Gnomes vs. Tieflings

Remove all ads!

gnome versus tiefling

I started this poll to offer a place to voice your opinions of these two races.
Tieflings are relatively new in D&D, and in 4th edition, they take the place of gnomes as a player race.



I personally don't like this, and I'd like to see what you think about this.
Icewind Dale 2 is one of the games where you can still choose both races, so I thought it would be an appropriate place to discuss it.

I don't like tieflings because:

1) They replace gnomes. Gnomes have been a recognized fantasy race for a lot longer, and are more entertaining to play.
Who can say they liked Haer'Dalis more than Jan Jansen? Gnomes have more depth of character. Tieflings are like: "Ooo, I'm a plane-touched being with an aura. Fear me!" Jan Jansen would burst that bubble in no time.
Haer'Dalis's vague, artsy-fartsy expressions weren't nearly as good.
2) In IWD2 their racial bonuses (except +2 hide) are not useful for their favoured class, the rogue.
Rogues get evasion, and they have much less use for the elemental resistances. +2 bluff is useful for a bard, not a rogue.
3) The atmosphere of the tiefling race is reminiscent of the evil Drow, and they are watered-down Drow wannabes.
4) The magical nature of tieflings doesn't rhyme with a rogue. Powerful, high level rogues should be simple humans or humble gnomes.
The entire story behind an enigmatic, high level rogue is spoiled by the magical abilities of the tiefling.
A rogue should be separate from a warrior or spellcaster, having its own feeling. Tieflings spoil this, they're not down-to-earth characters.
And how can it be explained that a plane-touched being has chosen such a worldly profession? High level rogues are by definition straightforward characters from simple beginnings.
5) About the favoured race in 3.5E D&D: Why on earth aren't tieflings bards? It suited Haer'Dalis perfectly! Who thought gnomes would be good as bards?
Do they look charismatic to you?

If you have some insight from other D&D games, or books, please feel free to add them.

 

Most of your complaints arent about tieflings themselves, they are about Tiefling's favoured class. You can play a Tiefling bard if you want, just limits your multiclass capabilities.

Personally I prefer Tieflings to Gnomes - Gnomes are just inferior copies of Dwarves.

 

There's no need for gnomes, dwarf and halfling already allow to have two different races with main speciality "little" in the party, there's no need for a mix with only little difference.

"Bard" would be the worst favored class for tieflings. Bards have to be beautiful. All the famous stars use plastic surgery, heavy makeup and their images are improved with computers, they do it for a reason. People don't want to see ugly performers, and tieflings are ugly by definition, with demonic looks to disgust watchers. Ugly performers don't earn enough money for their living by performing.
You're confusing D&D and BG2, the tiefling race and Haer'Dalis, who is a bard in spite of being a tiefling. BG2 is a showcase which mixes many AD&D elements, it's not D&D. I wouldn't bother if Jan Jansen was called a halfling instead of a gnome, without the artificial level and class restrictions in the old D&D editions the races play nearly the same.

 

I dont mind the idea of Tiefling's favoured class being Bard.

As I see it, charisma depends on personal magnetism. Who says that someone with an infernal touch cant be charismatic? I'm sure everyone has seen movies in which the bad guy/girl gets their way through wily ways and seduction? Who is to say Tieflings need be different?

 

Indeed, Charisma is not necessarily appearance. A really ugly character with huge strenght of person can still have CHA 18 while a simpering, weak-filled, meek, pretty one could have abysmal charisma.
And tell me, how often in fantasy has there been, say, an old, ugly man or woman who can still turn heads with his or her tales or a skillfully sung song? Many, I'd say. His appearance had nothing to do with his charisma in that case. And the age is just a typical thing, there could well be, for example, a very ugly character who still seizes the throne through his fiery speeches against the evil king and his strength of personality.
Appearance could certainly help, but is by no means the only thing that determines it.

 

Tieflings actually make pretty damn good rouges. Not only does their darkness spell-like ability make for a quick escape or the like, their bonus to Dex and Int are to the two most important stats for a rouge. Also a bonus to bluff is great for a rouge to create a diversion and make it easier for a rouge to hide. A tiefling pretty much has to have energy resistances due to all the energy resistances/immunities fiends have. Besides resistance to cold or fire are very helpful in hot or cold environments.

Also the assassin and shadow dancer prestige classes often come from rouges and both prestige classes are VERY magical (assassins actually even cast spells). Not to mention sneak attack fits very well with devils and demons (yugoloths for that matter as well). Besides the rouge class is so diverse, much like the fighter, there is no typical rouge. A rouge can be a guttersnipe, courtier, a treasure hunter or just about anything else. Anyway, my tieflings tend to end up as wizards as I find them most useful in that role.

Anyway, I dislike tieflings for many of the same reasons I dislike drow. It seems like everyone plays them as the troubled hero overcoming their past/ancestry. Stop with the angst please! Besides a tiefling shouldn't be a core race as they should be more powerful then their human counterparts. I don't know about you, but I don't think an outsider race should be as weak as a core humanoid race. If my granddaddy is a half-fiend, I'm probably a lot more potent then my fellow humans.

Personally, though, I never play as a gnome. 3.5 turning their favorite class to bard didn't do anything for me either (bard=most boring class in the world to play as). But mostly it's the names. Have you ever tried naming a gnome? God damn, it's like an exercise in itself. They do still make useful npc illusionists though.

I'm still for gnome over the tiefling. Humanoids are common, exotic races like the planetouched shouldn't be a dime a dozen. WotWC is merely seeing green because tieflings, like the drow, are popular with all your emo teenagers who want someone who will cry and pretend to cut their wrists. Making tielfings a core race is as stupid as making half-ogres a core race. I'm sorry there just aren't enough half-ogres to constitute a core race. Hobgoblins are a more appropriate +1 level adjustment race in 3.5 to be made into a core race.

 

I don't mind tieflings being able to be bard, but as favored class bard (which has charisma as main stat) doesn't fit for a race with charisma penalty.
Average tieflings are considerably uglier than humans, but average performers are considerably more beautiful than other people.
Tieflings might be bards in spite of being tieflings, but this shouldn't be their standard profession as fighter is for dwarves.

 

tieflings are the real monsters!

I disagree with kmonster that the little races are too similar.
Dwarves: Strong, sturdy, grumpy, stubborn, aggressive, blunt.
Halflings: Playful, child-like, agile, brave, obnoctious, friendly.
Gnomes: Ingenious, humble, sly, annoying, cowardly, silly.
Just because they're short in stature doesn't mean they're in any way similar. Although the favoured class of Illusionist is very restrictive.
OK maybe bard isn't the ideal class for a tiefling, but neither is rogue. Perhaps mage suits them best. But the -2CHA of tieflings doesn't make sense, they're mainly human, so can't be that ugly. And their plane-touched heritage should be a boost to charisma, just like aasimar. If charisma is based on 'good' heritage, why do drow get +2?
My biggest problem is that tieflings are such rare, elaborate and exotic characters. The best high level rogue story is of one who's started from poor beginnings, maybe been part of an organisation like the shadow thieves, been through a tremendous amount of skirmishes, and honed his skills to deadly efficiency. A legendary, enigmatic thief. How can a being from another dimension be a legend in Faerun? How does he even know how to use his skills in Faerun efficiently?

Spoiler

I love fighting down-to-earth high level rogues. In Improved Anvil (BG2 mod by sikret) a thief stronghold is established in Firkraag's old lair, and the rogue opponents you face there are exactly what I mean. What an amazing battle that was.

Ilmater's, don't get me started on WOWarcraft: that game was designed entirely to get some money out of roleplaying fans and persuade them to go play first person shooters, because the morons that play those buy a new game every week, whether they can afford it or not. It's mindless and colourful, like a baby's toy.
Ilmater's described the emo-ness of tieflings perfectly. After the deterioration of the drow myth (i do like the original drow), we now have another contender for vampire fetishists.

 

WotWC is Wizards of the West Coast, assuming that is what the WoW comment is stemming from, but yes 4 ed, from the people I've talked to who play (and enjoy) both 3.5 and 4 ed, is WoW, or at least an MMO that closely resembles WoW.

As for charisma, tieflings have a "otherworldly "wrongness"" about them and strange traits that betray their fiendish heritage. Even half-orcs don't have a charisma penalty simply because they're ugly, they're crude as well. Ugly creatures who are genuinely terrifying (like true fiends) can have very high charisma scores. Tieflings are, in general though, ugly compared to their human kin. Fiends represent evil both in action and appearance and are a horror to behold because of it (with two exceptions). Half-fiends and tieflings have their appearance influenced by that as well, though tieflings aren't always hideous like half-fiends.

As for gnomes, they've always struck me as the bastard love child of dwarves and elves and they live in between elves and dwarves in terms of terrain, are in between terms of dwarves and elves in terms of general alignment. They share dwarves love of precious stones and metals and elves love of magic and pursuit of learning. They're also master craftsmen like dwarves and elves.

 

Drow have a reputation of vile cruelty and evil that precedes them wherever they go, so why do they get +2CHA? Just because they have elven charm?

Gnomes may be in between the characteristics of elves and dwarves, but this is all the more reason they deserve to be a player race.

I didn't know about WotWC, sorry. I´m a pc gamer, so a bit out of my depth here.

 

Well, I looked at that from a 4th edition point of View.

While I think that Tieflings do provide some interesting RP ideas (hopefully more than the ones IS pointed out being done to death), I have yet to get a feel for them. That said, my favourite character of all that I've played, the original occurance of the name Gnarfflinger, was a Gnome I/T in second edition, so I was sad to see the little buggers left out of the PHB. I believe they will be in the second PHB that should be out next year...

I think the game should have both races, and a lot of others...

 

While I like the concept of tieflings in general, I've always found the 'lolkewl' factor about them annoying (I don't necessarily except you to understand what I'm talking about - might just be a personal hangup). They certainly shouldn't be a core race, anyway - they belong on the Planes, not in your standard-fantasy setting that D&D is geared towards. Well, nothing against one showing up as a rather rare occurance in one of one of the crossovery-type campaign settings, but as a core race doesn't make any sense (well, it might in light of the new cosmology, but frankly, the new cosmology doesn't make any sense).

 

I quite like planetouched races. Then again I have very few 3.5ed core characters, out of a hundred I have perhaps a half dozen with no level adjustment. I like to play characters that are strange and unusual without playing them as a novelty.

Gnomes I've never really liked much I don't believe I've ever seen them played without an annoying edge to them.

 

Man, you'd think for someone who'd been using their products for over a decade, I'd have picked up on that by now.

It's more of an aura for tieflings, not a reputation. People intuitively pick up on it. Even a tiefling who has magically altered his or her appearance is unsettling to others. Drow on the other hand have been selectively bred for the force of their personality.

 

And how attractive their partners are Drow breed for perfection. An ugly male better be a good spellcaster if he wants any position in the society, unless it's a male dominated city, in which case the women better be attractive or highly skilled in another useful field.

Tieflings, however, have a little piece of hell in them. Something that jars with mortals and outsiders who are not from the lower planes. Those on the lower plains... see little pieces or mortality embedded in hell.

 

+1. I tend to agree with Aik so much that people should probably just take his opinions as a double load unless otherwise specified.

As for gnomes, I recognize they're pretty much the comic relief/losers of D&D. I don't especially like them, but WotC could've attempted to made them cooler instead of wiping them out completely.

They'll probably return in a sourcebook in the future, though.

For lolkewl factor: see also Dragonspawn. Now those are just plain silly.

 

WotC never seemed to like gnomes. They have always been a weak race in their rules.
A gnome should have +2 int or wis from an RP-ing perspective! A gnome with +2 con was just stupid to start with - the short fantasy race that can take many hits and still stand are DWARFS, not gnomes!!!

The favored class of bard was also a crazy change!! Gnome bards have always seemed like a really odd combination you shouldn't encounter often, if ever (ok, at least they didn't pick paladin as favored class, but most other chouces would have been better than bard from an RP-ing perspective).

I also don't like the system of player races and monsters. All races should be made playable (or at least most of them, some extreme races could be difficult to balance).
I always hated the "half-" part of some races that comed from the system with monster races and player races. I always consider my "half-orcs" to be pure orcs and so on.
If you really want to play a mixed race, just mix some of the stats from the different races you want to belong after how much blood you have from them or so and try to balance the race out so you don't only take the advantages you need for your specific build and skip the disadvantages. Then with some talk to the DM, everything is easily solved and you have created a 30%-elf/70%-human or watever you want to use.

 

Gnomes' racial bonuses and bard as a favoured class makes a lot of sense, actually. +2 Con, because they're naturally hardy. +2 Int would imply that all of them undergo some sort of mental training or something (like Sun Elves), which isn't true. Bard also makes a lot of sense - bards can be flighty, whimisical, silly, and storytellers. And also good at illusions. Does Jan Jansen not have some of these qualities? What about Quayle? He did end up running a circus, didn't he?

From an RPing perspective, bards make a lot of sense. Maybe not from a powergaming perspective, but who cares about that.

Also, tiefling with Bard favoured class...no, just no.
(I'm pretty miffed about their +2 Cha, too. wtf? That's just an example of how they suddenly jumped from being the hated stepson of the Planes to AWESUM KEWL DEMONSPAWN. Bah.)

 

I thought being plane-touched, that they'd receive a bonus to something... Probably Dexterity or Intelligence? Although as everyone's already pointed out, +2 Cha isn't right

Favoured class: rogue also makes much more sense.