I've reversed my stance on dragonborn and tieflings

[Mercule]

The uniform look and backstory make sense if you are trying to make them into a race, instead of a collection of individuals. It has been hinted that devils will have a tighter concept in 4e. Since tieflings are the result of ancient pacts between humans and devils, I would expect a more uniform appearance.

It's also been stated the devils would be much more human-looking in 4E. The artwork for tieflings looks less human than Asmodeus, Dis, succubi, or even Graz'zt (a demon) from prior editions.

 

[DJCupboard]

As always, art is subjective. I prefer my tainted humans to look like tainted humans, not full-bore infernal beasts. The over-the-top horns and saurian tail are horrible, IMO. The text says tieflings are charismatic and could pass for human at a distance. The pictures say tieflings are disturbingly alien and could pass for demons, trolls, or circus freaks at a distance.

If D&D wasn't D&D (the big name) and I didn't already play, the picture on R&C would probably cause me to ignore the game and look for something else. Vestigial horns would be a huge improvement and a tail-job wouldn't hurt, either.

FWIW the flavor text mentions small horns and thin tails (kind of like their early 3e/3.5 art), whcih I could dig a lot better. I like the look of the new design, but I don't think it meshes well with the flavor text / intent for the race.

I could deal with the horns iof the tail got smaller, but I would really like to see both reduced.

 

[Doug McCrae]

The entire thread encapsulated by the quote above boils down to: I want everything I like to be in PHB1. Everyone else should have to buy supplements to play the game the way they want.

Doesn't everyone think that way though? It's a pretty good summary of the entire 4e forum.

A bunch of people saying "I like X therefore it should be in D&D. I don't like Y therefore it shouldn't."

 

[Fallen Seraph]

When it comes to the look of Tieflings, I am going to have the characters decide what to look like since I am not basing my Tiefling history off the core-books.

However, for the tails/horns comments, I think if I ever go that way I am going to do it like this: When they are young their horns and tails are underdeveloped and very small and weak as they grow they develop as the Tiefling develops who he/she is... So a sneaky, roguish Tiefling: small horns swept back behind the ears and a agile prehensile tail. A blunt, fighter Tiefling: larger ram style horns and tail strong enough to whip at enemies.

As for the history, it is a pretty common archetype, really what it comes down to is a much larger scale version of "the sins of the father passes down to the son." It is something that has been around FOREVER, and is just equally common to have those characters either rebel against and meld with that past.

As for Vampire, I would say outside of D&D, Vampire and World of Darkness in general is the most popular PnP. You can tell that it does have a fairly large popularity by the fact that White Wolf has actually been doing better since they nuked their last World of Darkness and started the New World of Darkness.

Which in someways is what WoTC I imagine is slightly trying to do with 4e. Taking all the old-races, etc. that we love and giving them a fresh light. Like White Wolf did with Vampire, Werewolf, Mage, and Changeling. While the new setting each-year, is reminiscent of White Wolfs, new game each year, with the first being Promethean, then Changeling and next being Hunters.

 

[glass]

Your explanation sounds contrived, forced and fabricated, which says it all IMO.

How about this one: No explanation.

IC, there is not such thing as a feat so no explanation is required as to why 'taking a feat' gives you a breath weapon. Some dragonborn happen develop breath weapons like there dragon forebears, some don't. OOC, you took the feat, IC you just happen to be one of the lucky ones.


glass.

 

[kennew142]

I was extremely disappointed by what I read in R&C, though. It pretty well reduced the tieflings to silly caricatures of emo-goths. Don't get me wrong... I rather enjoy the moralist, contemplative struggle against inner darkness. I played V:tM for 7-8 years and left it mainly because 3E came out. I've even played half-fiendish characters and had a blast.

I didn't get that impression at all from R&C. However, my post was directed towards those who refer to the players of this type of character (or to those who think they are a good addition to D&D) as emo/goth/whatever. I have never played a character like this, since I mostly play humans.

On reading the R&C book, though, I was struck by the poor implementation of the concept. Granted, I could probably come up with worse, but the version presented is pretty bland. There were a couple of things I felt like I could hang a hook on, but those were usually twisted later in the essay into something I wouldn't use.

It's not a bad idea. It's a reasonable idea that was botched -- assuming there isn't a rewrite of the tiefling backstory between R&C and PHB.

OTOH, many posters on these forums have been arguing in favor of making the flavor text as bland as possible, so it is easy to change. No racial flavor text survives first contact with my own homebrew for example.

As always, art is subjective. I prefer my tainted humans to look like tainted humans, not full-bore infernal beasts. The over-the-top horns and saurian tail are horrible, IMO. The text says tieflings are charismatic and could pass for human at a distance. The pictures say tieflings are disturbingly alien and could pass for demons, trolls, or circus freaks at a distance.

If D&D wasn't D&D (the big name) and I didn't already play, the picture on R&C would probably cause me to ignore the game and look for something else. Vestigial horns would be a huge improvement and a tail-job wouldn't hurt, either.

On this point we agree. I am hoping that a horn and tail reduction is in the works for the tiefling. The D&D minis have much smaller horns and tails than the R&C art.

 

[glass]

I despise the notion that D&D emulates the D&D genre.

Your despising it isn't going to make it any less true.

This is my issue, as well. It's the same reason I found the monster classes in Savage Species to be utter crap. The flavor bent to the numbers, rather than defining the flavor, then setting the numbers. Sometimes, level adjustment (or something similar) is the only way to balance an option -- minotaurs really don't work as an ECL 1 character.

This on the other hand, I do agree with. If I want to play a minotaur then I want to play a minotaur, not something that might bear a passing resemblance to a minotaur in a few level time.


glass.

 

[Voss]

ACK detailed and lengthy ow ow ow.
That is all.

Edit: Not quite all, might as well add some content. As I understand it, the Tiefling backstory is
Step One: There is a human empire with greedy noble houses
Step Two: The greedy noble houses say "We want phenomenal cosmic power"
Step Two A: The greedy noble houses subcontract the phenomenal cosmic power to the Nine Hells. Oops.
Step Three: Slaughtering those who oppose them, they perform multiple terrifying devil summonings
Step Four: They're twisted and marked unto the last generation to mark the covenant
Step Five: Kill everyone who isn't them, but fail, ultimately destroying the nation and scattering the survivors.

That's pretty cool, I think. What's wrong with that?

Its tired, played out and nonsensical? I don't entirely agree with that statement, but I can see plenty of reasons to find something not to like about it. I'm also not sure that step 5 is entirely correct. Devil tainted and a legacy of murder/genocide means they'd essentially have a 'kill on sight' reaction from everyone they meet. Given human prejudice already, they wouldn't stand a chance and would probably summarily wiped out.

Mostly, those horns and tails are huge and ugly.

 

[kennew142]

Doesn't everyone think that way though? It's a pretty good summary of the entire 4e forum.

A bunch of people saying "I like X therefore it should be in D&D. I don't like Y therefore it shouldn't."

I'm going to agree with you on this point. Nonetheless, some gamers seem to have an oversized sense of entitlement. I'm arguing in favor of the game being more inclusive and being open to broader fan base than just LotR fans.

I may not be happy about waiting a year for a psionic power source, kalashtar, conjurers, enchanters or necromancers, but I understand that PHB1 isn't going to be written just for me. Personally, I could have waited for any non-human races. It would have given me the impetus to run that human only game I've been considering.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Somewhere in the last 10-15 years, I exhausted my last remaining shred of tolerance for angst-driven "hero" in fantasy fiction. I'm pretty sure anyone trying to play such a character in one of my games would get a thunder-bolt from Thor. Might be a flaw in my GMing objectivity--but there ya go.

Add to that the old saying that "evil is banal", which pretty much describes my view. There just isn't enough left to salvage anything of the tielfing concept, I think. As far as I'm concerned, they are the complete opposite of "cool", in any sense of the word that I would consider positive.

OTOH, because those are personal preferences are fixed firmly, I'll probably take a look at the tiefling mechanics to see if I can do a total rewrite on the flavor and salvage something for my games. Sometimes, it's easier to rework something that is a total wreck than when you are trying to save parts of it.