PDA

View Full Version : [4E] Why do we need so many Elves?



Alchemistmerlin
2008-06-27, 05:03 PM
Alright,

I will begrudgingly admit that I like some of the new stuff from 4e. (HP now = AWESOME POINTS just because of how even more abstract they are now)

However: why do there need to be so many CORE elves? I mean, I think it's fairly obvious that Eladrin are just High elves. Then we have the Elves, that are wood elves.

These don't bother me (Though I see no need for them to be separate races.) But why did the Gnomes go from skinny short dwarves to ugly illusionist Elves?

It is bad enough that they were heartlessly ripped from the PHB to be replaced by furries, but now they need to be elf-ified? I really just don't see why.

And yes, I know "Blah blah handwave the fluff blah", but that isn't really the point of discussing the new books yah? Using that logic the books should just be bound pages full of numbers.

Indon
2008-06-27, 05:06 PM
Because having far more types of elves than is necessary is a long-standing D&D tradition.

Alchemistmerlin
2008-06-27, 05:09 PM
Because having far more types of elves than is necessary is a long-standing D&D tradition.

I understand this but, at least in 3.5, they weren't core and they weren't corrupting other races.

I guess that's my biggest problem. The elf cup runneth over, and spilled on other folks.

The Gilded Duke
2008-06-27, 06:28 PM
Eladrin aren't elves. Eladrin are awesome.
Any further questions?


----------
For a more thorough response, while Eladrin are mentioned to be similar to high elves, they seem to be written up as a very different form of elf. Instead of just assigning a different environment or elemental type to each different Elf type, Eladrin seem to come from a different interpretation of Elves overall.

Instead of Elves as natural nature worshiping creatures they are strange inhuman creatures that aren't fully there whose villages regularly vanish or move who can become greater Fey. Look at their entry in the monster manual.

mikeejimbo
2008-06-27, 06:35 PM
I dunno, it bugs me that gnomes are elves now. I'm playing a gnome, and he's sure not going to be elf-like.

Alchemistmerlin
2008-06-27, 06:36 PM
Eladrin aren't elves. Eladrin are awesome.
Any further questions?


----------
For a more thorough response, while Eladrin are mentioned to be similar to high elves, they seem to be written up as a very different form of elf. Instead of just assigning a different environment or elemental type to each different Elf type, Eladrin seem to come from a different interpretation of Elves overall.

Instead of Elves as natural nature worshiping creatures they are strange inhuman creatures that aren't fully there whose villages regularly vanish or move who can become greater Fey. Look at their entry in the monster manual.

Right so...high elves with extra magic. yay?

Indon
2008-06-27, 06:41 PM
Right so...high elves with extra magic. yay?

Grey Elves, if you ask me.

Alchemistmerlin
2008-06-27, 06:41 PM
Grey Elves, if you ask me.

Very well then. Grey elves.

Still too many elves.

Crow
2008-06-27, 06:53 PM
Eladrin aren't elves. Eladrin are awesome.
Any further questions?


----------
For a more thorough response, while Eladrin are mentioned to be similar to high elves, they seem to be written up as a very different form of elf. Instead of just assigning a different environment or elemental type to each different Elf type, Eladrin seem to come from a different interpretation of Elves overall.

Instead of Elves as natural nature worshiping creatures they are strange inhuman creatures that aren't fully there whose villages regularly vanish or move who can become greater Fey. Look at their entry in the monster manual.

Seriously man, Eladrin and Elves are basically the same thing with a different twist. No big deal.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-06-27, 06:57 PM
Plus, rather than screwing with complicated fluff, WotC takes both the "high magic" elves and the "wild" elves and presents them as mechanically different, with little fluff attached. This way you can just say have someone play one or another without drawing up a whole complicated intra-elven society.

Did you every read the Complete Book of Elves in 2e? Now that's a lot of elves!

RTGoodman
2008-06-27, 06:58 PM
Well, I don't think I really need to point out all the subraces in 3.5 - it's gotta be like 20 or so by now.

And it's not like there aren't two types of elves in 3.5's PHB. I mean, they had the same stats and only one description, but there are still basically the "woodsy"-type elves and the "magicy"-type elves. 4E just separated them into long-lost cousins.

SmartAlec
2008-06-27, 07:00 PM
I was under the impression that the 3rd Ed Elf was a bit of a confused creature; had proficiency with longsword and longbow, and lived in woods, yet had wizard as a favoured class, which suggested a more civilised bent.

-Cor-
2008-06-27, 07:01 PM
I had the same initial impression when I first cracked open the PHB. Why two elves? Then I realized what they did.

A race that reveres both the arcane, civilized, to each his own lifestyle (snooty) AND the natural, everything's connected, protect the earth lifestyle (hippie) are a contradiction at best. They're not the same group of people.

Well, in 4E we now have the Eladrin (snooty) who are int based arcane civilized types, and the Elves (hippie) who are the wis based hold my bow while I take a pee, get the hell out of my forest types.

I like that they're seperate, very distantly related, but completely seperate.

YMMV.

(FWIW, to me, Gnomes don't even seem a little bit elf-y.)

Killersquid
2008-06-27, 07:10 PM
Wait, I'm sorry, I don't have the 4e MM (or any 4e book), but Gnomes became Elves? Or is it just similarities between the two?

Alchemistmerlin
2008-06-27, 07:13 PM
Wait, I'm sorry, I don't have the 4e MM (or any 4e book), but Gnomes became Elves? Or is it just similarities between the two?

Similarities. They live in forests now, and only have Common and Elven as languages.

Ralfarius
2008-06-27, 07:29 PM
Similarities. They live in forests now, and only have Common and Elven as languages.
Wait, didn't Gnomes in 3.X live in wooded hills and the like, and have the ability to talk to animals, a very nature-oriented ability? And in 3E their favoured class was Illusionist (i.e. wizard, just specialized)?

By the gods, gnomes were ALWAYS ELVES! IT ALL MAKES SENSE NOW!

IT ALL MAKES SENSE!
I'VE BEEN LIVING A LIE.
A LIEEEEEE!

Alchemistmerlin
2008-06-27, 07:36 PM
Wait, didn't Gnomes in 3.X live in wooded hills and the like, and have the ability to talk to animals, a very nature-oriented ability? And in 3E their favoured class was Illusionist (i.e. wizard, just specialized)?

By the gods, gnomes were ALWAYS ELVES! IT ALL MAKES SENSE NOW!

IT ALL MAKES SENSE!
I'VE BEEN LIVING A LIE.
A LIEEEEEE!

They had talk to burrowing animals which, while naturey, I would call more "living underground" oriented. Also, languages.

Ralfarius
2008-06-27, 07:38 PM
They had talk to burrowing animals which, while naturey, I would call more "living underground" oriented. Also, languages.
LIVING A LIIIIIIIIEEEEEEEEEEEEEeeeeee

Talya
2008-06-27, 08:08 PM
I love this.

I complain that they remove all the racial subtypes.

This guy complains that they still have too many elves.

We're obviously looking for different games.

AslanCross
2008-06-27, 08:09 PM
I understand this but, at least in 3.5, they weren't core and they weren't corrupting other races.

I guess that's my biggest problem. The elf cup runneth over, and spilled on other folks.

Aren't they all in the 3.5 Monster Manual?
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/elf.htm

(Well, okay, there are the Star Elves and Avariel from FR and the elemental-based ones in UA, but I still count more core elf subraces in 3.5 than in 4E.)

Oracle_Hunter
2008-06-27, 08:09 PM
I love this.

I complain that they remove all the racial subtypes.

This guy complains that they still have too many elves.

We're obviously looking for different games.

Just goes to show that people have very different tastes :smallwink:

mikeejimbo
2008-06-27, 08:40 PM
Wait, I'm sorry, I don't have the 4e MM (or any 4e book), but Gnomes became Elves? Or is it just similarities between the two?

They're Fey-like or something, somehow.

TheEmerged
2008-06-27, 09:40 PM
Wait, didn't Gnomes in 3.X live in wooded hills and the like, and have the ability to talk to animals, a very nature-oriented ability? And in 3E their favoured class was Illusionist (i.e. wizard, just specialized)?

By the gods, gnomes were ALWAYS ELVES! IT ALL MAKES SENSE NOW!

IT ALL MAKES SENSE!
I'VE BEEN LIVING A LIE.
A LIEEEEEE!

Truth: in the D&D world I spent most of my 3rd edition playing time in, the DM decided that gnomes are what you get when a dwarf & elf mate. It made a frightening amount of sense...

Alchemistmerlin
2008-06-27, 09:53 PM
when a dwarf & elf mate.

Ewwwwww :yuk:

Collin152
2008-06-27, 10:08 PM
Ewwwwww :yuk:

And then you take into accoutn that there are no female Dwarves or heterosexual elves...

erikun
2008-06-27, 10:16 PM
The original elf (that is, the Tolken elf) seemed to only make senseif you assumed that forests were inherently magical places - magical fountains, ley lines crossing the forest, that sort of thing. The problem is that, in D&D, most forests are just that - forests. You might run into the occasional magic forest, guarded by Treants and Dryads. However, most common forests seem populated solely by Elves, Gnolls, Rangers and Druids, just for something to be there.

And heck, Gnomes actually made better Druids than Elves. :smalltongue:

As for 4e, Elves seem to fit a lot better now. The faster than average movement coupled with shifting through difficult terrain makes sense in a forest, and the perception bonus, bow proficiency, and Elven Accuracy sets them apart as master marksmen. They seem to fit the "woodsy elf" rather well.

The Eladrin confuse me, though. It's not their abilities - they work well to define the "arcane elf" really well. It's the fluff that doesn't make sense. If wizardly elves don't make much sense in the forest, then they make even less sense in a forest where everything is literally insane. I mean, as someone who has read Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell, I cannot see anyone who spends their time in the Feywild - much less born and grew up there - as anything other than off-kilter. This fits the flavor of Gnomes to a T, but it leaves me wondering how the calm, self-assured, analytical Eladrin are supposed to fit in.

And I'm not sure how you're seeing Elves in the Gnomes - at least, no more than in 3e.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-06-27, 10:24 PM
The Eladrin confuse me, though. It's not their abilities - they work well to define the "arcane elf" really well. It's the fluff that doesn't make sense. If wizardly elves don't make much sense in the forest, then they make even less sense in a forest where everything is literally insane. I mean, as someone who has read Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell, I cannot see anyone who spends their time in the Feywild - much less born and grew up there - as anything other than off-kilter. This fits the flavor of Gnomes to a T, but it leaves me wondering how the calm, self-assured, analytical Eladrin are supposed to fit in.

Well, it is noted that the Eladrin do live in cities in the Feywild, which implies that they have tamed the place somewhat. Mainly, this seems to be though harnessing the superior arcane energies flowing throughout the realm with wizardry. Heck, no wonder they're arrogant - they're powerful enough to tame the Feywild (at least where they live).

John Campbell
2008-06-27, 11:37 PM
D&D has never been able to handle races that were made up of individuals rather than a bunch of homogenous stereotypes. This has been true ever since the original D&D, where only humans were even allowed to pick between character classes. D&D is also derivative of a number of different sources, which provide different and conflicting takes on the various races. Combining those sources makes the stereotypes kind of schizophrenic - particularly for elves, whose portrayal tends to vary more between sources than, say, dwarves. And since D&D, for whatever reason, is incapable of giving individual elves - or even entire elven cultures - enough freedom of choice to chalk the differences up to normal variation in tastes, their solution has always been to create new subraces to handle any deviation, however minor, from the stereotype. Thus we get the race of elves that like trees, the race of elves that like magic, the race of elves that like trees even more, the race of elves that are dual-scimitar-wielding chaotic good rebels... and on and on.

4E, which has apparently made it a deliberate design principle that every race has a single distinguishing schtick, is just holding true to form.

EvilElitest
2008-06-27, 11:51 PM
Because having far more types of elves than is necessary is a long-standing D&D tradition.

in Races and classes they said they were getting rid of elven subraces. And yet there are more elves than any other race so fare. Hmmmmmmmm
from
EE

Chronicled
2008-06-27, 11:59 PM
the race of elves that like trees even more, the race of elves that are dual-scimitar-wielding chaotic good rebels... and on and on.

:amused: And here's 10 characters.

OneFamiliarFace
2008-06-28, 12:09 AM
4E, which has apparently made it a deliberate design principle that every race has a single distinguishing schtick, is just holding true to form.

This is a good point, and I've put some thought into this in earlier editions. (Especially with elves, of whom I have never been a big fan.) But it makes sense in a game setting. If a given elf is something drastically different than an elf, say, a human, then he isn't really an elf at all. Likewise, if you have a group of gnomes who act like halflings, then you've just got a larger group of halflings.

What I mean is that I would think, "I want to change things up for my new campaign. I'm bored of the same ol' races." So I would make a race of stocky, secretive creatures who hoarded magical secrets in the form of powerful words, setting up traps to protect them. By the time I got done, I found I had palette-swapped kobolds with a picture of a gnome. If you, say, want a race of dwarves who live in the forests, and instead of making weapons of great steel, they make great wooden weapons, and are tremendous thrown weapon users, then they aren't really "dwarves," as per say. They just have beards (which I would bet my last dime have leaves woven into them).

The reason elves are so nebulous is because of the original definition of elves, Tolkien's definition of them, Drizzt do'Urden, and Santa. So I propose a limit to the elven races of four:

Mythological elves = woodsy gnomes
Tolkien's elves = Eladrin
Dark elves = an entire civilization changed from evil to begrudgingly good
Santa's elves = city-dwelling gnomes

This would also cut down on my Elven pantheon significantly. A sigh of relief to any DM.

BloodyAngel
2008-06-28, 12:11 AM
Gnomes in D&D have always been elusive forest folk... based on old stories like the cartoon "David the Gnome". They were Brogan and Brownie-like... timid forest spirits. They went back to that a little with the elves... and they really nailed them.

Seriously... given the choice between elusive forest fey-type gnomes, and irritating, shrill voiced tinker-gnomes... I'll take the 4th ed ones please.

Fanatic-Templar
2008-06-28, 12:46 AM
The original elf (that is, the Tolken elf) seemed to only make senseif you assumed that forests were inherently magical places - magical fountains, ley lines crossing the forest, that sort of thing. The problem is that, in D&D, most forests are just that - forests. You might run into the occasional magic forest, guarded by Treants and Dryads. However, most common forests seem populated solely by Elves, Gnolls, Rangers and Druids, just for something to be there.

Tolkien elves weren't particularly woodsy, if memory serves. The Noldor certainly were mountain types - Gondolin and Nargothrond and Vinyamar were all built in the mountains. Even Thranduil, as king of the Wood Elves, lived in subterranean halls built by the dwarves.
And there is of course a great connection with the Sea, though coastal elves seem to be fewer. Eglarest and Mithlond come to mind, and I seem to recall that Dol Amroth was once an elven haven. Forest dwelling elves seem to be more common among the Moriquendi.

Sorry 'bout that completely off subject passage.

Pronounceable
2008-06-28, 01:03 AM
Elves were too schizophreniac as someone said above. 4E solution is possibly as neat as it gets.

And anything that happens to the worthless, crap faced lawn ornaments that change them drastically is an improvement. Including being flayed alive and thrown into boiling water.

EvilElitest
2008-06-28, 01:11 AM
Really, gnome hate is remarkable like real life biogtry. It often doesn't have a basis, and has little actual reason behind it. Why do people hate gnomes? WoW gnomes i can understand, but D&D gnomes aren't actually that bad, really
from
EE

Helgraf
2008-06-28, 01:14 AM
in Races and classes they said they were getting rid of elven subraces. And yet there are more elves than any other race so fare. Hmmmmmmmm
from
EE

Yeah, there's a whole three. Eladrin, Elf, and Drow.

Compared to 20+ and climbing, that's significant pruning.

The_Werebear
2008-06-28, 01:36 AM
Really, gnome hate is remarkable like real life biogtry. It often doesn't have a basis, and has little actual reason behind it. Why do people hate gnomes? WoW gnomes i can understand, but D&D gnomes aren't actually that bad, really
from
EE

I don't like 3.5 gnomes because they always ended up being shrill voiced mechanical monstermakers who would blow the whole world up to prove a point about thermodynamics. They were an entire race of accidents waiting to happen, and every time someone played one exactly that occurred in short order.

The 4.0 gnomes I have a lot less problems with. We'll have to wait and see if they stay woodsy, or become wee mad bombers again.

Nychta
2008-06-28, 02:24 AM
Yeah, there's a whole three. Eladrin, Elf, and Drow.

Compared to 20+ and climbing, that's significant pruning.

I don't see what's wrong with these three. They seem significantly different to me.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-06-28, 02:36 AM
Mythological elves = woodsy gnomes
Tolkien's elves = Eladrin

Mythological elves would be D&D gnomes.

Eladrin and Elves are both Tolkien's elves; Eladrin are Noldorin/general Calaquendi (originally named Gnomes by Tolkein, incidentally...), and Elves are Silvan Elves/general Moriquendi. Seems pretty obvious to me.

They are two different archetypes, and I'm glad they've been properly separated; 3E sun and moon elves were a mix of both archetypes, and the various elven subraces were far too much alike.

TheOOB
2008-06-28, 02:49 AM
Well, elves in D&D where always kind of bi-polar, you had the nature loving religious down to earth thing going on, and the etheral majestic arcane properties, they've been separated before(gray elves & wood elves) but the core high elf has always seemed...schizophrenic. They've just made the separation core now.

As for gnomes being elves now, considering that both races are based off of fae creatures, grouping them together doesn't really change anything.

Jayngfet
2008-06-28, 03:53 AM
The weard bit with wizardly forest guys always rubbed me the wrong way, that's why I got rid of high elves and bade wood elves the main elves for my setting(and not many other kinds).

Foxtale
2008-06-28, 04:54 AM
Eladrin and Elves are pretty distinct though. I'd hesitate to even call Elves 'fey'. Eladrin follow so closely to the UK fey elves, being wild in passion, neither black nor white, and not stuck to our idea of 'morals'. Think of the Fayrie Tales or War of the Flowers elves. Being as that is, gnomes seem to be more of the evil side of elf nature, and eladrins the good side.

I've always loved the tales of the Seelie hosts, where the evil Raven Prince and the Queen of the Fayries would hold court together, and plot and scheme against each other. Seelie and Unseelie, if you've read the Bitterbynde Trilogy.

Seeing as that is, the Elves just don't have that. They're more like the park rangers of the world. They don't have magical otherworldly sprites and sorcery. They have physical prowess and superhuman senses. It's a completely different race. :P

Just because they have pointy ears doesn't make them an elf.

potatocubed
2008-06-28, 05:21 AM
The problem I have with the new elves is this: they serve no purpose. I can't see any story role that a new elf could play that couldn't be better served by an eladrin, a human, or a half-eladrin (half-elf, by any other name).

The new park-rangery elves are just superfluous. I think it would be different if they were wild enough to be proper wild elves, but they're not.

Arameus
2008-06-28, 05:41 AM
Elves are put into fantasy settings because they are ideal Mary Sues that just get accepted because they're a concept as old as the hills.

They're more graceful, more lithe, more slender, smarter, longer-lived, more charming, better-looking, magical, friends of the Earth, more skilled, more articulate, better craftsmen, more moral (depending on which subset), and are generally just there in literature to serve as an idealized race that looks sighingly down on the short-lived, bloodthirsty humans and bemoans their barbaric ways that they could so easily change but choose not to.

As this concept got passed around by different authors, the different types of elves started to emerge to produce a wider variety of irritatingly-superior and completely one-dimensional author inserts.

And when fantasy games started being made, all the rules just went out the window.

I've long been of the opinion that elves are an outdated, misused, and played-out novelty that simply does not serve any purpose or skillfully attend any role. They should all just be lined up and shot.

Of course, if you tried that, God knows there would end up being a brave few elves still out there, fighting their human oppressors and bravely, stalwartly trying to eke out an existence in a world that *puke* *whoarr-rr-fgh* *hack* *sputter* *BLEEEAAAARGH* *pant* *wheeze*

...I- I'm okay.... I just feel sorta lightheaded. Let me- uh, let me go lie down.

Edit: The original elves originitad, I believe, in Iceland, and are more like dwarves than elves as we know them today. Makes for a good read if you care to spend time on Wikipedia for it.

Mjoellnir
2008-06-28, 06:21 AM
I simply see the eladrin as the first children that came from the blood of Correlon when he battled Gruumsh in the feywild. The elves are their descendants that left the feywild for the material plane, and in the past you only saw eladrin as servants of the good gods (as ghaele, bralani, firre, etc., the most powerful ones). Now, somehow there is again a connection between material plane and feywild (I'm yet undecided, if it's an effect of a spellplague that Mystra survived or if Correlon did it to help Eilistraee in her sava game against Lolth), and the young normal eladrin come into the material world. *g* I have to make an epic destiny that transforms an eladrin into a ghaele from 3.X, I always wanted to play one.:smallbiggrin:

SmartAlec
2008-06-28, 06:34 AM
They're more graceful, more lithe, more slender, smarter, longer-lived, more charming, better-looking, magical, friends of the Earth, more skilled, more articulate, better craftsmen, more moral (depending on which subset), and are generally just there in literature to serve as an idealized race that looks sighingly down on the short-lived, bloodthirsty humans and bemoans their barbaric ways that they could so easily change but choose not to.

The funny thing is, Tolkien's Elves were in awe of Humanity for having things they didn't have - an abstract imagination, dreams and their own mysterious afterlife. Elves were tied to the land and the earth and that was actually considered a disadvantage in some ways, as Elven art and literature could only mimic forms of nature - they were almost incapable of coming up with something original, or thinking about things from a design perspective.

Later versions seem to drop the disadvantages, and just go with the 'slow to breed' answer for why Elves don't rule the world.

bosssmiley
2008-06-28, 06:46 AM
Eladrin aren't elves. Eladrin are awesome.
Any further questions?

Eladrin were awesome when they were demon-hunting Celtic sidhe outsiders and living spirits of inspiration. Now they are nothing but (*yawn*) twinkly elves from sparkly pixie land who rip off Nightcrawler from "X-Men". A total baby/bathwater balls up by the designers IMO.


Elves are put into fantasy settings because they are ideal Mary Sues that just get accepted because they're a concept as old as the hills.

They're more graceful, more lithe, more slender, smarter, longer-lived, more charming, better-looking, magical, friends of the Earth, more skilled, more articulate, better craftsmen, more moral (depending on which subset), and are generally just there in literature to serve as an idealized race that looks sighingly down on the short-lived, bloodthirsty humans and bemoans their barbaric ways that they could so easily change but choose not to.

As this concept got passed around by different authors, the different types of elves started to emerge to produce a wider variety of irritatingly-superior and completely one-dimensional author inserts.

Yes. This. :smallamused:

As for "Why furries/scalies and 3 sets of elves in 4E?" Look at deviantArt, Elfwood, fanfic/slashfic/Eragon: furries and elves sell. WOTC can use them to shift product. WOTC will therefore exploit the known tastes of its target audiences. :smallannoyed:

@v:
Pretty soon all media will descend to the lowest possible form: furry Elfin retellings of Advent Children.

I give it 3 years, tops. Then we must burn it all and return to the oceans. :smallbiggrin:

Arameus
2008-06-28, 07:14 AM
As for "Why furries/scalies and 3 sets of elves in 4E?" Look at deviantArt, Elfwood, fanfic/slashfic/Eragon: furries and elves sell. WOTC can use them to shift product. WOTC will therefore exploit the known tastes of its target audiences. :smallannoyed:

What?! A corporation sacrificing the integrity and quality of its intellectual property for the sake of fanservice and *gasp* the almighty DOLLAR?!

Pretty soon all media will descend to the lowest possible form: furry Elfin retellings of Advent Children.

Not necessarily off topic since we're on 'subsets of elves:' How would one tell the difference between furry elves and furry humes? It's essentially just skin color and pointy ears in the first place so.... You know, just go ahead and forget all this. This is a road best washed out by a heaven-sent flood, its odious destination rent to annihilation by divine forbearance.

EDIT: You know, I do think I should probably make clear that I do not play D&D, 4E or otherwise, although I did read the PHB, DMG, and Monster Manual for 3.5. As such I am not really qualified for an objective comparison of the elves and races of D&D, between editions or toward other media. I only felt compelled to comment by my abiding contempt of all things Elfin.

(Side note: You rarely see the world Elfin anymore, do you? It's almost always 'Elven.' What's up with that? I'm really asking here, not just Seinfelding.)

Dan_Hemmens
2008-06-28, 07:23 AM
As for "Why furries/scalies and 3 sets of elves in 4E?" Look at deviantArt, Elfwood, fanfic/slashfic/Eragon: furries and elves sell. WOTC can use them to shift product. WOTC will therefore exploit the known tastes of its target audiences. :smallannoyed:

Just like they did thirty years ago, when they put the Tolkein races in in the first place...

Mjoellnir
2008-06-28, 08:03 AM
Eladrin were awesome when they were demon-hunting Celtic sidhe outsiders and living spirits of inspiration. Now they are nothing but (*yawn*) twinkly elves from sparkly pixie land who rip off Nightcrawler from "X-Men". A total baby/bathwater balls up by the designers IMO.

Hey, the demon-hunting celtic sidhe outsiders have to come from somewhere! in Savage Species there were rules for playing an Eladrin from first level, which had a few problems, because you got amazing stats and abilities, but had only half the hitpoints and BAB of a normal hero, while gestalting with the creature class made heroes which could take on the whole cast of Justice League. Now we have rules for playing them at low-levels, and can make ghaele, bralani etc. as epic destinies for the best who become servants of the court of stars and the elven gods.

ArmorArmadillo
2008-06-28, 10:35 AM
Alright,

I will begrudgingly admit that I like some of the new stuff from 4e. (HP now = AWESOME POINTS just because of how even more abstract they are now)

However: why do there need to be so many CORE elves? I mean, I think it's fairly obvious that Eladrin are just High elves. Then we have the Elves, that are wood elves.

These don't bother me (Though I see no need for them to be separate races.) But why did the Gnomes go from skinny short dwarves to ugly illusionist Elves?

It is bad enough that they were heartlessly ripped from the PHB to be replaced by furries, but now they need to be elf-ified? I really just don't see why.

And yes, I know "Blah blah handwave the fluff blah", but that isn't really the point of discussing the new books yah? Using that logic the books should just be bound pages full of numbers.
High Elves/Wood Elves is a standard elf division in fantasy.

Half-Elves are a little bothersome, but they're a holdover from old editions.

Gnomes aren't elves, they're more "fey" because up until now Gnomes have occupied a really awkward comic relief place in the game, and this gives them a more traditional position as mythological spirit gnomes.

RebelRogue
2008-06-28, 11:25 AM
Quick count: 3.5 Core has 4 different types of elves (not counting half-elves and drow), while 4 ed core has 2!

Hmm...

wodan46
2008-06-28, 11:39 AM
Eladrin, Elves, Half Elves, and Drow are all in 4e core, and all related to each to some degree.

Alchemistmerlin
2008-06-28, 11:50 AM
Quick count: 3.5 Core has 4 different types of elves (not counting half-elves and drow), while 4 ed core has 2!

Hmm...

Well A) that's still too many :smallwink:

B) I guess I meant "in the PHB" instead of "Core" but then the Gnomes aren't in the PHB anymore :smallfrown:


Elves were too schizophreniac as someone said above. 4E solution is possibly as neat as it gets.

And anything that happens to the worthless, crap faced lawn ornaments that change them drastically is an improvement. Including being flayed alive and thrown into boiling water.

"I hate gnomes! Am I cool yet?"

Dan_Hemmens
2008-06-28, 12:06 PM
Well A) that's still too many :smallwink:

B) I guess I meant "in the PHB" instead of "Core" but then the Gnomes aren't in the PHB anymore :smallfrown:


Gnomes aren't elves. Unless you want to count all "fey" creatures as elves, in which case 3.X contained zero elves, and 4E contains dozens.

potatocubed
2008-06-28, 12:41 PM
(Side note: You rarely see the world Elfin anymore, do you? It's almost always 'Elven.' What's up with that? I'm really asking here, not just Seinfelding.)

I think 'elfin' describes a person who shares the (putative) physical characteristics of an elf, whereas 'elven' indicates some sort of possession or creation of an elf.

Put another way, a human sculptor could make an elfin statue, but only an elf sculptor could make an elven statue - which may or may not also be elfin. :smalltongue:

averagejoe
2008-06-28, 12:57 PM
It's because the creators of dnd, like most people who are into fantasy these days, are a bunch of daisy eaters with man-crushes on Orlando Bloom.

Seriously, the rampant elf-love is something that really bothers me about modern fantasy, and the main thing that bothers me about 4e, a system I would otherwise reguard as fine. I mean, seriously, you have the eladrin, elves, and half-elves, which makes about a third of the PHB races elves. It's absolutely rediculous.

Fanatic-Templar
2008-06-28, 02:00 PM
I mean, seriously, you have the eladrin, elves, and half-elves, which makes about a third of the PHB races elves. It's absolutely rediculous.

Since you have humans, half-elves and tieflings, does that make the other half humans?

Arameus
2008-06-28, 03:10 PM
Yes. And that's perfectly okay. We, Humanity, shall--must--lash out and eradicate these obtuse and passe abominations until there are only two kinds of races left: Human-enough races, and the ones we can keep as pets.

Okay, maybe that's a little extreme, but...:smalleek: Essentially, there is absolutely no reason why they couldn't just as easily be subsets of humans, which would be functionally identical and actually make sense. Isn't human prolificity the key to their role in any political or economic arena in D&D? Shouldn't there be about 4 good, very widely-separated breeds of round-ears and one each of the horrible freak races like gnomes, elves, and dwarves?

Besides, who are they kidding? If it has opposable thumbs and walks upright, it is a human. Pretending it isn't just a subset or mutation is just being uppity.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-06-28, 03:21 PM
Seriously, the rampant elf-love is something that really bothers me about modern fantasy, and the main thing that bothers me about 4e, a system I would otherwise reguard as fine. I mean, seriously, you have the eladrin, elves, and half-elves, which makes about a third of the PHB races elves. It's absolutely rediculous.

Modern fantasy? Brother, fantasy writers have had man-crushes on elves since Tolkien wrote a book about how awesome they are (The Similrillion, not the other one :smallwink:). The Complete Book of Elves (2e) allowed elves to arbitrarily ignore uncomfortable heat and cold, and let's not even get into 80's and 90's TSR fiction; particularly the Moonblade series. :smallyuk:

PS: It's ridiculous! Not rediculous. Not to pick on you, specifically, but I've seen this misspelling across the 'nets for years now. When did this become the new "irregardless" :smallmad:

EvilElitest
2008-06-28, 03:27 PM
I don't like 3.5 gnomes because they always ended up being shrill voiced mechanical monstermakers who would blow the whole world up to prove a point about thermodynamics. They were an entire race of accidents waiting to happen, and every time someone played one exactly that occurred in short order.

no, that is Dragonlance gnomes, or WoW gnomes, D&D 3.5 gnomes didn't have this. There was a sterotype saying they did, ut in actuality they weren't like that, see the PHB


Also Elderian are more like the sterotype of Tolkien elves, not the actual deal
from
EE

Collin152
2008-06-28, 03:55 PM
no, that is Dragonlance gnomes, or WoW gnomes, D&D 3.5 gnomes didn't have this. There was a sterotype saying they did, ut in actuality they weren't like that, see the PHB



I know. My gnomes are nothing of the sort.
They're more like real people, individuas, you know?
But still a lot like the sterotypical jew....

ArmorArmadillo
2008-06-28, 04:05 PM
I know. My gnomes are nothing of the sort.
They're more like real people, individuas, you know?
But still a lot like the sterotypical jew....

I'd argue with the this...but I'm hard pressed not to see the similarity between PHB Gnomes and stereotypes of Jewish people.

Orzel
2008-06-28, 04:37 PM
Why do we need so many Elves?

We don't.

But the race split into groups is the cliche.
And elves already have a ton of images on it.
Better than 4 types of dwarves.

Collin152
2008-06-28, 04:40 PM
Better than 4 types of dwarves.

As I recall, there are Seven.

RTGoodman
2008-06-28, 05:12 PM
As I recall, there are Seven.

Yep - Stereotypical Scottish Dwarves, Stereotypical Scandinavian Dwarves, Stereotypical German Dwarves, Stereotypical Russian Dwarves, Stereotypical Canadian Lumberjack Dwarves... :smalltongue:

Actually, I can't think of any Hill Dwarves, Mountain Dwarves, Duergar, and I think Deep Dwarves or something like that (not counting the environmental variants from UA, since every race has them). What are the others?

Evil DM Mark3
2008-06-28, 05:14 PM
Shield Dwarves, Gold Dwarves, and another from FR

Ralfarius
2008-06-28, 06:26 PM
As I recall, there are Seven.
And often times hi-ho, hi-ho, it's off to work they go.

Collin152
2008-06-28, 06:34 PM
And often times hi-ho, hi-ho, it's off to work they go.

Well, it ain't no trick to get rich quick, if you dig-dig-dig with a shovel or a pick.
In a mine. In a mine.
In a mine. In a mine.
Where a million diamonds... Shine!

averagejoe
2008-06-28, 06:48 PM
Modern fantasy? Brother, fantasy writers have had man-crushes on elves since Tolkien wrote a book about how awesome they are (The Similrillion, not the other one :smallwink:). The Complete Book of Elves (2e) allowed elves to arbitrarily ignore uncomfortable heat and cold, and let's not even get into 80's and 90's TSR fiction; particularly the Moonblade series. :smallyuk:

PS: It's ridiculous! Not rediculous. Not to pick on you, specifically, but I've seen this misspelling across the 'nets for years now. When did this become the new "irregardless" :smallmad:

Yes, and Tolkien pretty much jumpstarted the modern fantasy movement. I meant modern fantasy as, roughly speaking, LoTR and what came after, not contemporary.

Either way, they could have given up one of the three elf races to appease us half orc lovers. It didn't even need to be the horc, it could have been an orc or goblin or freakin' something. :smallannoyed:

Sorry about the spelling error, by the way. I only mind people pointing them out because that means I've made an error. However, in my defense, it's fairly rare in english for an i positioned in such a way to make a long 'e' sound. To me the proper spelling still looks like it should be pronounced, "rid-ee-cul-ous." Or have I been pronouncing ridiculous wrong all this time?

Ralfarius
2008-06-28, 06:55 PM
To me the proper spelling still looks like it should be pronounced, "rid-ee-cul-ous." Or have I been pronouncing ridiculous wrong all this time?
Apparently, you have. (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ridiculous)

Just think of the root word, ridicule. It's like saying "ridicule us!"

Only because you asked.

Collin152
2008-06-28, 06:56 PM
Yes, and Tolkien pretty much jumpstarted the modern fantasy movement. I meant modern fantasy as, roughly speaking, LoTR and what came after, not contemporary.

Either way, they could have given up one of the three elf races to appease us half orc lovers. It didn't even need to be the horc, it could have been an orc or goblin or freakin' something. :smallannoyed:

Sorry about the spelling error, by the way. I only mind people pointing them out because that means I've made an error. However, in my defense, it's fairly rare in english for an i positioned in such a way to make a long 'e' sound. To me the proper spelling still looks like it should be pronounced, "rid-ee-cul-ous." Or have I been pronouncing ridiculous wrong all this time?

Ur saying it rong.

I'm rather sure it's the 'ih' sound.
Rih-dih-que-luss

averagejoe
2008-06-28, 06:58 PM
Apparently, you have. (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ridiculous)

Just think of the root word, ridicule. It's like saying "ridicule us!"

Only because you asked.

Interesting. Must be a regional thing. I've always pronounced it, "ree-dik-kewl-ous." Hence the "re" spelling.

Ralfarius
2008-06-28, 07:01 PM
Ur saying it rong.

I'm rather sure it's the 'ih' sound.
Rih-dih-que-luss
Today is "Collin152 and Ralfarius are on the same wavelength" day.

Also, ridiculous is one of those words that has a lot of syllables that would be highly variable based on regional pronunciations.

Collin152
2008-06-28, 07:14 PM
Today is "Collin152 and Ralfarius are on the same wavelength" day.

So, you thinking what I'm thinking then?
Cause I'm thinking dinner and a movie.

Ralfarius
2008-06-28, 07:18 PM
So, you thinking what I'm thinking then?
Cause I'm thinking dinner and a movie.
I am all up ons that thought.

Also, I'm thinking we've sort of... Derailed this thread, just a bit.

Collin152
2008-06-28, 07:25 PM
I am all up ons that thought.

Also, I'm thinking we've sort of... Derailed this thread, just a bit.

Wink wink.

Also, yes, derailed.
Therefore...

Three elves, but seven dwarves.
Imbalanced?
I should think not!
"Racially Diverse!"

EvilElitest
2008-06-28, 07:28 PM
Wait, i don't see gnomes are like the jewish stereotype. I know that this is a delicate issues, but isn't the stereotype greed, while gnomes are mostly curious. Did i miss something?
from
EE

Collin152
2008-06-28, 07:30 PM
Wait, i don't see gnomes are like the jewish stereotype. I know that this is a delicate issues, but isn't the stereotype greed, while gnomes are mostly curious. Did i miss something?
from
EE

Your Gnomes don't operate banks?
How very queer.

John Campbell
2008-06-28, 08:43 PM
no, that is Dragonlance gnomes, or WoW gnomes, D&D 3.5 gnomes didn't have this. There was a sterotype saying they did, ut in actuality they weren't like that, see the PHB

Or Forgotten Realms gnomes, or every other damned gnome I've seen since the original Dragonlance trilogy came out.

They've turned halflings into kender, too.

Talya
2008-06-28, 08:53 PM
Corolinth is Jewish, and he plays a gnome in my campaign. Now I know why.

Corolinth
2008-06-28, 08:55 PM
You are so cute and witty.
Wait, i don't see gnomes are like the jewish stereotype. I know that this is a delicate issues, but isn't the stereotype greed, while gnomes are mostly curious. Did i miss something?
from
EEGnomes as a Jewish stereotype is referring to the big noses. The gentiles have often felt threatened by our enormous Hebrew schnozzes. The white man feels the same inadequacy when faced with a black man's feet.

Talya
2008-06-28, 08:57 PM
Gnomes as a Jewish stereotype is referring to the big noses.

See, I couldn't get away with saying that. But since you're Jewish...

Corolinth
2008-06-28, 09:03 PM
Well, you know what they say about men with big noses...

I pity the fool who works on the Sabbath.

Collin152
2008-06-28, 09:07 PM
Gnomes as a Jewish stereotype is referring to the big noses.

What did you say about my Gnome's nose?!

ArmorArmadillo
2008-06-28, 09:40 PM
What did you say about my Gnome's nose?!

Well, coupled with the general stereotype for "trickiness" inherent in their forte for illusion magic...and the fact that their god is a nugget of gold.

Wizzardman
2008-06-29, 12:46 AM
You are so cute and witty.Gnomes as a Jewish stereotype is referring to the big noses. The gentiles have often felt threatened by our enormous Hebrew schnozzes. The white man feels the same inadequacy when faced with a black man's feet.

Its also referring to stereotypes about Jewish people and height, as well as the stereotype that Jewish people often have beards, and the stereotypes involving Judaism and intelligence (where Jews are, by some stereotypes, viewed as being "so smart they'll cut themselves."

Then again, people have also proclaimed that Dwarves (or some versions of them) are a stereotype of Jewish people, so its not like Gnomes are the only ones.


...
[Jewish Guy in the Playground]

Tsotha-lanti
2008-06-29, 01:23 AM
Shield Dwarves, Gold Dwarves, and another from FR

Shield dwarves are Mountain Dwarves, Gold Dwarves are Hill Dwarves.

Gold/Hill, Shield/Mountain, Deep, Duergar, Urdunnir, Jungle, Arctic, Derro... I'm probably missing a few. You can drop the Derro and have Seven?

Ralfarius
2008-06-29, 09:24 AM
Shield dwarves are Mountain Dwarves, Gold Dwarves are Hill Dwarves.

Gold/Hill, Shield/Mountain, Deep, Duergar, Urdunnir, Jungle, Arctic, Derro... I'm probably missing a few. You can drop the Derro and have Seven?
Actually, I'm pretty sure shield constitute the hill dwarves (and possibly mountain) of FR, while gold are a subrace all their own. I mean, they're shorter, sort of bronzey/gold in colour, and instead of a penalty to cha they get a penalty to dex, which doesn't seem very hilly to me.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-06-29, 01:33 PM
Actually, I'm pretty sure shield constitute the hill dwarves (and possibly mountain) of FR, while gold are a subrace all their own. I mean, they're shorter, sort of bronzey/gold in colour, and instead of a penalty to cha they get a penalty to dex, which doesn't seem very hilly to me.

I suppose; the two standard divisions are hill/mountain (Krynn) and gold/shield (Faerûn); you don't get all four, though. Granted, Krynnian hill and mountain dwarves both have the standard dwarf abilities (in 3.X), and are just culturally different. Meanwhile, shield dwarves are standard dwarves and gold dwarves have their own abilities.

The point is, hill dwarves and mountain dwarves wouldn't appear on a list with shield and gold dwarves, or with "PHB dwarves."

I guess if we do want to go cross-setting, we can add Krynnian dark dwarves (who sort of come in two varieties, but aren't that different) and gully dwarves. (Though then we might have to add Kagonesti, Qualinesti, and Silvanesti elves, who are sort of wild/wood, high, and gray elves, but are mechanically slightly different. And maybe Dargonesti and Dimernesti.)

I guess we could also add Athasian dwarves and elves...

JaxGaret
2008-06-29, 03:33 PM
The reason for why Gnomes are "Elven" in 4e is that they aren't; what they are is Fey, just like Elves. Elves are one of the dominant forces in the Feywild, and since Gnomes have being Humanoid Fey in common with Elves, and a similarly benign outlook on the world, they get along pretty well.

That doesn't mean that they are Elves, any more than they were Dwarves in 3e.

Ralfarius
2008-06-29, 05:31 PM
That doesn't mean that they are Elves, any more than they were Dwarves in 3e.
Well, they weren't dwarves in 3e because we already established they were elves back then, too!

Prophaniti
2008-06-29, 05:43 PM
You know, I've run into this myself. In the homebrew world I'm currently working on, I've been unable to cut elves to less than four distinct cultures and still keep all the concepts I want (though one of them is actually just a single city). Dwarves, on the other hand, are far easier to see as a (mostly) unified race, and any variance being a rare exception. Every other race, though, has only one or two distinct cultures or societies. The exception, of course, being humans, who are just as varied and widely spread as IRL.

Yeah, I don't know what it is about elves, but we just can't get enough of them.

sonofzeal
2008-06-29, 05:47 PM
I understand this but, at least in 3.5, they weren't core and they weren't corrupting other races.
Really? Let's see...

In 3.5 CORE we had High Elves, Dark Elves, Grey Elves, Half Elves, Wood Elves, Aquatic Elves, and Wild Elves, for a total of seven subraces. Contrast that with Dwarves (three), Halflings (three), Gnomes (three), Half-Orc (two, sorta, if you include full orcs), and Humans (one). So yeah, they still got over twice as many as everyone else, and way more than was ever needed. As for corrupting other races, it's a little-known fact that the word "drow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drow)" is actually just a variant/corruption of the word "troll", and were origionally much more like (and possibly synonymous with) Dwarves. Dunno if that counts for much, but it's still worth mentioning.

holywhippet
2008-06-29, 06:34 PM
I really don't see the problem with elves being viewed as both foresty types and wizard types. They aren't like human wizards who spend their time cooped up in a tower studying old tomes. Spells might be carved into wood or stone. Knowledge might be passed on by word of mouth.

Philistine
2008-06-29, 06:59 PM
I always figured that the profusion of "Elves" in D&D was a result of the generic (with respect to setting) ruleset, and that it reflected the frequency with which Elves of various flavors infest folklore, mythology, legend, and fiction. To make the ruleset adaptable to all those different settings, you need all those different Elves - and the more settings the ruleset covers, the more copies of the rules the company can sell (in theory, at least). So we end up with really silly and excessive numbers of Elf subtypes in Core, because the designers tried to shoehorn in every sort of "Elf" that has ever appeared in any setting.

Collin152
2008-06-29, 07:41 PM
I just model all my elves after the Japanese.
Switch 'chaotic good' to 'lawful Neutral' and there you go.

I hate splitting up a race into subraces, because I feel it makes the other races jealous.

Fhaolan
2008-06-30, 12:32 AM
In my campaign.... you know, I'm starting to wonder if people are getting bored of me staring posts with 'in my campaign'... :smallsmile:

In my campaign, Elves are not Fey. While many do live in treehouses and other environments isolate from other races, that's not exactly by their choice.

A long, long ago there was this civilization of Humans. They developed magic with a quite different slant than others. They used magic to improve themselves, and others. They created slave races of beastmen for servants and line soldiers (Gnolls, Minotaurs, Ratmen, etc.), but the best 'improvements' they kept for themselves. They increased their own lifespans, sharpened their senses, made themselves swifter both mentally and physically. They stopped having children, as procreating through magic was necessary to maintain their level of modification on their children. They made themselves perfect in their own eyes, eyes turned ever inward. They made themselves into Elves.

Then everything went wrong. Elvish diets had become so refined that they would only eat certain modified foods. Foods that were suddenly hit with disease. The children of the cauldrons were coming out more malformed than modified. The beastmen slaves, far more organized than the Elves had thought, rose up and began the conquest of the Elvish Empire.

The Elves, unable to cope with disaster after disaster, were scattered, thrust outside into a world that they had ignored. They became vagabonds, gypsies and tinkers. Without the backing of their Empire, they were unable to settle anywhere except the most isolated regions that other people had not claimed.

The worst thing is, from their point of view, was that they now had to procreate like animals. And the children were not perfect. Their modification magic was lost, as it required tools, and a level of organization not possible in their scattered state.

Now, game translation: The generation of Elves that were scattered are the equivalent to the D&D ‘Eladrin’. The next generation after the scattering would be the equivalent to the D&D ‘Elves’. And the timeline has reached the point in the campaign that they are starting to produce a significant number of ‘Half-Elf’ equivalents as their magically produced modifications are going away. The population will probably stabilize at the ‘Half-Elf’ state. While there will be different tribes, they don’t have different racial stats. There is no Underworld in my campaign, but there are ‘dark elves’, who are nomads occupying the southern desert regions. The only difference between those elves and the northern elves is skin coloration.

While in other D&D campaigns, the common excuse for a nonsensical monster is 'A Wizard Did It'. In my campaign, it's more like 'Those Stupid Elves Did It.'

averagejoe
2008-06-30, 01:29 PM
I really don't see the problem with elves being viewed as both foresty types and wizard types. They aren't like human wizards who spend their time cooped up in a tower studying old tomes. Spells might be carved into wood or stone. Knowledge might be passed on by word of mouth.

No problem with that. Don't need so many subraces, though. And doesn't explain the elf fetishes that seem to run rampant.

Dausuul
2008-06-30, 03:46 PM
Far as I'm concerned, all nonhuman races from elves to dragonborn should be either consigned to the Monster Manual or lined up and shot. They always end up being just humans in funny suits when people play them, and trying to find ways to integrate them all into a coherent campaign world drives me bonkers.

But I'm kind of extreme.

Ralfarius
2008-06-30, 03:53 PM
Far as I'm concerned, all nonhuman races from elves to dragonborn should be either consigned to the Monster Manual or lined up and shot. They always end up being just humans in funny suits when people play them, and trying to find ways to integrate them all into a coherent campaign world drives me bonkers.

But I'm kind of extreme.
At least your solution has some finality to it.

lord_khaine
2008-06-30, 04:18 PM
well i must say dividing the Core elf race into elfs and eladrin is one of the few good things 4th did imo.

Kompera
2008-07-01, 01:30 AM
Really, gnome hate is remarkable like real life biogtry. It often doesn't have a basis, and has little actual reason behind it. Why do people hate gnomes? WoW gnomes i can understand, but D&D gnomes aren't actually that bad, really
from
EE
You didn't really say that, did you?
Replace "WoW gnomes" and "D&D gnomes" with any two real life ethnic/religious/sexual orientation/whatever of your choice. Read it again. And now tell me you aren't just as much a bigot as you are complaining about others being.

CompositeSanta
2008-07-01, 02:54 AM
D&D Racism: Serious business

Regarding the so called "Furry Fan Service" issue, I'd just like to say one thing. But I'm a mouthy little bugger so instead I'll end up saying many.

When the issue was first raised, my initial reaction was "zomgwhere" consequently followed by rapid turning of the pages in search of the hawt furrymenz which had escaped my gaze, likely from the munchkin in me being too absorbed placing every single power in the PHB into tiers for future use. Upon finding none, I colored myself disappointed and continued reading the thread. Then I came across a post describing it as furries/scalies which brought reality crashing down on my clip-on cat ears as I remembered that most normal people don't know to differentiate between reptile anthropomorphics and mammal anthropomorphics.

To those who would claim the inclusion of dragonborn as a core race to be service to the furry (or rather scaly) fandom, I would use this analogy. If that is WoTC's idea of service, then were they a restaurant I would deliver their tip by placing a single penny at the bottom of a full glass of water, putting a card over the top, flipping the glass over onto the table, sliding out the card, and leaving it there for them to figure out.

Maybe I'm just the proverbial black sheep of the furs but I seriously dislike the Dragonborn. They look like WOtC just threw a bucket of paint on The Predator and had him start breathing elemental energy du jour. Now all we need is a MM entry for Aliens and Sanaa Lathan. Heck you could even start going far enough to make connections in the fluff and mechanics to Predator if you're into that sort of thing, but if that's the case then you've probably already passed up 4e for being too much like WoW. Under the section "Play a dragonborn if you want" it lists the first bullet as "to look like a dragon". Well, WOtC, I'm sorry. If I want to look like a Dragon, I have a solution that involves me not only actually looking like a dragon, but having bonuses to skills and stats which could be completely useless to my class. It's called going up to my DM and asking, "Hey, can I look like a Dragon?" Then I just swap out my encounter power for Dragon Breath and there you go. I think if I have enough creativity to think I have the soul of a creature that doesn't even exist trapped in my body, I'm creative enough to make my OWN dragon race.

In closing, the Dragonkin race does nothing for the furries/scalies that they could not have done better themselves with the exception of the Dragon Breath ability. I'm sorry, everyone. We don't like them either.

(Disclaimer: I do not believe I have the soul of a dragon trapped inside my body nor do a majority of many of the people in the furry/scaly community. Those who do are called otherkin, on the occasion that they're not just called delusional idiots by people even within the furry community. I do not claim myself as a representative of the furry community. I claim myself as their dictator for life.)

FoE
2008-07-01, 02:58 AM
I like Dragonborn. They is cool. :smallsmile:

Kompera
2008-07-01, 03:43 AM
I kinda despise the Dragonborn. And the Tie-flings, too. But I never held much truck for playing monster races as PCs in 3.x either, and a big scaly fire breathing lizard man or a horned evil demon spawn are monsters in my book. Call me a traditionalist, but I don't need anything other than Elves, Dwarves, Halflings and Humans as PC races to feel that all is well in the D&D world. Half-Elves and Half-Orcs are ok, in moderation.

CompositeSanta
2008-07-01, 04:09 AM
I didn't enjoy monster races too much in 3.5e for the sole reason of level adjustment and racial hit dice. However, I found it very enjoyable to play an Uldra Cleric of Olidammara in a game where our DM took off a single LA for any race we chose.

Fhaolan
2008-07-01, 01:44 PM
I do not claim myself as a representative of the furry community. I claim myself as their dictator for life.

I'd vote for you. The furries are in *serious* need of a dictator, have been for many years. :smallsmile:

P.S. Yes, the otherkin are... a few straws short of a bale on average. That group includes people who claim to have the souls of elves as well. Which is actually the largest subset of the otherkin. Dragons are close second. And I've met at least one claiming to be a unicorn. Which actually worked out quite well for him, now that I think back on it. :smallbiggrin:

Telonius
2008-07-01, 01:47 PM
Why do we need so many Elves? I blame the dragons. Sometimes they get bored of just one flavor.

Woot Spitum
2008-07-01, 01:55 PM
The idea of groups of elves with differing cultures and physical appearances is fine. The idea of giving them all seperate stats is what makes it such a joke, boiling them all down to elf that specializes in class x.

EvilJames
2008-07-01, 05:02 PM
I didn't enjoy monster races too much in 3.5e for the sole reason of level adjustment and racial hit dice. However, I found it very enjoyable to play an Uldra Cleric of Olidammara in a game where our DM took off a single LA for any race we chose.

When did they update the Uldra for 3.5? I must have missed it.

CompositeSanta
2008-07-01, 05:22 PM
It's in Frostburn.

Talya
2008-07-02, 01:06 AM
The idea of groups of elves with differing cultures and physical appearances is fine. The idea of giving them all seperate stats is what makes it such a joke, boiling them all down to elf that specializes in class x.

But that's what made them appealling.

Pronounceable
2008-07-02, 11:43 AM
But that's what made them appealling.

No, it made them appalling.

Helgraf
2008-07-02, 12:04 PM
No, it made them appalling.

No no no, you're not seeing it rightTalya's way.

Having 20+ elf types means you can twink out any class and still be an uber MS elf that's better than everyone else.

I mean, anything that limits your ability to choose twink is wrong and evil.

Starsinger
2008-07-02, 12:04 PM
No, it made them appalling.

Indeed, why should calico cats have different stats than tabby cats?

Alchemistmerlin
2008-07-02, 12:13 PM
No, it made them appalling.

Your wordplay amuses me.

ArmorArmadillo
2008-07-02, 12:19 PM
Indeed, why should calico cats have different stats than tabby cats?

Better comparison would be between a golden retriever and a pit bull.

People are sort of taking it as a given that Eladrin are an Elven subrace...but they're not. They're a different race with related ancestry.

Talya
2008-07-02, 12:21 PM
Better comparison would be between a golden retriever and a pit bull.

Exactly.

Rugged woodland nature-elves should have different stats than graceful, majestic civilized elves. They're as different as tigers and jaguars. A wood elf SHOULD make a better ranger or druid, while a high elf should make a better wizard or sorcerer, etc.

If they weren't terrified of claims of racism, they could model humans the same way. Pygmy warriors are going to have vastly different ability score ranges than Watusi tribesmen.

marjan
2008-07-02, 12:34 PM
Rugged woodland nature-elves should have different stats than graceful, majestic civilized elves. They're as different as tigers and jaguars. A wood elf SHOULD make a better ranger or druid, while a high elf should make a better wizard or sorcerer, etc.


That is something that could also be accomplished through other means. The difference in those sub-races should be culture, not the color of the skin or more pointy ears. Wood Elves could come from culture that favors nature, High Elves could come from culture that favors study, etc.

Talya
2008-07-02, 12:37 PM
That is something that could also be accomplished through other means. The difference in those sub-races should be culture, not the color of the skin or more pointy ears. Wood Elves could come from culture that favors nature, High Elves could come from culture that favors study, etc.

Either way, it needs to be represented mechanically.

I don't see a problem with it. In D&D, Elves, just like homo sapiens in real life, have separated into different racial groups, and those racial groups have evolved differently, to the point of having differing appearances, and differing strengths and weaknesses. There's nothing unrealistic about that.

Starsinger
2008-07-02, 12:41 PM
In D&D, Elves, just like homo sapiens in real life, have separated into different racial groups, and those racial groups have evolved differently, to the point of having differing appearances, and differing strengths and weaknesses. There's nothing unrealistic about that.

If that's true, and racial groups in real life have different strengths and weaknesses, why aren't there human subtypes? For that matter, what exactly are these strengths and weaknesses inherent in different human subtypes?

Diamondeye
2008-07-02, 12:46 PM
That is something that could also be accomplished through other means. The difference in those sub-races should be culture, not the color of the skin or more pointy ears. Wood Elves could come from culture that favors nature, High Elves could come from culture that favors study, etc.

Why, exactly, should it be culture?

Talya
2008-07-02, 12:46 PM
If that's true, and racial groups in real life have different strengths and weaknesses, why aren't there human subtypes? For that matter, what exactly are these strengths and weaknesses inherent in different human subtypes?

I just said, there probably should be, but that opens up issues of screaming protestors claiming racism.

I used an obvious example on the previous page. Pygmies are less than 150cm in height, while sudanese males have an average height of 190cm...and there isn't much overlap between them. If you were modelling them accurately in a game, you would do well to account for that, as it would impact strength and dexterity, if you weren't terrified into policitical correctness. (Not that the latter isn't a good reason, for a company concerned with the bottom line, to make a decision.)

As for mental ability scores, I don't have data on that. And I probably won't ever have it. Anyone who tries to run a study of cognitive comparisons based on racial differences gets crucified faster than he can say 'sieg heil,' regardless if his study has any merit. But that doesn't mean there won't be differences. And nobody cries racism when you make them up for a fictional species.

AKA_Bait
2008-07-02, 02:45 PM
But that doesn't mean there won't be differences. And nobody cries racism when you make them up for a fictional species.

Untrue! (http://www.goblindefensefund.org/manual.html)

As a note, the few studies I've read that factored socio-economic status into them found no notable differences in intelegence among human racial groups.

Woot Spitum
2008-07-02, 03:40 PM
Either way, it needs to be represented mechanically.

I don't see a problem with it. In D&D, Elves, just like homo sapiens in real life, have separated into different racial groups, and those racial groups have evolved differently, to the point of having differing appearances, and differing strengths and weaknesses. There's nothing unrealistic about that.The problem with elven subraces is that they are too similar. They are all, more or less, graceful, pointy-eared, physically fragile (although, in spite of the crunch nearly always dumping a CON penalty on elves, their fluff almost never reflects this. When was the last time you saw an elf in Forgotten Realms succumb to poison or disease more easily than other races? When was the last time you saw an elf become physically exhausted well before everyone else around him?). All elves are artistic and long-lived, have a natural aptitude for magic, swordsmanship, and archery. All elves have highly attuned senses, and are very good at hiding and sneaking around. All of them have tons of strengths that are heavily emphasised in their fluff, with next to no weaknesses that tend to be completely ignored in their fluff.

Elves are essentially the special forces/ninjas of the D&D world. Great all around, and still capable of being highly effective an any specialized area of their choice. They should at least be confined to one stat-block the same as humans.

hamishspence
2008-07-02, 04:33 PM
Faerun did human races one way: regional feats, slightly different size/weight, but nothing else.

Same should apply. Pick your favourite NPC templates to help flavour the region. Elves + lots of frost mages = arctic, for example. Not sure if any other templates work, but, for PCs at least, heavy-duty mechanical differences might be guilding the lily. You can give something a strong feel without mechanics.

Maritime dwarfs; Stormwrack gave them different rules, but in 4th ed taking Swim as trained skill, and picking common marine weapons, and describing their clothing as having many marine-style decorations is plenty.

Trog
2008-07-02, 05:46 PM
Actually there are different human races in 4.0. If you define races as "having different ability bonuses and special powers." Which is basically the only thing that defines each of the races mechanically. Since humans get to choose which ability they get to add their stat bonus to you basically end up with 6 different sorts of humans. even more so if you broke it down further by selection of feats and/or extra daily power.

Gnomes never were that well defined to begin with and often seemed to be the murky middle ground between all the races. I'm quite happy with them in the Monster Manual. They certainly have never been elves. Any more than they were dwarves. Or halflings.

Also, for the person that asked before, "elvish" was invented by Tolkien since he didn't life the word "elfish."

The fantasy races allow one to explore racial themes in a way that is more removed than talking about real world racial issues. Elves warring with Dwarves doesn't make one as uncomfortable as, say, Blacks warring with Whites. The non-human races are their own stereotypes, They are also there to make killing things more justified. Just like having faceless stormtroopers die at the hands of the heroes, having monstrous looking humanoids die fills the same niche. We're more okay seeing those different from ourselves as villians. Honestly I feel WotC would have been better off saying: "Here. Pick the ability bonuses you want and the powers you want. Explain your heritage in what ever manner you wish to. But, much like class divisions, WotC preferrs that there be clearly defined roles. the races serve that end as do the classes. That way things can be broad brushed rather easily for encounters, cultures, and heck it gives more opportunities to make different types of minis and such.

So some stereotypes are here to say. *shrug*

DiscipleofBob
2008-07-02, 05:49 PM
Ok, let's count elves in 4th Edition.

1. Elves - For the woodsy, druidy, naturey, tree-hugger elves
2. Eladrin - For the "we invented magic" high noble elves
3. Drow - Evil, underdark, sadomasochistic elves, also for Drizz't fans.
4. Half-Elves - Never saw the need for a halfbreed as a core race, but hate these guys less than all the other elves.
5. Gnomes - Why are these guys considered elves? I don't know. Someone mentioned them as quasi-elves. I don't buy into it, but, for the sake of argument, let's put them here.

Let's count elves in 3.5...

Elves
Half-Elves
Gnomes
Drow
Aquatic Elves
Gray Elves
Wood Elves
Sun Elves
Aerenal Gothy Elves
Khorvaire City Elves
Valenar Butch Elves
Desert Elves
Desert Half-Elves
Aquatic Half-Elves
Arctic Elves
Arctic Gnomes
Arctic Half-Elves
Jungle Elves
Jungle Gnomes
Jungle Half-Elves
Fire Elves
Fire Half-Elves
High Elves
Night Elves
Positively-Charged Undead Elves
Disclaimer: At this point I degenerate into elves that don't really exist to prove a point, but for all I know, the elves below could exist, could have stats for them, and could exist in D&D.
Water Elves
Earth Elves
Air Elves
Sound Elves
Acid Elves
Electricity Elves
Force Elves
Black Elves
White Elves
Red Elves
Green Elves
Blue Elves
Plaid Elves
Polka-Dot Elves
Checkerboard Elves
Low Elves
Quarter-Elves
Eighth-Elves
Sixteenth-Elves
Chocolate Elves
Vanilla Elves
Strawberry Elves
Neopolitan Elves
Elves Presley

I think the horse has been killed, beaten, strangled, shot, hung, drawn, and quartered at this point so I'll wrap this up:

Many unnecessary elven races is 4th Edition's problem? All 4E did was simplify it into all the elven subraces that matter. We have nature-based Elves, arcane/magic-based Eladrin, Half-Elves, and Drow. That's it. That's all we need. Everyone has their niche. Oh sure, later we're going to get all kinds of different subrace elves for every color of the rainbow and eventually every possible frequency. (Now introducing Gamma Radiation Elves! Make them angry and their ears get even more pointy!) For now, let's just be satisfied with what we have.

marjan
2008-07-02, 06:39 PM
*List of Elves*

I can't believe that you forgot Sonic Elves. :smallbiggrin:

RebelRogue
2008-07-02, 06:41 PM
I can't believe that you forgot Sonic Elves. :smallbiggrin:
...and the superfluous elves :smallwink:

DiscipleofBob
2008-07-02, 06:49 PM
I can't believe that you forgot Sonic Elves. :smallbiggrin:

While I did include Sound Elves and Elves Presley, I did remember I forgot Santa's Elves and Keebler Elves

LoopyZebra
2008-07-02, 07:01 PM
On a serious addition to the list, you forgot Avariel/Winged Elves. And various other elf-like creatures, like 3.5 Eladrin.

I want to make an Elves Presley character, though.

Collin152
2008-07-02, 07:04 PM
I want to make an Elves Presley character, though.

Remember to replace him instead of ressurecting him.
Cause you can't ressurect what isn't dead.

ArmorArmadillo
2008-07-02, 07:14 PM
Actually there are different human races in 4.0. If you define races as "having different ability bonuses and special powers." Which is basically the only thing that defines each of the races mechanically. Since humans get to choose which ability they get to add their stat bonus to you basically end up with 6 different sorts of humans. even more so if you broke it down further by selection of feats and/or extra daily power.

Gnomes never were that well defined to begin with and often seemed to be the murky middle ground between all the races. I'm quite happy with them in the Monster Manual. They certainly have never been elves. Any more than they were dwarves. Or halflings.

Also, for the person that asked before, "elvish" was invented by Tolkien since he didn't life the word "elfish."

The fantasy races allow one to explore racial themes in a way that is more removed than talking about real world racial issues. Elves warring with Dwarves doesn't make one as uncomfortable as, say, Blacks warring with Whites. The non-human races are their own stereotypes, They are also there to make killing things more justified. Just like having faceless stormtroopers die at the hands of the heroes, having monstrous looking humanoids die fills the same niche. We're more okay seeing those different from ourselves as villians. Honestly I feel WotC would have been better off saying: "Here. Pick the ability bonuses you want and the powers you want. Explain your heritage in what ever manner you wish to. But, much like class divisions, WotC preferrs that there be clearly defined roles. the races serve that end as do the classes. That way things can be broad brushed rather easily for encounters, cultures, and heck it gives more opportunities to make different types of minis and such.

So some stereotypes are here to say. *shrug*

Except that isn't how races are differentiated...

Also, I really dislike this attempt to associate DnD races with real life races.

In DnD, different races are entirely different species, with drastically different physiology and history.
Contrasted with real life races which are largely social classifications associated with minor physical differences.

They are entirely different concepts.


As for why wood elves/high elves aren't just different cultures...well they aren't. Elves and Eladrin are presented in 4e as very distinct races. If anything, this makes them infinitely more distinct than 3.5e, where there were about a million elven subraces which were distinguished mainly by

Why aren't dwarves just elves culturally adapted to mountain life? Why aren't halflings just humans culturally developed to travel. It's just not how the setting is handled.

hamishspence
2008-07-03, 05:23 AM
A fey with the Elf subtype is the LeShay, beings suspected to be from before the dawn of time. They also get a mention in online Grand History of the Realms, as the first rulers of the Moonshaes, who return to take them over a few years before the Spellplague.

AKA_Bait
2008-07-03, 01:09 PM
In DnD, different races are entirely different species, with drastically different physiology and history.

That really depends upon how you define species, actually. One of the common watermarks for things being the same species is if they can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Obviously, Elves, Eladrin, Humans, Devils and Orcs can all interbreed in the D&D cosmology. One could argue that they are all in fact subraces of the human species (or some species x from which they all descended, much as dogs descended from wolves). That's a bit silly, bit it's illustrative of the point that the concept of 'species' isn't really useful in the D&D universe.


Contrasted with real life races which are largely social classifications associated with minor physical differences.

As perhaps is also true with Elves, Drow and Eladrin.


As for why wood elves/high elves aren't just different cultures...well they aren't. Elves and Eladrin are presented in 4e as very distinct races.

Races, but not species. It's unknown, but probable, that they could still interbreed, even if they don't normally. Thereis a few species of tree frog I can think of off the top of my head that has two different subspecies groups that use different mating calls and consequentially never mate in the wild, despite the fact that they can and are nearly physically identical.


Why aren't dwarves just elves culturally adapted to mountain life? Why aren't halflings just humans culturally developed to travel. It's just not how the setting is handled.

Yes, they are handled as archetypes based on old mytholgy in which humans and fairy creatures were different but could none the less intermarry and have fertile children in the rare instances it happened. Many of those myths, as well as more mondern themes, bleed into D&D to allow allegorical discussions of race within the context of the game.

Trog
2008-07-03, 01:42 PM
Except that isn't how races are differentiated...

Yes, in the 4e game that is exactly how they are differentiated. Ability bonuses and powers.

But what WotC has done is purposely not divided up humans into separate races to avoid real world race issues, disputes, hurt feelings, etc. I'm arguing that they should do the same thing with the other races, make them flexible like humans and there will no longer be a need to develop dozens of "races" of elves with only minor stat differences. Obviously for many of these elves there is a culture difference but that's not really race is it? The reason, though, that they can do this is that no one bats an eye over different fictitious races. Only the real ones.

hamishspence
2008-07-03, 02:06 PM
races/species is tricky. I think the eladrin is plenty: help represent the extraplaner star elf or the potentially native outsider sun elf.

Ordinary elves can be described differently without changing their statlines. Given that their hair colours tend to be leafy (gold, red, green, brown) maybe arctic elves might have silver-white hair?

marjan
2008-07-03, 02:10 PM
One more thing: If there are Grey Elves, why exactly are there no Half-Grey Elves or Grey Half-Elves?

hamishspence
2008-07-03, 02:23 PM
Grey elves were 3.5 ed. and very reclusive: could be why.

Faerun said, basically, that half-anything elves = basic half elves, and different regions had half elves of different origin but same stats. Aglarondan half elves were effectively a true-breeding population.

With exceptions for the two really different races: half-drow and half-sea elf.

One of the things that most annoyed me in Drow of the Underdark (besides the missing vril stats) was their saying "Errata for half drow in Race of Faerun: low light vision only.
Thats not errata, its a masive retcon, given the number of statted out half drow in various post-Races products with 60ft darkvision.

ArmorArmadillo
2008-07-03, 03:54 PM
Yes, in the 4e game that is exactly how they are differentiated. Ability bonuses and powers.

But what WotC has done is purposely not divided up humans into separate races to avoid real world race issues, disputes, hurt feelings, etc. I'm arguing that they should do the same thing with the other races, make them flexible like humans and there will no longer be a need to develop dozens of "races" of elves with only minor stat differences. Obviously for many of these elves there is a culture difference but that's not really race is it? The reason, though, that they can do this is that no one bats an eye over different fictitious races. Only the real ones.

No, that's not how or why it works.

Elves and Dwarves are different because Elves and Dwarves are different, not just because the stats are different. Just like Kobolds and Gnolls, which are both +2 to Con and Dex, are still different.

Humans have different stats because that one aspect of variance is part of their racial statistics.

Your claim that the motivation is "not to hurt people's feelings" is based on your claim that races are inherently differentiated by stats/abilities, which you take as a given when it isn't.

Trog
2008-07-03, 04:24 PM
No, that's not how or why it works.

Elves and Dwarves are different because Elves and Dwarves are different, not just because the stats are different. Just like Kobolds and Gnolls, which are both +2 to Con and Dex, are still different.

Humans have different stats because that one aspect of variance is part of their racial statistics.

Your claim that the motivation is "not to hurt people's feelings" is based on your claim that races are inherently differentiated by stats/abilities, which you take as a given when it isn't.
Yes both Kobolds and Gnolls might get the same stats... but Kobolds in 4e are "shifty". Something gnolls are not. Likewise gnolls gain bonuses to attack in packs and get more savage when a foe is bloodied. Their RACIAL powers still set them apart even if their stats are the same. And, should more than one race be found that has the same powers their stats likely will set them apart.

So... wait a minute... you are honestly saying that the Races in the 4e PHB are NOT differentiated by stats/abilities?! Sorry, but you are dead wrong.

Tam_OConnor
2008-07-03, 10:26 PM
I'm way behind on the humor curve, but the Valley Elf was forgotten. As was the true breeding half-elf race in the steampunk issue of Dragon. And Ghost elves. And Star Elves. Moving on...

I'm only an ignorant 3.5 player, but differentiation between human races, if you have too much time, can be achieved by limiting their bonus skill and feat options. Elves, though, have their stats set in stone. So any customization results in a whole new race. Thus the [environment] elves and [degree of magical concentration] elves, where say, arctic humans would have their bonus feat limited to those in Frostburn.

Don't be silly. 4E races, like 3.5 races, are differentiated by the pretty pictures above, not by any of these 'so-called' abilities.

Edited for awesome: This thread becomes hilarious when you do a net replace of 'elf' with 'ninja.' Or 'pie.' Mmm, pie.

ArmorArmadillo
2008-07-03, 11:17 PM
So... wait a minute... you are honestly saying that the Races in the 4e PHB are NOT differentiated by stats/abilities?! Sorry, but you are dead wrong.

No, I'm saying that you're mixing cause and effect.

Races are different because they are different, then racial abilities/modifiers are applied.

That's why humans with different ability bonuses are still of the same race.

The problem is that you've made a claim based on this, but that claimly falsely takes the effect of racial differentiation as the cause.

EvilJames
2008-07-04, 12:22 AM
That really depends upon how you define species, actually. One of the common watermarks for things being the same species is if they can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Obviously, Elves, Eladrin, Humans, Devils and Orcs can all interbreed in the D&D cosmology. One could argue that they are all in fact subraces of the human species (or some species x from which they all descended, much as dogs descended from wolves). That's a bit silly, bit it's illustrative of the point that the concept of 'species' isn't really useful in the D&D universe.



As perhaps is also true with Elves, Drow and Eladrin.



Races, but not species. It's unknown, but probable, that they could still interbreed, even if they don't normally. Thereis a few species of tree frog I can think of off the top of my head that has two different subspecies groups that use different mating calls and consequentially never mate in the wild, despite the fact that they can and are nearly physically identical.



Yes, they are handled as archetypes based on old mytholgy in which humans and fairy creatures were different but could none the less intermarry and have fertile children in the rare instances it happened. Many of those myths, as well as more mondern themes, bleed into D&D to allow allegorical discussions of race within the context of the game.

Actually many species can interbreed. you mentioned dogs and wolves which are now considered the same species. The entire genus of Canis can interbreed coyotes can interbreed with dogs and wolves (usually just dogs since the coyotes and wolves do not get along well at all) jackals and red wolves can all interbreed. Outside of Canis the interbreeding gets a bit spotty. I think Members of Canis can breed with the African Wild Dog who is in a separate genus but I can't confirm that at the moment.
Orcs and ogres and such could easily be in the same genus as humans Dwarves would be incompatible and that's why you don't see half dwarves anywhere same for gnomes and halflings, as for elves, demons and the like well in this case they are all magical, so it's magic, therefore "a wizard did it".:smallbiggrin:

in all seriousness "Species" isn't even a really well defined term in the real world so I doubt it's much better in the fantasy world. Regardless "race" in D&D is not the same as "race" irl.

It's in Frostburn.

Wow. After looking at Frostburn, it seems like they just took the name Uldra from 1st ed and then just made something else. There were some very left field changes there.


Ok, let's count elves in 4th Edition.

1. Elves - For the woodsy, druidy, naturey, tree-hugger elves
2. Eladrin - For the "we invented magic" high noble elves
3. Drow - Evil, underdark, sadomasochistic elves, also for Drizz't fans.
4. Half-Elves - Never saw the need for a halfbreed as a core race, but hate these guys less than all the other elves.
5. Gnomes - Why are these guys considered elves? I don't know. Someone mentioned them as quasi-elves. I don't buy into it, but, for the sake of argument, let's put them here.

Let's count elves in 3.5...
Elf list really long, somewhat humorous

I think the horse has been killed, beaten, strangled, shot, hung, drawn, and quartered at this point so I'll wrap this up:

Many unnecessary elven races is 4th Edition's problem? All 4E did was simplify it into all the elven subraces that matter. We have nature-based Elves, arcane/magic-based Eladrin, Half-Elves, and Drow. That's it. That's all we need. Everyone has their niche. Oh sure, later we're going to get all kinds of different subrace elves for every color of the rainbow and eventually every possible frequency. (Now introducing Gamma Radiation Elves! Make them angry and their ears get even more pointy!) For now, let's just be satisfied with what we have.
Well the new game is only a month or so old when 3e came out they only had elves and half elves all others were added later. Give WotC and Hasbro some time.

DiscipleofBob
2008-07-04, 12:43 AM
Well the new game is only a month or so old when 3e came out they only had elves and half elves all others were added later. Give WotC and Hasbro some time.

This is true, but what we have in 4E is still less than what we had in the core in 3.5. I have no doubt that no matter who at Wizards says "These are all the elves we need," someone will eventually break and publish the Super Sentai Color-Coded Elf Squad.

Then again, maybe they just stuck those guys with writing the Draconomicons...

Jayngfet
2008-07-04, 01:01 AM
This is true, but what we have in 4E is still less than what we had in the core in 3.5. I have no doubt that no matter who at Wizards says "These are all the elves we need," someone will eventually break and publish the Super Sentai Color-Coded Elf Squad.


Then we get power ranger elves, the same but slightly weaker.

Arameus
2008-07-04, 01:05 AM
The same, but slightly weaker? Wouldn't that just make them the Munchkins of Oz? :smallamused:

I swear, I HATE Elves. :smallannoyed:

hamishspence
2008-07-04, 05:09 AM
horse and donkey are different genus: can interbreed, but offspring are usually sterile.

Birdwise, many species of duck can interbreed, and in rare cases, different genus (not sure if offspring are sterile in these cases)

I go with no rules difference, but description difference, for races.

Pronounceable
2008-07-04, 12:28 PM
Wait, I got the answer just now. WE don't need them. WOTC needs them. To fill future books.

ArmorArmadillo
2008-07-04, 04:45 PM
Wait, I got the answer just now. WE don't need them. WOTC needs them. To fill future books.

I must have missed "Elf Compendium" in 3.x; or any section on elven subraces that filled more than on off paragraph.

But no, please continue the fight against WotC's campaign against the little man.

Trog
2008-07-04, 07:36 PM
No, I'm saying that you're mixing cause and effect.

Races are different because they are different, then racial abilities/modifiers are applied.

That's why humans with different ability bonuses are still of the same race.

The problem is that you've made a claim based on this, but that claimly falsely takes the effect of racial differentiation as the cause.

In 3.5 (where all these different elves exist) most of the differences between elves aren't much more than stat differences. Hence my concentration on stats. If you have a bazillion different elf races and the only non-fluff change is different stats then I say it is better to make elves more like humans in that you get to choose the bonuses. This saves making a dozen or more more kinds of elves when you only have a small fluff change.

ArmorArmadillo
2008-07-05, 12:35 PM
In 3.5 (where all these different elves exist) most of the differences between elves aren't much more than stat differences. Hence my concentration on stats. If you have a bazillion different elf races and the only non-fluff change is different stats then I say it is better to make elves more like humans in that you get to choose the bonuses. This saves making a dozen or more more kinds of elves when you only have a small fluff change.

Yeah, but that's bad design. Faerun is the worst offender, so that should say something about how meaningless fluff is for them.

However, between most races, difference causes different stats, not the other way around.

Trog
2008-07-05, 01:17 PM
Yeah, but that's bad design. Faerun is the worst offender, so that should say something about how meaningless fluff is for them.

However, between most races, difference causes different stats, not the other way around.
Obviously we are going to have to agree to disagree. *drops out of the special olympics*

ArmorArmadillo
2008-07-05, 02:36 PM
Obviously we are going to have to agree to disagree. *drops out of the special olympics*
:smallsigh: Whatever, don't discuss it if you don't want to. But refusing to do so isn't a sign of superiority.

Trog
2008-07-05, 03:45 PM
:smallsigh: Whatever, don't discuss it if you don't want to. But refusing to do so isn't a sign of superiority.

You can stop putting words in my mouth now. I'm not discussing this because I see this issue not being resolvable on either side. As I said we will just have to agree to disagree.