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.

 

[Sacrosanct]

We do have literary examples of Halflings though. And we have written game descriptions describing other races as strong. (Is there anything "it's a fantasy game, just have fun" can't justify?).

Why is the conception of the Goliath/Dragonborn/Half-Orc PC who chose a race and character concept to be ultra strong (and does so in the ways the game fiction describes things) not worth keeping?

Who said it isn't worth keeping? Who is taking that away? I can still play a super strong goliath if I want.

For fun, does it matter If the Gnome or Halfling decides to also max out strength after hearing that the Goliath/Dragonborn/Half-orc character is aiming to be super strong, or if the Gnome/Halfling player was the first to chime up and say they always wanted to try something genre busint?

What do you mean, "for fun"? My fun playing the archetype I want isn't impacted by what other players choose to play. It's not a competition.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

We do have literary examples of Halflings though. And we have written game descriptions describing other races as strong. (Is there anything "it's a fantasy game, just have fun" can't justify?).

Why is the conception of the Goliath/Dragonborn/Half-Orc PC who chose a race and character concept to be ultra strong (and does so in the ways the game fiction describes things) not worth keeping?

For fun, does it matter If the Gnome or Halfling decides to also max out strength after hearing that the Goliath/Dragonborn/Half-orc character is aiming to be super strong, or if the Gnome/Halfling player was the first to chime up and say they always wanted to try something genre busint?

I think both have its justification. You just need to concur at the same gaming table.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Within in the context of fantasy role playing these thoughts do not generally take is in a good direction. The idea of a female fighter with an 18/00 strength in AD&D never particularly bothered me when I was younger and I see no purpose in imposing limits based on the sex of a character in D&D. If we want to talk about real life hockey or track teams that's probably best left to another thread.

I totally agree, and that is what I said in my first post. I was just quoted out of context and this post was a followup. So again. I never would even consider adding a sex based penalty into my game as much as I won´t enforce my players to tell me that they have to go peeing. That is too much reality in my game. I can´t see a reason and I´d never picture it in my head that a female character is anything less than a male character. Same goes for any diverse person.
And I would never allow sexual harassment at my table inside or outside the game.
And still I stand my point: the species based penalties and bonuses back then were just an easy mathematical way to make dwarves on average (not individually) sturdier than humans on average (not individually).
Note that averages never allow to make assumptions about a certain person, but that goes without saying... or should go without saying...

I also repeating for the 3rd time if I counted right, that I think species specific traits (a la 4e) are a more current approach to convey, what a certain species biological qualities offer.
We could also ditch that, but as I said in a different thread, there is a point where you should just stop playing DnD which is a species and class based game. If you want total freeform (as default at least) you should consider a different game. If you do that, you should also switch to a game that does not reward players for killing other sentient beings. That actually is a thing I really want to be revised in 5e, with achievement based experience or as in the most recent adventures, quest based leveling (I would prefer quest based XP though). Here you could also look at 4e, but some things didn´t make it into 5e, just because it was invented in 4e. I hope 6e has enough distance frome 4e to also include things that were done well in retrospect.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

Let me gently suggest you sit down and reconsider your assumptions. There is a very key line being crossed when you go from "This singular person has a predisposition to X because of genetics" and "This race of people are all like X because of genetics". The first can sometimes be true, the latter is pure prejudice with a very ugly history.

But dwarves, elves, etc. are not human. I've always seen dwarves as creatures carved from literal stone and animated by ancient magic. Elves evolved from trees.

I assume sentient Seeds (I spring from Apollo's loins!) share as much magical-DNA-stuff as a chicken does with a t-rex. Despite their close genetic relationship, a chicken is never going to star in Jurassic Park, and a t-rex will always be too temperamental to keep as poultry. In other words, while some flexibility exists (rolling for ability, point buy, arranging the heroic array), that flexibility is not without constraints.

Nevertheless, I'm happy this new system exists for those tables who see decide to use it.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

So, here's the deal - while population averages may be a thing, D&D is about fantastic individuals. Those individuals are not bound by "population averages". Part of this is as a wish fulfillment exercise, why not allow someone to say "They're a woman stronger than any man!" - it's not like there's a lack of this in fact (female body builders could probably crush anyone on this board with their bare hands) or in fiction (usually Russian-coded "bear of a woman" tropes).

Regardless, let's keep this thread focused on the lineage system

Not every see D&D as a wish-fulfillment exercise, though. How would you explain your point so someone who has different underlying assumptions?

 

[Cadence]

Who said it isn't worth keeping? Who is taking that away? I can still play a super strong goliath if I want.

They're not stronger than the halfling or gnome that wanted to be strong.

What do you mean, "for fun"? My fun playing the archetype I want isn't impacted by what other players choose to play. It's not a competition.

Your enjoyment playing a fire mage, say, wouldn't be diminished if every other character at the table (thief, cleric, fighter) got to cast just as many fire spells as you?

If it's not a competition, does that mean no ones enjoyment should be diminished if there character doesn't get a racial mod to their prime requisite that some other character of a different race does?

 

[Cadence]

If I read this right, you're suggesting the same thing that I am: removal of racial ASIs.

I would keep racial ASIs and would have more size-based distinction in carrying capacity and weapons usage if it was "D&D me-edition". (That being said, I've been convinced by others that racial ASIs for PCs probably aren't that needed -- I would keep them for NPC creation).

I think the difference between gnome/halfling and half-orc/goliath/dragonborn is much, much larger than any differences between strongest female and male human. And if g/h vs. h/g/d is only a +2 difference, then the differences between any subgroups of humans is probably rounding error in comparison.

 

[Sacrosanct]

They're not stronger than the halfling or gnome that wanted to be strong.

And? That's not preventing me from playing a super strong orc or goliath.

Your enjoyment playing a fire mage, say, wouldn't be diminished if every other character at the table (thief, cleric, fighter) got to cast just as many fire spells as you?

Setting aside the false bad analogy, they don't though. Not unless they decided to give up their resources to do so. Then, so what? they gave up their limited resources to be able to do that, which means they are weaker in the other areas they didn't choose to spend their resources.

firstly, there is nothing a fighter could do to cast the same number of fireballs as a wizard of equal level, so the analogy is a bad one. Secondly, if a fighter wants to case some magic like a wizard, they have to give up resources to do that where a straight fighter would get better at fighting. Either multiclassing, a feat, or some other valuable and rare option.

 

[Cadence]

And? That's not preventing me from playing a super strong orc or goliath.

Is your 8' giant-kin super strong if he can't out arm wrestle the halfling and gnome?

Setting aside the false bad analogy, they don't though. Not unless they decided to give up their resources to do so. Then, so what? they gave up their limited resources to be able to do that, which means they are weaker in the other areas they didn't choose to spend their resources.

firstly, there is nothing a fighter could do to cast the same number of fireballs as a wizard of equal level, so the analogy is a bad one. Secondly, if a fighter wants to case some magic like a wizard, they have to give up resources to do that where a straight fighter would get better at fighting. Either multiclassing, a feat, or some other option.

Why should it matter to you if the DM makes them give up anything to get fire magic if it fits the character conception they have? "My fun playing the archetype I want isn't impacted by what other players choose to play. It's not a competition." (Presumably they'd give up something though. How much does a fighter-looking character need to give up to do fire magic as good as your fire-specialist wizard, if they don't want anything else a wizard can do?)

 

[Sacrosanct]

Is your 8' giant-kin super strong if he can't out arm wrestle the halfling and gnome?

According to the rules, which has this determined by a value on a strength table based on score, the answer is yes. Objectively so.

Why should it matter to you if the DM makes them give up anything to get fire magic if it fits the character conception they have? "My fun playing the archetype I want isn't impacted by what other players choose to play. It's not a competition."

It doesn't matter to me if another player also gets to use fireballs. I was simply pointing out the flaw in your analogy because you're ignoring the rules that enable those scenarios.