| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Gyor
Master of Realmslore
1621 Posts |
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
 Posted - 14 Sep 2012 : 01:50:44
|
I wouldn't jump to "this is how it's going to be" from that. Mike only says he "wants" to do that. We'll see what the actual results will be. 
But in the meantime, it's an interesting discussion to have. What kind of subraces should tieflings have?
Abyssal tieflings, 9 Hells tieflings, etc.?
Cheers |
Erik Scott de Bie
'Tis easier to destroy than to create.
Author of a number of Realms novels (GHOSTWALKER, DEPTHS OF MADNESS, and the SHADOWBANE series), contributor to the NEVERWINTER CAMPAIGN GUIDE and SHADOWFELL: GLOOMWROUGHT AND BEYOND, Twitch DM of the Dungeon Scrawlers, currently playing "The Westgate Irregulars" |
 |
|
|
Gaming Tonic
Acolyte
USA
2 Posts |
Posted - 14 Sep 2012 : 01:55:43
|
| Absolutely they should. If it isn't included in the core books it makes for a great Dragon article. I am glad you found some useful info in the article and I will keep this question in mind for the next time I interview Mike Mearls or some of the other Wizards of the Coast folks. Perhaps I will work on Ed Greenwood. Thanks for reading and if you have more questions keep them coming and I will see what I can get answered. It is good to know in what direction the fans are hoping the game goes. |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 14 Sep 2012 : 02:59:36
|
I like the idea of 'Fiendish bloodlines' (not really a new idea at all) for branches of the fiend-tree, but I think that piling FR-specific ones on top of the core ones would lead to some very early rules-bloat.
As an FR fan, I say the more lore, the merrier.
As a gamer, I'd like the D&D rules to stop somewhere around 50 books or so. If they want to do DDi articles on them, fine. I don't consider anything not in physical print format canon anyway. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 14 Sep 2012 15:41:31 |
|
|
|
sfdragon
Great Reader
2285 Posts |
Posted - 14 Sep 2012 : 03:26:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
I wouldn't jump to "this is how it's going to be" from that. Mike only says he "wants" to do that. We'll see what the actual results will be.
But in the meantime, it's an interesting discussion to have. What kind of subraces should tieflings have?
Abyssal tieflings, 9 Hells tieflings, etc.?
Cheers
do like Paizo did with their tieflings
pitborn
hellspawn
shackleborn
beastbrood....
etc..
of course there would be no spitespawn and whatever the others were....
of course wotc cant take those names, but
5e should have tieflings bread from:
demons, devils, those kyton things, and rakshasa
and have aasimar/deva the same way
angels, archons....etc
|
why is being a wizard like being a drow? both are likely to find a dagger in the back from a rival or one looking to further his own goals, fame and power
My FR fan fiction
Magister's GAmbit
http://steelfiredragon.deviantart.com/gallery/33539234 |
Edited by - sfdragon on 14 Sep 2012 03:28:24 |
|
|
|
George Krashos
Master of Realmslore
Australia
6652 Posts |
Posted - 14 Sep 2012 : 03:41:27
|
If this idea goes ahead, and the core rules provide detail on tiefling sub-races, I think it would be appropriate for the FR books to give a "Realms-take" on those sub-races. In fact, all races presented. If we're going back to the Ol' Grey Box, that's how all the demihumans were treated way back in 1987. Them and dragons.
-- George Krashos |
"Because only we, contrary to the barbarians, never count the enemy in battle." -- Aeschylus |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11724 Posts |
Posted - 14 Sep 2012 : 08:28:36
|
| Yeah, the more and more I read of what they plan for 5th edition.... the more I'm leaning towards pathfinder. I do like that they want to make sorcerors and warlocks special (and especially like that they want to make sorcerors a different mechanic than wizards). However, then I hear that they want to do basically encounter powers with specialist wizards as their means of getting "extra spells" for their specialty. Then the spell list is smaller. They will really need to keep this edition neutral stuff out there.... because I love the realms... I just hate to see what these people are doing with rules. |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
Eldacar
Senior Scribe
438 Posts |
Posted - 14 Sep 2012 : 11:24:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
As a gamer, I'd like the D&D rules to stop somewhere around 50 books or so. If they want to do DDi articles on them, fine. I don't consider anything not in [i]physical print[i] format canon anyway.
Doesn't that technically mean you don't think Ed, anything Ed writes, or anything any author has written on Candlekeep ever to be canon?  |
"The Wild Mages I have met exhibit a startling disregard for common sense, and are often meddling with powers far beyond their own control." ~Volo
"Not unlike a certain travelogue author with whom I am unfortunately acquainted." ~Elminster |
|
|
|
Aryalómë
Senior Scribe
USA
666 Posts |
Posted - 14 Sep 2012 : 11:44:22
|
| If you ask me, I just liked 4e's Tieflings. They seemed not terribly different from Cambions, though |
|
|
|
Marc
Senior Scribe
657 Posts |
Posted - 14 Sep 2012 : 11:56:06
|
| Planar tieflings should be the same in Core and FR, local tieflings, the ones from Narfell (demonic), fey'ri, tanarruk, and the Old Empires (evil god-kings) should have a few differences mechanically and in their appearance. |
. |
|
|
|
Lord Bane
Senior Scribe
Germany
479 Posts |
Posted - 14 Sep 2012 : 12:10:18
|
| Tanaar'ri and Baatezu bloodlines as subrace description and then you can always go into detail with each bloodline having their subraces. |
The driving force in the multiverse is evil, for it forces good to act. |
|
|
|
WalkerNinja
Senior Scribe
USA
575 Posts |
Posted - 14 Sep 2012 : 12:54:45
|
| tbh, I understand why Tieflings are popular (same reason as drow, they're cool, dark, and dangerous)--but personally I've always favored the Aasimar. I think that they ought to be given equal emphasis and depth. |
*** A Forgotten Realms Addict since 1990 ***
Treasures of the Past, a Second Edition Play-by-Post game for and by Candlekeep Sages--http://www.rpol.net/game.cgi?gi=52011 |
|
|
|
The Red Walker
Great Reader
USA
3563 Posts |
Posted - 14 Sep 2012 : 16:25:05
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
I like the idea of 'Fiendish bloodlines' (not really a new idea at all) for branches of the fiend-tree, but I think that piling FR-specific ones on top of the core ones would lead to some very early rules-bloat.
As an FR fan, I say the more lore, the merrier.
As a gamer, I'd like the D&D rules to stop somewhere around 50 books or so. If they want to do DDi articles on them, fine. I don't consider anything not in physical print format canon anyway.
Not even Ed's replies in his thread? Then why you asking him all those questions? 
As far as the Tiefling subraces, I think simple is best. I want them to concentrate on making 5e the best it can be, reconciling all the prior lore and giving each of us as much as possible og what we love about the realms.
I dont understand how there is any timne to spare adding in even more new Kewl stuff...with all the work to the "structure" of the realms that needs finished. We need to finish the base of the pyramid before we can build the top....(or hang christmas lights on it) |
A little nonsense now and then, relished by the wisest men - Willy Wonka
"We need men who can dream of things that never were." -
John F. Kennedy, speech in Dublin, Ireland, June 28, 1963
|
|
|
|
Mournblade
Master of Realmslore
USA
1287 Posts |
Posted - 14 Sep 2012 : 16:42:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
Yeah, the more and more I read of what they plan for 5th edition.... the more I'm leaning towards pathfinder. I do like that they want to make sorcerors and warlocks special (and especially like that they want to make sorcerors a different mechanic than wizards). However, then I hear that they want to do basically encounter powers with specialist wizards as their means of getting "extra spells" for their specialty. Then the spell list is smaller. They will really need to keep this edition neutral stuff out there.... because I love the realms... I just hate to see what these people are doing with rules.
Hmmm...
I am mixed on this. I do not like the spell casting resource management of 4e, everyone that reads my posts knows that. BUT I don't think adding that as a mechanism for specialization is bad. I am not sure about it yet.
Before a specialist got to cast 2 more spells per day I think (in 2nd, maybe only one in 3rd). Assuming a DM keeps maybe 6 encounters in a day, that is seriously more powerful than before.
This stuff is like ecology. Very often problems can't be found until there is interaction with the system as a whole.
|
A wizard is Never late Frodo Baggins. Nor is he Early. A wizard arrives precisely when he means to... |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 14 Sep 2012 : 17:11:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos
If this idea goes ahead, and the core rules provide detail on tiefling sub-races, I think it would be appropriate for the FR books to give a "Realms-take" on those sub-races. In fact, all races presented. If we're going back to the Ol' Grey Box, that's how all the demihumans were treated way back in 1987. Them and dragons.
Like I said in another thread, whenever 'advanced/optional material' becomes avaialable for D&D, I think a series of "In the Realms..." style articles are appropriate. I do not want realms-specific versions of everything, though. The days of different rules for different D&D settings needs to be something in the past. In nearly all other companies, rules are hand-tailored to a specific world, but D&D apparently doesn't have that luxury. D&D's major strength is that almost everyone is already familiar with the system, in one form or another - it doesn't matter what setting you use, D&D is D&D. 2e steered us a way from that, and drove the company into ruin. 3e was amazingly successful because of the OGL and its versatility as a 'universal system'.
Building (D&D) rules for specific settings brings us back to the profit-bleeding 2e days - we need to go back to the 3e days with one rules set for everyone. I don't mind adapting D&D core mechanics with world-specific lore, but not with world-specific mechanics. keep the settings 'fluffy'.
quote:
Originally posted by Eldacar
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
As a gamer, I'd like the D&D rules to stop somewhere around 50 books or so. If they want to do DDi articles on them, fine. I don't consider anything not in physical print format canon anyway.
Doesn't that technically mean you don't think Ed, anything Ed writes, or anything any author has written on Candlekeep ever to be canon?
I was actually being sarcastic with the "50 books or so". I consider everything beyond the three core books completely unnecessary. That goes for settings as well (they are nice to have, but unnecessary to play D&D).
As for what I consider canon in my games - Yup, that's exactly how I feel. For me, online articles, what Ed says, and even whats in novels is all 'optional material'. I know that's not how its handled officially, but that's how I handle it mentally.
|
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 14 Sep 2012 17:14:13 |
|
|
|
Sightless
Senior Scribe
USA
608 Posts |
Posted - 14 Sep 2012 : 17:31:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos
If this idea goes ahead, and the core rules provide detail on tiefling sub-races, I think it would be appropriate for the FR books to give a "Realms-take" on those sub-races. In fact, all races presented. If we're going back to the Ol' Grey Box, that's how all the demihumans were treated way back in 1987. Them and dragons.
Like I said in another thread, whenever 'advanced/optional material' becomes avaialable for D&D, I think a series of "In the Realms..." style articles are appropriate. I do not want realms-specific versions of everything, though. The days of different rules for different D&D settings needs to be something in the past. In nearly all other companies, rules are hand-tailored to a specific world, but D&D apparently doesn't have that luxury. D&D's major strength is that almost everyone is already familiar with the system, in one form or another - it doesn't matter what setting you use, D&D is D&D. 2e steered us a way from that, and drove the company into ruin. 3e was amazingly successful because of the OGL and its versatility as a 'universal system'.
Building (D&D) rules for specific settings brings us back to the profit-bleeding 2e days - we need to go back to the 3e days with one rules set for everyone. I don't mind adapting D&D core mechanics with world-specific lore, but not with world-specific mechanics. keep the settings 'fluffy'.
quote:
Originally posted by Eldacar
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
As a gamer, I'd like the D&D rules to stop somewhere around 50 books or so. If they want to do DDi articles on them, fine. I don't consider anything not in physical print format canon anyway.
Doesn't that technically mean you don't think Ed, anything Ed writes, or anything any author has written on Candlekeep ever to be canon?
I was actually being sarcastic with the "50 books or so". I consider everything beyond the three core books completely unnecessary. That goes for settings as well (they are nice to have, but unnecessary to play D&D).
As for what I consider canon in my games - Yup, that's exactly how I feel. For me, online articles, what Ed says, and even whats in novels is all 'optional material'. I know that's not how its handled officially, but that's how I handle it mentally.
I may be foreced to take this mind set myself, given the delay and difficulties for Realms lore. Heck I can't even go to WOTcs website anymore since they altered the format round the time 4e came out. |
We choose to live a lie, when we see with, & not through the eye.
Every decision, no matter the evidence, is a leap of faith; if it were not, then it wouldn't be a choice at all. |
|
|
|
Korginard
Learned Scribe
USA
126 Posts |
Posted - 14 Sep 2012 : 17:46:02
|
I like the way Pathfinder handled Tiefling and Aasimar subraces based on the type of being they descend from, and wouldn't mind seeing something similar used in 5e or the realms.
|
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36782 Posts |
Posted - 14 Sep 2012 : 18:00:54
|
quote:
Originally posted by Korginard
I like the way Pathfinder handled Tiefling and Aasimar subraces based on the type of being they descend from, and wouldn't mind seeing something similar used in 5e or the realms.
Ditto.
What I really don't want to see is the 4E version of tieflings. Have an entire nation of them, with a homogenized appearance, really takes away the appeal for me. It makes them seem like just another race. The 2E/3E tieflings were far more rare and had unique appearances, and something like that makes the race stand out far more than "yeah, all the people over there have tails, horns, and red skin."
I don't mind individual tieflings looking like the 4E ones, I just want some variety among the race. There's approximately 8,362,573.2 different breeds of Lower Plane baddies -- their offspring should reflect that variety. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
Edited by - Wooly Rupert on 14 Sep 2012 18:06:25 |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 14 Sep 2012 : 18:15:56
|
I hope Erin Evans is involved in the tiefling discussion going forward. She (literally) wrote the book (or three) on modern tieflings (the Brimstone Angels series).
Cheers |
Erik Scott de Bie
'Tis easier to destroy than to create.
Author of a number of Realms novels (GHOSTWALKER, DEPTHS OF MADNESS, and the SHADOWBANE series), contributor to the NEVERWINTER CAMPAIGN GUIDE and SHADOWFELL: GLOOMWROUGHT AND BEYOND, Twitch DM of the Dungeon Scrawlers, currently playing "The Westgate Irregulars" |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 14 Sep 2012 : 18:41:51
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
There's approximately 8,362,573.2 different breeds of Lower Plane baddies -- their offspring should reflect that variety.
And they are breeding with forty-six trillion intelligent species in the multiverse.
Which means the odds of any two even looking related is so astronomical to be nigh-impossible.
Funny thing is, I am working a very similar problem out right now for goblinoids (for my psuedo-CKC article). Goblinoids tend to all look very distinct, at least from tribe to tribe. This should mean that they are constantly breeding with other 'things', and widening their gene pool. Given their high birth rates and short gestation periods, goblinoids are prone to diversity, but in a more regional fashion. Within a few generations (just 20 years or so) entire new 'subspecies' could form around one particular trait. I actually have a lot more on the subject, but I am saving that for my article.
Suffice it to say that I think of tieflings in the same manner as goblinoids (or most anything else, given enough time). Certain racial traits will become dominate when groups of the creatures co-exist and breed, and eventually you will have a more standardized appearance. Thus, both types of Tieflings should exist.
However, I think the 'standardized' variants should all be descended from devils. The chaotic nature of demon blood should make them all different, regardless of how much in-breeding occurs. The child of a devil should look like the parents; the child of a demon should'nt look like anyone else (IMHO). |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 14 Sep 2012 18:44:26 |
|
|
|
Shemmy
Senior Scribe
USA
492 Posts |
Posted - 14 Sep 2012 : 18:58:35
|
I know a teeny bit about such things, and IMO that's one good option (it's something that Pathfinder already uses as an option for tieflings of a specific fiendish descent). However it will be good to have the options for tieflings of mixed heritage, true-breeding breeds such as the planar mutts of Sigil, etc. Again also the route that PF has used.
Options are good, especially when it comes to tiefers.
But it's a good sign that WotC is willing to go back to a more classic tiefling as this suggests. -Anything- will be better than only presenting the 4e "tieflings" with their uniform heritage and appearance as a default that's completely different from what tieflings had been. I wasn't a fan of that approach at all. |
Shemeska the Marauder, King of the Crosstrade; voted #1 best Arcanaloth in Sigil two hundred years running by the people who know what's best for them; chant broker; prospective Sigil council member next election; and official travel agent for Chamada Holiday specials LLC.
|
Edited by - Shemmy on 14 Sep 2012 19:05:02 |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 14 Sep 2012 : 20:03:28
|
I think the 4e tieflings presented in the core 4e books look a particular way because they are a true-breeding race that has "settled" into its general appearance. 4e FR tieflings have a somewhat different explanation (see Brimstone Angels) and even they might be only the standard tiefling, not *all* tieflings. It's entirely possible for a demon and a mortal creature to hook up and produce offspring with any sort of appearance you like and still use the mechanical chassis of the tiefling.
I think when speaking of subraces, we should be careful of creating too many divergent mechanical constructions. We should identify what is common to all tieflings (what does a demonic heritage do to humans?) and then give a range of options that you can take to reflect a tiefling of various sorts. In other words:
Every tiefling has (such and such) racial features and has two of the following traits, which hearken back to its fiendish heritage (list of possible traits including demonic, diabolic, slaad, yugoloth, etc). You could pick two abilities of the same source or two different sources, or they might not even correspond to the source listed.
The aasimar should be handled the same way, with options from Celestia, Arvandor, etc.
Thereby you suggest infinite variety and leave it open to more game design to offer even more options. There could certainly be a Realms-specific article that appears about tieflings in the Realms specifically.
That's how I would do it.
Cheers |
Erik Scott de Bie
'Tis easier to destroy than to create.
Author of a number of Realms novels (GHOSTWALKER, DEPTHS OF MADNESS, and the SHADOWBANE series), contributor to the NEVERWINTER CAMPAIGN GUIDE and SHADOWFELL: GLOOMWROUGHT AND BEYOND, Twitch DM of the Dungeon Scrawlers, currently playing "The Westgate Irregulars" |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36782 Posts |
Posted - 14 Sep 2012 : 20:38:40
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
I think the 4e tieflings presented in the core 4e books look a particular way because they are a true-breeding race that has "settled" into its general appearance. 4e FR tieflings have a somewhat different explanation (see Brimstone Angels) and even they might be only the standard tiefling, not *all* tieflings. It's entirely possible for a demon and a mortal creature to hook up and produce offspring with any sort of appearance you like and still use the mechanical chassis of the tiefling.
I think when speaking of subraces, we should be careful of creating too many divergent mechanical constructions. We should identify what is common to all tieflings (what does a demonic heritage do to humans?) and then give a range of options that you can take to reflect a tiefling of various sorts. In other words:
Every tiefling has (such and such) racial features and has two of the following traits, which hearken back to its fiendish heritage (list of possible traits including demonic, diabolic, slaad, yugoloth, etc). You could pick two abilities of the same source or two different sources, or they might not even correspond to the source listed.
The aasimar should be handled the same way, with options from Celestia, Arvandor, etc.
Thereby you suggest infinite variety and leave it open to more game design to offer even more options. There could certainly be a Realms-specific article that appears about tieflings in the Realms specifically.
That's how I would do it.
Cheers
That's pretty much Paizo's approach. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Gyor
Master of Realmslore
1621 Posts |
Posted - 14 Sep 2012 : 21:17:27
|
Okay here's how I see it likely to play out.
All Tieflings have universal traits just like Elves, Dwarves, Halflings, ect...
Then they have a subrace which grants an ability bonus and a bonus trait, and an adjustment to any traits that need it (like how wild elves change the normal speed for elves).
So guess what some core 5e subraces could be like.
So an example of a subrace would be Infernal Tieflings, which gains +1 intelligence and Infernal Wrath as a feature. This subrace resembles 4e tieflings the most, an orderly appearance of horns and a tails. Its the lawful evil hells so a uniform of sorts makes sense. Infernals can come about from breeding or by ancient pacts.
An example Abyssal Tieflings are way more chaotic inform and are less automatically recognizable as Tieflings. Maybe they get +1 strength and a Abyssal Mutation trait.
A Gehenna Tiefling might have features that resemble Yugoloths. +1 dexierity
Carceri Tieflings might have chains of bone wrapped around parts parts of thier body fitting the theme of imprisonment. +1 to constitution.
So for 5e FR one could assign Tiefling subraces to multiple Domains that are aligned simularly.
So Infernals to hell and Abssyal to the Abyss is obvious. But Abyssal to the demonwebs and Deep Caverns as well as Carceri to the Superme Throne and the Towers of Night, Gehenna or infernal to Banehold ect... Could work to with changes to discriptions.
Oh each fiendish plane gets its own subrace.
Oh and I agree Erin should be in on Tiefling design.
|
|
|
|
Gyor
Master of Realmslore
1621 Posts |
Posted - 14 Sep 2012 : 21:24:51
|
| Do Slaad's count as fiends? Previously to 4e only the Death Slaad was evil, the rest were Chaotic Neutral although the descriptions of thier behaviour always did lean towards evil. |
|
|
|
Aryalómë
Senior Scribe
USA
666 Posts |
Posted - 14 Sep 2012 : 22:08:13
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Bane
Tanaar'ri and Baatezu bloodlines as subrace description and then you can always go into detail with each bloodline having their subraces.
I like this idea a lot, though I generally prefer the Tieflings to be of Fiendish descent. |
|
|
|
Shemmy
Senior Scribe
USA
492 Posts |
Posted - 14 Sep 2012 : 22:32:01
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gyor
Do Slaad's count as fiends? Previously to 4e only the Death Slaad was evil, the rest were Chaotic Neutral although the descriptions of thier behaviour always did lean towards evil.
No, slaadi aren't fiends.
As for the death slaadi, some sources actually described their bent towards evil rather than true chaos as being a corruption of their chaotic nature, emphasizing their divergence from the slaadi baseline nature. |
Shemeska the Marauder, King of the Crosstrade; voted #1 best Arcanaloth in Sigil two hundred years running by the people who know what's best for them; chant broker; prospective Sigil council member next election; and official travel agent for Chamada Holiday specials LLC.
|
Edited by - Shemmy on 14 Sep 2012 22:34:35 |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 15 Sep 2012 : 01:59:04
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
That's pretty much Paizo's approach.
Heh, it was also D&D's approach back in the day. It appears as recently as Races of Faerun/PGtF, specifically dealing with fey'ri.
And of course 4e itself is rife with this concept, from elf subraces to the way genasi function, etc. I wasn't really keen on uniform tieflings in 4e, though Erin's explanation changed my mind.
I think going forward, there's plenty of room for lots of variety here.
Cheers |
Erik Scott de Bie
'Tis easier to destroy than to create.
Author of a number of Realms novels (GHOSTWALKER, DEPTHS OF MADNESS, and the SHADOWBANE series), contributor to the NEVERWINTER CAMPAIGN GUIDE and SHADOWFELL: GLOOMWROUGHT AND BEYOND, Twitch DM of the Dungeon Scrawlers, currently playing "The Westgate Irregulars" |
|
|
|
Aryalómë
Senior Scribe
USA
666 Posts |
Posted - 15 Sep 2012 : 04:30:21
|
| I certainly hope the appearance of the "Infernal Tieflings" and their story and ancient empire of Bael Turath don't die with 4e. I actually enjoyed it very much. |
|
|
|
sfdragon
Great Reader
2285 Posts |
Posted - 15 Sep 2012 : 04:43:22
|
Bael Turarth needs to die!!!!!!!!
well actually it jsut needs to be left in the POL stuff and in its own setting.
as for the look, it actually could pass for a tiefling spawned from the hells but not an evil outsider spawned from some other plane.
as for making one that the decent of every little thing like a tifling with the powers of an enryies ora sucubus, well instead of that, make them a set bunch and jsut have optional powers...... |
why is being a wizard like being a drow? both are likely to find a dagger in the back from a rival or one looking to further his own goals, fame and power
My FR fan fiction
Magister's GAmbit
http://steelfiredragon.deviantart.com/gallery/33539234 |
|
|
|
ErinMEvans
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
294 Posts |
Posted - 15 Sep 2012 : 17:41:58
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Ditto.
What I really don't want to see is the 4E version of tieflings. Have an entire nation of them,with a homogenized appearance, really takes away the appeal for me. It makes them seem like just another race. <snip>.
Can I ask something? I keep seeing people talking about how 4e tieflings have their own nation in FR. To my knowledge that's not so. There are higher concentrations of them in a few places like the Calim and Narfell, but there's no Bael Turath in FR. Did I miss something? (Fortunately, doesn't mean continuity issues if I did, but it would be good to know).
(Wooly, don't mean to pick on you; you just said it clearest here. You may be talking about Nentir Vale/ core after all)
And yes, listen to Erik. He is full of excellent advice. :p |
www.slushlush.com |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
5e Tieflings will have planar subraces.
