Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dire Bare" data-source="post: 6840720" data-attributes="member: 18182">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.</blockquote>

Verification