With 500gp you can easily purchase a lvl4 spell scroll by yourself, or a lvl5 spell scroll with the aid of one other character. Spell scrolls do not exist above lvl5. Also, scribing a scroll only costs 50gp/spell lvl, so you can still scribe a lvl9 spell from a captured spellbook at 450gp without issue. So it might take a couple games to buy and scribe a spell, but there would effectively be no limit, assuming you can find a spellbook for spells above 6th lvl. This permits wizards (currently the most penalized class) to continue growing.
The most expensive item you can actually purchase in-game is 1000gp (spyglass & water clock iirc, as you could loot that 1500gp plate armor with these changes), which a party of 3 could easily pitch in for if they see any real need. More expensive things in AL, such as galleys or castles are typically have no mechanical benefit (and can just be written in as backstory fluff for the character) and are generally unavailable for purchase anyways.
Essentially, instead of having to constantly recalculate how much gold you've earned over your career, how much of that you could actually have kept, and how much of that you've actually spent over the course of your adventures (which will at some point run out), all you have to know is how much you have on hand and how much you can carry. And when you can easily earn back up to this limit, group purchases would become much more attractive for those critical items that might only be able to remain with one character. The amounts listed for each Tier are primarily based on the cost of spell scrolls (which are among the more expensive consumables) for this reason.
Overall, this permits characters to continue playing through content at any given tier until all content is exhausted for that tier instead of having to advance tier or retire the character early because they've run out of gold, as it would be a renewable resource.
Except you have not considered the cost of material components for spells that far exceed the 500gp limit you are suggesting.
Forcecage requires a 1500gp ruby.
Sequester requires 5000gp saphire dust.
Ressurection requires a 1000gp diamond
Reincarnate requires 1000gp of components
True Ressurection requires 25,000gp of diamonds
Symbol requires 1000gp of components
Simulacrum requires 1500gp of components (and I can't tell you how many tier 3/4 casters I have seen with this one in AL)
Planar Binding 1000gp
No caster could afford any of these if they are always restricted to the 500gp limit you suggest ... and before suggesting no one does this anyway, personally, I've bought rubies for forcecage on at least one character for AL play.
I'm not a fan of that proposed rule either. I don't think it actually solves any problems. Players will just store their funds in stuff other than gold and accept the 50% loss when they sell it. I actually didn't see any problems in actual play in season 6-7 rules regarding gold, but maybe there were a few bad apples that spoiled it for everybody.
I do like some of those other proposed rules though.
In season 7 and earlier, its not so much individuals as the modules are very uneven in terms of gold resources awarded which in turn allows characters that run that content to purchase armor and as many potions/scrolls as their bag of holding or portable hole could contain. This makes two characters that are taken to a convention very different depending on the content played. The gold limit helps prevent this kind of "unfairness".
I played White Plume Mountain in AL in season 7 with a level 8 bard and walked out with 3 magic items and over 10,000 gold from playing just the one AL legal tier 2 module from TfYP. On the other hand, folks playing a typical season 7 tier 2 AL mod would earn 1650 to 3800gp divided between up to 7 players ... or ~200gp to ~500gp. My character earned 20 times that in perhaps twice the required play time (never mind the really good magic items).
I understand from experience why the gold limits were needed though I do think they are too stringent for wizards and other casters who have expensive material component requirements.
Disclaimer: These are all my personal opinions, so you are welcome to disagree, but please be respectful of myself and others. That said, I hope to sum up and respond to concerns brought up in the discussion of my suggestions.
1 - 50/50 split for open race selection. No surprise. But the biggest counter pointed to the Yuanti cantrips and magic resistance. Cantrips are specifically designed to be sub-optimal, and Gnomes already have magic resistance against Wis, Int, and Cha saves and this is not a problem, so I fail to see the issue. The Goblin's Nimble escape (BA disengage or hide) seems more OP to me when combined with any stealth class, such as a basic rogue from the PHB.
Flight, on the other hand is trickier, so I can see holdouts on that issue as a fair opinion.
2 - Rules clarification isn't likely. True, but it should still be mentioned.
3 - People seem to think there is no issue with not having tiers be outlined in the AL rules, as there is always someone at the table to clarify.
But thing is, I am a veteran of D&D but relatively recent to AL, and while I mostly have it memorized by now, it took several months of constantly looking it up online exactly because that info IS NOT in the AL player's guide. Furthermore, not having that info from the get-go made understanding all of the tier gold per level charts, renown benefits, etc really difficult to understand, something which can be quickly solved for other new players by adding a simple chart or modifying one of the existing ones to include this information.
4 - This is controversial, as no one wants to give up gold. but to attempt to clarify and appease some individuals:
I see no reason why you couldn't buy mundane equipment between sessions, as you can currently. Doing so does not require DM intervention or supervision of any kind. If you have the gold, buy it.
Potions of invisibility and supreme healing would admittedly be difficult, if not impossible, to obtain outside of treasure hoards. But as it stands, they can't even be afforded outside of T4, and even then the 5K cost means that you can only purchase a total of 5 over the course of your entire adventuring career, assuming that you saved up exclusively for this purpose (which most people do not).
This also applies to the few spells with components over 5K (components up to 2K can generally be purchased by splitting cost with a party of friendly adventurers, assuming you can show them the benefit). This specifically includes the following: Leomund's Secret Chest (lvl4, 5K gp reusable), Sequester (lvl7, 5K gp consumed), Gate (lvl9, 5K gp reusable), and True Resurrection (lvl9, 25K gp consumed). In fact, it takes all but 4K of your lifetime earnings for a lvl20 character to afford the (consumed) material components for True Resurrection (when a PC could just sacrifice a magic item or have another player cast a 7th lvl Resurrection on a them for 1K instead, split among the party if they deem it to be worth the cost).
Due to this cost, I have never (and doubt that I will ever) see an AL character use one of these spells. Therefore, this is a non-issue currently, and you would not have to keep track of not only how much you've earned (maths), but how much you CAN earn based on you level (more maths), AND how much you've spent (even more maths); you just have to know how much you can carry (based on tier) and what you currently have on hand.
As for the Revivify spell example, there is no reason you could not purchase the spell scroll one session, scribe it by the end of the next, and purchase the components in a thirs session to have on hand, just in case. You would just have to list "components for Revivify" as a gear item on you inventory list and decide if you wanted to take them with you into the module as one of your consumables. Furthermore, once you have used those components (or perhaps just to have an extra set for an emergency) you could purchase more of them in subsequent play sessions, as you will never hit a hard spending cap, which is what the current rule set imposes with the lifetime earnings limit. Yes, it prolongs the prep time, but you can still use this spell and others like it at appropriate tiers.
5 - While you can BUILD any class to perform any role, alchemist fire can make a blaster out of a support build (such as a heal-and-buff focused cleric) and potions of healing can make healers out of a striker (such as a pure damage rogue). Being able to bring up a companion 4+ times in a battle with a potion is a big deal for overall party action economy, and it preserves the spellcasters slots for something other than healing. Also, this is a limit on consumables taken into a module (NOT on how many you can own and leave behind), and serves to limit this abuse which can be a huge aspect in modules that focus on resource drain, of which I find there are quite a few.
6 - While I agree that a Bag of Holding (biggest gripe apparently) will not really increase your gear capacity, it can come in handy if you need to hold on to that locked chest you found until you have time to find the key or bust it open, since your rogue managed to break his picks trying to open it.
Simply put, these items add utility and flavor (driftglobe = source of light, cap of water breathing = aquatic exploration, Rope of Climbing = self-hoisting and self-tying rope, efficient quiver = simple weapon storage [especially javelins and polearms], bag of holding = transport of "oversized" goods), but do not significantly affect most games. Therefore, this option simply reduces the penalty (using a consumable slot instead of a magic item slot) for selecting one of these items.
If I'm being honest, I'd actually add items to this list, such as: Alchemy Jug, Eyes of Minute Seeing, Immovable Rod, Mask of the Beast, and Robe of Useful Items. But better to start small with such a new idea.
7 - Not much pushback here, but to cover my bases: Most weapons, light and medium armors are easily purchasable by T2. With the current system (and hoarding all earned gold) you cannot purchase the best medium or heavy armors until late T2, early T3. This was, according to WotC and AL, intentional.
However, as my system restricts the amount of gold you can carry, you may not be able to purchase these higher-tier items at their intended landmarks, so I have simply added them to the list of treasure you can claim from an adventure of an appropriate tier without spending gold. Also, unless they are inherently magical, they still would not count against your magic item limit, even though they may be an upgrade to your existing equipment.
8 - Most comments are either in favor of this or requesting a complete removal of magic item limits. However, even though I would add a "bank" of items not in use for each character, I still think that item limits are a valid restriction to prevent every character from eventually having every item under the sun.
In addition to balance issues I won't go into here, people in real life rarely have more than a few exceptional items they own or carry with them in daily life, so I see no need to remove this restriction altogether, merely to modify it for more versatility.
9 - Additional/upgraded equipment was largely a bust, and for one rather valid reason: "It's an adventure, go out and find it."
That said, I still think that there should be an option to gain a +1 Ring of Protection at T3, as certain builds simply require it to remain defensive at higher tiers (Moon Druid, unarmored defense Barbarian, pure wizard/sorcerer, etc), and it can be depressing to either be forced to go without (unless you can have someone run the exact module for you) or forced to take the Faction Agent background instead of one more suited to the character concept.
However, by pushing this to T3 and specifically excluding the other specialty rings for each faction, I hope this suggested change will still maintain the flavor and benefit of that background feature. Only implementing this change would tell if this would actually be the case, but I can still suggest it and hope.
10 - Biggest rebuttals: Why more than one healing potion? Don't you have a stockpile?
To the first: When T1 gets a potion for 2d4+2, and T4 gets a potion for 8d4+8, why should T2 be restricted to the same as T1 and why should T3 go completely without a renewable healing option?
Two potions of healing (2d4+2) would permit you to raise a fallen companion twice (using up two actions), but only amounts to 4d4+4 healing. This is equivalent to a single potion of greater healing, but requires one more action to use. This means that, unless a companion has fallen, it is not generally in your interest to use this in battle. But if a friend has taken a dirt nap, being able to bring them up (especially if they are the party healer) can be the difference between survival or a TPK.
To the second: With consumables (such as potions and alchemical items) divided between characters each module, most modules only providing 1-2 each session (divided between 3-7 players), and many of those same modules running on resource depletion mechanics (forcing you to often use those same potions); No, I do not have a stockpile. And I'd rather be able to restore some of my consumables each session with my renown benefits instead of being forced to use my limited gold, as I may have better things to buy with my gold (scrolls, components, etc).
11 - Only real comment was: "imo, downtime is kinda broke and that isn't going to fix it."
In large part, I agree, and this is probably a patch at best. But if we are being honest, aside from "catching up", downtime in AL is essentially pointless, as the most common downtime activity (scribing spells) costs a pittance.
I'd rather see it done away with altogether, but certain activities, such as escaping Barovia in the CoS setting and certain story rewards in other settings, do rely on this mechanic to force players to remain in these settings for a minimum number of game sessions before gaining certain benefits (or lifting restrictions, as is the case with CoS). Not that I'm fond of those mechanics either, but you cannot do away with one without doing away with all of them, which becomes a bigger mess to deal with. So this is my best shot at improving it.
12 - Under the current rules, even if you have given away all of your magic items to be resurrected and have a temp limit of zero, you can still be resurrected so long as at least one party member survives the encounter (running away and recovering what's left of the bodies later still counts). That means that the only way for a character to die permanently is to either be stuck in a module running meat-grinder mode, or to suffer a TPK scenario (no one could even run).
THIS. IS. HUGE.
However, being stuck at any tier (above T1 at least) without any magic items and no hope of recovering them is depressing, not to mention severely sub-optimal in T3-T4. And currently, the only way to remove this penalty is to advance a tier, at which point all lost magic item slots are restored, but without the lost items. As some people build characters for play at specific tiers, forcing them to advance or retire the character and rebuild the concept from scratch can also be depressing.
My suggestion here simply provides an alternate method of restoring lost item slots. While this may begin a cycle of death, magic item loss, slot restoration, and replacing lost treasures, rinse and repeat; this does not prevent character death or permit characters from being resurrected infinitely. This does permit characters to continue adventuring effectively at their tier until they have run out of new content for that character, which is just another way of extending the time a player can spend actually enjoying the game instead of struggling to keep up.
To sum up: I like that many of you seem to have actually been thinking about these suggestions and providing your opinions on them, to whatever effect, in this thread and others. I also hope that these responses have eased some of your concerns, even if you do not ultimately agree with my logic behind them.
If you have any concerns on these suggestions, or possible improvements or additions to them, I would be more than happy to address them.
One reply for me about gold, you seem to be basing the concept of gold and that players can't afford stuff strictly on season 9 rules. I.E. No one can ever afford a X or they at most can afford 4 in the life of their character etc.
I am sure a lot of people still play pre-season 9 characters who may have that much gold on hand. It's not like when a new season comes out everyone just gives up on their old characters. If my regular game is cancelled one week I will try and find an opening at a different table and bring an appropriate level character to the table that week.
There are also some players that don't stop playing a character when it hits level 20. Some people like the epic high level adventures and those characters should be able to continue accumulating gold even if they are unable to gain new class features.
The gold limits in season 9 have been almost universally disliked and considered far to stingy on gold. When you point to them as an example of why your suggestions around gold are equivalent or no one could buy X anyway. If the majority of players want more gold and your rules actually result in preventing stuff that was available before it doesn't come across as an improvement from a player perspective.
3 - People seem to think there is no issue with not having tiers be outlined in the AL rules, as there is always someone at the table to clarify.
But thing is, I am a veteran of D&D but relatively recent to AL, and while I mostly have it memorized by now, it took several months of constantly looking it up online exactly because that info IS NOT in the AL player's guide. Furthermore, not having that info from the get-go made understanding all of the tier gold per level charts, renown benefits, etc really difficult to understand, something which can be quickly solved for other new players by adding a simple chart or modifying one of the existing ones to include this information.
I'll just address this one for now.
PHB p15 "TIERS OF PLAY"
There is a complete description including a table in the PHB. It is NOT an AL rule. It is part of the basic 5e D&D rules. AL doesn't repeat rules from the 5e sources, AL only mentions the changes from these sources that might be different for AL. This is also why there is usually someone at the table who knows it ... not because they have read something related to AL but because they have read the PHB.
The information is readily available in the primary player resource for playing D&D which most players can be expected to have available. Tiers of play are a fundamental element of 5e that is fully defined in the detail you are looking for in the PHB - it isn't something AL should be repeating. Should they add a question to the FAQ? "What are tiers? See PHB p15" ?
Yes, I am focusing mostly on Season 9 gold rules, though I have read through the season 7 and 8 rules (and conversions) as well. The reason I do this is primarily because this is also the direction AL as a whole has been taking, with gold limits being enacted seemingly for the very purpose of discouraging potentially OP spells.
Now, to be fair, I am most familiar with the season 9 rules, and was under the impression that, given the wording of the conversion sheets (S7 = "your current gold remains the same" / S8 = "treasure checkpoints are removed", ie, the way you earned gold in S8), that any new earnings would have to match the newer system. While this may be incorrect, this interpretation would imply: Once a pre-season 9 character has reached the season 9 gold limit (even if this occurs because they had started out with more gold than that limit from an earlier season), they cannot earn any more gold, and will eventually run out.
Again, I admit that this may be a false interpretation, but have not found anything concrete on the issue, so please direct me to something from WotC or AL developers/admins if this is the case.
However, until then, this interpretation would mean that eventually all characters would risk running out of gold under the current rules, which in turn makes those same expensive spell components (at least the consumed ones) undesirable at some point. In this case, my suggested renewable gold carry limit would still be preferable.
Assuming that I am incorrect, considering the comparatively high cost in terms of current lifetime earnings limits (which effectively places these spells out of reach for S9 characters as it stands), this would still be an improvement on the current S9 rules.
In either case, when using the current S9 rules for resurrection (which all characters have access to regardless of seasonality), these spells generally have much more economical alternatives available: Secret Chest can generally be substituted with a bag of holding, as it can't be stolen under AL RAW anyway; Sequester can be substituted with a combination of Feign Death and Non-detection; Gate is covered by Plane Shift; and True Resurrection is covered by Resurrection, Raise Dead, and optional magic item loss.
To top it off, Wish (no material component) can be used to simulate any of these spells except Gate and True Resurrection, for which it can summon the material component as an included effect (object of up to 25K gp in value that isn't a magic item), circumventing all of these restrictions. Yes, this cheeses the mechanics a bit, but I honestly think (my opinion) that the only reason to use any of these spells is if you absolutely must have that extended duration or flavor.
Disclaimer: These are all my personal opinions, so you are welcome to disagree, but please be respectful of myself and others. That said, I hope to sum up and respond to concerns brought up in the discussion of my suggestions.
4 - This is controversial, as no one wants to give up gold. but to attempt to clarify and appease some individuals:
I see no reason why you couldn't buy mundane equipment between sessions, as you can currently. Doing so does not require DM intervention or supervision of any kind. If you have the gold, buy it.
Potions of invisibility and supreme healing would admittedly be difficult, if not impossible, to obtain outside of treasure hoards. But as it stands, they can't even be afforded outside of T4, and even then the 5K cost means that you can only purchase a total of 5 over the course of your entire adventuring career, assuming that you saved up exclusively for this purpose (which most people do not).
This also applies to the few spells with components over 5K (components up to 2K can generally be purchased by splitting cost with a party of friendly adventurers, assuming you can show them the benefit). This specifically includes the following: Leomund's Secret Chest (lvl4, 5K gp reusable), Sequester (lvl7, 5K gp consumed), Gate (lvl9, 5K gp reusable), and True Resurrection (lvl9, 25K gp consumed). In fact, it takes all but 4K of your lifetime earnings for a lvl20 character to afford the (consumed) material components for True Resurrection (when a PC could just sacrifice a magic item or have another player cast a 7th lvl Resurrection on a them for 1K instead, split among the party if they deem it to be worth the cost).
Due to this cost, I have never (and doubt that I will ever) see an AL character use one of these spells. Therefore, this is a non-issue currently, and you would not have to keep track of not only how much you've earned (maths), but how much you CAN earn based on you level (more maths), AND how much you've spent (even more maths); you just have to know how much you can carry (based on tier) and what you currently have on hand.
As for the Revivify spell example, there is no reason you could not purchase the spell scroll one session, scribe it by the end of the next, and purchase the components in a thirs session to have on hand, just in case. You would just have to list "components for Revivify" as a gear item on you inventory list and decide if you wanted to take them with you into the module as one of your consumables. Furthermore, once you have used those components (or perhaps just to have an extra set for an emergency) you could purchase more of them in subsequent play sessions, as you will never hit a hard spending cap, which is what the current rule set imposes with the lifetime earnings limit. Yes, it prolongs the prep time, but you can still use this spell and others like it at appropriate tiers.
1) You can continue to play tier 4 as long as you want with your level 20 characters. They earn downtime and gold as rewards, as well as magic item options. They can continue to play indefinitely if they want collecting as much gold as they want. Thus any limits on gold makes it far less fun for these folks to play their characters since they will have significantly reduced rewards for play just for hitting level 20 ... not getting more levels is a sufficient penalty.
2) "components up to 2K can generally be purchased by splitting cost with a party of friendly adventurers, assuming you can show them the benefit" ... absolutely not true. You can't purchase a material component for a spell in the middle of an adventure. You can't suddenly break into a discussion of "Hey will you guys help me pay for this material component if I cast this spell?". Forcecage is a very useful spell that has a 1500 gp ruby material cost. In addition, this is AL, you may be playing at a table of strangers who have no interest in giving up 300gp so the wizard can cast forcecage making the encounter easier. MAYBE ... the players might decide to contribute to costs afterward but who knows.
In fact, from the AL PG ... the actual allowed contributions to other players are extremely limited:
"Currency and equipment can’t be given to another character, but: • Equipment and consumable items can be lent to other characters at your table but must return it at the end of the session (unless it’s been consumed). • Permanent magic items can be traded (see below). • Characters can choose to divide the cost of NPC spellcasting services obtained during an adventure."
So, stricly based on this, you can lend equipment and consumable items but the table can't split the cost though a friendly DM might allow it if everyone wanted to do so ... it probably isn't strictly in line with the AL ruleset though. However, if the consumable is used during the adventure it is a fair way to prevent the cost falling on one player which is why a DM might allow it. A character certainly can't permanently give another character anything including spell material components so the group could not buy a material component at the beginning that someone could keep at the end.
3) Perhaps we have different experiences, but I have seen spells with expensive material components cast. I also don't see the point behind an extremely low gold allowed limit that effectively prevents these spells from being cast if someone wants to do so. Not everyone is limited to season 8 or 9 characters and by imposing such a limit are you saying that the season 5,6,7 character with 50,000gp has to lose all their treasure? Sorry, that idea will never fly. (I have season 7 characters with over 10-15k gp ... so I don't doubt that there are characters with far more.)
4) Revivify is a cleric spell. They don't need to scribe it, just prepare it. However, they might have to spend several sessions acquiring sufficient gold to cast it more than once.
Anyway, I agree that the gold limitations in season 9 are still too onerous for some classes - especially wizards and clerics with scribing costs and expensive material components. However, I disagree that the system you describe would be a good solution to the issues.
1 - Under the current rules for season 9, once you have reached a max earnings per level for each level, you cease to earn any more gold. True, this resets once you hit lvl20, but this does nothing to assist lower tier characters who wish to remain at those tiers of play (perhaps they were optimized for that). T4 characters also have an option to reset any lost item slots due to resurrection costs after two adventures.
My system, while admittedly not perfect, still permits lower tier characters to continue earning (and replace lost magic item slots), without being forced to advance tier if they do not want to. While I would understand if you wished to increase my proposed carry limits to more closely match the current max earnings limits for lower tiers, I still think that carry limits are more flexible than the current system at those levels of play.
2 - I would argue that the purchase of spell components may be counted under the "NPC spellcasting services", as it is something you would purchase from an NPC, but this is largely left open for DM interpretation.
That stated, in my experience (aside from online play), most communities consist of a few dozen players who get to know each other fairly well. In these cases, when asking for assistance with a renewable resource, I have rarely seen someone refuse to assist when they have the means and are likely to see a benefit, even if it should come in later sessions. As for online play in this scenario, longer campaigns, such as hardcovers, often have people playing togeter for extended periods, in which case splitting party costs becomes a distinct party advantage.
As such, between the two scenarios, I do not think that a request for such aid from another player should be as quickly discounted as you seem to believe. But this is necessarily widely subject to individual play experience and personal opinion.
3 - I think I addressed this in my preious post, but to summarize, there are ways around this limitation on available spell components, especially when you factor in the Wish spell. But even then, most of those spells which would become more restricted already have more economical alternatives, so I see no reason you would ever require them unless you absolutely must have the extended duration or flavor.
4 - You are correct that Revivify is a cleric spell, so scribing is not neccessary (my mistake), but this would not mean that they might not purchase a scroll to have just in case, opening up that prepared spell slot for something else.
As for having to spend several sessions collecting materials, I don't think any party wants to resort to this spell any more than necessary, so I don;t think this would be an issue in most cases. But again, this is subject to personal experience and opinion.
I would love to see how you might address the issue of gold limits, particularly where it impacts the lower tiers of play. I feel that we align on many of our views concerning the actual issues involved, but with differences in emphasis which are leading to our disagreements on my proposed solution.
As AL DM I love the pHB +1 rule and don’t want to see it changed. But upping the GP limit is the most requested thing I hear from my tables. I have one more module left to play in Season 9 and some of my players have state they are bringing extra scrolls and potions of healing.
The SCAG cantrips booming blade and green flame blade were left out of Xanathar's for a reason.
What was that reason? It is highly unlikely that it was to create easier compliance with the artificial and subjective AL rules.
Here is the thing that I don't get about all these AL rules - you can't really enforce them. Rules are ONLY as good as your ability to enforce compliance. We don't have a centralized database or other means to ensure that my random lvl 12 character that I bring to your GenCon table is only PHB +1. We don't have a centralized database or other means to ensure that the three magic items I have on my character sheet were legally obtained in some module three years ago.
Additionally, if all one does is play with the same local group once a month at their game store (or at the house of their DM, for example) , then NONE of the overly restrictive rules make sense as AL becomes little more than suggested rules for what is otherwise a homebrew. If the DM wants to give out more gold they can. If a character wants to use +2, or +3, they can. If their DM want them to have three uncommon magic items by level 4, who is stopping them?
All these excessive rules are little more than barriers to entry for new (or returning) players. A new DnD player has an easier time learning to play DnD than a brand new every day AL player has learning to play AL. It shouldn't be that way. It should not be more difficult for someone to learn how to play AL than it is to play DnD, but it is, by a substantial margin. AL has become the league for experts, not for newbies. That is a real problem.
I recently returned to AL after a nearly 20 year absence. The last time I played AL (until this year) was back when it was Living City where most of the adventures were around Ravens Bluff and Procampur (2000-2002). My lvl 11 dual-wielding Dwarven fighter had 29 certificates* (includes favors, potions, and uncommon and higher magic items) from 62 different modules when I stopped playing (I still have the certs and just counted them). I don't know how to articulate this but this modern day version of AL is rather boring by comparison. The idea that my characters will have experienced a full life, a full story, after 20 games ... seems sterile. You can still only wear one suit of armor at a time; only wield one weapon in your hand(s).
If I had easy access to a homebrew game, I would have avoided returning to AL. It saddens me to say that.
*A few that I have: Short Sword of Shadow +3, +3 short sword of Defending, +3 Drow Buckler, +3 Large Dragon Scale Shield of Fire Resistance, Gloves of Dexterity +4, +3 Ring of Protection, +2 Cloak of Arctic Resistance, Dwarven Chainmail +2, Kimber's Necklace, Ines' Travel Bag, Ring of Freedom of Movement, Ring of the Ram, etc.
A new DnD player has an easier time learning to play DnD than a brand new every day AL player has learning to play AL. It shouldn't be that way. It should not be more difficult for someone to learn how to play AL than it is to play DnD, but it is, by a substantial margin. AL has become the league for experts, not for newbies. That is a real problem.
i disagree. IMO, a brand new person to D&D has the same scenario in front of them whether they're at a private table or at an AL table - when its their turn they look to the person beside them. - its completely table-dependent and has nothing to do with AL vs standard - sure there's an additional subset of rules for AL but as its always been with D&D (and many other games), understanding the basics is different than understanding all the rules. saying you learn how to play AL is like saying you learn how to play Xanathar's Guide to Everything - its just an additional subset of rules.
i disagree. IMO, a brand new person to D&D has the same scenario in front of them whether they're at a private table or at an AL table - when its their turn they look to the person beside them. - its completely table-dependent and has nothing to do with AL vs standard - sure there's an additional subset of rules for AL but as its always been with D&D (and many other games), understanding the basics is different than understanding all the rules. saying you learn how to play AL is like saying you learn how to play Xanathar's Guide to Everything - its just an additional subset of rules.
Character creation is more complex and more restrictive in AL. There is no legitimate way to argue otherwise. There is a reason DDB is working on a AL-specific character creation option - because people have been asking for it due to the added complexity. That isn't table-dependent, those are the rules.
Heck, you can't even necessarily turn to the person beside you, as you suggest, as that person might have made their character in a different season and thus have different rules for character creation. AL-legal characters I can make today are potentially non-legal AL characters next month when the new Season rules come out. Yet another barrier to entry for a newbie.
1) A new player who comes to a table to play either homebrew or AL will need lots of help. They will not know what race or class to pick. They have no idea what the available options are or might be. They may have an idea in their head of the type or style of character they would like to try, or they might not.
In either the homebrew or AL cases, they sit down and the player next to them is likely to take out the PHB and start there. A new player does not want or need to be flooded with options ... PHB, XGTE, SCAG, VOLOs, MToF, EEPG ... just to name some of the AL legal ones ... never mind GGtR, Wikdemount, Eberron, Theros, UA and all the sources not legal for AL play. Dumping 10 books on a new player and telling them "Here you go, choose something" is not effective.
On the other hand, suggesting they start with the PHB and possibly XGTE gets them 90% of the options and is completely compatible with AL. If I was starting a new player in either homebrew or AL that is where I would choose to start. AL makes no difference in this case.
For anyone, character creation in AL is not more complex. It is actually simpler because there are fewer options available. It IS more restrictive but that actually makes it easier. Hand a new player the PHB and XGTE, explain that these have most of the options for 5e though there are several more books you can look at later if you like, just use these to make your first character (though for a truly new player, I would walk them through it and only use the PHB - it has more then enough choices for a new player already).
2) AL is based on the honour system ... maybe that is a bad idea since there are some folks who do like to cheat and can simply fabricate a log sheet with whatever they want ... take the character somewhere else, far from wherever they claimed to have played, and just play it. However, it doesn't accomplish much since for most folks the fun and feeling of achievement is in playing the character (and with the season 9 rule limits on magic items, the character just won't be massively more powerful than anyone else even if they did cheat to create it).
Either way, you can't stop someone from trying to cheat. However, many AL DMs know the content well so if someone shows up to my table with a Yuan-ti pureblood hexblade (or any volo's race combined with an XGTE class), I just say no, that character is not AL legal and can't be played (assuming I am running an AL game and they are claiming it is an AL character).
However, it is important to remember that folks can simply make mistakes. I met someone with a cool paladin/rogue character and when glancing at it realized they had forgotten they needed a 13 strength to multiclass as a paladin (they had already reached level 11). However, it was easy enough to fix by shifting the stats around. It wasn't intentional, just an oversight (they built a dex pally and later thought it would be cool to take some levels of rogue and forgot about the stat requirements).
3) So what does AL provide? It provides the opportunity for folks with real lives and commitments the opportunity to get out and play D&D on their schedule (or at least the schedule of the local game store) and fit it into their busy lives. If they have to cancel, they let the store know and someone can fill the spot. The group still plays. Membership may change week to week but the modules go on. The experience isn't as ideal as a regular and reliable home group but I have found "regular and reliable home group" to be an oxymoron when everyone grows up, has families, work, commitments, responsibilities and still need to sleep. AL fills a niche for these folks who still would like to play D&D.
4) They phased out certs and similar requirements a couple of years ago. This was mostly to help the new player experience. There has been a significant influx of new players to the hobby over the last few years and they have spent the last couple of seasons trying to simplify how AL works. Awarding gold on a per level basis (though the amount it bit too low), allowing everyone to choose the magic item at the end of an adventure if they want it (avoids all sorts of metagaming and inter-personal clashes due to conflicts and bad feelings about who would get the magic item drop in season 7 and earlier, awarding levels based on milestones. (Essentially one 4 hour module/level in tier 1 and two 4 hour modules/level in tier 2-4 if you want to receive maximum gold for each level. You can choose to level or not at the end of every module. (I know some folks who keep a character at the maximum level of each tier so they have at least one character to play if they want to play that tier).
In any case, this makes it more like 34 modules to reach level 20 with maximum rewards and if you want to keep playing in a tier for a few more modules to see if you can upgrade your magic items then it can be a bit more.
---
Anyway, for the intended goals and objectives, I find AL does a decent if not perfect job. Other folks may have different experiences and different opinions.
i disagree. IMO, a brand new person to D&D has the same scenario in front of them whether they're at a private table or at an AL table - when its their turn they look to the person beside them. - its completely table-dependent and has nothing to do with AL vs standard - sure there's an additional subset of rules for AL but as its always been with D&D (and many other games), understanding the basics is different than understanding all the rules. saying you learn how to play AL is like saying you learn how to play Xanathar's Guide to Everything - its just an additional subset of rules.
Character creation is more complex and more restrictive in AL. There is no legitimate way to argue otherwise. There is a reason DDB is working on a AL-specific character creation option - because people have been asking for it due to the added complexity. That isn't table-dependent, those are the rules.
Heck, you can't even necessarily turn to the person beside you, as you suggest, as that person might have made their character in a different season and thus have different rules for character creation. AL-legal characters I can make today are potentially non-legal AL characters next month when the new Season rules come out. Yet another barrier to entry for a newbie.
As far as AL support within DDB goes ... I think it is just due to the fact that it is not worth their development time. AL is a a small fraction of the D&D community (though they tend to be more involved and maybe a bit more vocal).
If you think about it, AL support in DDB has to be pretty much in place already. When you use the DDB character creation tool, DDB knows which sources you have purchased. It does NOT give you options you have not purchased. This should be functionally identical to selecting sources for AL character creation. Choosing to limit the content you use to just the PHB + Volos to create a character should be functionally identical to trying to create a character where you have only purchased PHB + Volos. (Of course this depends on how they have implemented the back end but the information regarding what content came from what source should already be in the database). Either way, any complexity involved is likely due to the implementation choices made by DDB and not due to whether it is any more difficult to limit the sources used for character creation.
Character creation is more complex and more restrictive in AL. There is no legitimate way to argue otherwise. There is a reason DDB is working on a AL-specific character creation option - because people have been asking for it due to the added complexity. That isn't table-dependent, those are the rules.
Heck, you can't even necessarily turn to the person beside you, as you suggest, as that person might have made their character in a different season and thus have different rules for character creation. AL-legal characters I can make today are potentially non-legal AL characters next month when the new Season rules come out. Yet another barrier to entry for a newbie.
again, learning doesn't = mastery and none of what you're talking about are barriers to entry unless you want them to be barriers to entry....if someone IS making it a barrier, they're not playing at any table I've ever been at...looks like we experience very different AL games. Here's how it works at the store I play at (er, played at before covid):
New player? Don't have a character, use this preprinted one. Oh, you have a character...how'd you roll your stats? Ah, you need to make some edits, welcome to AL-you'll figure out the quirks as you go...take these 6 numbers and assign them to your character's stats. What gear are you starting with? Oh, take away thisthis and this. Now, here's your DM, we'll be starting in a few minutes.
That's its, its that hard. The barrier is so low I'm not even sure you can call it an actual barrier...making it more complicated than that is the failure of whoever's running the show (imo of course). ...and if they are making it more difficult than that, I can't imagine its an establishment that understands what brings people back for more.
ALPG is 6 pages of rules, on top of 80 pages of player-oriented basic rules...your 'barrier to entry' idea that a person has to understand and abide by all of that in order to even begin playing would stop 95% of players and DM's from being able to sit down at the table. Your barrier is self-imposed.
Character creation is more complex and more restrictive in AL. There is no legitimate way to argue otherwise. There is a reason DDB is working on a AL-specific character creation option - because people have been asking for it due to the added complexity. That isn't table-dependent, those are the rules.
Heck, you can't even necessarily turn to the person beside you, as you suggest, as that person might have made their character in a different season and thus have different rules for character creation. AL-legal characters I can make today are potentially non-legal AL characters next month when the new Season rules come out. Yet another barrier to entry for a newbie.
again, learning doesn't = mastery and none of what you're talking about are barriers to entry unless you want them to be barriers to entry....if someone IS making it a barrier, they're not playing at any table I've ever been at...looks like we experience very different AL games. Here's how it works at the store I play at (er, played at before covid):
New player? Don't have a character, use this preprinted one. Oh, you have a character...how'd you roll your stats? Ah, you need to make some edits, welcome to AL-you'll figure out the quirks as you go...take these 6 numbers and assign them to your character's stats. What gear are you starting with? Oh, take away thisthis and this. Now, here's your DM, we'll be starting in a few minutes.
That's its, its that hard. The barrier is so low I'm not even sure you can call it an actual barrier...making it more complicated than that is the failure of whoever's running the show (imo of course). ...and if they are making it more difficult than that, I can't imagine its an establishment that understands what brings people back for more.
ALPG is 6 pages of rules, on top of 80 pages of player-oriented basic rules...your 'barrier to entry' idea that a person has to understand and abide by all of that in order to even begin playing would stop 95% of players and DM's from being able to sit down at the table. Your barrier is self-imposed.
I'll second this. I've found homebrew games at stores and on virtual tabletop platforms like Roll20 to be WAY more restrictive based on DM houserules than anything in adventurers league.
"Oh, I don't allow races A, B, C, and classes X, Y, Z because they're overpowered/I don't like them."
"I've changed rapier to remove the finesse property so it's only a strength weapon now."
"Sneak attack doesn't apply on every attack that an enemy is engaged with an enemy because that's dumb, so you have to jump through hoops to make your class work. Good luck rogues!"
"I don't like that spell so I'm not allowing it at my table."
Ad nauseum.
With adventurers league so what if you're stuck with point buy or standard array? So is everyone else so you're on the same footing. Nobody is at the mercy of crap rolls when starting a character, and nobody is going to be the spotlight stealer with their 18s and 20s in everything in T1 either.
As an AL regular DM do you know what the biggest snafu people make is? If they're a sword coast class (arcana cleric, bladesinger) and they take the cantrip toll the dead. And do you know how that's solved? DM: "By the AL PHB+1 rules your cleric can't have that spell. However, chill touch is a good cantrip and it's a PHB spell." Player: "Oh, yeah that's fine. I'll do that instead."
People don't roll up to their first AL session with a Yuan-ti whisper bard/hexblade multiclass.
Adventurers league is mostly good and has a very low bar for entry into the game. I've been playing it since the season 6 miniseason leading into season 7. Most of the changes have been for the better.
I won't lie, I like the PHB+1 rule. Sure, it gets in the way sometimes but I think it prevents more issues than it causes. I know that's not a popular opinion, but we don't need a return to the 3.5 splat book arms race. PHB+1 means a much higher chance that games won't get broken.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
I would like to see either a DM Reward allowing them to use one additional source for a character or giving the Race change +2 option for people entering T2.
I won't lie, I like the PHB+1 rule. Sure, it gets in the way sometimes but I think it prevents more issues than it causes. I know that's not a popular opinion, but we don't need a return to the 3.5 splat book arms race. PHB+1 means a much higher chance that games won't get broken.
I don't hate PHB+1, in general, but the more content that gets released, the more difficult it will be to maintain it. The Artificer spell list as it was released already straddles PHB and Xanathar's, meaning WotC already is treating some of their +1 content as an extension of the base PHB. If WotC can't even keep to their own rule, how can they expect it of the players?
The only part of PHB+1 I find unjustifiable at present is the that Race is subject to it. There just doesn't seem to be a reason. The opportunity for exploits caused by a race seems incredibly minimal and especially so when they already show they can outlaw the specific races or variants that can be problematic (like Aarakocra). I know some people say the Volo races are imbalanced, but I truly disagree -- particularly when Xanathar's offers racial feats for the PHB races. And subjecting racial variants and subraces to the PHB+1 rule for races in the PHB is insanity to me. There is practically no discernible opportunity for imbalance from those options and it only serves to ensure those options are never chosen by players.
Treat races or at least subraces/variants the same backgrounds and just exempt them from the rule and I will have so much less to complain about regarding that rule.
I won't lie, I like the PHB+1 rule. Sure, it gets in the way sometimes but I think it prevents more issues than it causes. I know that's not a popular opinion, but we don't need a return to the 3.5 splat book arms race. PHB+1 means a much higher chance that games won't get broken.
I don't hate PHB+1, in general, but the more content that gets released, the more difficult it will be to maintain it. The Artificer spell list as it was released already straddles PHB and Xanathar's, meaning WotC already is treating some of their +1 content as an extension of the base PHB. If WotC can't even keep to their own rule, how can they expect it of the players?
The only part of PHB+1 I find unjustifiable at present is the that Race is subject to it. There just doesn't seem to be a reason. The opportunity for exploits caused by a race seems incredibly minimal and especially so when they already show they can outlaw the specific races or variants that can be problematic (like Aarakocra). I know some people say the Volo races are imbalanced, but I truly disagree -- particularly when Xanathar's offers racial feats for the PHB races. And subjecting racial variants and subraces to the PHB+1 rule for races in the PHB is insanity to me. There is practically no discernible opportunity for imbalance from those options and it only serves to ensure those options are never chosen by players.
Treat races or at least subraces/variants the same backgrounds and just exempt them from the rule and I will have so much less to complain about regarding that rule.
I fully agree that races should be exempt from the PHB+1 rule. In season 9 they allowed Aasimar to use PHB + any 1 source and it didn't break the game. I saw a few aasimar hexblades, conquest paladins and divine soul sorcerers and it was fine.
Races being exempt from PHB +1 and gold limits changing are pretty much the common chances we're all clamoring for. Hop to it, WoTC!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Except you have not considered the cost of material components for spells that far exceed the 500gp limit you are suggesting.
Forcecage requires a 1500gp ruby.
Sequester requires 5000gp saphire dust.
Ressurection requires a 1000gp diamond
Reincarnate requires 1000gp of components
True Ressurection requires 25,000gp of diamonds
Symbol requires 1000gp of components
Simulacrum requires 1500gp of components (and I can't tell you how many tier 3/4 casters I have seen with this one in AL)
Planar Binding 1000gp
No caster could afford any of these if they are always restricted to the 500gp limit you suggest ... and before suggesting no one does this anyway, personally, I've bought rubies for forcecage on at least one character for AL play.
In season 7 and earlier, its not so much individuals as the modules are very uneven in terms of gold resources awarded which in turn allows characters that run that content to purchase armor and as many potions/scrolls as their bag of holding or portable hole could contain. This makes two characters that are taken to a convention very different depending on the content played. The gold limit helps prevent this kind of "unfairness".
I played White Plume Mountain in AL in season 7 with a level 8 bard and walked out with 3 magic items and over 10,000 gold from playing just the one AL legal tier 2 module from TfYP. On the other hand, folks playing a typical season 7 tier 2 AL mod would earn 1650 to 3800gp divided between up to 7 players ... or ~200gp to ~500gp. My character earned 20 times that in perhaps twice the required play time (never mind the really good magic items).
I understand from experience why the gold limits were needed though I do think they are too stringent for wizards and other casters who have expensive material component requirements.
Disclaimer: These are all my personal opinions, so you are welcome to disagree, but please be respectful of myself and others. That said, I hope to sum up and respond to concerns brought up in the discussion of my suggestions.
1 - 50/50 split for open race selection. No surprise. But the biggest counter pointed to the Yuanti cantrips and magic resistance. Cantrips are specifically designed to be sub-optimal, and Gnomes already have magic resistance against Wis, Int, and Cha saves and this is not a problem, so I fail to see the issue. The Goblin's Nimble escape (BA disengage or hide) seems more OP to me when combined with any stealth class, such as a basic rogue from the PHB.
Flight, on the other hand is trickier, so I can see holdouts on that issue as a fair opinion.
2 - Rules clarification isn't likely. True, but it should still be mentioned.
3 - People seem to think there is no issue with not having tiers be outlined in the AL rules, as there is always someone at the table to clarify.
But thing is, I am a veteran of D&D but relatively recent to AL, and while I mostly have it memorized by now, it took several months of constantly looking it up online exactly because that info IS NOT in the AL player's guide. Furthermore, not having that info from the get-go made understanding all of the tier gold per level charts, renown benefits, etc really difficult to understand, something which can be quickly solved for other new players by adding a simple chart or modifying one of the existing ones to include this information.
4 - This is controversial, as no one wants to give up gold. but to attempt to clarify and appease some individuals:
I see no reason why you couldn't buy mundane equipment between sessions, as you can currently. Doing so does not require DM intervention or supervision of any kind. If you have the gold, buy it.
Potions of invisibility and supreme healing would admittedly be difficult, if not impossible, to obtain outside of treasure hoards. But as it stands, they can't even be afforded outside of T4, and even then the 5K cost means that you can only purchase a total of 5 over the course of your entire adventuring career, assuming that you saved up exclusively for this purpose (which most people do not).
This also applies to the few spells with components over 5K (components up to 2K can generally be purchased by splitting cost with a party of friendly adventurers, assuming you can show them the benefit). This specifically includes the following: Leomund's Secret Chest (lvl4, 5K gp reusable), Sequester (lvl7, 5K gp consumed), Gate (lvl9, 5K gp reusable), and True Resurrection (lvl9, 25K gp consumed). In fact, it takes all but 4K of your lifetime earnings for a lvl20 character to afford the (consumed) material components for True Resurrection (when a PC could just sacrifice a magic item or have another player cast a 7th lvl Resurrection on a them for 1K instead, split among the party if they deem it to be worth the cost).
Due to this cost, I have never (and doubt that I will ever) see an AL character use one of these spells. Therefore, this is a non-issue currently, and you would not have to keep track of not only how much you've earned (maths), but how much you CAN earn based on you level (more maths), AND how much you've spent (even more maths); you just have to know how much you can carry (based on tier) and what you currently have on hand.
As for the Revivify spell example, there is no reason you could not purchase the spell scroll one session, scribe it by the end of the next, and purchase the components in a thirs session to have on hand, just in case. You would just have to list "components for Revivify" as a gear item on you inventory list and decide if you wanted to take them with you into the module as one of your consumables. Furthermore, once you have used those components (or perhaps just to have an extra set for an emergency) you could purchase more of them in subsequent play sessions, as you will never hit a hard spending cap, which is what the current rule set imposes with the lifetime earnings limit. Yes, it prolongs the prep time, but you can still use this spell and others like it at appropriate tiers.
5 - While you can BUILD any class to perform any role, alchemist fire can make a blaster out of a support build (such as a heal-and-buff focused cleric) and potions of healing can make healers out of a striker (such as a pure damage rogue). Being able to bring up a companion 4+ times in a battle with a potion is a big deal for overall party action economy, and it preserves the spellcasters slots for something other than healing. Also, this is a limit on consumables taken into a module (NOT on how many you can own and leave behind), and serves to limit this abuse which can be a huge aspect in modules that focus on resource drain, of which I find there are quite a few.
6 - While I agree that a Bag of Holding (biggest gripe apparently) will not really increase your gear capacity, it can come in handy if you need to hold on to that locked chest you found until you have time to find the key or bust it open, since your rogue managed to break his picks trying to open it.
Simply put, these items add utility and flavor (driftglobe = source of light, cap of water breathing = aquatic exploration, Rope of Climbing = self-hoisting and self-tying rope, efficient quiver = simple weapon storage [especially javelins and polearms], bag of holding = transport of "oversized" goods), but do not significantly affect most games. Therefore, this option simply reduces the penalty (using a consumable slot instead of a magic item slot) for selecting one of these items.
If I'm being honest, I'd actually add items to this list, such as: Alchemy Jug, Eyes of Minute Seeing, Immovable Rod, Mask of the Beast, and Robe of Useful Items. But better to start small with such a new idea.
7 - Not much pushback here, but to cover my bases: Most weapons, light and medium armors are easily purchasable by T2. With the current system (and hoarding all earned gold) you cannot purchase the best medium or heavy armors until late T2, early T3. This was, according to WotC and AL, intentional.
However, as my system restricts the amount of gold you can carry, you may not be able to purchase these higher-tier items at their intended landmarks, so I have simply added them to the list of treasure you can claim from an adventure of an appropriate tier without spending gold. Also, unless they are inherently magical, they still would not count against your magic item limit, even though they may be an upgrade to your existing equipment.
8 - Most comments are either in favor of this or requesting a complete removal of magic item limits. However, even though I would add a "bank" of items not in use for each character, I still think that item limits are a valid restriction to prevent every character from eventually having every item under the sun.
In addition to balance issues I won't go into here, people in real life rarely have more than a few exceptional items they own or carry with them in daily life, so I see no need to remove this restriction altogether, merely to modify it for more versatility.
9 - Additional/upgraded equipment was largely a bust, and for one rather valid reason: "It's an adventure, go out and find it."
That said, I still think that there should be an option to gain a +1 Ring of Protection at T3, as certain builds simply require it to remain defensive at higher tiers (Moon Druid, unarmored defense Barbarian, pure wizard/sorcerer, etc), and it can be depressing to either be forced to go without (unless you can have someone run the exact module for you) or forced to take the Faction Agent background instead of one more suited to the character concept.
However, by pushing this to T3 and specifically excluding the other specialty rings for each faction, I hope this suggested change will still maintain the flavor and benefit of that background feature. Only implementing this change would tell if this would actually be the case, but I can still suggest it and hope.
10 - Biggest rebuttals: Why more than one healing potion? Don't you have a stockpile?
To the first: When T1 gets a potion for 2d4+2, and T4 gets a potion for 8d4+8, why should T2 be restricted to the same as T1 and why should T3 go completely without a renewable healing option?
Two potions of healing (2d4+2) would permit you to raise a fallen companion twice (using up two actions), but only amounts to 4d4+4 healing. This is equivalent to a single potion of greater healing, but requires one more action to use. This means that, unless a companion has fallen, it is not generally in your interest to use this in battle. But if a friend has taken a dirt nap, being able to bring them up (especially if they are the party healer) can be the difference between survival or a TPK.
To the second: With consumables (such as potions and alchemical items) divided between characters each module, most modules only providing 1-2 each session (divided between 3-7 players), and many of those same modules running on resource depletion mechanics (forcing you to often use those same potions); No, I do not have a stockpile. And I'd rather be able to restore some of my consumables each session with my renown benefits instead of being forced to use my limited gold, as I may have better things to buy with my gold (scrolls, components, etc).
11 - Only real comment was: "imo, downtime is kinda broke and that isn't going to fix it."
In large part, I agree, and this is probably a patch at best. But if we are being honest, aside from "catching up", downtime in AL is essentially pointless, as the most common downtime activity (scribing spells) costs a pittance.
I'd rather see it done away with altogether, but certain activities, such as escaping Barovia in the CoS setting and certain story rewards in other settings, do rely on this mechanic to force players to remain in these settings for a minimum number of game sessions before gaining certain benefits (or lifting restrictions, as is the case with CoS). Not that I'm fond of those mechanics either, but you cannot do away with one without doing away with all of them, which becomes a bigger mess to deal with. So this is my best shot at improving it.
12 - Under the current rules, even if you have given away all of your magic items to be resurrected and have a temp limit of zero, you can still be resurrected so long as at least one party member survives the encounter (running away and recovering what's left of the bodies later still counts). That means that the only way for a character to die permanently is to either be stuck in a module running meat-grinder mode, or to suffer a TPK scenario (no one could even run).
THIS. IS. HUGE.
However, being stuck at any tier (above T1 at least) without any magic items and no hope of recovering them is depressing, not to mention severely sub-optimal in T3-T4. And currently, the only way to remove this penalty is to advance a tier, at which point all lost magic item slots are restored, but without the lost items. As some people build characters for play at specific tiers, forcing them to advance or retire the character and rebuild the concept from scratch can also be depressing.
My suggestion here simply provides an alternate method of restoring lost item slots. While this may begin a cycle of death, magic item loss, slot restoration, and replacing lost treasures, rinse and repeat; this does not prevent character death or permit characters from being resurrected infinitely. This does permit characters to continue adventuring effectively at their tier until they have run out of new content for that character, which is just another way of extending the time a player can spend actually enjoying the game instead of struggling to keep up.
To sum up: I like that many of you seem to have actually been thinking about these suggestions and providing your opinions on them, to whatever effect, in this thread and others. I also hope that these responses have eased some of your concerns, even if you do not ultimately agree with my logic behind them.
If you have any concerns on these suggestions, or possible improvements or additions to them, I would be more than happy to address them.
P.S.: The other thread I mentioned;
https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/dungeons-dragons-discussion/d-d-adventurers-league/69144-10-suggestions-for-season-10#c3
One reply for me about gold, you seem to be basing the concept of gold and that players can't afford stuff strictly on season 9 rules. I.E. No one can ever afford a X or they at most can afford 4 in the life of their character etc.
I am sure a lot of people still play pre-season 9 characters who may have that much gold on hand. It's not like when a new season comes out everyone just gives up on their old characters. If my regular game is cancelled one week I will try and find an opening at a different table and bring an appropriate level character to the table that week.
There are also some players that don't stop playing a character when it hits level 20. Some people like the epic high level adventures and those characters should be able to continue accumulating gold even if they are unable to gain new class features.
The gold limits in season 9 have been almost universally disliked and considered far to stingy on gold. When you point to them as an example of why your suggestions around gold are equivalent or no one could buy X anyway. If the majority of players want more gold and your rules actually result in preventing stuff that was available before it doesn't come across as an improvement from a player perspective.
I'll just address this one for now.
PHB p15 "TIERS OF PLAY"
There is a complete description including a table in the PHB. It is NOT an AL rule. It is part of the basic 5e D&D rules. AL doesn't repeat rules from the 5e sources, AL only mentions the changes from these sources that might be different for AL. This is also why there is usually someone at the table who knows it ... not because they have read something related to AL but because they have read the PHB.
The information is readily available in the primary player resource for playing D&D which most players can be expected to have available. Tiers of play are a fundamental element of 5e that is fully defined in the detail you are looking for in the PHB - it isn't something AL should be repeating. Should they add a question to the FAQ? "What are tiers? See PHB p15" ?
Yes, I am focusing mostly on Season 9 gold rules, though I have read through the season 7 and 8 rules (and conversions) as well. The reason I do this is primarily because this is also the direction AL as a whole has been taking, with gold limits being enacted seemingly for the very purpose of discouraging potentially OP spells.
Now, to be fair, I am most familiar with the season 9 rules, and was under the impression that, given the wording of the conversion sheets (S7 = "your current gold remains the same" / S8 = "treasure checkpoints are removed", ie, the way you earned gold in S8), that any new earnings would have to match the newer system. While this may be incorrect, this interpretation would imply: Once a pre-season 9 character has reached the season 9 gold limit (even if this occurs because they had started out with more gold than that limit from an earlier season), they cannot earn any more gold, and will eventually run out.
Again, I admit that this may be a false interpretation, but have not found anything concrete on the issue, so please direct me to something from WotC or AL developers/admins if this is the case.
However, until then, this interpretation would mean that eventually all characters would risk running out of gold under the current rules, which in turn makes those same expensive spell components (at least the consumed ones) undesirable at some point. In this case, my suggested renewable gold carry limit would still be preferable.
Assuming that I am incorrect, considering the comparatively high cost in terms of current lifetime earnings limits (which effectively places these spells out of reach for S9 characters as it stands), this would still be an improvement on the current S9 rules.
In either case, when using the current S9 rules for resurrection (which all characters have access to regardless of seasonality), these spells generally have much more economical alternatives available: Secret Chest can generally be substituted with a bag of holding, as it can't be stolen under AL RAW anyway; Sequester can be substituted with a combination of Feign Death and Non-detection; Gate is covered by Plane Shift; and True Resurrection is covered by Resurrection, Raise Dead, and optional magic item loss.
To top it off, Wish (no material component) can be used to simulate any of these spells except Gate and True Resurrection, for which it can summon the material component as an included effect (object of up to 25K gp in value that isn't a magic item), circumventing all of these restrictions. Yes, this cheeses the mechanics a bit, but I honestly think (my opinion) that the only reason to use any of these spells is if you absolutely must have that extended duration or flavor.
1) You can continue to play tier 4 as long as you want with your level 20 characters. They earn downtime and gold as rewards, as well as magic item options. They can continue to play indefinitely if they want collecting as much gold as they want. Thus any limits on gold makes it far less fun for these folks to play their characters since they will have significantly reduced rewards for play just for hitting level 20 ... not getting more levels is a sufficient penalty.
2) "components up to 2K can generally be purchased by splitting cost with a party of friendly adventurers, assuming you can show them the benefit" ... absolutely not true. You can't purchase a material component for a spell in the middle of an adventure. You can't suddenly break into a discussion of "Hey will you guys help me pay for this material component if I cast this spell?". Forcecage is a very useful spell that has a 1500 gp ruby material cost. In addition, this is AL, you may be playing at a table of strangers who have no interest in giving up 300gp so the wizard can cast forcecage making the encounter easier. MAYBE ... the players might decide to contribute to costs afterward but who knows.
In fact, from the AL PG ... the actual allowed contributions to other players are extremely limited:
"Currency and equipment can’t be given to another character, but:
• Equipment and consumable items can be lent to other characters at your table but must return it at the end of the session (unless it’s been consumed).
• Permanent magic items can be traded (see below).
• Characters can choose to divide the cost of NPC spellcasting services obtained during an adventure."
So, stricly based on this, you can lend equipment and consumable items but the table can't split the cost though a friendly DM might allow it if everyone wanted to do so ... it probably isn't strictly in line with the AL ruleset though. However, if the consumable is used during the adventure it is a fair way to prevent the cost falling on one player which is why a DM might allow it. A character certainly can't permanently give another character anything including spell material components so the group could not buy a material component at the beginning that someone could keep at the end.
3) Perhaps we have different experiences, but I have seen spells with expensive material components cast. I also don't see the point behind an extremely low gold allowed limit that effectively prevents these spells from being cast if someone wants to do so. Not everyone is limited to season 8 or 9 characters and by imposing such a limit are you saying that the season 5,6,7 character with 50,000gp has to lose all their treasure? Sorry, that idea will never fly. (I have season 7 characters with over 10-15k gp ... so I don't doubt that there are characters with far more.)
4) Revivify is a cleric spell. They don't need to scribe it, just prepare it. However, they might have to spend several sessions acquiring sufficient gold to cast it more than once.
Anyway, I agree that the gold limitations in season 9 are still too onerous for some classes - especially wizards and clerics with scribing costs and expensive material components. However, I disagree that the system you describe would be a good solution to the issues.
David42, to address each of your points directly:
1 - Under the current rules for season 9, once you have reached a max earnings per level for each level, you cease to earn any more gold. True, this resets once you hit lvl20, but this does nothing to assist lower tier characters who wish to remain at those tiers of play (perhaps they were optimized for that). T4 characters also have an option to reset any lost item slots due to resurrection costs after two adventures.
My system, while admittedly not perfect, still permits lower tier characters to continue earning (and replace lost magic item slots), without being forced to advance tier if they do not want to. While I would understand if you wished to increase my proposed carry limits to more closely match the current max earnings limits for lower tiers, I still think that carry limits are more flexible than the current system at those levels of play.
2 - I would argue that the purchase of spell components may be counted under the "NPC spellcasting services", as it is something you would purchase from an NPC, but this is largely left open for DM interpretation.
That stated, in my experience (aside from online play), most communities consist of a few dozen players who get to know each other fairly well. In these cases, when asking for assistance with a renewable resource, I have rarely seen someone refuse to assist when they have the means and are likely to see a benefit, even if it should come in later sessions. As for online play in this scenario, longer campaigns, such as hardcovers, often have people playing togeter for extended periods, in which case splitting party costs becomes a distinct party advantage.
As such, between the two scenarios, I do not think that a request for such aid from another player should be as quickly discounted as you seem to believe. But this is necessarily widely subject to individual play experience and personal opinion.
3 - I think I addressed this in my preious post, but to summarize, there are ways around this limitation on available spell components, especially when you factor in the Wish spell. But even then, most of those spells which would become more restricted already have more economical alternatives, so I see no reason you would ever require them unless you absolutely must have the extended duration or flavor.
4 - You are correct that Revivify is a cleric spell, so scribing is not neccessary (my mistake), but this would not mean that they might not purchase a scroll to have just in case, opening up that prepared spell slot for something else.
As for having to spend several sessions collecting materials, I don't think any party wants to resort to this spell any more than necessary, so I don;t think this would be an issue in most cases. But again, this is subject to personal experience and opinion.
I would love to see how you might address the issue of gold limits, particularly where it impacts the lower tiers of play. I feel that we align on many of our views concerning the actual issues involved, but with differences in emphasis which are leading to our disagreements on my proposed solution.
As AL DM I love the pHB +1 rule and don’t want to see it changed. But upping the GP limit is the most requested thing I hear from my tables. I have one more module left to play in Season 9 and some of my players have state they are bringing extra scrolls and potions of healing.
No Gaming is Better than Bad Gaming.
i disagree. IMO, a brand new person to D&D has the same scenario in front of them whether they're at a private table or at an AL table - when its their turn they look to the person beside them. - its completely table-dependent and has nothing to do with AL vs standard - sure there's an additional subset of rules for AL but as its always been with D&D (and many other games), understanding the basics is different than understanding all the rules. saying you learn how to play AL is like saying you learn how to play Xanathar's Guide to Everything - its just an additional subset of rules.
Guide to the Five Factions (PWYW)
A rather comprehensive list of free WotC D&D resources
Deck of Decks
Character creation is more complex and more restrictive in AL. There is no legitimate way to argue otherwise. There is a reason DDB is working on a AL-specific character creation option - because people have been asking for it due to the added complexity. That isn't table-dependent, those are the rules.
Heck, you can't even necessarily turn to the person beside you, as you suggest, as that person might have made their character in a different season and thus have different rules for character creation. AL-legal characters I can make today are potentially non-legal AL characters next month when the new Season rules come out. Yet another barrier to entry for a newbie.
1) A new player who comes to a table to play either homebrew or AL will need lots of help. They will not know what race or class to pick. They have no idea what the available options are or might be. They may have an idea in their head of the type or style of character they would like to try, or they might not.
In either the homebrew or AL cases, they sit down and the player next to them is likely to take out the PHB and start there. A new player does not want or need to be flooded with options ... PHB, XGTE, SCAG, VOLOs, MToF, EEPG ... just to name some of the AL legal ones ... never mind GGtR, Wikdemount, Eberron, Theros, UA and all the sources not legal for AL play. Dumping 10 books on a new player and telling them "Here you go, choose something" is not effective.
On the other hand, suggesting they start with the PHB and possibly XGTE gets them 90% of the options and is completely compatible with AL. If I was starting a new player in either homebrew or AL that is where I would choose to start. AL makes no difference in this case.
For anyone, character creation in AL is not more complex. It is actually simpler because there are fewer options available. It IS more restrictive but that actually makes it easier. Hand a new player the PHB and XGTE, explain that these have most of the options for 5e though there are several more books you can look at later if you like, just use these to make your first character (though for a truly new player, I would walk them through it and only use the PHB - it has more then enough choices for a new player already).
2) AL is based on the honour system ... maybe that is a bad idea since there are some folks who do like to cheat and can simply fabricate a log sheet with whatever they want ... take the character somewhere else, far from wherever they claimed to have played, and just play it. However, it doesn't accomplish much since for most folks the fun and feeling of achievement is in playing the character (and with the season 9 rule limits on magic items, the character just won't be massively more powerful than anyone else even if they did cheat to create it).
Either way, you can't stop someone from trying to cheat. However, many AL DMs know the content well so if someone shows up to my table with a Yuan-ti pureblood hexblade (or any volo's race combined with an XGTE class), I just say no, that character is not AL legal and can't be played (assuming I am running an AL game and they are claiming it is an AL character).
However, it is important to remember that folks can simply make mistakes. I met someone with a cool paladin/rogue character and when glancing at it realized they had forgotten they needed a 13 strength to multiclass as a paladin (they had already reached level 11). However, it was easy enough to fix by shifting the stats around. It wasn't intentional, just an oversight (they built a dex pally and later thought it would be cool to take some levels of rogue and forgot about the stat requirements).
3) So what does AL provide? It provides the opportunity for folks with real lives and commitments the opportunity to get out and play D&D on their schedule (or at least the schedule of the local game store) and fit it into their busy lives. If they have to cancel, they let the store know and someone can fill the spot. The group still plays. Membership may change week to week but the modules go on. The experience isn't as ideal as a regular and reliable home group but I have found "regular and reliable home group" to be an oxymoron when everyone grows up, has families, work, commitments, responsibilities and still need to sleep. AL fills a niche for these folks who still would like to play D&D.
4) They phased out certs and similar requirements a couple of years ago. This was mostly to help the new player experience. There has been a significant influx of new players to the hobby over the last few years and they have spent the last couple of seasons trying to simplify how AL works. Awarding gold on a per level basis (though the amount it bit too low), allowing everyone to choose the magic item at the end of an adventure if they want it (avoids all sorts of metagaming and inter-personal clashes due to conflicts and bad feelings about who would get the magic item drop in season 7 and earlier, awarding levels based on milestones. (Essentially one 4 hour module/level in tier 1 and two 4 hour modules/level in tier 2-4 if you want to receive maximum gold for each level. You can choose to level or not at the end of every module. (I know some folks who keep a character at the maximum level of each tier so they have at least one character to play if they want to play that tier).
In any case, this makes it more like 34 modules to reach level 20 with maximum rewards and if you want to keep playing in a tier for a few more modules to see if you can upgrade your magic items then it can be a bit more.
---
Anyway, for the intended goals and objectives, I find AL does a decent if not perfect job. Other folks may have different experiences and different opinions.
As far as AL support within DDB goes ... I think it is just due to the fact that it is not worth their development time. AL is a a small fraction of the D&D community (though they tend to be more involved and maybe a bit more vocal).
If you think about it, AL support in DDB has to be pretty much in place already. When you use the DDB character creation tool, DDB knows which sources you have purchased. It does NOT give you options you have not purchased. This should be functionally identical to selecting sources for AL character creation. Choosing to limit the content you use to just the PHB + Volos to create a character should be functionally identical to trying to create a character where you have only purchased PHB + Volos. (Of course this depends on how they have implemented the back end but the information regarding what content came from what source should already be in the database). Either way, any complexity involved is likely due to the implementation choices made by DDB and not due to whether it is any more difficult to limit the sources used for character creation.
again, learning doesn't = mastery and none of what you're talking about are barriers to entry unless you want them to be barriers to entry....if someone IS making it a barrier, they're not playing at any table I've ever been at...looks like we experience very different AL games. Here's how it works at the store I play at (er, played at before covid):
New player? Don't have a character, use this preprinted one. Oh, you have a character...how'd you roll your stats? Ah, you need to make some edits, welcome to AL-you'll figure out the quirks as you go...take these 6 numbers and assign them to your character's stats. What gear are you starting with? Oh, take away thisthis and this. Now, here's your DM, we'll be starting in a few minutes.
That's its, its that hard. The barrier is so low I'm not even sure you can call it an actual barrier...making it more complicated than that is the failure of whoever's running the show (imo of course). ...and if they are making it more difficult than that, I can't imagine its an establishment that understands what brings people back for more.
ALPG is 6 pages of rules, on top of 80 pages of player-oriented basic rules...your 'barrier to entry' idea that a person has to understand and abide by all of that in order to even begin playing would stop 95% of players and DM's from being able to sit down at the table. Your barrier is self-imposed.
Guide to the Five Factions (PWYW)
A rather comprehensive list of free WotC D&D resources
Deck of Decks
I'll second this. I've found homebrew games at stores and on virtual tabletop platforms like Roll20 to be WAY more restrictive based on DM houserules than anything in adventurers league.
"Oh, I don't allow races A, B, C, and classes X, Y, Z because they're overpowered/I don't like them."
"I've changed rapier to remove the finesse property so it's only a strength weapon now."
"Sneak attack doesn't apply on every attack that an enemy is engaged with an enemy because that's dumb, so you have to jump through hoops to make your class work. Good luck rogues!"
"I don't like that spell so I'm not allowing it at my table."
Ad nauseum.
With adventurers league so what if you're stuck with point buy or standard array? So is everyone else so you're on the same footing. Nobody is at the mercy of crap rolls when starting a character, and nobody is going to be the spotlight stealer with their 18s and 20s in everything in T1 either.
As an AL regular DM do you know what the biggest snafu people make is? If they're a sword coast class (arcana cleric, bladesinger) and they take the cantrip toll the dead. And do you know how that's solved? DM: "By the AL PHB+1 rules your cleric can't have that spell. However, chill touch is a good cantrip and it's a PHB spell." Player: "Oh, yeah that's fine. I'll do that instead."
People don't roll up to their first AL session with a Yuan-ti whisper bard/hexblade multiclass.
Adventurers league is mostly good and has a very low bar for entry into the game. I've been playing it since the season 6 miniseason leading into season 7. Most of the changes have been for the better.
I won't lie, I like the PHB+1 rule. Sure, it gets in the way sometimes but I think it prevents more issues than it causes. I know that's not a popular opinion, but we don't need a return to the 3.5 splat book arms race. PHB+1 means a much higher chance that games won't get broken.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
I would like to see either a DM Reward allowing them to use one additional source for a character or giving the Race change +2 option for people entering T2.
I don't hate PHB+1, in general, but the more content that gets released, the more difficult it will be to maintain it. The Artificer spell list as it was released already straddles PHB and Xanathar's, meaning WotC already is treating some of their +1 content as an extension of the base PHB. If WotC can't even keep to their own rule, how can they expect it of the players?
The only part of PHB+1 I find unjustifiable at present is the that Race is subject to it. There just doesn't seem to be a reason. The opportunity for exploits caused by a race seems incredibly minimal and especially so when they already show they can outlaw the specific races or variants that can be problematic (like Aarakocra). I know some people say the Volo races are imbalanced, but I truly disagree -- particularly when Xanathar's offers racial feats for the PHB races. And subjecting racial variants and subraces to the PHB+1 rule for races in the PHB is insanity to me. There is practically no discernible opportunity for imbalance from those options and it only serves to ensure those options are never chosen by players.
Treat races or at least subraces/variants the same backgrounds and just exempt them from the rule and I will have so much less to complain about regarding that rule.
I fully agree that races should be exempt from the PHB+1 rule. In season 9 they allowed Aasimar to use PHB + any 1 source and it didn't break the game. I saw a few aasimar hexblades, conquest paladins and divine soul sorcerers and it was fine.
Races being exempt from PHB +1 and gold limits changing are pretty much the common chances we're all clamoring for. Hop to it, WoTC!