Again, that's just homebrewing. The rules do *not* support it., and neither does the setting (whether you are talking 'points of light' or FR. It's not even so much like saying "Nothing's keeping you from playing a drow in Dragonlance" (where drow do not exist) because at least drow have rules in 4e, whereas the pre 4e tieflings are gone both from the setting (if not just swept under the rug) *and* do not have rules.
By default, the Turathi-style Tieflings *are* the default 4e Tieflings, inside or outside of FR. With or without Bael Turath-which I pointed out. Their connection to Asmodeus manifests itself identically whether you are talking the 'points of light' setting or Forgotten Realms itself, and non-infernal Tieflings effectively vanished as soon as 4e hit.
Also, I never claimed the 4th edition FR Tieflings came from Bael Turath, I have called them 'Turathi-style' or Turathi-types' so please stop splitting hairs over that. WOTC used Asmodeus's ascension in the Spellplague to effectively retcon FR Tieflings into the Turathi variety. So for all intents and purposes they are the same, with some differences in their background.
*Important Bit*
Regardless of whether you consider non-Turathi-style Tieflings to exist in 4e FR or not, no matter which way you cut it, pre 4E Tieflings had a wide breadth of ways In which their evil outsider blood may manifest, whereas the new ones 'breed true' and look more or less the same. So for me at least, this seems like a rather cut and dry matter which is 'better' since pre 4e Tieflings included Tieflings that looked like 4e ones, while the new ones *exclude* most of the variety that the old ones brought to the table.
The topic is an aesthetic question. What I don't want to see is the topic turning from an aesthetic question about Tieflings into a war between 2e fans and 4e fans about which system of rules is better.
I much prefer the pre-4e style of Tieflings, mostly for the variety. Also, Pathfinder has revived the old different racial traits based on Tiefling heritage from 2e.
Also, about the lack of variety for tiefling appearance in 4e, sure, if the player was familiar with tieflings as a pre 4e race they could style them however they like. A new player starting with 4e and wanting to play a Tiefling only has one description for what a Tiefling looks like, that of the "Turathi" style. While we know better, a new player who is only familiar with 4e wouldn't know Tieflings can have a varried appearance.
Let's not turn this into (yet a-bloody-nother) Edition War, folks. If I see one more comment on either side of that argument I'll close this thread.
It would never happen to start with if it wasn't made a-okay to bash 4E without remorse around here. If you want to arbitrate about people going off-topic, then say something when somebody peppers their posts with anecdotes about the supposed stupidity of 4E, not when people attempt to argue against them as part of natural discourse.
I do not like the standardized appearance of the 4E tieflings. To me, tieflings should be less a 'race' and more a broad category for people of varying degrees of fiendish descent.
Let's not turn this into (yet a-bloody-nother) Edition War, folks. If I see one more comment on either side of that argument I'll close this thread.
It would never happen to start with if it wasn't made a-okay to bash 4E without remorse around here. If you want to arbitrate about people going off-topic, then say something when somebody peppers their posts with anecdotes about the supposed stupidity of 4E, not when people attempt to argue against them as part of natural discourse.
Or you could try to learn how to not get hung up on and start an argument over every aside that disapproves of something you like.
Again, that's just homebrewing. The rules do *not* support it., and neither does the setting (whether you are talking 'points of light' or FR.
There's literally no rule that goes against it, but plenty to support other forms of fiendish cross-breeds. There are cambions in the monster manual, and there are themes and paragon paths involving demonic or devil blood lore/flavor that have nothing to do with being a tiefling. The Infernal Prince theme can be taken by any player-character, and is flavored to be descended from a Duke of the Nine Hells, particularly Mephistopheles or Asmodeus. There's nothing homebrew about it.
Regardless of whether you consider non-Turathi-style Tieflings to exist in 4e FR or not, no matter which way you cut it, pre 4E Tieflings had a wide breadth of ways In which their evil outsider blood may manifest, whereas the new ones 'breed true' and look more or less the same. So for me at least, this seems like a rather cut and dry matter which is 'better' since pre 4e Tieflings included Tieflings that looked like 4e ones, while the new ones *exclude* most of the variety that the old ones brought to the table.
It's not cut and dry. I like both the 4E-style tieflings and the tieflings of other editions, but I also like the Bael Turath lore in the points-of-light setting. In 4E, both exist, so I prefer 4E.
Or you could try to learn how to not get hung up on and start an argument over every aside that disapproves of something you like.
The problem is that it isn't simply disapproval. Personal and general insults come along with outright erroneous statements or venomous disparaging of 4E. And yet, when somebody tells me how great 2E's racial restrictions are, they're not chastised for going off-topic.
The solution is not to just shut up and take it, and it never will be.
Oh and I prefer the subtle demonic/devilish traits that 2nd edition art had. But this thread is very biased as we're having this poll on a game that revolves around 2E. How about this thread on say the NWN MMO thread?
And yet, when somebody tells me how great 2E's racial restrictions are, they're not chastised for going off-topic.
The restrictions are the only thing in 2E that makes almost no sense (because Dwarven Druids make less sense IMO), but then there are other things of 4E that people bash and don't like much (e.g. being able to play as whatever race you like with no apparent restrictions (ok, i'm exaggerating, i know)). Getting over the classes' racial restrictions by changing the rules a little bit isn't the same as not liking the rules in their (almost, since I have to admit that some, rather small parts of 4E were cool) entirety.
Cambion are basically half-devil/half-human super tieflings. (No-more Demonic born cambions in 4e) Tieflings & Cambions have always been separate species/monster entries anyways, and there are no rules in 4e for playing a cambion on top of this.....so you *would* have to homebrew to play one, so what is that supposed to prove?
Players being able to choose from which lord of the nine hells they descended from doesn't really mean much when all Infernal Tieflings in 4e look more or less the same because they breed true...and really doesn't give any proof of non-infernal tieflings.
There are no descriptions of pre-4e Tieflings in 4e, there are no *rules* to play pre-4e Tieflings in 4e, wheras the oldie tieflings let you play Bael Turath look-alikes if you wanted to.
I'm not voting against 4e because I hate it, like you might think- I'm voting against it because the variety you seem to think 4e Tieflings possess...just isn't there, in the rules, or in the setting.
Cambion are basically half-devil/half-human super tieflings. (No-more Demonic born cambions in 4e) Tieflings & Cambions have always been separate species/monster entries anyways, and there are no rules in 4e for playing a cambion on top of this.....so you *would* have to homebrew to play one, so what is that supposed to prove?
It proves other forms of demonic or devil crossbreeds exist. A cambion has children with a mortal, and that's a tiefling, same as any other edition.
Players being able to choose from which lord of the nine hells they descended from doesn't really mean much when all Infernal Tieflings in 4e look more or less the same because they breed true...and really doesn't give any proof of non-infernal tieflings.
Again, this sets the precedent for other forms of tieflings. Being descended from Mephistopheles makes you a tiefling, in name if not in statblock.
There are no descriptions of pre-4e Tieflings in 4e, there are no *rules* to play pre-4e Tieflings in 4e, wheras the oldie tieflings let you play Bael Turath look-alikes if you wanted to.
I'm not voting against 4e because I hate it, like you might think- I'm voting against it because the variety you seem to think 4e Tieflings possess...just isn't there, in the rules, or in the setting.
There are rules to play pre-4E tieflings. You just play a tiefling and don't take any feats or powers that reference your tail or horns. That isn't homebrew. It's roleplay, and there's plenty of precedent for non-standard tieflings in other settings and there's no reason for them not to exist in FR or Planescape, where they have pretty much always existed.
My comment about bandwagon mentality was not directed at you. Your issue is different. You're just too stubborn to allow non-Turathi tieflings just because the handbooks don't specifically mention them. Your position is that 4E somehow obliterated every tiefling that has ever existed. So, when Asmodeus ascended to godhood, some random demon-blooded tiefling living in Battledale vaporized. And, similarly, I guess when 4E materials covered Sigil, the Lady of Pain must have just wiped out every tiefling in the very setting that created them. You're being stubborn, and unable to see that the implications of your argument leave gaping holes in it.
I did say to leave the "this edition is better/worse than that edition" pieces out of the discussion, and the last several posts are the reason. This argument has been had dozens of times, and so far the only thing it has served to do is create an environment of hostility.
Comments
Again, that's just homebrewing. The rules do *not* support it., and neither does the setting (whether you are talking 'points of light' or FR. It's not even so much like saying "Nothing's keeping you from playing a drow in Dragonlance" (where drow do not exist) because at least drow have rules in 4e, whereas the pre 4e tieflings are gone both from the setting (if not just swept under the rug) *and* do not have rules.
By default, the Turathi-style Tieflings *are* the default 4e Tieflings, inside or outside of FR. With or without Bael Turath-which I pointed out. Their connection to Asmodeus manifests itself identically whether you are talking the 'points of light' setting or Forgotten Realms itself, and non-infernal Tieflings effectively vanished as soon as 4e hit.
Also, I never claimed the 4th edition FR Tieflings came from Bael Turath, I have called them 'Turathi-style' or Turathi-types' so please stop splitting hairs over that. WOTC used Asmodeus's ascension in the Spellplague to effectively retcon FR Tieflings into the Turathi variety. So for all intents and purposes they are the same, with some differences in their background.
*Important Bit*
Regardless of whether you consider non-Turathi-style Tieflings to exist in 4e FR or not, no matter which way you cut it, pre 4E Tieflings had a wide breadth of ways In which their evil outsider blood may manifest, whereas the new ones 'breed true' and look more or less the same. So for me at least, this seems like a rather cut and dry matter which is 'better' since pre 4e Tieflings included Tieflings that looked like 4e ones, while the new ones *exclude* most of the variety that the old ones brought to the table.
Also, about the lack of variety for tiefling appearance in 4e, sure, if the player was familiar with tieflings as a pre 4e race they could style them however they like. A new player starting with 4e and wanting to play a Tiefling only has one description for what a Tiefling looks like, that of the "Turathi" style. While we know better, a new player who is only familiar with 4e wouldn't know Tieflings can have a varried appearance.
It's not cut and dry. I like both the 4E-style tieflings and the tieflings of other editions, but I also like the Bael Turath lore in the points-of-light setting. In 4E, both exist, so I prefer 4E.
The solution is not to just shut up and take it, and it never will be.
Oh and I prefer the subtle demonic/devilish traits that 2nd edition art had. But this thread is very biased as we're having this poll on a game that revolves around 2E. How about this thread on say the NWN MMO thread?
Getting over the classes' racial restrictions by changing the rules a little bit isn't the same as not liking the rules in their (almost, since I have to admit that some, rather small parts of 4E were cool) entirety.
Players being able to choose from which lord of the nine hells they descended from doesn't really mean much when all Infernal Tieflings in 4e look more or less the same because they breed true...and really doesn't give any proof of non-infernal tieflings.
There are no descriptions of pre-4e Tieflings in 4e, there are no *rules* to play pre-4e Tieflings in 4e, wheras the oldie tieflings let you play Bael Turath look-alikes if you wanted to.
I'm not voting against 4e because I hate it, like you might think- I'm voting against it because the variety you seem to think 4e Tieflings possess...just isn't there, in the rules, or in the setting.
Thread Closed.