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.

 

[billd91]

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.

Sure. It would make sense for the wizard to be fairly intelligent - the most intelligent possible (or ever), that's probably not necessary. You can be effective when you're not pushing the envelope on your stat maximization.

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.

And I don't know where this is going. You can do all of that while maxing out your stats too. I honestly don't see how this relates unless you're trying to imply that failing to maximize stats is on the same level of behavior... something I utterly reject as equivalent.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Yes, but this just makes a different race optimal for something. In a game with different abilities you always find a best fit.

I think allowing for a bit flexibility is not a bad idea, but the races of the PHB are not balanced to just swap atribute bonuses.

The difference between a race inherently good, neutral, or bad at a particular attribute in 5e boils down to how long in your adventuring career it takes you to reach a 20. It can vary from 8th level at best, 12th for most, and 16 in the extreme couple examples of the few races that have a -2. We have already established that a half-orc and a kobold adventurer are going to both become the strongest strong that is possible, it just happens sooner for the half-orc.

You aren't enforcing any sort of X is better than Y overall because of the natural stop-sign of getting a 20 in an attribute. Other than maybe 4 or 5 of the rare races that get a negative attribute at the start...you literally only have a 4 level window before the PCs are all sitting at a 20 and moving on to selecting feats or bumping up other attributes.

I don't view this 4 (8 on the extreme) level window as doing anything to enforce "how a race feels in the world" and I don't view how a race normally feels in the world as having to apply to PCs. Their very nature of being adventurers and having class levels already means they aren't playing by the same rules as the rest of the world.

To state this a different way....the stat bonuses a PC uses when creating a character do not define how a race works in the world of the game. They strictly define how a player character of that race is created. The stats in the Monster Manual define how an orc or a kobold works in the world of the game. Nobody is complaining that the orc in the MM has a higher STR score than the kobold or a lower INT score than an elf. What people are saying is that they shouldn't be penalized (by being behind by +1 or 2 in mod scores for 12-16 levels) for playing once race versus another AS A CHARACTER because of the fiction of the world that they exist in.

If you strongly believe that the strongest orc is always stronger than the strongest kobold, or that the smartest elf is always smarter than the smartest orc, then you should be championing changes to the hard limit of a 20 for player character attribute scores to make that happen.

Similarly, if you believe that an orc and a kobold can end up equally strong, then you should also support that an orc and a kobold player character can start gameplay equally strong.

 

[jasper]

If D&D is a sports team, some of us are doing pick up games at the local sand lot. Others are taking classes, drugs, and practicing 24/7. And both sides hate it when the other team shows up. YEAH SANDLOT!. BOO PROS!
Spikes the gatorade of other side

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

D&D is the only sport that consists 100% of nerds.
(Chess doesn't count.)

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Okay, this change is mostly good, IMHO, and I'm glad it's coming, but I do have some concerns.

First, this makes Mountain Dwarves and Half-Elves even better (again, not a problem with this change, it's a problem with the races).

Second, the weapon exchanged for tool proficiency doesn't seem super balanced. Lets you get 5 tools at level one, excluding class. I would limit it to martial weapons being traded for tools, just to keep it a bit less exploitable.

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.

Overall, it's a good change for my table (assuming the Tasha's lineage system is very similar to this), but it does have some issues.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I am so happy, it is presented as an OPTION. So you can take or leave it, whatever you like. I was just hoping we would get a bit more than that.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Whilst I think the execution is flawed and I didn't need this kind of rule in the first place, it is nice thing to have for people who wished for something like this. However one has to wonder whether making this an Adventuring League rule is such a stellar idea. One would imagine that that is exactly the sort of environment where shameless min-maxing will happen. I'd imagine this rule would be far less disruptive in a constant group of like-minded players.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Whilst I think the execution is flawed and I didn't need this kind of rule in the first place, it is nice thing to have for people who wished for something like this. However one has to wonder whether making this an Adventuring League rule is such a stellar idea. One would imagine that that is exactly the sort of environment where shameless min-maxing will happen. I'd imagine this rule would be far less disruptive in a constant group of like-minded players.

If a DM in Adventurer's League doesn't like this rule, that sucks, but it's Adventurer's League. They signed up for it, and can stop DMing there if they have an undying hatred for powergamers that use this rule.

 

[Krachek]

I wonder how long it will takes before they remove racial restriction on most of the racial feats.
Why a dwarf build in Dex cannot choose elven accuracy over an elf build on Cha?

 

[jasper]

If a DM in Adventurer's League doesn't like this rule, that sucks, but it's Adventurer's League. They signed up for it, and can stop DMing there if they have an undying hatred for powergamers that use this rule.

Where did I sign up for it? Where is the 10K bonus after dm 1 season. Did signing up for come with the GI Bill? Yes AL is losing people over the stat change, and/or Seasonality restriction.