Now, maybe those same spells which appeared in Xanathar's will also see reprints in Tasha's. We don't know, nor should we assume they will be.
The table of contents for tasha's has leaked, so we know that the spells from SCAG and blade of disaster from IDRotF are being reprinted along with 16 new spells (mostly from UA). No spells from XGtE are being reprinted.
But Wizard's has done something similar in the past. When they put out the Player's Guide for their Oracle of War DDAL campaign for Eberron, XGtE was deliberately excluded from the book. Everyone who played in that campaign had to do without those spells. WotC is under no obligation to include those 15 spells in Tasha's. And none of the archetype spells are unique to Xanathar's; they're all found in the PHB. So it is possible to play an Artificer without XGtE. And they don't owe you, or anyone else, an explanation for something which may or may not happen, but nonetheless has been consistently applied for 5 years now.
XGtE was eventually added to the Oracle of War ALPG though, and eberron doesn't use PHB+1 so it is allowed for every character.
And if a decision is made that discriminates against 1 class specifically, an explanation is owed.
XGtE was eventually added to the Oracle of War ALPG though, and eberron doesn't use PHB+1 so it is allowed for every character.
And if a decision is made that discriminates against 1 class specifically, an explanation is owed.
Haven't seen anything past the 1.1 document. If there's a 1.2 or later that added XGtE, good for them.
In any case, blocking off those spells from XGtE is a decision which would impact every class; not just artificers. That means there's no discrimination. Yeah, blocking 15 spells off from artificers kind of sucks for DDAL play. But by the same token, if I wanted to play a Circle of Wildfire druid (and I do), I'd be locked out of upwards of 40 spells.
XGtE was eventually added to the Oracle of War ALPG though, and eberron doesn't use PHB+1 so it is allowed for every character.
And if a decision is made that discriminates against 1 class specifically, an explanation is owed.
Haven't seen anything past the 1.1 document. If there's a 1.2 or later that added XGtE, good for them.
In any case, blocking off those spells from XGtE is a decision which would impact every class; not just artificers. That means there's no discrimination. Yeah, blocking 15 spells off from artificers kind of sucks for DDAL play. But by the same token, if I wanted to play a Circle of Wildfire druid (and I do), I'd be locked out of upwards of 40 spells.
The one I read was 1.3.
But other than a few months of specifically eberron, XGtE isn't blocked off from every class, it will only be blocked off from artificer.
Subclass discrimination sucks, but is not the same as a whole base class.
XGtE was eventually added to the Oracle of War ALPG though, and eberron doesn't use PHB+1 so it is allowed for every character.
And if a decision is made that discriminates against 1 class specifically, an explanation is owed.
Haven't seen anything past the 1.1 document. If there's a 1.2 or later that added XGtE, good for them.
In any case, blocking off those spells from XGtE is a decision which would impact every class; not just artificers. That means there's no discrimination. Yeah, blocking 15 spells off from artificers kind of sucks for DDAL play. But by the same token, if I wanted to play a Circle of Wildfire druid (and I do), I'd be locked out of upwards of 40 spells.
The one I read was 1.3.
But other than a few months of specifically eberron, XGtE isn't blocked off from every class, it will only be blocked off from artificer.
Subclass discrimination sucks, but is not the same as a whole base class.
No one can choose the spells in Xanathar's unless that book is also their +1. Barring that one Eberron campaign, that's how it has always worked.
XGtE was eventually added to the Oracle of War ALPG though, and eberron doesn't use PHB+1 so it is allowed for every character.
And if a decision is made that discriminates against 1 class specifically, an explanation is owed.
Haven't seen anything past the 1.1 document. If there's a 1.2 or later that added XGtE, good for them.
In any case, blocking off those spells from XGtE is a decision which would impact every class; not just artificers. That means there's no discrimination. Yeah, blocking 15 spells off from artificers kind of sucks for DDAL play. But by the same token, if I wanted to play a Circle of Wildfire druid (and I do), I'd be locked out of upwards of 40 spells.
The one I read was 1.3.
But other than a few months of specifically eberron, XGtE isn't blocked off from every class, it will only be blocked off from artificer.
Subclass discrimination sucks, but is not the same as a whole base class.
No one can choose the spells in Xanathar's unless that book is also their +1. Barring that one Eberron campaign, that's how it has always worked.
Right. The problem is Artificer is not in PHB, so artificer and only artificer can never use XGtE spells. That is the problem. A whole base class is blocked from some of its class spells. This is a new and unique problem with existing rules.
XGtE was eventually added to the Oracle of War ALPG though, and eberron doesn't use PHB+1 so it is allowed for every character.
And if a decision is made that discriminates against 1 class specifically, an explanation is owed.
Haven't seen anything past the 1.1 document. If there's a 1.2 or later that added XGtE, good for them.
In any case, blocking off those spells from XGtE is a decision which would impact every class; not just artificers. That means there's no discrimination. Yeah, blocking 15 spells off from artificers kind of sucks for DDAL play. But by the same token, if I wanted to play a Circle of Wildfire druid (and I do), I'd be locked out of upwards of 40 spells.
The one I read was 1.3.
But other than a few months of specifically eberron, XGtE isn't blocked off from every class, it will only be blocked off from artificer.
Subclass discrimination sucks, but is not the same as a whole base class.
No one can choose the spells in Xanathar's unless that book is also their +1. Barring that one Eberron campaign, that's how it has always worked.
Right. The problem is Artificer is not in PHB, so artificer and only artificer can never use XGtE spells. That is the problem. A whole base class is blocked from some of its class spells. This is a new and unique problem with existing rules.
Except it's not a new and unique problem. Anyone who chooses to use Tasha's is prohibited from using Xanathar's. The only thing required to play in DDAL is the basic rules. The documents have been clear on that from the very beginning. Everything else is gravy.
No one can choose the spells in Xanathar's unless that book is also their +1. Barring that one Eberron campaign, that's how it has always worked.
Right. The problem is Artificer is not in PHB, so artificer and only artificer can never use XGtE spells. That is the problem. A whole base class is blocked from some of its class spells. This is a new and unique problem with existing rules.
Except it's not a new and unique problem. Anyone who chooses to use Tasha's is prohibited from using Xanathar's. The only thing required to play in DDAL is the basic rules. The documents have been clear on that from the very beginning. Everything else is gravy.
Artificer is new to AL. Never being able to use spells on its spell list is a problem unique to it. New and unique.
Yes, the rules are not new, the problem is. That is why Hamsterkill brought it up 20+ posts ago.
Stop trying to argue there is no problem when there very clearly is (granted it is not a game breaking problem, but it is enough to warrant acknowledgment).
No one can choose the spells in Xanathar's unless that book is also their +1. Barring that one Eberron campaign, that's how it has always worked.
Right. The problem is Artificer is not in PHB, so artificer and only artificer can never use XGtE spells. That is the problem. A whole base class is blocked from some of its class spells. This is a new and unique problem with existing rules.
Except it's not a new and unique problem. Anyone who chooses to use Tasha's is prohibited from using Xanathar's. The only thing required to play in DDAL is the basic rules. The documents have been clear on that from the very beginning. Everything else is gravy.
Artificer is new to AL. Never being able to use spells on its spell list is a problem unique to it. New and unique.
Yes, the rules are not new, the problem is. That is why Hamsterkill brought it up 20+ posts ago.
Stop trying to argue there is no problem when there very clearly is (granted it is not a game breaking problem, but it is enough to warrant acknowledgment).
Okay, so let's say you're right that it's a problem. What's a good solution? Should a special exception is carved out for artificers so they can access their full spell list; even spells found in another book? How is that not discrimination in favor of artificers? Why should this non-core class be held to a different standard than everyone else? How many people do you think are going to cry foul about that? More than before? Less?
I say, if people are going to cry foul either way, they may as well leave the rule intact.
Okay, so let's say you're right that it's a problem. What's a good solution? Should a special exception is carved out for artificers so they can access their full spell list; even spells found in another book? How is that not discrimination in favor of artificers? Why should this non-core class be held to a different standard than everyone else? How many people do you think are going to cry foul about that? More than before? Less?
I say, if people are going to cry foul either way, they may as well leave the rule intact.
Ok, this is progress.
If it were up to me, being an artificer with it's ERftLW subclasses would not require a +1 (essentially making it part of the PHB like every other class). I don't think anyone would cry foul over a class being more accessible.
The armorer subclass would still require TCoE and thus unable to use XGtE spells, but that is the same as every other class's TCoE subclasses, so it's fair.
Alternatively, they could just remove the PHB+1 rule entirely, they already seem to be phasing it out in s10 by not restricting race.
Okay, so let's say you're right that it's a problem. What's a good solution? Should a special exception is carved out for artificers so they can access their full spell list; even spells found in another book? How is that not discrimination in favor of artificers? Why should this non-core class be held to a different standard than everyone else? How many people do you think are going to cry foul about that? More than before? Less?
I say, if people are going to cry foul either way, they may as well leave the rule intact.
Ok, this is progress.
If it were up to me, being an artificer with it's ERftLW subclasses would not require a +1 (essentially making it part of the PHB like every other class). I don't think anyone would cry foul over a class being more accessible.
The armorer subclass would still require TCoE and thus unable to use XGtE spells, but that is the same as every other class's TCoE subclasses, so it's fair.
Alternatively, they could just remove the PHB+1 rule entirely, they already seem to be phasing it out in s10 by not restricting race.
Well, I don't think the first one works because it would require segregating the subclasses based on which book they appear in. And that would be after they're already reprinting everything in a single book; including guidelines for how to import the class to other settings. It hardly seems practical. The goal should be to make things as simple as possible.
And I don't see them dropping PH + 1 in its entirety. Maybe they should, and I think a case could be made either way, but they're clearly not. Which, unfortunately, brings us back around to where we started. Because all of this stems from the PH + 1 rule.
So, unless Wizard's lift the rule on which books PCs can draw their spells from, artificers are going to be left out.
If it were up to me, being an artificer with it's ERftLW subclasses would not require a +1 (essentially making it part of the PHB like every other class). I don't think anyone would cry foul over a class being more accessible.
The armorer subclass would still require TCoE and thus unable to use XGtE spells, but that is the same as every other class's TCoE subclasses, so it's fair.
Alternatively, they could just remove the PHB+1 rule entirely, they already seem to be phasing it out in s10 by not restricting race.
Well, I don't think the first one works because it would require segregating the subclasses based on which book they appear in. And that would be after they're already reprinting everything in a single book; including guidelines for how to import the class to other settings. It hardly seems practical. The goal should be to make things as simple as possible.
[Snip]
So, unless Wizard's lift the rule on which books PCs can draw their spells from, artificers are going to be left out.
Yes? Subclasses are already segregated by which book they appear. I only suggested making one instance of where they appear not count as an additional sourcebook to make the class more available and also make its complete spell list accessible. All non-mechanical stuff printed in Tasha's can be used without it being a +1, so that isn't relevant.
I wouldn't mind lifting the spell restriction (might as well do feats while they're at it), but it makes the PHB+1 rule weaker by doing so. So why keep it at that point? In terms of being as simple as possible, removing PHB+1 is it. Option 1, isn't simple, but maintains the current balance without lessening any other rules.
Side note, I believe WGtE is actually a free PDF in a lot of places and the base artificer and the alchemist subclass was printed there. This could get bundled into SRD, maybe.
If it were up to me, being an artificer with it's ERftLW subclasses would not require a +1 (essentially making it part of the PHB like every other class). I don't think anyone would cry foul over a class being more accessible.
The armorer subclass would still require TCoE and thus unable to use XGtE spells, but that is the same as every other class's TCoE subclasses, so it's fair.
Alternatively, they could just remove the PHB+1 rule entirely, they already seem to be phasing it out in s10 by not restricting race.
Well, I don't think the first one works because it would require segregating the subclasses based on which book they appear in. And that would be after they're already reprinting everything in a single book; including guidelines for how to import the class to other settings. It hardly seems practical. The goal should be to make things as simple as possible.
[Snip]
So, unless Wizard's lift the rule on which books PCs can draw their spells from, artificers are going to be left out.
Yes? Subclasses are already segregated by which book they appear. I only suggested making one instance of where they appear not count as an additional sourcebook to make the class more available and also make its complete spell list accessible. All non-mechanical stuff printed in Tasha's can be used without it being a +1, so that isn't relevant.
I wouldn't mind lifting the spell restriction (might as well do feats while they're at it), but it makes the PHB+1 rule weaker by doing so. So why keep it at that point? In terms of being as simple as possible, removing PHB+1 is it. Option 1, isn't simple, but maintains the current balance without lessening any other rules.
Side note, I believe WGtE is actually a free PDF in a lot of places and the base artificer and the alchemist subclass was printed there. This could get bundled into SRD, maybe.
The Wayfinder's Guide to Eberron isn't legally free in a lot of places. It's still $19.99 on DM's Guild. And the content within is outdated, last I checked, which means it's no longer legal. I know the races inside have been revised since the initial publication and the publication of Eberron: Rising from the Last War. Now, maybe Artificer (and the Alchemist archetype) should be added to the SRD. There's not a bad case for that. But that's also fraught with complications, and if it was going to happen it would have been done by now. It has been a year, after all.
But even if they did, it wouldn't change much. Alchemists would have access to their full spell list through Xanathar's, but none of the other archetypes would. Maybe Wizards will put out a 10.4 that addresses your concerns. Or maybe they'll punt it to season 11. But whinging about PH + 1 now, when that's been the standard for years, isn't going to change the rule.
Honestly, I'd like to see them lump TCoE and XGtE together as a +1 if they decide to keep the +1 system. This avoids most of the problems of new classes or subclasses accessing class spells that aren't in the PHB.
In my experience, most people took XGtE as their +1 unless they wanted an exotic race from volo's or mordenkainen's or a subclass from SCAG. These would still be restricted from using the new content as now but the new options in TCoE would be able to access XGtE and PHB content while XGtE options would have access to TCoE.
Considering TCoE may provide base class improvements or options (ranger I think?) it would be unfortunate if the class archetypes from XGtE could not make use of quality of like improvements applying to entire classes that may be introduced in TCoE.
Anyway, just my 2 cents :) ... I think TCoE and XGtE combined should be a single +1 for AL purposes.
Honestly, I'd like to see them lump TCoE and XGtE together as a +1 if they decide to keep the +1 system. This avoids most of the problems of new classes or subclasses accessing class spells that aren't in the PHB.
In my experience, most people took XGtE as their +1 unless they wanted an exotic race from volo's or mordenkainen's or a subclass from SCAG. These would still be restricted from using the new content as now but the new options in TCoE would be able to access XGtE and PHB content while XGtE options would have access to TCoE.
Considering TCoE may provide base class improvements or options (ranger I think?) it would be unfortunate if the class archetypes from XGtE could not make use of quality of like improvements applying to entire classes that may be introduced in TCoE.
Anyway, just my 2 cents :) ... I think TCoE and XGtE combined should be a single +1 for AL purposes.
That'd work for this season, but would need to be looked at again when the next book containing subclasses comes out unable to take advantage of the core class options. The simplest solution is probably lumping Tasha's in with the PHB, but AL has never really been into simple solutions. That's why I think they'll just say Artificer (and its subclasses) and the class feature options can be excepted from +1 (i.e. considered part of the PHB). It's not clean, but excepting those two things from the +1-ness of Tasha's would return things to order until the next time they decide to revise core PHB class material or add a core class.
Honestly, I'd like to see them lump TCoE and XGtE together as a +1 if they decide to keep the +1 system. This avoids most of the problems of new classes or subclasses accessing class spells that aren't in the PHB.
If they continue the trend of "races don't use +1" that would be no different than removing the PHB+1 rule. As it stands, in season 10 the only +1s are XGtE and TCoE. So combining them makes the rule moot (which I am fine with).
Considering TCoE may provide base class improvements or options (ranger I think?) it would be unfortunate if the class archetypes from XGtE could not make use of quality of like improvements applying to entire classes that may be introduced in TCoE.
These class feature variants are sure to be "optional rules" and will therefore either not be allowed or be added to the AL house rules entirely. Either way, +1 won't matter.
That's why I think they'll just say Artificer (and its subclasses) and the class feature options can be excepted from +1 (i.e. considered part of the PHB). It's not clean, but excepting those two things from the +1-ness of Tasha's would return things to order until the next time they decide to revise core PHB class material or add a core class.
That is basically what I said, except I was leaving the armorer in TCoE. I would be fine with this.
Only some of the races in XGtE are "free". Some of them, like Sea Elves, Tritons, and the Goblinoids, are not.
Don't assume +1 won't matter when it comes to organized play. It may not matter for your home group, but it does still matter until Wizards decides otherwise.
Only some of the races in XGtE are "free". Some of them, like Sea Elves, Tritons, and the Goblinoids, are not.
Don't assume +1 won't matter when it comes to organized play. It may not matter for your home group, but it does still matter until Wizards decides otherwise.
In season 10, those races aren't allowed at all as far as I know. You have to choose only from the allowed races and it doesn't affect your +1. New historical characters still use the rules from season 9 for character creation as far as I know, at least until they come out with a historical campaign document.
"Choosing Your Race. All races in the PH are appropriate for this campaign. Additionally, you may also select a race or subrace from the list below as well."
Only some of the races in XGtE are "free". Some of them, like Sea Elves, Tritons, and the Goblinoids, are not.
Don't assume +1 won't matter when it comes to organized play. It may not matter for your home group, but it does still matter until Wizards decides otherwise.
In season 10, those races aren't allowed at all as far as I know. You have to choose only from the allowed races and it doesn't affect your +1. New historical characters still use the rules from season 9 for character creation as far as I know, at least until they come out with a historical campaign document.
"Choosing Your Race. All races in the PH are appropriate for this campaign. Additionally, you may also select a race or subrace from the list below as well."
Yes, and those don't count against your choice of PH + 1. So, either Volo's and Mordenkainen's can still be a PH + 1 and you can choose a race outside of the prescribed list, or the sidebar on PH + 1 is poorly worded. Disappointingly so; to the point that VGtM and MToF should no longer be included in the list.
Only some of the races in XGtE are "free". Some of them, like Sea Elves, Tritons, and the Goblinoids, are not.
Don't assume +1 won't matter when it comes to organized play. It may not matter for your home group, but it does still matter until Wizards decides otherwise.
In season 10, those races aren't allowed at all as far as I know. You have to choose only from the allowed races and it doesn't affect your +1. New historical characters still use the rules from season 9 for character creation as far as I know, at least until they come out with a historical campaign document.
"Choosing Your Race. All races in the PH are appropriate for this campaign. Additionally, you may also select a race or subrace from the list below as well."
Yes, and those don't count against your choice of PH + 1. So, either Volo's and Mordenkainen's can still be a PH + 1 and you can choose a race outside of the prescribed list, or the sidebar on PH + 1 is poorly worded. Disappointingly so; to the point that VGtM and MToF should no longer be included in the list.
First off, there are no races in XGtE.
Second, this is mentioned in the PHB+1 section:
It is important to note that your choice of race is not restricted by PH + 1.
So VGtM and MToF really do need to be taken off the list.
The table of contents for tasha's has leaked, so we know that the spells from SCAG and blade of disaster from IDRotF are being reprinted along with 16 new spells (mostly from UA). No spells from XGtE are being reprinted.
XGtE was eventually added to the Oracle of War ALPG though, and eberron doesn't use PHB+1 so it is allowed for every character.
And if a decision is made that discriminates against 1 class specifically, an explanation is owed.
Haven't seen anything past the 1.1 document. If there's a 1.2 or later that added XGtE, good for them.
In any case, blocking off those spells from XGtE is a decision which would impact every class; not just artificers. That means there's no discrimination. Yeah, blocking 15 spells off from artificers kind of sucks for DDAL play. But by the same token, if I wanted to play a Circle of Wildfire druid (and I do), I'd be locked out of upwards of 40 spells.
The one I read was 1.3.
But other than a few months of specifically eberron, XGtE isn't blocked off from every class, it will only be blocked off from artificer.
Subclass discrimination sucks, but is not the same as a whole base class.
No one can choose the spells in Xanathar's unless that book is also their +1. Barring that one Eberron campaign, that's how it has always worked.
Right. The problem is Artificer is not in PHB, so artificer and only artificer can never use XGtE spells. That is the problem. A whole base class is blocked from some of its class spells. This is a new and unique problem with existing rules.
Except it's not a new and unique problem. Anyone who chooses to use Tasha's is prohibited from using Xanathar's. The only thing required to play in DDAL is the basic rules. The documents have been clear on that from the very beginning. Everything else is gravy.
Artificer is new to AL. Never being able to use spells on its spell list is a problem unique to it. New and unique.
Yes, the rules are not new, the problem is. That is why Hamsterkill brought it up 20+ posts ago.
Stop trying to argue there is no problem when there very clearly is (granted it is not a game breaking problem, but it is enough to warrant acknowledgment).
Okay, so let's say you're right that it's a problem. What's a good solution? Should a special exception is carved out for artificers so they can access their full spell list; even spells found in another book? How is that not discrimination in favor of artificers? Why should this non-core class be held to a different standard than everyone else? How many people do you think are going to cry foul about that? More than before? Less?
I say, if people are going to cry foul either way, they may as well leave the rule intact.
Ok, this is progress.
If it were up to me, being an artificer with it's ERftLW subclasses would not require a +1 (essentially making it part of the PHB like every other class). I don't think anyone would cry foul over a class being more accessible.
The armorer subclass would still require TCoE and thus unable to use XGtE spells, but that is the same as every other class's TCoE subclasses, so it's fair.
Alternatively, they could just remove the PHB+1 rule entirely, they already seem to be phasing it out in s10 by not restricting race.
Well, I don't think the first one works because it would require segregating the subclasses based on which book they appear in. And that would be after they're already reprinting everything in a single book; including guidelines for how to import the class to other settings. It hardly seems practical. The goal should be to make things as simple as possible.
And I don't see them dropping PH + 1 in its entirety. Maybe they should, and I think a case could be made either way, but they're clearly not. Which, unfortunately, brings us back around to where we started. Because all of this stems from the PH + 1 rule.
So, unless Wizard's lift the rule on which books PCs can draw their spells from, artificers are going to be left out.
Yes? Subclasses are already segregated by which book they appear. I only suggested making one instance of where they appear not count as an additional sourcebook to make the class more available and also make its complete spell list accessible. All non-mechanical stuff printed in Tasha's can be used without it being a +1, so that isn't relevant.
I wouldn't mind lifting the spell restriction (might as well do feats while they're at it), but it makes the PHB+1 rule weaker by doing so. So why keep it at that point? In terms of being as simple as possible, removing PHB+1 is it. Option 1, isn't simple, but maintains the current balance without lessening any other rules.
Side note, I believe WGtE is actually a free PDF in a lot of places and the base artificer and the alchemist subclass was printed there. This could get bundled into SRD, maybe.
The Wayfinder's Guide to Eberron isn't legally free in a lot of places. It's still $19.99 on DM's Guild. And the content within is outdated, last I checked, which means it's no longer legal. I know the races inside have been revised since the initial publication and the publication of Eberron: Rising from the Last War. Now, maybe Artificer (and the Alchemist archetype) should be added to the SRD. There's not a bad case for that. But that's also fraught with complications, and if it was going to happen it would have been done by now. It has been a year, after all.
But even if they did, it wouldn't change much. Alchemists would have access to their full spell list through Xanathar's, but none of the other archetypes would. Maybe Wizards will put out a 10.4 that addresses your concerns. Or maybe they'll punt it to season 11. But whinging about PH + 1 now, when that's been the standard for years, isn't going to change the rule.
Honestly, I'd like to see them lump TCoE and XGtE together as a +1 if they decide to keep the +1 system. This avoids most of the problems of new classes or subclasses accessing class spells that aren't in the PHB.
In my experience, most people took XGtE as their +1 unless they wanted an exotic race from volo's or mordenkainen's or a subclass from SCAG. These would still be restricted from using the new content as now but the new options in TCoE would be able to access XGtE and PHB content while XGtE options would have access to TCoE.
Considering TCoE may provide base class improvements or options (ranger I think?) it would be unfortunate if the class archetypes from XGtE could not make use of quality of like improvements applying to entire classes that may be introduced in TCoE.
Anyway, just my 2 cents :) ... I think TCoE and XGtE combined should be a single +1 for AL purposes.
That'd work for this season, but would need to be looked at again when the next book containing subclasses comes out unable to take advantage of the core class options. The simplest solution is probably lumping Tasha's in with the PHB, but AL has never really been into simple solutions. That's why I think they'll just say Artificer (and its subclasses) and the class feature options can be excepted from +1 (i.e. considered part of the PHB). It's not clean, but excepting those two things from the +1-ness of Tasha's would return things to order until the next time they decide to revise core PHB class material or add a core class.
If they continue the trend of "races don't use +1" that would be no different than removing the PHB+1 rule. As it stands, in season 10 the only +1s are XGtE and TCoE. So combining them makes the rule moot (which I am fine with).
These class feature variants are sure to be "optional rules" and will therefore either not be allowed or be added to the AL house rules entirely. Either way, +1 won't matter.
That is basically what I said, except I was leaving the armorer in TCoE. I would be fine with this.
Only some of the races in XGtE are "free". Some of them, like Sea Elves, Tritons, and the Goblinoids, are not.
Don't assume +1 won't matter when it comes to organized play. It may not matter for your home group, but it does still matter until Wizards decides otherwise.
In season 10, those races aren't allowed at all as far as I know. You have to choose only from the allowed races and it doesn't affect your +1. New historical characters still use the rules from season 9 for character creation as far as I know, at least until they come out with a historical campaign document.
"Choosing Your Race. All races in the PH are appropriate for this campaign. Additionally, you may also select a race or subrace from the list below as well."
Yes, and those don't count against your choice of PH + 1. So, either Volo's and Mordenkainen's can still be a PH + 1 and you can choose a race outside of the prescribed list, or the sidebar on PH + 1 is poorly worded. Disappointingly so; to the point that VGtM and MToF should no longer be included in the list.
First off, there are no races in XGtE.
Second, this is mentioned in the PHB+1 section:
So VGtM and MToF really do need to be taken off the list.
Oh boo hoo, I made a typo when you clearly knew what I meant.