Okay, with the release of Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes, we'll now have classes, races, feats and spells spread out across 5+ different sources. Quite frankly, the PHB+1 rule is really starting to rankle. Has anyone heard whether or not Wizards has any plans to do away with that worthless rule? Aside from its, at times, stiffing limitation on creativity, it makes obvious race/class combinations impossible!
Want to play a Svirfneblin Deep Stalker? Despite how obvious that sounds, no dice. Want to play a Triton Storm Sorcerer? Clearly a lifetime underwater would in no way lead itself to control over storms. Want to play a Aasimar Zealot? Nope, despite being half god, you're not allowed to be that devoted to said god. Want your Necromancer to be able to cast Toll of the Dead? Then I REALLY hope you didn't pick a race out of Volo's Guide to Monsters. And don't even get me started on how limiting this makes playing a Genasi!
Please, Wizards, I completely understand why you created the PHB+1 rule, but its time to be done with it. We GM's know what we're getting into, we're prepared to sometimes not know a rule. You're needlessly limiting our creativity and its time for that to be at an end.
Also, if you're going to insist that some races aren't allowed to join certain factions, then you should add in some class based exceptions. The idea that my goblin druid can't be a member of the Emerald Enclave is just silly.
I'm fine with the PHB+1 rule. I'm sure there are some stupidly broken combinations that WoTC doesn't want to think about and didn't even consider when producing this material.
I don't like that PHB+1 leads to material being reprinted in new books. I would rather get new new material. Still, it is a sort of work around to the restriction of PHB+1 without fully opening the floodgates.
I don't think PHB+1 is going anywhere. If WoTC starts using the XGtE rules for organized play, which the evidence seems to point to, there's a big section in there all about PHB+1.
There was a video posted up on the FB group from Garycon (or whatever con just happened) with Greg Marks and Mike Mearls. This question came up, and they both said it's not going away. The +1 rule is there to allow consistency between tables. Remember, a large portion of AL is so that you can take your character from DM to DM and they know you aren't going to break out the super OP flavour of the month.
Want to do all those things? Sure you can! But it would not be legal in AL.
Yeah, that's the kinda rule that starts out a good idea but gets worse as time goes on. Imagine when there are 10 splatbooks. If you own all 10, imagine having to only grab your race, class, etc. from one! Not to mention that 10 is a pretty conservative estimate (3e had like, 30-ish, at least) I get that the rule is to avoid 3e-style min-maxing, but come on. I'd recommend other rules, such as:
1. PHB +2, or more when more books start to come out.
2. Just ban min-maxing. Say it's not allowed. Include a description of Min-Maxing so that newb DMs don't get confused.
3. Literally anything else.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
For god's sake. Find a hobby or something. Sheesh. Please stop using this font.
I understand the intent behind PH+1, but the way content is distributed across books is really skewed so it's super disappointing they don't acknowledge the problem. Volo's only has races, Xanathar's has no races but has a ton of subclasses/feats/spells. SCAG's main thing is 3 cantrips.
So far there hasn't been a "super OP flavor of the month" other than Healing Spirit, which the PH+1 rule does nothing to stop. It's not unreasonable to want to pick a Volo's/EE race with a XGTE subclass.
It'd be nice if they expanded the rule to PH+2 or PH+XGTE+1.
I understand the intent behind PH+1, but the way content is distributed across books is really skewed so it's super disappointing they don't acknowledge the problem. Volo's only has races, Xanathar's has no races but has a ton of subclasses/feats/spells. SCAG's main thing is 3 cantrips.
So far there hasn't been a "super OP flavor of the month" other than Healing Spirit, which the PH+1 rule does nothing to stop. It's not unreasonable to want to pick a Volo's/EE race with a XGTE subclass.
It'd be nice if they expanded the rule to PH+2 or PH+XGTE+1.
Remember: Xanathar's does allow the Tortle as a race option.
I think your suggestions are reasonable. Don't open the whole floodgate, but PHB+XGTE+1 would add a lot of variety while maybe maintaining some degree of control. On the other hand, PHB+XGTE+1 almost allows every race and class option. It's something that I hope (and believe) they would do a lot of testing on before they allow anything else. And I think WoTC does consider what combinations they are comfortable with allowing when deciding what player options to reprint in new texts.
And its not like stupidly OP combos don't exist WITHIN the PHB+1 rule. Human Fighter with the feats Crossbow Expert and Shapshooter basically gives you a 1handed minigun at level 4, especially if you went Battle Master and that one doesn't even touch the +1.
Its just weird that Wizards are such sticklers for this rule while being so hands off for just about everything else in AL.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Just because you arbitrarily assign some sort of significance to the bodies of your dead doesn't make me not hungry.
Wizards has a very deliberate release schedule. From all indications, that seems to be based on lessons learned from the release schedules from 2e and 3e. They don't want a large amount of content. They want to put out a small number of books per year, ideally have every player buy every book, and have every book be usable with an immediate impact.
PHB+1 is an extension of that. It facilitates the immediate impact of the books. It's not about power levels at all. It's about how the game is printed, marketed, and distributed.
Wizards has a very deliberate release schedule. From all indications, that seems to be based on lessons learned from the release schedules from 2e and 3e. They don't want a large amount of content. They want to put out a small number of books per year, ideally have every player buy every book, and have every book be usable with an immediate impact.
PHB+1 is an extension of that. It facilitates the immediate impact of the books. It's not about power levels at all. It's about how the game is printed, marketed, and distributed.
I don't follow your argument. I agree wholly with your first paragraph, but don't see how it supports your second in any way. Please elaborate. Specifically, how does PHB+1 facilitate the immediate impact of the books in a way that not having PHB+1 would?
From a different perspective PHB+2 is just as "forward" looking as PHB+1. PHB+2 means you could take the new book as a +1 and something else as the other +1. I'm not wholly in favor of changing the rule, but I don't think changing it would necessarily mean that people won't buy the new book.
PHB+1 is an extension of that. It facilitates the immediate impact of the books. It's not about power levels at all. It's about how the game is printed, marketed, and distributed.
They already have the AL seasons, Dragon Talk, Critical Role and the DDB videos to shine a spotlight on the latest book. The effect the PH + 1 rule has on book sales is probably minimal.
PHB+2 means you could take the new book as a +1 and something else as the other +1.
Your own statement explains it. Replaced the phrase "something else" with an actual descriptor.
Okay, but by that argument you could say the PHB part of PHB+1 is backwards looking.
I see Hybridfive's point and recognize PHB as the baseline (the consistent thread through all characters). I don't have an issue with PHB+1. I've seen where it benefits new players where they feel thrilled to be able to pick up the latest book, and have all they need (along with the PHB) to keep them on par with other characters. It becomes limiting only as you start collecting books and want to do more thematic combinations of these. These players may then drift out of AL to start playing in (or running their own) home games.
It could be that PHB+1 might cause a slow decline in AL participation as players move to home games where they can better use all options. I'm not sure if we've seen that yet (AL is strong and growing around here). But I don't see it hurting the industry or the popularity of the edition as a whole. On the contrary, I think it provides an easier entry point for players - especially those using AL as a gateway into the hobby.
PHB+2 means you could take the new book as a +1 and something else as the other +1.
Your own statement explains it. Replaced the phrase "something else" with an actual descriptor.
Okay, but by that argument you could say the PHB part of PHB+1 is backwards looking.
I see Hybridfive's point and recognize PHB as the baseline (the consistent thread through all characters). I don't have an issue with PHB+1. I've seen where it benefits new players where they feel thrilled to be able to pick up the latest book, and have all they need (along with the PHB) to keep them on par with other characters. It becomes limiting only as you start collecting books and want to do more thematic combinations of these. These players may then drift out of AL to start playing in (or running their own) home games.
It could be that PHB+1 might cause a slow decline in AL participation as players move to home games where they can better use all options. I'm not sure if we've seen that yet (AL is strong and growing around here). But I don't see it hurting the industry or the popularity of the edition as a whole. On the contrary, I think it provides an easier entry point for players - especially those using AL as a gateway into the hobby.
You make a good point. PHB+1 certainly lowers the barrier of entry by making it so that competitively-powered characters can be made without having to buy all the books.
As more books are released, PHB+1 becomes more important (based on the design philosophy behind it), not less. Nobody feels they have"to have a whole stack of books to create a character with a power level on par with others. Too many AL players already consider it "disruptive" if other characters aren't minmaxed, and removing PHB+1 would only make that worse.
On the flipside, PHB+1 not only limits the minmaxers, but it also limits the roleplayers who want interesting thematic combos. It can be seen as a loss for all involved. If someone wants to minmax and only cares about the rules, PHB+1 doesn't really slow him down, as there are quite a few builds that could be considered overpowered compared to the baseline.
The only true advantage I can see would be to simplify things for DMs, but quite frankly it feels like overkill. Any DM worth his salt will be familiar with all the major sourcebooks, and anyone investigating logsheets and character builds of a specific player needs to be damn experienced with the rules already in order to spot any inconsistencies.
To me PHB+1 feels like a useless limitation that brings more harm than good to AL.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Okay, with the release of Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes, we'll now have classes, races, feats and spells spread out across 5+ different sources. Quite frankly, the PHB+1 rule is really starting to rankle. Has anyone heard whether or not Wizards has any plans to do away with that worthless rule? Aside from its, at times, stiffing limitation on creativity, it makes obvious race/class combinations impossible!
Want to play a Svirfneblin Deep Stalker? Despite how obvious that sounds, no dice.
Want to play a Triton Storm Sorcerer? Clearly a lifetime underwater would in no way lead itself to control over storms.
Want to play a Aasimar Zealot? Nope, despite being half god, you're not allowed to be that devoted to said god.
Want your Necromancer to be able to cast Toll of the Dead? Then I REALLY hope you didn't pick a race out of Volo's Guide to Monsters.
And don't even get me started on how limiting this makes playing a Genasi!
Please, Wizards, I completely understand why you created the PHB+1 rule, but its time to be done with it. We GM's know what we're getting into, we're prepared to sometimes not know a rule. You're needlessly limiting our creativity and its time for that to be at an end.
Also, if you're going to insist that some races aren't allowed to join certain factions, then you should add in some class based exceptions. The idea that my goblin druid can't be a member of the Emerald Enclave is just silly.
Just because you arbitrarily assign some sort of significance to the bodies of your dead doesn't make me not hungry.
WotC have said there are changes coming to AL play rules later this year.
I expect not until later in the year though, as they won't want to change the rules during an AL season.
Pun-loving nerd | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
I'm fine with the PHB+1 rule. I'm sure there are some stupidly broken combinations that WoTC doesn't want to think about and didn't even consider when producing this material.
I don't like that PHB+1 leads to material being reprinted in new books. I would rather get new new material. Still, it is a sort of work around to the restriction of PHB+1 without fully opening the floodgates.
I don't think PHB+1 is going anywhere. If WoTC starts using the XGtE rules for organized play, which the evidence seems to point to, there's a big section in there all about PHB+1.
There was a video posted up on the FB group from Garycon (or whatever con just happened) with Greg Marks and Mike Mearls. This question came up, and they both said it's not going away. The +1 rule is there to allow consistency between tables. Remember, a large portion of AL is so that you can take your character from DM to DM and they know you aren't going to break out the super OP flavour of the month.
Want to do all those things? Sure you can! But it would not be legal in AL.
Site Rules & Guidelines || How to Tooltip || Contact Support || Changelog || Pricing FAQ || Homebrew FAQ
If you have questions/concerns, please Private Message me or another moderator.
Wary the wizard who focuses on homebrew, for he can create nightmares that you wouldn't even dream of
Yeah, that's the kinda rule that starts out a good idea but gets worse as time goes on. Imagine when there are 10 splatbooks. If you own all 10, imagine having to only grab your race, class, etc. from one! Not to mention that 10 is a pretty conservative estimate (3e had like, 30-ish, at least) I get that the rule is to avoid 3e-style min-maxing, but come on. I'd recommend other rules, such as:
1. PHB +2, or more when more books start to come out.
2. Just ban min-maxing. Say it's not allowed. Include a description of Min-Maxing so that newb DMs don't get confused.
3. Literally anything else.
I understand the intent behind PH+1, but the way content is distributed across books is really skewed so it's super disappointing they don't acknowledge the problem. Volo's only has races, Xanathar's has no races but has a ton of subclasses/feats/spells. SCAG's main thing is 3 cantrips.
So far there hasn't been a "super OP flavor of the month" other than Healing Spirit, which the PH+1 rule does nothing to stop. It's not unreasonable to want to pick a Volo's/EE race with a XGTE subclass.
It'd be nice if they expanded the rule to PH+2 or PH+XGTE+1.
And its not like stupidly OP combos don't exist WITHIN the PHB+1 rule. Human Fighter with the feats Crossbow Expert and Shapshooter basically gives you a 1handed minigun at level 4, especially if you went Battle Master and that one doesn't even touch the +1.
Its just weird that Wizards are such sticklers for this rule while being so hands off for just about everything else in AL.
Just because you arbitrarily assign some sort of significance to the bodies of your dead doesn't make me not hungry.
Wizards has a very deliberate release schedule. From all indications, that seems to be based on lessons learned from the release schedules from 2e and 3e. They don't want a large amount of content. They want to put out a small number of books per year, ideally have every player buy every book, and have every book be usable with an immediate impact.
PHB+1 is an extension of that. It facilitates the immediate impact of the books. It's not about power levels at all. It's about how the game is printed, marketed, and distributed.
Because PHB+2 is backward looking.
How about PHB + All major Expansions (Like Xanathar's) + 1?
Okay, but by that argument you could say the PHB part of PHB+1 is backwards looking.
It could be that PHB+1 might cause a slow decline in AL participation as players move to home games where they can better use all options. I'm not sure if we've seen that yet (AL is strong and growing around here). But I don't see it hurting the industry or the popularity of the edition as a whole. On the contrary, I think it provides an easier entry point for players - especially those using AL as a gateway into the hobby.
As more books are released, PHB+1 becomes more important (based on the design philosophy behind it), not less. Nobody feels they have"to have a whole stack of books to create a character with a power level on par with others. Too many AL players already consider it "disruptive" if other characters aren't minmaxed, and removing PHB+1 would only make that worse.
On the flipside, PHB+1 not only limits the minmaxers, but it also limits the roleplayers who want interesting thematic combos. It can be seen as a loss for all involved. If someone wants to minmax and only cares about the rules, PHB+1 doesn't really slow him down, as there are quite a few builds that could be considered overpowered compared to the baseline.
The only true advantage I can see would be to simplify things for DMs, but quite frankly it feels like overkill. Any DM worth his salt will be familiar with all the major sourcebooks, and anyone investigating logsheets and character builds of a specific player needs to be damn experienced with the rules already in order to spot any inconsistencies.
To me PHB+1 feels like a useless limitation that brings more harm than good to AL.