I've reversed my stance on dragonborn and tieflings

[The Ubbergeek]

They can, but putting specific, arguably non-generic stuff in the core leaves a larger footprint than the material arguably should have.

So, instead to be cool, you'd rather remove it? (I was talking of the 'angsty anti-heroes' and options going for it)

I really would have used that smiley now...

Why this stereotype is less good than the other common steerotypes?

 

[JohnSnow]

The only bipedal non-extinct mammal with a significant tail, you mean. Birds come to mind - as well as a whole assortment of extinct dinosaurs, etc. And I dunno, I think an argument could be made that pangolins are at least as bipedal as monkeys, they kind of run around in t-rex mode - and they certainly have significant tails.

Are we now arguing tieflings as reptilian?

I almost addressed the issue of lizards. I guess that's my issue. O'Connor's tieflings look lizard-like. And the chin ridges on the males just look kind of...silly, at least to me.

I guess it's different, but I'm not sure it's a good different.

 

[Incenjucar]

Honestly, if you combine the dragonborn and the tiefling images you have a classical dragon person.

 

[IanB]

My point is mostly that simply pointing out we don't have an existing Earth creature that matches the tiefling characteristics as shown in the art is not really a good argument against that design, particularly in a game where nearly every published setting would seem to be in the "intelligent design" camp as far as things like this go.

 

[JohnSnow]

My point is mostly that simply pointing out we don't have an existing Earth creature that matches the tiefling characteristics as shown in the art is not really a good argument against that design, particularly in a game where nearly every published setting would seem to be in the "intelligent design" camp as far as things like this go.

My point was that William O'Connor's feeling that narrow tails were "non-functional" and "unrealistic" is a dodge. I'll freely allow him to prefer more robust tails. But to argue that they're somehow more realistic when you in fact don't see thick, heavy tails on mammals, is pushing it.

Aesthetically, I have no problem with differences of opinion. My preferences are different than William O'Connor's and I have no problem with that.

 

[Aloïsius]

The only bipedal non-extinct mammal with a significant tail, you mean. Birds come to mind - as well as a whole assortment of extinct dinosaurs, etc. And I dunno, I think an argument could be made that pangolins are at least as bipedal as monkeys, they kind of run around in t-rex mode - and they certainly have significant tails.

Who wants a character that runs in velociraptor mode : the torso and tail nearly horizontal, with the legs forming a "T" with the rest of the body ? The heavy tail of the 4e tieflings is cumbersome if they try to stand up like an human. Remember, they are supposed to looks like human at a distance, not like a chicken...

 

[The Little Raven]

It's one of those subtlety things which doesn't benefit from advertising either way with horns and a tail, which would lead to playing the "oh I'm so misunderstood" card too consistently because they'd always be playing against type...which leads us to the main thrust of the "tieflings are like so emo already" argument.)

So, are you saying that use of the tiefling always leads to the "I'm so misunderstood" argument from players? If so, I think any player that does so needs to re-read what makes an anti-hero.

They can, but putting specific, arguably non-generic stuff in the core leaves a larger footprint than the material arguably should have.

And this leads to the argument of what is generic and what is not.

People claim that 3e dwarves are generic, but they have flavor written into their mechanics (training against giants, attack bonus against orcs and goblinoids) which may not hold true for all campaign worlds. Same with elves being trained in certain weapons, or having immunity to certain things (which stems from earlier, definitely non-generic interpretations).

 

[Will]

Why do you feel the need to broadly insult an entire group because they have different tastes from yours? Is your self-esteem that low?

No. Vain hope in preventative editting.

Why can't people conceive of an anti-hero that isn't full of angst? We have plenty of literary and cinematic examples of such heroes, like Conan (gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirths, but no angsty brooding for this Cimmerian) and the Man With No Name (deep, complex, thoughtful, but nowhere near angst).

The point isn't that people can't conceive of it, it's the experience of the yahoos who inevitably do such concepts, badly.

It's almost always a red flag, and after being 'open minded' and suffering for it dozens of times, yes, sorry, eventually people go 'oh god no' when some prospective player starts talking about the Quiet Man in Black who happens to own a motorcycle which shoots smaller motorcycles with ninjas on them. Carrying smaller ninjas.

 

[Incenjucar]

The flavor text in Races and classes suggests the classical "Diabolic monkey tail" that tieflings have had in earlier depictions.

I'm going to assume those are what are actually intended, despite the art, which frankly looks like it was inspired by that Sorcerer's Surprise or whatever image in the 2e PHB.

 

[Stogoe]

I'm sick of elves and gnomes. Bring on the dragonborn and tieflings, both of whom rock my socks off.