Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Shemeska" data-source="post: 6329627" data-attributes="member: 11697">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 presenting the 4e race as tieflings and the 2e/3e tieflings under a different name as &quot;planetouched&quot; needs to be quietly swept under the carpet, especially given that planetouched in 2e/3e itself referred to other races besides tieflings (aasimar, genasi, etc). It risks confusing people and it's avoidable.Similarly it would be awesome to see some of the other planetouched races such as genasi and aasimar be presented as faithfully to their roots (and the bulk of their publication history and word count) as possible, and where appropriate to present 4e versions as optional variants or subtypes.5e has the chance to really leverage the D&amp;D specific IP in its various campaign settings, especially when there's the option to link them together 2e-style. You're going to be judged against how 2e implemented the same idea however, and some seriously imaginative giants in the field crafted that particular playground, building upon what 1e started with the MotP and elsewhere. Know that material and bring in folks that worked on it in the first place or that cherish it. There is little that I wouldn't do to be able to play in a 5e Sigil, or play around with 5e yugoloths as a freelancer. Just saying. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin&nbsp; &nbsp; :D"&nbsp; data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Shemeska, post: 6329627, member: 11697"] 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 presenting the 4e race as tieflings and the 2e/3e tieflings under a different name as "planetouched" needs to be quietly swept under the carpet, especially given that planetouched in 2e/3e itself referred to other races besides tieflings (aasimar, genasi, etc). It risks confusing people and it's avoidable. Similarly it would be awesome to see some of the other planetouched races such as genasi and aasimar be presented as faithfully to their roots (and the bulk of their publication history and word count) as possible, and where appropriate to present 4e versions as optional variants or subtypes. 5e has the chance to really leverage the D&D specific IP in its various campaign settings, especially when there's the option to link them together 2e-style. You're going to be judged against how 2e implemented the same idea however, and some seriously imaginative giants in the field crafted that particular playground, building upon what 1e started with the MotP and elsewhere. Know that material and bring in folks that worked on it in the first place or that cherish it. There is little that I wouldn't do to be able to play in a 5e Sigil, or play around with 5e yugoloths as a freelancer. Just saying. :D [/QUOTE]

Verification