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.

 

[ChaosOS]

I fully agree with the analysis above that the biggest buff/change is extraneous weapon proficiencies can now be traded for tool proficiencies. At the same time, this was the more important change compared to ASIs - genetic longsword proficiency is way harder to justify than "elves are dexier".

The main thing I want out of the Lineage System is good phrasing. As in "You are a dwarf and get +2 Con. You were raised in an X culture so you get +2 Y, and training in Z cultural tool."

The issue is that there's no way to provide a list of cultures that makes people happy. FR is the most popular single setting and is only used by ~30% of folks, and this is supposed to be a non-setting book. Besides, that's already pretty close to the existing subrace system, which people are clearly unhappy with.

If you really think about it

Armor, shield and saving trow proficiency are the top tier proficiency based on the feats. Proficiency with a tier of armor, shields, or a saving throw is worth a +1.
But I can understand why WOTC doesn't let you swap these or trade down for redundant armor profs.
Because Mountain dwarves would have two +2s and two+1s.

That's your answer why they didn't do racial point buy.

I'm not persuaded you've created a race that's too strong. It's better than base human, but base human is massively underpowered compared to the other options in the game. As an example, I've got an orc fighter (Eberron rules so she's got 8 int not 6) whose most important feature is not the +2Str|+1Con, but the bonus action dash to engage from Aggressive. Similarly, I don't think pure stats is actually stronger than good and interesting racial features.

 

[Minigiant]

I'm not persuaded you've created a race that's too strong. It's better than base human, but base human is massively underpowered compared to the other options in the game. As an example, I've got an orc fighter (Eberron rules so she's got 8 int not 6) whose most important feature is not the +2Str|+1Con, but the bonus action dash to engage from Aggressive. Similarly, I don't think pure stats is actually stronger than good and interesting racial features.

The point buy Mountain Dwarf's +2 +2 +1 +1 would be strong in classes that benefit from many abilities like monks and rangers.
That can get you 16, 14, 16, 14, 10 8 or 16, 16, 14, 14, 10 8.

Those are perfect for any Str based character who wears medium armor or has Unarmored Defense. On top of trading the 4 weapons for tools.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

The point buy Mountain Dwarf's +2 +2 +1 +1 would be strong in classes that benefit from many abilities like monks and rangers.
That can get you 16, 14, 16, 14, 10 8 or 16, 16, 14, 14, 10 8.

Those are perfect for any Str based character who wears medium armor or has Unarmored Defense. On top of trading the 4 weapons for tools.

Giving every elvish fighters 4 tools in the beginning seems wrong too. Probably making feature bundles which must be traded as a whole makes more sense.

 

[TwoSix]

Giving every elvish fighters 4 tools in the beginning seems wrong too. Probably making feature bundles which must be traded as a whole makes more sense.

Yea, I'll be honest, I never expected them to allow 1-for-1 trades of stuff like proficiencies. I thought they would list each race and specify which of their features could be bundled and traded. Obviously I was too optimistic.

 

[Parmandur]

Giving every elvish fighters 4 tools in the beginning seems wrong too. Probably making feature bundles which must be traded as a whole makes more sense.

I don't see why not: being a baker, a weaver and a candlestick maker at first level as a Fighter isn't broken, and seems pretty Elvish.

 

[Minigiant]

I don't see why not: being a baker, a weaver and a candlestick maker at first level as a Fighter isn't broken, and seems pretty Elvish.

You know.
I didn't like it at first but if you put it that way.
An Elf having 4 jobs before becoming a fighter is very D&D.

 

[ChaosOS]

Yeah flavor-wise the elf/dwarf stuff just reinforces that they don't start adventuring until they're like 80 years old - they've had decades and decades to learn a number of professions. Balance-wise... I don't usually ask for any tool check more than once a session. You could give a character proficiency in literally every tool and it wouldn't tip the game's balance.

 

[oreofox]

I think about the only tool check I have ever seen done is thieves' tools. Giving more tool proficiencies in place of weapons would cause no problems. As it is, you get so few tool proficiencies, and learning a new one took a stupid amount of time (what was it, a year ingame?). Players might actually use something other than theives' tools. In the games I have been in, anyway.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

You ahould use the tool rules from xanathars. Makes them a lot better and even gives advatnage on checks where both, skill and tool might apply.

 

[Minigiant]

I think about the only tool check I have ever seen done is thieves' tools. Giving more tool proficiencies in place of weapons would cause no problems. As it is, you get so few tool proficiencies, and learning a new one took a stupid amount of time (what was it, a year ingame?). Players might actually use something other than theives' tools. In the games I have been in, anyway.

This is because the main tool used in a dungeon is thieves tools. All the rest are use outside of the dungeon rimarily and thus have varying usage based on the DM's style of play and the player's creativity.

In 6e, I hope they at least split thieves tools into lockpicks and mechanic's tools.