Tiefling as a core race?

Canis said:
That would require a serious rewrite of the tiefling, would alienate existing fans, and would be less "cool" to new fans...
Why does it have to be canon to work like that in your game?

Reflavoring is much easier than re-engineering, IMHO -- explanations are easier than mechanics, since there is no need to balance.

Cheers, -- N
 

log in or register to remove this ad


I really like tieflings... and yet, I cut my teeth on D&D Basic, where extraplanar thingies were a lot less common. I'm not quite down with the D&D-tavern-as-Mos-Eisley concept.
 

After 30+ years of gaming, I'm a bit tired of "Half-" races. Crossing species lines should require more than a mundane roll in the hay.

Instead, give me something along the line of Nephilim or Demigods, where a PC can have a trace of X blood in their history due to powerful magics being invoked...probably due to powerful beings invoking the magic? I'm good to go- in fact, that's the direction I'm taking my 3.5 campaign WIP.

After all, most of the mythological races that were "half" something were either the result of powerful- usually divine- magic (Minotaurs being a classic example, resulting from Minos' wife being struck by an unnatural passion for a supernatural bull sent by Poseidon), or were just a species that resembled being made of 2 different species. Centaurs & Satyrs weren't created when a human and horse or goat got busy. They were beings with human and horse or goat features, not actual amalgams.

That said, I'm OK with tieflings...if we also get Aasimar and other similar beings.

OTOH, I'm OK with Gnomes, too.
 

jdrakeh said:
Note that sci-fantasy actually predates Tolkien-esque high fantasy in fiction (witness The Dying Earth or Lord Dunsany's weirdness). Original D&D also included things such as laser blasters and electronic data rings (see Temple of the Frog, White Plume Mountain, etc).

The focus on what you refer to as "traditional fantasy" elements is not, by any stretch of the imagination, traditional in the context of D&D (or, arguably, in fantasy fiction). All of that stuff came later, not first in these mediums. In folklore, yes, this stuff was pretty traditional. In entertainment mediums? Not so much.

If D&D 4e were to include rules for robots and high tech weaponry, it wouldn't be moving toward video games, it would be getting back to its roots.

Hopefully we can keep these roots you speak of buried under the rich, dark earth forever because sometimes when roots show they detract from the otherwise exquisite beauty of the tree.


Sundragon
 

I am ok with the Tiefling as a core race because I never DM vanilla, core D&D which after I was 14 and discovered Dragonlance I found shallow and dull. I now only DM a hombrew setting and I do have a place for Tieflings but they will be renamed.... In any event I decide what races are in my setting, not designer caveat and certainly not a new game incarnation. The new rules are just a way of simulating the realities of the setting as best as can be done using dice and rulebooks.

There is nothing stopping a DM from not having that race in his setting. Many settings, especially settings where demons and devils are rarely to never encountered, would be bastardized by the inclusion of such a race.

However, considering a race of such beings usually means a substantial number I can see some DMs not wanting to retcon their settings to provide such a large number of fiend-blooded outsiders.

In a dark and gritty setting I can really see some potential for the race if they are torn between their humanity and the clarion call of their inherent evil blood. I ca work with that.


Who thought of that name Tiefling anyway? "Ok we are creating a race with demon blood and I want it to capture the real potential drama and turmoil intrinsic in such a race....hmmm.....I got it.....Tiefling."

Sometimes I wonder about where peoples heads are when they make the decisions they make.



Sundragon
 

Hopefully we can keep these roots you speak of buried under the rich, dark earth forever because sometimes when roots show they detract from the otherwise exquisite beauty of the tree

But I want to play my Laser-totin' Svirfneblin gunslinger! ;)

Seriously, though, I can't see a game that is capbable of running a wide variety of fantasy styles as bad assuming the mechanics are up to the task. If 4Ed is as capable (or hopefully, moreso) as 3.X at running a Moorcock or Edgar Rice Borroughs themed campaign as a Tolkein or Lieber centric campaign, I'll cheer.

After all, a FRPG with "meh"canics is no fun to play, even if its focus is pure sword & sorcery.
 

Dannyalcatraz said:
But I want to play my Laser-totin' Svirfneblin gunslinger! ;)

Seriously, though, I can't see a game that is capbable of running a wide variety of fantasy styles as bad assuming the mechanics are up to the task. If 4Ed is as capable (or hopefully, moreso) as 3.X at running a Moorcock or Edgar Rice Borroughs themed campaign as a Tolkein or Lieber centric campaign, I'll cheer.

After all, a FRPG with "meh"canics is no fun to play, even if its focus is pure sword & sorcery.

I am in 100% agreement.

D&D needs to be able to play to a broad range of fantasy genres from Tolkien, to REH, to Fairy-tale, to Thieves World, to MIdnight, to Sci-Fantasy (a la those 1e modules). I don't DM D&D in order to have my impagination/setting confined to a given genre, least of all the sometimes mentioned D&D genre whatever in high hell that it.

The more genres D&D serves, the more customers it attracts and that is good for the hobby in general.


Sundragon
 

Can we bury D&D's ugly Tolkien roots, too? ;)

Anyway, here's a clearer image of the Dungeon iconic tiefling, and one which isn't far off from the Fourth Edition look:

TSR82125_500.jpeg
 

As much as I might miss a classic race, I gotta say I like tieflings. With such varied backgrounds, each one can look and play a little differently. I exect we'll see a slough of interesting race-related feats for them.
 

Remove ads

Top