Hot off Twitter . . . EDIT: Added second page from later tweet.
I liked the 4e tiefling, but I had hoped there would be more bloodlines.
I'm disappointed in the quality of this art.
I'm disappointed tiefling is a thing but I am stubborn and close minded too, so there's that. =)
I dislike that they're sticking with the overtly obvious "devil-man" look that was introduced in 4th edition. I always preferred the more subtle "one or two small infernal features" of older editions. That said, appearance is flufff anyways, so doesnt bother me too much.
The art really looks like some sort of semi-passable cosplay or a bad B-movie make-up job.
But, this really doesn't say a whole lot... I might suggest they are too attached to one particular interpretation of the race though.
I think it is good for their to be some clear defining features of the tiefling appearance - but then, I've run into too many players that were insisting that they should be able to get all the advantages of a tiefling without the only disadvantage (that you can be seen as being not human, and various NPCs have issues with that) ever even possibly coming up.
I am also glad that it seems they have stepped back from the protrusion-heavy, always the wrong skintone to be human appearance of 4e, finding a solid middleground of "you absolutely have horns, a tail, and eyes that are difficult to hide, but you can look pretty much exactly like a human otherwise."
Check out the rules!
That's tiny: Here: https://twitter.com/Morrus/status/487686394895425536/photo/1
I liked it better when no one had a +2 to any stat. I don't the pigeonholing it promotes.
Here, we have a tiefling that gets a +2 to Cha along with racial abilities that key off of Cha. You're strongly discouraged from taking anything other than a Cha oriented class if you want to play a tiefling.
Looks pretty cool to me. I have never played a tiefling but will look forward to trying one out. Artwork is nice also.
GhostStepper wrote:
One of the players in my group is playing a tiefling ranger and seems to be enjoying it well enough.
It's entirely possible to have fun with a "suboptimal" class/race combo.
I like that they know the Thaumaturgy cantrip. Definitely going to use that liberally if I play a Tiefling. For the most part, I don't have any issues with the stats, and the issues most people have are fluff related. The fandom is in a pretty sad state when they say they can't play something because the fluff says otherwise. So much for imagination...
Silver_Blaze wrote:
GhostStepper wrote:
So the sometimes reviled, often mistrusted race begin play with the highest Charisma. Huh?
Brimleydower wrote:
Tiefling, LOL.
Back in my time there were no tieflings!
Brimleydower wrote:
Silver_Blaze wrote:
kill_the_wiz_first wrote:
GhostStepper wrote:
Ugh...the art is just awful. So bummed I have to look at this stuff everytime I crack the PHB open. 
Jay_Ibero_911 wrote:
Very, very happy to see the Tiefling make the cut over to the 5th edition PHB. Not so much of a fan of the art. I'm not saying it's terrible (it's actually quite good) but there's just something that bothers me about it. Just like the Dwarf, I find the Tiefling disappointing. Maybe it'll grow on me. Plus, I should really wait until I have the PHB in my hands to make a final verdict.
GhostStepper wrote:
As someone who isn't interested in 4e in general, and would like to see the Planescape tiefling and aasimar, I'm very happy about this.
Why? Because it is clearly intended to represent the 4e tiefling, and only the 4e tiefling--which means they can still do the traditional planetouched races (including old-school tiefling and aasimar) at a later date.
That makes me happy. 
Also, this tiefling is actually a lot more appealing and interesting to me than it was in the 4e PHB, so I'm even somewhat tempted to find a way to fit it into my campaign.
Don't like the art for multiple reasons, looks unfinished heavy brush strokes, the face, the colors used, it just looks bad. This and the warlock art we have seen are both just dull and uninspiring.
Fluff of the tiefling, could care less didn't read most of it hardly ever do, I just make up my own fluff for my worlds.
Mechanics, not a fan of 1/day spell like abilities, not a fan of delayed racial abilities so double bad.
Highly disappointed overall, but when I do play I never play tieflings anyway.
Mmm... I'm disappointed. Other than darkvision, there's nothing to suggest that tieflings would make good rogues. That's as much a classic for the race as warlock. At least a free proficency in Bluff or something.
While Thaumaturgy is always fun, its not exactly useful for anything other than cool special effects. I love having it, and I'll use it a ton, but its not what I'd really call a notable benefit. Hellish Rebuke, a damage spell, is unlikely to scale, and therefore basically become worthless in time. Darkness is a very situational utility spell. Given that warlocks are at-will casters, and likely a popular choice, there's a high chance you can learn hellish rebuke and darkness as At-Will spells. Making the tiefling option completely worthless.
Fire resistance is ST dependant. Are you facing fire stuff, or not? Even then... its only halving damage - tieflings lend themselves to casters with that attribute spread, and half damage is still damage, and causes Concentration checks.
I really hope there's some subraces, because, as things stand... I'm exceedingly underwhelmed right now. The only bonus is the attributes, given that there's no other Charisma race; this lets them get in on some pally, bard, warlock, and sorcerer action. And that's about it.
Regarding classic tieflings, here's something from the last playtest packet tiefling section: "Some members of a similar race, the planetouched, also carry fiendish blood, but it is diluted in comparison to the tieflings' infernal heritage." So do not lose hope.
Brimleydower wrote:
FallingIcicle wrote:
strider13x wrote:
Tiefling is a kitsch race in the first place, just like dragonborn. Frankly, I'm glad no one likes the art and finds their stats uninspiring. I wouldn't want anyone at my table opting into playing this trash in the first place.
Grifford wrote:
docdoom77 wrote:
Grifford wrote:
The more I think about it, the more I'm beginning to warm to the new tieflings as a rogue race. Hellish rebuke is possibly a spell that works like Shield, but offensively, or maybe like the 4x version that combines hellfire blast with hellfire shield from 3.x hellfire warlock; either way, you're dealing Sneak Attack damage on the off turn with it, which is nice. Darkness is always an all right spell for hiding, though not exactly something I suggest for combat. But, still good for rogue.
The only thing I would add would be some way to do this more than once a day. Maybe through the Arcane Training feat system, or talk to the GM about swapping a uses of Darkness and H.R., or something.
It'll be a very flashy rogue, but still with some rather killer (ha!) moves.
Yahoo! I really like the Tiefling, though in my campaign they aren't reviled or treated with a lack of trust (there have been tieflings for long enough that the majority of people have forgiven or forgotten the original sins). The mechanics are cool too, especially the spells (gives good ideas for custom race builds involving magical powers).
The art is very poor. I like the outfit, but the face (one of the most important parts) is very blurry and poorly defined. The hair just looks like a blob, the horns are small and sad looking, and the face lacks enough detail to make an impact.
Mephi1234 wrote:
Not a huge fan of the art but I do like the stats and appearance. I thought the 4e style took something that was little more than a template for humans and turned it into a full fledged race all itself. I think people would have liked it a lot more except that it replaced beloved races from previous editions (gnome, half-elf and half-orc) and so tieflings and dragonborns bore the brunt of that anger. In fact I think as the "new races on the block" when 4e came out they came to represent 4e, so if you hated 4e than these races were trash and you weren't allowing them at your table.
Of course that's why the 4e tiefling had to be in here. You may have hated 4e and it may be impossible for you to see how anyone could have liked it but a lot of us did. I love that 5e draws from every edition but if that's really true it has to draw from 4e too. if big tailed tielfings (seems like name of a magazine you find under a young dwarf lad's bed) weren't included than that would be saying that 4e players are not welcome.
Maybe I'm wrong but it seems like it wouldn't be that hard to ignore the look (or the race entirely). Not every race belongs in every campaign. I wouldn't allow warforged in my Dragonlance campaign (even though I love warforged) and so I don't see the problem with having a no tiefling policy.
On the other hand I guess I sort of get it. I mean it's like those books 3rd party publishers used to sell with ton of overpowered feats. Sure as a DM I could tell players they can't use those feats but they sometimes would get pretty insistent and I would prefer they get to play what they want. It would have made my life easier if those feats did not exist.
It's a conundrum but I for one think Wizards did the best they could here (art aside).
For the record, this is how Farideh is supposed to look: 
Mephi1234 wrote:
---- MECHANICS ----
"Tiefling characters gain a +1 bonus on Intelligence and Charisma scores, but suffer a -1 penalty to Strength and Wisdom. Tieflings can be of any alignment save lawful good. They also gain a number of special abilities, based on their mysterious heritage: They possess infravision to a range of 60 feet and have the ability to create darkness, 15-foot radius once per day. Tieflings suffer only half damage from cold-based attacks, and they gain a +2 bonus to all saving throws vs. fire, electricity, or poison."
Seems to me that they got the racial bonuses about right.
Except the resistance to fire which is wrong. The correct one is cold.
The bonuses on saves I can understand they taking away, as Advantage against all those things might have made the race too powerful, and for 2e standards those weren't the most significant benefits of the race anyway. They added some extra spell-like abilities to compensate, I suppose. So we only need to correct the wrong resistance, change it to cold, and I think the race is about right in 5e.
---- APPEARANCE ----
"Tieflings are the offspring of the planes, as varied as the places they call home. Superficially human, their appearance always betrays them: some sport small horns, other have pointed ears, scales, a cloven hoof, or just a wicked gleam in their eye that never leaves."
Being as varied as lower-plane inhabitants go, I guess the art of the 5e Tiefling is okay.
I hadn't seen a purple Tiefling yet, but I guess it's possible if descending from a purple-skinned creature. The tail looks more draconic than fiendish, though, but I guess lower-plane denizens with such tails are also possible.
---- STORY ----
The fluff is just wrong, and it's the part that really bothers me. Tieflings are plane-touched outcasts, often referred to as the "orphans of the planes." They are a crossbreed between humans and "something else" which is often from the lower planes. They are direct descendants of some fiend who crossbred with humanoids at some point in the family's lineage.
Pact? Ancient sin? Infused essence of Asmodeus?
That's just nonsense. Tieflings are not even necessarily related to the Nine Hells, much less to a specific deity, they may be descendants from fiends of different planes. And they are the result of crossbreeding, not some "pact with the devil infusing someone with hellish essence."
Now I don't mind changing the fluff, origin or story of a race for a specific new setting. Dark Sun races are all very different and they're cool. But in the PHB, a core book, you don't pick a classic and established race and change its background completely. It makes no sense doing so. People who already play D&D come from a certain background and you're suddenly changing it, making it incompatible with what they have been playing for no reason. It's like saying that now Dwarfs are short because they come from another planet where a stronger gravity made them shorter, or that elves are all born from magically-altered dragon eggs. Are these viable explanations? Yes. But there is no point in changing this kind of fluff to something else (even worse for something so specific) that will only cause conflict with the legacy of the game.
An alternative would be to not specify anything of the sort in the core book races, just tell they're crossbreeds with fiends, and let each setting or game table specify with its own fluff and origin. But the worst thing to do is create a specific story that contradicts the story of the game.
Fortunatelly, fluff is easy enough to ignore, and change to whatever suits you.
But it's still pointless to make this kind of change.
Grifford wrote:
Rastapopoulos wrote:
The_White_Sorcerer wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote:
souldoubt wrote:
I like the art and the rules, but would have preferred if the term tiefling was used to encompass greater variety, such as those decended from demons, not just the devil tieflings. Maybe humans with demon bloodline can be used as the concept for a wholly different player character race.
"To be greeted with stares and whispers, to suffer violence and insult on the street, to see mistrust and fear in every eye: this is the lot of the tiefling."
The first line of the text that tells about the tiefling.
+2 Charisma
Um...
thehobb wrote:
thehobb wrote:
The_White_Sorcerer wrote:
Rastapopoulos wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
I have no issue with the 4e version of the tiefling being represented, I would just have liked if they included the original 2e tiefling as well, it would have been easy to make those two (Asmodean and Planetouched) subraces of the tiefling race. I think it's a real failure to not include both.
I thought they were originally going to have 3 subraces of Teifling. Infernal, Abyssal and Gehennen (Best I could think of for the Yugoloths.)
The picture makes me even sadder now that I know it is a depiction of Farideh. They should have used whoever drew this.
wildboar wrote:
She looks like my mother-in-law.
She's entitled to a few bad hair days after being stuck in the Nine Hells for several years. It happens.
jocanuck wrote:
GhostStepper wrote:
Rastapopoulos wrote:
Arithezoo wrote:
The tiefling looks ok to me. I am a little disappointed that their isnt another subrace, yet we are getting three elf races.
Thats statwise, the art looks awful.
masterfat78 wrote:
FLAKPANZER wrote:
Arithezoo wrote:
Jbickley00 wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Jbickley00 wrote:
souldoubt wrote:
GhostStepper wrote:
So standard array of 15 14 13 12 10 8
Fighter 15 STR, 10 DEX, 14 CON, 14 INT, 8 WIS, 14 CHA.
Not bad.
Swap STR for WIS (Cleric) or DEX (rogue). Still not bad.
16 INT/CHA for a facey wizard is good. Very good.
RustedKitsune wrote:
LFK wrote:
RustedKitsune wrote:
Arithezoo wrote:
I guess I'm the only one that thinks the art has looked pretty awesome across the board (especially the covers, holy smokes) thus far—even the dwarfess. I wouldn't say they're totally amazing and peerless examples of fantasy art, but the artists are clearly talented, and the pictures do a pretty good job of covering the source material. Won't stop me about griping at tieflings all being related to Super Devil, though.
she has a double-ender sticking out of her forehead.... lol
Siphersh wrote:
Those are handlebars for the movement challenged halfling ally. Heck, it's a feature!
I think it's funny that so many people seem to have an issue with +2 charisma, buth they are generally hated making no sense, when the sidebar explains it perfectly.
"After dealing with this mistrust throughout youth, a Tiefling often developes the ability to overcome prejudice through charm or intimidation"
In other words, everyone hates them, so they have to be either more likable or scarier than everyone else just to get through their normal day without a shiv to the back.
This is the first thing I really don't like. This is straight from the 4th ed PHB and IMO is poorer for it.
Historically tieflings were named for the German word for devil, however they were looking for a word for a race of fiendish descent. This could be any fiend, whether it was a demon or a devil. This was the case in both 2nd edition and 3rd edition. It was only 4th ed that they became a devil-only race. Furthermore before 4th ed they could have any appearance. Only 4th ed pigeonholed them into a specific appearance. The more inclusive approach would have been the pre-4th ed approach.
Who gets left excluded from this write-up:
In the far past there was a time when humans and fiends had a lot more interaction with each other. Today, the descendants from these humans are known as tieflings. Believed by most to be the result of an infernal pact made with Asmodeus, they were cursed as a result of an ancient sin from their ancestors and their physical appearance marks them out as descendants from this people. \
The most common appearance a tiefling takes is to have large horns, thick tails, canine teeth, eyes with a solid colour such as black or gold, cloven feet and skin whose hues range from light pink to dark purple. However while this is the most common appearance for tieflings, some tieflings deviate from this. Some may not have horns or they may be missing tails. Some sages believe this points to a different point of origin for these tieflings and they may not be descended from those who made their pact with Asmodeus. Some of these tieflings take on a decided demonic appearance, pointing to multiple origins for the tiefling race.
Regardless of their origin, today tieflings are sometimes reviled, but always mistrusted. This has resulted in them forming their own neighbourhoods and often leads to them living a life of crime as they find it difficult to obtain legitimate jobs.
---
Here we still have 4th ed tieflings, they're even the default tiefling. However we also open up the door to allowing tieflings of other origins to exist.
GhostStepper wrote:
So take this as you will. I like Dragonborn, their fun, so this has nothing to do with 4e per se.
I just really, really don't like the cartoonish WoW look of the Tieflings since 4e, or the both 4e and 5e have created for them. It's really too much of a Retcon, and not a good one in my opinion. I'll admit, I have lingering angst-filled hate over the Spellplauge and all that nonsense, so that does play a part in my dislike. Though to be fair, they pretty much butchered Tielflings to introduce this new ... 'Fiendish Hybrid' thing...
IMO, of course.
Inclusion and variety is always good, as is the weird non-standard stuff that nobody thinks of.
I mean, we'll get an all-female race that genetically has breasts bigger than the average excercise ball and no ability to say "no" before we get a standard race that has 3 genders and thinks we're all silly.
I like what I'm seeing. Now give us the Warlock class preview so I can make my Tiefling Warlock.
LFK wrote:
Stats wise,i like what i see. Tiefling seems like a fun race to play. At will spells are neat for rogues and fighters and i can totally see them as bards and rogues. Also,with their bonus to Cha they will make fine paladins
What i don't like is fluff and art. Art is just bad,unfinished and i hope they refine it for the final product. Fluff will go down the drain. I think i will use my 2ed Planescape fluff. Oh,and there will be rolling for appearance. That was one of the best things about thiefling. You could roll almost human looking one or the one with hoves,goat legs and ram's horns.
I don't mind a uniform look. However, I have not been a fan of the crocodile tails since I first saw them in the 4e preview books.
In terms of the 5e PHB preview: I must say I'm not a fan of the style of digital art used to create the tiefling chick, but I do like the overall design of the page. Compare it to 3e's b/w racial comparison lineups and 4e's full color vertical half-page art.
I do not like the all Tieflings have horns and tails due to a specific Infernal (devil) bloodline deal, they can have other fiendish blood (daemon/yugoloth, etc), and I would like more Planetouched (aasimar, chaond, mechanatrix, zenythri, etc).
dmgorgon wrote:
JonWake wrote:
Until now it's the first race that gets +2 to a mental ability and resistance to fire is really substantial.
I also like to being able to cast freely Darkness and Hellish Rebuke (whatever will it be).
I'm kinda baffled by the Alignment description: their tendency towards evil is obviously ok, but how does it work with the evil alignment description in the basic rules?
Ramzour wrote:
Nausicaa wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote:
Nausicaa wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
Ahglock wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote:
Haytam wrote:
There's more than just attributes to make something synergetic. Especially when we're likely to see dragonborn with a +2 Charisma boost, going by previous editions. And any future races that come out.
If all it has going for it is a +2 Charisma, then it is a very sorry state of affairs.
I like the rules for tieflings a lot. Its funny that in 3rd edition, tieflings had -2 charisma, and now they have +2. Go tieflings! They should make excellent sorcerers and warlocks-- if anyone has infernal magic in their blood it would be a teifling. I also think that tieflings will make interesting rogues-- they are good con artists, disquise adepts, and investigators, with a boost of magic. Darkness will especially come in handy. As for not getting a dexterity bonus, remember that rogues get a +2 stat bump at 4th, 8th, and 10th. If you want, your teifling rogue is going to have its 20 dexterity by level 10 even if you only start with a 14. Besides, not all races should make the same kind of rogue. We already have dexterous elf and halfling rogues.
As for the art, I like the tieflings style, and her outfit, but her tail is way too big for here body, and it is purple, which is not mentioned as a color that tieflings actually have for their skin. If I were to meet that tiefling, I would suspect the tail to be an illusion, which would make me doubt that she was a tiefling at all, because if a tiefling were to disquise themselves with an illusion, one would think that it would be a realistic illusion, because tieflings generally know what tieflings look like. But then again, wouldn't it be especially clever for a tiefling to disquise themselves as a person who is disquising themselves as a tiefling but doesn't know what a tiefling looks like?
Never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line!
I'm curious how quickly a free spell will get "overshadowed" in 5th though? I haven't gotten a chance to play much, but the concept of bounded accuracy and lower hp should mean it stays useful longer, and if it can be cast as a reaction like some other spells seem to be able to be cast, I'm thinking of shield at the moment, then they might get a free once a day damaging reaction which is all sorts of fun....
Actually, didn't Mearls use a version of Hellish rebuke in one of the livestream games with his warlock? If I'm right he used it to convince some hobgobs he was protected by their demon lord, by completely frying one who punched him in the face. It was epic 
Also half damage from fire (most common type of elemental damage right?) is just as useful or more useful than half damage from poison and resistance to sleep and charm, after all more evil wizards will fireball , flaming strike, ect plus you have red dragons as the most iconic dragons.
Hmm,. Well, how do three free spells stack up compared to Stonecunning or that awesome Trance ability?
Clearly Tiefling is a sub-par choice.
Mephi1234 wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote:
Tieflings innate darkness and darkvision makes them great rogues. You can see in the dark and when the guards come,darkness on them and run,mislead them with thaumaturgy and so on. Oh look,they sure do sinergize very well. Or if you want to play fighter with something extra,you can use thaumaturgy for some neat effects. You intimidate enemy with bolstering your voice or making fires fickle around you (i would give you advantage on intimidation for that). You can open or close windows. So you surge,shoot trough the window then close it with this spell. Only real limitation for use of thieflings natural abillities is your imagination. It is by no means sub par option.
And fire resistance is neat for all classes. Dragon breath? Fire ball? Burning hands? Those are iconic sources of fire damage and every bit of damage mitigation helps.
And of course, for those of us who don't care about synergy... Oh look, what can I do with this race to build my character?
I think she'll be descended from MRAs that play D&D, because tieflings being descended from the fusion of absolute evil forcing its presence onto good-ish innocents, and even Asmodeous feels sorry for her.
Haytam wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Haytam wrote:
Because the night is dark, and full of terrors.
Although could a tiefling eat a grue?
At this point it's mechanical nit-picking in combination with stereotyped optimized character classes done to prove that Tieflings=baaaad.
Elves good, tieflings baaaaad. Hmm, catchy. Sorta reminds me of "Four legs good, two legs better."
RustedKitsune wrote:
Looks like tieflings might not have a subrace, like their playtest version. This makes me sad, as we only get the infernal type and can't even homebrew a demonic subclass or Plqnescape variant.
kill_the_wiz_first wrote:
RustedKitsune wrote:
RustedKitsune wrote:
souldoubt wrote:
kill_the_wiz_first wrote:
This preiview actually is pretty great for me. Nothing to do with Tieflings in particular, but some of my custom races don't have subraces, and it's nice to see that some of the official ones set this as normal.
I wasn't expecting to, but I really like this tiefling. The 4e version was just too...I don't know...just too. I think the description and the history here is fine-tuned to perfection. It's a lot more evocative now. I also really like the art. It's a classic medium that I'm used to seeing as an artful representation of real life images, and I think it's great here. I'm not bothered by the fact that skin pores and eyelashes aren't detailed; the art shows an image that inspires imagination. I really really like it. I wasn't expecting the Infermal Legacy feature at all, but I'm really pleased. I like progressive racial features, they give the idea of an individual growing into their racial stock (like the drow of older editions).
In this edition, maxing out ability scores isn't nearly as important (read: mandatory) as it was in 4e. I think it will take some time for people to catch on to this fact, but once they do they will see that a +2 to Charisma really isn't pigeonholing anything at all. In 4e if you started with a main stat of 16 post-racial, you were gimped for life. In 5e if you start with a 15 post-racial, you'll reach the cap at 12th level, and not feel nearly as gimped (compared to 4e) on your way to 12 level.
Overall, a solid A from me.
Ramzour wrote:
Oulak wrote:
A handful of spells as the class racial feature doesn't sit well with me. It's boring. Uninspiring. And not unique. Anyone with the right class or feats can get those spells. Races should have features or powers that are unique to them and cannot be duplicated through other means. Overall, races are by far the weakest part of 5E.
THEMNGMNT wrote:
Precisely.
The_Jester wrote:
Arithezoo wrote:
A roguish teifling would be a good alternative race choice
+2 dex replaces CHA
+1 Con replaces Int
Keep spells
Replace fire resistance with Bluff skill proficiency
Arithezoo wrote:
GhostStepper wrote:
The_Jester wrote:
RustedKitsune wrote:
GhostStepper wrote:
THEMNGMNT wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
kalil wrote:
kalil wrote:
Nothing wrong with constructive criticism. But lashing out and attacking the person is not the same thing. Ramrazor isn't saying anything about the argument - he's complaining about the poster, and putting demands on him. That is not a criticism of criticism, and is closer to an attempt to shout someone down. This is an ad hominem logical fallancy, attacking the person instead of the argument.
Now, I do feel that spells like this are a bit weak as a racial ability. I ran a game, play test packet, where one the PCs was a drow rogue. There was rarely a time when the player felt the urge to cast a faerie fire spell, and they were good enough at hiding that darkness did not come up in play.
It got to the point they forgot that the abilities existed.
We also talked about how, if they had gone druid instead (I prefer running druids as the SpiderQueen's priestesses, instead of clerics) then the drow abilities would have been on their spell list again. That was a primary reason they didn't go druid - they felt like it negated the race benefit, and made it less somehow.
Mephi1234 wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
I just re read tiefling and saw that darkness is 1/day and that rebuke thing is also 1/day. Well,that just sucks. Now,don't get me wrong,I still think tiefling is ok race,just that 2 1/day spells are not very good race features. It's like nerfed elf now. You get one cantrip that is chosen for you,darkvision and 2 spells (one is very usefull,other is unknown for now). Most usefull thing is fire resistance. In average game there are lots of things that try to kill you with fire so it's handy.
Haytam wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
I don't understand the arguement that "The class choices will outshine my race choices"
I mean if I just said "Wizards are better spellcasters than high elves" wouldn't everyone just say "duh"
The key seems to be getting the options, and yeah, once a day stuff can be a little harsh to work with. But these are free casts, completely independent of your normal actions and like I said, going off of the livestream where Mike Mearls played his warlock with the iron book, Hellish Rebuke seems pretty nice
Chaosmancer wrote:
Chaosmancer wrote:
GhostStepper wrote:
Chaosmancer wrote:
GhostStepper wrote:
GhostStepper wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
GhostStepper wrote:
GhostStepper wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
The art is OK. Not the most competent watercolour I've ever seen, but it's fine.
The racial stats are pretty flavoursome and makes sense and I like that they get nailed down to Asmodeus as their progenitor.
On the issue of sexism and fantasy RPG artwork - I like that fantasy women are being represented with the following elements included when representing their sex;
1. Ugly or plain in appearance - charisma or forcefulness of personality does NOT require physical beauty
2. Dressed normally and/or in a sensible utilitarian fashion for the rigours of adventuring
I get pretty tired of veiled sexism in the man-centric gaming community.
I always encourage at least one lady to join my games, the different dynamic it brings to a game is always welcome and usually entertaining.
As an Englishman with a keen sense of history, it's hard to miss that two of the most respected, successful and powerful monarchs of my nation historically were both women - Queen Elizabeth 1st and Queen Victoria. We also had Thatcher as a Prime Minister, and she was a ball-breaker, yet somehow none of them were beauties...
The idea that to wield power and influence people requires simpering sex appeal is ridiculous.
The idea that high CHA means you have to look like a fashion model is laughable. To put the shoe on the other foot, try and explain to me how Winston Churchill lacked charisma because he wasn't an adonis? He was overweight and plain as hell - but he managed to inspire a nation to fight to the last man that had thought it was doomed. I'd stat him out with 20 CHA without hesitation..!
...tell me you wouldn't?
I LIKE that the tiefling depicted isn't a beauty - she should be taken as a high CHA forceful personality and not dismissed as a bordelo toy.
Full marks to WotC on this one!
emwasick wrote:
Caliburn101. wrote:
thewok wrote:
emwasick wrote:
RustedKitsune wrote:
RustedKitsune wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
GhostStepper wrote:
Chaosmancer wrote:
GhostStepper wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
GhostStepper wrote:
Chaosmancer wrote:
GhostStepper wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote:
GhostStepper wrote:
GhostStepper wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
emwasick wrote:
Brimleydower wrote:
unky wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
unky wrote:
Ramzour wrote: