"Customizing your Origin in D&D"

[x3n0n]

From page 12 of the "New book on Amazon" thread about Tasha's Cauldron of Everything, rooneg found the new rules in the Adventurers' League rules for the new season. (Good find, rooneg!)

"CUSTOMIZING YOUR ORIGIN IN D&D

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."

And in the appendix itself:

At 1st level, you choose various aspects of your character, including ability scores, race, class, and background. Together these elements help paint a picture of your character’s origin and give you the ability to create many different types of characters. Despite that versatility, a typical character race in D&D includes little or no choice—a lack that can make it difficult to realize certain character concepts. The following subsections address that lack by adding choice to your character’s race, allowing you to customize your ability scores, languages, and certain proficiencies to fit the origin you have in mind for your character. Character race in the game represents your character’s fantasy species, combined with certain cultural assumptions. The following options step outside those assumptions to pave the way for truly unique characters.

ABILITY SCORE INCREASES
Whatever D&D race you choose for your character, you get a trait called Ability Score Increase. This increase reflects an archetypal bit of excellence in the adventurers of this kind in D&D’s past. For example, if you’re a dwarf, your Constitution increases by 2, because dwarf heroes in D&D are often exceptionally tough. This increase doesn’t apply to every dwarf, just to dwarf adventurers, and it exists to reinforce an archetype. That reinforcement is appropriate if you want to lean into the archetype, but it’s unhelpful if your character doesn’t conform to the archetype.
If you’d like your character to follow their own path, you may ignore your Ability Score Increase trait and assign ability score increases tailored to your character. Here’s how to do it: take any ability score increase you gain in your race or subrace and apply it to an ability score of your choice. If you gain more than one increase, you can’t apply those increases to the same ability score, and you can’t increase a score above 20.
For example, if the Ability Score Increase trait of your race or subrace increases your Constitution by 2 and your Wisdom by 1, you could instead increase your Intelligence by 2 and your Charisma by 1.

LANGUAGES
Your character’s race includes languages that your character is assumed to know, usually Common and the language of your ancestors. For example, a halfling adventurer is assumed to know Common and Halfling. Here’s the thing: D&D adventurers are extraordinary, and your character might have grown up speaking languages different from the ones in your Languages trait.
To customize the languages you know, you may replace each language in your Languages trait with a language from the following list: Abyssal, Celestial, Common, Deep Speech, Draconic, Dwarvish, Elvish, Giant, Gnomish, Goblin, Halfling, Infernal, Orc, Primordial, Sylvan, or Undercommon.
Your DM may add or remove languages from that list, depending on what languages are appropriate for your campaign.

PROFICIENCIES
Some races and subraces grant skill, weapon, or tool proficiencies. These proficiencies are usually cultural, but your character might not have any connection to the culture in question or might have pursued different training. You can replace each of those proficiencies with a different one, as shown on the Proficiency Swaps table.

PROFICIENCY SWAPS:
Skill to Skill
Simple weapon to Simple weapon or tool
Martial weapon to Simple/martial weapon or tool
Tool to Tool or simple weapon

For example, high elf adventurers have proficiency with longswords, which are martial weapons. Consulting the Proficiency Swaps table, we see that your high elf can swap that proficiency for proficiency with another weapon or a tool. Your elf might be a musician, who chooses proficiency with a musical instrument—a type of tool—instead of with longswords. Similarly, elves start with proficiency in the Perception skill. Your elf might not have the keen senses associated with your kin and could take proficiency in a different skill, such as Performance.
The “Equipment” chapter of the PH includes weapons and tools suitable for these swaps, and your DM might allow additional options.

PERSONALITY
The description of a race might suggest various things about the behavior and personality of that people’s archetypal adventurers. You may ignore those suggestions, whether they’re about alignment, moods, interests, or any other personality trait. Your character’s personality and behavior are entirely yours to determine.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Seems reasonable.

So you get "+2/+1" (etc) instead of a "+2 X/+1 Y". Does make a lot of races stronger, but :shrug:

And you can trade down, but not up for proficiencies. No trading a simple weapon for a martial weapon. No trading out armor from what I saw. Tools and weapons are treated equally.

Languages & personality I've always basically treated free-form, so nbd for me.

[Segev]

Said this in the other thread, but as it's topical here: I don't like the floating stats. They give some paeans here to "because most Dwarves are really tough. Not NPCs, just PCs, but still," right before explaining the rules that actually make that statement an utter lie. Because unless +2 Con becomes a very common thing to see on all PCs, there's no reason to assume Dwarves will see +2 Con any more than any other race. In fact, I expect an explosion in Mountain Dwarf Wizards with +2 Dex and +2 Int.

This makes the stat bonuses utterly meaningless as attached to race. They'd have been better served giving everybody a +2 and a +1 to distribute as they liked, and then giving some racial perks to the races that are hurt by this (e.g. the Mountain Dwarf, or the Vuman and Half-Elf, both of which lose something of an advantage with everybody getting floaters, IIRC).

I also like the fact that it's a choice to play against type that has meaning if you, for instance, play a half-orc wizard. Now, it's no more playing against type than playing an elf with +2 Strength and +1 Constitution who's a wizard. Because any half-orc can be just great at wizardry. Any halfling can be a small, muscle-bound powerhouse with +2 Strength.

It's not a well-thought-out design choice.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Said this in the other thread, but as it's topical here: I don't like the floating stats. They give some paeans here to "because most Dwarves are really tough. Not NPCs, just PCs, but still," right before explaining the rules that actually make that statement an utter lie. Because unless +2 Con becomes a very common thing to see on all PCs, there's no reason to assume Dwarves will see +2 Con any more than any other race. In fact, I expect an explosion in Mountain Dwarf Wizards with +2 Dex and +2 Int.

This makes the stat bonuses utterly meaningless as attached to race. They'd have been better served giving everybody a +2 and a +1 to distribute as they liked, and then giving some racial perks to the races that are hurt by this (e.g. the Mountain Dwarf, or the Vuman and Half-Elf, both of which lose something of an advantage with everybody getting floaters, IIRC).

I also like the fact that it's a choice to play against type that has meaning if you, for instance, play a half-orc wizard. Now, it's no more playing against type than playing an elf with +2 Strength and +1 Constitution who's a wizard. Because any half-orc can be just great at wizardry. Any halfling can be a small, muscle-bound powerhouse with +2 Strength.

It's not a well-thought-out design choice.

IMO, the best solution (and one I've tried to implement for my setting) is cultural sub-races. The base race represents the biology, while the sub-race reflects the culture. And different cultures are different. It does require significant rework.

But honestly, I don't care much about ability scores. They're just...meh to me. Don't have much thematic resonance.

[Segev]

IMO, the best solution (and one I've tried to implement for my setting) is cultural sub-races. The base race represents the biology, while the sub-race reflects the culture. And different cultures are different. It does require significant rework.

But honestly, I don't care much about ability scores. They're just...meh to me. Don't have much thematic resonance.

I could get behind that.

Though I do care about the ability scores. If they don't have resonance, why bother having ASIs at chargen to begin with? To me, they are one of the strongest tools for shaping the "leaning" of the race, class-wise.

[firelistener]

I agree I'm not a huge fan of the floating stats, but I don't find it surprising given that 5e is mostly designed to let you do whatever without imposing a mechanical penalty for anything. The only part that really worries me is how I predict that making characters will become even more confusing for first-time players, as they will likely see this in AL rules or online resources and attempt to do it incorrectly. Which means more DM-hand-holding during character creation.

Interestingly, the languages part seems to be the only one that explicitly specifies allowance for DM fiat. I think it would probably be just as easy to say the DM gets final say on all of this stuff, so I wonder why language proficiency is singled out?

[Segev]

I agree I'm not a huge fan of the floating stats, but I don't find it surprising given that 5e is mostly designed to let you do whatever without imposing a mechanical penalty for anything. The only part that really worries me is how I predict that making characters will become even more confusing for first-time players, as they will likely see this in AL rules or online resources and attempt to do it incorrectly. Which means more DM-hand-holding during character creation.

Interestingly, the languages part seems to be the only one that explicitly specifies allowance for DM fiat. I think it would probably be just as easy to say the DM gets final say on all of this stuff, so I wonder why language proficiency is singled out?

I think because the languages part says the DM might add to the list. It calls out "for campaigns," which suggests to me they have that there to remind the DM to include campaign-specific languages that he deems appropriate.

But I agree, "DM gets final approval" would be a good thing to mention. Of course, Tasha's Cauldron of Everything is a supplement, so everything in the book is subject to DM approval, so that might be why they don't bother mentioning it specifically.

[x3n0n]

Interestingly, the languages part seems to be the only one that explicitly specifies allowance for DM fiat. I think it would probably be just as easy to say the DM gets final say on all of this stuff, so I wonder why language proficiency is singled out?

I think that's intended to be DM fiat to allow extra setting-specific languages, not to disallow any of the "core" languages listed.

Giving AL DMs fiat to disallow anything in this document seems bad to me. (That is, build a character using these rules, play it at one table, then have it be rejected at the next.) Am I missing something?

Edit: ninja'ed

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think that's intended to be DM fiat to allow extra setting-specific languages, not to disallow any of the "core" languages listed.

Giving AL DMs fiat to disallow anything in this document seems bad to me. (That is, build a character using these rules, play it at one table, then have it be rejected at the next.) Am I missing something?

Edit: ninja'ed

The solution is not to play AL

AL DMs won't have discretion. If this is AL legal, they have to allow it. Other DMs can and should decide for themselves (in conference with their tables)s.

More seriously, AL gives up a lot of thematic consistency in exchange for table-to-table consistency. So flexible ability scores is just one more drop in the bucket of powergaming that you'll see at AL tables, without much of a loss.

[KorvinStarmast]

making characters will become even more confusing for first-time players

Seconded

The solution is not to play AL

How about a nice game of chess?

More seriously, AL gives up a lot of thematic consistency in exchange for table-to-table consistency. So flexible ability scores is just one more drop in the bucket of powergaming that you'll see at AL tables, without much of a loss.

The public play aspect of this and other games is a part of a marketing strategy ... AL seems to be fairly successful.

[firelistener]

I think that's intended to be DM fiat to allow extra setting-specific languages, not to disallow any of the "core" languages listed.

Giving AL DMs fiat to disallow anything in this document seems bad to me. (That is, build a character using these rules, play it at one table, then have it be rejected at the next.) Am I missing something?

Edit: ninja'ed

I just meant it seemed inconsistent, but your reply makes the most sense in it being there to allow extras. Normally you get PHB plus a single supplement like XGE. Since these are included on their own outside of the new book, it seems odd that the languages part gets DM fiat at all. The process is mostly designed, after all, to protect players from DMs that want to ban characters they just don't like in the AL games.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Seconded
How about a nice game of chess?

The public play aspect of this and other games is a part of a marketing strategy ... AL seems to be fairly successful.

Oh absolutely. I just personally don't like it. Hence my disdain.

[x3n0n]

The solution is not to play AL

AL DMs won't have discretion. If this is AL legal, they have to allow it. Other DMs can and should decide for themselves (in conference with their tables)s.

More seriously, AL gives up a lot of thematic consistency in exchange for table-to-table consistency. So flexible ability scores is just one more drop in the bucket of powergaming that you'll see at AL tables, without much of a loss.

Ah, I see the issue. I was reading this through the lens of "AL document appendix", not "Tasha's" and home games, where "rule 0" of DM fiat is assumed to apply.

However, sanctioning it in the book gives the same kind of presumption we were talking about in another thread earlier today: if it's in a core-ish rulebook (Xanathar, Tasha), players will assume it's ok unless the DM warns them in advance.

[Segev]

Ah, I see the issue. I was reading this through the lens of "AL document appendix", not "Tasha's" and home games, where "rule 0" of DM fiat is assumed to apply.

However, sanctioning it in the book gives the same kind of presumption we were talking about in another thread earlier today: if it's in a core-ish rulebook (Xanathar, Tasha), players will assume it's ok unless the DM warns them in advance.

I think this is one of those things that's "big" enough that most players and DMs experienced enough to know of them will also know to mention them one way or the other.

[JackPhoenix]

On the one hand, there's the powergaming potential of picking the race according to traits instead of what ASI they give to optimize the characters. Yay. There's gonna be a lot more dwarf whatevers now.
On the other hand, it weakens the racial archetypes... the reason why I hate 5e playable hobgoblins... and makes the races blend together. Boo.

As a player, sounds great, as a GM, meh. Overall, not a fan.

[jaappleton]

Someone correct me if I’m wrong

But essentially

1. You can elect to have your racial bonuses be floating bonuses, and you can’t double up on them (+2 and +1 can’t be a +3 in something)

2. You can swap skill proficiencies, and weapon proficiencies. But it has to be equal or trading back (Assuming Martial Weapons are top tier, followed by simple weapons, then skills and tools)

3. Change your language to whatever applicable on the list

Is that basically it?

[Segev]

Someone correct me if I’m wrong

But essentially

1. You can elect to have your racial bonuses be floating bonuses, and you can’t double up on them (+2 and +1 can’t be a +3 in something)

2. You can swap skill proficiencies, and weapon proficiencies. But it has to be equal or trading back (Assuming Martial Weapons are top tier, followed by simple weapons, then skills and tools)

3. Change your language to whatever applicable on the list

Is that basically it?

That's basically it, yeah.

[KorvinStarmast]

Overall, not a fan.

Me either, but I can live with it.

1. You can elect to have your racial bonuses be floating bonuses, and you can’t double up on them (+2 and +1 can’t be a +3 in something)
2. You can swap skill proficiencies, and weapon proficiencies. But it has to be equal or trading back (Assuming Martial Weapons are top tier, followed by simple weapons, then skills and tools)

3. Change your language to whatever applicable on the list

Is that basically it?

Is your insider info source not sharing?

[8wGremlin]

Move over Iron Hobgoblin Wizard.
there is a new kid in town...

Mountain Dwarf Wizard +2 INT, +2 Dex

Proficiency with Light and Medium Armour

Dwarven Combat Training
You have proficiency with the battleaxe (Martial), handaxe (Simple), light hammer (Simple), and warhammer (Martial).

is now pick any 2 Martial Weapons, and 2 Tools or simple weapons.


Tool Proficiency
You gain proficiency with the artisan’s tools of your choice: smith’s tools, brewer’s supplies, or mason’s tools.

is now Pick any 3 Tools or simple weapons

Example:

Medium armour + Longbow, Rapier
+ 5 tools.

[Damon_Tor]

Is it the intention of this rule to make all other races strictly inferior to the mountain dwarf ubermensch?

The should be a tradeoff: a +2 should become a +1 if it floats.

[jaappleton]

That's basically it, yeah.

I like it overall.

It allows people to go against the grain for their character race. Half Orc Wizard, for example. I really like that.

I really like the proficiency swaps. Dwarves don’t get Maul proficiency but they get pretty much every other hammer for some reason, so I like that. If you want to be a Cleric that doesn’t get Martial Weapons and want a Maul, now you can do that.

Now.... Does it allow for some cheese? Oh, absolutely. 100%. Anything with some sort of martial proficiency, like Elves with long swords, now can take Glaives or Hand Crossbows and cheese it with the appropriate feat.

Im sure I can find some ways to mess around with it for some bull crap levels of amusement.

[Segev]

I like it overall.

It allows people to go against the grain for their character race. Half Orc Wizard, for example. I really like that.

See, to me, it makes it impossible to go against the grain for your race. Your race no longer has a grain. There is absolutely no reason why elven wizards should be more common than half-orc wizards, now.

[KorvinStarmast]

It allows people to go against the grain for their character race. Half Orc Wizard, for example. I really like that.

Ghosts of Salt Marsh have a half orc druid NPC who was a hoot to Dm. (The party captured him ...)

We then ran into the old conundrum: how the heck do you keep a druid confined when he/she can wild shape? The answer they came up with was semi innovative.

[verbatim]

Excited to finally be able to play a rogue that starts with a whip right out the gate (that isn't a hobgoblin).

[jaappleton]

Is your insider info source not sharing?

Bold of you to think I have only one source.

I can, and have, often gotten info early. I have passed along that info to the forum whenever possible.

I get the info I can. It’s far from everything, I’m not able to call up Crawford and ask what’s going on.

But I get what I can.

[jaappleton]

See, to me, it makes it impossible to go against the grain for your race. Your race no longer has a grain. There is absolutely no reason why elven wizards should be more common than half-orc wizards, now.

The players aren’t NPCs. The NPC Wizard has a solid change to be an elf, sure. But players often play extraordinary characters, so they go against the grain.

[KorvinStarmast]

Bold of you to think I have only one source.

Sorry, "inside sources"
(And your sharing here is appreciated by more than me, I am sure)

[x3n0n]

I'm looking forward to building point-buy Monks in races that didn't natively bump both Dex and Wis. MAD classes in general get more usable as a result of this.

It does seem like we will see a rash of characters converting race ribbons into useful tools, as mentioned several times already. Who knew dwarves and elves were all so interested in lock-picking instead of brewing or aiming a shortbow?

Edit: good call on the rogue Whip above. Even harder to imagine someone taking the Weapon Master feat now.

[Damon_Tor]

Mountain Dwarves are top tier rogues now too. +2 to dex and +2 to con, free longbow proficiency.

Half elves are even more competitive now than they used to be, since their +2 floats too now. They can have +2 to dex so elvish accuracy can get them 18 dex at level 4, while still putting the two +1s wherever they want. I can't think of any reason you would take a full elf over a half elf now, they are strictly superior.

It's just not well thought out.

[Cicciograna]

I like it overall.

It allows people to go against the grain for their character race. Half Orc Wizard, for example. I really like that.

You can already do that. You can play a Half Orc Wizard that dumps Strength and puts the highest rolled scored in Int.