D&D 5E 5e Tieflings and Dragonborn

[Evenglare]

They are not. Maybe in the Monster Manual or DMG, but I wouldn't count on it.

That's disheartening to hear. Any reason why they wouldn't be in the MM or DM guide? both editions before had them. Surely I can't be the only person annoyed by this. I remember an interview (D&D4) when they claimed that everyone wanted to be a tiefling because they are bad, and aasimar/deva was boring to play because they were good aligned. I mean... wtf... how did they even come to that conclusion, it boggles the mind. Especially when the game is centered around good heroes.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

That's disheartening to hear. Any reason why they wouldn't be in the MM or DM guide? both editions before had them. Surely I can't be the only person annoyed by this. I remember an interview (D&D4) when they claimed that everyone wanted to be a tiefling because they are bad, and aasimar/deva was boring to play because they were good aligned. I mean... wtf... how did they even come to that conclusion, it boggles the mind. Especially when the game is centered around good heroes.

Because that's the reality. People like to play "bad race gone good" a great deal. People don't like to play "goody two-shoes is naturally good!" very much.

You're putting dogma ahead of real preferences, I would suggest.

 

[gyor]

I believe Aasimon, aka Angels took back the Deva term, but that the 4e Deva survives as a t
type of Angel called an Incarnated Deva, may or may not have playable stats in the MM.

As for traditional Aasmir, I believe the Aasmir will be apart of the Planetouched Race along with Genasi and whatever they decide to call old school tieflings now. Although I'd add Shadar-Kai to the planetouched as they are basically planetouched by the Shadow Plane.

And I'd twists to Aasmir to make them more then goody two shoes. Like maybe the mortal soul strains against the confines of the celestail impulses to some times cause Aasmir to snap and rebel, or Aasmir are sometimes prone to visions from the higher planes, or some other hooks.

One Aasmir resource and the reason I really like Aasmir was a part of the races of Faerun book that got cut and put on the internet had various planetouched incuding Aasmir that were descended from various deities and thier servants. So Aasmir descended from Sharess had cat like prints on thier skin and where more likely to turn to evil then other Aasmir.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

And I'd twists to Aasmir to make them more then goody two shoes. Like maybe the mortal soul strains against the confines of the celestail impulses to some times cause Aasmir to snap and rebel, or Aasmir are sometimes prone to visions from the higher planes, or some other hooks.

Originally they were perfectly likely to be non-Good. 3.XE changed that.

 

[MoonSong]

Because that's the reality. People like to play "bad race gone good" a great deal. People don't like to play "goody two-shoes is naturally good!" very much.

You're putting dogma ahead of real preferences, I would suggest.

Who cares about good and evil? Aasimar and Deva are both otherworldly and magnificent, and Aasimar are beautiful, majestic and elegant in their own way, Devas are mystic and spiritual, alignment has nothing to do with it

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Who cares about good and evil? Aasimar and Deva are both otherworldly and magnificent, and Aasimar are beautiful, majestic and elegant in their own way, Devas are mystic and spiritual, alignment has nothing to do with it

I actually concur, but I think the problem historically has been that Aasimar were seen as dull goody goodies without much of a "hook", and honestly, Devas were just hard to "get" for most people.

 

[doctorhook]

If Tieflings are going to be descendants of humans that made a pact long, they should expand it to more than just pacts with demons or devils. Take a couple of the warlock pact options such as fae and make them into subgroups of the tiefling.

It's possible I'm misreading your idea, but I think the fantasy-genetics of core D&D are already weird and inconsistent enough*. I'd rather they just explain 4E-style tieflings by fiat rather than create a framework to explain the physiological and magical changes to an entire race based on each type of entity their civilization could make a blood-pact with. (I suppose part of my objection is that characters of these types should be relatively uncommon.)

 

[Elf Witch]

Because that's the reality. People like to play "bad race gone good" a great deal. People don't like to play "goody two-shoes is naturally good!" very much.

You're putting dogma ahead of real preferences, I would suggest.

I have found it to be the exact opposite with the group I play with most prefer goody two shoes over bad race gone good. Unless you have solid data on players preferences it is just your opinion from your experience.

I am not not fond of 4E teiflings and if that is how they are in 5E it will most likely be a banned race.

I used heavily in my campaigns the dragonborn from Races of the Dragons I liked the idea that they came from a ritual to turn another race into dragonborn. I really don't like the idea that they are blessed eggs. I would rather they be a species that made pacts with dragons and now their offspring breed true.

 

[gyor]

There more likely to go with the 4e background, then the dragon eggs one.

I think Dragonborn variants/subraces will be based around dragon type like Red Dragon, White Dragon, Gold, Dragon, ect...

 

[DMZ2112]

I am very glad the dragonborn are PHB-bound. I have been a big fan of the /idea/ of draconic PCs since Council of Wyrms in AD&D2 and thought their inclusion was one of D&D4's high points. I was fond of the playtest description of dragonborn -- that they hatch from specially prepared (or unprepared) dragon eggs and carry the traits of their dragon relatives -- and hope it sticks. I really hated that all the dragonborn in D&D3 were purple (as much as I love purple) and all the dragonborn in D&D4 were bronze (why bronze?!).

I'm hoping for a metallic and a chromatic subrace of dragonborn.

My first criterion for any RPG character species is that it be true-breeding and populous, which is why I'm not a big fan of half-orcs or half-elves. I have always felt like the former might as well be orcs and that you can get the same effect as the latter by playing a human raised by elves or an elf raised by humans.

That's not really my big complaint with tieflings, though, as D&D4 did (clumsily) rectify that discrepancy. I have the same issue with tieflings that a lot of you seem to share, which is that D&D4 tieflings just don't live up to the promise of the concept from Planescape.

I suppose that logic dictates that there be at least a devil-tiefling and a demon-tiefling -- perhaps the demon-tieflings could be the table-generated urchin-mutants of Planescape while the devil-tieflings remain the scions of Bael Turath, or what have you.

But tieflings also fail my 'Lynch Test,' which asks, "Would this species realistically not be lynched everywhere they went?" The tiefling works as a populous, true-breeding (more or less) species in Planescape, because part of their charm is that they are the /least weird thing/ about the setting. They are almost /expected/.

But on a prime material world -- particularly a prime material world in the grips of a "points of light" scenario -- they look an awful lot like an advanced possession victim. Keep in mind that the D&D world is /overflowing/ with dangerous humanoids that look substantially less blatantly evil than the tiefling. Why does the tiefling get special dispensation to walk the streets without harrassment?

"No, wait, I'm a tief-urk"

"Hello sir, I'd like to buy a week's worth of iron rat-urk"

"People of Geoff, I have slain the giant king, hey what are you doing with those-urk"