D&D 5E 5e Tieflings and Dragonborn

[Ruin Explorer]

If they end up stripping tieflings of their name, calling them planetouched (which as a term includes more races than just tieflings in the 2e/3e usage), and hijacking the name in favor of the 4e creatures, it would strike me as disrespectful to the original material that has a longer history within D&D.

< gets out axe, grindstone >

They already did that hijack in 3.XE, though, so it's way too late for "disrespectful". Tieflings in 2E are a kind of planetouched, with not particularly more likely to be evil than others (it's just that people thought they were), who are charismatic and intelligent (but weak and unwise). Awesome. In 3.XE, for reasons known only to designers who, imo, need a spanking, they got a charisma PENALTY (what the effin eff!?), and became a +1 LA race for no godly or ungodly reason, and they were also said to be usually evil with rare exceptions. The 3.XE version is a cruel, dim-witted mockery of the 2E version, imo.

The 4E version is totally different to either - but it has a CHA bonus at least (thank... god? someone like that ), and has solid lore, a raison d'etre, and so on.

So, no, you can't really pull the "disrepectful" line out about 4E Tieflings. 3.XE already scribbled over everything cool and right about Tieflings (just go read the 2E description about how charming and self-confident Tieflings are - then compare that to 3.XE's -2 CHA and "usually evil"!), and kept only the powers (kinda) and sorta the physical appearance.

So as a Tiefling-lover (real Tieflings!), I'd be fine with 4E Tieflings walking off with the name, so long as I got to play a 2E-style Planetouched Tiefling, rather than a 3.XE-style "Charming devil? Silver-tongued devil? These phrases have no meaning to me!"-type Tiefling...

One thing that really needs to go away however is the design ethos of removing something from the game, then turning around and making a new monster and giving it the name of the one that got removed. It makes a hash of in-setting continuity, it's needlessly confusing to players, and it's lazy design.

... that already happened in 3.XE...

 

[Derren]

replace them with a more flashy draconic race - Draconians or some such

It would be nice if WotC would simply use "the original humanoid dragon race" but I do not think the death throes fits with a player race (at least in core) and without them they are simply not draconians.

 

[gyor]

I think 3.5 tiefling had -2 charisma was to convey how creepy some dude with fie dish blood was to noral people.

And give that FR is default, they may go with the FR background which is the descendants of planetouched tieflings get warped by a ritual to Asmodeaus into new pure breeding horned tieflings.

As for subraces I don't see planetouched as a subrace of tieflings as that would make Aasmir and Genasi tieflings. I think planedtouched will be its own race in the MM or DMG.

Instead I see subrace perhaps being based on Layer of Hell or Archdevil. I think Alu-fiends could make a cool subrace of Tiefling.

So maybe one subrace will be Asmodean Tieflings and another Levistis Tieflings.

Alternately they could have Regular Tieflings, I'd still call them Asmodean Tieflings, and Alu-Fiends.

Dragonborn will probably be by Dragon type somehow.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I think 3.5 tiefling had -2 charisma was to convey how creepy some dude with fie dish blood was to noral people.

Which was really awful, because lots of demons and devils had a very high CHA, and it is a common feature of virtually all the myth and folklore of the entire world that devils and demons who are humanoid are charming/tempting, not just creepy as hell (or their charm outweighs their creepiness). Creepy is for serial killers and ghosts.

On top of that, it stamped directly on all the 2E lore, which went on and on about how charming and self-confident Tieflings were! It was a 180 reversal on them, as was the insistence that Tieflings really were "usually evil" (which I believe the original MM entry expanded on more than the SRD entry does), rather than that they might slightly tend that way, but mostly that was prejudice against them.

Further, you're not just interacting with "normal people", so a "normal people" deal should be a penalty specific to "normal people" (like a -1 or -2 on social rolls with them), NOT a CHA penalty, which affects interactions with all beings (including other scary people/monsters), damages your ability to be a Sorcerer/Bard, and so on.

 

[Sadrik]

Planetouched

• Aasmar
• Teifling
• Gensai

Lizard Folk

• Dragonborn
• Kobold

Halfling

• Hobbit
• Gnome

Human

• Standard
• Half-Elf
• Half-Orc

Dwarf

• Mountain
• Hill
• Deep

Elf

• High
• Wood
• Drow

Bam! Done.

 

[Henry]

Bam! Done.

I'd go for it. Your groupings work for me.

 

[Evenglare]

I'd go for it. Your groupings work for me.

Are Aasimar or Deva confirmed? I know it's neurotic but im really OCD about having one "evil race" and not a "good race" to counter balance it. I also enjoy the aasimar and deva from previous editions.

 

[Tovec]

Planetouched

• Aasmar
• Teifling
• Gensai

Lizard Folk

• Dragonborn
• Kobold

Halfling

• Hobbit
• Gnome

Human

• Standard
• Half-Elf
• Half-Orc

Dwarf

• Mountain
• Hill
• Deep

Elf

• High
• Wood
• Drow

Bam! Done.

Yeah, that's not going to work for me.

First, Lizard Folk - neither are lizards both are draconic. Also, you forgot .. unno.. Lizardfolk?

Second, WHICH tieflings? Isn't that the point of half this thread?

Third, while I have few problems with humans and half-humans being grouped together I honestly wonder to what end. All variants of Elf and Dwarf are definitely those things. Half-elves aren't humans and won't be confused with humans so why put them under the human banner.

Fourth, Halflings and Gnomes are different things. In fact as I recall there are nearly many subraces of gnomes as dwarves or elves. Fewer for halflings I'll admit but they are different beings entirely. Even the "lizard folk" you described are closer.

Fifth, (kind of covered with third) what is the point of grouping them this way? With elves and dwarves, and I'd add on halflings and gnomes (as their own race descriptors with subraces), I can see the point. With humans and lizardfolk I don't see it. You aren't saying "these are all that one thing, pick a variation" with half the groups that you are saying with the other half.

Let me put this another way.

What you gave for races is about as satisfactory as..

Wizards:
Witch/Warlock
Sorcerer
Bard

Clerics:
Cleric
Paladin
Cloistered Cleric

Rogues:
Monk
Ranger
Barbarian

Fighters:
Fighter
Warlord
Druid

But do you see the problem? Some of those things aren't like the others, some are their own thing entirely and some don't belong under the things you've sorted them (like having both draconic races under 'lizard folk'), oh and of course you've omitted others entirely (no lizardfolk in lizard folk = no rogue in the rogues). Some might follow a theme but as always there are others that don't. And in the case of the druid, just because it is good at fighting like a fighter doesn't mean it belongs under the fighter grouping (gnomes and halflings).

Really you can rearrange both lists ad nauseam to further illustrate the point, but I think by now you should see my point.

Oh, and halflings have 3 variations they've already discussed (I think it was 3 anyway) and none of those are the the other race known as the gnome.

Swing and a miss.

 

[tsadkiel]

Are Aasimar or Deva confirmed?

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

 

[variant]

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.