D&D 5E 5th Edition and the "true exotic" races ...

[Ilbranteloth]

The only real problem that I see with 5th edition races is that there is no Warforged.

I do not mind how many Dragonborn or Tieflings of Gnomes there are.

Yeah, and I'm very glad they didn't. They are a very setting-specific race, and the PHB is presented as the guide to the generic D&D, which they equate to the Forgotten Realms at this point. They were presented in the first Unearthed Arcana post, and Eberron seems to be a popular enough setting that they should do something with it, even if it's a third party that runs with it.

I guess that's part of the point of identifying some of the races as more exotic than others. Since they've used the Forgotten Realms as the default, the rarity of a given race is based on the Realms. Had they not settled on FR as the default setting, then the presentation could have been quite different, although they would still have to call out which races existed in a given world, and how common they are.

But I think part of the design was to include primarily material that would be used in the majority of the game worlds, either published or home-grown. That of course would largely be based on what core options were given before. Yes, the 4th edition PHB (1) didn't include gnomes and bards. But I suspect the sales of PHB 1 were significantly higher than any of the later releases. And that's really the crux of how they present the PHB to me. A lot of people will only purchase the PHB and nothing else. So including the material that is valid in most games that you join makes the most sense. Which is also why including things such as dragonborn and tieflings is a bit of a problem for me, because even if they are described as "optional", the fact that they are in the core book makes a lot of people treat them as if they are not.

Of course, if I had started with 4th edition, I would probably have been annoyed if they weren't included.

Ilbranteloth

 

[Werebat]

Gnomes were marginalized in 5E. Let's look at gnomes, shall we?

* Often stereotyped as very intelligent, but maybe a little clannish and "shifty"
* Often stereotyped as having big noses and working with jewelry
* Often stereotyped as wearing funny hats
* Often stereotyped as being unimpressive at athletics but exceptional "entertainers"

I see what you did there, 5E. I see what you did there.

 

[Dire Bare]

[MENTION=6793093]Jeff Albertson[/MENTION]:
So you're not going to actually contribute to the discussion at all? Seems like a waste of time to just throw laughs and Xp around when you have the full opportunity to make your own post and speak your mind on the subject. But, it's your time to waste.

You're seriously hassling a guy for lurking and not posting?

Wow.

 

[Dire Bare]

Eladrin as an ancestor is fine. Changing elves to eladrin was so annoying though. That's the sort of thing that I found really problematic. Changing things for, the sake of changing things? I don't think they make sense as a sub race of elves either.

I get your point, but "change for the sake of change" is a straw man complaint, one that happens (or happened) so often on these boards I've developed a tick. Ergh.

WotC didn't merge the concept of elves and eladrin simply for the sake of change. It was an attempt to streamline the elvish "too many subraces" problem into something more elegant. Some folks hated it, some folks loved it (I loved it). Whether you love or hate the change, it wasn't done just for the sake of doing, there was a reason. Just because you don't like a decision, doesn't make it a random one or a bad one.

However, I somewhat agree, that the elf/eladrin merger was one of the many small pieces of change in 4E that gave folks the "this isn't my D&D vibe" and was ultimately a mistake, if a well-intentioned one. And the way the FR elvish subraces were divided between elf and eladrin was not handled well, IMHO.

Still, I love it! In my campaign, "eladrin" is simply the elvish word for elf! There are eladrin races native to Faerie (feywild) and eladrin races native to the material world, and most humans simply call them all elves.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

I get your point, but "change for the sake of change" is a straw man complaint, one that happens (or happened) so often on these boards I've developed a tick. Ergh.

WotC didn't merge the concept of elves and eladrin simply for the sake of change. It was an attempt to streamline the elvish "too many subraces" problem into something more elegant. Some folks hated it, some folks loved it (I loved it). Whether you love or hate the change, it wasn't done just for the sake of doing, there was a reason. Just because you don't like a decision, doesn't make it a random one or a bad one.

However, I somewhat agree, that the elf/eladrin merger was one of the many small pieces of change in 4E that gave folks the "this isn't my D&D vibe" and was ultimately a mistake, if a well-intentioned one. And the way the FR elvish subraces were divided between elf and eladrin was not handled well, IMHO.

Still, I love it! In my campaign, "eladrin" is simply the elvish word for elf! There are eladrin races native to Faerie (feywild) and eladrin races native to the material world, and most humans simply call them all elves.

I was really just questioning why they changed it. Of course they had some sort of reason, although I haven't seen it noted anyway. But it seems pretty random.

Eladrin and elves had nothing to do with each other prior to the 4th edition. Eladrin were a celestial race. In the 4th edition they took two of the elven races and renamed them eladrin, and left the rest as elves. So I don't see how it's to reduce the number of subraces, or how it's more elegant. It just moves two of them under a different name.

I don't have an issue with having different names, particularly tied to the races themselves, or the setting. But the elves in the Forgotten Realms already had their own names for their races. So this also didn't fit from that perspective either.

It has been done before, for example, baatezu and tanar'ri. That was done for different reasons, but it was solely a name change. I did like that (after a while) because they sound more exotic than the usual terms of devil and demon.

But the eladrin had their own subraces, with their own history and abilities, which was quite different from the elvish histories, particularly those tied to specific settings that were well detailed, like the Forgotten Realms.

Ilbranteloth

 

[Dire Bare]

I was really just questioning why they changed it. Of course they had some sort of reason, although I haven't seen it noted anyway. But it seems pretty random.

Eladrin and elves had nothing to do with each other prior to the 4th edition. Eladrin were a celestial race. In the 4th edition they took two of the elven races and renamed them eladrin, and left the rest as elves. So I don't see how it's to reduce the number of subraces, or how it's more elegant. It just moves two of them under a different name.

I don't have an issue with having different names, particularly tied to the races themselves, or the setting. But the elves in the Forgotten Realms already had their own names for their races. So this also didn't fit from that perspective either.

It has been done before, for example, baatezu and tanar'ri. That was done for different reasons, but it was solely a name change. I did like that (after a while) because they sound more exotic than the usual terms of devil and demon.

But the eladrin had their own subraces, with their own history and abilities, which was quite different from the elvish histories, particularly those tied to specific settings that were well detailed, like the Forgotten Realms.

Ilbranteloth

The eladrin prior to 4E were "angel elves". There was no lore that outright stated a direct connection to the elves or the Seldarine, but come on, look at the artwork, read the descriptions! Eladrin were most definitely "celestial elves" and were a part of the elvish "too-many subraces" problem.

Also, WotC DID give their reasoning on the changes to eladrin and elves in 4E, they even published it in a book before the game itself launched, "Wizards Presents: Races & Classes". It's okay if you missed that, or other explanations the designers gave later. But to assume the change had no solid reasoning . . . . .

It's why I hate that complaint, "change for the sake of change", because in almost every instance, it is a complaint born out of ignorance. The complainer assumes the change they did not like is "random" rather than thinking maybe, just maybe, there actually was a reason, one the complainer simply is unaware of.

The change from devils and demons to baatezu and tanar'ri in 2E was also not an example of a "random" change (your post seems to contradict itself on this point, to my reading). There was a very solid reason for that change too, to avoid the "angry moms". And of course, some hated it, some loved it. I agree with you, the names sound more interesting to me than devil and demon, and I use both interchangeably in my own campaigns.

D&D has gone through many changes, some widely accepted by fans and others widely rejected, but for the life of me, I can't think of any changes that were made just for "change for the sake of change". A phrase I hope never to read again, but sadly, most likely will.

 

[Maxperson]

[MENTION=6793093]Jeff Albertson[/MENTION]:
So you're not going to actually contribute to the discussion at all? Seems like a waste of time to just throw laughs and Xp around when you have the full opportunity to make your own post and speak your mind on the subject. But, it's your time to waste.

Well, apparently Jeff and I are on the same page. I've been gaining experience like there's no tomorrow since he showed up.

 

[MechaPilot]

Well, apparently Jeff and I are on the same page. I've been gaining experience like there's no tomorrow since he showed up.

Yeah, suspicious that.

 

[Maxperson]

Yeah, suspicious that.

Hey! I'm not nearly the only one with my opinions on things!

 

[Nellisir]

Of course, we are now back to demon and devil which I think was brought back in 3e but was used somewhat interchangeably with the 2e names.

Tanar'ri are a type of demon. That's my understanding.