|
5 years ago ::
Aug 07, 2008 - 10:10PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Mar 21, 2006
|
So I was lamenting the lack of +Con, +Int races for warlocks (aside from the githzerai, whose appearance just really upsets me, are MM races, and total reflavoring makes DMs twitchy) and the perfect setup tieflings have for the fey pact, when suddenly it hit me. This is ridiculous. Here's why. Arguments Against +Cha- Look at the tiefling characteristics list: cunning, disquieting,
imposing, mysterious, proud, rebellious, self-reliant, sinister, sly, and unconventional. Basically, a race of arrogant, nasty schemers that make you nervous. Which of those traits suggests charismatic to you? Imposing? Dragonborn are noble and half-elves are charming, but the best side of a tiefling is they act like they're better then you. Which is odd, because...
- Everyone hates tieflings. Everyone knows they're demonic, they look scary, they wrecked the dragonborn (a race portrayed as a bunch of honorable, noble samurai ronin), and their personalities probably leave a lot of bad impressions. Everybody loves half-elves and respects dragonborn, but tieflings are written with social prejudice in mind right off the bat.
- Tieflings aren't pretty. Granted, Charisma is not just about looks, but usually it indicates strong, compelling personalities (tieflings might be strong, but compelling they ain't...unlike, for example, the darkly beautiful drow, who are evil but sexy about it) or overwhelming good looks or both. Tieflings don't win any nice guy or leadership awards...and they're not attractive, either, at least by racial standards. They're scary horn-headed demon-people with tails. In fact, the only race that logically MIGHT find them aesthetically pleasing, the dragonborn (horns and tails might not be such a turnoff?) are both the least likely to look for aesthetics in other races and the most likely to hate a tiefling on sight because, you know, Arkhosia is no more.
Arguments For +Con- Tieflings are not just the original warlocks, they're the original infernal pact warlocks. But they're not all that great at it. Their racial feat for +win to fire and fear powers is as useful for the multitude of fear keywords among star and fey pact powers and the handful of fire keywords among the same as it is for an infernal pact warlock. And most of an infernal pact warlock's powers target Fort, the strongest save, or Reflex, the second-strongest. That extra +2 Con means a lot to them. They can't really afford to skip it.
- Tieflings have horns and tails and demonic blood and they're fire-resistant. It makes sense that they'd be tough, too.
Anybody else been scratching their heads trying to figure out what's up with +2 cha tieflings?
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Aug 07, 2008 - 10:26PM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Jan 23, 2008
|
Tieflings aren't necessarily ugly, as most of their portrayals are quite handsome/pretty folk, they just have horns and tails. I mean, Satan is often portrayed as quite charming/charismatic/devious and is also portrayed generally with horns & a tail, so it's not like having horns + tail means that you will be unattractive in the case of, say, a person's face, and I think it is exemplified in the tiefling.
Now, and this will come off as harsh but it really isn't intended with mean-ness, but are you really seeing a problem with tieflings, or a problem with the race with the right flavor for your character idea doesn't have the optimal stats you were hoping for?
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Aug 07, 2008 - 10:29PM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Aug 28, 2005
|
Your second two arguments against the CHA bonus seem to indicate to me that CHA in D&D doesn't mean what you think it means...
However, I tend to agree that there's no particular reason for them to have gotten a CHA bonus. I was ready for them to get +2 DEX, +2 INT, actually...
Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TMSpeaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Aug 07, 2008 - 10:33PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Apr 27, 2008
|
Tieflings in third edition had a penalty to Charisma, because they were kind of shunned and aloof. I thought that their ancestry left plenty of room for high Charisma tieflings who manage to be socially adept in spite of their situation, or due to having a servant of Grazzt or Malcanthet as their ancestor.
It looks like fourth edition tieflings are supposed to be a bit of a subversive influence on society, maybe even existing as a testament to the power of infernal pacts.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Aug 07, 2008 - 10:34PM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Dec 27, 2006
|
I second this. In fact, I was looking forward to playing an infernal warlock tiefling right out the bat, but their stats being better for a faiwy warlock was a deal breaker for me.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Aug 07, 2008 - 10:41PM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Apr 27, 2008
|
Why would not having 20 Constitution be a deal-breaker? I mean, it's not even a negative modifier. People didn't avoid elven warriors in third edition because of -2 to Constitution.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Aug 07, 2008 - 10:44PM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Jan 23, 2008
|
I second this. In fact, I was looking forward to playing an infernal warlock tiefling right out the bat, but their stats being better for a faiwy warlock was a deal breaker for me. Faiwy? I'm just stepping into 4E now, so would that be a joke referring to an Infernal Warlock?
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Aug 07, 2008 - 10:49PM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Mar 21, 2006
|
Judging from the pictures we have of tieflings (large, inescapably obvious horns very striking nature, heavy, low-set, protruding brows, glowy evil eyes) I'd say having attractive faces isn't helping them out much. I can see the aristocratic features, but they just don't overcome their demonic element. I think most people would agree that those horns are hard to overlook.
Satan's charming, seductive protrayal and his goat-man protrayal almost never go together in literature or myth. If he wants to seduce, he skips the horns. Tieflings ought to have done the same. These are not small, cutesy horns that poke up through the hair (unless you say they are, but that's a departure from the PHB). These are massive, thick, twisted bony things.
The tail, additionally, is thick and hairless like a rat's. It's overlookable, probably, but it's a tail that specifically evokes an upsetting comparison.
I have a valid problem with the race. I think my arguments are sound. Their stats are not optimal for the character concept I was making when I realized the problem with tieflings, but that's okay: I'd still play a half-elf even if they had the con bonus. The mechanical concern is that they've gone to a lot of trouble to align these guys specifically with infernal pact warlocks, but they're not good at it. Their racial feat only just makes up the lack, in MOST cases (not all). And that's a feat. It's an annoying discrepancy, like if Dragonborn were squishy in gameplay.
My impression of Cha in DnD is that it's directly linked to strong, compelling personalities and/or striking, compelling physical appearance. Nymphs are high-cha creatures, but their force of personality has never been indicated as anything special. Fey tend to be strange and whimsical, though, so it's possible the opposite is true, even (I know they're not here yet, I'm going on the past - Charisma's definition hasn't changed much) Dragons are high-cha, and the epitome of strong personalities that compell weaker-willed beings. They're atypically beautiful creatures, and even if you just see them as big lizards, they're very striking big lizards. You don't look at a dragon and then ignore it.
What's your definition of Charisma in DnD?
Edit for the last poster: It's a cutesy way of saying "fairy", meaning fey pact. Which on the one hand is strange, terrible, and full of savage or maddening effects, but on the other hand all your power is given to you by the fairies. New age fairies are badass and all, read the Dresden Files if you want to see what kind of freaky-scary evil the Feywild can throw around, it's just...the word is hard to swallow for some of us.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Aug 07, 2008 - 11:21PM
#9
|
|
|
Maybe +2 CHA was a way of saying that in general, tieflings don't get along real well with the outside world (distrusted, etc) but the adventurers who are tieflings already have a natural bent towards being trusted, etc. I dunno, it's a stretch...
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Aug 08, 2008 - 12:24AM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Jan 23, 2008
|
Well if Dragons, huge winged fire-breathing lizards, can be given a Cha bonus for force of personality, I don't see why a race of horned aristocrats with demonic heritage can't have strong personalities as well.
|
|
|