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.

 

[MGibster]

A few people have said things along the lines of "this is pandering for min-maxers/munchkins" or some other claim like that. This post is meant to debunk that.

I think it's unfair for folks to accuse WotC of pandering. To pander is to indulge someone in an immoral desire of some sort. While I'm not too keen on the a la carte character generation myself, I can't see how preferring it is immoral or wrong in some way. Responding to what some of your customers want isn't always pandering.

 

[Azzy]

If you aren't playing in AL games and you don't like this rule, there's good news ahead: It's optional.

Thank you for coming to my TedTalk.

 

[Azzy]

Aside from this tempest in a teapot (as a previous poster aptly put it), no one has mentioned that these AL guidelines don't include the options from SCAG.

It seems like an odd decision. I wonder if there's something more to take away from that.

 

[Ancalagon]

Ok, what is this about only variant humans being played? I've played plenty of baseline humans...

When you roll your scores and randomly get a bunch of odd scores... it makes a big difference.

 

[Maxperson]

I think it's unfair for folks to accuse WotC of pandering. To pander is to indulge someone in an immoral desire of some sort. While I'm not too keen on the a la carte character generation myself, I can't see how preferring it is immoral or wrong in some way. Responding to what some of your customers want isn't always pandering.

Pandering is catering to people who want to engage in an immoral or distasteful desire. I can see people finding min-maxing distasteful.

 

[Maxperson]

Ok, what is this about only variant humans being played? I've played plenty of baseline humans...

When you roll your scores and randomly get a bunch of odd scores... it makes a big difference.

I haven't seen that yet. In 5e there's not a lot of need for your 3rd to 6th stats to have that extra plus, but a feat and another proficiency will be huge additions to your character.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

Ah yes, played by the amateur thespian in the gaming group who thinks being unable to communicate properly with the rest of the cohort of fellow adventurers they are relying on in actual life-or-death situations will lead to all sorts of humorous misunderstandings and hijinks. About as cool as the CN kleptomaniac rogue with a penchant for stealing other characters' stuff, or any character with a backstory involving "trust issues". Lord save us from such character concepts.

Cheers, Al'Kelhar

If the modal of the game is "D&D as a sports team," you are absolutely correct: both those concepts are a pain-in-the-bosom. If the modal for the game is "dirt, amoral, incompetent misfits with no place in society throw together by unfortunate circumstance," both those concepts work pretty well. A lot depends on the underlying assumptions of the group.

 

[Horwath]

Ok, what is this about only variant humans being played? I've played plenty of baseline humans...

When you roll your scores and randomly get a bunch of odd scores... it makes a big difference.

This is why Rolling sucks as ability generating method.

You roll abilities, then you think what race can salvage/munchkin this set of rolls

 

[Charlaquin]

If it's not in the rules posted than it has not happened yet. I can only go by the rules they've made, and not by the rules that they say that they are purportedly going to make at some undisclosed future time.

I just checked the erratta to Volo's Guide to Monsters on the WOTC site, and the Kobold Strength penalty had not yet been changed.

It’s not happening at “some undisclosed future time,” it’s happening in Tasha’s Cauldron of Everything. You asked what was happening with racial ability score penalties, don’t get snippy with me for telling you the answer.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

This is why Rolling sucks as ability generating method.

You roll abilities, then you think what race can salvage/munchkin this set of rolls

That's why the rolling method rocks.

4d6, in order: wonderful. You get high INT / STR wizards, intelligent barbarians, wise fighters, sickly paladins. It's a blast, but it requires players to come to the table without a specific concept in mind. It also lessens the emphasis on the character building pre-game activity (thank god!).

Rolling isn't for every group, but I enjoy it.

So in my games I allow: 2 methods heroic array or 4d6 in order

Players who roll 4d6 receive 1 Awesomeness point at the beginning of each session, which can be expended to reroll a die. Players (not characters) with manly beards receive an additional awesomeness point.

Disappointingly, no one has decided to grow a manly beard. (Yet!!!)