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

Comments


log in or register to remove this ad

ChaosOS

Hero
Supporter
It makes me wonder why not just get rid of all of them and say, "Hey, look, every PC gets an additional 3-4 proficiencies for weapons, armors, tools, kits, or whatever." Don't worry about anything that might (shocker) define your PC or its race. Just make everything a la carte and stuff yourselves. ;)
Out of all of the feature swaps I consider the weapon/tool proficiencies to be the most important for worldbuilding after languages. Why does my elf raised by humans have a genetic longsword proficiency? What if dwarves in my world are associated with different tools than what the PHB prescribes? Yes, obviously as a DM I can houserule these kinds of things, but it's better to just have a page that says "The base racial proficiencies are the most common assumptions of these races, just like backgrounds you can customize them"
 


TwoSix

Unserious gamer
Supporter
Fine. It only mostly removes the choice.

I don't like the idea of race having no effect on your ability scores. Sure it's a sacred cow but it's a good one that makes the choice meaningful.
Here's the issue. I'm assuming by "meaningful" you mean that the race choice impacts your stats, which will necessarily steer the race towards some classes and away from others.

Fundamentally, a large portion of the player base want race to have an impact on class choice, and some races to be stronger with some classes than with others. And a significant portion of the player base wants the choices of race and class to be independent of each other, so that any race can play any class with equal facility.

There's no real way (I can see) to square that circle. It's no different of a conceptual argument than occurred when they lifted race-class restrictions in 3E, it's simply the parameters that have changed.
 



Here's the issue. I'm assuming by "meaningful" you mean that the race choice impacts your stats, which will necessarily steer the race towards some classes and away from others.

Fundamentally, a large portion of the player base want race to have an impact on class choice, and some races to be stronger with some classes than with others. And a significant portion of the player base wants the choices of race and class to be independent of each other, so that any race can play any class with equal facility.

There's no real way (I can see) to square that circle. It's no different of a conceptual argument than occurred when they lifted race-class restrictions in 3E, it's simply the parameters that have changed.
While I'm won't be using the new seed (I spout from Odin's loins) system, I'm happy it will be available to those who want it. Every gaming table should be unique. Conformity suffocates.
 

DemoMonkey

Explorer
Thank you WayoftheFourElements, I had not seen that part.

I would have been happier if the ASI had been "+2/+1 in the recommended stats, or +1 in any two stats of your choice." I think maintaining the "flavour" of the different fantasy races through stat differentiation is a greater plus than minus. I am in the camp that limitations - even if they make some combinations sub-par - make character design and worldbuilding better.
 
Last edited:

Cadence

Legend
Supporter
Because math? As I said in a post a few back, I know it doesn't bother everybody to play a 14 Str fighter. But it sure as hell bothers me, and I don't seem to be the only one.
I wonder if there's any difference (on average) on this between those who played a long time with rolled stats and those who didn't. (Did rolled stats get people used to not being optimal? Did rolled stats give people a burning hatred of not being optimal?). If I was more anxious to avoid work it would be fun to write a big survey and do a discriminant analysis/CART/whatnot to see what falls out.
 


ChaosOS

Hero
Supporter
And soon the same people will feel the same way about non-dwarf wizards. The math says they are better. So I don't know how this is an improvement.
But like... they're not? Assuming point buy, mountain dwarf is +2 point buy stats for your 4th/5th/6th best abilities, poison resistance, medium armor prof, and a pile of tool profs in exchange for 25' speed. It's pretty easy to imagine a wizard who values any of the other race features. For example, high elf gets a similar pile of tool profs, and gets a skill proficiency, charm/sleep resistance, a bonus cantrip, trance, and 30' of movement. It's not particularly clear to me that mountain dwarf is a clear winner here.
 
Last edited:

Why do so many people seem to think "choose between having a cool concept and being effective" is a good thing?
5e races are mostly effective as written. If you look at the mountain dwarf, for example, it's giving your dwarf wizard medium armor proficiency, which should compensate for the apparent lack of utility of that +2 bonus to strength. These (bad) rules are not making dwarf wizards effective, they're making them better than intended.
 


TwoSix

Unserious gamer
Supporter
But like... they're not? Assuming point buy, mountain dwarf is +2 point buy stats for your 4th/5th/6th best skills, poison resistance, medium armor prof, and a pile of tool profs in exchange for 25' speed. It's pretty easy to imagine a wizard who values any of the other race features. For example, high elf gets a similar pile of tool profs, and gets a skill proficiency, charm/sleep resistance, a bonus cantrip, trance, and 30' of movement. It's not particularly clear to me that mountain dwarf is a clear winner here.
Not to me either, and I’m speaking as someone who happily power games. Armor proficiency isn’t that big a deal when you have mage armor. It’s shield proficiency that I would really want.
 

ChaosOS

Hero
Supporter
5e races are mostly effective as written. If you look at the mountain dwarf, for example, it's giving your dwarf wizard medium armor proficiency, which should compensate for the apparent lack of utility of that +2 bonus to strength. These (bad) rules are not making dwarf wizards effective, they're making them better than intended.
There's a gap in your logic.

Premise 1: 5e races are mostly balanced - Yes, this is true

Premise 2: Mountain Dwarf Wizard gets a lot better with these changes - Also true.

What this doesn't show is that Mountain Dwarf Wizard is actually bending the balance, let alone breaking it. You're moving a combination that was D tier to about a B+ - rather than breaking the game, this is a great example of the system working to improve the diversity of character options. Mountain Dwarf does look more like a premium choice for gishes, but just like every other edition the gish fantasy has been pretty underpowered so buffs aren't going to break anything.
 

Retreater

Legend
I guess I don't know how to optimize characters properly (though I do consider myself a bit of a min/maxer), because I like standard humans and mountain dwarves for the mechanical bonuses. A human getting +1 in every stat lets you boost uneven ability scores to higher bonuses without paying the point buy cost for doing so. And the mountain dwarf's +2 to Str and Con, I think that's great for any character using Strength-based melee combat.
Maybe if I did a deep dive into splats or something I could find something "technically" better, but these seem pretty good to me.
 

Sunsword

Adventurer
WotC doesn't design with min/max in mind IMO. Nor should they really, it is not like that is a big part of the player base. Personally, I like severe penalties and bonus for races, but I don't mind an option that throws all of that out the window.
I think you are fortunate to not play with min maxers. There are tons of "class guides" out there and the reason there are is that they are popular.
 

Because math? As I said in a post a few back, I know it doesn't bother everybody to play a 14 Str fighter. But it sure as hell bothers me, and I don't seem to be the only one.
Math also says that having medium armour (saving you a spell pick and 1-2 slots/day), +2 to both your primary and secondary ability scores, 5 tool proficiencies, and darkvision is probably better than only +1 to your primary ability score and +1 to your others.

Not to me either, and I’m speaking as someone who happily power games. Armor proficiency isn’t that big a deal when you have mage armor. It’s shield proficiency that I would really want.
Medium armour will generally have an AC as good as Mage Armour and a shield already. Without costing you spell pick or daily slots.
 

FreeTheSlaves

Explorer
Ah, I don't know about this.

I don't really like this erosion to race distinctiveness. A bit of character tweaking here and there is okay by me, but you've got to draw a line somewhere - and what's going on with free floating abilities scores doesn't seem right.

We'll see how it pans out, but right now I don't support it.
 

ChaosOS

Hero
Supporter
I'm not going to dispute that medium armor is valuable, but that's really all you're getting from Mountain Dwarf. If you expect to get attacked a lot it's very good, but it's perfectly reasonable to have games where you aren't going to get attacked a lot.
 

COMING SOON: 5 Plug-In Settlements for your 5E Game

Advertisement1

COMING SOON: 5 Plug-In Settlements for your 5E Game

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top