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

You are misinterpreting my position. I am not okay with racial imbalance. I think Mountain Dwarves are inherently better, which is why I am changing that in my games. And, yes, people have told me this change will ruin D&D.

Who? Maybe start reading and stop jumping to conclusions... I just refute the idea, that +1 less is game ruining. And I think the solution presented makes the game more imbalanced than less so. But not in a meaningful way. Its just that the source of the problem is not dried up, but only shifted to a different place...
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

What I think will change now is instead of picking a class and then finding a race with stats that compliments it, it becomes picking a class then pairing it with racial benefits that are powerful.

I agree.

At the same time, eschewing the more universal abilities, and switching the focus onto the more distinctive heritage benefits, emphasizes and actualizes the flavor of the heritage.
 

Who? Maybe start reading and stop jumping to conclusions... I just refute the idea, that +1 less is game ruining. And I think the solution presented makes the game more imbalanced than less so. But not in a meaningful way. Its just that the source of the problem is not dried up, but only shifted to a different place...
It was mostly in other discussions, but I have encountered multiple people who stated that this change will ruin D&D, or make the game no longer be D&D.

This does not make the game more imbalanced. Letting a half-orc get a +2 Wisdom and +1 Dexterity won't imbalance the game.
 

It was mostly in other discussions, but I have encountered multiple people who stated that this change will ruin D&D, or make the game no longer be D&D.

This does not make the game more imbalanced. Letting a half-orc get a +2 Wisdom and +1 Dexterity won't imbalance the game.

No, it does not. But it does not help the game either when mountain dwarves have +2 Int, +2 Con and chain mail proficiency. And only changing for change´s sake, not to improve the game should be avoided.
 

No, it does not. But it does not help the game either when mountain dwarves have +2 Int, +2 Con and chain mail proficiency. And only changing for change´s sake, not to improve the game should be avoided.
IMHO, it does improve the game. And also, they don't get chainmail, they get medium armor. Chainmail is heavy. As I've said before, mountain dwarves were a problem before, and it's not this ability's fault that the race is poorly designed.
 

IMHO, it does improve the game. And also, they don't get chainmail, they get medium armor. Chainmail is heavy. As I've said before, mountain dwarves were a problem before, and it's not this ability's fault that the race is poorly designed.
Yes, it is medium armor, my bad. I don´t find them badly designed. I actually like them, because +2/+2 is unique and giving them a feature, that is useful whenever you don´t profit much from +2 strength is nice. But that is just a personal opinion. And you may have yours. And actually, we both agree, that while the intend of the rule is good, the execution could be better. I see no harm in the new rule, if used with care. And you like it, so we are all good.
 

dnd4vr

The Smurfiest Wizard Ever!
Well, Mountains Dwarves were given the +2 for STR instead of +1 because most of the classes that would really benefit from the STR bump already have those armor proficiencies... So, they made it a bit better.

I have no clue why they insisted on giving Half-Elves a +2 CHA and two floating +1 ASIs... :rolleyes: The race is already great with darkvision, two extra skills, and fey ancestry, plus an extra language...
 

TwoSix

Unserious gamer
Supporter
Well, Mountains Dwarves were given the +2 for STR instead of +1 because most of the classes that would really benefit from the STR bump already have those armor proficiencies... So, they made it a bit better.

I have no clue why they insisted on giving Half-Elves a +2 CHA and two floating +1 ASIs... :rolleyes: The race is already great with darkvision, two extra skills, and fey ancestry, plus an extra language...
Half-elves have always been one of my favorite races, so I never minded too much. I do prefer the Dragonmarked Half-elves from Eberron as being much better balanced, even if they are slightly weaker.
 

DM Dave1

Adventurer
No, it does not. But it does not help the game either when mountain dwarves have +2 Int, +2 Con and chain mail proficiency. And only changing for change´s sake, not to improve the game should be avoided.
NPC with Heat Metal just found a better target. The d6 HD Mountain Dwarf wizard...
 


dnd4vr

The Smurfiest Wizard Ever!
I agree. I wish all races had a total racial bonus of +3 so this was less problematic.
Yep. At one point we house-ruled Mountain Dwarves got a +1 AC bonus when wearing armor along with the proficiencies (they are trained to use it more effectively to protect themselves). This was adequate that dropping the STR bonus to just +1 seemed more than reasonable. :)
 


I have no clue why they insisted on giving Half-Elves a +2 CHA and two floating +1 ASIs... :rolleyes: The race is already great with darkvision, two extra skills, and fey ancestry, plus an extra language...
You know, I never minded the Half-Elf bonuses. It was the normal Human that I struggle with. They are just... so weak.
 


dnd4vr

The Smurfiest Wizard Ever!
You know, I never minded the Half-Elf bonuses. It was the normal Human that I struggle with. They are just... so weak.
We've never had anyone take the normal human, just the variant human. The skill and feat and two floating ASIs make them worth it IMO, especially since with a half-feat you get a total of 3 ASI +1's.

If you want another option, we added (at one point) a human trait called Incredible Determination which gave them proficiency in an additional save (so like Resilient, but no +1 ASI). This is in addition to the feat for variant humans. Of course, we beefed up most of the races a least a little bit. ;)
 

Hussar

Legend
Your elf can be hoinkingly muscular and I think even without shifting the bonus from dex to str, the elven barbarian is very powerful. Faster, harder to hit, stealthy, good with a bow. So if you want to shift, why not. I am not in the way of your fun. You can do what you like. The argument of +1 does not break the game came from your side... I just showed, that if +1 does not break the game, you can equally use it for the other side of the argument.
In the end: whatever.
I just don't like the way it ia done. There are better ways to do it.

Edit: @Hussar why do you think I let a game designer tell me how my character looks like? That is why I roll my stats and assign them as I like. I just don't like cherry picking or I would play a different game. I feel boring and lazy to just always put a +2 into my main stat.

But, I'm not talking about your game, I'm talking about the game as presented, which means point buy or standard array. Die rolling PC's has largely fallen out of fashion. And, again, you moved the goalposts. I don't WANT a "faster and harder to hit" elf. I want a clumsy elf. So, why is my clumsy elf getting a +2 on his Dex? Why are you forcing me to play to your concepts but, refuse to allow me to play to mine?

You folks are the ones insisting that this is purely for optimization and is going to break the game.
 

Cadence

Legend
Supporter
But, I'm not talking about your game, I'm talking about the game as presented, which means point buy or standard array. Die rolling PC's has largely fallen out of fashion. And, again, you moved the goalposts. I don't WANT a "faster and harder to hit" elf. I want a clumsy elf. So, why is my clumsy elf getting a +2 on his Dex? Why are you forcing me to play to your concepts but, refuse to allow me to play to mine?

You folks are the ones insisting that this is purely for optimization and is going to break the game.

I'd never thought of that before. That's a problem even without the +2. (Is 8 the lowest score pee ASI?) I guess the rules should have a final character creation step to let you lower any scores with nothing in return.
 

I perfectly understand your desire to change the rules and I find it reasonable.
I think it is the wrong way of doing so. Allowing every race to have their bonus wherever they want looks terrible to me. It just makes other races the best choice.

Instead you should for example replace +2 con bonus with an abilty that makes dwarves tougher (like the goliath encounter power). For con it is not that problematic because it is no attack stat.
The half orc would be fine even without +1 con and +2 strength. They already have both an offensive and a defensive trait. Now you need to look if every race has such a defining trait.

Sure, that would be an interesting take, but that would be a heavy re-write to the game. Far more than a single optional rule.


While I can truly appreciate a look into your thought process, I'm sorry but IMO this is still really a matter of perspective.

Yes, it is a matter of perspective. That is my point.

From where I am standing, this is a great rule, because it fixes a problem I have personally had. So, when I see people trying to tell me that I am wrong, because I really just want to powergame a min-max character that has no regard to the story, I'm flabberghasted. In that case, why did I care about the race/class combo, instead of picking the well-trod cliched builds.



Of the 56 playable races I include (sorry, no Dragonmarks...), only 14 get a ASI for WIS, and ONLY the Kalishtar is WIS +2. Add the 5 races with ASI +1s they can place anywhere (including WIS) and now you have 19 races.

So, does that mean 66% of the races in the game have sub-optimal clerics? No. It means 37% have better starting potential at level 1. That's it. I don't know why you felt you had to spend so much to improve one ability score with that PC. All it takes is one ASI to give you the +2 that makes you as good as Kalishtars, and better than all the races with only +1 WIS. And, frankly, it isn't even that when you think because you have a +2 to INT, if you use point buy you have more points to put into WIS from the beginning. So, that does help, even if only a little. Playing with feats and you could easily take a feat with a +1 WIS included, making you as good as every other race (again, except Kalishtars).

You realize none of this matters for what I was saying right? When this game took place, we only had the PHB. So there were no races with +2 wisdom. Most of them had +1 as a secondary.

Yet, my expeirence is still valid, is it not? Just because you can point to all these numbers and tell me how little I was sacrificing, that doesn't mean I suddenly will feel good about that character and how they played.



Did you roll scores? I mean, seriously you dumped DEX, and then complain about needing to raise STR as well as WIS? If you plan to go the heavy armor route (with dumped DEX, makes sense) for a good AC, then wouldn't you have at least a STR 13? Also, the CON bonus for rock gnome should have improved your HP and concentration checks, didn't it?

It was your choice to dump DEX (even if a role-playing one), then you have to accept the harsh reality of dumping arguably the most important ability score in the game. I mean, did you really not expect that to have a huge impact?

Anyway, my point is even with this look into your thought process, and I don't know all the ins-and-outs of your experience, but I have to question it somewhat. When push comes to shove, any race without an ASI +2 in your prime score, at worst, requires a single ASI bump to improve it. You get other things to make up for that. Frankly, gnomish magic resistance IMO is a huge feature (sorry it didn't seem to help you much in this case).

And this comes across as judgemental.

How did I get those numbers, didn't this aspect help? Didn't I notice this boon? How did I possibly think that decision was a good one?

Honestly, I dumped Dex because it was a god-stat. I had never dumped dex on a single character in my entire DnD career. I always dumped strength. But, I had access to heavy armor, and I was a wisdom caster, so I figured I'd reverse it. I didn't mind always going last. Spells were never an issue in that game. We never stealthed. So, mostly, it was a non-issue. Except for that crossbow, which still reeks, since it was a uniquely created item for my character, but was something they had no capability of using.

Is that reason good enough to meet your approval?

Finally, I'm sick of the whole thing. Just remove racial ASIs completely. No longer an issue either way. For the people who will whine about not getting a few extra points, increase point-buy to a max of 16 or 17, improve the standard array, and allow rollers to roll 7 scores and drop their lowest score. All of those ideas will make up for the lost 2-4 racial ASI points.

IMO other racial traits represent the idea that some races are stronger (powerful build), smarter (gnomish magic resistance), more hardy (adv/resistance to poison, +1 HP), and so on. Giving races proficiencies in skill also represent it. Maybe even give them "expertise" or advantage (why the hell don't elves get advantage on perception checks with a trait called Keen Senses, I mean every other creature in the game with that feature does in one respect or another).

Again, that could work. But, it would take a much more intensive re-write than seems to be intended by WoTC at this time.

Completely irrespective whether one wants to have species-based ASIs or not, my criticism is that this rule change doesn't accomplish what it (presumably) aims to do.

If the intent is to encourage wider variety of race and class combinations because the races are better balanced, it doesn't do that. Some races are still way better for certain classes, they're just now different combinations. Furthermore it increases the power disparity between the races, as now it is blatantly clear that some simply get more stuff.

And if the goal is to remove biological essentialism, that didn't happen either. Wood elves are still faster runners, goliaths are better at carrying things and aarakocra are better fliers etc.


It seems to me that it accomplishes the goal fine if there are now new class/race combos with the rule.

Before this combos A,B,C were optimal. Now you have combos A, B, C, X, Y, Z. That is a wider diversity of options. Creating new options is still an expansion on what was possible before.

No one has said it ruins the game. It is just bizarre that the same people who have been whining about how the int bonus races making marginally better wizards than non-int bonus races is utterly terrible are now super cool with the mountain dwarfs being obviously much better for that class than most other races. Races being imbalanced=bad; races still being imbalanced but slightly differently=fine and dandy. Does not compute.


Man, I wish I knew before that armor was the most absolutely powerful thing a wizard could ever get. I'd have played Hobgoblins and Gith far more in that case.

I mean... I never heard people saying that Githyanki were the best choice for Wizard in the entire game, even though they had a bonus to int, bonus spells, and medium armor and martial weapons. But clearly now Mountain Dwarves are... because they get medium armor... hmmmmm

That seems to not add up. That seems to suggest if it was really that powerful, that it would have been a big deal before right now.
 

dnd4vr

The Smurfiest Wizard Ever!
Yet, my expeirence is still valid, is it not? Just because you can point to all these numbers and tell me how little I was sacrificing, that doesn't mean I suddenly will feel good about that character and how they played.
I can't help you. I tried. What you see has a hindrance, I see as an opportunity. Happy gaming.

And this comes across as judgemental.

How did I get those numbers, didn't this aspect help? Didn't I notice this boon? How did I possibly think that decision was a good one?

Honestly, I dumped Dex because it was a god-stat. I had never dumped dex on a single character in my entire DnD career. I always dumped strength. But, I had access to heavy armor, and I was a wisdom caster, so I figured I'd reverse it. I didn't mind always going last. Spells were never an issue in that game. We never stealthed. So, mostly, it was a non-issue. Except for that crossbow, which still reeks, since it was a uniquely created item for my character, but was something they had no capability of using.

Is that reason good enough to meet your approval?
You dumped DEX and seemed to accept most of the consequences, but one of them really bothered you. Too bad--it's part of the game.

Obviously you don't care about or need my approval, so why ask? Again, happy gaming.
 


Halloween Horror For 5E

Advertisement1

Latest threads

Halloween Horror For 5E

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top