Dark Sun returns

[Data Vampire]

I may have worded that wierd, but that's what I was saying. I thought tieflings, Tanna'ruk, and Fey'ri were all Tieflings, and that the Tanna'ruk and Fey'ri were variations.

I'm very confused about all this now.

I found the entry for Tanna'ruk and Fey'ri in Monsters of Faerun and they are listed under "PLANETOUCHED, TIEFLING". However, Races of Faerun lists the Fey'ri as planetouched alone. I also found references to dwarven Maeluth and halfling Wisplings on wikipedia.

So it looks like the 3.0 Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting had the variant tieflings.

[Data Vampire]

Well, you could play them that way, but the fluff states they are the decedents of the formally human royalty of Bael Trrath that have been tainted by the pact with Devils that the leaders made.

How this in any way contradicts their "my stupid rubber forehead makes me misunderstood, and hated, and angsty" theme? Which is, again, their one and only defining trait.

How you choice to play them is up to you, so the misunderstood and angsty theme would be the players doing. In addition it is the tiefling history and many actually acting like the stereotype that give the bad rep. So it isn't the Rubber Forehead that does it.

So instead of poring on the Wangst you could play the Badass Abnormal or Jerkass if you want.

[Pinniped]

The line must mean that the character continues to make checks right away, potentially losing multiple surges until he succeeds.

Thanks for this. That seems to work much better.

I don't know, I don't want to sound too difficult but isn't it a little too deadly?

Sounds about right to me -- the average human has a hard time going even a day without water. Three days of no water for someone with an unexceptional constitution and no endurance training certainly could be fatal. If it sounds a bit too fatal, you could cap the maximum number of failures. Alternatively, if it doesn't seem right that the wizard goes from just fine to dead on the third day, you could start making the checks sooner, such as a DC 10 check on day 1.

By tweaking the parameters, I'm sure you could come with a good model for anything from simply surviving in a temperate, shady forest to hauling a heavy load across a scorching desert.

[FatR]

How you choice to play them is up to you, so the misunderstood and angsty theme would be the players doing. In addition it is the tiefling history and many actually acting like the stereotype that give the bad rep. So it isn't the Rubber Forehead that does it.

Well I know that I can play them however I want. Does not change the fact that the fluff does not offer anything but horned Drizzts. Except that their race is just misunderstood, as opposed to actually being evil. And everything is still about the rubber forehead. Because it, you know, is the only reason why you could possible care about some piece of ancient history.

[Data Vampire]

Well I know that I can play them however I want. Does not change the fact that the fluff does not offer anything but horned Drizzts. Except that their race is just misunderstood, as opposed to actually being evil. And everything is still about the rubber forehead. Because it, you know, is the only reason why you could possible care about some piece of ancient history.

If it's a fact then prove it.

[FatR]

If it's a fact then prove it.

PHB p. 48:
"Play a tiefling if you want . . .
✦ to be a hero who has a dark side to overcome."
Except their dark side... is their rubber foreheads, because tiefling get no alignment or mechanical restrictions ever. Fight the dark influence of your rubber forehead, fight it!
Also, PHB p.49:
"Tiefling Characteristics: Cunning, disquieting, imposing, mysterious, proud, rebellious, self-reliant, sinister, sly, unconventional"
aka being Drizzt.

[erik]

I won't deny that it looks like 4e did some appearance mods to make their new race versions look like WoW counterparts; however, I would be pissed as a 4e player if I had to deal with alignment restrictions or some crap for a given race... even if it was the fake alignment restrictions from 3e. You know, the ones where some races were universally evil (for no understandable reason), except for player characters, in the very fine print.

I'm perfectly happy with 4e not imposing any alignment or mechanical restrictions on the roleplay of tieflings. That stuff should be relegated to fluff anyway. I just wish they hadn't made them so damned horny as a rule.

[MartinHarper]

Except their dark side... is their rubber foreheads, because tiefling get no alignment or mechanical restrictions ever. Fight the dark influence of your rubber forehead, fight it!

The dark side of tieflings is their tendency to fury due to their diabolic blood. The mechanical effect of this is the Infernal Wrath power.

[Just another user]

Thanks for this. That seems to work much better.

I don't know, I don't want to sound too difficult but isn't it a little too deadly?

Sounds about right to me -- the average human has a hard time going even a day without water. Three days of no water for someone with an unexceptional constitution and no endurance training certainly could be fatal. If it sounds a bit too fatal, you could cap the maximum number of failures. Alternatively, if it doesn't seem right that the wizard goes from just fine to dead on the third day, you could start making the checks sooner, such as a DC 10 check on day 1.

By tweaking the parameters, I'm sure you could come with a good model for anything from simply surviving in a temperate, shady forest to hauling a heavy load across a scorching desert.

Well, the deadliness is all about tastes, I suppose, but reading better the real problem is that as a system is pointless. you have X days where you are totally fine, then you have 2-3 days where you start rolling to lose healing surges-hit points and then, depending on how you read it either die or automatically lose. Either way it would be simpler to say "you can survive 3 + Endurance/5 days without water, after that you die/lose 1 healing surge or level hit points for day", etc, etc. as it is now rolling it seems kinda pointless.

[FatR]

The dark side of tieflings is their tendency to fury due to their diabolic blood. The mechanical effect of this is the Infernal Wrath power.

Not only the fluff does not even seem to mention this, the assertion that adding a piddly bonus to attack powers (in a game where everyone is supposed to use attack powers all the time) is somehow relevant to roleplay or supports some in-setting concept is stupid. About as stupid as saying that takes Weapon Focus represents a serial killer tendencies in your character.

[tzor]

Paladins in AD&D must be LG. Your arrogance in asserting that the 3e designers didn’t know what they were doing because they kept in that legacy item is one of those face-desky things. You might disagree with their decision, but that doesn’t mean that they didn’t know what they were doing.

I'm well aware that they had to be LG in AD&D, seeing as I have played it. Guess what?

It was a mistake back then too. Oftentimes, bad design decisions get grandfathered into new editions or new versions of games, and stick around until someone grows a pair and says "This is retarded" and fixes it.

I strongly disagree; it was not a mistake back then. Once the nature of the Paladin changed (around 2E) it became a mistake and then continued to be a mistake.

D&D started with a single dimensional alignment system and in AD&D the two dimensional alignment system was created. Within that system were three points of alignment light, with two dedicated towards semi-casters.

Paladins were the paragon of the LG
Rangers were the paragon of the CG
Druids were the paragon of the TN

The religious shit of paladins came from the alignment; if you are wacky good and wacky lawfull it makes sense you sould be wacky loyal to a wacky good god. But 1E made it clear that the paladin derived all of his powers from his dedication to the ideals of his alignment.

(Actually I think the ranger thing was just the convention of everyone I knew at the time.)

[Thymos]

From various posts by of various designers I got the feeling that they didn't want to put in multiclass restrictions nor Monk and Paladin alignment restrictions. Grumpy playtesters complained about it so much they put them in regardless though apparently.

[CatharzGodfoot]

(Actually I think the ranger thing was just the convention of everyone I knew at the time.)

"All rangers must be of good alignment (q.v.), although they can be lawful, chaotic, or neutral otherwise." -1st edition Player's Handbook, page 24

[MartinHarper]

Not only the fluff does not even seem to mention this...

It's right there in the name and flavour text of the Infernal Wrath power.

...the assertion that adding a piddly bonus to attack powers (in a game where everyone is supposed to use attack powers all the time) is somehow relevant to roleplay or supports some in-setting concept is stupid.

Yes. It is precisely as stupid as the assertion that the the lack of alignment or mechanical restrictions on tieflings is a failure to support the in-setting concept of them having a "dark side to overcome".

[Kaelik]

Sounds about right to me -- the average human has a hard time going even a day without water. Three days of no water for someone with an unexceptional constitution and no endurance training certainly could be fatal. If it sounds a bit too fatal, you could cap the maximum number of failures. Alternatively, if it doesn't seem right that the wizard goes from just fine to dead on the third day, you could start making the checks sooner, such as a DC 10 check on day 1.

By tweaking the parameters, I'm sure you could come with a good model for anything from simply surviving in a temperate, shady forest to hauling a heavy load across a scorching desert.

The point is that having an elaborate rolling system based off of the assumption that 90% of characters will fail to make the roll at all on day 5 is dumb.

If that's how it actually works, then you are fine on day 3, on day 4 you have a 50% chance of losing a healing surge, on day 5 you lose two more healing surges, on day 6 you roll 20 more times for no goddam reason and then instantly die.

Personally, you are absolutely stretching, it doesn't say to keep rolling or to roll again on failure, it says to continue on and roll the next day, but either way, as Frank said, no matter what it actually means, there should be no rolling involved at all.

[mandrake]

For the record, I play my tiefling bard as being hardened by years in the city guard, which he later "betrayed" by overthrowing the local dictator, forcing him to flee his home. That's not really "dark past" in my opinion, because it happened in game, like 3 levels ago.

[FatR]

It's right there in the name and flavour text of the Infernal Wrath power.

Flavor text of 4E powers is generally meaningless. And mechanically this power boils down to a piddly bonus against an enemy who just have smaked you. Which does not even mean anything in-setting, because wounds in 4E are not wounds.

Yes. It is precisely as stupid as the assertion that the the lack of alignment or mechanical restrictions on tieflings is a failure to support the in-setting concept of them having a "dark side to overcome".

Bullshit. There is no dark side in mechanics. Therefore there is no support for such in-setting concept (which doesn't exist, anyway). Saying otherwise is exactly the same as defending skill challenges on the ground that a DM can make them work.

[Thymos]

I don't have access to it anymore, but my source on Tieflings being a race of Drizzt was the 4e preview book that went over the races.

It just had some fluff and developers talking about their fluff. Tieflings were "misunderstood with evil history thousands of years ago and not actually bad, yet are persecuted because of their looks". If that's not Drizzt only somehow worse... I don't know what to say.

[RandomCasualty2]

The players are going to go off the rails. Hard. And it isn't necessarily going to be deliberate or intentional.

Yeah. Which is really why I advocate having a system that allows fast encounter creation that can be done without slowing the game.

Railroading is a bad thing and players shouldn't feel like asshats if they want to go off the tracks for some reason, and thus the system should not encourage you to railroad, which it totally does if it makes encounters take too long to create.

An encounter building system needs to be both fast and accurately able to place difficulty. The 3.5 system can do none of those, and thus it is a total piece of crap.

[MartinHarper]

There is no dark side in mechanics. Therefore there is no support for such in-setting concept.

Also, there's no long ears in mechanics. Therefore there is no support for the in-setting concept of elves having long ears.

[FatR]

Also, there's no long ears in mechanics. Therefore there is no support for the in-setting concept of elves having long ears.

You're only proving my point, you know? Yes, tieflings' entire "dark side" plays exactly the same role in the game as elves's long ears. I.e., none at all.

[ubernoob]

Also, there's no long ears in mechanics. Therefore there is no support for the in-setting concept of elves having long ears.

You're only proving my point, you know? Yes, tieflings' entire "dark side" plays exactly the same role in the game as elves's long ears. I.e., none at all.

In 3.5, elves at least got a racial bonus to listen checks.

[Psychic Robot]

TD, I'm done arguing with you on the basis that you can't formulate an actual argument. You're trying to pass off your opinions as fact, you're arguing selectively despite my requests for you not to do so, and you're just being obstinate and deliberately obtuse. You're obviously wrong to anyone with more than three braincells. Furthermore, you've managed to confuse "commercial success" with "being good."

4e is a commercial success. That has nothing to do with it being good. Likewise, Twilight is a commercial success. By your reasoning, Twilight is good. Are you telling me that Twilight has any redeeming qualities whatsoever? (Let me answer that for you: no, it does not. And 4e's ability to generate revenue doesn't prove that it's a well-designed game.)

Oh, and then you called me a retarded pedophile.

Classy.

[Voss]

Also, there's no long ears in mechanics. Therefore there is no support for the in-setting concept of elves having long ears.

You're only proving my point, you know? Yes, tieflings' entire "dark side" plays exactly the same role in the game as elves's long ears. I.e., none at all.

In 3.5, elves at least got a racial bonus to listen checks.

In 4e, they are antenna arrays- its how they pass out a perception bonus to the rest of the party. When their ears start quivering, the party knows to be on alert.

[RandomCasualty2]

4e is a commercial success. That has nothing to do with it being good. Likewise, Twilight is a commercial success. By your reasoning, Twilight is good. Are you telling me that Twilight has any redeeming qualities whatsoever? (Let me answer that for you: no, it does not. And 4e's ability to generate revenue doesn't prove that it's a well-designed game.)

I mean I hate Twilight, and I think it sucks. But a lot of people do find redeeming qualities about it.

Really if people bought 4E and continue to buy 4E products, then it does prove that it has some good qualities. You may not think so, but then there are people that thought 3E sucked and would likely say the same thing about any commercial success that had.

It's really more about what people are looking for. We have a slanted view of RPGs because unlike most gamers we played 3.5 above 5th level. Most 3.5 games started at 1st level, and probably broke up or ended before they even made it to 4th. They probably didn't have any kind of engaging overarching plot and were a series of one shot dungeon crawls with a little plot reason to be in there like "rescue the princess" or "kill the goblin king." And there wasn't scry/teleport ambushes, there wasn't locate object used to triangulate the position of treasure, and people didn't walk around with a wand of wraith strike.

It was a straight up dungeon crawl, where you opened doors and you killed shit. And for that style, 4E works actually pretty well. It's a pretty basic dungeon crawling RPG that doesn't penalize stupidity all that heavily (so it's more accessible to newbies) and is easy enough for most people to pick up.

Now most of us at the den want something deeper than that, but I don't necessarily think that your average D&D player does.