4e Cosmology Changes

[Lurks-no-More]

It says in the 3.0 DMG that in order use the subraces as player characters, you subtract 10 (if even) or 11 (if odd) to get the racial adjustments. This demonstrates that the various kinds of elves have different ability score adjustments than high elves.

Mourn's correct here.

Anyway, on the subject of planes and cosmology: isn't it good to have some new things, every once in a while? If you're continuing an older campaign (whose cosmology didn't diverge from the Great Wheel), you already know what it's like, and can (without much difficulty) keep using it.

Then there's the new cosmology for new campaigns and gamers alike: modular, better at accommodating low-level excursions (feywild and shadowfell, again), and cleaned of much of the [strike]trivia and crud[/strike] more esoteric lore the game has acquired over the years.

Something for everyone, yay! (Also, re: the magic ships vs. portals, Moorcock himself has magic boats crossing between the worlds in several of his books. )

 

[Steely Dan]

Wha? If you look at the core books in 1e/2e/3e, which is all we have available for 4e right now, how was there an elf available for every day of the year?

3.5 MM: Aquatic, high, grey, wild, wood, and drow (more than 4th Ed Core).

 

[Steely Dan]

Eh, they have different favored classes but that's hardly important to anything. There's no different ability score adjustments listed for the subraces.

Okay, what "fantasy" version of the 3.0 books are you talking about?

…Quit while you're behind.

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

All this talk of Elves has reminded me why I've always wanted to DM or play an Elven genocide campaign. Then my campaigns could be pointy-ear free, other than the politically suspect pork that is.

 

[EATherrian]

I can appreciate that. But which elf?

The problem is that the standard "elf" in D&D has been schizophrenic for a very long time. I've always pictured them being pretty much like the 4e eladrin and would be just keen to ditch the 4e "elf" and restore "eladrin" to their correct name. One of my players, though, is just the opposite. Since we both like elves (though far from nuts), WotC couldn't explicitly ditch either without somewhat irking one of us.

In my game worlds (Hi, I'm Bill and I'm a worldaholic) I generally make my elves a mix between wood and grey elves. And that difference is entirely cosmetic and not functional in any way. I have no problem differentiating fluff wise, but rules wise is too much for me.

 

[EATherrian]

All this talk of Elves has reminded me why I've always wanted to DM or play an Elven genocide campaign. Then my campaigns could be pointy-ear free, other than the politically suspect pork that is.

I usually make most non-PC elves xenophobic in the extreme. Humans, Dwarves, and the such are considered enemies and there is often conflict. It allows me to have the best of both worlds, with those who like elves playing elves, and me killing elves.

 

[Spatula]

Okay, what "fantasy" version of the 3.0 books are you talking about?

The 3.0 MM does not have different ability score adjustments for elf subraces. The 3.0 DMG section on playable monsters is a rules variant that eventually became "canon" but wasn't at release.

 

[The Little Raven]

The 3.0 MM does not have different ability score adjustments for elf subraces. The 3.0 DMG section on playable monsters is a rules variant that eventually became "canon" but wasn't at release.

This is just semantic song and dance. The game flat out tells you that if a creature has an ability score higher than 10 (or 11), then it has an ability score adjustment in that ability score. Elf subraces have different ability score adjustments than high elves, otherwise they would have had the exact same ability scores in the Monster Manual. Thus, your claims that they're identical is false.

 

[Steely Dan]

-The 3.0 MM does not have different ability score adjustments for elf subraces.

-The 3.0 DMG section on playable monsters is a rules variant that eventually became "canon" but wasn't at release.

-Yes, they do, and we've all proven it, why, why are you saying this?

-It was cannon from the start.


..Are you fiddling around with us or something?

 

[Lurks-no-More]

-Yes, they do, and we've all proven it, why, why are you saying this?

Admitting being wrong on something - anything - will destroy his self-image, worldview and his game?