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

Parmandur

Legend
To me, it's an exploit to have High Elves be better artificers than Rock Gnomes, who literally have a feature named after being artificers. High Elves trading all their weapons for 4 tool proficiencies while a rock gnome is limited to 1 seems like an exploit to me.

Elves and Dwarves are master crafters who live hundreds of years. It's mostly fluff anyways, so "exploit" is not really an accurate term.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Remathilis

Legend
To me, it's an exploit to have High Elves be better artificers than Rock Gnomes, who literally have a feature named after being artificers. High Elves trading all their weapons for 4 tool proficiencies while a rock gnome is limited to 1 seems like an exploit to me.
It's almost like racial abilities were designed to compliment each other and not be taken ala carte.

Given how simple these rules are, there are going to be exploits, optimal combos, and synergy never accounted for. Unless one of them is game-breaking, I don't think WotC has the will to check to see if some races profit from these exchanges or not. This is the price paid for retooling existing rules to make them more diverse.

I'm sure when 6e comes out and they can rebuild the race/lineage rules from scratch, they will be a lot more fair. Until then, accept that exploits can and will be used, consciously or not.
 

Ogre Mage

Adventurer

Azzy

Newtype
To me, it's an exploit to have High Elves be better artificers than Rock Gnomes, who literally have a feature named after being artificers. High Elves trading all their weapons for 4 tool proficiencies while a rock gnome is limited to 1 seems like an exploit to me.
Considering that the rock gnome was never designed with the artificer in mind and that the tinker thing is pretty new to this edition (apparently being inspired by Dragonlance), I see no reason why elves shouldn't be better artificers than gnomes if they dump all of their resources into it or how this could be considered an exploit.
 

I mean, I see nothing wrong with a character trading in all weapon training to be a boss at using tools or a trade. It would be an interesting rp thing, especially if they were strictly magic.
 

Dire Bare

Legend
Supporter
Considering that the rock gnome was never designed with the artificer in mind and that the tinker thing is pretty new to this edition (apparently being inspired by Dragonlance), I see no reason why elves shouldn't be better artificers than gnomes if they dump all of their resources into it or how this could be considered an exploit.
Elves aren't stereotypical steampunky style artificers . . . but they ARE stereotypical magical artisans. From a purely stereotypical fantasy perspective, I don't see why elves can't make great artificers.

Besides, the entire point of this optional rules modules in Tasha's is to help break fantasy racial stereotypes. So, bravo!

And . . . having some characters with a plethora of tool proficiencies is hardly game-breaking, IMO.
 


This is pretty much what could be said about this whole thread. People freaking out that some races will be too powerful, when, on examination, it looks like there is pretty much zero problem.

Almost like WotC uses professional game designers when they write books. :uhoh: :D

Yeah. I don't think there will be many balance problems. It's an optional rule, after all. I just think the number of potential tool proficiencies is a bit silly. Whatever. It's just an option, and I don't have to use it.
 


Yuan-Ti, Satyr and V-Human still reign supreme with the changes. No big shift of things at the backend, just throws a few of the middling ones a bit higher
 

Hussar

Legend
But that was the situation before this rule too.
Not quite sure what you mean? Did you mean that there wasn't a balance issue before this new rule? Ok. Cool. So what? This rule wasn't made to address a balance issue. It was made to allow more creativity and freedom during chargen. And, for a change, it appears that allowing more freedom during chargen does not create balance issues (which certainly wasn't true in earlier editions) and simply allows for a wider variety of characters.

How is that not a win?

I can still play the stereotypical elf or dwarf or whatever. That hasn't been lost. And, doing so does not put me at any disadvantage. Or, I can play an older elf, for example, that has been several different kinds of tradesperson before becoming an adventurer. And, my character sheet will reflect that.

Again, what is the problem here?
 

Not quite sure what you mean? Did you mean that there wasn't a balance issue before this new rule? Ok. Cool. So what? This rule wasn't made to address a balance issue. It was made to allow more creativity and freedom during chargen. And, for a change, it appears that allowing more freedom during chargen does not create balance issues (which certainly wasn't true in earlier editions) and simply allows for a wider variety of characters.

How is that not a win?

I can still play the stereotypical elf or dwarf or whatever. That hasn't been lost. And, doing so does not put me at any disadvantage. Or, I can play an older elf, for example, that has been several different kinds of tradesperson before becoming an adventurer. And, my character sheet will reflect that.

Again, what is the problem here?
Before certain races were slightly better for certain classes, the same is still true, it just now is different combinations. 🤷‍♂️
 

Before certain races were slightly better for certain classes, the same is still true, it just now is different combinations. 🤷‍♂️
But I can promise you that once this change comes out, there will be more Half-Orc Grave Clerics, Hill Dwarf Draconic Sorcerers, and Goblin Zealot Barbarians. Sure, this change does change which races are more valuable in certain class archetypes, but it doesn't for most of them.

In fact, the "exploit" of being a Mountain Dwarf for medium armor really only benefits Sorcerers, Warlocks, and Wizards, and not in a game breaking way. Sure, half-elves are a bit more useful, but they already were good for any class, they're just a tiny bit better.

This only shifts the super viable options for 3ish of the classes and for a few of the races. For most of them, this is only a slight improvement.
 

Halloween Horror For 5E

Advertisement1

Latest threads

Halloween Horror For 5E

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top