D&D 5E What is the appeal of the weird fantasy races?

[Chaosmancer]

Again, I'm all for Tieflings, at least the pre 4e ones, but I do not see them as (outside of mechanics) doing anything really that cannot be RP by another race, UNLESS they depend on looking wildly different, aka the 4e look. They are fundamentally planetouched humans.

So... because they are planetouched they can't have any interesting stories?

I mean, yeah, they are planetouched individuals, that's the point. That makes them unique, just because they are a "race" with a uniform look doesn't remove all those stories. Unless what you are actually arguing for is that you want Dwarf planetouched and Elf Planetouched as well... but, you realize that you could make a "dwarven" tiefling just by making them shorter, giving them a beard, and saying they are a dwarf. So... again, I'm not really sure where you are going with this.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Because it's not my responsibility. I'm not going to own your willful misperceptions.

Wow. I am on the Autism Spectrum so I am always at the end of "sorry, I must have misunderstood that" or "maybe I wasn't clear enough" or "there may have been a miscommunication, let's start over". Your constant "it's your fault, not mine!" attitude is really turns a lot of people off of having conversations with you.

Both of the participants in a conversation are at fault when there's a miscommunication/error in understanding. Whether you like it or not, claiming that you didn't intend any offense does not stop offense from happening. Communication is two way, which means that offense is also two-way.

 

[Minigiant]

I dont think they should be banned. I think they should be normalized, by reverting the mistake that is the 4e 'design change' they applied to Tiefling.

Doesn't matter.

If WOTC reverted Tiefling, they'd have to create Hellborn that just replicate 4e/5e Tieflings.

People would still want to be fiendish nonhumans. That's why WOTC did it.

 

[Scribe]

Doesn't matter.

If WOTC reverted Tiefling, they'd have to create Hellborn that just replicate 4e/5e Tieflings.

People would still want to be fiendish nonhumans. That's why WOTC did it.

And I wouldnt care, in the slightest, because at least then we would have Tieflings back.

Note: We do. Tiefling Varients, SCAG is all I personally needed but I understand why people have aversion (how meta!) to the PHB version.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I appreciate what you are saying, but this is the problem I have.

Tiefling was a thing. Other versions of that thing existed for other races.

They have now been pushed so far into being 'other', through 4e changes, that they no longer (if played straight as we have discussed) can be anything but that 'other'.

Thats my problem. It irrevocably (not really, see SCAG Variant) changed what Tiefling was, and didnt add, but restricted.

"Any other race, with just one member with a "demonic" background, is operating under different RP context."

This was Tiefling, as well. Its not longer an additional aspect, but the DEFINING aspect.

Not sure if that makes sense, but you captured really my main issue with the 4e tiefling. Its less than it used to be, by going so all in. Thankfully, we can all take what we like or dont like and change it, but I hope I'm at least making sense in what I'm saying.

Let me ask this question.

Can your problem be solved by making "sub-races" for Fiendish Dwarves, Elves, Ect? Because it sounds like that is your problem. "It used to be that I could be a dwarf with fiendish heritage, but now I'm using the generalized stats for a human with fiendish heritage, so I can't be a dwarf, so Tieflings are terrible"

But, like I said, this is a trivial thing to change, especially post-Tasha. And it is something I've had to do. I had an Aasimar born to a Goliath parent, that meant I had to adjust somethings, because it was an Aasimar, but that wasn't too bad to actually do.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I dont think they should be banned. I think they should be normalized, by reverting the mistake that is the 4e 'design change' they applied to Tiefling.

"Mistake" is subjective. I'm sure all those Critters that dress up like Jester would be pissed if Tieflings were reverted. It would probably be a monetary mistake to revert Tieflings.

 

[Scribe]

Let me ask this question.

Can your problem be solved by making "sub-races" for Fiendish Dwarves, Elves, Ect? Because it sounds like that is your problem. "It used to be that I could be a dwarf with fiendish heritage, but now I'm using the generalized stats for a human with fiendish heritage, so I can't be a dwarf, so Tieflings are terrible"

But, like I said, this is a trivial thing to change, especially post-Tasha. And it is something I've had to do. I had an Aasimar born to a Goliath parent, that meant I had to adjust somethings, because it was an Aasimar, but that wasn't too bad to actually do.

No, its solved for me personally, by using Sword Coast Adventurers Guide: Tiefling Varient Appearance rule. My issue stems 100% from the fact they turned what was a personal choice in terms of appearance, into 'you all get to be for all intents and purposes devils, to everyone who ever sees you, the end.'.

 

[Scribe]

Ultimately what I'm saying is two (or three) things.

1. I understand why having what are perceived as actual devils walking around could be something that turns people off and have DM's view them as a 'weird' race.
2. I blame it completely on the 4ed change which forced, from an 'official' default perspective, an appearance template on a race that had no such restrictions before.
3. I would prefer Tieflings be as they are in the SCAG, or pre 4e, because it allows for greater flexibility for players, and my own COMPLETELY selfish desire to have the option to not look like a Devil.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Because it's not my responsibility. I'm not going to own your willful misperceptions.

It's the job of the reader to avoid applying arguments that others have made to someone new. It's sloppy and inappropriate. It doesn't matter if 10 people have used it negatively. If I come here and use it in a different manner, it's the reader's responsibility to determine if I am using it in a positive or negative manner. I'm not responsible for their biases and misperceptions.

In other words, you hold no responsibility for your actions. If you say something that you know is an insult, then it is on the other person if they are insulted.

Because, let us not lie to ourselves here, Scott has been in this thread since the beginning. They aren't "someone new"

And, it wasn't like anyone was particularly harsh about him using the term, we just said "that doesn't sound positive, since that is an insult that has been used in this thread" and he is the one who decided to triple down on it being our fault for being insulted, because he absolutely did nothing wrong, and no amount of evidence will convince him he did something wrong. We have to be wrong, because he didn't intend an insult.

You are responsible for the things you say. End of story. If he didn't know it was an insult (which I highly doubt since he has been in this thread too long) then he could have easily said "my bad, I didn't realize" instead he has called the other side childish for refusing to see "see both sides" while refusing to see that the other side has legitimate reasons for their reaction.

 

[tetrasodium]

Because 4e decided Tieflings all had to look like they crawled out of Hell?

That and tied to a specific setting specific planar structure/ setting specific metaplot they forced onto every setting.