That's a Wood Elf?

[Falling Icicle]

I liked how 4e had 3 types of elves: the civilized elves, the wood elves and the drow. I just hated the name Eladrin. High Elf is much better, IMO. I would keep those 3 basic types. Any other subtype could just be a cultural difference without being their own subrace.

 

[variant]

Just the High Elf and Wood Elf is fine for the PHB. Any others like the Valley Elf can be in campaign specific books and Drow can be put somewhere that's not the PHB.

 

[avin]

I would rather see the number of elf subraces kept to a minimum. Are wood elves and wild elves so different that they need different abilities? Really?

That may be nice for normal tolkienesque campaigns... but some people here play things such as Planescape. Fi find myself inventing subraces to fill Sigil's streets all the time.

Lot's of subraces are always welcome, IMO. Thos who want to keep it basic just say what races are allowed and we are all fine

 

[variant]

That may be nice for normal tolkienesque campaigns... but some people here play things such as Planescape. Fi find myself inventing subraces to fill Sigil's streets all the time.

Lot's of subraces are always welcome, IMO. Thos who want to keep it basic just say what races are allowed and we are all fine

Except you are asking for pages to be filled with a bunch of crap only a small few will use. We have to pay per page and every page filled with more (sub-)races is one less page filled with useful information

 

[Sammael]

I'm not a fan of subraces that are mechanically different.

 

[Prickly]

Also not a fan of sub-race bloat.

 

[avin]

Except you are asking for pages to be filled with a bunch of crap only a small few will use. We have to pay per page and every page filled with more (sub-)races is one less page filled with useful information

It may be "crap" for you, not for me. In that way, I could argue every "halfling" or "Wizard" page is crap for me.

I bet there would be more people playing something like Red Elves than silly Hobbits.

Still have to be proven that "a lot of people" play Halflings. I'd call them "a small few".

 

[radja]

I hope 5e gets rid of subraces, and just gives a variable racial bonus. So you get a race 'elf', which means you have to choose a racial background (high, wood, wild, moon, sun star, drow/dark, gray, sea). In later expansions it's easy to add another racial background. The same for all races, so halflings could be stout, hairfoot, kender, furchin, athasian..

(yeah, I like playing halflings)

 

[am181d]

It may be "crap" for you, not for me. In that way, I could argue every "halfling" or "Wizard" page is crap for me.

I bet there would be more people playing something like Red Elves than silly Hobbits.

Still have to be proven that "a lot of people" play Halflings. I'd call them "a small few".

Well, anecdotally, Halflings are doing just fine. I playtested Next at Gencon this past weekend, and there were:

Human rogue, Elf rogue, Halfling rogue, Halfing rogue*, Elf wizard, Human warlock.

(*One of the halflings kept insisting he was a cleric, even going so far as to heal one of the other player characters at one point, but everybody knows that all halflings are rogues! )

I think the fact that we had no Dwarf was just luck of the draw. Note that we had no Fighter either. Characters were created in isolation, so we totally could have wound up with all Sorcerers.

 

[Grimmjow]

Characters were created in isolation, so we totally could have wound up with all Sorcerers.

how did that work? was the game still playable? i wanna have my friends do that when we playtest but im afraid that the group wont work well?