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

Russ Morrissey


log in or register to remove this ad

Azzy

Newtype
Most of those games die horrible deaths not long after the mutiny. Some don't last a proper session.

My point was that players only accept restrictions if they feel it's reasonable. If they don't, you might see players walk (if mature) or act out (if not). The idea that if you set expectations early, players won't balk flies against what I've seen in game.
Your experience seems to involve a lot of immature players. If they're pulling that kind of crap instead of talking to you individually outside of the game like a mature adult, then maybe you need to say, "Bye, Felicia" and move on.

And, sure, there will sometimes be instances where you're not going to get buy-in from your group. Then you and your group need talk to each other to find some common ground or you're all going to be miserable regardless of what you play or how you play it. Maybe you're just not the right fit for that group and vice-versa or whatever. However, if you can't come together and talk with each other as rational, mature adults, then there are likely more problems at play than just asking players to not use certain optional material in your campaign and them ruining the game experience for you and the other players.

If you can't surmout the issue of excluding some optional material in a D&D campaign, how do you surmount the issue of what setting to you use, whether to use feats and multiclassing, whether to use standard healing or the gritty realism rules, or whatever? How do you handle a situation where you want to run a certain game (say, Call of Cthulhu), but your group isn't into that particullar genre/game system/whatever and they would rather play a different game (like, maybe, Cyberpunk)?
 

dnd4vr

The Smurfiest Wizard Ever!
I will certainly say that I agree with overall intent of the change; I'm a lot less positive on the overall implementation of the change.
Agreed. But I think most of us know changing racial ASIs to floating ASIs is nothing new. Maybe I am wrong? Heck, my group even did it for about a year.

Now, if WotC comes out with a series of variant racial traits that can be used to replace the racial ASIs, at least that would have given us new options.

I think all the other racial traits help reflect what makes the races different to the point that racial ASIs are not really needed at all. But, then some people will complain "I can't start with a 16 or 17 at level 1"--to which I say then roll scores if you don't like the idea of having a 15 cap using point-buy or the standard array. OR just bump them as numerous people have already suggested over and over.

Another options (which is widely used as I understand it) is to award a feat at level 1 for all races and then remove the racial ASIs. We award a feat at level 1, and variant human actually gets 2 feats! (I must admit with that temptation we rarely see humans still... which does surprise me some.)

One more option would have been to say "hey, we are reducing all +2 ASIs to +1 ASIs and giving you a +1 floater to put where you want, we are also making the other +1 a floater." So, a High Elf would have a mandatory DEX +1 to satisfy the players who want something tied down, and you have two +1 floaters which you can even stack. Want a strong High Elf Barbarian? No problem, put both +1 floaters into STR and you get a mandatory unmovable +1 to DEX.

But hey, I have no idea what else we will see when the book comes out. Maybe WotC will have 5-6 variant options similar to something like I outlined above? I am not going to hold my breath, but I do remain hopeful.
 


TwoSix

Unserious gamer
Supporter
One more option would have been to say "hey, we are reducing all +2 ASIs to +1 ASIs and giving you a +1 floater to put where you want, we are also making the other +1 a floater." So, a High Elf would have a mandatory DEX +1 to satisfy the players who want something tied down, and you have two +1 floaters which you can even stack. Want a strong High Elf Barbarian? No problem, put both +1 floaters into STR and you get a mandatory unmovable +1 to DEX.
Bonus feat, fixed +1, floating +1 would be pretty close to ideal in my opinion. Not far off from how PF2 does it, which I think has the current best balance between "player freedom" and "fleshing out the species concept".
 

Azzy

Newtype
So elven proficiency with a longsword is significantly different from a Ranger's?

Is the elf a ranger or another class that has proficiency with longswords and longbows? If not, then whether the ranger has it is irrelevant.

Having a cantrip screams elf, rather than spellcaster?

Given that the D&D high elf has always been associated with wizardy (whether as a hybrid fighter/magic-use in basic D&D, higher level limits and ability to multiclass magic-use/mage, having wizard as a favoured class, or whatever), yeah, high elves getting a bit of magic is pretty on track.

As a package they are not that great. Nor do they really scream elf. Trance by itself outweighs all the rest put together.

If that's your opinion, so be it. But those abilities are far more concept defining than ASIs.
 

Shardstone

Adventurer
This felt like the most judgemental post I'd seen in several pages ;-) Have there been more than a few people who have said it actually ruins the game in general? Or has a lot of it been a retread of the usual back and forth about whether a single +1 bonus makes something essentially unplayable, and going back and forth about whether the change actually accomplishes the goal (will some races still be patently better, or not, and should they have also dealt with the issues those races have).

Anyway, was this post a sign that part of the human condition is that there are folks ready to jump in and judge others as being judgemental?

I can't think of a single reason why my judgmental tone matters in this specific situation.
 

dnd4vr

The Smurfiest Wizard Ever!
Bonus feat, fixed +1, floating +1 would be pretty close to ideal in my opinion. Not far off from how PF2 does it, which I think has the current best balance between "player freedom" and "fleshing out the species concept".
Sure, IMO that would equate well to the mountain dwarf and half-elf with their total of +4 ASIs. It might be a wee bit too much... but I am not going to gripe over a single +1 ASI one way or the other. I would probably add heavy armor proficiency to mountain dwarves since their extra +1 ASI is due to being considered a weaker race, but it probably isn't needed. I think half-elves are already a top race, so nothing further would need to be added there.
 

Remathilis

Legend
Your experience seems to involve a lot of immature players. If they're pulling that kind of crap instead of talking to you individually outside of the game like a mature adult, then maybe you need to say, "Bye, Felicia" and move on.

And, sure, there will sometimes be instances where you're not going to get buy-in from your group. Then you and your group need talk to each other to find some common ground or you're all going to be miserable regardless of what you play or how you play it. Maybe you're just not the right fit for that group and vice-versa or whatever. However, if you can't come together and talk with each other as rational, mature adults, then there are likely more problems at play than just asking players to not use certain optional material in your campaign and them ruining the game experience for you and the other players.

If you can't surmout the issue of excluding some optional material in a D&D campaign, how do you surmount the issue of what setting to you use, whether to use feats and multiclassing, whether to use standard healing or the gritty realism rules, or whatever? How do you handle a situation where you want to run a certain game (say, Call of Cthulhu), but your group isn't into that particullar genre/game system/whatever and they would rather play a different game (like, maybe, Cyberpunk)?
Thankfully, I haven't seen that kind of reaction in over a decade plus, but I did see it. And you know what it was a reaction to often? Heavily restricted games such as humans only, no pc spellcaster classes, "poverty games" (PCs kept intentionally poor/inferior equipment) or heavily railroaded games. I've seen a lot of resistance to "level 0" PCs as well.

Mind you, while I spoke as if I was the DM for all this, I wasn't always. I saw lots of other DMs face this sort of backlash. In my youth, I was even privy to some of it (my tactic of choice though was too have repeated social engagements until said game failed).

Anyway, all this is too say you have to be careful with player expectations. Not everyone will buy in (even if they say they will) and just because you said it during session zero doesn't mean everyone accepts it. I find my best games are the ones where I have a variety of options (even if they are not exactly the ones on the PHB) and players can still find ways to play the concept they want within the world laid out for them.

But enough of this tangent. We have ability scores in peril!
 

Cadence

Legend
Supporter
I can't think of a single reason why my judgmental tone matters in this specific situation.

I could have said "astounding" instead of "judgemental". Trying to avoid "craziest" as being ableist (is "inane" a safe substitute for general usage). Avoiding poorly conceived ageist tropes is a thing too. (Wow, 35 is old now?). The 25-35 yo's I know who play seem to have just as much chance of steady long term groups as us fogeys. The older groups seem to have trouble finding people who can show up consistantly.

Anyway, hope your own group is going well! (Or that you find one if you don't have one).
 

Sometimes I don't envision the character at all. I let the dice give me a framework, and flesh it out based on that. It can be really fun, and in some ways it's more realistic, as people in real life don't determine all their attributes and have to work with what they get. I certainly don't do it all the time, but it can be refreshing.
I agree that it can be fun for some people, but not everyone. That's why I as a default never roll dice for the character generation of my players, but they can if they want to.
 


Your role at the table is to have fun, but your role in the party is to carry the weight of your in-game role.
Is it though? Like necessarily? Perhaps their role is to be the comic relief, perhaps their role is to be the moral support. As long as the GM takes into account the real effective combat strength of the party while designing the encounters (and they should,) then what does it matter?
 
Last edited:

TwoSix

Unserious gamer
Supporter
Sure, IMO that would equate well to the mountain dwarf and half-elf with their total of +4 ASIs. It might be a wee bit too much... but I am not going to gripe over a single +1 ASI one way or the other. I would probably add heavy armor proficiency to mountain dwarves since their extra +1 ASI is due to being considered a weaker race, but it probably isn't needed. I think half-elves are already a top race, so nothing further would need to be added there.
Yea, maybe fixed +1 and a an ASI (which can be a feat, or a +2, or 2 +1s). Just have a general rule you can't gain more than +2 boost in any one stat.

I like the heavy armor proficiency for mountain dwarf.
 


Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Your role at the table is to have fun, but your role in the party is to carry the weight of your in-game role.
Show me where in the rules that weight is defined.

The social contract says don't be a jerk, so making truly bad characters like a wizard with a stat penalty would be a violation. However, beyond that there is nothing wrong with playing a substandard race/class combo.
 

Cadence

Legend
Supporter
Is it though? Like necessarily. Perhaps their role is to be the comic relief, perhaps their role is to be the moral support. As long as the GM takes into account the real effective combat strength of the party while designing the encounters (and they should,) then what does it matter?

Those all feel like they could be part of " your in-game role" though, don't they? It feels like if you're in a game where it's constant edge of the seat next to death all hands on deck and everyone else wants to be the elite squad, that the role is different than a bunch of adventurers going off as comrades to do heaven knows what.
 




Advanced Rules Miscellany

Advertisement1

Latest threads

Advanced Rules Miscellany

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top