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

[Scribe]

Whats the larger topic? Is it Centaur climbing a sheer face?

Its not my fault Wizards made the choice to make tieflings a very specific thing, which they then reverted for reasons.

I've been trying to figure out a few things.

1. The reason people want to play 'weird' races as per the thread title.
2. How people view the current, and previous, implementation of the tiefling race.
3. How those things apply to make tieflings a 'weird' race.

Ultimately, there is a meaningful difference, because what is 'default' and 'official' matters, more than it seems some would like to admit, and the impact of that default, can mean 'no I dont want devils in my game, they dont fit'.

That was not the issue to the same degree, before Wizards forced the default to be a 'monster' race.

I dont see NEARLY the same push back against Assimar. I wonder why.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

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.'.

I'm not sure why you felt you needed something to show up in a book to decide your (or any) tiefling didn't have to look like cartoonish Satan. Reskinning isn't the same as houseruling (unless you are one of the few that feel that flavor text and rules are indistinguishable).

You can also have 7' tall elves, bright blue halflings with white gloves and hats, and lizardfolk that look like marine iguanas (my last character).

This is why it took me so long to figure out what you were having a hard time with tieflings about. Changing the basic look of something is just a reskin.

 

[Scribe]

This is why it took me so long to figure out what you were having a hard time with tieflings about. Changing the basic look of something is just a reskin.

Functionally? Yes. Agreed.

Perception however starts with the basis of what is official. As noted in the last few posts, what does Wizards tell us about Tieflings now?

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

the damage in player mindsets is done & reinforced by the core books & race entry in the phb itself.

@AcererakTriple6 top right corner of player's handbook page 42. Since you and @Scribe are going in circles on it...

Spoiler: This one is on page 43

View attachment 131294

That does not apply to all settings, though. Eberron doesn't have Asmodeus, and it offers other ways you can play a tiefling. Go read Rising from the Last War. Specific beats general.

Like I said, you can wave that flavor text easily in your campaigns. It is not required.

 

[Scribe]

Like I said, you can wave that flavor text easily in your campaigns. It is not required.

Ultimately agreed. So why do YOU think tieflings may be not encouraged, or actively denied in a game?

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Functionally? Yes. Agreed.

Perception however starts with the basis of what is official. As noted in the last few posts, what does Wizards tell us about Tieflings now?

The posted snippet is a suggestion for DMs and world building. There is no mechanical penalty for being trusted....like negative persuasion rolls vs humans or whatever. I literally have never read that box because it isnt a game rule.

 

[el-remmen]

On the handout about the campaign I was running there is short blurb about each of the core races and under tieflings it says. "There are no tiefling PCs. They are a myth anyway."

At character creation one player asks, "Can I be a tiefling?"

To which I respond, "Okay." Now she plays a tiefling ranger/sorcerer

Does my "perfect vision" of D&D include tieflings? No. But we are not playing in my perfect vision, we're playing a collective game and I ran with it. Ultimately, what appealed to her about tieflings, whether it be the emo background or the just having horns, is not really my concern (except in as much as I design a game to try to give characters a chance to do the stuff they want to do with their characters and enjoy it in addition to simultaneously making their lives hell with twisty soapy adventure plots and charming ex-husband rivals - the ex-husband is the human druid's, not the tiefling's tho).

 

[Minigiant]

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.

I think the issue is that tieflings were too customizable. So much so that you could barely lump them together as a race.
Pre-4e Tieflings differed from each other greatly on appearance, mechanics, and culture. It was barely a race.
You can't market that. You can't write share stories and history on that. You couldn't make it recognizable.

It is a headche for designers, a pain from world buiders, annoying for artists, nuissance for DM, and weak for players {if you rolled on the tables}.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Ultimately agreed. So why do YOU think tieflings may be not encouraged, or actively denied in a game?

In this thread.....because people will say it's too much work to add in an entire culture of tueflings to their finely crafted world....or...because they don't want too many different PC options for aesthetic reasons.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Ultimately agreed. So why do YOU think tieflings may be not encouraged, or actively denied in a game?

Go back and read my posts, please. I'm not going to repeat myself again. I never discourage anyone from playing Tieflings in my world. A lot of others do because they either stick with the "Core Four" or because they run tieflings as described in the PHB.