all. It's one of the reasons AL makes me so damn furious though - for a lot of people it's the only D&D they get, and their introduction to the game is a bunch of rules-lawyer ******** shutting down their every spark of creativity by smashing them in the face with a PHB every time they try and do something other than what the module says a character should do.
It's absolute gobshyte, completely against the spirit and soul of the game, and Wizards should feel awful about it.
Remember: AL preconditions its players and DMs both towards a fervent, slavish, hyperfocused overemphasis on RAW, with absolutely no room whatsoever for flex, creativity, or roleplaying. All games are to be run 100% identically - a successful AL DM is one that could put on a mask and be completely indistinguishable from any other DM by their players. You don't even really need to play AL games/modules; you could read through the adventure, roll checks whenever the book says to do so, then follow the guidelines in said book to see what happens and you will know exactly how that module would play out at an AL table.
Most (85%-90%) of the RAW/RAI debates I have seen in 5e come down to people conceptualizing something and not paying attention to the actual wording. As an example, Monks can use either Str or Dex for their Monk Weapons. That is verbally identical to the Finesse property except it does not actually confer the Finesse property. People still keep asking if they can add Sneak Attack Damage to those attacks if they multiclass. I cannot think of many instances in 5e where the RAW/RAI debate is any less unnecessary once one actually reads the specific wordings of whatever the question pertains to. I’m sure they exist, I just can’t think of any off the top of my head, at least not with actually published materials. UA might sometimes be less cut-and-dry, but that’s why it’s still in playtesting after all.
My point is that if more people payed closer attention to what the rules actually say instead of what they thought the rules said then more tables would probably run very similar to each other anyway. Something like the way a Ritual Caster flavors their rituals, or the physical form an Artificer’s wand takes has no actual mechanical impact on the game, and therefore the AL should have absolutely nothing to say about it. #myfunisnotwrong.
Eberron is the world most associated with artificers, yet the class can be found throughout the D&D multiverse. In the Forgotten Realms, for example, the island of Lantan is home to many artificers, and in the world of Dragonlance, tinker gnomes are often members of this class. The strange technologies in the Barrier Peaks of the World of Greyhawk have inspired some folk to walk the path of the artificer, and in Mystara, various nations employ artificers to keep airships and other wondrous devices operational. In the City of Sigil, artificers share discoveries from throughout the cosmos, and one in particular — the gnome inventor Vi — has run a multiverse-spanning business from there since leaving the world of her birth, Eberron. In the world-city Ravnica, the Izzet League trains numerous artificers, the destructiveness of whom is unparalleled in other worlds — except, perhaps, by the tinker gnomes of Krynn.
Has any AL read the actual book?
The rule is phb+1
So they don't follow their own stupid rules anymore?
Maybe i am not really missing out on much, here in germany, where AL doesn't exist...
from what i have heard, adventure league legal is based on game balance or ease of play, such as having no flying speed and makig shure that you use no more sources than players handbook + 1. Why whould the legality of an class be based on the setting? makes even less sense considering the fact that Wotc have mentioned in the ua that artificers can exist in any setting
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
This is interesting since every AL module I’ve read says I as DM am empowered to make whatever changes I feel are necessary to keep the table fun. Outside of adding permanent items, gold or other resources outside of the stated constraints. I guess it depends on how things are run in you individual area or store. The store I play doesn’t have open league games you can’t show up and sit down. It organizes a group then that same group meets every week to play the modules. Many modules I have read talk of helping players get through puzzles and doing changes so the group is successful, again meaning the different tables could be pretty different on challenge levels and avoiding player death.
This is interesting since every AL module I’ve read says I as DM am empowered to make whatever changes I feel are necessary to keep the table fun. Outside of adding permanent items, gold or other resources outside of the stated constraints. I guess it depends on how things are run in you individual area or store. The store I play doesn’t have open league games you can’t show up and sit down. It organizes a group then that same group meets every week to play the modules. Many modules I have read talk of helping players get through puzzles and doing changes so the group is successful, again meaning the different tables could be pretty different on challenge levels and avoiding player death.
I think you're referring to different things here. The adventure (module) you have the ability to change at your discretion (apart from the rewards it gives). This is so that DMs still have the flexibility to react to their players going off the rails, if they want to allow that. Player character mechanics you really don't have the leeway to change, unless there's room in the text for interpreting the intent of the rule. And you certainly can't authorize a player to select options outside the allowed sources or otherwise make their character illegal for AL play (such as by having too many magic items for their tier or having illegal magic items). Challenge and character death risk are not things that AL seeks to control, so long as DMs aren't violating conduct rules.
And yes, creative play is to be rewarded, but that doesn't mean players can go outside the rules in doing so. If a rule doesn't cover the creative solution and you want to allow it -- great! If the creative solution wouldn't work within the rules, then it's not really a solution, though. I will say that there's often more leeway given here for DMs to "fudge" things so something cool can happen, but when they do it's advisable to warn the player that trying that somewhere else probably won't work.
The reason for this is that even if your group is consistent week-to-week and they all agree with what you want to change, your players are supposed to have the ability to take their characters to another table and use it -- perhaps in addition to playing at your table or after your table has moved on to different characters. That's the point of it being organized play. If your players are only ever playing the characters with you, then there's not really any point in being an AL table and you can just play how you want.
The main reason we adventure league is the store gets “brownie points” for having league. I searched on websites and can’t find rulings on classes not allowed, like artificer. My impression was phb+1 if the +1 is ebberon or wildemount or acquisitions then that’s fine, is that not correct?
The main reason we adventure league is the store gets “brownie points” for having league. I searched on websites and can’t find rulings on classes not allowed, like artificer. My impression was phb+1 if the +1 is ebberon or wildemount or acquisitions then that’s fine, is that not correct?
It is not. The +1 still has to be chosen from the allowed sources. Wildemount and Acquisitions are not allowed sources -- nor are the Magic the Gathering sourcebooks (Ravnica and Theros). Eberron is only allowed in the Eberron AL settings ("Wayfinder's Guide" in "Embers of the Last War" or "Rising from the Last War" in "Oracle of War").
You should refer to the Adventurer's League Player's Guides in the AL Player and DM Pack.
EDIT: I'm honestly surprised there's still any benefit to the store for running AL other than having the potential customers in the store.
Okay. I give up. Four completely ignored reports of thread necromancy later, it's obvious that DDB's policy of "we enforce thread necromancy rules basically only if we feel like it" strikes again.
The artificer is not AL legal because literally ******* nothing is AL legal. Dungeons and Dragons is not AL legal. Local game stores are not AL legal. You are not AL legal. AL exists specifically to tell you that your fun is wrong and also not legal and you shouldn't be having it. End of discussion. Move on, maybe?
The main reason we adventure league is the store gets “brownie points” for having league. I searched on websites and can’t find rulings on classes not allowed, like artificer. My impression was phb+1 if the +1 is ebberon or wildemount or acquisitions then that’s fine, is that not correct?
It is not. The +1 still has to be chosen from the allowed sources. Wildemount and Acquisitions are not allowed sources -- nor are the Magic the Gathering sourcebooks (Ravnica and Theros). Eberron is only allowed in the Eberron AL settings ("Wayfinder's Guide" in "Embers of the Last War" or "Rising from the Last War" in "Oracle of War").
You should refer to the Adventurer's League Player's Guides in the AL Player and DM Pack.
EDIT: I'm honestly surprised there's still any benefit to the store for running AL other than having the potential customers in the store.
Well, personally I think that the artificer should be allowed in al because technically the arcane firearm is a spellcasting focus, and the eldritch cannon could be considered magic because it dissapears after an hour.
I'm not sure exactly when spell jammer came out but I've been playing for months now weekly at a store and people come in with spell jammer characters that flavor tons of stuff as being space guns like a laser blaster pistol for eldritch blast, this stuff already exists
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
PBH+1 ruling I can agree on. My AL group uses the PBH+1 and we talk about usable races. For example, Acquisitions Incorporated has a goblin race. I allowed it for one of my players. I feel if its UA it shouldnt be allowed(Since its mostly playtest) but if its in a book that WoTC published then its standard. The Dm has final say on it.
But no, AL is super strict for some people.
If Adventurer's League is the only D&D you can play, enjoy it as best you can. The only games I get are online, there's no local games here at all. It's one of the reasons AL makes me so damn furious though - for a lot of people it's the only D&D they get, and their introduction to the game is a bunch of rules-lawyer ******** shutting down their every spark of creativity by smashing them in the face with a PHB every time they try and do something other than what the module says a character should do.
It's absolute gobshyte, completely against the spirit and soul of the game, and Wizards should feel awful about it.
Please do not contact or message me.
Most (85%-90%) of the RAW/RAI debates I have seen in 5e come down to people conceptualizing something and not paying attention to the actual wording. As an example, Monks can use either Str or Dex for their Monk Weapons. That is verbally identical to the Finesse property except it does not actually confer the Finesse property. People still keep asking if they can add Sneak Attack Damage to those attacks if they multiclass. I cannot think of many instances in 5e where the RAW/RAI debate is any less unnecessary once one actually reads the specific wordings of whatever the question pertains to. I’m sure they exist, I just can’t think of any off the top of my head, at least not with actually published materials. UA might sometimes be less cut-and-dry, but that’s why it’s still in playtesting after all.
My point is that if more people payed closer attention to what the rules actually say instead of what they thought the rules said then more tables would probably run very similar to each other anyway. Something like the way a Ritual Caster flavors their rituals, or the physical form an Artificer’s wand takes has no actual mechanical impact on the game, and therefore the AL should have absolutely nothing to say about it. #myfunisnotwrong.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Has any AL read the actual book?
The rule is phb+1
So they don't follow their own stupid rules anymore?
Maybe i am not really missing out on much, here in germany, where AL doesn't exist...
from what i have heard, adventure league legal is based on game balance or ease of play, such as having no flying speed and makig shure that you use no more sources than players handbook + 1. Why whould the legality of an class be based on the setting? makes even less sense considering the fact that Wotc have mentioned in the ua that artificers can exist in any setting
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
This is interesting since every AL module I’ve read says I as DM am empowered to make whatever changes I feel are necessary to keep the table fun. Outside of adding permanent items, gold or other resources outside of the stated constraints. I guess it depends on how things are run in you individual area or store. The store I play doesn’t have open league games you can’t show up and sit down. It organizes a group then that same group meets every week to play the modules. Many modules I have read talk of helping players get through puzzles and doing changes so the group is successful, again meaning the different tables could be pretty different on challenge levels and avoiding player death.
That’s weird, most AL modules say award player creativity
I think you're referring to different things here. The adventure (module) you have the ability to change at your discretion (apart from the rewards it gives). This is so that DMs still have the flexibility to react to their players going off the rails, if they want to allow that. Player character mechanics you really don't have the leeway to change, unless there's room in the text for interpreting the intent of the rule. And you certainly can't authorize a player to select options outside the allowed sources or otherwise make their character illegal for AL play (such as by having too many magic items for their tier or having illegal magic items). Challenge and character death risk are not things that AL seeks to control, so long as DMs aren't violating conduct rules.
And yes, creative play is to be rewarded, but that doesn't mean players can go outside the rules in doing so. If a rule doesn't cover the creative solution and you want to allow it -- great! If the creative solution wouldn't work within the rules, then it's not really a solution, though. I will say that there's often more leeway given here for DMs to "fudge" things so something cool can happen, but when they do it's advisable to warn the player that trying that somewhere else probably won't work.
The reason for this is that even if your group is consistent week-to-week and they all agree with what you want to change, your players are supposed to have the ability to take their characters to another table and use it -- perhaps in addition to playing at your table or after your table has moved on to different characters. That's the point of it being organized play. If your players are only ever playing the characters with you, then there's not really any point in being an AL table and you can just play how you want.
The main reason we adventure league is the store gets “brownie points” for having league. I searched on websites and can’t find rulings on classes not allowed, like artificer. My impression was phb+1 if the +1 is ebberon or wildemount or acquisitions then that’s fine, is that not correct?
It is not. The +1 still has to be chosen from the allowed sources. Wildemount and Acquisitions are not allowed sources -- nor are the Magic the Gathering sourcebooks (Ravnica and Theros). Eberron is only allowed in the Eberron AL settings ("Wayfinder's Guide" in "Embers of the Last War" or "Rising from the Last War" in "Oracle of War").
You should refer to the Adventurer's League Player's Guides in the AL Player and DM Pack.
EDIT: I'm honestly surprised there's still any benefit to the store for running AL other than having the potential customers in the store.
Okay. I give up. Four completely ignored reports of thread necromancy later, it's obvious that DDB's policy of "we enforce thread necromancy rules basically only if we feel like it" strikes again.
The artificer is not AL legal because literally ******* nothing is AL legal. Dungeons and Dragons is not AL legal. Local game stores are not AL legal. You are not AL legal. AL exists specifically to tell you that your fun is wrong and also not legal and you shouldn't be having it. End of discussion. Move on, maybe?
Please do not contact or message me.
In fairness to Dementoid, I don't think the thread ever left the first page.
The post before theirs was made back in November - this thread would've been on the very last (16th) page of the forum.
Ah, you're right. I misread the sorting.
Thanks Hamsterkill! I realize I missed an update on those docs at some point.
can I use Eberron: Rising from the Last War as +1 reference book in AL so that I can play Warforged Artificer?
F it, I don't want to join any AL, it S
Well, personally I think that the artificer should be allowed in al because technically the arcane firearm is a spellcasting focus, and the eldritch cannon could be considered magic because it dissapears after an hour.
this is entirely false Their is entire companies inside the world just for making guns
I'm not sure exactly when spell jammer came out but I've been playing for months now weekly at a store and people come in with spell jammer characters that flavor tons of stuff as being space guns like a laser blaster pistol for eldritch blast, this stuff already exists