The tieflings in the PHB are 4e-inspired tieflings and are NOT designed to represent Planescape tieflings. Mike Mearls said that planetouched will come out at a later date (not in the MM or DMG).
For those (like me) who are looking forward to the classic tieflings, this is good news. It means they aren't even trying to shoehorn the tieflings we are looking for into the PHB. They are literally a different race that we will see later.
So, no need to worry because these tieflings don't fit the Planescape ones. These are not the tieflings you're looking for.
I agree that this could be good news, as long as they develop a cool and well-balanced race for planetouched relatively soon. I don't mind the 4e tieflings and but would like to also have demon touched humans with different story as well. I don't mind tiefling being used for these infernal ones. Tiefling as a word to me means "devil-ling" by derivation anyway.
That would be cool and could easily cover aasimar, demons, devils, genasi, and even shades.
It is a strange decision to have 2 different races with the same name, though.
I hate 4th edition Tieflings.
Rastapopoulos wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
I think tieflings are my least favorite race to ever make it into a phb. Still it seems like it would make sense to offer all flavors of tiefling if people want that.
Emerikol. wrote:
Rastapopoulos wrote:
Rastapopoulos wrote:
Love Dragonborn & Love Tieflings. Both have major nations in my homebrew setting.
Sweet. My brother will certainly like that the Planescape races will be making a return. Personally, I like the Tiefling in all its guises and will probably use both variations when the time comes. The Turathi Tiefling already has a place in my homebrew world, alongside the Vryloka from 4E's Heroes of Shadow. So seeing the Turathi Tiefling in the PHB is good in my book. As long as there are options for people to play all the races that have appeared in the starting PHBs over the years, no matter the edition, lke WoTC said they would, then they're doing something right. And it looks like it's happening. The rest will come later, or be homebrewed due to impatience. 
I like the tiefling mechanically, but I don't like how overtly 'devilish' they look in 4e/5e illustrations. But, that is a matter of fluff. I imagine them as able to conceal their heritage much more easily. I don't think a 'disguise kit' can hide a thick 4-5 foot tail, and giant horns, lol. Interestingly, there was an NPC villian tiefling in the 4e Dark Sun campaign guide who severed his tail, and always wore a full-face iron helmet, so the horns looked like part of his headgear.
I will have to home brew in Aasimar if I use 5e tieflings in my own campaign world, however. They are a 'split' race there. No devil/angel heritage, just one race that was made two; for reasons. Like in The Dark Crystal. I used the 4e Deva and Tiefling as written but just refluffed them.
I hope Planescape makes a return too. With alternate rules for tieflings, and other planetouched PC races...Genasi, Bladelings, Aasimar, and so on.
seti wrote:
Luciender wrote:
I'm not overly worried. I mean, do DM's seriously give a crap if the Tiefling at the table fits what the PHB says exactly or matches what the desciption says in the entry? Really? Hows about people who want to incorporate 2E-style Tieflings just bring those versions (flavor, background, appearance, etc.) and just use the stats listed in the PHB? Why, in all honestly, is that difficut?
Diffan wrote:
Diffan wrote:
I'm happy the 5e Tielfling RP material touches on universal issues instead of saying all tielflings struggle with some elemental evil programming inside them like what was said of evilly-aligned monster races in the Basic PDF Alignment section. The latter was a neat idea for god-designed worlds, but I think it was presented with too much "this is how it is in D&D" instead of "this is what some D&D inhabitants postulate". Perfectly ignorable, especially if it doesn't affect future published adventures (ie they want you to kill kobold babies, or something).
Curious if all tielflings in 5e art will look like Hellboy (as they did in 4e) despite the great variety of features described in the article.
zoroaster99 wrote:
Good, the one infernal/devil ancestry/horns and tail/ fits all Tiefling does not do it for me, they can be of other fiendish blood, Daemon/Yugoloth, or Demon (I had a chasme descended NPC that was nifty), etc; I want all the Planetouched: Aaasimar, Chaond, Mechanatrix, Tuladhara, Zenythri, etc.
Gizmoduck_5000 wrote:
Shiroiken wrote:
so how diferent are the ADnD 2nd tieflinf and the DnD 5th tiefling ?
ADnD 2nd.
+1 INT,+1 CHA,, -1 STR,-1 WiS
Infravision 60, darkness 15-foot once per day
Half damage from cold, +2 on saves vs poison fire and electricity
can not be lawful good
5th
+1 INT +1 CHA
Darkvision 60, thaumaturgy, 3rd level helish rebuke, 5th level darkness
resistance to fire
tend toward evil and chaos.
edwin_su wrote:
edwin_su wrote:
Gizmoduck_5000 wrote:
Dreamstryder wrote:
Tieflings have always been -said- to have a wide variety of appearances. The art rarely showed it, however; yeah, it did look like hellboy (and a slutty hellgirl) a lot of times. The most notable exception I can think of is when they did Dragon article about the tiefling city Vor Kragal, and those are a bit... well.... see for yourself.
The one depicted in the preview art is definitely not the one I was looking for.
Mainly because I think the art is terrible. I'm fine with the text.
As someone who has invested zero time in Planescape and had never really dealt with any of the old style Tieflings...I like this race. I love the idea of a monstrous devil race. This game needed a little "darkness" with its fruity elves (not really hatin' on elves! I've often played them) and quaint "little people". Up until the 4e Tiefling if you wanted that dark character we basically had Drow, and those have been done to death.
That being said, in my game I would probably not give them their own city or nation. I think that making them a race that many people have heard rumors and tales about but almost no one has met more suits them.
I suppose in hindsight it was not the greatest decision to handle the Tiefling as they did, but in their defense, why would they worry about alienating fans of a setting that they did not support and had no intention of supporting at the time? Also, I agree that they are sort of a niche race and I'm not so sure it would make sense to spend time muddying it up with subraces,
Zardnaar wrote:
Rastapopoulos wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
Rastapopoulos wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Hebitsuikaza wrote:
Tiefling would be attacked non-stop by most good aligned guards and watchmen as would most overtly orc looking half orcs.
Personally I do not believe Tiefling, dragon born, or warforged have a place in my campaign... half orcs... they have a place.
Rastapopoulos wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Shemeska_the_Marauder wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Gizmoduck_5000 wrote:
Shiroiken wrote:
Cambions are half-demons, not planetouched.
Iuz is a cambion.
dmgorgon wrote:
Shemeska_the_Marauder wrote:
Shemeska_the_Marauder wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
I'd just like to see better Tiefling art in the future. The craptastic 3rd/4th edition art where Tieflings have eyebrow horns is horrible. Not sure which artist was first to do it, but the fact that so many followed is beyond me. They couldn't have made them more lame and ridiculous looking. I hope to see at least some Tiefling art with a more tradition devilish/demonic appearance.
Art of any type is very subject to opinion, and I'm sure plenty will disagree with mine. Nevertheless, it is my opinion.
Shemeska_the_Marauder wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote:
They should have just had the 4e and planetouched versions as subraces. Or, at the very least, they should have had the tiefling's fluff accomodate both types (i.e. some tieflings have fiendish parents or ancestors, while others are descended from humans that made a pact with Asmodeus long ago).
Azzy1974 wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
As a huge fan of the 4E tiefling, I have to say I'm happy they're included in the PHB. It makes logical sense for it to be this way, as 4E was the only edition with tieflings in the initial PHB. Before then, tieflings were in the Planescape splatbook, as I understand (I started playing when 3E released).
It seems quite logical to put Planescape tieflings, aasimar, and genasi as a separate race with several subraces. And I'd be very interested in seeing that race. That race might even be what sells me the Planescape campaign setting when it releases. I can imagine now the worlwide scare that could go through my homebrew setting when Planescape-style tieflings start showing up. Was a new deal struck? Has the curse been modified? What exactly are they? Do the current tieflings view these newcomers as lucky for not being as visibly marked as they are? Or are they unlucky for being an unknown quantity? Perhaps tieflings will raise the biggest stink against these new planetouched people. Will half-orcs view them as kindred souls, or will they shun them?
I do think it stinks for Planescape fans that they don't get their tieflings right away. I can empathize with that, and I do (I want changelings, pretty soon, as they factor heavily into the more ... clandestine parts of my campaign world. And where are my deva?). I do hope that, when the Planescape setting comes around, the tieflings there meet with their approval. Then it's a simple matter of the book stating, "In Planescape, members of this subrace are called tieflings, and this subrace replaces the Tiefling from the Players Handbook."
As an aside, I love the style of the 4E tiefling, as well, "eyebrow horns" and all. And I do not think they look like draenei anymore than humans look like drow.
MechaPilot wrote:
LupusRegalis wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote:
LupusRegalis wrote:
I'm fine with the 4e/5e fluff but i don't see why they didn't just say that homogenous empire version presented as the default was just one type of tiefling and that the variable planescape ones also exist out in the world too. They could easily co-exist without messing up continuity. If they didn't include any text like this in the PHB, it's clearly too late now.
How would everyone feel if they put out a Dragon article detailing the variants, complete with random tables for appearance, and called it official?
MechaPilot wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Shemeska_the_Marauder wrote:
Core, not core...Seriously, if you don't like it or want it at your table, don't use it. Better yet, rewrite/refluff/recrunch it until you do like it.
The game needs more, not less, in the books. Fluff is mutable, even moreso that rule crunch. It blows my mind sometimes how many D&D fans seem to be lacking in creativity and imagination. Some seem rely on WotC writers to do everything for them, and treat what's in the books as sacred, unchangable, gospel truth.
Also, if you are mad that the official campaign worlds changed a little (or a lot) with various newer editions of rules, no one is forcing that change on you. Use your old sourcebooks (or better yet, your own imagination), and play happy.
I am really getting tired of people who don't want or even tolerate any options in the game books that they personally don't like using.
Sorry, I'll step off the soapbox now.
Zardnaar wrote:
seti wrote:
Rastapopoulos wrote:
GhostStepper wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
I really hope Eladrin are back to being the CG Celestial exemplar race, not tele-elves.
Oh, and Archons are back to the LG exemplar celestial race, not militant elementals.
Brock_Landers wrote:
GhostStepper wrote:
GhostStepper wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote:
[quote="Azzy1974"]
No, people are complaining because we would have liked to have had a subrace or at least some fluff text devoted to the planetouched tiefling.
Brock_Landers wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
GhostStepper wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
GhostStepper wrote:
[quote="Mephi1234"]
Azzy1974 wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote:
How I imagine most of the civilized peoples feel about half-fiends
BURN THE HERETIC! KILL THE MUTANT! PURGE THE UNCLEAN!
Yeah, have fun with that.
Cennedi wrote:
[quote="JohnLynch"]
MechaPilot wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
GhostStepper wrote: