I will stick with Draconians, the original, for Dragonlance campaigns only, not as a generic phallic-nosed PC race.
D&D 5E New Wandering Monsters - Hulking Out
I will stick with Draconians, the original, for Dragonlance campaigns only, not as a generic phallic-nosed PC race.
Klaus
First Post
Which dragonborn are those, again? The ones that had their lore completely trashed and redone when they were moved into the PHB in 4E?
There's no shortage of draconic races to choose from:
- Dragonkin (Dragon Mountain).
- Draconian (Dragonlance)
- Dragonborn (Races of the Dragon)
- Dragonborn (4E)
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
Whizbang Dustyboots said:
The tieflings didn't emerge un-scathed, either. From planar castoffs with a bit of class struggle ingrained in their nature ("you are what you were born as!") to empire-ruling devil-specific once-humans who swore a pact for power.
I think the 4e tieflings did more what [MENTION=1210]the Jester[/MENTION] thinks of as good, though, because the castoff/lower class/defined-by-birth kind of tieflings could be within the 4e tieflings...as long as they weren't descendants of demons, anyway.
the Jester
Legend
I'm more like, "The 4e PH tieflings can fit within the overall tiefling (which includes those with blood tainted by fiends yet not quite enough so as to be "fiendish" like the 3e template)". It's exactly that devil-specific aspect I object to; what if, in your game, there was a long-standing npc tiefling (or worse yet, pc!) whose background had been built up over years of play and involved demons? I very strongly object to changes in the lore that might screw up someone's campaign that is partially based on said lore. Precedent matters, because to some groups, story matters, and they might build stories based on those precedents. I'm totally cool with the 4e vision of tieflings as a type of tiefling, but not as the only tiefling.
Savage Wombat
Hero
I don't think the 4e tieflings gel with the 2-3e tieflings at all, even as a subset. They're just fine as a PC race, but the core experience is different. Tiefling is such a diminutive word, it doesn't seem to fit with heavy metal diabolism. I preferred to call them "Turathi" after their homeland.
Try saying "tiefling" out loud. Doesn't it sound silly?
Try saying "tiefling" out loud. Doesn't it sound silly?
Klaus
First Post
You can always pronounce it with a German accent: "teufeling" (toy-fell-eeng) ("little devil"/"devilish")
Orius
Legend
Umber hulks are a classic D&D creature. Never used them, but they're one of those things that are just D&D.
Chuuls and gray renders are both 3e additions, and don't have the same classic vibe. Never used chuuls either, but they were always a pretty good stock swamp monster to me. I never thought the gray render was interesting; I'd completely forgotten about the whole bonding thing.
Chuuls and gray renders are both 3e additions, and don't have the same classic vibe. Never used chuuls either, but they were always a pretty good stock swamp monster to me. I never thought the gray render was interesting; I'd completely forgotten about the whole bonding thing.
But in these circumstances, even if a group mechanically changes their game from (say) AD&D to 4e, why would that group change the lore of their campaign world? They'd just use the new tiefling stats with the old tiefling lore, wouldn't they?
I mean, in my 4e game I established that Erathis had played a role in forging the Rod of 7 Parts before the DMG2 was released. When the DMG2 came out and didn't mention Erathis in its Rod of 7 Parts lore I didn't change my campaign - I just changed the lore. (I also changed the mechanics slightly, from a bonus to Intimidate to a bonus to History.)
the Jester
Legend
But why should that group have to ignore or re-write all future stuff about tieflings in their campaign? What does making all tieflings devil-derived do to improve the overall game? Does it somehow tangibly better the game system, or does it just pick out an appropriate place for the tiefling in the default setting du jour?
Again, I'm fine with the Bael Turoth tieflings; I just dislike them as the only tieflings. Without a truly compelling reason (and I don't think there was one for tieflings in 4e, other than to fit in with the near-complete rewrite of existing lore) I would rather not see lore re-written; indeed, if we need a devil-spawned race that is specifically diabolic, why not create a new race? Or, better still, what would it have hurt to have had a throwaway line in the tiefling race/monster entries stating, "This is just one type of tiefilng"?
Maybe I'm showing my pre-multiple-reboot-comic-book-preferences, but continuity is important to me. (The many reboots are one of the main two things that drove me away from collecting comics.)
Hussar
Legend
If it's one thing I've learned in the past couple of years, is that people are VERY attached to continuity. To a degree that I don't share whatsoever. But, it's certainly there.
Maybe it's because I've never bought into campaign settings - Forgotten Realms or Greyhawk or whatever. I've always run home-brew. So, every edition has always wrought massive flavour changes, which I promptly rejected and substituted my own anyway. I mean, 3e rejected virtually all things Planescape. 3.5 brought it back, but, 3e has almost no references to Planescape at all. No Blood War, nothing. 3e brought back DEMONS in core, when 2e ejected them. 3e brought back half orcs, where 2e had ejected them.
To me, there has never been any continuity in D&D. I've never followed it and don't care.
But, I also totally get that this is a very, very important issue for some people.
