Eladrin vs. Elves

[Banshee16]

I'm a little concerned about the comment about elves being creatures of instinct etc. vs the eladrin being more mental. There appears to be an implication that they *might* be splitting the race into two different races or something. That bothers me somewhat, as I really don't like the idea of a granular breakdown of a race, such that people have to choose one or the other, depending on what they want to do with their character.

More importantly, it completely blows up like 30 years of tradition, continuity within the settings, etc.

For what benefit? Because we need someone to tell us that we should use the sylvan "thinker" race for a mage, and the sylvan "doer" race for a fighter or rogue? How is this superior to having either one elven race, or subraces of the same race?

Admittedly, this is all very preliminary, and we don't have alot of info yet....just that one comment, and the image of the eladrin wizard, which made people all start asking if eladrins were going to be core, or if they're the name of aasimar in 4E, to balance against tieflings in the PHB etc.

I'm really hoping this isn't the direction they're going in.

Banshee

 

[Mouseferatu]

See, I'm in the opposite cap. I dislike the notion of "sub-races" entirely. If the races are different, I think they should be different, both flavor-wise and mechanically. Otherwise, I see no point to treating them as different races at all; they're just different cultures within the same race.

 

[William Ronald]

See, I'm in the opposite cap. I dislike the notion of "sub-races" entirely. If the races are different, I think they should be different, both flavor-wise and mechanically. Otherwise, I see no point to treating them as different races at all; they're just different cultures within the same race.

Also, do realize that what is being said of both races is a BROAD generalization. There may well be elven cultures that have a strong focus on logic, reason, and mental abilities, and eladrin cultures that rely more on instinct. Indeed, there is no reason that nonhuman cultures can't be as varied as human cultures.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I'm a little concerned about the comment about elves being creatures of instinct etc. vs the eladrin being more mental. There appears to be an implication that they *might* be splitting the race into two different races or something. That bothers me somewhat, as I really don't like the idea of a granular breakdown of a race, such that people have to choose one or the other, depending on what they want to do with their character.

More importantly, it completely blows up like 30 years of tradition, continuity within the settings, etc.

For what benefit? Because we need someone to tell us that we should use the sylvan "thinker" race for a mage, and the sylvan "doer" race for a fighter or rogue? How is this superior to having either one elven race, or subraces of the same race?

Admittedly, this is all very preliminary, and we don't have alot of info yet....just that one comment, and the image of the eladrin wizard, which made people all start asking if eladrins were going to be core, or if they're the name of aasimar in 4E, to balance against tieflings in the PHB etc.

I'm really hoping this isn't the direction they're going in.

Banshee

Why are you assuming that they're both sylvan? I seriously doubt that Eladrin will be sylvan in any possible use of the term. I don't think Eladrins are going to have a remotely similar culture to Elves, nor live in the woods with them, or even in different woods. More likely they'll either live in multiracial cities, or their own cities, which I suspect will not be "sylvan" in any way.

As for superior/inferior, I think it's pretty similar, but "kewler". Seriously. My experience is the "blow stuff up"-type players didn't like being anything as wet-sounding as an Elf, and an Eladrin isn't an Elf, even if it's his cousin. Currently, High and Wood Elves both are very similar "sylvan" races, just with different stat mods and one of them lives in huge shining cities in the forest and... wait which one is it that does that? Oh I guess the High Elves and the Wood Elves live in villages in the tree-tops only sometimes it's the High Elves who do that and oh all these stupid pointy-eared bastards living in the bloody trees can get bent!

So I think the invention of Eladrin and full sylvanization of Elves allows them to differentiate the two groups fully.

It's particularly important given that films like LotR have actually popularized the term "Wood Elf" and many games have concepts of Wood Elves and High Elves which clash with what they want to do with them.

TLDR: Eladrin ain't sylvan.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

See, I'm in the opposite cap. I dislike the notion of "sub-races" entirely. If the races are different, I think they should be different, both flavor-wise and mechanically. Otherwise, I see no point to treating them as different races at all; they're just different cultures within the same race.

This is me exactly.

I think the old way is especially noxious when the base race isn't as fleshed-out as it ought to be. (Seriously, who benefits from forest gnomes and rock gnomes being separate, instead of just merging their fluff together and making one more detailed race?)

 

[Mercule]

I like the split. A lot.

I was pretty inspired by an early Dragon article on elves that painted them as extremely reluctant to fight, intellectual, and very alien to most human motivations. The article even went on to explain that elves had a spirit instead of a soul, which is why they couldn't (1E) be raised from the dead, but could be reincarnated. Barring magical interference, an elf would naturally be reborn as an elf, anyway, when he died. This, combined with their long lives gave them a resistance to fear. Yada, yada. Grognards will know the article.

Meanwhile, many of my players came to the table with an image of elves living in the woods and being good with bows and swords. The jump was to a fey race that is a bit reclusive and prone to pincushion any trespassers. They wanted to play elves because elves were deadly archers and very in tune with nature.

The end result was me often saying, "You can do that, but understand that action runs contrary to your culture."

I eventually added another group of "wood elves" that had been enslaved, etc. and are now pretty touchy about things. But, they're a different race for all practical purposes. Any PrC or feat based on blood would have to specify more than "elf" to be appropriate. Either race probably has more in common, culturally, with humans than with each other. Also, their favor class, racial abilities, stat modifiers are all different.

I like the split because I could play in a game with my sister-in-law (archer elf fan) and we could both play our own version of elf and the rules would support our choice. If there is a hint of outsider in the eladrin and a hint of fey in the elf, all the better.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Subraces should be purely based on fluff, not crunch. Wood/high/grey/valley/other elves should be mechanically the same, but flufftastically different. Drow aren't a subrace; they're another race entirely.

 

[Nahat Anoj]

IMO, the Eladrin and Elf split is a pretty darn cool one. I can't wait to see the story behind it. It sounds to me like the Eladrin are a highly magical race, the "parents" of both Elves and Drow. Ages ago, a group of Eladrin were somehow separated from the rest of the race (exile? left behind? left on their own?) and as a result of ages of wars with nature, humans, orcs, and so on, the inherently magical nature of the Eladrin was shaped into a woodsy, wild race.

In the mythic past, the Drow could have been Eladrin who made pacts with Lolth or researched dark secrets. Whatever the case, the magical essense of the Eladrin was somehow corrupted to the form it is now.

 

[Psion]

It seems to me to be co-opting an otherwise useful monstrous NPC race of use in order to create the illusion that it's not just a subrace.

A rose by any other name and all that...

 

[Banshee16]

See, I'm in the opposite cap. I dislike the notion of "sub-races" entirely. If the races are different, I think they should be different, both flavor-wise and mechanically. Otherwise, I see no point to treating them as different races at all; they're just different cultures within the same race.

I don't entirely object to that. However, what I don't like is the idea of saying that if I want a sylvan wizard, and need to play a karnoozle, which is a different species than the karnuttzle, which is a sylvan race that is appropriate for use as a woodland fighter/rogue.

Why do I need two sylvan races, differentiated primarily by whether they're going to be used for an arcane vs. martial class? It creates an arbitrary distinction based on factors which shouldn't be related to race. In fact, it's a giant step backwards to the days of 2nd Ed., when playing a druid meant that I had to have a half-elf or human, rather than an elf, because you know....elves apparently aren't good as druids, or can't be them for some reason.

So now, you're creating the karnoozle and the karnuttzle, which are very very similar to each other....similar looks, physiology, etc. except that hey, one race is known for their martial abilities, and the other is known for their mystic accomplishments. It overly simplifies things, making it feel like as a GM or player, I'm not smart enough to make a character properly without being handheld so that I use A if I want to play a fighter, and B if I want to be a sorcerer.

Over-specialization....I think it kind of cartoonizes things, and wrecks my suspension of disbelief.

Why not just have one race who can fill either role? The whole idea is the same as saying that there are two types of humans.....Americans and British. If I want to be in the military, I have to be American. If I want to be a comedian, I have to be British.

I'm really hoping I've misunderstood/misinterpreted what they're going to do.

Banshee