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.

 

[Greg Benage]

I think a fair amount of this debate is rooted in the fact that ability scores are such a core part of the game, and...the design is a bit weak. It's not outright broken, but it's a "wobbly wheel" as AngryGM says. There's this weird dynamic where ability scores are really important, but they're more important early on, but then differences that arise out of character creation tend to be erased by level 12 (at the latest) through ASIs at the same time they're becoming less important...

For example, if I can move from a +4 in a core ability modifier to a +5 (a proficient task or attack roll), that's a 25% increase in my ability level (4 * 1.25 = 5). That's significant for a 1st-level character, so anyone who cares about their character being 25% more capable in their core competency from the jump will tend to choose a race that gives them that edge. Conversely, at high level, going from a +10 to a +11 is only a 10% increase in ability (10 * 1.1 = 11), and it doesn't really matter anyway because the ASI advancement system means we're probably both maxed out at 20 (+5) on our core ability scores. So it's quite important early on when choosing an optimal race is the only thing I can do about it, and less important when the ASI advancement system makes it trivially easy to "catch up."

It's just a weak aspect of the design, and it's unfortunate because it's the foundation for task resolution and combat, which are fairly important parts of the game. My preference would be to make differences in ability scores less important, especially at low level, but it seems the designers are leaning towards making it easier for everyone to have optimal ability scores. At that point, I feel like you can do it in class selection, and a lot of the weirdness comes from trying to shoehorn it into race.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

This is why stat bonuses to classes would have helped. The designers could have just fiven the ranger monk and paladin 2 +1's and only 1 +1 for the fighter. That does not sound like much, but it helps.

Actually, if you can chose where your stats go exactly, Wizards have it even easier, because now every wizard has +2 int, +1 con or vice versa, while the ranger and monk and paladin still have too many stats to raise. On the other hand, with static stat bonuses, the probability that your race gives a bonus to the most relevant stats is higher.

I think having stat bonuses for classes and other abilities for races that makes them strong (heavy built) nimble (halfling nimbleness) and so on would be my preferred method.

I wouldn't object to having Backgrounds and Classes work together to give you Stat bonuses, Wizard gives you a +1 Int, while a Sage gets a +1 Int and +1 Wis. A Bard gets a +1 Cha, and Entertainer gets +1 Cha and +1 Dex. Fighters get +1 Dex or Str, while Soldiers get +1 Dex or Str and +1 Con. This could be done for every class and background.

 

[Cadence]

Actually, if you can chose where your stats go exactly, Wizards have it even easier, because now every wizard has +2 int, +1 con or vice versa,

Or +2 int, +2 con, and armor

 

[Cadence]

For example, if I can move from a +4 in a core ability modifier to a +5 (a proficient task or attack roll), that's a 25% increase in my ability level (4 * 1.25 = 5).

I'm not sure the ratio of bonuses is the thing to use here, instead of the change in percentages and the relative risks. The 25% sounds a lot bigger than saying it affects 5% of the rounds the +4 guy tries an action in. The move from +10 to +11 also affects 5% of the rounds an action is tried in-- assuming they aren't trying really easy things. And if the ACs of the opponents move up with the characters the relative risk for with bonus-to-without bonus would be the same in both cases too. If the ACs of the opponents haven't moved up with the bonuses then the +4 guy does have a bigger benefit measured by ratio of probabilities than the +10 guy. So even though its only affecting 5% of the rounds it will be more important in taking the monster down. But it has to be a monster that's pretty hard to hit to get 25% better - needing a 17 or higher to hit without the bonus (17 to 16 is 20% to 25% so RR=.25/.2=1.25).

 

[Greg Benage]

I'm not sure the ratio of bonuses is the thing to use here, instead of the change in percentages and the relative risks. The 25% sounds a lot bigger than saying it affects 5% of the rounds the +4 guy tries an action in.

That's true for binary success/fail. I can't think of anything that's binary except attack rolls against a fixed AC. If you use binary ability checks, this will cover a lot more of the game, but a) I don't think you should do that very often, and b) it still leaves a whole range of game mechanics--from damage, to opposed ability checks, to ability durations and effects -- that are not binary success/fail.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm not sure the ratio of bonuses is the thing to use here, instead of the change in percentages and the relative risks. The 25% sounds a lot bigger than saying it affects 5% of the rounds the +4 guy tries an action in. The move from +10 to +11 also affects 5% of the rounds an action is tried in-- assuming they aren't trying really easy things. And if the ACs of the opponents move up with the characters the relative risk for with bonus-to-without bonus would be the same in both cases too. If the ACs of the opponents haven't moved up with the bonuses then the +4 guy does have a bigger benefit measured by ratio of probabilities than the +10 guy. So even though its only affecting 5% of the rounds it will be more important in taking the monster down. But it has to be a monster that's pretty hard to hit to get 25% better - needing a 17 or higher to hit without the bonus (17 to 16 is 20% to 25% so RR=.25/.2=1.25).

Yeah. That's the same math that says that your chances of getting cancer go up by 300%..........to .0056 or something.

 

[Markh3rd]

Actually, if you can chose where your stats go exactly, Wizards have it even easier, because now every wizard has +2 int, +1 con or vice versa, while the ranger and monk and paladin still have too many stats to raise. On the other hand, with static stat bonuses, the probability that your race gives a bonus to the most relevant stats is higher.

It makes half elves ideal now now for MAD classes. +2,+1,+1.

 

[Greg Benage]

Yeah. That's the same math that says that your chances of getting cancer go up by 300%..........to .0056 or something.

I mean...it is what it is. If you shift from chance to hit to DPR, you can see a simple mathematical example.

• You have a 16
• I have a 14
• We're swinging a longsword at AC 13

Your DPR (ignoring crit) is 4.875 and mine is 3.9. Your DPR is 25% higher than mine. You might not care (I don't, especially), but lots of players whose core role is dealing damage aren't going to volunteer to do 25% less of it.

 

[Maxperson]

I mean...it is what it is. If you shift from chance to hit to DPR, you can see a simple mathematical example.

• You have a 16
• I have a 14
• We're swinging a longsword at AC 13

Your DPR (ignoring crit) is 4.875 and mine is 3.9. Your DPR is 25% higher than mine. You might not care (I don't, especially), but lots of players whose core role is dealing damage aren't going to volunteer to do 25% less of it.

Yeah, but really, so what. You're doing less than 1 point of damage more than me. Big deal.

 

[Haldrik]

It makes half elves ideal now now for MAD classes. +2,+1,+1.

Half elves already were ideal, so not much change on that front.

All elves probably should have been "+2 Any" anyway.

The new rules help elves be better at doing elf things.