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.

 

[Markh3rd]

Half-elves should be good at being rangers anyway?

The new rules make races more flavorful, and better at the stuff their flavor should be doing.

If wood elves make fine monks, a half wood elf would too.

As long as the class is a mage, it feels elven enough. Both ranger and monk feel magically adept.

Even if a half-elf is a mundane Fighter with Str-Con-Dex, well that is the human parentage.

Pre changes I didn't see half elf monks or rangers at all. They didn't need +2 CHA. Only paladins or other classes that used CHA. Not to say it didn't exist. You saw lots of humans and wood elves though.

What I think will change now is instead of picking a class and then finding a race with stats that compliments it, it becomes picking a class then pairing it with racial benefits that are powerful. If racial benefits are even between 2 choices, then the one with greater stat points to use becomes more desirable.

Thus power gaming just became easier to do. The 5E system wasn't designed around this kind of idea. It should have been play tested first to allow people to hash out what worked for the health of the system first. But now that it's in an official book the time to have safely tested whether these changes would create problems down the road is gone.

I think whenever 6E comes out it will be built from the ground up with changes like this and be more balanced.

P.S. Unless the curse of even numbered editions is true..........

 

[Cadence]

Going on 30 pages now. Wow. Folks REALLY hate change.

Note, there is NOTHING stopping you from playing your bog standard PHB race complete with the PHB ability changes. So, any purists out there can still play those characters. Now, if those self same people could stop worrying about what other people play at the table, and instead focus on their own character, the rest of us would much appreciate.

You could be useful instead of snarky. Like maybe you happen to know an animator who could draw a goliath and a halfling doing strength challenges? An idea for a cute short (a la Bug Bunny and the Turtle) came up several pages back...

 

[TheSword]

Pre changes I didn't see half elf monks or rangers at all. They didn't need +2 CHA. Only paladins or other classes that used CHA. Not to say it didn't exist. You saw lots of humans and wood elves though.

What I think will change now is instead of picking a class and then finding a race with stats that compliments it, it becomes picking a class then pairing it with racial benefits that are powerful. If racial benefits are even between 2 choices, then the one with greater stat points to use becomes more desirable.

Thus power gaming just became easier to do. The 5E system wasn't designed around this kind of idea. It should have been play tested first to allow people to hash out what worked for the health of the system first. But now that it's in an official book the time to have safely tested whether these changes would create problems down the road is gone.

I think whenever 6E comes out it will be built from the ground up with changes like this and be more balanced.

P.S. Unless the curse of even numbered editions is true..........

Just out of interest how serious a problem are we talking here? I mean the biggest issue raised appears to be mountain dwarves that get medium armour proficiency and a second bonus point to one stat. As opposed to additional cantrips or a free feat, or 2 extra stat points. I’m not seeing anything disgraceful here. Most things aren’t stacking and pale when you look at these additions over the trajectory of a characters career.

Some people will always play the game to the best of their ability which I don’t find a problem until it’s ad nauseum. Like Simulacrum spam or Pixie summoning. I find once you start writing games to please those people after a while most other people get left behind.

 

[Markh3rd]

Just out of interest how serious a problem are we talking here? I mean the biggest issue raised appears to be mountain dwarves that get medium armour proficiency and a second bonus point to one stat. As opposed to additional cantrips or a free feat, or 2 extra stat points. I’m not seeing anything disgraceful here. Most things aren’t stacking and pale when you look at a characters career.

Some people will always play the game to the best of their ability. I find once you start writing games to please those people after a while most other people get left behind.

In home games probably not as much. In AL official games I expect to see more shenanigans as people find more combinations that increase character power. I just would have liked a chance to play test major changes first to see how little or how much it will affect the games balance. Especially concerning player vs monsters.

Before a Yuan ti fighter had reduced primary stats but an extremely powerful racial ability to offset it. Now you can have both. Instead of give and take you get give and give. That original Yuan ti fighter would eventually even out at high level play with ASI and/or feats. The new Yuan ti fighter gets a head start over the old at creation and continues ahead.

 

[Chaosmancer]

That is a different argument than the one you made before. Now you compare people within the same role. Here I can follow your thought. But still, a +1 difference hardly matters, and there are other things that differentiate those fighters more.
Lets compare a rock gnome with a half orc whochose the same standard array and make a list:
Str 14 (+2 half orc), Dex 12 (half orc) 10 gnome, Con 15+1, Int 10 (half orc) 12+2 (rock gnome) , Wis 13, Cha 8

The half orc has:
One extra crit die.
Once per rest has an extra life
Average intelligence
Probably a great weapon and great weapon mastery.

The gnome has:
Tinker tools
Gnome Magic resistance
Quite high intelligence and maybe some knowledge skills
Probably duelling fighting style and a shield.
A bit lower dex due to stat choice.

So the Orc deals more damage but against enemies that use magic, the gnome has the advantage of a much higher chance to save against debilating spells like hold person or phantasmal force.
The gnome has 2 more AC.

Once they reach level 3, the comparison most probably they will take different subclasses.

Of course now you could say: but the gnome and the half orc probably want to be both battle masters with great weapons... After level 8, both have 20 Strength anyway, and what is left of both differences is that the gnome deals slightly less damage (d10 vs d12 or 2d6) and magic resistance for the gnome. If you use feats, of course the galf orc now will take great weapon mastery and deals a lot more damage... But that feat was never in question for the gnome, not because of his lower strength, but because he can't use heavy weapons.

Maybe the half orc instead takes resilient wisdom though, because he noticed that being controlled by mind affecting spells negates all of his damage so the difference between both characters are mostly style.

I know this is likely not to make a difference, but this is at least the second time this thread has come up, and I don't understand why people can't understand that this is a problem for some of us. To use a food analogy, I don't like donuts. You can tell me that they are fine, that they are just bread with sugar, you can tell me anything you like. I don't like donuts.

And, the issue that this rule set is meant to alleviate is an issue for some of us. You don't have to agree. You don't have to do anything, but could we please accept that it is an issue for some people? And that it isn't an issue for them because they are some sort of problem group like Min-Maxxers?


Maybe if I laid out the thought process and why I have the issue, maybe people will get it?

When I make a character I usually start one of two ways. Either, there is a class I want to play, or there is a race I want to play. And immediately, this problem raises its head.

If I want to play a cleric, then I want a high Wisdom. Therefore, my best options are the races that give bonuses to wisdom.
If I want to play a Rock Gnome, then I have an Intelligence boost and a Con boost, Con is generic (everyone wants it) so to best utilize my buffs, I should play an intelligence based class.

I haven't done anything beyond choosing one aspect, and already my options have shrunk. Could I choose to play a Gnome Cleric? Yes, because I did do that once. I played a gnome Cleric of Life, and I dumped Dex, giving him a lame leg that worked into my backstory about why he was in this obscure sect of Gnomish Faith and why he was a healer and a doctor.

Was it a trash character who was never able to do anything?

No, it was "fine", but I had a problem I spent most of the game taking ASIs to bump my strength and Wisdom so I could be an effective, heavily armored cleric. I almost never got to take any feats that would have expanded on my concept. And, I noticed it.

I noticed my lower DC constantly when my spells failed. I notieced my lower bonus to hit constantly when I did melee attacks. I noticed my low dex when the DM gave me a "Heavy crossbow of healing" as a unique reward that I ditched immediately, because I could never use it (You had to hit the target for it to work, and I had disadvantage, no prof, and a -1, it was just a way to waste my time, I traded it for a basic wand of web instead). I noticed my lower wisdom meant I chose fewer spells, so I had fewer options to bring into battle.

It was likely constantly getting poked in the back of the head. Because all the things I wanted? The tinker ability, the advantage on saves? None of that mattered for that game. I never got to use that enough to make a difference.

And, that expeirence, in addition to the time I DM'd for a Dragonborn cleric who had many of the same problems, steers me away from those choices. I don't build or even recommend to people Barbarians that aren't a strength-based race, or Wizards who aren't an int-race. Because the chance of them being frustrated with their choice is too high.

It happened to me. It happened to a friend. Why would I let it happen to someone else?

And maybe, maybe it is all perception, but you can't talk me into changing my perspective. You can't tell me this wouldn't be a problem if I cared more about RP and less about dice. You can't tell me that I am wrong, because you once played a character with a 12 in their main stat, and had all the fun in the world.

This is something quite a few of us struggle with in DnD. Can we at least accept that?

In home games probably not as much. In AL official games I expect to see more shenanigans as people find more combinations that increase character power. I just would have liked a chance to play test major changes first to see how little or how much it will affect the games balance. Especially concerning player vs monsters.

Before a Yuan ti fighter had reduced primary stats but an extremely powerful racial ability to offset it. Now you can have both. Instead of give and take you get give and give. That original Yuan ti fighter would eventually even out at high level play with ASI and/or feats. The new Yuan ti fighter gets a head start over the old at creation and continues ahead.

Maybe in AL this might, possibly be a problem, because now the Yuan-Ti is playing a fighter instead of a Hexblade Warlock, or a Bard, or a Paladin, or just a normal warlock.

But, is that really so game-breakingly powerful? I don't think so.

It does allow certain things. A Scourge Aasimar Barbarian is now much more viable. In fact, most of the "plane-touched" can now be built to more resemble their mortal heritage, which is fun. But, any race that is now far too powerful, was likely already far too powerful.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Many, many pages ago now, I wrote something to the effect of, "If +1 to hit and damage and +1 HP/level breaks your game, you have MUCH larger problems at your table than these rules."

Going on 30 pages now. Wow. Folks REALLY hate change.

Note, there is NOTHING stopping you from playing your bog standard PHB race complete with the PHB ability changes. So, any purists out there can still play those characters. Now, if those self same people could stop worrying about what other people play at the table, and instead focus on their own character, the rest of us would much appreciate.

Thing is: if +1 to hit and damage is not breaking the game, then why fix what is not broken?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I know this is likely not to make a difference, but this is at least the second time this thread has come up, and I don't understand why people can't understand that this is a problem for some of us.

Snip.

I perfectly understand your desire to change the rules and I find it reasonable.
I think it is the wrong way of doing so. Allowing every race to have their bonus wherever they want looks terrible to me. It just makes other races the best choice.

Instead you should for example replace +2 con bonus with an abilty that makes dwarves tougher (like the goliath encounter power). For con it is not that problematic because it is no attack stat.
The half orc would be fine even without +1 con and +2 strength. They already have both an offensive and a defensive trait. Now you need to look if every race has such a defining trait.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I haven't done anything beyond choosing one aspect, and already my options have shrunk.

While I can truly appreciate a look into your thought process, I'm sorry but IMO this is still really a matter of perspective.

Of the 56 playable races I include (sorry, no Dragonmarks...), only 14 get a ASI for WIS, and ONLY the Kalishtar is WIS +2. Add the 5 races with ASI +1s they can place anywhere (including WIS) and now you have 19 races.

So, does that mean 66% of the races in the game have sub-optimal clerics? No. It means 37% have better starting potential at level 1. That's it. I don't know why you felt you had to spend so much to improve one ability score with that PC. All it takes is one ASI to give you the +2 that makes you as good as Kalishtars, and better than all the races with only +1 WIS. And, frankly, it isn't even that when you think because you have a +2 to INT, if you use point buy you have more points to put into WIS from the beginning. So, that does help, even if only a little. Playing with feats and you could easily take a feat with a +1 WIS included, making you as good as every other race (again, except Kalishtars).

No, it was "fine", but I had a problem I spent most of the game taking ASIs to bump my strength and Wisdom so I could be an effective, heavily armored cleric. I almost never got to take any feats that would have expanded on my concept. And, I noticed it.

Did you roll scores? I mean, seriously you dumped DEX, and then complain about needing to raise STR as well as WIS? If you plan to go the heavy armor route (with dumped DEX, makes sense) for a good AC, then wouldn't you have at least a STR 13? Also, the CON bonus for rock gnome should have improved your HP and concentration checks, didn't it?

It was your choice to dump DEX (even if a role-playing one), then you have to accept the harsh reality of dumping arguably the most important ability score in the game. I mean, did you really not expect that to have a huge impact?

Anyway, my point is even with this look into your thought process, and I don't know all the ins-and-outs of your experience, but I have to question it somewhat. When push comes to shove, any race without an ASI +2 in your prime score, at worst, requires a single ASI bump to improve it. You get other things to make up for that. Frankly, gnomish magic resistance IMO is a huge feature (sorry it didn't seem to help you much in this case).

Finally, I'm sick of the whole thing. Just remove racial ASIs completely. No longer an issue either way. For the people who will whine about not getting a few extra points, increase point-buy to a max of 16 or 17, improve the standard array, and allow rollers to roll 7 scores and drop their lowest score. All of those ideas will make up for the lost 2-4 racial ASI points.

IMO other racial traits represent the idea that some races are stronger (powerful build), smarter (gnomish magic resistance), more hardy (adv/resistance to poison, +1 HP), and so on. Giving races proficiencies in skill also represent it. Maybe even give them "expertise" or advantage (why the hell don't elves get advantage on perception checks with a trait called Keen Senses, I mean every other creature in the game with that feature does in one respect or another).

 

[DND_Reborn]

Gosh, 5e has a lot of races. I counted 58 in that list, and you didn't include Dragonmarked ones, or Locathah and Grung (I may be missing some, too).

I've added the races I missed. If you think of any others let me know.

 

[Remathilis]

Despite what one player on this thread says has happened at their table, it is not a demonstrably proven fact that the technique of laying out restrictions in advance is a fool-proof general strategy for preventing balking players.

I'm so glad you've never had a player quit or worse sabotage a game because they felt hamstrung by the DMs "arbitrary restrictions".