log in or register to remove this ad

 

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.

38384683-0EFA-4481-8D96-3C033B9F7F03.jpeg

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.
 
Russ Morrissey

Comments

billd91

Hobbit on Quest
If your game is broken by the wizard in your group having +2 AC and 1 more HP/level, then, well, there's something seriously wrong with your game.
By the same token, the difference between one PC wizard getting a +2 to intelligence while the other PC wizard doesn't because of the race they picked shouldn't have been an issue in the first place. Yet here we are...
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Retreater

Legend
As far as the 12 Int wizard, I think a lot of the conversation in past threads has been where folks won't play a race that doesn't have a +1 or +2 in the prime requisite of the class. One can be quite a bit higher than a 12 Int without even having the bonus there, can't they? But for some, knowing that every time they missed a roll by one it was "their fault" for putting that bonus to rounding out their character sucks the fun out of it. That kind of just makes me sad to hear. But it's why I don't mind floating stats for the NPCs. Having Goliaths not in general stronger than Halfilings anymore (in the background world) just seems strange now though
Yeah. Having a wizard with a 12 Int (or in a group that I DMed, actually with an Intelligence penalty) is different than one with a 14 or 15 Intelligence. I know it's only a +1 modifier, and mechanically it can be insignificant, but I think the wizard should feel like one of the most intelligent party members. The party is relying on you to be able to at least try to be effective at your role. Otherwise, it's the same argument as the thief who steals equipment and ties the fighter's shoelaces together while he sleeps, the whole time saying "I'm just playing my character."
If your character is doing stupid stuff that is going to endanger the mission, my character is going to have a problem with you. If you are a good player, you should have some connection to the adventure your DM has planned and you should want your party to succeed.
 


Morrus

Well, that was fun
Staff member
Yeah. Having a wizard with a 12 Int (or in a group that I DMed, actually with an Intelligence penalty) is different than one with a 14 or 15 Intelligence. I know it's only a +1 modifier, and mechanically it can be insignificant, but I think the wizard should feel like one of the most intelligent party members.
I don't think fiction agrees with you. You can have less-intelligent wizards. Sounds like fun to me! I'm off to read some Pratchett.

If your character is doing stupid stuff that is going to endanger the mission, my character is going to have a problem with you.
Your current character, or all your characters? I mean if all your characters share the same opinion, maybe try playing a different character?

If you are a good player, you should have some connection to the adventure your DM has planned and you should want your party to succeed.
And we are not going to gatekeep your preferred roleplaying choices as "good players". If somebody wants to play a dumb wizard, that does not make them a bad player, and it also doesn't mean they don't want their party to succeed. It just means they have different replaying priorities to you.
 


Actually, on a serious note, is the the Mountain Dwarf in 5E the ONLY race choice that can have a +2/+2 when it comes to ability score bonuses? This is actually the first time I'm taking notices of the Mountain Dwarf getting +2/+2 and now I wonder if it's the only one capable of doing that or were there a few others in 5E that pulls that off too?

If so, then I want my Kitsune modifiers to have the +2/+2 your honor!
 


Oofta

Title? I don't need no stinkin' title.
So for 6E maybe we should just have a blank sheet and "you figure it out?" Think of it as the ultimate in flexibility! :p

In any case, I'll wait and see what (if any) rules I allow. Personally Kind of like the limitations, even if it does mean that my wizard doesn't start with an optimized ability score. I get that some people care, but you can't please everyone and if you try sometimes you end up pleasing no one.
 

Actually, on a serious note, is the the Mountain Dwarf in 5E the ONLY race choice that can have a +2/+2 when it comes to ability score bonuses? This is actually the first time I'm taking notices of the Mountain Dwarf getting +2/+2 and now I wonder if it's the only one capable of doing that or were there a few others in 5E that pulls that off too?

If so, then I want my Kitsune modifiers to have the +2/+2 your honor!
I do feel like if Tasha's doesn't do something about this sort of situation, we can honestly consider it a failure in this department, at least.

Right now, the disparity between difference races is pretty ridiculous, because some have +2/+2, most have +2/+1, a few just have +2, and a couple have +2/-2 (there's also the human and Triton for yet other takes). And that's ridiculous, really, especially as some of the ones with the better bonuses also have incredible racial packages like the Mountain Dwarf does.

I think the need to errata the Mountain Dwarf (they should have done so years ago, and would have, I suspect if this were any other edition), or make it so if you want to move stats around you have to go to +2/+1, regardless of what the original stats were (and humans should be excluded from the stat moving because they're free-form anyway).
 

MGibster

Legend
I don't think fiction agrees with you. You can have less-intelligent wizards. Sounds like fun to me! I'm off to read some Pratchett.
What works in an awesome book like The Colour of Magic might not work well in a game. Rincewind is a lot of fun in the books, he'd probably be a lot of fun in a game using FUDGE, but I don't think he'd be a lot of fun in D&D. But, hey, if that's what floats someone's D&D boat I'm not going to tell them they're doing it wrong. But I do think most players have an expectation that the wizard, fighter, or cleric in their party is going to be pretty good at fulfilling their role.
 

TwoSix

Unserious gamer
Supporter
So for 6E maybe we should just have a blank sheet and "you figure it out?" Think of it as the ultimate in flexibility! :p
I'm fairly close to that point with 5E. I homebrewed a subclass just for my character in one of our current campaigns, and I'm thinking of doing a whole class just for my next one.
 

Come on, folks. Is min-maxing the worst thing there is? I'm a good player, contribute to role-playing, want to help the GM move the story forward, look for out of the box solutions to problems. But I also want my character to be good at what he is supposed to do in the group. I don't want to bring in a wizard with a 12 Intelligence or some other sub-optimal build just because "it's a cool character concept." I can have good stats AND a cool character concept.
D&D is like a team sport. You don't put your slugger in to pitch, and you don't put your pitcher in to bat cleanup. Everyone has roles to play if the team is going to succeed.
If D&D is a sports team, min-maxed characters should be the norm. Anyone who can't make the cut should be booted from the team.

In my mind, however, D&D is not like a sports team.

If I lived in a D&D world, I (and every sane, comfortable individual) would remain behind the city walls and never leave. If I were to venture past the gate, it's too likely I would crushed by a giant club, , sold into slavery, scorched by a dragon, gobbled up by a T-rex, shredded by a displacer beast, or have my brain sucked out by a mind flayer. That sort of curiosity is just asking for trouble. I see adventurers as misfits without a place in society. They're dirty, amoral, petty, and frantic, but they also might be the greatest heroes a desperate world could scrape up.
 
Last edited:

Wrathamon

Explorer
racial attribute bonuses should go away and be moved to Class Bonuses. +2 to one stat +1 to another.
If a race is considered strong powerful build works for example of representing this. Create cool features that arent tied to math to highlight their racial differences to create interesting choices. I like the skill/language swaps. I didnt grow up in china so I shouldnt have to speak chinese. Its pretty ignorant to assume I speak it. Proficiencies should be "recommended" but let the player pick.


That would have been a better variant rule but it requires more design work since some races rely on their Attribute modifier to "define" them. Creating a bunch of variant racial features that replace the ASI is a lot of work.
 

I mean......all kidding aside, I think just a new Standard Array or Point Buy Total would have pretty much accomplished the same. Just incorporate the adjustments into those figures and you're done.

Those who roll stats don't need to increase their stats any more .... :p
 



The real problem is not stat bumps, but dark vision. No one in my campaign will play a charachter without it. (I rarely play but when i do i alwas grab dark vision) Get rid of dark vision and I would have an all human party.

Next campaign I am homebrewing out dark vision.
Yeah. Dark vision makes adventuring less adventurous. Its existence is a net negative on play.
 

Parmandur

Legend
What works in an awesome book like The Colour of Magic might not work well in a game. Rincewind is a lot of fun in the books, he'd probably be a lot of fun in a game using FUDGE, but I don't think he'd be a lot of fun in D&D. But, hey, if that's what floats someone's D&D boat I'm not going to tell them they're doing it wrong. But I do think most players have an expectation that the wizard, fighter, or cleric in their party is going to be pretty good at fulfilling their role.
I'd say it's reasonable to apply the Multiclassing minimums as a requirement to choose a Class, but people act like 5E is unplayable with suboptimal characters, but it just ain't so.
 


Sabathius42

Bree-Yark
yeah cause god forbid a player has to make a choice that isn’t optimal to play a concept. Seriously, this isn’t inclusivity. This is badly balanced pandering that does little but water down any sort of uniqueness for a race.

fun fact: you can have a fantasy race that is inherently stronger or smarter on average compared to another race without it being prejudicial.
Counter Fun Fact: You can play an exception to the inherent description of a fantasy race (like a bookish weakling orc) without it disrupting the game OR the world in which the game is set.
 

COMING SOON: 5 Plug-In Settlements for your 5E Game

Advertisement1

Latest threads

COMING SOON: 5 Plug-In Settlements for your 5E Game

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top