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.

 

[DND_Reborn]

There are so many races that you can find just about any permutation of +2/+1 to the ability scores that you want

The only combinations I am aware of that don't have a race for them is STR/INT and CON/CHA, but either of these could be done the races with "ANY" ASIs (Changeling, Half-Elf, Human, Simic Hybrid, or Warforged).

Humans are by far the most popular race IIRC. Not sure which version though.

Maybe according to DNDBeyond or whatever, but not in any game I've ever played it or seen IRL.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

it totally is pandering. When this was first announced it was to help “remove harmful stereotypes” and promote inclusivity.

Whether or not it promotes inclusivity has nothing to do with whether or not this is pandering (hint: it is not pandering).

this does neither. It just waters down racial strengths and weaknesses and removes the fact that sometimes you sometimes have to make a choice that’s not optimal when you want to play a concept.

And in some campaigns the DM can decide Gnomes can get a +2 to Charisma, and this is for those who haven't closed off their mind to the concept.

And did I say that your play style was “lesser”? I mean, yeah, I think making the game more watered down isn’t a good thing, if you wanna play that way feel free. I don’t play in your game, nor am I likely to even before this.

Maybe choose your words better, than. Pandering implies that the thing you think they're pandering to is lesser, so I assumed you knew the meaning of the word you used.

that’s nice. Doesn’t mean this isn’t badly balanced, pandering crap that will never see the light of day in a game I run.

It isn't badly balanced, the races are. If a dwarf wizard getting a +2 to Int and proficiency in medium armor is unbalanced, that isn't a problem with this feature, it's a balance issue with the race.

 

[MikalC]

Depends on the player and the group. If your group uses point buy or stat arrays? Then no racial ASI means you're starting with a 15 in your main stat. For some people that's under their personal threshold for how good a PC should be at their core abilities.

so? If you want to play a concept, sometimes you gotta do that.
If you can’t play a level 1-4 caster with a 15 in your stat, despite just NEEDING to play that race... well I guess you really don’t actually wanna do it.

you wanna do it? You can’t go above 15 until your first asi? Well get over it and suck it up. You can live 1 less to your spell dc and spell attack modifiers for a few session

Maybe your group uses rolled stats. Maybe your DM is generous with magic items or tailors combat encounters in the party's favor. That's great for you. It doesn't change that a lot of people feel pigeon holed into only playing race/class combos with a racial ASI in their main stat, and this alternative rule frees them to play all the many other possible permutations without having to eat a big power loss.

if someone feels pigeonholed because they have 1 less spell save dc or spell attack than an “optimal” race, that’s their fault. Creating poorly balanced rule variants to appease them is naughty word game design, especially when it’s wrapped up in “we’re providing this for inclusivity!” naughty word that isn’t actually inclusive whatsoever.

 

[DND_Reborn]

you wanna do it? You can’t go above 15 until your first asi? Well get over it and suck it up. You can live 1 less to your spell dc and spell attack modifiers for a few session

Yeah, I've never understood why some people feel that starting +3 or better ability score mod is a "MUST HAVE" sort of thing. 5E is well-balance that an extra +1 (compared to a score of 14 or 15 giving +2) is NOT that big a deal IMO.

 

[Retreater]

Do you mean Racial Ability Score bonuses, or ability scores in general?

I mean, attempting to get rid of ability scores altogether would be pretty amusing.
But yeah, maybe just get rid of the importance of racial ability scores. Allow class and the player's interest to determine what the character is good at doing.

 

[MikalC]

Whether or not it promotes inclusivity has nothing to do with whether or not this is pandering (hint: it is not pandering).

hint: when someone creates a half assed rule variant to at best superficially create inclusivity while not actually doing so, that’s pandering.

And in some campaigns the DM can decide Gnomes can get a +2 to Charisma, and this is for those who haven't closed off their mind to the concept.

yeah cause god forbid that someone be forced to not start with a 17-20 starting out no matter what race or class they want. . Maybe if the player hadn’t closed their mind to you know, actually having to make a meaningful choice or potentially take a drawback to play a concept, it wouldn’t be an issue.

choose your words better, than. Pandering implies that the thing you think they're pandering to is lesser, so I assumed you knew the meaning of the word you used.

Pander, noun: someone who caters to or exploits the weaknesses of others.

nothing in there about assuming that someone’s choice is lesser, only that the group pandering is catering or exploiting something that someone wants.
Sorry, before you make assumptions about what words mean you should... actually know what words mean? Just sayin.

It isn't badly balanced, the races are. If a dwarf wizard getting a +2 to Int and proficiency in medium armor is unbalanced, that isn't a problem with this feature, it's a balance issue with the race.

having to make meaningful choices which sometimes includes drawbacks isn’t unbalanced. Pandering so every race can do anything at any time with little to no differences is boring as naughty word, and trying to tack that into a system MEANT to have players make meaningful choices which sometimes includes drawbacks is.

but from what you’ve been posting I’m not surprised you’re missing that.

don’t feel like you have to respond to me. If your quality of answer is going to be as factually correct as this I’m not really going to spend the time to respond and correct you.
Sincerely sorry for the harshness of this, but replying on mobile is a pain in this forum (literally, as in it hurts my hands and for some reason it likes to make changes to my formatting and takes more time for me to respond), and I don’t want to spend a bunch of time doing so just to correct mistaken assumptions on your (or others if they post the same) part.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Allow class and the player's interest to determine what the character is good at doing.

It's that how it already is, though? I mean, whether you are rolling and arranging to taste, using the standard array, or doing point-buy, you get to put your best scores where you want them, regardless of racial modifiers.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I mean, attempting to get rid of ability scores altogether would be pretty amusing.
But yeah, maybe just get rid of the importance of racial ability scores. Allow class and the player's interest to determine what the character is good at doing.

In later editions, I assume that they wouldn't include racial ability increases at all.

 

[Weiley31]

Well this means an Elf can swap out Longsword for Rapier(and then ya just reflavor it as an elven thinblade).

Well I had a feeling that the Ability Score rule for the Lineage system was basically Take your racial 2 and 1 scores and plant em wherever basically. Probably the best way of doing that. And if anybody doesn't like doing it that way, just stick with the default then. Win win for everybody.

Also, does this mean it's possible to create a character that has all tools and no weapons? That would be an interesting character to play as: no weapons training but can do other stuff.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Also, does this mean it's possible to create a character that has all tools and no weapons? That would be an interesting character to play as: no weapons training but can do other stuff.

Well, for the ones granted by race selection, certainly, but it doesn't imply the proficiencies granted by classes could. Otherwise, pretty much every caster in our games would drop 90+% of their weapons and pick up free tool proficiencies.