D&D 5E I'd like to know the thinking behind this....

[Evenglare]

So, they include Tieflings in a game primarily focused on being good guy heroes. Tieflings are put in because they have a dark streak so people want to be edgy or whatever. That's fine, but then they don't put in Aasimar because they think they are boring or something? Okay, well I guess i'm completely stupid for wanting THE good race in my heroic game, but whatever I'll accept that i have to have a dark streak tiefling. Okay cool, so by looking at the races we seem to be able to play characters that are not good. So I get to be evil, but no all the good domains of a cleric but not the evil/death ones? No flirting with the dark side as a cleric, but as a race? Sure. WTF. Yet I can be a necromancer as a wizard. How much more confusing is this getting?? Also as a paladin, I get to be a quintessential good paladin, be a paladin of vengeance which are known as black knights, but I can't break my oath if I experience an even I disagree with to the core of my being.

I know this stuff will be in the DMG, but I'm looking through and I have no ****ing clue what the thinking was being putting some of this stuff in and taking some of it out in the PHB. It clearly seems like they want the player to have the ability to have a dark streak, but not one so much as to run evil campaigns. But they also didn't want anyone to run -the- quinessential opposed tiefling race of good (Aasimar/deva whatever you want to call it) and believe me if you have watched Supernatural, or played Diablo 3. Those angels do rediculous stuff for the greater "good". So I reject the argument of "They are a boring race". No **** that, do your job better and use some creativity.

 

[transtemporal]

Well, if they gave you dessert first, you wouldn't buy and eat your expensive broccoli.

Now eat your broccoli.

 

[Paraxis]

Pretty sure it is a combination of things but, popularity is probably a big reason. They had a two year playtest and gathered lots of feedback, I assume there was no significant demand for Aasimar.

Death domain, ehh probably a space issue plenty of death gods are "neutral" and gods of the natural order of things or caretakers of the afterlife. Personally I would have rather had death in PHB instead of trickery but eh.

Necromancy school, they wanted balance it would have been weird to only have seven of the classic eight schools of magic.

I think each instance of, Do we include this in the PHB? move it to the DMG? just wait and put it in a splat book?, is handled on it's own and not part of some overall meta thinking about what is appropriate for good/evil games or play styles.

I like aasimar, love the show supernatural, but they just are not a popular race.

 

[I'm A Banana]

That's fine, but then they don't put in Aasimar because they think they are boring or something?

Where'd you hear that?

Naaah, the real reason they put in tieflings is because it was in 4e. The intent was, as I understand it, to allow someone picking up the 5e PHB to basically make the same archetypes with that book that they could make in any previous PHB. So Dragonborn and Turathi tieflings are important for that goal.

So I get to be evil, but no all the good domains of a cleric but not the evil/death ones? No flirting with the dark side as a cleric, but as a race?

Was the existing level of customization not enough? I mean, you can play an evil cleric of tempest or light or even life or nature...and if you want a bit of death, you can traipse through the Necromancer wizard and call it good. What would a Death Cleric have that you'd be missing there?

Yet I can be a necromancer as a wizard. How much more confusing is this getting??

It's not so bad when you realize that the goal wasn't so much a moral purity of PC's as it was the ability to be characters from previous e's.

Also as a paladin, I get to be a quintessential good paladin, be a paladin of vengeance which are known as black knights, but I can't break my oath if I experience an even I disagree with to the core of my being.

If you experience what?

Plus, vengeance has been often seen as a pretty morally Good idea in a lot of societies -- tribal societies where the sins of someone must echo through the family, or even the Judeo-Christian tradition with its holy wars and inquisitions and Papal politiking.

It clearly seems like they want the player to have the ability to have a dark streak, but not one so much as to run evil campaigns.

I suppose, sure.

But they also didn't want anyone to run -the- quinessential opposed tiefling race of good (Aasimar/deva whatever you want to call it)

It's not like there's infinite space in the PHB for what everyone thinks is quintessential. You want aasimar? Go Wild (it's not exactly like their formula for making the Tiefling is difficult to reverse-engineer). Heck, go the extra mile -- make a warlock pact with the Celestials for a light-is-not-good vibe!

Don't take the fact that aasimar weren't in the PHB personally. No version of D&D has ever let you play an aasimar straight from the PHB. If you want to play a Good Guy, there's 90% of the races in the PHB there for you to have fun with.

 

[Hand of Evil]

I just think it is because someone is a fan of Tieflings. But I agree with you, as the default setting is FR, both the Tieflings and Aasimar should have been included or held until PlaneScape.

 

[BoldItalic]

It's a cunning plot by evil tieflings to take over your game. They snuck into the WotC offices one weekend and added themselves to the PHB source document then changed all the page numbers to cover their tracks.

 

[Vic Ferrari]

It's no big deal, but I would have liked the Death domain in the PHB, it is not necessarily evil (Cleric of Osiris, etc).

My problem with Tieflings is that they are forced into being devilish, when Tieflings can be of any fiendish blood (Yugoloths, etc).

 

[Astrosicebear]

Traditionally Aasimars are above the power curve of a starter race. I know they included Drow, but they are an elf variant and much more popular.

But to speak of your greater concerns, the designers don't intend for dark and brooding heroes. They just didnt want alignment and abilities dictating actions. There is nothing stopping you from playing a lawful good teifling cleric of life. Thematically, its different, but that's always the perception when you buck the archetype trend... halfling rogue, half-orc barbarian, etc.

Unlike any other edition, 5E lets you play the character you design the way you want, not the way the system wants.

 

[WayneLigon]

It clearly seems like they want the player to have the ability to have a dark streak, but not one so much as to run evil campaigns.

That would indeed seem to be exactly the designers intent.
I would have rather saved them for a DMG options section or a special adventure supplement, rather than make them a core PHB race. Same with Aasimar, etc.

 

[The_Gneech]

I dislike the inclusion of tieflings as a core race in 5E for the same reason I did in 4E, it's not a classic archetype (even by D&D standards) but a world-specific one, and as such it belongs in the sourcebook for that world or briefly summarized in the MM rather than the core player rules. Ditto dragonborn.

I mean, I'm the guy at the table who always wants to play catfolk, wolfen, or even gnolls, but I know they're outliers. And as such, they don't belong in the core book. A brief writeup in the MM for "_____ player characters" should be enough.

-The Gneech