Wow. Several of you said what I would have said, but more articulately. Thanks, I guess.

Quote from: Shasarak;1114343If we are quibling about Demonic half-breeds as opposed to Hellish half-breeds then we have already accepted the fact that there are half-breeds.

Whether there is actually a "race" of half-breeds or not is a pretty fluid idea within the DnD cosmology because you could look at Half-Elves and Half-Orcs and ask the same question of them, were their parents Human and Elf (for example) or are Half-Elves actually a new race of people that breed true.  Certainly the oringinal Planescape Tiefling was an individual more then a race and there is no good reason to suppose that any individual PC Tiefling lacks a unique backstory similar to the way that Iuz does.

If you are hell bent (heh) on having Tieflings descend from Devils then sure your idea is a perfect way to integrate a Tiefling into Greyhawk.

I choose to differentiate between demons and devils. Just because they are both fiends doesn't mean that they both produce tieflings in 5e anymore than lizardfolk should be able to produce half-breeds with humans just like elves since both are humanoids.

You second paragraph is not about 5e, so it's entirely irrelevant to this discussion.

Your third paragraph is appreciated. Thank you.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1114372You second paragraph is not about 5e, so it's entirely irrelevant to this discussion.

As far as I am aware there is no 5e version of Greyhawk.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1114364One kind of creativity is lost, yes, but another is gained.  Creativity that springs out of restraints can be muted but satisfying.  Also, note that I did not say "exactly" the same tastes.  There is a lot of overlap--enough to have something coherent that appeals to our joint tastes--but also differences.  The differences can be small, but are magnified in the game because of the base similarity.  

There is also the tonal preference for subtle or over the top.  We prefer something that leans somewhat towards the subtle, or at least allows room for it.  Spelljammer and the like simply doesn't appeal.

I understand and I'm not trying to be critical, just defending my preferences. I have played in games with relatively restrained player character races, but that doesn't feel like D&D to me. I never played Spelljammer but it probably wouldn't feel like D&D to me, either. Like A Fire Upon the Deep or the Star Wars cantina or Jedi Council, I think D&D needs lots of races and doesn't have to be humanocentric, but equally I wouldn't confuse any of those.

But nor does restricting races solve all problems; given a choice between a player with a tiefling (or dragonborn or firbolg or kenku or tortle or yuan-ti pureblood or whatever) role-played according to the race description in the PHB or Volo's or the Tortle Package or whatever, a player with an elf based off of Keebler cookie commercials, and a player with a human who does nothing but (mis)quote Monty Python, I'll take the first player and you and Bren can fight over the elf and the human.

Deal?

Quote from: Shasarak;1114378As far as I am aware there is no 5e version of Greyhawk.

Ghosts of Saltmarsh presents a piece of Greyhawk (the southern coast of Keoland) and is where the tiefling captain working for Iuz that I mentioned upthread is found. The same book also makes brief references to a few other parts of the Flanaess.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1114382Ghosts of Saltmarsh presents a piece of Greyhawk (the southern coast of Keoland) and is where the tiefling captain working for Iuz that I mentioned upthread is found. The same book also makes brief references to a few other parts of the Flanaess.

Yes it is set in Greyhawk and indeed has all sorts of races present. I have it on order. Had a glance at it at a store but couldnt pick it up then. If I recall right wasnt there a half-dragon NPC in there too? Among other things. This is Greyhawk though and theres alot of odd races dotting the land. Some created by magic, or originally hailing from some other world/dimension. That was noted in my old boxed set.

Quote from: rawma;1114381I understand and I'm not trying to be critical, just defending my preferences. I have played in games with relatively restrained player character races, but that doesn't feel like D&D to me. I never played Spelljammer but it probably wouldn't feel like D&D to me, either. Like A Fire Upon the Deep or the Star Wars cantina or Jedi Council, I think D&D needs lots of races and doesn't have to be humanocentric, but equally I wouldn't confuse any of those.

But nor does restricting races solve all problems; given a choice between a player with a tiefling (or dragonborn or firbolg or kenku or tortle or yuan-ti pureblood or whatever) role-played according to the race description in the PHB or Volo's or the Tortle Package or whatever, a player with an elf based off of Keebler cookie commercials, and a player with a human who does nothing but (mis)quote Monty Python, I'll take the first player and you and Bren can fight over the elf and the human.

Deal?

There's a big pool of players and a lot of games for them to play in.  I'll stake no claims on any of those three.  They'll find a game somewhere.

Anyway as for my personal issues with 5e:

Characters don't feel distinct from one another. The nature of the underlining resolution mechanic is that characters vary rarely differ in their success rates. But its also easy to succeed on most things without investment. While it means you rarely feel excluded, you also rarely feel exceptional.
Also every other general issue of D&D is lessened, but at a much more proportional loss of fun those issues had with them.
Also it feels downright unfinished in places. Not in a rules-lite "Make your own stuff" but more like "We ran out of stuff to do".
Monsters feel very inconsistent. Some feel like 4e damage sponges while others feel like 1e or 2e "Suprise kill" monsters.

I also have many more specific issues but those are the larger points.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee;1114437Anyway as for my personal issues with 5e:

Characters don't feel distinct from one another. The nature of the underlining resolution mechanic is that characters vary rarely differ in their success rates. But its also easy to succeed on most things without investment. While it means you rarely feel excluded, you also rarely feel exceptional.
Also every other general issue of D&D is lessened, but at a much more proportional loss of fun those issues had with them.
Also it feels downright unfinished in places. Not in a rules-lite "Make your own stuff" but more like "We ran out of stuff to do".
Monsters feel very inconsistent. Some feel like 4e damage sponges while others feel like 1e or 2e "Suprise kill" monsters.

I also have many more specific issues but those are the larger points.

So PCs are too predictably similar while monsters are wildly unpredictable?

Quote from: HappyDaze;1114440So PCs are too predictably similar while monsters are wildly unpredictable?

Yeah a big part of it. I don't care what Gorgnards say, instakill monsters are BS. I mean it can be a thing if everybody knows what game they are playing, but in general its just a punishment for not poking every wall, floor, ceiling, chest, skull, door, house, mouse, louse, blouse, and bauhaus painting with a 10 foot pole because they didn't guess accurately what the GM was thinking that day.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee;1114441Yeah a big part of it. I don't care what Gorgnards say, instakill monsters are BS. I mean it can be a thing if everybody knows what game they are playing, but in general its just a punishment for not poking every wall, floor, ceiling, chest, skull, door, house, mouse, louse, blouse, and bauhaus painting with a 10 foot pole because they didn't guess accurately what the GM was thinking that day.

I have also seen the other side of that with really swingy PC abilities. A good turn or two and the PCs can bulldoze through what should have been a challenging encounter, but a bad turn or two can quickly result in a TPK. If you have both the monsters and the PCs highly variable, the ability to accurately gauge challenges becomes a total asspull. If both monsters and PCs are tightly similar and predictable, then the game is boring (to me) and entirely a resource management chore. Since one side needs to be relatively stable for a good mix between predictability and swing, I prefer the 5e idea that PCs (which are involved in every encounter) being the more predictable element. The DM can always avoid using the worst of the swingy monsters.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1114444If both monsters and PCs are tightly similar and predictable, then the game is boring (to me) and entirely a resource management chore.

I can see that argument as well. I didn't feel like 5e wasn't that. As a GM I don't find instakills satisfying. Since again that's just a lucky roll.

I prefer to make an impossible challenge and have the PCs think their way out of it. I didn't find 5e provided that on a level that wasn't mostly fiat.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee;1114441Yeah a big part of it. I don't care what Gorgnards say, instakill monsters are BS. I mean it can be a thing if everybody knows what game they are playing, but in general its just a punishment for not poking every wall, floor, ceiling, chest, skull, door, house, mouse, louse, blouse, and bauhaus painting with a 10 foot pole because they didn't guess accurately what the GM was thinking that day.

If Amos Doe, 1st level Fighter, tries to confront Ancelegorn the Black a 16 HD Red Dragon, it will be a instakill.

Situation A
Amos decides based on a treasure map that a cave of kobolds is likely place for a novice to make an initial score but then runs into Ancelegorn in the second chamber, dies, and the referee goes "Ha Ha, the map was a trap put out by the dragon to lure unsuspecting adventurers."

That that a failure in my book. Why? Because the situation stretch plausibility to the breaking point for a variety of reason.

Situation B
Now take a different situation where Amos gets ahold of a map that shows that a cave is the lair of Ancelgorn an ancient Red Dragon. The player decides that despite being 1st level that it would a good things to visit that cave. The players for whatever reason things it is red herring and that the referee would never kill a PC instantly. A few minutes of real time later Amos is dead. I have to no problem with this outcome although the player will still have complaints.

The difference is the world being build around the encounter and the information imparted to the player.

In general the problem with instakill anything is that there is no build up by the referee. No process of discovery or learning that give the PCs the information to calculate the risks.

The problem in your statement is not the instakill, the problem is the lack of information. If one see a flight of stairs descending into darkness and just merrily follows that path then yes it is likely horrible bad things will happen to the character. If instead they try to investigate why these stair are there then they will have more information on which to evaluate whether it is worth the risk.

Then there are time when something is just found that nobody knows about. In those cases you are literally going into the unknown. The smart play is to poke every wall, floor, ceiling, chest, skull, door, house, mouse, louse, blouse, and bauhaus painting with a 10 foot pole. You have no information what down there, you have no way of getting that information.

What I would do as a player, is poke around just enough to identify why the place was built. Retreat, do some research, and come back better prepared.

This is not old school, new school, or middle school. This how thing work in this type of situation. Of course a referee can make it easier to the players by only having level appropriate encounters. Use a system where the mechanics allow character to nearly always survive the first assault. And so on.

I've watched 5E games posted to YouTube, wherein the players succeed at least 90% of the time.  "I rolled a 6, but I get plus 3 for this, and plus 2 for that; so I have an 11."

Quote from: rawma;1114381But nor does restricting races solve all problems; given a choice between a player with a tiefling (or dragonborn or firbolg or kenku or tortle or yuan-ti pureblood or whatever) role-played according to the race description in the PHB or Volo's or the Tortle Package or whatever, a player with an elf based off of Keebler cookie commercials, and a player with a human who does nothing but (mis)quote Monty Python, I'll take the first player and you and Bren can fight over the elf and the human.

Deal?

I'm a generous soul. You can have all three of them.