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.

 

[dave2008]

As for it being an optional rule, I'm fine with it. Fortunately I don't play AL or any organized play, so I don't have to deal with this crap. I personally detest this current popularity that mechanics should make everyone the same, because it completely diminishes the purpose of have the races in the first place.

It might diminish, but not completely. I'm not really sure what the full rules are, but racial choice is not just about stats and abilities. I know my players pick the race they want to play without even looking at the PHB. Heck the last two campaigns I said pick any intelligent creature from the MM or PHB and I will make stats for it.

That being said, I am all for significant mechanical differences (bpnus, penalties, traits, etc.) between races, but then again I don't care about balance so much.

 

[MockingBird]

I mean would it be too far fetched for dwarves to have spell casters in their culture?

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I mean would it be too far fetched for dwarves to have spell casters in their culture?

Nope, it wouldn't be, especially as adventurers.

 

[Parmandur]

Humans are by far the most popular race IIRC. Not sure which version though.

Almost definitely the Variant Human.

In fact, WotC has found again and again that standard Human is the single most popular Race choice.

 

[MikalC]

I mean would it be too far fetched for dwarves to have spell casters in their culture?

you can be a spellcaster without an inherent +2 to your score due to race.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

you can be a spellcaster without an inherent +2 to your score due to race.

But some people don't like playing that way .

 

[MikalC]

But some people don't like playing that way .

yeah cause god forbid a player has to make a choice that isn’t optimal to play a concept. Seriously, this isn’t inclusivity. This is badly balanced pandering that does little but water down any sort of uniqueness for a race.

fun fact: you can have a fantasy race that is inherently stronger or smarter on average compared to another race without it being prejudicial.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

yeah cause god forbid a player has to make a choice that isn’t optimal to play a concept. Seriously, this isn’t inclusivity. This is badly balanced pandering that does little but water down any sort of uniqueness for a race.

No one said it was inclusivity, but it is character choice. Also, it is not freaking pandering. Just because you don't like the way that I and many others like playing, that doesn't make our playstyle lesser.

fun fact: you can have a fantasy race that is inherently stronger or smarter on average compared to another race without it being prejudicial.

Fun fact: That didn't change. This is a variant rule, and in it it states that this only applies to PCs, who are meant to be separate from standard members of their race.

 

[MikalC]

No one said it was inclusivity, but it is character choice. Also, it is not freaking pandering. Just because you don't like the way that I and many others like playing, that doesn't make our playstyle lesser.

it totally is pandering. When this was first announced it was to help “remove harmful stereotypes” and promote inclusivity.

this does neither. It just waters down racial strengths and weaknesses and removes the fact that sometimes you sometimes have to make a choice that’s not optimal when you want to play a concept.

There are plenty of ways that actually promoting such things can be done. This ain’t it.
And did I say that your play style was “lesser”? I mean, yeah, I think making the game more watered down isn’t a good thing, if you wanna play that way feel free. I don’t play in your game, nor am I likely to even before this.

Fun fact: That didn't change. This is a variant rule, and in it it states that this only applies to PCs, who are meant to be separate from standard members of their race.

that’s nice. Doesn’t mean this isn’t badly balanced, pandering crap that will never see the light of day in a game I run.

 

[Kurotowa]

you can be a spellcaster without an inherent +2 to your score due to race.

Depends on the player and the group. If your group uses point buy or stat arrays? Then no racial ASI means you're starting with a 15 in your main stat. For some people that's under their personal threshold for how good a PC should be at their core abilities.

Maybe your group uses rolled stats. Maybe your DM is generous with magic items or tailors combat encounters in the party's favor. That's great for you. It doesn't change that a lot of people feel pigeon holed into only playing race/class combos with a racial ASI in their main stat, and this alternative rule frees them to play all the many other possible permutations without having to eat a big power loss.