D&D 5E A First Look at Tasha’s Lineage System In AL Player’s Guide - Customizing Your Origin In D&D

The new player’s guide for the D&D Adventurers League has been released. Appendix 1 includes the new info from Tasha’s Cauldron on customizing your origin. It‘s a one-page appendix.

The D&D Adventurers League now uses this variant system from Tasha’s Cauldron of Everything since it allows for a greater degree of customization. For ease of reference, the relevant information is included as an appendix to this document and doesn’t count against the PH + 1 rule.

You can do any of the following (obviously the full document has more detail):

1. Move your race ability score increases wherever your want to. “...take any ability score increase you gain in your race or subrace and apply it to an ability score of your choice.”​

2. Replace each language from your race with any language from a set list.​

3. Swap each proficiency for another of the same type.​

4. Alter behaviour/personality race-based descriptions.​

Its not clear if that’s the whole Lineage system or just part of it. You can download the player’s guide here.

 

[SkidAce]

This is why Rolling sucks as ability generating method.

You roll abilities, then you think what race can salvage/munchkin this set of rolls

Not when you pick your race, then roll.

 

[dwayne]

I really don't see the point in this at all, As a DM i have set things in my world and how things are and done. This effects me in no way, as i already have a wide array of options for players to the point that it is overwhelming. But This as they said with the dwarf thing is like so whats the point of having humans or really any of the other races if you can just change it to suit your needs on a whim. Right now i suspect it is or at lest not what they are saying, the old editions had things like how to make aquatic elves or desert elves and sea fairing dwarves and fire gnomes and even on cultures like jungle dwarves and swap halflings. But they were still somewhat them selves, I remember sundered dwarves who were claustrophobic played one because the strength bonus but dungeon craws were hard for him. These were all really great, but of late the company like most seem to have lost their minds.

 

[Chaosmancer]

This is why you assign stat points. The +2 bonus reflects the predisposition. So on average dwarves have higher constitution.
A minus 2 strength modifier for really small races (we speak of "as big as a 3 year old child" ) was also in order, because there just is not enough muscle mass. Actually a woman having a strength penalty would also be ok, because women on average have lower muscle mass and the steongest woman is definitely not as strong as the strongest man.
Do we want to have that in our fantasy setting? The last part definitely not... At least I hope we agree here. The question is, if there is a better solution to consider better health, size or nimbleness.
I think yes:
look at 4e racial utility traits and 3e size modifier for carrying weight.

But, you are making assumptions

For example, most Apes (such as Chimpanzees) are stronger than adult humans, yet are the size of children. Because their muscles are denser.

So, which type of musculature does a gnome have? The immature muscles of a growing creature, or the fully adult muscles of a creature of similar stature and body type?

Size = weak is a poor methodology

Furthermore, while obviously a lot of attention has been paid to ability scores, I hope we can all agree the proficiency swaps are good. Even if we accept that elves are naturally more dextrous, why is an elf urchin who grew up on the streets of {major city} genetically proficient with a longsword? I still kinda have this issue with mountain dwarves and hobgoblins, I wish you could trade down the armor proficiency to any weapon or tool prof.

Amusingly, I find this swap (while I love it) far far more powerful than the ability scores.

Every Elf is taking Rapiers now. Every Elf or Dwarf martial character is going to start with 4 new tools or multiple languages. This is actually almost too powerful for my games, but is getting no mention, because most people don't use tools at all.

They're not stronger than the halfling or gnome that wanted to be strong.

Your enjoyment playing a fire mage, say, wouldn't be diminished if every other character at the table (thief, cleric, fighter) got to cast just as many fire spells as you?

If it's not a competition, does that mean no ones enjoyment should be diminished if there character doesn't get a racial mod to their prime requisite that some other character of a different race does?

But, realistically, everyone can play a fire mage. If there is a problem with 3 or 4 different people wanting to play a fire mage, fixing that in the rules of the game to only allow certain types of builds to be fire mages, doesn't seem like a real solution.

Because, if playing a strong character is important to them, but they'd love to be a gnome, then that player only has a few choices. 1) Not being strong, 2) Not being a Gnome.

And if they choose option 2, they might end up playing a super strong race anyways. And if that isn't a problem... why would them being a super strong gnome be a problem?

To chime in on the small race / STR/ size issue:

• A small race should be able to have a STR 20 for purposes of attacks, damage, skills, and saves... basically any place a die is or would be rolled because WotC defines a large part of STR (IMO) as application of power as well as degree of power.
• The small race should not be equal to a medium race for purposes of encumbrance, etc. unless you have a justifiable reason for your game why that would happen. If your rock gnomes have muscles which are genetically difference in composition from other races, sure--don't give them a penalty. I know the designers left this stuff out because of the idea that small-sized plate armor would not weigh the same as medium-sized plate armor, etc., but it isn't that hard to adjust (if you want to).
• Likewise, grappling a creature of a difference size should be harder in both directions. Trying to catch a young child running around is not easy, nor would it be easy for that child to try to wrestle an adult to the ground. Neither feat is impossible, of course, just harder. So, we ignore the "up to one size category larger" (or whatever it is) when it comes to grappling etc.

That's it I guess. Cheers.

Yeah, strength is weird in a lot of ways, because the game defines combat strength as the same as skill strength as the same as grapplings as the same as encumbrance.

We need it for combat, but the others can be neither here nor there most of the time.

 

[Cadence]

So, which type of musculature does a gnome have? The immature muscles of a growing creature, or the fully adult muscles of a creature of similar stature and body type?

Well, that all depends. Was it a Gnome from before or after the "Great Edition War of 3-4". They were on the weaker end before, and seem to be on the stronger end after.

And if they choose option 2, they might end up playing a super strong race anyways. And if that isn't a problem... why would them being a super strong gnome be a problem?

Maybe the other player's brain is stuck in the time before the war and can't visualize it?

But fair enough. Folks can pick their heights and purchase their strengths. Adult humans start around 2 foot tall and 35 lb. in real life, and a 16 starting strength is a thing. It would be odd to find a 17 Str Gnome to be the step too far.

Yeah, strength is weird in a lot of ways, because the game defines combat strength as the same as skill strength as the same as grapplings as the same as encumbrance.

When you only have six numbers to describe everything...

 

[Azzy]

Another completely different thing is to look at this lazy solution that WotC presented, which allegedly messes up the balance that supposedly existed in the races as conceived in the PHB, and saying that it is OK, no problem.

Despite what some posters on this thread insist, it is not a demonstrably proven fact this "messes up the balance that supposedly existed in the races as conceived in the PHB". No, that's just an opinion that hasn't actually been supported.

Besides that, the "it's optional, use it if you want" argument is great in theory, but anyone who (like me) has spent the last 25 years in the DM chair knows that when a player arrives with a new book and says they would like to use one of the options presented there, saying "no" feels more like an act of diplomacy than authority. And you feel bad about having to do that. Many DMs who I know avoid nonofficial stuff exactly because they believe you can trust the owners of D&D to do a better than average job with their rules.

Seriously, all it takes is setting the expectations for the campaign (and what materials you want to let in) ahead of time before the players even think about character concepts. If the players want to know why, then then be straightforward with them. Before I run a campaign, I let the players know what material is available for the particular campaign. With my latest campaign, I narrowed down what is available from what I usually allow (I'm usually pretty open to most published options). I've limited the races, classes, subclasses and backgrounds to those in the PHB and SCAG, with spells and feats from the PHB, SCAG, and Xanathar's available. The players haven't balked at this at all.

 

[Cadence]

Seriously, all it allegedly takes is setting the expectations for the campaign (and what materials you want to let in) ahead of time before the players even think about character concepts. If the players want to know why, then then be straightforward with them. Before I run a campaign, I let the players know what material is available for the particular campaign. With my latest campaign, I narrowed down what is available from what I usually allow (I'm usually pretty open to most published options). I've limited the races, classes, subclasses and backgrounds to those in the PHB and SCAG, with spells and feats from the PHB, SCAG, and Xanathar's available. The players haven't balked at this at all.

Despite what one player on this thread says has happened at their table, it is not a demonstrably proven fact that the technique of laying out restrictions in advance is a fool-proof general strategy for preventing balking players.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Not that grappling rules are comprehensive but you can't grapple anything more than 1 size larger.

I think grappling something of 1 size difference (larger or smaller) should be with disadvantage. So, a medium creature trying to grapple a tiny, small, or large would all be with disadvantage.

Carrying capacity isn't adjusted for small size though (tiny and below, large and above).

But it should be IMO.

We need it for combat, but the others can be neither here nor there most of the time.

Maybe in your games, but we use it for the rest all the time. We also use the variant rule of 5 lbs per STR point for unencumbered, etc.

And as another thread is trying do point out: do we really need it for combat? Probably. But it is worth thinking about if someone can find a good way to do it.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

Let me gently suggest you sit down and reconsider your assumptions.

I object to this condescending language. To some of us, your point of view simply doesn't carry the moral weight you think it does.

The fantasy races would be classified as different species if we bothered to shine the sober light of science on a fun fantasy setting.

Basically, I find the real world racist language analogy tenuous at best.

 

[Azzy]

Despite what one player on this thread says has happened at their table, it is not a demonstrably proven fact that the technique of laying out restrictions in advance is a fool-proof general strategy for preventing balking players.

There is nothing that is always fool-proof. Fools have a way of fouling up anything they touch. That's why it is best not to ally oneself with fools.

 

[Azzy]

View attachment 126326

What I got out of 22 pages of posts.

I'm rolling my Dexterity (Sleight of Hand) check to steal this.