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


log in or register to remove this ad

Yeeaah... I was expecting being able to shift one bonus point or something like that... And my first though after seeing this was indeed too that we better get ready for our new dwarven overlords!
Honestly? I welcome it. Damned elves have had their fun in the spotlight long enough.

Jokes aside though, I don't forsee this honestly being a huge game breaking concern. At our table we are about as cavalier with allowing alternate racials as one could be already and we have yet to see any one race truly dominate. If anything else it'll encourage people to play more odd combinations and I'm all for it.

Ah yes, played by the amateur thespian in the gaming group who thinks being unable to communicate properly with the rest of the cohort of fellow adventurers they are relying on in actual life-or-death situations will lead to all sorts of humorous misunderstandings and hijinks. About as cool as the CN kleptomaniac rogue with a penchant for stealing other characters' stuff, or any character with a backstory involving "trust issues". Lord save us from such character concepts.

Cheers, Al'Kelhar
This reminds me of when I once played a sentient Velociraptor that had a backstory of being awakened by magic. He could understand languages but not speak and was an illiterate barbarian (it was 3.5). I communicated with the party through a combination of in character charades and body language, and out of character descriptions. He was no philosopher or noble scion, mind you, but it did work. It's not a character fit for all games or one all players can pull off though.
 
Last edited:


pnewman

Explorer
Racial ability score penalties are getting errata’d away.
If it's not in the rules posted than it has not happened yet. I can only go by the rules they've made, and not by the rules that they say that they are purportedly going to make at some undisclosed future time.

I just checked the erratta to Volo's Guide to Monsters on the WOTC site, and the Kobold Strength penalty had not yet been changed.
 

Dire Bare

Legend
Supporter
Third, not having common could be an annoying issue. Knowing my players, they're going to all change common to some obscure language like Bullywug, sharing none in common with each other. I personally will limit this to only getting rid of common if you have a really good reason for it, and then you still have to communicate with the party.
Heh, heh . . . I would TOTALLY allow PCs to ditch common in favor of some exotic language . . . and then totally screw with them when they can't understand half the people they encounter, in town, in the dungeon, in the wilderness . . . .
 

A few people have said things along the lines of "this is pandering for min-maxers/munchkins" or some other claim like that. This post is meant to debunk that.

First, has WotC ever said anything along the lines of "Okay, Powergamers! Throw your money right at us! This book as everything you need to crap on your DM's game by being unbeatable because now you get the ungodly ability to give yourself a +2 to ANY freaking ability score instead of being restricted by the stupid race you chose before! The game now is only specifically designed for you, and screw everyone that has an undying hatred of anyone who has a higher DPR than 13!"

Seriously, what the heck? Even if this was "pandering" to the "Munchkins" why in the world is that a bad thing. Some people like playing differently than your playstyle. Also, this is an optional rule, so freaking ignore it if you don't like the system! You're the DM, this changes absolutely nothing for those who choose to not use this system.

Second, this isn't pandering. Letting other people play a certain way that they prefer is not pandering, because pandering denotes that one playstyle is less than anyone else's. This is incorrect. No one plays D&D wrong unless their table isn't having fun because of the playstyle. If a group likes being murderhobos that work together to destroy every creature in the multiverse, that is not a wrong way to play D&D if they're all having fun. Also, besides the fact that you're wrong, the fact that you're so vehemently wrong about this leads you to start offending others by saying that the way we're playing is incorrect. Freaking play how you want, and ignore everyone else's tables if they're having fun.

Replace the word "pandering" with "making official optional rules," please. Sure, we could homebrew before, but that wasn't supported on sites like D&D Beyond, or in Adventurer's League, or any tables that reject all homebrew rules.

Third, we're not minmaxers because we want to at least be good at what our class is supposed to do. Wizards are supposed to cast spells, Barbarians are supposed to attack with strength. Sure, a halfling will never be as good a barbarian as a half-orc with these changes, and I personally am okay with that. They can still dual wield longswords or something like that, and still can be fun, decent characters.

Call the group of people who want these changes "people who like playing the game differently".

So, finally, the correct way to talk about this change is "Wizards of the Coast is making official rules for people who like playing the game differently."

I never played any previous editions of D&D, and I don't know what traumatic experiences you older folks had playing 3e or whatever edition scarred you into your deep hatred of powergamers. I know that I like making powerful characters, because D&D is supposed to be a game where the characters are the heroes that save the world. I also like numbers and math, so that helps me play in the way that I like.

Please be more respectful to people who actually enjoy playing the game and are excited for the new change, because it allows us to play a certain way. I like playing strong characters, and I like picking races that don't punish me for playing a different way than the race is intended. My playstyle isn't wrong just because you personally don't like that way of playing.
 




Azzy

Newtype
If it's not in the rules posted than it has not happened yet. I can only go by the rules they've made, and not by the rules that they say that they are purportedly going to make at some undisclosed future time.

I just checked the erratta to Volo's Guide to Monsters on the WOTC site, and the Kobold Strength penalty had not yet been changed.
Since kobolds (and other penalized races) aren't an option to play in this AL season (in which these rules are to be used), I'd say that they this is pretty irrelevant at this point. While the errata for them and other ASI-penalty races are not out yet, neither is Tasha's (which will bring these rules—or a version thereof—to the general player base). It will only be if those races aren't errata'd by the time Tasha's comes out that this concern will become relevant. If you want to adopt these rules for non-AL games before the errata comes out, you'll have to find a solution to this issue for yourself.
 

MGibster

Legend
A few people have said things along the lines of "this is pandering for min-maxers/munchkins" or some other claim like that. This post is meant to debunk that.
I think it's unfair for folks to accuse WotC of pandering. To pander is to indulge someone in an immoral desire of some sort. While I'm not too keen on the a la carte character generation myself, I can't see how preferring it is immoral or wrong in some way. Responding to what some of your customers want isn't always pandering.
 


Azzy

Newtype
Aside from this tempest in a teapot (as a previous poster aptly put it), no one has mentioned that these AL guidelines don't include the options from SCAG.

It seems like an odd decision. I wonder if there's something more to take away from that.
 

Ancalagon

Dusty Dragon
Ok, what is this about only variant humans being played? I've played plenty of baseline humans...

When you roll your scores and randomly get a bunch of odd scores... it makes a big difference.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
I think it's unfair for folks to accuse WotC of pandering. To pander is to indulge someone in an immoral desire of some sort. While I'm not too keen on the a la carte character generation myself, I can't see how preferring it is immoral or wrong in some way. Responding to what some of your customers want isn't always pandering.
Pandering is catering to people who want to engage in an immoral or distasteful desire. I can see people finding min-maxing distasteful.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Ok, what is this about only variant humans being played? I've played plenty of baseline humans...

When you roll your scores and randomly get a bunch of odd scores... it makes a big difference.
I haven't seen that yet. In 5e there's not a lot of need for your 3rd to 6th stats to have that extra plus, but a feat and another proficiency will be huge additions to your character.
 

Ah yes, played by the amateur thespian in the gaming group who thinks being unable to communicate properly with the rest of the cohort of fellow adventurers they are relying on in actual life-or-death situations will lead to all sorts of humorous misunderstandings and hijinks. About as cool as the CN kleptomaniac rogue with a penchant for stealing other characters' stuff, or any character with a backstory involving "trust issues". Lord save us from such character concepts.

Cheers, Al'Kelhar
If the modal of the game is "D&D as a sports team," you are absolutely correct: both those concepts are a pain-in-the-bosom. If the modal for the game is "dirt, amoral, incompetent misfits with no place in society throw together by unfortunate circumstance," both those concepts work pretty well. A lot depends on the underlying assumptions of the group.
 

Horwath

Hero
Ok, what is this about only variant humans being played? I've played plenty of baseline humans...

When you roll your scores and randomly get a bunch of odd scores... it makes a big difference.
This is why Rolling sucks as ability generating method.

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

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen
If it's not in the rules posted than it has not happened yet. I can only go by the rules they've made, and not by the rules that they say that they are purportedly going to make at some undisclosed future time.

I just checked the erratta to Volo's Guide to Monsters on the WOTC site, and the Kobold Strength penalty had not yet been changed.
It’s not happening at “some undisclosed future time,” it’s happening in Tasha’s Cauldron of Everything. You asked what was happening with racial ability score penalties, don’t get snippy with me for telling you the answer.
 

This is why Rolling sucks as ability generating method.

You roll abilities, then you think what race can salvage/munchkin this set of rolls
That's why the rolling method rocks.

4d6, in order: wonderful. You get high INT / STR wizards, intelligent barbarians, wise fighters, sickly paladins. It's a blast, but it requires players to come to the table without a specific concept in mind. It also lessens the emphasis on the character building pre-game activity (thank god!).

Rolling isn't for every group, but I enjoy it.

So in my games I allow: 2 methods heroic array or 4d6 in order

Players who roll 4d6 receive 1 Awesomeness point at the beginning of each session, which can be expended to reroll a die. Players (not characters) with manly beards receive an additional awesomeness point.

Disappointingly, no one has decided to grow a manly beard. (Yet!!!)
 

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

Advertisement1

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

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top