| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Gyor |
Posted - 26 May 2014 : 02:40:35
http://www.bleedingcool.com/2014/05/24/talking-dungeons-dragons-with-wizards-of-the-coasts-mike-mearls/
The last Question is of particular interest to FR patrons.
I think its cool that the Sundering authors have actually had an influence on how 5th edition has turned out. Major points to Erin who shaped Tieflings and Dragonborn for 5th. |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Irennan |
Posted - 09 Jun 2014 : 02:43:10
True, but if it's in the PHB, then it is probably meant as a basic option for the player, as advanced rules are usually included in books like DMG or various supplements. The fact that -as you pointed out- devs think that a considerable number of player may want to play a drow is on its own a huge difference from the 'lolthite, evil only' approach that led to the removal of E and V from canon.
Granted, as you said, the rarity of races depends on the campaign -even humans could be exotic/unplayable in some cases- but drow being among PHB core races means that WotC might be considering changing their take on them and giving them wider RP possibilities and therefore the variety and depth that they lost at the end of 3e. If this was the case, then it would most likely involve getting Eilistraee and Vhaeraun back, given that FR is going to be the main setting.
Also -being core- Drow will almost surely be available as PCs in their organized play events/global campaign stuff, and Eilistraeens/Vhaerunites would perfectly fit in the faction/alliances system that Mike Mearls described, besides providing options for players.
In short, these news definitely leave the doors open for the siblings' return to the published setting (as I said, they were removed purely out of design choices for the drow -only Lolth, evil and yada yada, which tbh don't fit what that race is in the FR-, but now -with this decision- they seem to be gone/softened, so...). |
| Diffan |
Posted - 09 Jun 2014 : 02:25:15
I'd just like to make a point that just because it's in the core books (by Core, I mean the Player's Handbook, Monster Manual, DMG) doesn't mean it's an automatic or even assumed option for players. They are just the most common options that the designers think most players will pick. It's why we're also going to see the Tiefling and Dragonborn as well in the PHB. But I never make the assumption of going to a game that I'll automatically be allowed to play a Tiefling Warlock or a Drow Assassin or, heck, even a Human Paladin. Every option is just that.....an option. |
| Irennan |
Posted - 09 Jun 2014 : 00:56:08
People may want to play a drow who isn't a brainwashed Lolth worshipper, a Drizzt-like renegade (which would be far different from being an Eilistraeen) or some dude from Bregan d'Aerthe. One note races (like the drow are now) aren't well suited for core* PHB PCs. Sure you could make a drow who doesn't belong to any of those and worship a standard deity (or none at all), but -once they are allowed as core PC race- why deprive them of specific, flavourful options that are unique to them, just to replace those with standardized ones?
Eilistraee and Vhaeraun are not just names to put in the 'deity' blank of a character sheet, the variety and depth that they bring is a huge part of what makes the realmsian drow what they are, the two of them are iconic to their race. They have value for characters as something more than distant gods, because they have very specific stories, personalities and goals/quests that are all about their people. Eilistraee and Vhaeraun stand for the drow who want to fight to achieve and create a future for their race, a concept of dark elven** character way different from the 'powah and ebil' cliché or the renegade who abandons his/her people and goes his/her own way. It is a meaningful and inspiring idea, which definitely deserves its own place in the setting, especially considering that -again- it is one of the main traits that defines and distinguishes the realmsian drow from other worlds.
*This is a huge difference. AFAIK in 4e drow were optional, core races usually offer wide roleplaying options.
**and with this I mean drow. |
| Drustan Dwnhaedan |
Posted - 09 Jun 2014 : 00:45:42
Unfortunately, I'll have to agree with this as well, especially considering drow were a PC race in 4e, even though every 4e book that mentioned them explicitly stated they were irredeemably evil. That's also true for tieflings. (Actually, if you read any of the descriptions of the PC races in 4e, you discover that there are no good-aligned races. At best, all PC races are unaligned with tendencies toward being 'good'.) |
| Kentinal |
Posted - 09 Jun 2014 : 00:31:10
Well, it clearly will not happen in a big way. One thought occurs to me.
D&D when started focused on good over evil, despite the anti D&D campaign saying D&D was satanic because it mentioned devils, demons and of course spell casting.
After all these years, what was not true then is becoming true now. Play an Evil character as a path to power and rewards. Turning Drow all Evil again (for the most part) and making them a core class, clearly could be a new target for sales.
Drows to kill Drizzt could become a new cult, of course kill anything that does get in your way as well.
Evil has over the years have appeared to become more popular. *shrugs* |
| Drustan Dwnhaedan |
Posted - 09 Jun 2014 : 00:09:33
Couldn't agree with you more, Irennan. |
| Irennan |
Posted - 05 Jun 2014 : 12:46:03
quote:
Originally posted by Gyor
Elf (including Drow), Dwarf, Halfling, Tiefling, Dragonborn, Half Elf, Human, Gnome, Half Orc (aka the races in 3.5 and in 4e), all are in the PHB.
Most races have 2 variants. Classes will have more, especially Wizards and Clerics. Fighters have 4.
FR is pretty much the default setting, with the DMG using FR for its examples (in a pinch you could use the DMG to run a realms campaign).
On the FRCG from Mearls can't say anything yet.
So the Drow are going to be a PHB core race and FR the default setting.
If the time for Eilistraee and Vhaeraun/Masked Lady to return to the Realms isn't now, then I don't know when it could ever be. |
| Gyor |
Posted - 04 Jun 2014 : 13:51:48
I'm not sure what the subclasses names will be, but I think I have the gist of it.
Wizards will have all 8 schools of magic, so Clerics are likely to have 8 domains as well.
I'm betting Warlock will have at least Star Pact, Fey Pact, and Infernal Pact, each with the a tome, blade, and chain verison of said pact.
Paladin will likely have Cavalier, Avenger, either Greyguard or Blackguard (I'd prefer Blackguard), and maybe Favoured Soul.
Sorceror will have Dragon and Wild magic blood lines and I think likely Elemental as well, outside chance of Favoured Soul.
I'm betting Monks have at least 4 monastic traditions to choose from. I hope Drunken Master is one of them or Desert Wind.
Barbarian will have mix of more traditional and primal magic subclasses.
I'm betting that Rogues will get 6 subclasses, inbetween clerics/wizards and fighters.
Rangers, Bards, and Paladins will likely get the same amount of Subclasses as each other.
Just some guesses of mine. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 03 Jun 2014 : 21:06:07
quote:
Originally posted by Gyor
Personal speculation:
The 4 fighter subclasses will be Warrior (simple), Elderich Knight (magical), Great Fighter (manuevers guy), and Warlord.
Perhaps. We know there will be a simple version and the Playtest has been pretty staunch on it being called the Warrior. The only other one we've really seen was the Weaponmaster and I believe they're changing the name to Battle Master and it'll be the one where he has a list of maneuvers to choose from. We've also been told there's a possible Warlord-style version though I cannot say if it'll just be the Battle Master with a specific set of maneuvers that allow things like re-positioning, healing, granting attacks OR if it'll be a sub-class all it's own? I for one would LOVE the options you mentioned. I think it would go a LONG way for people to utilize their favorite version without too much crossover for those who don't like it (such as a 4E Fighter was always a Defender and Weapon-user vs. a Fighter who decides to not care about defense and goes for Archery instead). |
| Gyor |
Posted - 03 Jun 2014 : 20:46:56
Personal speculation:
The 4 fighter subclasses will be Warrior (simple), Elderich Knight (magical), Great Fighter (manuevers guy), and Warlord.
|
| Gyor |
Posted - 03 Jun 2014 : 20:41:49
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/tabletop/11554-Inside-the-Launch-of-the-New-Dungeons-Dragons-With-Designer-Mike-Mearls.5
Mike Mearls interview with Escapist.
Rogue, Sorceror, Wizard, Bard, Paladin, Warlock, Monk, Druid, Fighter, Cleric, Ranger, Barbarian are in the PHB for classes.
Elf (including Drow), Dwarf, Halfling, Tiefling, Dragonborn, Half Elf, Human, Gnome, Half Orc (aka the races in 3.5 and in 4e), all are in the PHB.
Most races have 2 variants. Classes will have more, especially Wizards and Clerics. Fighters have 4.
FR is pretty much the default setting, with the DMG using FR for its examples (in a pinch you could use the DMG to run a realms campaign).
On the FRCG from Mearls can't say anything yet.
|
| Jergals Spare Scythe |
Posted - 31 May 2014 : 10:21:08
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by Shemmy
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by Jergals Spare Scythe
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Tieflings, as far as the last playtest packet goes, talks about both versions. Tieflings who have made a pact with Asmodeus as well as another race called the planetouched. These planetouched have trace amounts of fiendish blood within them, however its diluted compared to infernal tieflings.
In game terms, it literally means nothing. All this shows is that your tiefling is either more like the 4e version (one who's given themselves over to the pact of Asmodeus or had parents who did) or the pre-4e version, in which your considered planetouch and your features are more toned down. In the end, it supports both and these no mechanical distinction between the two. I could, however, see some sort of sub-race being used that grants a few distinguishing traits between the two.
Perhaps aasimar will make a return as well, with devas being the incarnate angels, and "planetouched" aasimar reflecting the ones of celestial heritage.
Btw, did genasi get retconned with szuldar, or is there still unmarked genasi hanging about?
That would be pretty awesome. I could see Aasimar being the umbrella race with a distinction between Deva and Planetouched. I might even homebrew a new 5E Race for them.
As for Genasi, there's currently no info about them or any changes they'll make to them concerning D&D: Next. The only one's I'm aware of are the ones 4E and 3E had. Hopefully we'll get more information on them after 5E debuts.
I'd prefer that any 5e deva be the deva of 1e/2e/3e rather than the not-aasimar from 4e that have no relation to the former. Generally speaking they should reserve the name for the creature that has held the name for the longest tenure.
Well they could essentially do both by making the distinction between a earth-bound / reincarnated Deva that we saw in 4E and the Astral Deva, which was the name used in 3E. An Astral Deva is an extremely powerful being with a TON of features and powers that exceed most mortals. Contrast this with a PC-possible Deva, who at one point decided to become Mortal-bound and forever attempt to affect the world time and time again via reincarnation. I don't see why there can't be both?
quote:
Originally posted by Shemmy
Tieflings should be the wildly diverse any-type-of-fiendish-descent loveable riffraff they were in 2e and 3e, and call the 4e "tiefling" either an asmodean tiefling of some other subtype name rather than hijack the name and force the originals to call themselves something else.
Personally I'd like to see the Tiefling as an Umbrella name that represents both and have distinguishing names that represent them individually. A Planetouched is what we saw pre-4E and maybe..Pact-Bonded for the 4E one? I think that could work.
quote:
Originally posted by Shemmy
Likewise archons should be the LG celestial archons of 1e/2e/3e rather than the 4e "archons" that were evil elementals.
I don't see why the name couldn't be broadened to accommodate both? A Pure Archon or Celestial Archon could be what we've seen pre-4E and then Archons from other elemental planes could also be fleshed out.
quote:
Originally posted by Shemmy
I'm not averse to still having 4e creatures included. However if the divergent 4e cases get to keep the names of the originals that they hijacked, it's disheartening to an extreme when the past year has tried very hard to assuage fans that prior editions and their respective lore are respected, cherished parts of D&D, 5e will be embracing its heritage, etc. :(
Perhaps its more of a case of making them all fit
quote:
Originally posted by Shemmy
Genasi originated in 2e. Genasi in 2e and 3e are the same, with an incredible spectrum of possible appearances depending on what element taints their blood. The 4e genasi have different types and often don't resemble the 2e/3e genasi. I hope that we see a return to the 2e/3e conventions (albeit with the inclusion of the 4e types when and where they make sense).
To me, the biggest departure was in their appearance. I think that should mostly be up to the individual player rather than something pushed by the game. If someone wants spikey haired Genasi, fine. If I want my Air Genasi to have wavy white locks, cool. On the whole, the art should run the gambit of it all.
As much as I did not like what 4th ed. did to the Realms, I'm all for more options for players, even options with which I disagree. Hopefully, we will be able to pick and choose to get the flavor of character we want, both appearance and ability-wise. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 31 May 2014 : 03:25:10
quote:
Originally posted by Shemmy
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by Jergals Spare Scythe
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Tieflings, as far as the last playtest packet goes, talks about both versions. Tieflings who have made a pact with Asmodeus as well as another race called the planetouched. These planetouched have trace amounts of fiendish blood within them, however its diluted compared to infernal tieflings.
In game terms, it literally means nothing. All this shows is that your tiefling is either more like the 4e version (one who's given themselves over to the pact of Asmodeus or had parents who did) or the pre-4e version, in which your considered planetouch and your features are more toned down. In the end, it supports both and these no mechanical distinction between the two. I could, however, see some sort of sub-race being used that grants a few distinguishing traits between the two.
Perhaps aasimar will make a return as well, with devas being the incarnate angels, and "planetouched" aasimar reflecting the ones of celestial heritage.
Btw, did genasi get retconned with szuldar, or is there still unmarked genasi hanging about?
That would be pretty awesome. I could see Aasimar being the umbrella race with a distinction between Deva and Planetouched. I might even homebrew a new 5E Race for them.
As for Genasi, there's currently no info about them or any changes they'll make to them concerning D&D: Next. The only one's I'm aware of are the ones 4E and 3E had. Hopefully we'll get more information on them after 5E debuts.
I'd prefer that any 5e deva be the deva of 1e/2e/3e rather than the not-aasimar from 4e that have no relation to the former. Generally speaking they should reserve the name for the creature that has held the name for the longest tenure.
Well they could essentially do both by making the distinction between a earth-bound / reincarnated Deva that we saw in 4E and the Astral Deva, which was the name used in 3E. An Astral Deva is an extremely powerful being with a TON of features and powers that exceed most mortals. Contrast this with a PC-possible Deva, who at one point decided to become Mortal-bound and forever attempt to affect the world time and time again via reincarnation. I don't see why there can't be both?
quote:
Originally posted by Shemmy
Tieflings should be the wildly diverse any-type-of-fiendish-descent loveable riffraff they were in 2e and 3e, and call the 4e "tiefling" either an asmodean tiefling of some other subtype name rather than hijack the name and force the originals to call themselves something else.
Personally I'd like to see the Tiefling as an Umbrella name that represents both and have distinguishing names that represent them individually. A Planetouched is what we saw pre-4E and maybe..Pact-Bonded for the 4E one? I think that could work.
quote:
Originally posted by Shemmy
Likewise archons should be the LG celestial archons of 1e/2e/3e rather than the 4e "archons" that were evil elementals.
I don't see why the name couldn't be broadened to accommodate both? A Pure Archon or Celestial Archon could be what we've seen pre-4E and then Archons from other elemental planes could also be fleshed out.
quote:
Originally posted by Shemmy
I'm not averse to still having 4e creatures included. However if the divergent 4e cases get to keep the names of the originals that they hijacked, it's disheartening to an extreme when the past year has tried very hard to assuage fans that prior editions and their respective lore are respected, cherished parts of D&D, 5e will be embracing its heritage, etc. :(
Perhaps its more of a case of making them all fit
quote:
Originally posted by Shemmy
Genasi originated in 2e. Genasi in 2e and 3e are the same, with an incredible spectrum of possible appearances depending on what element taints their blood. The 4e genasi have different types and often don't resemble the 2e/3e genasi. I hope that we see a return to the 2e/3e conventions (albeit with the inclusion of the 4e types when and where they make sense).
To me, the biggest departure was in their appearance. I think that should mostly be up to the individual player rather than something pushed by the game. If someone wants spikey haired Genasi, fine. If I want my Air Genasi to have wavy white locks, cool. On the whole, the art should run the gambit of it all. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 31 May 2014 : 01:57:17
quote:
Originally posted by Shemmy
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
As for Genasi, there's currently no info about them or any changes they'll make to them concerning D&D: Next. The only one's I'm aware of are the ones 4E and 3E had. Hopefully we'll get more information on them after 5E debuts.
Genasi originated in 2e. Genasi in 2e and 3e are the same, with an incredible spectrum of possible appearances depending on what element taints their blood. The 4e genasi have different types and often don't resemble the 2e/3e genasi. I hope that we see a return to the 2e/3e conventions (albeit with the inclusion of the 4e types when and where they make sense).
Ditto that. I loved the 2E/3E genasi; I even made one a Lord of Waterdeep. I'd not even consider touching a 4E genasi.
Ditto for tieflings. |
| Shemmy |
Posted - 31 May 2014 : 01:07:14
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
As for Genasi, there's currently no info about them or any changes they'll make to them concerning D&D: Next. The only one's I'm aware of are the ones 4E and 3E had. Hopefully we'll get more information on them after 5E debuts.
Genasi originated in 2e. Genasi in 2e and 3e are the same, with an incredible spectrum of possible appearances depending on what element taints their blood. The 4e genasi have different types and often don't resemble the 2e/3e genasi. I hope that we see a return to the 2e/3e conventions (albeit with the inclusion of the 4e types when and where they make sense). |
| Shemmy |
Posted - 31 May 2014 : 01:04:33
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by Jergals Spare Scythe
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Tieflings, as far as the last playtest packet goes, talks about both versions. Tieflings who have made a pact with Asmodeus as well as another race called the planetouched. These planetouched have trace amounts of fiendish blood within them, however its diluted compared to infernal tieflings.
In game terms, it literally means nothing. All this shows is that your tiefling is either more like the 4e version (one who's given themselves over to the pact of Asmodeus or had parents who did) or the pre-4e version, in which your considered planetouch and your features are more toned down. In the end, it supports both and these no mechanical distinction between the two. I could, however, see some sort of sub-race being used that grants a few distinguishing traits between the two.
Perhaps aasimar will make a return as well, with devas being the incarnate angels, and "planetouched" aasimar reflecting the ones of celestial heritage.
Btw, did genasi get retconned with szuldar, or is there still unmarked genasi hanging about?
That would be pretty awesome. I could see Aasimar being the umbrella race with a distinction between Deva and Planetouched. I might even homebrew a new 5E Race for them.
As for Genasi, there's currently no info about them or any changes they'll make to them concerning D&D: Next. The only one's I'm aware of are the ones 4E and 3E had. Hopefully we'll get more information on them after 5E debuts.
I'd prefer that any 5e deva be the deva of 1e/2e/3e rather than the not-aasimar from 4e that have no relation to the former. Generally speaking they should reserve the name for the creature that has held the name for the longest tenure.
Tieflings should be the wildly diverse any-type-of-fiendish-descent loveable riffraff they were in 2e and 3e, and call the 4e "tiefling" either an asmodean tiefling of some other subtype name rather than hijack the name and force the originals to call themselves something else.
Likewise archons should be the LG celestial archons of 1e/2e/3e rather than the 4e "archons" that were evil elementals.
I'm not averse to still having 4e creatures included. However if the divergent 4e cases get to keep the names of the originals that they hijacked, it's disheartening to an extreme when the past year has tried very hard to assuage fans that prior editions and their respective lore are respected, cherished parts of D&D, 5e will be embracing its heritage, etc. :( |
| Diffan |
Posted - 31 May 2014 : 00:31:25
quote:
Originally posted by Jergals Spare Scythe
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Tieflings, as far as the last playtest packet goes, talks about both versions. Tieflings who have made a pact with Asmodeus as well as another race called the planetouched. These planetouched have trace amounts of fiendish blood within them, however its diluted compared to infernal tieflings.
In game terms, it literally means nothing. All this shows is that your tiefling is either more like the 4e version (one who's given themselves over to the pact of Asmodeus or had parents who did) or the pre-4e version, in which your considered planetouch and your features are more toned down. In the end, it supports both and these no mechanical distinction between the two. I could, however, see some sort of sub-race being used that grants a few distinguishing traits between the two.
Perhaps aasimar will make a return as well, with devas being the incarnate angels, and "planetouched" aasimar reflecting the ones of celestial heritage.
Btw, did genasi get retconned with szuldar, or is there still unmarked genasi hanging about?
That would be pretty awesome. I could see Aasimar being the umbrella race with a distinction between Deva and Planetouched. I might even homebrew a new 5E Race for them.
As for Genasi, there's currently no info about them or any changes they'll make to them concerning D&D: Next. The only one's I'm aware of are the ones 4E and 3E had. Hopefully we'll get more information on them after 5E debuts. |
| Jergals Spare Scythe |
Posted - 30 May 2014 : 10:17:48
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Tieflings, as far as the last playtest packet goes, talks about both versions. Tieflings who have made a pact with Asmodeus as well as another race called the planetouched. These planetouched have trace amounts of fiendish blood within them, however its diluted compared to infernal tieflings.
In game terms, it literally means nothing. All this shows is that your tiefling is either more like the 4e version (one who's given themselves over to the pact of Asmodeus or had parents who did) or the pre-4e version, in which your considered planetouch and your features are more toned down. In the end, it supports both and these no mechanical distinction between the two. I could, however, see some sort of sub-race being used that grants a few distinguishing traits between the two.
Perhaps aasimar will make a return as well, with devas being the incarnate angels, and "planetouched" aasimar reflecting the ones of celestial heritage.
Btw, did genasi get retconned with szuldar, or is there still unmarked genasi hanging about? |
| Mapolq |
Posted - 29 May 2014 : 19:20:14
Yes, they're saying both "races" exist from what I get, so it's just a (smart) move of letting the players/DMs choose which ones they like more. I'd rather they gave the "tiefling" name for the "touched by the lower planes" as in 2e/3e, but really, if they're back as a flavor of planetouched, it's just a name. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 29 May 2014 : 11:19:35
Tieflings, as far as the last playtest packet goes, talks about both versions. Tieflings who have made a pact with Asmodeus as well as another race called the planetouched. These planetouched have trace amounts of fiendish blood within them, however its diluted compared to infernal tieflings.
In game terms, it literally means nothing. All this shows is that your tiefling is either more like the 4e version (one who's given themselves over to the pact of Asmodeus or had parents who did) or the pre-4e version, in which your considered planetouch and your features are more toned down. In the end, it supports both and these no mechanical distinction between the two. I could, however, see some sort of sub-race being used that grants a few distinguishing traits between the two. |
| Gary Dallison |
Posted - 29 May 2014 : 08:39:03
I think its getting close to the time where we have to face up to facts.
WoTC lied to us.
They said they would try and move away from the 4e sweeping changes and unpopular retcons but they havent.
They just released a new edition to try and sell us the 4e changes but with a different ruleset all over again.
It wasnt the ruleset that was the problem. In fact the 4e rules brought in some nice ideas. It was the lore changes that were the problem and WoTC are rather stupidly sticking with the lore and changing the rules.
A leopard never changes his spots. |
| Shemmy |
Posted - 29 May 2014 : 05:59:30
quote:
Originally posted by lordsknight185
No. in 5e, Tieflings will be what they were in 4e, infernal true-breeding creatures, a devil+human will always be that kind of Tiefling. In 5e what we called Tieflings in 1-3e will be just called "planetouched" and will be demonic-blooded and will be just like they were in 1-3e, but they will be far less numerous than the 4e type tieflings are.
Is this officially confirmed?
I seriously, seriously hope that's not the case. Because the 4e tiefling was a seriously egregious retcon of the 2e/3e tieflings and the mirror opposite of the incredibly vivid diversity in both appearance and bloodline that they had as a core characteristic.
It would be a serious loss to D&D proper if tieflings ended up radically changed in that capacity in 5e as well (with the sole exception of if a 5e Planescape was produced faithful to its 2e roots and 3e additions, with tieflings presented true to their original, pre-4e conception and wild, crazy, hallmark variability). |
| lordsknight185 |
Posted - 29 May 2014 : 04:32:17
quote:
Originally posted by sfdragon
So does this mean that the Tiefling is going to get a new look away from the movie "Legends " Look????
btw, I was always curious about that. Not all tieflings came from the hells ancestor, but from the abyss, and the prime material plane ( Rakshaska) too..... would that Faerun 13 spell, would that have affect them too.......... well no matter.
No. in 5e, Tieflings will be what they were in 4e, infernal true-breeding creatures, a devil+human will always be that kind of Tiefling. In 5e what we called Tieflings in 1-3e will be just called "planetouched" and will be demonic-blooded and will be just like they were in 1-3e, but they will be far less numerous than the 4e type tieflings are. |
| sfdragon |
Posted - 29 May 2014 : 00:28:11
So does this mean that the Tiefling is going to get a new look away from the movie "Legends " Look????
btw, I was always curious about that. Not all tieflings came from the hells ancestor, but from the abyss, and the prime material plane ( Rakshaska) too..... would that Faerun 13 spell, would that have affect them too.......... well no matter. |
| Matt James |
Posted - 28 May 2014 : 22:35:22
They're doing it right, and I couldn't be more pleased. |
| Nicolai Withander |
Posted - 28 May 2014 : 22:28:08
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
I thew away my twitter account, I found it less then useful.
I have actually had it in a couble of years... I've done 3 tweeds in 3 years, so yeah... |
| Kentinal |
Posted - 28 May 2014 : 21:15:44
I thew away my twitter account, I found it less then useful. |
| Nicolai Withander |
Posted - 28 May 2014 : 20:36:34
quote:
Originally posted by Delwa
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolai Withander
Thanks... I'm not on twitter though. I dont believe in all this new stuff. 
Understood. The only reason I ever even got an account was to keep up with the Baldur's Gate: Enhanced Edition updates. After that, I found most of the D&D authors I like and the designers and I just follow them for the updates. :)
Good point... I did actually have a twitter account,so I wrote him... |
| Delwa |
Posted - 28 May 2014 : 20:19:36
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolai Withander
Thanks... I'm not on twitter though. I dont believe in all this new stuff.
Understood. The only reason I ever even got an account was to keep up with the Baldur's Gate: Enhanced Edition updates. After that, I found most of the D&D authors I like and the designers and I just follow them for the updates. :) |
| Nicolai Withander |
Posted - 28 May 2014 : 19:39:33
quote:
Originally posted by Delwa
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolai Withander
NIce one...
Btw... is there anyway of actually emailing him, or somehow post questions to him? I have written Mike on facebook, but that didn't work very well.
Twitter is the best way. He tries to answer every question posed there.
Thanks... I'm not on twitter though. I dont believe in all this new stuff. |
|
|
