Unearthed Arcana Unearthed Arcana October 2017: Fiendish Options

So a bunch of fiendish subraces but only a point of ABS besides Charisma moved to other skills and some Legacy spells swaps, plus some cult spells and features.

It doesn't do much for my game.

 

[Parmandur]

This also doubles as a bunch of potential patrons for a friend pact warlock.

Sent from my XT1635-01 using EN World mobile app

And motivation for a Devil and a non-evil Warlock to come to an understanding for mutual benefit.

The Tiefling variants are hardly "lazy," so much as tests: seeing if folks want such a thing at all.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

It only seems "lazy" to you because you expected or wanted more, which was Morrus' point above. Pure entitlement.

Professionals are paid to do a job. When their performance is such that it could be achieved or replicated easily by a non-professional not being paid for their work, it is fair to call them out for it. When a kicker on a professional football team is paid to kick a ball and they start to miss from the 30 yard line, they are gonna get reamed for that performance and rightly so because they are paid to perform with a certain expected level of sophistication and ability.

I personally am glad they did not do more with this. Even this is more variety than most races have, and I don't want to see Tieflings become the race du jour because powergamers can pick a la carte racial bonuses. This is actually good design, that also happens to require less work than the bad design some others are proposing. Far cry from "lazy".

1) Even though they wrap each of these "subraces" up in a themed package, there is a clear and easy equation for how they did this. You may not see this as a la cart, but it is only half a degree of separation from it.

2) There is a difference between simple and lazy. Advantage and disadvantage as a mechanic is simple. But it's elegant and interesting. Prior to 5e, I had not seen anything like it in any splat or homebrew. It's one of those things that after someone says it suddenly seems dumb not to have considered yourself. Something can be simple and still be interesting and good design. This tiefling garbage is not such an example. The eladrin and gith presented last time didn't grab my interest, but at least they tried something new and interesting with that race and subrace.

3) UA is a place specifically for new and experimental design. This is the tool WotC designers use to shoot for the moon and see what works and what people like. So forgive us if we expect more from a paid professional then what anyone on these boards could just as easily have proposed or previously did at our own tables. Why would I trust someone to make mechanics I would pay for if they present mechanics I could come up with?

4) The tiefling "subraces" breaks the design philosophy and trends that exist within 5e. This is different from experimental mechanics. Each race previously created has subraces that are in some way distinct. There is at least one or two abilities that separate them in meaningful ways. Rather than follow this previously established trend, the designers substitute spell-like abilities and attempt to pass them off as thematic and meaningful changes by using the fluff around the named diabolic being the tiefling subrace is linked to. And yet, each one of their named demon/devil lords is so much more than spell-like abilities in their differences, capabilities, and influences. Each of those figures has a rich history, powers, look, and style that they could have drawn influence from. Instead of looking at each as unique and using that to influence the design of their subrace, they boiled tiefling subraces to their lowest common denominator and created an illusion of separation between a tiefling of Asmodeus and a tiefling of Levistus.

You can like it. It can work for you. But that doesn't change the fact that there are a million ways these paid, professional game designers could have went, and they went in the easiest possible direction. That is laziness defined.

 

[Parmandur]

No, the easiest path would have been to not test any new concepts in their trial balloon program.

They don't need to playtesting the Archdevils, they already have that info: fluff is easy-peasy, and they already have a design Bible for that from the Next playtesting.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

No, the easiest path would have been to not test any new concepts in their trial balloon program.

They don't need to playtesting the Archdevils, they already have that info: fluff is easy-peasy, and they already have a design Bible for that from the Next playtesting.

You're right. I would have much preferred they released this UA without the tiefling subraces at all. Everything else in the UA was fine. And I hope most people that complete the survey let them know that we would like more out of subraces than a simple spell substitution. Or if they want that to be a distinct niche for the tiefling, go harder and broaden the rules for how to accomplish it.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I have no particular feelings to these tiefling options one way or the other, but I do have to point something out.

Sometimes it's not a question of how simple (or even "lazy," if you like) an idea is, but simply coming up with it.

Sure, anyone can swap out the spell options and the stat bonuses to create different tieflings connected to different devils. But did anyone? Everyone saying "I could have done this," sure you could have, but had you actually thought to do it prior to this?

Lots of things are easy in retrospect. The formula for gunpowder is (so far as such things go) a simple one, but it still wasn't invented until it was invented.

Maybe, at the last minute, someone at WoC said, "Hey, we could create sub-tieflings by swapping out spells and stats!" And they could have just thrown that on there as a sentence or two, since all they were really trying to do was share the idea, except they knew they'd then get reamed for not providing examples and doing the work. But the purpose (in this hypothetical; I'm not saying I know what they intended) was simply to present the idea, because it hadn't come up before.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I'll tell you something else, speaking as a designer.

Sometimes, you float something easy, simple, even lazy, just to see if there's interest, and if so, how much. You spend an hour whipping up something serviceable, but no more, to see if it's worth spending longer at it.

That's what playtests and public participation are often for. UA isn't just about, and was never promised to be about, wild and out-there stuff. This is the best way to determine--yes, better than just asking a question without context--if there's an interest in source-specific tiefling subraces.

 

[dropbear8mybaby]

Sometimes it's not a question of how simple (or even "lazy," if you like) an idea is, but simply coming up with it.

Wow, that's some serious hoops of logic to jump through in order to get to making excuses for WotC.

But did anyone? Everyone saying "I could have done this," sure you could have, but had you actually thought to do it prior to this?

Yes, actually, I did.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Yes, actually, I did.

Ah. I should have realized that, by the many times you mentioned it prior to this point when arguing for how easy it would be.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

[MENTION=1288]Mouseferatu[/MENTION] You make some valid points, and I have nothing against design that is simple. And yes, this material is being used for playtest to gauge interest. I suppose my biggest issue isn't necessarily the design, but the way it is being packaged. These are not subraces as we've understood subraces. As I mention above, subraces are unique, or at least distinct in their abilities. However, not only is there very little distinction between the presented tiefling subraces, but they are created using a clear and easily identified formula. Additionally, as I mentioned before, each of the devil/demon lords has a rich history, anatomy, powers, ect. Instead of drawing inspiration from those areas and creating abilities that would actually distinguish the various subraces, they boiled each one down to a themed spell list.

I would have much preferred the creators provide us their formula for swapping out the cantrips and spells for tieflings, and provide an example or two. And rather than call these subraces, they become tiefling options. As it is, these are a little misleading.

As to the question of whether I or anyone has done this, not specifically with the tiefling (only because the one I played was a winged variant without the spell-like abilities. Had I not gone that route, I may have requested some one-to-one swap outs). But I have created many personal homebrew using 1-for-1 swap outs, including an entire archetype. For people that are willing and able to work on homebrew, it is one of the most elementary ways of creating something somewhat new while maintaining a semblance of balance. On a continuum of creating new content, 1-for-1 substitutions are probably the safest, while introducing new mechanics is the riskiest.

Additionally, while once again I have not done this with the tiefling, I did use it as a basis for distinguishing my homebrew genasi racial subtypes. Granted, this was not the sole way the subraces were distinguished in my homebrew, as I also gave them at least one additional unique ability outside of their spell-like abilities.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Professionals are paid to do a job. When their performance is such that it could be achieved or replicated easily by a non-professional not being paid for their work, it is fair to call them out for it. When a kicker on a professional football team is paid to kick a ball and they start to miss from the 30 yard line, they are gonna get reamed for that performance and rightly so because they are paid to perform with a certain expected level of sophistication and ability.

So if I go to a doctor and he looks at me and says, "It's nothing to worry about; you'll feel better tomorrow" I should call him "lazy" because he didn't wheel me into surgery?

Sometimes professionals recognize that something simple is the correct answer. I know you disagree that the simple thing was the correct answer in this case, but others here think it was. Clearly there are two valid opinions. Anybody with a modicum of graciousness and/or humility would acknowledge that it's possible the designers also think it was the right solution and chose it for that reason, not because they were lazy. Perhaps you disagree with that assessment, but given the choice between assuming they were incorrect versus lazy, you could have chosen to assume they simply made an inferior choice.

Instead, you concluded they were lazy.

I won't bother quoting the rest because it is just a continuation of that theme.