Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
5e Tieflings and Dragonborn
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Tovec" data-source="post: 6310679" data-attributes="member: 95493"><p>I agree that making subraces (especially with humans) gets bad and offensive really fast. I really do. In my games and specifically my setting I've gotten around this by essentially getting rid of the subraces in most respects. I have subraces for different continents but that is a biological adaption kind of thing, instead of people from another country over kind of thing. I don't even have drow in my games anymore, but I do have evil elves from a rival kingdom.. that just happen to use the same racial stats as the goodly elves. Or with dark dwarves, I have my own version (I realized years after I wrote them up and used them) that are a twisted almost half-undead variation on the dwarves that PCs play as. I see very little reason to have high, grey, wild and dark -elves running around all over the place and so I cut it. With all of that said, I have no problem with all those variations of elves existing in the main book, I really don't. It doesn't impact me to a great extent. I'll pick the one variation I like and go from there. But I wonder what value there is in collecting unlike races and then calling them subraces of something else. Gnomes aren't a type of halfling anymore than Orcs are a type of Hobgoblin. There may be similarities but they are different races. If we're going to squabble about such things we obviously can't point to real life examples; which is why I would stay away from subracing humans. I just have to try and find value in assigning half-humans into the human category for any real reason. I expect there to be a list, with the elf title coming first then the subrace. I don't expect to see 'Human, half-orc' since that would be confusing and also.. why isn't the half-orc under 'orc'?</p><p></p><p></p><p>I'm not saying they should be added Solely for symmetry sake. I enjoy aasimars, I've played aasimars, I've had aasimars in my games in roughly equal numbers. Heck I even wrote up a civilization of aasimars in my setting (tieflings certainly didn't get that treatment). I think they belong in the book just as much as the tieflings.</p><p></p><p>Now, on the symmetry bend: just think it is silly to have one without the other. Like having devils in the MM without demons or angels. Just silly to have one but not the others. Like having water gensai but no fire, earth or air. Why do that?</p><p></p><p></p><p>If you like them why aren't you trying to push for their inclusion? It seems like a no brainer to try and at least suggest that your preferred content be included from the get go. If you don't get it then try to see why, but why stop yourself from asking in the first place? Seems a little defeatist.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Anecdotes aren't meaningless. They just have to be used appropriately. Anecdotes aren't evidence or an argument. Anecdotes are about as valid as opinion. When people are looking to be convinced of something you try to avoid your opinion and give fact and argument of why something is or should be a certain way. But anecdotes aren't worthless, they inform your stance and that has value so that people can understand. This is just my two cents of course, I'm not everyone and my definition can't be used widely.</p><p></p><p>As for @<strong>Shemeska</strong> 's comments - they pertain to Pathfinder Society and thus aren't just his personal experience but are instead relating to a larger group of people who can play and share results. So, I find fairly significant value in his comments and don't find them anecdotal, though you and others still might.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Is it your job to make sure things fit into the book? It certainly isn't mine. Even if they go the Pathfinder approach (something I feel is unnecessarily long) they'll add a whopping whole page in length to add another race.</p><p></p><p>Granted, not every race can be in there. But WotC has seemed interested in catering to as many people as possible, so why not have a conversation like this and see if Aasimar can be one of the few that makes it. If for no other reason than the symmetry thing. But personally, since I like the aasimar more than the tiefling, I feel if they need to cut one they should cut the evil dude since he's evil <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite7" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue :p" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":p" /> and this game is primarily about heroes.</p><p></p><p></p><p>The market research was performed when? And what does it tell <em>them</em>? How do <em><strong>I</strong></em> get access to <em>their</em> results (like you seem to have)?</p><p></p><p>To try and account for discrepencies - in 4e there weren't aasimars yet tieflings are in the PHB. That would automatically make them more popular. And as far as why they would have chosen to do this for the launch of 4e (a decision I assume that cannot be based on 4e market research - on a game that they are building..) well I think that has to do with their design priorities. In the monster manual everything was meant to be an enemy of the party. Tieflings made it as a PC race but no aasimars, evil dragons were basically ALL dragons. Archons, the LG goodly goods, are now evil elementals. And so on, I think it is possible WotC had a bit of a hard on for removing the goodly counterparts to try and un-symmetry the game as much as possible. I don't think it necessarily worked (deva) and I don't see that as a design goal this time either so why not herald the return of aasimars?</p><p></p><p></p><p>"Usually evil" isn't a definitive. Always Evil is. And even then we had non-good celestials and non-evil fiends all over the place. They tend to be more evil than not evil, but given who their parents are I see that as surprising that they aren't more evil. But honestly YES that is a little change. The ability score stuff less so. Considering how much usually gets completely rewritten per edition that is actually VERY minor and yet it is all you seem to be fixated on. So, 3e got it wrong - why not try to correct it for the next edition? Or are you still sore about there being non-weapon proficiencies removed too? Start a pitch (there's theoretically still time) to make sure the aasimars AND the tieflings are both made netural by default. Or whatever their alignment should be.</p><p></p><p>Unrelated: I sent you a PM the other day - any thoughts?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tovec, post: 6310679, member: 95493"] I agree that making subraces (especially with humans) gets bad and offensive really fast. I really do. In my games and specifically my setting I've gotten around this by essentially getting rid of the subraces in most respects. I have subraces for different continents but that is a biological adaption kind of thing, instead of people from another country over kind of thing. I don't even have drow in my games anymore, but I do have evil elves from a rival kingdom.. that just happen to use the same racial stats as the goodly elves. Or with dark dwarves, I have my own version (I realized years after I wrote them up and used them) that are a twisted almost half-undead variation on the dwarves that PCs play as. I see very little reason to have high, grey, wild and dark -elves running around all over the place and so I cut it. With all of that said, I have no problem with all those variations of elves existing in the main book, I really don't. It doesn't impact me to a great extent. I'll pick the one variation I like and go from there. But I wonder what value there is in collecting unlike races and then calling them subraces of something else. Gnomes aren't a type of halfling anymore than Orcs are a type of Hobgoblin. There may be similarities but they are different races. If we're going to squabble about such things we obviously can't point to real life examples; which is why I would stay away from subracing humans. I just have to try and find value in assigning half-humans into the human category for any real reason. I expect there to be a list, with the elf title coming first then the subrace. I don't expect to see 'Human, half-orc' since that would be confusing and also.. why isn't the half-orc under 'orc'? I'm not saying they should be added Solely for symmetry sake. I enjoy aasimars, I've played aasimars, I've had aasimars in my games in roughly equal numbers. Heck I even wrote up a civilization of aasimars in my setting (tieflings certainly didn't get that treatment). I think they belong in the book just as much as the tieflings. Now, on the symmetry bend: just think it is silly to have one without the other. Like having devils in the MM without demons or angels. Just silly to have one but not the others. Like having water gensai but no fire, earth or air. Why do that? If you like them why aren't you trying to push for their inclusion? It seems like a no brainer to try and at least suggest that your preferred content be included from the get go. If you don't get it then try to see why, but why stop yourself from asking in the first place? Seems a little defeatist. Anecdotes aren't meaningless. They just have to be used appropriately. Anecdotes aren't evidence or an argument. Anecdotes are about as valid as opinion. When people are looking to be convinced of something you try to avoid your opinion and give fact and argument of why something is or should be a certain way. But anecdotes aren't worthless, they inform your stance and that has value so that people can understand. This is just my two cents of course, I'm not everyone and my definition can't be used widely. As for @[B]Shemeska[/B] 's comments - they pertain to Pathfinder Society and thus aren't just his personal experience but are instead relating to a larger group of people who can play and share results. So, I find fairly significant value in his comments and don't find them anecdotal, though you and others still might. Is it your job to make sure things fit into the book? It certainly isn't mine. Even if they go the Pathfinder approach (something I feel is unnecessarily long) they'll add a whopping whole page in length to add another race. Granted, not every race can be in there. But WotC has seemed interested in catering to as many people as possible, so why not have a conversation like this and see if Aasimar can be one of the few that makes it. If for no other reason than the symmetry thing. But personally, since I like the aasimar more than the tiefling, I feel if they need to cut one they should cut the evil dude since he's evil :P and this game is primarily about heroes. The market research was performed when? And what does it tell [i]them[/i]? How do [I][B]I[/B][/I] get access to [I]their[/I] results (like you seem to have)? To try and account for discrepencies - in 4e there weren't aasimars yet tieflings are in the PHB. That would automatically make them more popular. And as far as why they would have chosen to do this for the launch of 4e (a decision I assume that cannot be based on 4e market research - on a game that they are building..) well I think that has to do with their design priorities. In the monster manual everything was meant to be an enemy of the party. Tieflings made it as a PC race but no aasimars, evil dragons were basically ALL dragons. Archons, the LG goodly goods, are now evil elementals. And so on, I think it is possible WotC had a bit of a hard on for removing the goodly counterparts to try and un-symmetry the game as much as possible. I don't think it necessarily worked (deva) and I don't see that as a design goal this time either so why not herald the return of aasimars? "Usually evil" isn't a definitive. Always Evil is. And even then we had non-good celestials and non-evil fiends all over the place. They tend to be more evil than not evil, but given who their parents are I see that as surprising that they aren't more evil. But honestly YES that is a little change. The ability score stuff less so. Considering how much usually gets completely rewritten per edition that is actually VERY minor and yet it is all you seem to be fixated on. So, 3e got it wrong - why not try to correct it for the next edition? Or are you still sore about there being non-weapon proficiencies removed too? Start a pitch (there's theoretically still time) to make sure the aasimars AND the tieflings are both made netural by default. Or whatever their alignment should be. Unrelated: I sent you a PM the other day - any thoughts? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
5e Tieflings and Dragonborn
Top