Search results

Pretty much this right here.

Given that Pathfinder retains the 2e/3e style of tiefling (and is even more explicit about diversity in their fiendish heritage and appearance), I would doubt that.

Some of my favorite tiefling images: Factol Rhys of the Ciphers (of tanar'ri heritage) Annah from Planescape: Torment A tiefling worshiper of Saranrae from Pathfinder

I'll field an explanation here since I literally wrote the Pathfinder book on the daemons. Daemons are a race of singularly selfish, self-interested entities united by a singular hunger and a rapacious, all-consuming hatred of mortals. The rest of the multiverse can do as it wishes, but in the...

2e/3e tieflings were descended from any fiend. Demon, devil, yugoloth, etc. 4e was devil only.

Where is this from? If so it's another bizarre choice, because cambions are demonic half-fiends.

*sigh* Devil blooded only. Seriously? That completely misses the point of the classic 2e and 3e tieflings, replacing them with something using their name but apparently based completely on the 4e creature from Evans' novel. That's a shame.

edit

Aasimars don't have to be descended from angels. There are other celestials, some with less human features than others. Some archons are less human, all of the guardinals have animal features, and the eladrin are more fey than humanoid in appearance. There's a lot of diversity to pick from for...

And I'd be fine with that actually. It's the chance that they reserve the name "tiefling" in 5e to refer exclusively to the outlier (the 4e version) and rename the 2e/3e tiefling to something else that worries me as a gigantic fan of the race.

I know, I'm just hoping that they don't make that mistake. It's just a lot more respectful to the history of the game to keep the classic tiefling as the default one. The 2e/3e tieflings have a longer history and larger amount of material written using them than the 4e versions, the 4e versions...

What's going to be interesting to see is how they define tieflings, and if it favors the classic 2e/3e version or the rather different 4e version.

It's a return to a common cosmology as in 1e and 2e (though there were also sources that followed along these lines in 3e while others did the exact opposite). It remains to be seen if Eberron retains its unique cosmology if it appears in 5e as a campaign setting (I would hope so since it...

I shouldn't engage on this, again, but I will. We get that you don't like certain things, but they've been part of D&D for many, many years. You're free to strip them out, but that's how things have developed with the game for a long time now. There have been noted caveats there of course, such...

I have a amazing amount of respect for him for that.

2e/3.x tieflings in their spectacular diversity need to be presented as the standard, default notion of what tieflings are, and the 4e tiefling should be presented as a specific, true-breeding subrace thereof, much like fey'ri were a specific breed of elven tiefling. The playtest idea of...