I just ran a quick check on the gnome thing. Spirit Ward says it can't be cast on spirits, fey creatures, elementals, or spectral undead. You can cast it on a gnome just fine, so that should mean gnomes aren't fey.
They weren't considered Fey during the 2ed I suppose. They are now, though.
They are not in 5th. Let's just forget 4th ever was a thing, shall we?
I just ran a quick check on the gnome thing. Spirit Ward says it can't be cast on spirits, fey creatures, elementals, or spectral undead. You can cast it on a gnome just fine, so that should mean gnomes aren't fey.
They weren't considered Fey during the 2ed I suppose. They are now, though.
They are not in 5th. Let's just forget 4th ever was a thing, shall we?
Eladrin are in 5e, in the DMG.
They are. And they are not like Tolkien's Eldarin at all. Switching two letters saw to that.
I just ran a quick check on the gnome thing. Spirit Ward says it can't be cast on spirits, fey creatures, elementals, or spectral undead. You can cast it on a gnome just fine, so that should mean gnomes aren't fey.
They weren't considered Fey during the 2ed I suppose. They are now, though.
They are not in 5th. Let's just forget 4th ever was a thing, shall we?
Eladrin are in 5e, in the DMG.
They are. And they are not like Tolkien's Eldarin at all. Switching two letters saw to that.
True, but I was feeling a bit snarky after the "Let's just forget 4th was ever a thing" comment. I can't help it if the statement "Elves aren't fey in any edition of D&D," isn't true.
Gnomes in 5e are fey-like at least. According to the wiki they are Fey but I suppose we'll have to wait until we have a book on the Feywild for 5e to confirm.
In 5e it says they consider good fey as friendly and Forest Gnomes are innately magical with the ability to talk to animals and are skilled in illusion magic.
"As a forest gnome, you have a natural knack for illusion and inherent quickness and stealth. In the worlds of D&D, forest gnomes are rare and secretive. They gather in hidden communities in sylvan forests, using illusions and trickery to conceal themselves from threats or to mask their escape should they be detected. Forest gnomes tend to be friendly with other good-spirited woodland folk, and they regard elves and good fey as their most important allies. These gnomes also befriend small forest animals and rely on them for information about threats that might prowl their lands."
I'm in the camp that gnomes should be considered fey or at least be fey-like. I didn't like 4e for its mechanics but having read the "Heroes of the Feywild" book I love the story potential, lore, and characters.
In 5th, they have the creature type humanoid (I looked it up in the Monster's Manual, it does not say in the PHB). I do think elves lost a lot of their enigma in the d&d interpretation, as did gnomes. As they bot are portrayed, they do not need to be fey, in the campaign I am writing now, I want elves to be (similarish to Tolkien) diminished by their disconnection from the Feywild, with true elves being more like the sidhe (and slaugh) from the Shadowrift Ravenloft adventure. I had not thought much of gnomes, but the forest gnome could be very similarely be written.
I just ran a quick check on the gnome thing. Spirit Ward says it can't be cast on spirits, fey creatures, elementals, or spectral undead. You can cast it on a gnome just fine, so that should mean gnomes aren't fey.
They weren't considered Fey during the 2ed I suppose. They are now, though.
They are not in 5th. Let's just forget 4th ever was a thing, shall we?
Eladrin are in 5e, in the DMG.
They are. And they are not like Tolkien's Eldarin at all. Switching two letters saw to that.
True, but I was feeling a bit snarky after the "Let's just forget 4th was ever a thing" comment. I can't help it if the statement "Elves aren't fey in any edition of D&D," isn't true.
Same here. It just struck me what a rip-off the Eladrin are.
I think also they wanted to keep each creature to one type. Through my research Elves and Gnomes were fey-humanoids. Now they are just humanoids that have features of Fey (Fey ancestry Elf trait, Gnome Cunning Gnome Trait).
I just ran a quick check on the gnome thing. Spirit Ward says it can't be cast on spirits, fey creatures, elementals, or spectral undead. You can cast it on a gnome just fine, so that should mean gnomes aren't fey.
They weren't considered Fey during the 2ed I suppose. They are now, though.
They are not in 5th. Let's just forget 4th ever was a thing, shall we?
Trying to forget 4th edition, but the stench still carries on into 5th, I'm afraid.
What is particularely 4thy in 5th? The abilities that can be used once per short/long rest? The cantrips?
Genuine quistion, I have looked at 4th, and disliked it, I never played it except for the board game.
I just ran a quick check on the gnome thing. Spirit Ward says it can't be cast on spirits, fey creatures, elementals, or spectral undead. You can cast it on a gnome just fine, so that should mean gnomes aren't fey.
They weren't considered Fey during the 2ed I suppose. They are now, though.
They are not in 5th. Let's just forget 4th ever was a thing, shall we?
4th edition? I dont acknowldge any 4th edition. What are you talking about?
The guys at WoTC simply hadnt a good day when they put the ordinal 5 to D&D last edition. They forgot we hadnt gotten a 4th one
@rapsam2003 - No, 4th and 5th Ed turned Tieflings into generic demon people that all have the same traits (big horns, tail, and teeth). 2nd and 3rd Ed Tieflings would all be different depending on what type of infernal creature they descended from and how that taint manifested itself. Most traits were subtle and their description outright said that m fromost Tieflings were visually inseparable humans. As opposed to 4-5th Ed where the taint is super obvious and every Tiefling looks like Hellboy.
@rapsam2003 - No, 4th and 5th Ed turned Tieflings into generic demon people that all have the same traits (big horns, tail, and teeth). 2nd and 3rd Ed Tieflings would all be different depending on what type of infernal creature they descended from and how that taint manifested itself. Most traits were subtle and their description outright said that m fromost Tieflings were visually inseparable humans. As opposed to 4-5th Ed where the taint is super obvious and every Tiefling looks like Hellboy.
You can't imagine how much I want to take Hellboy through a series run right now,,,,
After Asmodeus' Ascension In the 15th century, all tieflings alive on Toril were apparently descended from Asmodeus and all had a similar devilish appearance. Prior to Asmodeus's ascension to godhod, the infernal blood could be diluted through intermarriage, but afterward, the union of a tiefling with another race always produced a tiefling child.[12]
After Asmodeus' Ascension In the 15th century, all tieflings alive on Toril were apparently descended from Asmodeus and all had a similar devilish appearance. Prior to Asmodeus's ascension to godhod, the infernal blood could be diluted through intermarriage, but afterward, the union of a tiefling with another race always produced a tiefling child.[12]
Interesting, I did not know this (though it does not jive well with the alternative tieflings from "Sword coast adventures" (these bring back random traits). I thought the alternative were a lot more interesting than the base).
though it does not jive well with the alternative tieflings from "Sword coast adventures" (these bring back random traits). I thought the alternative were a lot more interesting than the base.
I assume you're referring to the Tiefling Variant in the Sword Coast Adventures supplement book?
TIEFLING VARIANTS Since not all tieflings are of the blood of Asmodeus, some have traits that differ from those in the Player's Handbook. The Dungeon Master may permit the following variants for your tiefling character, although Devil's Tongue, Hellfire, and Winged are mutually exclusive. Appearance. Your tiefling might not look like other tieflings. Rather than having the physical characteristics described in the Player's Handbook, choose l d4 + l of the following features: small horns; fangs or sharp teeth; a forked tongue; catlike eyes; six fingers on each hand; goat-like legs; cloven hoofs; a forked tail; leathery or scaly skin; red or dark blue skin; cast no shadow or reflection; exude a smell of brimstone. Feral. Your Intelligence score increases by l, and your Dexterity score increases by 2. This trait replaces the Ability Score Increase trait. Devil's Tongue. You know the vicious mockery cantrip. When you reach 3rd level, you can cast the charm person spell as a 2nd-level spell once with this trait. When you reach 5th level, you can cast the enthrall spell once with this trait. You must finish a long rest to cast these spells once again with this trait. Charisma is your spellcasting ability for them. This trait replaces the Infernal Legacy trait. Hellfire. Once you reach 3rd level, you can cast the burn-ing hands spell once per day as a 2nd-level spell. This trait replaces the hellish rebuke spell of the Infernal Legacy trait. Winged. You have bat-like wings sprouting from your shoulder blades. You have a flying speed of 30 feet. This trait replaces the Infernal Legacy trait.
I don't see how it conflicts. It simply allows for an exception, if the player wants to roleplay a Tiefling who is NOT descended from Asmodeus. It's similar to how the Unearthed Arcana: That Old Black Magic supplement book provides 2 tiefling variants: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-BT_PSB49zNRUs1VklJcms2eUk/view?usp=sharing . It's still very much in line with lore; it's just that exceptions are just that, exceptions to the rule...as in, "rare". Prior to Asmodeus' ascent to godhood, Tieflings may have more "variety". For example, in the Planeswalkers Book (a 2E supplement book), you had to roll for your tiefling trait. See page 80 here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-BT_PSB49zNOE1wY3dxUkZkbEU/view?usp=sharing . However, even going by the description way back in 2E, it's obvious that most folks viewed tieflings as "of the lower planes". So, they were already reviled as "demonic/devilish"; that was basically part of most tieflings' personalities. The 5E version of Tieflings is just that tieflings descended from Asmodeus tend to be the most common variant out there.
4th edition was great, returning to the roots of D&D; tabletop miniature battles! It just got way too slow halfway through the levelling process.
The lore in 4E was jacked up as hell. WotC mostly corrected that in 5E. I mean, they let the Spellplague change EVERYTHING, and residual effects were still felt almost 100 years after the Spellplague began. Abeir and Toril partially collided. It. Was. A. Mess.
After Asmodeus' Ascension In the 15th century, all tieflings alive on Toril were apparently descended from Asmodeus and all had a similar devilish appearance. Prior to Asmodeus's ascension to godhod, the infernal blood could be diluted through intermarriage, but afterward, the union of a tiefling with another race always produced a tiefling child.[12]
Interesting, I did not know this (though it does not jive well with the alternative tieflings from "Sword coast adventures" (these bring back random traits). I thought the alternative were a lot more interesting than the base).
In 1st edition, Asmodeus, along with the other Dukes of Hell and Archdemons, where considered lesser gods and could grant cleric spells up to level 6.
@rapsam2003 - No, 4th and 5th Ed turned Tieflings into generic demon people that all have the same traits (big horns, tail, and teeth). 2nd and 3rd Ed Tieflings would all be different depending on what type of infernal creature they descended from and how that taint manifested itself. Most traits were subtle and their description outright said that m fromost Tieflings were visually inseparable humans. As opposed to 4-5th Ed where the taint is super obvious and every Tiefling looks like Hellboy.
You should check out the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide's entry on Tieflings. It may have what you're looking for.
Edit: I was scooped and rapsam quoted the relevant text.
Also, I don't think the change to tieflings is all that bad.
Not a great fan of 4E personally. Don't detest it that said.
Whilst the whole Asmodeus as a deity seems a legit reason as to why some tieflings features would become more pronounced, I personally am not a fan of that whole aesthetic re-imagining.
To me they look like full on, blatant half-fiends, not merely mortals with a 2-3 minor features that speak to demonic/devilish ancestry several generations removed.
I used to play a tiefling paladin of Mystra in Icewind Dale 2 who I rp'd as having a splash of Rakshasa blood - I imagined her as having cat like eyes, prominent teeth / pronounced fangs and a dusky tone to her skin when angered - but otherwise appeared human.
That's as far as I like to take it with the look of my tiefling characters.
Comments
They have never seemed to gnow what to do with knomes.
Genuine quistion, I have looked at 4th, and disliked it, I never played it except for the board game.
Tieflings actually were always that way, even back in 3.5. 5E rebalanced them though. Dragonborn are new, of course, as of 4E.
The guys at WoTC simply hadnt a good day when they put the ordinal 5 to D&D last edition. They forgot we hadnt gotten a 4th one
From http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Tiefling#After_Asmodeus.27_Ascension : Having an Infernal god tends to change things.
This article has a bit of history of Asmodeus: http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Asmodeus
This article has a bit of history of Asmodeus: http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Asmodeus
Interesting, I did not know this (though it does not jive well with the alternative tieflings from "Sword coast adventures" (these bring back random traits). I thought the alternative were a lot more interesting than the base).
I don't see how it conflicts. It simply allows for an exception, if the player wants to roleplay a Tiefling who is NOT descended from Asmodeus. It's similar to how the Unearthed Arcana: That Old Black Magic supplement book provides 2 tiefling variants: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-BT_PSB49zNRUs1VklJcms2eUk/view?usp=sharing . It's still very much in line with lore; it's just that exceptions are just that, exceptions to the rule...as in, "rare".
Prior to Asmodeus' ascent to godhood, Tieflings may have more "variety". For example, in the Planeswalkers Book (a 2E supplement book), you had to roll for your tiefling trait. See page 80 here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-BT_PSB49zNOE1wY3dxUkZkbEU/view?usp=sharing . However, even going by the description way back in 2E, it's obvious that most folks viewed tieflings as "of the lower planes". So, they were already reviled as "demonic/devilish"; that was basically part of most tieflings' personalities. The 5E version of Tieflings is just that tieflings descended from Asmodeus tend to be the most common variant out there.
They could have done with a better explanation of the shaman spells though. Simply listing the affected creatures would do wonders.
http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Spellplague
In 1st edition, Asmodeus, along with the other Dukes of Hell and Archdemons, where considered lesser gods and could grant cleric spells up to level 6.
Edit: I was scooped and rapsam quoted the relevant text.
Also, I don't think the change to tieflings is all that bad.
Whilst the whole Asmodeus as a deity seems a legit reason as to why some tieflings features would become more pronounced, I personally am not a fan of that whole aesthetic re-imagining.
To me they look like full on, blatant half-fiends, not merely mortals with a 2-3 minor features that speak to demonic/devilish ancestry several generations removed.
I used to play a tiefling paladin of Mystra in Icewind Dale 2 who I rp'd as having a splash of Rakshasa blood - I imagined her as having cat like eyes, prominent teeth / pronounced fangs and a dusky tone to her skin when angered - but otherwise appeared human.
That's as far as I like to take it with the look of my tiefling characters.