Tieflings should get +2 con. Stats are supposed to support clichés. That was a problem in 3e, where elves were supposed to be inclined towards being a wizard, but the -2 con and no bonus to int, virtually ensured that no one would ever play an elven wizard in any game. Tiefling infernalists should be encouraged, and they aren’t. Dwarves and half-elves outnumbering tieflings as infernal warlocks is a little silly.
i agree with the need for greater synergy; however, i no longer think that +2 con is more appropriate for tieflings than +2 cha. so, the solution is a fix to the infernal tielfing class or, as i suggested above, a special exception for tielfings as infernal warlocks.
Tieflings should get +2 con. Stats are supposed to support clichés. That was a problem in 3e, where elves were supposed to be inclined towards being a wizard, but the -2 con and no bonus to int, virtually ensured that no one would ever play an elven wizard in any game. Tiefling infernalists should be encouraged, and they aren’t. Dwarves and half-elves outnumbering tieflings as infernal warlocks is a little silly.
I would have to say you are dead wrong.
Stat's should not support clichés. They should support flavor of race. This is a role-playing game, and as such, everything in it should support role-playing, not "min-maxing, stat building, who can make the best optimized character" game. If you want that, go play a mmo.
Tiefling stats should not change because you think it would make them better infernal warlocks. If you have a valid reason, per the flavor of the race and their history, for tieflings to have a stat change, then by all means, make your argument. But simply stating that tieflings should make the best infernal warlocks, yet their stat bonuses don't represent that, is not a valid argument.
Look at the history of the race. You may use 4th edition alone, but if you'd like to go back to earlier editions, then you need to go back to 2nd edition, where they were first created (and had a different history and background).
I think that would make perfect sense. They want the tieflings to be loyal to them, but not powerful enough to overcome them. So, they design a pact to empower the tieflings, but it doesn't play to all their strengths, or that may make them too powerful. That seems right in line with how a devil would think when writing up a contract for someone to sign. After all, they are schemers, those devils.
I've got to say I kind of like this explanation. It has a nice feel to it.
The real question is why the hell do halflings get a bonus to Cha? They're a race of loud mouthed and annoying short people. No one likes it when children are loud mouthed and annoying. Why should we like it when our party rogue is loud mouthed and annoying?
I vote that we kill off and eat the current version of halflings and replace them with the old hobbit style halflings from 2nd edition. At least I can sympathize with their homebody unassuming hero style. The current kender wannabe version is horrible.
Also, infernal/demonic entities have always been considered a corrupting influence on human society and you can't be a very effective corrupting influence if your charisma is crap. Ergo, Tieflings need the charisma.
Dark Sun DM starting October 18th 2010 Level 4 Tiefling Orbizard Level 3 Tiefling Telepath Psion
Stat's should not support clichés. They should support flavor of race. This is a role-playing game, and as such, everything in it should support role-playing, not "min-maxing, stat building, who can make the best optimized character" game. If you want that, go play a mmo.
Tiefling stats should not change because you think it would make them better infernal warlocks. If you have a valid reason, per the flavor of the race and their history, for tieflings to have a stat change, then by all means, make your argument. But simply stating that tieflings should make the best infernal warlocks, yet their stat bonuses don't represent that, is not a valid argument.
Look at the history of the race. You may use 4th edition alone, but if you'd like to go back to earlier editions, then you need to go back to 2nd edition, where they were first created (and had a different history and background).
Sounds great in theory, but there are practical realities. If a race is a really bad fit for a particular build, then people are unlikely to go for that build with that race, no matter how many RP reasons you try to make. My example above illustrates this point. In 3e there was countless flavor on how elves love magic, how elves are comfortable and at home with the arcane, and how elves often teach their young the ancient art of wizardry. But there was no mechanical advantage whatsoever for an elf wizard. In fact, the -2 con made elves probably the worst race for a wizard next to half-orc. In 8 years of 3e, I saw a total of zero elf wizards played. All the RP and elf flavor in the world was not enough to encourage a player to play something he knew was so weak.
Cliches are important. The help the mood and texture of a fantasy world. When clichés break, the world becomes less familiar. Halflings should make good rogues. Dwarves should make good fighters. And, yes, a bloodline of ancient infernal warlocks should make good infernal warlocks. Stat bonuses are integral towards encouraging particular builds.
And as for the “flavor and history of a race” argument, tielflings are supposed to be social outcasts forced to rely on themselves to survive in a world that mistrusts them. This does not lend itself to a strong presence or sociable personality like halflings and half-elves. In fact, they used to have a -2 to charisma, so I don’t find that argument to be very compelling.
Sounds great in theory, but there are practical realities. If a race is a really bad fit for a particular build, then people are unlikely to go for that build with that race, no matter how many RP reasons you try to make. My example above illustrates this point. In 3e there was countless flavor on how elves love magic, how elves are comfortable and at home with the arcane, and how elves often teach their young the ancient art of wizardry. But there was no mechanical advantage whatsoever for an elf wizard. In fact, the -2 con made elves probably the worst race for a wizard next to half-orc. In 8 years of 3e, I saw a total of zero elf wizards played. All the RP and elf flavor in the world was not enough to encourage a player to play something he knew was so weak.
Cliches are important. The help the mood and texture of a fantasy world. When clichés break, the world becomes less familiar. Halflings should make good rogues. Dwarves should make good fighters. And, yes, a bloodline of ancient infernal warlocks should make good infernal warlocks. Stat bonuses are integral towards encouraging particular builds.
And as for the “flavor and history of a race” argument, tielflings are supposed to be social outcasts forced to rely on themselves to survive in a world that mistrusts them. This does not lend itself to a strong presence or sociable personality like halflings and half-elves. In fact, they used to have a -2 to charisma, so I don’t find that argument to be very compelling.
Your knowledge of the Tiefling history is weak. (I don't suppose that's like being weak in the force, is it?) They used to have +1 Int, +1 Cha, -1 Str, -1 Wis. They came from 2nd ed. Planescape. 3rd edition was the oddity. They weren't social outcasts, they were just mistrusted, but only to those who dealt with them regulraly. They were deceivers and manipulators, easily able to gain the trust of some unfortunate. They had the charisma bonus because they had to rely on themselves, and were fully confident with themselves. These show a direct correlation to a cha bonus.
As I've mentioned before (on the previous page, I think. Don't get me wrong, though, I don't expect anyone to have to read through all those posts. Gah!), the world that distrusts Tieflings is that world only. Other worlds may like them, or not. It's a social stigma. Why in the world would a social stigma reduce a races natural charisma? It doesn't make them less charasmatic, only not well trusted. If they were to meet someone who had no clue who they were, would that make them less or more charismatic? The only proper answer is neither.
On another note, Teiflings are not bad for infernal warlocks, they are actually fairly good infernal warlocks, they simply are not the best. Which plays into flavor just fine, according to the 4th ed PHB.
Per 3E elven wizards, there was a game mechanic that made them good wizards: their favored class was wizards. This allowed them to multiclass with out penalties, meaning that many elves would take a level or two of wizard, beyond focusing on what ever it was they chose to pursue (which happens to have been what I've seen a lot of when I saw other players play elves).
Also, by saying that elves make good wizards, and have a strong history of wizardry and magic, is a flavor towards the race, not a PC. Even if no PC ever plays an elven wizard based on the 3E rules, how does this take away from the culture of the elves?
This also comes from a much deeper rooted problem: players playing characters for character power and advancement, instead of as a social gathering and role-playing game, which it is. When 3rd ed first came out, I had already been playing D&D for 10 years. I tried it, even involved myself in several campaigns for several years. From my experiences, the differences between 2nd and 3rd are thus:
In 2nd, you role-played, and if you knew the rules well enough, you could min-max. In 3rd, you min-maxed, and if you knew the rules well enough, you could role-play. I've yet to see how 4th looks, but so far, it's promising.
Thank you, I never played 2nd edition, but I don't doubt what you're saying. 3e was a lot of min-max stuff first. I never specifically tried to find the most broken builds and stuff like that, but I was always looking for interesting interactions in mechanics, and "how could I make X happen/work." It wasn't until playing for a good while and getting familiar with the rules that I started making characters by starting with an idea of a character, and not the mechanics (has made a "Batman," and "8-bit Red Mage," <--FUN character).
Since 4e, that's also been the first thing I've done. Imagined the sort of character I want, then look for mechanics that support that image.
In the Monster Manual, the entries for Tiefling both display inordinately high Dexterity and Charisma with Constitution following closely behind. Both Tiefling builds shown have an Intelligence of 13 suggesting that Intelligence is NOT a high priority for the race.
I think Charisma was determined to be sort of the dump stat for when the designers didn't know what else to build. Let's look at the races that got Charisma bonuses.
Dragonborn - Because....?.... Yeah, exactly. Half-Elf - Okay, it sort of makes sense here. Halfling - In order to support the merchant concept? Tiefling - For... manipulation maybe? Doppleganger - They mimic others, so maybe a Charisma is fine. Drow - Really?!! Drow are Charismatic but Elves and Eldarin are not? Gnome - Because they... are Fey Warlocks? Goblin - WTF?! Okay, they might be good at Bluffing, but all monster entries have a Charisma of 8. Hobgoblin - For... leading Goblins... who has a higher Charisma than they should?
It really doesn't make sense on half of these and when you consider that we are to believe that all of these races are more Charismatic than the Eldarin who seem to come off as the leader race who unites and leads everyone else, it really doesn't seem to work out.
Anyway-- based on their monster manual entry I have to think that Tieflings are meant to have Dexterity and Charisma or Dexterity and Constitution.
Thank you, I never played 2nd edition, but I don't doubt what you're saying. 3e was a lot of min-max stuff first. I never specifically tried to find the most broken builds and stuff like that, but I was always looking for interesting interactions in mechanics, and "how could I make X happen/work." It wasn't until playing for a good while and getting familiar with the rules that I started making characters by starting with an idea of a character, and not the mechanics (has made a "Batman," and "8-bit Red Mage," <--FUN character).
Since 4e, that's also been the first thing I've done. Imagined the sort of character I want, then look for mechanics that support that image.
Thank you for the applause. :D
To further support my statement, within 6 months of the release of 3rd Ed., WOTC released a "How to min/max your character" guide for beginners. Don't believe me? It's called Hero Builder's Guidebook, released December, 2000.
The first bullet on descriptions for this book is, "Maximize your character's potential with step-by-step character advancement guides."
I read through the book when it came out (and a few times since). After you min-max your character using the guide, then it goes into background options, which, to tell the truth, can be useful to someone with no imagination. However, it's all revolved around rolling dice to see what your character background is (which is amusing, because the book description reads, "Let your mind do the work, don't just leave it to dice"), then it takes you through a questinaire for your character to determine what his/her alignment is.
Now, don't get me wrong, random dice rolls can be fun. It's one of the things that originally got me into Tieflings (they had a random-roll table to determine physical features, and if you wanted, you could exchange the race's standard abilities for randomly rolled ones on a seperate table). There was also a really awesome random roll table for Wild Mages, where a random magical effect would happen when the wizard's spell surged out of control (that's what happens when you study the essence of chaos).
And questionaires can be fun, too. I do them on the internet periodically.
However, for character background and alignment choices, it's a little unimaginative.
I think some people are forgetting that Charisma also means "Force of Personality" so it makes perfect sense for someone like a Tiefling or Dragonborn to have Charisma while a Eladrin or Elf doesn't.
A cruel and cunning Tiefling declaring a proclamation will get attention.
A Dragonborn in a pub grinding its fangs and bellowing at someone beside him will get attention.
A aloof, very-alien in behaviour and snotty Eladrin will be shunned.
A quiet, sneaky Elf who prefers his own company will stay away from others.
