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.

 

[Azzy]

Maybe in AL this might, possibly be a problem, because now the Yuan-Ti is playing a fighter instead of a Hexblade Warlock, or a Bard, or a Paladin, or just a normal warlock.

And even that's not a worry because Yual-Ti aren't allowed in AL (as per this packet).

 

[Maxperson]

So what if they, like darkvision, aren't all utterly unique abilities that only one race can get — neither are ASIs (which are just bland numbers). It's the package of these abilities together that define the races. Far more so than ASIs.

So elven proficiency with a longsword is significantly different from a Ranger's? Having a cantrip screams elf, rather than spellcaster? As a package they are not that great. Nor do they really scream elf. Trance by itself outweighs all the rest put together.

 

[Azzy]

Thing is: if +1 to hit and damage is not breaking the game, then why fix what is not broken?

You assume the change is to "fix" a numerical problem instead of what is pretty much advertised as a "fix" to discourage pigeon-holing and the appearance of racial essentialsm.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

You assume the change is to "fix" a numerical problem instead of what is pretty much advertised as a "fix" to discourage pigeon-holing and the appearance of racial essentialsm.

Nope. I did not start the discussion with that +1 bonus. I just don't think you are pigeonholed because you don't have +2 to your main stat as some people think.
I do think we get more pigeonholing from the same people that chose races because of their stats. Now they chose half elf or mountain dwarf because of their ultimate stats, darkvision and skills/armor proficiencies.

 

[Shardstone]

I think what the craziest part about this is: its a variant and optional rule. You don't have to use it in your homegames. And if you complain about AL, what was stopping people from min/maxing already? What stopped people from the fabled half-elf sorlock that could destroy a Terrasque in seven turns without taking damage? What stopped people from optimizing their barbarians to decapitate Gods with but a single +1 great-axe? Nothing.

So people are mad and saying this ruins the game are also people ignoring already existing min/maxers (not that min/maxing really matters unless they're an naughty word about it), and are also people ignoring that they don't have to use this rule. It doesn't help that the average age on this forum skews 35-50+, meaning you all already have your own groups with years or even decades of play, so it isn't like you have to deal with randoms usually.

I can get criticizing things. I criticize the mess out of WotC. But the criticisms labeled at this rule change with the amount of vitriol throughout this thread is pretty astounding, and has taught me much about the human condition and its desire to boil at the sign of anything that isn't "perfect" to it.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I hope you don't mean me with vitrol. I find the conversation very funny.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I can get criticizing things. I criticize the mess out of WotC.

For myself it is more about the fact that when WotC adopts this rule, which a LOT of tables already have as a house rule IME, they aren't really doing anything new or innovative. I am hopeful when books come out there will be more than enough to make up for this apparent lack of vision.

 

[DND_Reborn]

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.

This, too.

 

[Cadence]

I think what the craziest part about this is: its a variant and optional rule. You don't have to use it in your homegames. And if you complain about AL, what was stopping people from min/maxing already? What stopped people from the fabled half-elf sorlock that could destroy a Terrasque in seven turns without taking damage? What stopped people from optimizing their barbarians to decapitate Gods with but a single +1 great-axe? Nothing.

So people are mad and saying this ruins the game are also people ignoring already existing min/maxers (not that min/maxing really matters unless they're an naughty word about it), and are also people ignoring that they don't have to use this rule. It doesn't help that the average age on this forum skews 35-50+, meaning you all already have your own groups with years or even decades of play, so it isn't like you have to deal with randoms usually.

I can get criticizing things. I criticize the mess out of WotC. But the criticisms labeled at this rule change with the amount of vitriol throughout this thread is pretty astounding, and has taught me much about the human condition and its desire to boil at the sign of anything that isn't "perfect" to it.

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?