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.
New age fairies are the cutesy butterfly-winged pixies you see in artwork. Tinkerbell is a new-age fairy. The Fey in 4E are traditional fairies. If you go back into your old Northern European and Gaelic folklore, you'll find that fairies were traditionally scary things, forces of nature with a will and intelligence beyond the understanding of humans. They were definitive monsters.
As to the charisma bonus, it's quite possible for a person to have something off-putting about them, that still makes them difficult to argue with or to turn down. Remember that 1) intimidation is based off of charisma -- as is lying (bluff), and 2) tieflings in 2E (where they were introduced) had a CHA bonus, while being described even more than in 4E as a widely-distrusted race.
New age fairies are the cutesy butterfly-winged pixies you see in artwork. Tinkerbell is a new-age fairy. The Fey in 4E are traditional fairies. If you go back into your old Northern European and Gaelic folklore, you'll find that fairies were trad
Seems fine to me. Maybe take away the LLV to compensate a little for the change? They're humans anyway, so it's not farfetched to give them normal vision.
Seems fine to me. Maybe take away the LLV to compensate a little for the change? They're humans anyway, so it's not farfetched to give them normal vision.
Dragons are highly charismatic creatures, even chromatic dragons. As is the Christian Satan. Just because people don't like you doesn't mean you're not highly charismatic.
You don't understand what Charisma is.Dragons are highly charismatic creatures, even chromatic dragons. As is the Christian Satan. Just because people don't like you doesn't mean you're not highly charismatic.
Name a crazy dictator. They probably had a hell of a Charisma score. For sure Hitler and Napoleon and Stalin. People hated them a lot. I bet Nero did too.
Name a crazy dictator. They probably had a hell of a Charisma score. For sure Hitler and Napoleon and Stalin. People hated them a lot. I bet Nero did too.
I agree flavor wise they should probably have a con bonus but they are balanced against the special abilities they have, which are good, against the fact that they don't have a physical stat bonus. Remember, physical stat bonuses are generally concidered better than non physical ones. It would also be easy to change their racial power to con. But the fire resistance and low light vision are hard to beat.
I agree flavor wise they should probably have a con bonus but they are balanced against the special abilities they have, which are good, against the fact that they don't have a physical stat bonus. Remember, physical stat bonuses are generally conci
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?
I totally agree. I think that +2 Int +2 Con makes a lot more sense for the race of tieflings.
Half elves are another example of a race that has stat bonuses that don't make a lot of sense. None of the elf races get +2 con and none of them get +2 charisma, but because half elves are known for their ability to get along with both humans and elves, I can go along with +2 charisma. But +2 con makes little sense and it makes half elves less good at their traditional wizard class. I would have gone +2 intelligence, +2 charisma, or +2 wisdom/+2 charisma and then given them some extra ability to make up for the fact that they would not have stat bonuses that help with 2 different defenses.
I totally agree. I think that +2 Int +2 Con makes a lot more sense for the race of tieflings. Half elves are another example of a race that has stat bonuses that don't make a lot of sense. None of the elf races get +2 con and none of them get +2 cha
I totally agree. I think that +2 Int +2 Con makes a lot more sense for the race of tieflings.
Half elves are another example of a race that has stat bonuses that don't make a lot of sense. None of the elf races get +2 con and none of them get +2 charisma, but because half elves are known for their ability to get along with both humans and elves, I can go along with +2 charisma. But +2 con makes little sense and it makes half elves less good at their traditional wizard class. I would have gone +2 intelligence, +2 charisma, or +2 wisdom/+2 charisma and then given them some extra ability to make up for the fact that they would not have stat bonuses that help with 2 different defenses.
The con comes from their hardy human background. Since they have human blood, their sturdier than their elven counterparts.
The con comes from their hardy human background. Since they have human blood, their sturdier than their elven counterparts.
I agree flavor wise they should probably have a con bonus but they are balanced against the special abilities they have, which are good, against the fact that they don't have a physical stat bonus. Remember, physical stat bonuses are generally concidered better than non physical ones. It would also be easy to change their racial power to con. But the fire resistance and low light vision are hard to beat.
(bolded emphasis mine)
Um, that was the case in 3.x, but it is much less true in 4e. With the classes set up to get many of their powers based on certain ability scores, all the scores are important to one class or another.
(bolded emphasis mine)Um, that was the case in 3.x, but it is much less true in 4e. With the classes set up to get many of their powers based on certain ability scores, all the scores are important to one class or another.
Half elves are another example of a race that has stat bonuses that don't make a lot of sense. None of the elf races get +2 con and none of them get +2 charisma, but because half elves are known for their ability to get along with both humans and elves, I can go along with +2 charisma. But +2 con makes little sense and it makes half elves less good at their traditional wizard class. I would have gone +2 intelligence, +2 charisma, or +2 wisdom/+2 charisma and then given them some extra ability to make up for the fact that they would not have stat bonuses that help with 2 different defenses.
IMO Half-Elves get +2 Con due to two factors: being adaptable survivors like the PHB states, and hybrid vigor. Take a look at the Mongrelfolk from 3e or the Muls from Dark Sun for a good comparison.
PHB]Ultimately, half-elves are survivors, able to adapt to almost any situation.[/quote wrote:
Ultimately, half-elves are survivors, able to adapt to almost any situation.
IMO Half-Elves get +2 Con due to two factors: being adaptable survivors like the PHB states, and hybrid vigor. Take a look at the Mongrelfolk from 3e or the Muls from Dark Sun for a good comparison.
IMO Half-Elves get +2 Con due to two factors: being adaptable survivors like the PHB states, and hybrid vigor. Take a look at the Mongrelfolk from 3e or the Muls from Dark Sun for a good comparison.
You just made my day by explaining the half-elf CON bonus to hybrid vigor.
You just made my day by explaining the half-elf CON bonus to hybrid vigor.:clap:
You just made my day by explaining the half-elf CON bonus to hybrid vigor.
Glad I could make your day
I wish I could take credit for thinking of that, but I saw someone else suggest it a couple of weeks ago on the boards here, and it made sense. There is a pretty good parallel between 4e Half-Elves and the Mongrelfolk of 3e, in terms of being a hardy survivor hybrid race; that part I did think of myself.
Muls are simply a classic example of hybrid vigor, being tall as Humans and muscular as Dwarves, giving them a Str bonus where both parent races had none.
Glad I could make your day :)I wish I could take credit for thinking of that, but I saw someone else suggest it a couple of weeks ago on the boards here, and it made sense. There is a pretty good parallel between 4e Half-Elves and the Mongrelfolk of
Not to be nit-picky, but Tieflings aren't Demonic, they're Infernal. Detail, I know, but still.
As for the Cha bonus, well, being pretty, trusted, and polite isn't what charisma is all about in 4e. It also covers your ability to subtly manipulate people. You don't pay someone you don't like a blatantly untrue compliment to be polite, you do it to be manipulative. Tieflings strike me as a type of, "power behind the throne," type. They're not good at charming everybody, granted, but they're good at finding that one person who's in good standing, and getting on their good side, so nobody can mess with them.
Working as intended, imo. Tieflings aren't meant to be reflavored Drow (who are naturally and intentionally good at being rogues, etc), they're meant to be trying to overcome, and at the same time maintain, a dark heritage.
Not to be nit-picky, but Tieflings aren't Demonic, they're Infernal. Detail, I know, but still.As for the Cha bonus, well, being pretty, trusted, and polite isn't what charisma is all about in 4e. It also covers your ability to subtly manipulate peop
What I might suggest over changing the teifling bonus to con is to change which attribute the infernal powers use, although you might have the change which attribute the fey ones use to balance it out.
What I might suggest over changing the teifling bonus to con is to change which attribute the infernal powers use, although you might have the change which attribute the fey ones use to balance it out.
it KILLS me how infernal warlocks, which, let's be honest, were tailor made for tieflings, do not fit hand in glove with tieflings. simply put, tieflings should be the best fit for infernal warlocks among the standard races.
mind you, i am not selfishly motivated by a single character development. i am talking about the concept tieflings and infernal warlocks.
stat changes +2 con, +2 int is most appropriate, if only because the existing natural fit between tieflings and feylocks is just too maddening (seriously, this reason alone is compelling enough). if tielfings have horns and a tail, then why not an infernally stronger constitution, as well (maybe that is why their genes are dominant when mating with humans)?
skills changes +2 bluff this is not an unreasonable tiefling bonus, given the influence of devils, who are master manipulators, but i think that +2 intimidate is a more appropriate bonus because (i) tieflings descend from the leaders of the bael turath empire (see phb, "leaders of the human empire of bael turath" and "heirs of the surviving noble dynasties that ruled the empire"), so i see intimidation--which, by the way, is just as legitimate an aspect of manipulation as bluffing--more widely practiced by ruling tielfings than bluffing in the subjugation of the peoples of bael turath. also (ii) when you consider a typical first or early encounter between a tiefling and a human, for example, it is easier to envision the human being slightly more intimidated by the tielfing than slightly more duped by the tiefling. and that slightly easier ability to intimidate, by virtue of their appearance and their history, is something many tieflings would likely exploit in order to survive in a post-bael turath world.
additionally, the tielfings' bloodhunt racial feature would fit well with the use of the intimidation skill in combat. flavorwise, this could be seen as yet another way in which tielfings have an augmented power against bloodied foes.
+2 stealth 4E tieflings have nothing that is remarkably stealthy about them. they are not highly dexterous. instead, i think that +2 arcana is a more appropriate bonus because devils taught the tielfings the arcane ways of the infernal warlock (i highly recommend that everyone revisit the tielfing section of wizrds presents: races and classes).
in sum in general, tielfings should be the best standard race for infernal warlocks. these changes would make them so.
my 2 cents . . . it KILLS me how infernal warlocks, which, let's be honest, were tailor made for tieflings, do not fit hand in glove with tieflings. simply put, tieflings should be the best fit for infernal warlocks among the standard races.mind you
I think most here are missing Viatos point, or IMHO what I believe Viatos is trying to point out. First he's not dissing the Tiefling, he's merely saying that as the original Warlocks, it should be natural that they should have the best abilities geared towards that, I think if they made Charisma the primay ability score for warlock powers, he wouldn't have an issue. I kinda agree with that point too since 3.5 Warlocks Charisma powered the DCs of their powers but Con does for some odd reason in 4e. Mind you I'm not against having a blaster with a 20 con score either. So Viatos this is what I recommend, since your chances of changing Wizards minds to make the Tieflings have a +2 to con instead of charisma, try going the other route. Try getting your DM to houserule like I do that Warlock powers be based off of the Charisma score instead of the Con score, you can show him proof of how it was done like that in 3.5 if that helps. But also not that in the latest ampersand article with the Dark Pact Warlocks, dark pact powers primarily use charisma for the attack bonus not con, so you could also use that. Hope i helped.
I think most here are missing Viatos point, or IMHO what I believe Viatos is trying to point out. First he's not dissing the Tiefling, he's merely saying that as the original Warlocks, it should be natural that they should have the best abilities ge
i think i have an even simpler and less pervasively game altering house rule.
the diabolic sources of the infernal warlocks granted an additional boon to tieflings: tieflings may use charisma in place of constitution for all infernal warlock powers.
although it is out of 4E character for a feat, i would even be willing to charge a feat for this boon for tieflings only.
i think i have an even simpler and less pervasively game altering house rule.the diabolic sources of the infernal warlocks granted an additional boon to tieflings: tieflings may use charisma in place of constitution for all infernal warlock powers.a
I've just been reading about the Spellplague and its effects on Faerun in the Dragon (?) articles, and was interested to note that for those living in Faerun, the Spellplague meant that casters of all "denominations" had to look to other sources for their magic. This weighs in on this debate, since although Tieflings were originally the product of an infernal pact, this is not necessarily the case now. In fact, Tieflings are almost as likely to go with other pacts as they are the infernal one. And again, Tieflings have about the same likelihood of becoming Warlocks as other races, since they are no longer bound to their ancient heritage (this is how I read it at least). So the +2 CHA is essentially unrelated.
As to the Half-Elf bonus to CON, I'm still not sure how that works, since having that bonus makes it more likely for them to be constitutionally strong than humans, of whom they are supposed to be descended from! Elven blood is thinner, human blood thicker, but merging the two bloodlines shouldn't make the mix stronger than the original, should it?
I've just been reading about the Spellplague and its effects on Faerun in the Dragon (?) articles, and was interested to note that for those living in Faerun, the Spellplague meant that casters of all "denominations" had to look to other sources for
Like it was mentioned above. Hybrid vigor. That sort of thing happens in real life, so why not use it to explain half-elves.
Personally I don't think that the races need to be built optimally for what seems to be a class that might be common for them (because it by no means has to be, you could decide that generally, tieflings avoid it like the plague to escape the prejudice of their beginnings in your world if you so choose). Plus, because of some of the things that were put forth already, I think the Cha bonus suits them fine. As to it should being a Con bonus, I thought about this: They are descended from nobles and aristocrats and such. Last time I checked, these tend to NOT be people of sturdy stature or tough bodies or what not.
Like it was mentioned above. Hybrid vigor. That sort of thing happens in real life, so why not use it to explain half-elves.Personally I don't think that the races need to be built optimally for what seems to be a class that might be common for them
First off, if you want to understand the Tieflings, you really should know their origin. 2nd Edition Planescape, to be precise. I know, I know.. "why should I have to read old editions to understand this newer edition when it should be stand-alone to begin with," right? Well, tough luck. If you want to be a D&D entusiast, you really should know the previous editions.
Viatos wrote:
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...
To answer your question: mysterious, proud, self-reliant, sly, and unconventional all point to being charismatic to me. Sometimes rebellious can be. Sinister, maybe. Imposing, not so much, but it can be.
Tiefling characteristic list: Sly, sexy, and a little sinister, self-assured, self-reliant, commanding and confident (or scary and arrogant, depending on your view).
These are from the Wizards Presents Classes and Races book. All these seem to suggest someone slightly more charismatic.
If we go back further, to 2nd edition, the origin of the Tiefling, that had to rely on their natural charisma to survive. Their ability to trick and deceive was well known, and it takes a charismatic person to constantly be able to trick others, to pull off the bluff, per say.
Viatos wrote:
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.
Just because everyone hates them doesn't mean they are not charismatic. That's a cultural reference, and has no bearing to the racial traits. The looks are debatable. You think they look scary, I think they look unbelievably sexy with their horns and tails. Looks are only a portion of what it means to be charismatic, and by far beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
You could say, "Everyone loves the Dragonborn." That doesn't make them more charismatic (naturally, that is), it just means that in the culture you are refering to, they are well liked.
If you were to remove the tieflings from a culture where they are unliked, and put them in a culture where they are beloved, would this make more or less charismatic? The proper answer is neither.
Viatos wrote:
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.
They aren't pretty? Again, simply a matter of opinion. I find their concept quite attractive.
However, you immediately contradict your argument by recognizing that charisma is more than just looks. (I know, I know, you were explaining.)
The drow have always creeped me out. I've never liked them, and don't find them charismatic in the least bit. Does this make them naturally more or less charismatic than other races? No. It's just my opinion of them. I think Drow are creepy little bastards. Especially with their wierd little obssession with spiders. Ew.
Nice guy awards has very little to do with being charismatic. Don't believe me? Ask any nice guy in high school how many dates he's been on compared to the "bad guy." Immature state in our lives? Yes. But it doesn't change the fact that nice guys aren't always the one's people are attracted to. They are attracted to self-assurance and self-reliance. Confidence. And that is what the tieflings have. Naturally.
Viatos wrote:
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.
So you're saying that a character race should be designed around the mechanics of a class, and not around the flavor of the race? This seems a bit off, as it is a role-playing game, and flavor should mean everything. If you want to play mechanics, go play a video game.
Viatos wrote:
Tieflings have horns and tails and demonic blood and they're fire-resistant. It makes sense that they'd be tough, too.
They are tough. They're just not naturally more tough than a human, per say. The fire resistance makes them tougher than a human, but the horns and tail (aesthetic features) should really have nothing to do with how tough they are.
draconbitz wrote:
Argument for +2 Con for Tieflings:
Cause then they can be good Infernal Warlocks
Argument against it:
They're not one of the hardier races. They get the +2 to Charisma because they are silver tongued, tricky, and somewhat manipulating. People don't quite -trust- them, but the Tiefling -knows- it and can -still- trick you out of your wallet.
3.x was the -oddity- in giving them a penalty to Charisma. The original 2nd edition Tieflings got a bonus to Charisma.
Thank you. At least somebody got it right.
From the Planewalker's Handbook (2nd ed): "But rather than withdraw into individual hermitages, tieflings challange the multiverse with everything in their independant spirits. Determined to create their own fates, they dare things others might not even dream of and defy anything that stands in their way."
To me, that screams natural charisma. As such, the original Tiefling got a +1 to Int and Cha, and a -1 to Str and Wis.
The flavor given in the 2nd Ed Monstrous Compendium (for Planescape) makes out Tieflings to be intelligent, clever, silver-tongued, and charismatic. "They are often confused with alu-fiends, erinyes, incubi, and succubi (which they'll often forgive), but never call a tiefling a bastard or a half-breed. He'll take it personal-like. Plane-touched is the word, or 'sir' or 'lady.' :D
They're also shown as slightly weaker in physical build, which they make up for with intelligence:
"Because tieflings are not a brawny race, their weapons are light and quick, depending on speed and sharpness to make up for what they lack in weight and raw cleaving power. Despite fragile appearance, tiefling weaponry is exceptionally deadly, not least because it is often poisoned."
All in all, I'm saying that the flavor of the tiefling was that they were intelligent and charismatic loners, who were misunderstood and hated by many. 4th definately got the flavor back, and that shouldn't be changed just because it'll make a class more optimized.
Want my answer to it all? You probably don't, so I'm going to put it all in hide blocks, that way you can skip it if you're weak of mind. :)[sblock=My response]First off, if you want to understand the Tieflings, you really should know their origin.
thanks for the thoughtful and thorough contribution to this discussion. much appreciated.
i will reiterate my second suggestion, in light of your convincing argument for leaving the tiefling stats untouched:
MaximumHavoc wrote:
i think i have an even simpler and less pervasively game altering house rule.
the diabolic sources of the infernal warlocks granted an additional boon to tieflings: tieflings may use charisma in place of constitution for all infernal warlock powers.
although it is out of 4E character for a feat, i would even be willing to charge a feat for this boon for tieflings only.
mgshamster,thanks for the thoughtful and thorough contribution to this discussion. much appreciated.i will reiterate my second suggestion, in light of your convincing argument for leaving the tiefling stats untouched:
Not to be nit-picky, but Tieflings aren't Demonic, they're Infernal. Detail, I know, but still.
As for the Cha bonus, well, being pretty, trusted, and polite isn't what charisma is all about in 4e. It also covers your ability to subtly manipulate people. You don't pay someone you don't like a blatantly untrue compliment to be polite, you do it to be manipulative. Tieflings strike me as a type of, "power behind the throne," type. They're not good at charming everybody, granted, but they're good at finding that one person who's in good standing, and getting on their good side, so nobody can mess with them.
I agree with this. I always thought of Charisma as 'force of personality. How well you do in social situations based on your abilities, and not preconceptions against you. As evidence I point to the Intimidate skill: Intimidate is about being feared, mean, and frightening, the exact opposite from the standard nice friendly trusted that people typically associate with charisma. Why is this? Because intimidate is bassed of of your ability to read others, and control your own body language in social situations.
I commonly view Emperor Palpatine from Star Wars as having high charisma. WHY? Well, he wasn't trustworthy, certainly not friendly, and most definatly not pretty. But he knew how to work a crowed, and he managed to turn Anakin from an angsty teen to a babykiller in no time flat. Through use of inuendo, reading vocal inflections and body language, and controling his actions accordingly, he was able to control a great many people.
NOW, with that all said and done, there is no reason you couldn't go all the way back to 2nd ed. Tieflings. 2nd ed tieflings, for those of you who don't know, had a random table where people rolled to discover what their traits were. The theory being that there were three different kinds of fiends, and the combonation with mortal blood created weird and unexpected side effects. This could range from cosmetic (we had a tiefling who looked like an anthropomorphic cat) to abilities (we had a tiefling with strong Acid resistance, but no fire resistance). You could adapt the old planescape table, or make your own, or whatever. OR, you could simply make them human in that they get +2 to any one stat. Just suggestions, that you can leave or take, as you see fit.
ON A SEPERATE NOTE? What's re-imagined about the Githzerai? I didn't notice a huge difference. They are still a reclusive race that broke from the Githyanki at the time of Zerthamon, and live in limbo (the elemental chaos), and devoted to the idea of not being slaves. Seems that they are still the same guys to me.
I agree with this. I always thought of Charisma as 'force of personality. How well you do in social situations based on your abilities, and not preconceptions against you. As evidence I point to the Intimidate skill: Intimidate is about being fea
thanks for the thoughtful and thorough contribution to this discussion. much appreciated.
i will reiterate my second suggestion, in light of your convincing argument for leaving the tiefling stats untouched:
Weee! Thanks! :D I was actually a little worried that it would come off sounding too mean or spiteful, or something else negative. Or something.
I do like your suggestion, though. It peaked my curiousity when I first read it going through the thread.
Weee! Thanks! :D I was actually a little worried that it would come off sounding too mean or spiteful, or something else negative. Or something.I do like your suggestion, though. It peaked my curiousity when I first read it going through the threa
I agree with this. I always thought of Charisma as 'force of personality. How well you do in social situations based on your abilities, and not preconceptions against you. As evidence I point to the Intimidate skill: Intimidate is about being feared, mean, and frightening, the exact opposite from the standard nice friendly trusted that people typically associate with charisma. Why is this? Because intimidate is bassed of of your ability to read others, and control your own body language in social situations.
I commonly view Emperor Palpatine from Star Wars as having high charisma. WHY? Well, he wasn't trustworthy, certainly not friendly, and most definatly not pretty. But he knew how to work a crowed, and he managed to turn Anakin from an angsty teen to a babykiller in no time flat. Through use of inuendo, reading vocal inflections and body language, and controling his actions accordingly, he was able to control a great many people.
NOW, with that all said and done, there is no reason you couldn't go all the way back to 2nd ed. Tieflings. 2nd ed tieflings, for those of you who don't know, had a random table where people rolled to discover what their traits were. The theory being that there were three different kinds of fiends, and the combonation with mortal blood created weird and unexpected side effects. This could range from cosmetic (we had a tiefling who looked like an anthropomorphic cat) to abilities (we had a tiefling with strong Acid resistance, but no fire resistance). You could adapt the old planescape table, or make your own, or whatever. OR, you could simply make them human in that they get +2 to any one stat. Just suggestions, that you can leave or take, as you see fit.
ON A SEPERATE NOTE? What's re-imagined about the Githzerai? I didn't notice a huge difference. They are still a reclusive race that broke from the Githyanki at the time of Zerthamon, and live in limbo (the elemental chaos), and devoted to the idea of not being slaves. Seems that they are still the same guys to me.
Wow. Exactly what I was trying to say, but much more elegant!
3E tieflings bugged me because they not only took away the random tables that made them so awesome, but they changed the whole flavor of the race by changing their natural abilities (-cha?). With 4th, I can stay with the idea that they're a race, and I like how they've 'evolved' from humans that made a bargain. But the big thing was they brought the flavor back.
What I think I'll do is keep them as they are, they're a unique race that I like very much (in 4th). However, if the characters ever travel to the planes, they'll see what other tieflings look like. These one's aren't based on an empire that made a deal. That was just one community. :D
Per the Gith, I can appreciate a man who knows his history.
Wow. Exactly what I was trying to say, but much more elegant! 3E tieflings bugged me because they not only took away the random tables that made them so awesome, but they changed the whole flavor of the race by changing their natural abilities (-cha?
Wow. Exactly what I was trying to say, but much more elegant!
3E tieflings bugged me because they not only took away the random tables that made them so awesome, but they changed the whole flavor of the race by changing their natural abilities (-cha?). With 4th, I can stay with the idea that they're a race, and I like how they've 'evolved' from humans that made a bargain. But the big thing was they brought the flavor back.
What I think I'll do is keep them as they are, they're a unique race that I like very much (in 4th). However, if the characters ever travel to the planes, they'll see what other tieflings look like. These one's aren't based on an empire that made a deal. That was just one community. :D
Per the Gith, I can appreciate a man who knows his history.
I thank you for the compliment, sir.
Hmmm, let's get on building that random Tiefling table now . . .
I thank you for the compliment, sir. Hmmm, let's get on building that random Tiefling table now . . .
I've been noticing that the most common defense for +2Cha is that the tiefling is sly, crafty, good a bluff, etc...to which i have to agree, but this also leaves out a very important aspect of charisma in that it is important for more things than just skill checks. Don't forget that inspiring warlords and defensive paladins both use charisma. Now, If i were to roll a tiefling paladin, that charisma bonus would help me essentially be a crusader of justice, which is pretty silly considering my charisma bonus is supposed to be coming from trickery.
I say that the Tiefling race should be changed to a +2Con, +2Int race to reflect its demonic heritage and leave the entire sly, deceptive flavor in the hands of their +2 Bluff, +2 Stealth bonuses.
I've been noticing that the most common defense for +2Cha is that the tiefling is sly, crafty, good a bluff, etc...to which i have to agree, but this also leaves out a very important aspect of charisma in that it is important for more things than jus
I'd can't say I really view Tieflings as a hardy race, not really a +2 con one. The charisma makes sense though. They weren't well loved by many of the races. Sure, the dragonborn respect them for their strength (the OP has got how dragonborn relate to Tieflings wrong), but others, not so much. So Tieflings, with their empire gone, had to learn to manipulate others, to get along. Those that did are responsible for a higher percent of the next generation. Those that don't, got killed or lead less stable lives.
Just likes dwarves got to be what they are from pounding on rocks all day and elves got speedy due to running from tree to tree to dole out hugs, Tieflings got charming to survive.
As to the Infernal warlocks and Tieflings should be best at that, RP justification, remember that Infernal warlocks are not the original warlocks. The Tiefling race made a pact with Asmodeus. That pact made Tieflings what they are. What that pact's powers may be, well, it isn't in the PHB. Could very well be cha or int based. Could even be strength based. But until Asmodeus pact gets added to some source book, we won't know.
And all that aside, I think it is fine there's good reasons to pick races besides Tieflings for Infernal warlocks.
Now, If i were to roll a tiefling paladin, that charisma bonus would help me essentially be a crusader of justice, which is pretty silly considering my charisma bonus is supposed to be coming from trickery.
Two things on this. First, paladins are not required to be good anymore. You can be a Paladin of Sehanine. Or Lolth. Or Asmodeus, if you want to be true to your race's past. Second, if you did want to be a goody-goody paladin, the same sense that helps you spot things that you can exploit (and avoid things you can't) can also be used to do the reverse, to appeal to nobility to overcome the greed, instead of greed to overcome the nobility. Or you can go the torn hero route, you want to do good, but sometimes your means aren't as pure as your ends.
I'd can't say I really view Tieflings as a hardy race, not really a +2 con one. The charisma makes sense though. They weren't well loved by many of the races. Sure, the dragonborn respect them for their strength (the OP has got how dragonborn rela
i have become convinced that +2 cha is more appropriate than +2 con for tieflings.
i still feel strongly that tielfings should have the best synergy, among the standard races, with the infernal warlock class (remember elves and rangers, eladrin and wizards, halflings and rogues).
therfore, until i see something more appropriate, i will stick with my special boon for tieflings.
i cannot say enough times that, as i am looking at tieflings and thinking about the best warlock fit and seeing fey locks, it KILLS me.
i have become convinced that +2 cha is more appropriate than +2 con for tieflings.i still feel strongly that tielfings should have the best synergy, among the standard races, with the infernal warlock class (remember elves and rangers, eladrin and wi
i cannot say enough times that, as i am looking at tieflings and thinking about the best warlock fit and seeing fey locks, it KILLS me.
So don't call it a feylock. Ask your DM if you can make a tiefling with a succubus pact holder, but for all intents and purposes mechanically, be a feylock. Flavor all your powers to be fire, brimstone, and infernal charm, and leave it at that.
So don't call it a feylock. Ask your DM if you can make a tiefling with a succubus pact holder, but for all intents and purposes mechanically, be a feylock. Flavor all your powers to be fire, brimstone, and infernal charm, and leave it at that.
So don't call it a feylock. Ask your DM if you can make a tiefling with a succubus pact holder, but for all intents and purposes mechanically, be a feylock. Flavor all your powers to be fire, brimstone, and infernal charm, and leave it at that.
here is my little problem. i really prefer playing the game as written, keeping houseruling as close to nonexistent as possible.
i only houserule when something is just plain wrong to me, like the current topic of discussion, or like dwarves specializing in axes instead of picks (what's up with that!?!).
okay, now you did it. you made me want to list MaximumHavoc's pet peeves: (1) tieflings should make the best infernal warlocks; (2) dwarves specializing in hammers and axes should be hammers and picks (i mean, these buggers are a race of miners. and what do you use to mine? hammers? yes. picks? yes. axes? a big no.); (3) eladrin specializing in longsword should be rapier; (4) drow as chaotic evil (fixed in 4e); (5) lolth as chaotic evil (not fixed in 4e); (6) gruumsh should be a primordial, like yeenoghu, baphomet or kostchtchie (yes, i know that the latter two have not yet made appearances in 4e, but you get the idea); (7) correlon took out gruumsh's eye with a bow, not a sword (fixed in 4e);and (8) bane's forces eternally war with kord's, not gruumsh's (who is a demon lord primordial in the abyss now, anyway).
here is my little problem. i really prefer playing the game as written, keeping houseruling as close to nonexistent as possible.i only houserule when something is just plain wrong to me, like the current topic of discussion, or like dwarves speciali
here is my little problem. i really prefer playing the game as written, keeping houseruling as close to nonexistent as possible.
i only houserule when something is just plain wrong to me, like the current topic of discussion, or like dwarves specializing in axes instead of picks (what's up with that!?!).
okay, now you did it. you made me want to list MaximumHavoc's pet peeves: (1) tieflings should make the best infernal warlocks; (2) dwarves specializing in hammers and axes should be hammers and picks (i mean, these buggers are a race of miners. and what do you use to mine? hammers? yes. picks? yes. axes? a big no.); (3) eladrin specializing in longsword should be rapier; (4) drow as chaotic evil (fixed in 4e); (5) lolth as chaotic evil (not fixed in 4e); (6) gruumsh should be a primordial, like yeenoghu, baphomet or kostchtchie (yes, i know that the latter two have not yet made appearances in 4e, but you get the idea); (7) correlon took out gruumsh's eye with a bow, not a sword (fixed in 4e);and (8) bane's forces eternally war with kord's, not gruumsh's (who is a demon lord primordial in the abyss now, anyway).
What I suggested isn't a house rule... it has no bearing on game mechanics... it's just a flavor change.
And on to the list! (1) We've already made arguements as to why they shouldn't (2) Dwarves don't use picks for war, they use them for mining... mostly. In combat the iconic dwarf warrior was a berserker, swinging a hammer or axe because they are less likely to get stuck in things so they don't have to stop swinging it to free it from someone's gut, as you would have to commonly with a pick. (3) No, they shouldn't. Elves should, but eladrin are more into the armor wearing, when they fight, because they can teleport. Mobility isn't as hindered by armor or weapons for them. Thus, longsword and shield, iconic fighter. Ideally though, both races IMO should use something akin to the 3.5 elven courtblade. (4) Drow follow too many rules to be chaotic. They lie to each other and kill each other, but they have rules and protocols that they follow, set in place by Lolth and high preistesses. (5) Disagreed. Lolth has too many rules and strictures in place for drow to obey. (6) I don't have a clue on this one, so no argument here. (7) See (6) (8) See (7)
What I suggested isn't a house rule... it has no bearing on game mechanics... it's just a flavor change.And on to the list!(1) We've already made arguements as to why they shouldn't(2) Dwarves don't use picks for war, they use them for mining... most
In my opinion, tieflings are fine as-is. They should make good infernal warlocks, but not the best. Why? Here's my reasoning.
All of the fluff material that I can find in the PHB suggests that tieflings, while being the original infernal pact warlocks, aren't the best at it. The reason is, it wasn't custom-fit to them. They should make better Clerics and Paladins than anything else.
The original "pact" that changed the tieflings so was the one they made with Asmodeus. In the description of infernal pact (PHB pg. 130) it says that a long-forgotten race of devils created the pact to weaken the tieflings ties to Asmodeus. Now, in 3.X, Asmo was nothing but a very powerful devil (some speculation about this, but you get what I'm trying to say.) However, in 4e, he is a deity in his own right, and deities have clerics and paladins to serve them. And perhaps it's just me, but the notion of an army of tiefling paladins is horrible to contemplate.
Now, I believe that Hellfire Blood should exist simultaneously with another feat. Hellfire Blood seems, to me, to be more of a feat geared towards a wizard or a cleric, but maybe that's just me. I haven't actually looked over those two classes in detail yet, so I could be wrong.
That's how I would do it, if I wanted it that way.
Beyond that, if I really wanted to say that Asmo had warlocks at his beck and call rather than clerics and paladins, I would have made them fey-pact anyway. Beyond the reasons that exist in my setting only, a pact with Asmodeus could easily be described as fey-pact. The powers of fey-pact are beguiling influence, a stunning insanity, or a shadowy illusion of something else. All of these sound perfect for the labyrinthine Asmodeus to use as weapons against his foes... Stunning them with his might which is terrible to behold, unlocking the doors to their subconscious selves and causing their very minds to become as prisons, or clouding his true motives and plans and actions behind a wall of illusions and shadows. Definitely fits.
All this being said, I have contemplated changing the tiefling's racial traits on several occasions as well, but to +2 Wisdom, +2 Charisma with a racial +1 to reflex to simulate the bonus to dexterity they had in previous editions. The reasons behind this is that they would then become excellent spell-based clerics and paladins, simulating the spell-based warlock, but doing it with the divine might of Asmodeus. Overall, however, I feel that their bonuses fit them, that as much as I like the idea of them getting a bonus to wisdom, intelligence fits them so much more.
So yeah, that was a little more long-winded than I intended, but I think I got my point across.
EDIT: Personally, I've also been thinking about creating a race of +Con/Int creatures that serve the devils and demons as the perfect infernal warlocks, battling with the tieflings for the "best of the best" title in that aspect. The notion here, however, is that the tieflings have long-since abandoned Bael-Turath, and these guys are constantly going on about "Show me your true infernal power, half-breed!" or somesuch and just can't wrap their minds around the idea that the tieflings aren't all infernal warlocks anymore.
However, I really did like the idea of the +2 Con (if we were to go with that) being the reason why their genes are always dominant.
In my opinion, tieflings are fine as-is. They should make good infernal warlocks, but not the best. Why? Here's my reasoning.All of the fluff material that I can find in the PHB suggests that tieflings, while being the original infernal pact warlo
(4) Drow follow too many rules to be chaotic. They lie to each other and kill each other, but they have rules and protocols that they follow, set in place by Lolth and high preistesses. (5) Disagreed. Lolth has too many rules and strictures in place for drow to obey.
you misunderstand me. i am not saying that drow and lolth SHOULD be chaotic evil. i am saying that them being chaotic evil, back in 3e, was not appropriate, and that 4e fixed this for the drow but not for lolth.
you and i actually agree here.
you misunderstand me. i am not saying that drow and lolth SHOULD be chaotic evil. i am saying that them being chaotic evil, back in 3e, was not appropriate, and that 4e fixed this for the drow but not for lolth.you and i actually agree here.
you misunderstand me. i am not saying that drow and lolth SHOULD be chaotic evil. i am saying that them being chaotic evil, back in 3e, was not appropriate, and that 4e fixed this for the drow but not for lolth.
you and i actually agree here.
My mistake... I could probably argue the other way if I tried hard enough... lol.
My mistake... I could probably argue the other way if I tried hard enough... lol.
The original "pact" that changed the tieflings so was the one they made with Asmodeus. In the description of infernal pact (PHB pg. 130) it says that a long-forgotten race of devils created the pact to weaken the tieflings ties to Asmodeus.
Now that's just solid. I like it. I'm suprised I missed it in the PHB. Then again, my current DM doesn't allow helllocks, so I haven't had reason to look at it in depth.
I'm not sure about the bonus to Wis. Tieflings got penalties to wis in their original form. I think the idea revolved around their stubborness, and the fact that they never backed down from anyone or anything. Basically, they never had the wisdom to know when enough was enough. :D
Now that's just solid. I like it. I'm suprised I missed it in the PHB. Then again, my current DM doesn't allow helllocks, so I haven't had reason to look at it in depth.I'm not sure about the bonus to Wis. Tieflings got penalties to wis in their ori
okay, now you did it. you made me want to list MaximumHavoc's pet peeves: (1) tieflings should make the best infernal warlocks; (2) dwarves specializing in hammers and axes should be hammers and picks (i mean, these buggers are a race of miners. and what do you use to mine? hammers? yes. picks? yes. axes? a big no.); (3) eladrin specializing in longsword should be rapier; (4) drow as chaotic evil (fixed in 4e); (5) lolth as chaotic evil (not fixed in 4e); (6) gruumsh should be a primordial, like yeenoghu, baphomet or kostchtchie (yes, i know that the latter two have not yet made appearances in 4e, but you get the idea); (7) correlon took out gruumsh's eye with a bow, not a sword (fixed in 4e);and (8) bane's forces eternally war with kord's, not gruumsh's (who is a demon lord primordial in the abyss now, anyway).
Okay, now, I'm not going to say your list is wrong. You are a DM and you can make your campaign world however you like. Have the dwarf favored weapons as Katanas for all I care, and make them ino a feudal Japanese system if you want. HOWEVER, if you are addressing the core DnD setting, then I would provide some counter-points to your arguements. 1)The first infernal warlocks were not, in fact, tieflings. They were humans, who were changed into tieflings by the big bad evil guy. It's not like he said "You want my power? WELL I'LL CHANGE YOU! HAHA HA HA, and I'll make you better at being . . .. warlocks . . . like two boons for the price. . . . oh bugger. 2)DnD is, and always has been, roughly based off of Lord of the Rings. Wizards, Halflings (hobbits are even called halflings in the books) Mithril, and dwarves. In the books, Dwarves' favorite weapons were hammers (In the hobbit they used 'mighty mattocks') and axes (Gimli used axes) so, dwarves train with those weapons since childhood. 3)I believe the Eladrin longsword thing is a hail to the bladesinger, as is the wizard of the spiral tower. The idea being that Eladrin use a balance of grace with damage. 4)Under the old system, Drow were the imbodyment of Lawful evil. They had a plan, their society had a strict set of rules, governed by the matriarch houses. There were specific castes and slavery. Not any LESS evil, just not chaotic about it. Kinda like the Baatazu. 5)See above. 6-8)Your god mythology is straight on, I think. I never read the book of demigods for 3.x, so I'm not up on the lore of that stuff.
Okay, now, I'm not going to say your list is wrong. You are a DM and you can make your campaign world however you like. Have the dwarf favored weapons as Katanas for all I care, and make them ino a feudal Japanese system if you want. HOWEVER, if y
Now that's just solid. I like it. I'm suprised I missed it in the PHB. Then again, my current DM doesn't allow helllocks, so I haven't had reason to look at it in depth.
I'm not sure about the bonus to Wis. Tieflings got penalties to wis in their original form. I think the idea revolved around their stubborness, and the fact that they never backed down from anyone or anything. Basically, they never had the wisdom to know when enough was enough. :D
Ah, very interesting! I never knew that. I didn't play anything before 3.X, and in that, I (think) they only had the penalty to charisma (+2 Dex, +2 Int, -2 Cha, IIRC.) But as I said, the wisdom didn't seem to fit them, and the intelligence does, IMO, so I decided not to go with that. Even then, that +2 Wis/Cha would make them brutal divine characters.
Ah, very interesting! I never knew that. I didn't play anything before 3.X, and in that, I (think) they only had the penalty to charisma (+2 Dex, +2 Int, -2 Cha, IIRC.) But as I said, the wisdom didn't seem to fit them, and the intelligence does,
1)The first infernal warlocks were not, in fact, tieflings. They were humans, who were changed into tieflings by the big bad evil guy. It's not like he said "You want my power? WELL I'LL CHANGE YOU! HAHA HA HA, and I'll make you better at being . . .. warlocks . . . like two boons for the price. . . . oh bugger.
okay, but that does not change the pure and simple fact that tieflings synergize better with feylock than infernal warlock, which, if i have not mentioned yet, KILLS me.
Degausser wrote:
2)DnD is, and always has been, roughly based off of Lord of the Rings. Wizards, Halflings (hobbits are even called halflings in the books) Mithril, and dwarves. In the books, Dwarves' favorite weapons were hammers (In the hobbit they used 'mighty mattocks') and axes (Gimli used axes) so, dwarves train with those weapons since childhood.
too true, and a compelling argument (all hail tolkein!). but, getting a racial weapon bonus is because the race in general makes use of this weapon, and when you think about the lives of dwarves, a race of miners, it seems to me that they naturally would be proficient with hammers and picks, not axes (notwithstanding the iconography of the great and all powerful tolkien--may his works live on forever).
Degausser wrote:
3)I believe the Eladrin longsword thing is a hail to the bladesinger, as is the wizard of the spiral tower. The idea being that Eladrin use a balance of grace with damage.
i am saying that all of that (bladesinger, wotst, eladrin racial weapon proficiency)should be changed from longsword to rapier, an even more graceful weapon than the longsword. get it? graceful = eladrin.
i guess i see longswords as more the weapon of men. dwarves favor hammers (and picks). eladrin favor rapiers and spears. elves favor bows. orcs favor axes. gnolls favor flails.
Degausser wrote:
4)Under the old system, Drow were the imbodyment of Lawful evil. They had a plan, their society had a strict set of rules, governed by the matriarch houses. There were specific castes and slavery. Not any LESS evil, just not chaotic about it. Kinda like the Baatazu.
the 1e fiend folio identify lolth and the drow as chaotic evil. what do you mean by the old system?
Degausser wrote:
6-8)Your god mythology is straight on, I think.
thanks :D
okay, but that does not change the pure and simple fact that tieflings synergize better with feylock than infernal warlock, which, if i have not mentioned yet, KILLS me.too true, and a compelling argument (all hail tolkein!). but, getting a racial w
Ya know...now that i think about it, I don't think we're asking the right question. It isn't whether or not Cha is appropriate, but whether or not Int is appropriate.
The way I see it, Int used to be appropriate back in 3.X since it helped in the acquisition of more skills, thus helping in that sly and skillful feel. However, 4e has limited int mostly to Arcane magic and knowledge skills (with warlords using it too for fluff reasons). So the real question here is whether or not tieflings should be associated with Arcanery, Knowledge, which would make sense...
So to make matters easier, I will compile my thoughts on what ability scores could be compatible with the tiefling, why, and why not:
Charisma pros -- Helps maintain the sly and deceptive feel -- Some great role playing opportunities with paladins and warlords -- Works well with some rogue builds. Charisma Cons -- Worthwhile tiefling paladins and warlords can stretch what it means to be charismatic. Skilled role playing is required here. -- Unusually skilled fey warlocks.
Int Pros -- Increased Arcana skills. Helps keep the warlock feel -- Good for wizard builds. Mass destruction + Tiefling = win ^_^ -- Good for Swordmage builds. See above Int Cons -- Doesn't carry the skillful motif anymore -- Only related to one worthwhile skill
Dexterity Pros -- Good for rogue builds. Tiefling rogues are a logical choice fluff-wise -- Works with the stealth skill, which tiefling are supposed to be good at. Working with thievery is also a plus Dex Cons -- Limited application. It's only considered due to a single class. -- Would have to replace one of two already justifiable scores
Con Pros -- Good for Infernal locks, which makes sense fluff wise. -- A worthwhile score for all classes Con Cons -- very limited application. It's only considered due to a single class BUILD. -- Would have to replace one of two already justifiable scores
With this said, I don't think there's enough reason to change any of their current stats to con, but an arguement for dex could be made...
Ya know...now that i think about it, I don't think we're asking the right question. It isn't whether or not Cha is appropriate, but whether or not Int is appropriate.The way I see it, Int used to be appropriate back in 3.X since it helped in the acqu
Um, that was the case in 3.x, but it is much less true in 4e. With the classes set up to get many of their powers based on certain ability scores, all the scores are important to one class or another.
Of course the physical ones are more highly valued. Why do you think all of the other races have one of each? The more useful the racial ability the less useful the stat modifiers. Just look at Elves, dex and intel not very synergistic but their racial power is sh!t hot. Humans only get one stat bonus and have good racial abilities, Tieflings have two unrelated stat bonuses and good racial abilities. Haven't played a halfling yet but dex and chr are separate in all respects (one physical one not), they have kind of bleh racial abilities, half elves: good stat bonuses if you're a warlock, racial abilities are ok (decent human feats), Eldarin are another one with a crappy stat enhancement but good racial abilities, bonus to will and teleport, yes please! I gotta skate but you get the idea.
Of course the physical ones are more highly valued. Why do you think all of the other races have one of each? The more useful the racial ability the less useful the stat modifiers. Just look at Elves, dex and intel not very synergistic but their r
okay, but that does not change the pure and simple fact that tieflings synergize better with feylock than infernal warlock, which, if i have not mentioned yet, KILLS me.
Oy vey. Yeah, okay, so they synergize better with feylocks. As mentioned before, you could change the 'feylock' flavor into 'deceptive demons' without a issues. But the thing you have to remember is (and I know I'm heiretical for saying this) A race doesn't have to synergize with it's class. What does +2 to a stat get you? A +1 to hit and damage? That can be offset by rolling well, Just because Tieflings don't get +2 to con doesn't mean they can't be good infernal pact warlocks, just means that they start out with an 18 and not a 20 in con.
too true, and a compelling argument (all hail tolkein!). but, getting a racial weapon bonus is because the race in general makes use of this weapon, and when you think about the lives of dwarves, a race of miners, it seems to me that they naturally would be proficient with hammers and picks, not axes (notwithstanding the iconography of the great and all powerful tolkien--may his works live on forever).
I guess the point I was trying to make is, that in the set DnD world, was that Dwarves LIKE axes and Hammers. I dunno, maybe they find them cooler, or it's a cultural thing. They train with them since birth, like compulsery education. All Eladrin learn how to use longswords, all Dwarves learn how to use axes/hammers, and all Elves learn how to use bows. It's not instinct so much as early training. That's my though at least.
i am saying that all of that (bladesinger, wotst, eladrin racial weapon proficiency)should be changed from longsword to rapier, an even more graceful weapon than the longsword. get it? graceful = eladrin.
i guess i see longswords as more the weapon of men. dwarves favor hammers (and picks). eladrin favor rapiers and spears. elves favor bows. orcs favor axes. gnolls favor flails.
Like I said before, if you want to change something, go nuts, it's your world. I, personally, have become married to the notion of a gracefull eladrin dancing around the battlefield with his finly elven-crafted longsword, cutting though enemies with equal parts grace and damage. If you see a broadsword as man's weapon, then change the Eladrin weapon to rapier (or maybe, Eladrin sword, give it the same stats as a longsword, but say it's more refined and finesseable. After all, this is all about flavor and feel, right?)
the 1e fiend folio identify lolth and the drow as chaotic evil. what do you mean by the old system?
Well, you have me there. I never played 1st ed. The only Drow I know of are from what I saw in 2nd ed, and what I've seen in videogames (namely Baldur's gate II, Icewind Dale II, and NWN, Hordes of the Underdark.) The Forgotten realms versions of Drow, at the very least, are very much like Baatazu. They are constantly scheming, manipulationg, putting together elaborate plots to backstab each other, while preventing themselves from being backstabbed. It all screams of a very Lawful evil society to me.
In the end though, they are a PC race, fully sentient, and they can be any alignment you want them to be. There may be a city of Lawful evil Drow, and a city of Chaotic Evil drow, and even 'Rebels' who are True Neutral. I'm just saying, in my mind, I view typical Drow society as Lawful evil, and will portray them that way in my games.
Oy vey. Yeah, okay, so they synergize better with feylocks. As mentioned before, you could change the 'feylock' flavor into 'deceptive demons' without a issues. But the thing you have to remember is (and I know I'm heiretical for saying this) A ra
i also have a small problem with tieflings having a +2 cha bonus but mine stems from the what thier stat block was in 3ed
+2 dex +2 int -2 cha.... so apperently in the rebalancing of tieflings gthey got +4 cha -2 int. and we lost assamir all together in this process
my two cents
ron
i also have a small problem with tieflings having a +2 cha bonus but mine stems from the what thier stat block was in 3ed +2 dex +2 int -2 cha.... so apperently in the rebalancing of tieflings gthey got +4 cha -2 int. and we lost assamir all togethe
I totally agree. I think that +2 Int +2 Con makes a lot more sense for the race of tieflings.
[2]
For gods sake, its written in the infernal pact history that the first warlock that made the internal pact was a tiefling.
For me, thats ENOUGH reason.
[2]For gods sake, its written in the infernal pact history that the first warlock that made the internal pact was a tiefling.For me, thats ENOUGH reason.
Actually, I believe that its the same information where I pulled my information from, saying that the Infernal-Pact was originally created by a race of long-lost devils to weaken the tieflings loyalties to Asmodeus.
Now, while that doesn't necessarily mean that the tieflings were the first ones (which is still possible) that does heavily imply it, yes.
Actually, I believe that its the same information where I pulled my information from, saying that the Infernal-Pact was originally created by a race of long-lost devils to weaken the tieflings loyalties to Asmodeus.Now, while that doesn't necessarily
In the end though, they are a PC race, fully sentient, and they can be any alignment you want them to be. There may be a city of Lawful evil Drow, and a city of Chaotic Evil drow, and even 'Rebels' who are True Neutral. I'm just saying, in my mind, I view typical Drow society as Lawful evil, and will portray them that way in my games.
Very good. It is always nice to see what people are doing. The drow, as they originally appeared in the Fiend Folio, were a race of chaotic evil elves. This also carried over into the AD&D2 Monstrous Manual. How they were described in the Forgotten Realms I could not say as I never picked anything up for it (Dark Sun was my setting of choice). The problem, though, was that their society seemed more organized than not, according to the Salvatore books. The were, fortunately or not, one of the main sources of drow society at the time.
This led to a change of preferred alignments in 3.x. The drow now leaned to neutral evil. This allowed them to have more lawful organization in their society while keeping some of the chaotic tendencies such as "might makes right". Their deity, though, remained a chaotic evil deity. Now, of course, they fall under just evil. So you can describe their society (as you really could before) as you wish.
Very good. It is always nice to see what people are doing. The drow, as they originally appeared in the Fiend Folio, were a race of chaotic evil elves. This also carried over into the AD&D2 Monstrous Manual. How they were described in the Forgott
"Inferal Pact Long ago a forgotten race of devils created a secret path to power and taught it to the tieflings of old to weaken their fealty to Asmodeus."
PH page 130."Inferal PactLong ago a forgotten race of devils created a secret path to power and taught it to the tieflings of old to weaken their fealty to Asmodeus."
Aren't the devils supposed to serve Asmodeus??? That infernal pact bit of information doesn't seem to make much sense to me (unless you change some loose asumptions), because it makes out the infernal pact concept to be relatively new in history, because the tieflings are also (being product of one of the most recent empires to fall, actually remembered). I would have thought some sort of infernal pact would have developed long before the tieflings existed, back in times no one remembers. There seem to be a few issues in this area IMO.
Aren't the devils supposed to serve Asmodeus??? That infernal pact bit of information doesn't seem to make much sense to me (unless you change some loose asumptions), because it makes out the infernal pact concept to be relatively new in history, bec
"Inferal Pact Long ago a forgotten race of devils created a secret path to power and taught it to the tieflings of old to weaken their fealty to Asmodeus."
If tieflings were already around before being taught the infernal pact, how can they be considered especially geared towards the pact? By this statement, they were just the first be brought in under it. It states nothing about them being predisposed to it which should be translated into some mechanics. Is there some rule in game design that says you must create a race which has mechanics predisposed to the classes it favors as flavor?
If tieflings were already around before being taught the infernal pact, how can they be considered especially geared towards the pact? By this statement, they were just the first be brought in under it. It states nothing about them being predispose
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.
Arguments for +2 con, not +2 cha.
Anybody else been scratching their heads trying to figure out what's up with +2 cha tieflings?
I totally agree with you. It makes way more sense for Tieflings to be +2 Int and +2 Con. The other race that is weird is the half elf. +2 Con and +2 Cha, neither elven attributes.
However, I think that they made the attributes as they did for game balance more than anything. If Tieflings were +2 Int, +2 Con, people would always run them as Infernal Warlocks, because there would be no other option that compared with them. For example: Str 8 Int 18 Wis 10 Dx 12 Con 18 Cha 14
That, plus the hellfire blood feat, makes one seriously tough infernal pact warlock.
But I am more about what makes sense in the world. To me, it makes sense that most of the infernal pact warlocks would be tieflings, so I say house rule it, and let the devil have his due!
I totally agree with you. It makes way more sense for Tieflings to be +2 Int and +2 Con. The other race that is weird is the half elf. +2 Con and +2 Cha, neither elven attributes. However, I think that they made the attributes as they did for game ba
If tieflings were already around before being taught the infernal pact, how can they be considered especially geared towards the pact? By this statement, they were just the first be brought in under it. It states nothing about them being predisposed to it which should be translated into some mechanics. Is there some rule in game design that says you must create a race which has mechanics predisposed to the classes it favors as flavor?
I think that's the point people are trying to make when they say the tieflings are good as is, and it shouldn't be a +2 Con.
Aedan_Uaine wrote:
Aren't the devils supposed to serve Asmodeus??? That infernal pact bit of information doesn't seem to make much sense to me (unless you change some loose asumptions), because it makes out the infernal pact concept to be relatively new in history, because the tieflings are also (being product of one of the most recent empires to fall, actually remembered). I would have thought some sort of infernal pact would have developed long before the tieflings existed, back in times no one remembers. There seem to be a few issues in this area IMO.
Ha ha. Ha... ha. Devils not backstabbing because they're serving... Ha. While it's technically true that the Baatezu "serve" their lords (and other higher-ups), they're scheming little punks, and will do anything they can to bend the contract as far as they can (without actually breaking it). They serve to the letter of the law, not the spirit. By far. Any change they get to prove themselves better, stronger, smarter, etc.. with out breaking contract, they will.
In fact (Baatezu history-wise), that's how they gain rank, and by gaining rank, they gain powers and change into a more powerful Baatezu.
Devils... not backstabbing Asmodeus because they serve him. Hilarious!
Although, you're probably right about the infernal pact being around longer than mortal's memory. The old devils probably just brought it back into use.
I think that's the point people are trying to make when they say the tieflings are good as is, and it shouldn't be a +2 Con. Ha ha. Ha... ha. Devils not backstabbing because they're serving... Ha. While it's technically true that the Baatezu "serve"
Well, if you ask me, the Infernal pact started a long time ago, when Gul'Dan- Wait a second, I think I have the wrong game here.
Anyway, I don't think that the tieflins should automatically be the de facto best Hellocks, simply because they were tieflings before they signed the pact with these ancient devils. These ancient devils did not make the tieflings what they were, and they may not have made the pact specifically for them.
Well, if you ask me, the Infernal pact started a long time ago, when Gul'Dan- Wait a second, I think I have the wrong game here.Anyway, I don't think that the tieflins should automatically be the de facto best Hellocks, simply because they were tiefl
Ya, you're probably right, I don't know why I didn't think about that. Maybe that explains the "long-lost" part in the long-lost race of devils. They were backstabbing, and Asmodeus was not happy. Now they don't exist.
Ya, you're probably right, I don't know why I didn't think about that. Maybe that explains the "long-lost" part in the long-lost race of devils. They were backstabbing, and Asmodeus was not happy. Now they don't exist.
Thinking about it that way, is it too hard to believe that these ancient devils, if the pact had been designed for the tieflings, made it so that it didn't play to their strengths?
Unless they wanted the tiefling loyalty to themselves. Then that's just shooting yourself in the foot.
Thinking about it that way, is it too hard to believe that these ancient devils, if the pact had been designed for the tieflings, made it so that it didn't play to their strengths?Unless they wanted the tiefling loyalty to themselves. Then that's ju
Ya, you're probably right, I don't know why I didn't think about that. Maybe that explains the "long-lost" part in the long-lost race of devils. They were backstabbing, and Asmodeus was not happy. Now they don't exist.
Yes and No. Asmodeus wasn't always a deity. He used to be just a plain old devil. They're probably long lost and forgotten because they've been imprisoned or some such other things. Also, don't forget, when a devil or demon is banished to their home plain, then killed on their home plain, it takes thousands of years for them to come back, and then they start at the bottom of the chain again. They do have a very long memory, though. :D
Shedeo wrote:
Thinking about it that way, is it too hard to believe that these ancient devils, if the pact had been designed for the tieflings, made it so that it didn't play to their strengths?
Unless they wanted the tiefling loyalty to themselves. Then that's just shooting yourself in the foot.
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.
Remember: What part of evil goes with being loyal?
Yes and No. Asmodeus wasn't always a deity. He used to be just a plain old devil. They're probably long lost and forgotten because they've been imprisoned or some such other things. Also, don't forget, when a devil or demon is banished to their h
Also, I think at that point Asmodeus was a deity, however. Also, he was (in 4e, anyway) never a devil- Asmo was an Angel that "betrayed" and murdered his deity.
However, if he couldn't kill said deity, it could be the machinations of that ancient deity (read: "A long-lost race of devils") that caused the Tieflings to accept the infernal pact and, thusly, their empire fall. Perhaps it was also a piece of pride to see Asmodeus's mortal will incarnate fall to such lows for power, then destroy themselves.
Indeed.Also, I think at that point Asmodeus was a deity, however. Also, he was (in 4e, anyway) never a devil- Asmo was an Angel that "betrayed" and murdered his deity.However, if he couldn't kill said deity, it could be the machinations of that anci
Yes and No. Asmodeus wasn't always a deity. He used to be just a plain old devil. They're probably long lost and forgotten because they've been imprisoned or some such other things. Also, don't forget, when a devil or demon is banished to their home plain, then killed on their home plain, it takes thousands of years for them to come back, and then they start at the bottom of the chain again. They do have a very long memory, though. :D
Well in that case, that looks like a good opening for some plot ideas.
Indeed.
Also, I think at that point Asmodeus was a deity, however. Also, he was (in 4e, anyway) never a devil- Asmo was an Angel that "betrayed" and murdered his deity.
However, if he couldn't kill said deity, it could be the machinations of that ancient deity (read: "A long-lost race of devils") that caused the Tieflings to accept the infernal pact and, thusly, their empire fall. Perhaps it was also a piece of pride to see Asmodeus's mortal will incarnate fall to such lows for power, then destroy themselves.
Again, same idea, opening for plot ideas.
Well in that case, that looks like a good opening for some plot ideas.Again, same idea, opening for plot ideas.
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.
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
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.
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
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 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
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.
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.
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 an
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
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.
Hmm.. sorry for going off on a tangent.
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 outcas
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.
*applaudes*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 inte
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.
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 priorit
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.
Thank you for the applause. :DTo 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
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.
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 proclamati
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.
Following Your Example, I'm going to go through each of the character races in the book and compare them to the MM. I'll list the stat bonuses for the race, then the top three stats for each build, from highest to lowest. Two stats with a slash mean they are equal.
Dragonborn +2 STR, +2 CHA ----------------------------- Soldier:..... STR, DEX/CON Gladiator:.. STR, CON, CHA Raider:...... DEX, STR, CON Champion:.. STR, CON, CHA
Dwarf +2 CON, +2 WIS ----------------------------- Bolter:....... DEX/CON, STR Hammerer:. STR, CON, WIS
Eladrin +2 DEX, +2 INT ----------------------------- Knight:.... DEX, STR, CHA Incanter:. INT, DEX/CHA Bralani:... CHA, DEX, CON Ghaele:... CHA, DEX, CON/WIS
Elf +2 DEX, +2 WIS ----------------------------- Archer:. DEX, WIS, CON Scout:.. DEX, CON, WIS
Half-Elf +2 CON, +2 CHA ----------------------------- Not in MM
Human +2 to one stat ----------------------------- Rable:...... STR, CON, CHA Lackey:.... STR, CON, CHA Bandit:..... DEX, CON, STR/CHA Guard:..... STR, CON, DEX Berserker:. STR, CON, CHA/DEX Mage:...... INT, WIS, DEX
Tiefling +2 INT, +2 CHA ----------------------------- Heretic:.... DEX/CHA, CON Darkblade:. DEX, CON/CHA
I guess my point is that the Monster's Manual is not a good stat reference when comparing what a racial bonus should be, and what they are. It seems to be hit and miss for which stats are the three highest compared to what the race gets as a bonus.
Following Your Example, I'm going to go through each of the character races in the book and compare them to the MM. I'll list the stat bonuses for the race, then the top three stats for each build, from highest to lowest. Two stats with a slash mean
I guess my point is that the Monster's Manual is not a good stat reference when comparing what a racial bonus should be, and what they are. It seems to be hit and miss for which stats are the three highest compared to what the race gets as a bonus.
Well, you don't make a very good point considering that the bonus attributes in all those entries seems to always appear in the top 3 attributes on their entry.
However, the Tiefling has Intelligence as its absolute WORST attribute in BOTH monster entries.
The others that stand out is that the Dragonborn probably should NOT have bonus Charisma and instead by Str and Con and the Eldarin should probably be Dex and Cha rather than Dex and Int.
But the Elf, Dwarf and Halfling are exactly what one would expect from a race that has those attribute adjustments. Human is just meaningless.
Well, you don't make a very good point considering that the bonus attributes in all those entries seems to always appear in the top 3 attributes on their entry.However, the Tiefling has Intelligence as its absolute WORST attribute in BOTH monster ent
Well, you don't make a very good point considering that the bonus attributes in all those entries seems to always appear in the top 3 attributes on their entry.
However, the Tiefling has Intelligence as its absolute WORST attribute in BOTH monster entries.
The others that stand out is that the Dragonborn probably should NOT have bonus Charisma and instead by Str and Con and the Eldarin should probably be Dex and Cha rather than Dex and Int.
But the Elf, Dwarf and Halfling are exactly what one would expect from a race that has those attribute adjustments. Human is just meaningless.
Yeah, pretty much.
But then, that's why I said it was hit and miss. You have three races that are right on, and three that are off. Tis a shame there's no half-elves in there, eh?
I don't think the Tiefling MM stats give a good representation of what Tieflings are according to the PHB. This is compared to the other line of thought represented: 'The PHB doesn't accurately represent the tiefling as the MM shows them.'
It's a matter of which source you think is more correct, and I'm backing the PHB.
I'm going to stop making my argument on this thread. I've convinced at least one person that CHA is accurate to how the Tiefling is supposed to be. I'll let it rest at that.
Enjoy gaming!
Yeah, pretty much.But then, that's why I said it was hit and miss. You have three races that are right on, and three that are off. Tis a shame there's no half-elves in there, eh? :)I don't think the Tiefling MM stats give a good representation of w
I don't think the Tiefling MM stats give a good representation of what Tieflings are according to the PHB. This is compared to the other line of thought represented: 'The PHB doesn't accurately represent the tiefling as the MM shows them.'
But Tiefling aside, what about the Dragonborn and the Eldarin? The Eldarin seem like they SHOULD be a high Charisma race. Eldarin and Tiefling seem to have been given Intelligence bonuses simply to make them the "wizard" races despite their fluff not really supporting them being vastly more intelligent than the other races (or at least outstrip other races by the extent that Dragonborn do in strength, Elves do in dexterity and Dwarfs do in Constitution.)
Dragonborn conversely come across as though they should be physical monstrousities, not just in strength but also little should stun or hurt the scaley beasts-- this is much more true than we would expect Charisma to be one of their benefits. Of course, I can certainly imagine that when they were being put together that the game designers felt that they wanted to construct them as being likely to be Paladins and Warlords instead of just big, scary fighters and so they didn't want to stack two physical scores. I also suspect that earlier in the design phase the Tiefling also had a dex bonus but then someone looked at it and realized how dumb it was to have 4 +Dex races in their PHB (I am not even fully convinced that the Eldarin fluff supports them having a high Dex, I think they could do without it!).
The reason I would put the Monster Manual as being more correct than the PHB is that in the PHB you have the pressure of each race filling different niches than the other races-- instead of allowing them to follow their fluff as close as possible, they instead have to be hammered and reshaped and molded into fitting into the particular niche that is needed, regardless of whether or not they SHOULD fit. Conversely, in the Monster Manual you just need the monster to fit a particular power level and otherwise the monster is free to be as fully conformed to their fluff as they need to be. In the Monster Manual you are much more free to make the race as close as they should be as you can without requiring them to fill any premolded niche determined by the inclusion of 6 other monsters/races in the book and the necessity for the selection to be diverse and meet all the class options.
But Tiefling aside, what about the Dragonborn and the Eldarin?The Eldarin seem like they SHOULD be a high Charisma race. Eldarin and Tiefling seem to have been given Intelligence bonuses simply to make them the "wizard" races despite their fluff not
Well, especially from the Tieflings look, I would totally go for +2 Con and +2 Int for Tieflings.
Also +2 Dex/Int +2 Cha would make more sense for the Half Elves to me.
Well, especially from the Tieflings look, I would totally go for +2 Con and +2 Int for Tieflings.Also +2 Dex/Int +2 Cha would make more sense for the Half Elves to me.
I still say it makes sense that Dragonborn have Charisma and Eladrin don't.
Why should a alien and inhuman being who views themselves as superior and above all others have lots of Charisma amongst other people?
And why should a being whose strength and most likely reputation not gather attention and generate a extreme force of personality behind it when it feels like it. If a Dragonborn enters a room I expect the whole room to notice, that screams Charisma to me.
Since remember in 4e, Charisma is simply: "measures your force of personality, persuasiveness, and leadership."
I imagine a Dragonborn that could easily kill you would have immense amounts of force of personality and persuasiveness. While a Eladrin that gets on your nerves and is otherworldly and simply alien would not.
Tieflings also fit in the fold for Charisma since they have a reputation and this reputation means they can back up what they say quite easily. They also most likely have spent their lives learning how to deal with people, which would make them much more able at Charisma (this last point also stands true with Half-Elves and their diplomacy bonuses).
I still say it makes sense that Dragonborn have Charisma and Eladrin don't. Why should a alien and inhuman being who views themselves as superior and above all others have lots of Charisma amongst other people?And why should a being whose strength an
Tieflings also fit in the fold for Charisma since they have a reputation and this reputation means they can back up what they say quite easily. They also most likely have spent their lives learning how to deal with people, which would make them much more able at Charisma (this last point also stands true with Half-Elves and their diplomacy bonuses).
That means they COULD learn to harness it, not that they universally would as a +2 Charisma would suggest.
That means they COULD learn to harness it, not that they universally would as a +2 Charisma would suggest.
I'm unfamiliar with tieflings except in passing, until 4E. Have they, in the past, been known to be particularly hardy creatures? If hardiness was a part of their makeup in the past, it is not now. It seems to me that some people are putting a lot of emphasis on a slight +2 bonus just because it would give the race a slight benefit if they chose to go the infernal warlock route. Is the +1 modifier that the half-elf (or any of the other races in the MM that have a +2 bonus to Con) can start with that much of a glaring advantage? This strikes me more as wanting to eke out every advantage that you can and seems a little min/maxing.
I'm unfamiliar with tieflings except in passing, until 4E. Have they, in the past, been known to be particularly hardy creatures? If hardiness was a part of their makeup in the past, it is not now. It seems to me that some people are putting a lot
As I've said and said again, I really don't think that +2 Con is befitting of them. The tieflings have never been slated as a particularly tough or hardy race, even now.
The only reason that this argument is even here is because the infernal-pact warlock is based off con. If had been based off wis, we'd have that argument now.
The tieflings might have been the original, but they were tieflings before they were warlocks, therefor, I don't see the need for the connection.
As I've said and said again, I really don't think that +2 Con is befitting of them. The tieflings have never been slated as a particularly tough or hardy race, even now.The only reason that this argument is even here is because the infernal-pact war
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.
No. It shows a direct correlation to a bluff bonus.
mgshamster wrote:
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.
You are right that social prejudices do not and should not effect a charisma modifier. However, how a race reacts to that position is. Drow are mistrusted too, but drow decided to embrace the fear they project and are empowered by it. When a drow goes to the surface, he makes an impression.
Tieflings are not like that. Maybe they were in 2e, I didn’t play planescape so I don’t know. But the tieflings of today are not filled with pride in the fear that they inspire. They are reclusive, withdrawn, and fiercely independent; essentially a race of emos. Being emo should not give a plus to charisma.
mgshamster wrote:
… 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?
In the same way that so many good and neutral aligned drow PCs running amok deteriorated the perceptions that drow were to be feared. When players started playing good-aligned drow, it had a profound influence on how drow were perceived in future books. It started with the unfortunate decision to make a goddess of good drow, so PCs would have someone they could worship. This snowballed into whole communities of renegade drow, to the point that many DMs let drow PCs walk among the surface cities without reprisal, since they were given the benefit of the doubt.
Also, look at Halflings. Halflings were modeled after hobbits, so they were supposed to be simple quiet lawful-good folk who liked to smoke their pipes and not get into any trouble. However, as Pcs, thieves were the best fit. So most people played Halflings as roguish and daring, and today the entire Halfling race has been redesigned to fit with the kind of characters players chose to play.
PCs do shape the game’s notions of each race. They probably shouldn’t, but they do.
mgshamster wrote:
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.
Hmm.. sorry for going off on a tangent.
This is about the single best description I have ever seen of 2e v. 3e. You wouldn’t know it from my previous posts, but I actually skipped most of 3e for that reason. In 2e, there weren’t all the feats and racial powers that consumed people’s time. If you decided to play a human fighter, that was it. You weren’t going to have to retool your character ever again, so all that you had left to do was enjoy roleplaying. Racial traits didn’t matter much either, as after about level 4 you didn’t even notice them anymore, you just chose a race based on one you wanted to roleplay.
Unfortunately, racial traits do matter now, a lot. It can be fun to play a halfling fighter, but it isn’t fun to suck so hard. But it is what it is.
No. It shows a direct correlation to a bluff bonus.You are right that social prejudices do not and should not effect a charisma modifier. However, how a race reacts to that position is. Drow are mistrusted too, but drow decided to embrace the fear th
The only reason that this argument is even here is because the infernal-pact warlock is based off con. If had been based off wis, we'd have that argument now.
This is about the single best description I have ever seen of 2e v. 3e. You wouldn’t know it from my previous posts, but I actually skipped most of 3e for that reason. In 2e, there weren’t all the feats and racial powers that consumed people’s time. If you decided to play a human fighter, that was it. You weren’t going to have to retool your character ever again, so all that you had left to do was enjoy roleplaying. Racial traits didn’t matter much either, as after about level 4 you didn’t even notice them anymore, you just chose a race based on one you wanted to roleplay.
Unfortunately, racial traits do matter now, a lot. It can be fun to play a halfling fighter, but it isn’t fun to suck so hard. But it is what it is.
That isn't so bad really anymore since racial ability penalties have disappeared. I'm pretty sure a halfling fighter in 4e will do just fine, maybe not optimum like say dragonborn or human maybe is. But fine none the less. In 3e, a halfling fighter would probably be hurting. Especially if they didn't go down some path that let them make use of Dex instead of Str.
That isn't so bad really anymore since racial ability penalties have disappeared. I'm pretty sure a halfling fighter in 4e will do just fine, maybe not optimum like say dragonborn or human maybe is. But fine none the less. In 3e, a halfling fighter w
That means they COULD learn to harness it, not that they universally would as a +2 Charisma would suggest.
That be the case with any race really, since Charisma is completely based off how one acts. Since it has no physical connection anymore, it is all based off personality.
That be the case with any race really, since Charisma is completely based off how one acts. Since it has no physical connection anymore, it is all based off personality.
Personally I'd have the Tiefling and Half-Elf swap bonuses - for fluff reasons, mostly.
The Tiefling is supposed to be the quintessential warlock (warrenting a bonus to primary ability requisites). They should be charismatic as hell (pun intended), because they negotiated the original contracts with the Infernal lords that created the hell-pacts. They should be tough (i.e. high constitution) to bind and force the the devils to part with their power (devils respect strength). As for the Intelligence bonus - nobody ever considered somebody making a pact with the Devil "smart". I'd give the +2 Int a miss.
As for the half-elf, their roles as messengers and go-betweens for elves and humans make them naturally charismatic. With their ties to the elven world, and thus to the fey, I'd consider them prime candidates for being the best fey-locks (requiring high Int/Cha).
Personally I'd have the Tiefling and Half-Elf swap bonuses - for fluff reasons, mostly.The Tiefling is supposed to be the quintessential warlock (warrenting a bonus to primary ability requisites). They should be charismatic as hell (pun intended), be
I don't mean to budge into this discussion here but I still don't get why it's a big thing that Tieflings get a bonus to Con. They aren't a hardy race therefore no reason to have a Con bonus. Before "you" say well they are supposed to be Infernal Pact, couldn't "you" just put your highest stat bonus in Con. I mean sure you'll have a Infernal pact Warlock that is as Hardy as "he" is Persuasive. I find it more reasonable for Tieflings to have to have a high Int and high Cha, it fits them better.
Plus this whole things smells of CharOp. I mean having an extra Con to do more damage or better attacks.
I don't mean to budge into this discussion here but I still don't get why it's a big thing that Tieflings get a bonus to Con. They aren't a hardy race therefore no reason to have a Con bonus. Before "you" say well they are supposed to be Infernal Pac
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.
That's not a good comparison, Con was not a primary stat for warriors, but a secondary one.
On the other hand, i did not see a lot of half orc wizards in 3rd edition, did you?
I agree with the OP. +2 Con not only give them a flavor of infernal warlocks (which they now lack, becouse they are much better as fey, star, or dark locks, which does not make sense). Not having dual mental stats also help them to become better melee classes. Having Con might not be the best thing to have as a fighter or ranger, but is much better than Charisma anyways.
I think Tieflings make more sense being good infernal locks, or fighters, than fey locks or paladins.
That's not a good comparison, Con was not a primary stat for warriors, but a secondary one.On the other hand, i did not see a lot of half orc wizards in 3rd edition, did you?I agree with the OP. +2 Con not only give them a flavor of infernal warlocks
Warning: fluff. May cause allergic reaction in crunch-addicts.
Archdevil: "Why would I enter into a pact with you? Everything I want from you, is already mine: Your immortal soul. Mwha. Mwhaha. Mhuhahahaha! Now, scurry along, little one. I'll be seeing you... in Hell!"
Fey Lord: "One who's soul is pledged to those tyrannical devils wishes to bond with me? Serve me well, little one, and we'll see about freeing you from that collar of yours... Fail me, and the Nine Hells will be the least of your problems!"
Warning: fluff. May cause allergic reaction in crunch-addicts.Archdevil: "Why would I enter into a pact with you? Everything I want from you, is already mine: Your immortal soul. Mwha. Mwhaha. Mhuhahahaha! Now, scurry along, little one. I'll be seein
Cha is strangth of personality, be that intimidating of indearing. A truly charasmatic individual's skills can include both makeing frends and horrifying strangers witless, but nothing says the flavor must support both.
Cha is strangth of personality, be that intimidating of indearing. A truly charasmatic individual's skills can include both makeing frends and horrifying strangers witless, but nothing says the flavor must support both.
I don't think the problem lies in the Tiefling's stat array...but in the Infernal Pact Warlock's stat requirements.
It seems that the Warlock was initially designed to use Cha as a primary stat, with Int (Infernal) and Dex (Fey) as secondary stats.
Blah. Just houserule Cha as the primary stat for Infernal Pact Warlocks, and this issue will resolve itself.
I don't think the problem lies in the Tiefling's stat array...but in the Infernal Pact Warlock's stat requirements.It seems that the Warlock was initially designed to use Cha as a primary stat, with Int (Infernal) and Dex (Fey) as secondary stats. B
Not to go off topic, but I couldn't help but notice people bringing up the Drow and Lolth being CE in previous editions as a problem of similar magnitude, and for some reason it bugs me enough to want to just make a quick explanation on that.
See, Lolth started out as Correlon's consort. I forget what the impetus was, but she did something very bad, which got her kicked out of his court and directly into the Abyss, where he made her into a demon (she would eventually regain godhood, but her demonic traits would merely assist her in her rise to deityhood rather than hinder her).
Anyway. Now, Lolth and her elves are a special breed of CE. We can clearly see the evil, but a lot of people seem to miss the chaos. And they miss it because of the seemingly structured society they enjoy.
Firstly, the Drow modeled their society on their goddess' rules. And her rules were pretty arbitrary. She started out CG and ended up a CE demon. Being a demon (and CE) does not mean you can't plan or be intricate in things, it just means you're more prone to spontaneity and destruction (in the case of demons). So her rules were very intricate, very detailed, but also very, very random in their purpose.
The Drow followed these rules, primarily because of the authority of their goddess, but also because of the whole getting turned into a Drider thing that sometimes happened if they screwed up and displeased Lolth. As such, they learned that they were better off following the rules. However, their culture rewards bending the rules to their very extreme - such that backstabbing and assassinating a competitor is lauded in private, and often rewarded if one is not caught.
They may be a structured race, but that does not make them lawful.
Anyway, back to debating the merits and detriments of changing the racial bonuses of a race to match a class path that happens to have come into existence after them, and therefore would make no thematic sense to have perfect synergy with their bonuses.
Not to go off topic, but I couldn't help but notice people bringing up the Drow and Lolth being CE in previous editions as a problem of similar magnitude, and for some reason it bugs me enough to want to just make a quick explanation on that.See, Lol
Really? My tiefling does not get it when casting Vampiric Embrace. Is it some short of bug?
If tieflings get a Con bonus, then they need to lose their Int bonus and access to Hellfire Blood so they don't become the only race anyone ever picks for Hellocks.
I know others have said it before and been largely ignored, but say it with me anyway: Hellfire Blood. Hellfire Blood. Hellfire Blood.
If tieflings get a Con bonus, then they need to lose their Int bonus and access to Hellfire Blood so they don't become the only race anyone ever picks for Hellocks.I know others have said it before and been largely ignored, but say it with me anyway:
> If tieflings get a Con bonus, then they need to lose their Int bonus and > access to Hellfire Blood so they don't become the only race anyone ever > picks for Hellocks.
Seconded. This is the basic problem with the premise of the OP: If you make them the "best" infernal warlocks by giving them a +2 Con bonus, then you've pretty much marked the infernal warlock as a tiefling-only option. This also flies in the face of 4E's design principles in that no one race should be the "best" at a given class (and subtype); some may be better than others at a given one, but there should always be at least a few that make equally viable "good" choices.
> If tieflings get a Con bonus, then they need to lose their Int bonus and> access to Hellfire Blood so they don't become the only race anyone ever> picks for Hellocks. Seconded. This is the basic problem with the premise of the OP: If you make them
> If tieflings get a Con bonus, then they need to lose their Int bonus and > access to Hellfire Blood so they don't become the only race anyone ever > picks for Hellocks.
[Snip]
This also flies in the face of 4E's design principles in that no one race should be the "best" at a given class (and subtype); some may be better than others at a given one, but there should always be at least a few that make equally viable "good" choices.
Plus, nobody has proven that Tieflings aren't already the best Hellocks around. Lets look at the Tiefling's assets, both as a Hellock and as a Warlock.
Tiefling Hellock Assets: -Bonus to Secondary Stat (+2 Int) -Racial Feat that gives them an effective +2 state bonus with the majority of Infernal Pact powersm (Hellfire Blood) -Bonus to the other Primary Stat for the Warlock Class as a whole (+2 Cha)
Now these alone make Tieflings almost the undisputed best Hellocks. But if you add in:
Other Tiefling Assets - +1 Atk bonus against bloodied foes (Foes will be bloodied half the time) - Encounter power that gives +1 to atk and +cha mod to damage if the tiefling was hit the previous turn (A hellock doesn't care if hes hit; he has temp hp to soak up a lot of the damage) - +2 Bonuses to two skills, one of which is a Warlock class skill (Bluff +2. Stealth +2) -Fire Resistance 5+1/2 Level against the element their pact uses the most (fire) - Vision: Low-Light
At this point, its hard to find anything that competes with a Tiefling out of the box for an optimal Warlock of any kind, and its hard for any other race to compete with a Tiefling Hellock. Heck, i think Tieflings are actually the single best race in the PHB, but thats just me.
Anyone care to refute the evidence, or has the point actually been taken?
Plus, nobody has proven that Tieflings aren't already the best Hellocks around.Lets look at the Tiefling's assets, both as a Hellock and as a Warlock.Tiefling Hellock Assets:-Bonus to Secondary Stat (+2 Int)-Racial Feat that gives them an effective +
i have always felt the the Half-Elf and Tiefling stat block bonuses should be switched.
Half-Elf: +2 Int., +2 Chr. Tiefling: +2 Con., +2 Chr.
For Half Elves, Int. & Chr.: *offers a more interesting range of stat choices for Dilettante *makes it easier to use the Half-Elf race as written for Half-Eladrin characters. *gives statistical incentive to dabble in arcane classes, a tendancy common with Half-Elves in all previous editions. *would make them the best Bards, as they likely should be.
For Tieflings, Con. & Chr.: *would by far make them the best Infernal Locks, as they should be. *gives greater incentive for them to multi-class into Warlock, very much fitting the flavor of the race, especially when done as a Paladin. *still gives statistical advantage for arcane classes such as Artificers, Bards & Staff Implement Wizards. *adds incentive to choose from a wider range of defender classes.
My two cents
i have always felt the the Half-Elf and Tiefling stat block bonuses should be switched. Half-Elf: +2 Int., +2 Chr.Tiefling: +2 Con., +2 Chr. For Half Elves, Int. & Chr.:*offers a more interesting range of stat choices for Dilettante*makes it easier t
> *would by far make them the best Infernal Locks, as they should be.
As they should NOT be - it's flat-out against 4E's design principles.
Halflings are themed as amazing rogues. Eladrin are themed as spectacular wizards. Are they "by far the best" at those classes? No, they're not - they're among the better choices, but 4E does not operate on the assumption that a certain race should outshine all others at a given class or class subtype.
As for the thematic appropriateness of Int/Cha for tieflings, it fits them perfectly. The people of Bael Turath were noted for being cunning and manipulative, as are the devils that they made their pacts with. Int/Cha represents that. Con does not.
> *would by far make them the best Infernal Locks, as they should be. As they should NOT be - it's flat-out against 4E's design principles. Halflings are themed as amazing rogues. Eladrin are themed as spectacular wizards. Are they "by far the best
A supernatural vigor, aka Con., derived from their infernal heritage makes perfect sense. A manipulative will to power is Charisma, which they have. However, there is nothing that suggests Tieflings should be smarter than anyone else. or that their magic was inherently more sophisticated than normal humans before making infernal pacts. They were humans duped & cursed by devils in their lust for power, many loosing their souls the process - that is not a pedigree of genius by any measure.
There are races which statistically excel at certain class builds. Two examples are: *Elf - Archer Rangers *Halfling - Artful Dodger Rogues
Game design does give statistical incentive for iconic race & class combinations. Many agree that Tieflings as Infernal Locks should be one of them and that Half-Elves making better Infernal Warlocks than Tieflings is counter intuitive. The power creep of new classes and magic items will offset a Con bonus for Tieflings, with either Int or Chr paired with it.
Obviously the game designers don't agree with me either, but that's what house rules and forum discussions are for.
I agree to disagree. A supernatural vigor, aka Con., derived from their infernal heritage makes perfect sense. A manipulative will to power is Charisma, which they have. However, there is nothing that suggests Tieflings should be smarter than anyone
Elf Archer Ranger -+2 to both primary and secondary stats -Shift over natural terrain (the ranger shifts a lot) -Automatic reroll (great for those damaging ranged dailys) -+2 Nature/Perception, two skills that are Ranger role primary
Halfling Artful Dodger -+2 to both primary and secondary stats -+2 AC to OA. Stacks with Artful Dodger class feature -Reroll attack that hits (making Artful Dodgers even more "dodgy") -+2 Acrobatics/Thievery, two skills that are Rogue role primary
Dragonborn Inspiring Warlord -+2 to both primary and secondary stats -Minion controlling encounter ability (keyed off Str, the Warlord primary stat) -+1 Hit when Bloodied (Warlords should be "in the mix", and this feature encourages melee involvement) -+2 History/Intimidate, two skills that are Warlord role primary
Eladrin Wand Wizard -+2 to both primary and secondary stats -Encounter ability designed as an escape route, i.e. non-melee oriented -+2 Arcana/History, two skills that are Wizard role primary
---
If we attempt to substitute another race in any of my above examples, then the combination will simply lack all the 'cohesive' factors found in my samples.
i.e. Tiefling Wand Wizard instead of Eladrin -No bonus to Dex, no escape oriented encounter, no bonus to class role skills
Halfling Archer Ranger -No bonus to Wis, no offensive reroll ability, no bonus to class role skills
Elven Artful Dodger -No bonus to Cha, no defensive reroll, no bonus to class role skills (Perception MAYBE...but that is obviously a Ranger primary)
Half-Elf Inspiring Warlord -No bonus to Str, no minion clearing ability keyed off primary attribute (creative use of dilettante may help), bonus to only one class role skill
---
Lets compare my initial archetype builds to a Tiefling Infernal Warlock
-No bonus to Con (primary stat), Encounter that keys off of Cha (non-stat for Infernal Warlocks), bonus to skills that are not Infernal Warlock role specific (Bluff is Cha based, Stealth isn't even a class skill)
---
My initial four "Stereotypical" combinations are ready "out of the box". No funky builds, no feat placements, no class work arounds are necessary to make those race/class combos work EXTREMELY well.
The Tiefling Infernal Warlock, on the other hand, takes some tricky work to make "optimized". While this is hardly impossible (I'm playing a Tiefling Infernal Warlock in a game), it isn't "Neat and Tidy", as a "Stereotypical" class/race combo should be.
Does the Elven Archer Ranger need a feat and funky stat placement to excel in their role? What about the Halfling Artful Dodger or the Dragonborn Inspiring Warlord?
No, they don't. They have everything already "in place" to make the perfect race/class combo that, "iconically", works for them.
All we (the Tiefling Infernal Warlock Fan Club) want is the same mechanical placement for our beloved horned buddies.
Does that make sense?
I don't believe I can elucidate my point any clearer.
From a pure statistical, mechanical perspective, the following race/class combinations really have no equal.Elf Archer RangerHalfing Artful Dodger RogueDragonborn Inspiring WarlordEladrin Wand WizardI can break this down if you like.Elf Archer Ranger
The tragic is that Tieflings with Hellfire blood can become better wizards than warlocks. Especially in the Realms, a Tiefling Wizard with maxed out int (20) coming from Thay with Hellfire blood deals insane amounts of damage, hitting almost every time... (lvl 1: 1d4+6 against everybody around your Flaming Sphere buhahaha....) ... and he also has pretty decent hit points :D
The tragic is that Tieflings with Hellfire blood can become better wizards than warlocks. Especially in the Realms, a Tiefling Wizard with maxed out int (20) coming from Thay with Hellfire blood deals insane amounts of damage, hitting almost every ti
All in all, I could see the Tief's going either way.
The cha makes more sense to me though thematically because when I think of SAAAATAAAAN!!!(screaming top of lungs with a 80's hair band guitar solo in the background) I think charming, then smart, then a physical threat.
I think the designers made a HUGE design error when they made the Helllocks not a perfect glove fit for Tieflings. The race, which is new to the PH anyway, could use the hell lock as a popularity launching ground. Further, the fact that they fit so well with helllocks fluff-wise but don't work so well mechanics-wise came as a big bummer to me. Hopefully it will be resolved in future releases, but that always strikes me as super weak sauce. Get it right the first time.
As far as classes and races not always having their "glove fit" I think that races and classes that don't have a "Glove Fit" are going to suffer popularity-wise, call it a hunch.
All in all, I could see the Tief's going either way. The cha makes more sense to me though thematically because when I think of SAAAATAAAAN!!!(screaming top of lungs with a 80's hair band guitar solo in the background) I think charming, then smart, t
