Eladrin, warlords, and unnecessary D&Disms

[Gwathlas]

Another WOTC creation, another badly chosen name for a core part of the PHB.

Concept of a leader class and a fey magic elf race - great, no problem with that. The names, warlord and eladrin, don't work for me. Why can't they just use classic, generic fantasy names? Why are they getting ridiculous (warlord) and arbitrary (eladrin) with them? Why are we getting more D&Disms in the core, as if the cleric wasn't enough?

This is D&D, WOTC, and you're spiked chaining it further into D&Dism territory. It'll map even less to classic swords & sorcery fantasy tropes, because you'll have to explain to newcomers that warlords don't have armies, and what the heck an eladrin is, and so on. You're polluting the implied setting by making this stuff core.

D&D is already full of D&Disms, but generally they're optional and can be ignored, by not using that supplement. By moving them to centre stage and putting them in the PHB you don't even really give people an option to ban them, because it's a pain in the neck to state that such and such parts of the PHB don't apply to this campaign. Or have to put up with the annoyance of reading "eladrin" and "warlord" every time if you rename them.

I understand that WOTC wants to give the game a shake-up, but for something as minor as names, it's just so trivial to do a good job with something classic and generic instead of putting a sore thumb into every campaign out there.

A lot of people play D&D as a sort of Sim S&S Fantasy World game, and by pushing your brand as a specific, non-generic entity with a specific, extremely quirky implied setting you may find that aspect of D&D's ability to deliver on that suffering. Thus far it's hewed fairly closely to Tolkien, who stuck to mythology, which was okay (everyone knows what a dwarf is)...

...but now we're going all Planescape and WoW. "Fey elf" and "demonic blooded human" and "leader" have mythic resonance as tropes, but the names chosen to represent them need an overhaul IMO.

As if the implied setting wasn't already quirky and idiosyncratic enough...

Demonic blodded human...sheesh talk about quirky idiosyncratic. Much rather they keep wow in wow and D&D in D&D.

 

[Gwathlas]

I don't see why so many people keep harping on this "classic sword & sorcery fantasy" nonsense; is it just grognardism? I, for one, am glad that WotC finally has the cojones to man up and change the "feel" of the game.

Yeah but it's just a low tech version of starwars with anime action thrown in. So just buy starwars and save some money.

 

[Gargoyle]

Perhaps because it draws on the Tolkienish 'Eldar' ('Star'-'People')? And because Tolkien subsumed the entirety of Elven languages under 'Eldarin'? And because Warhammer basically reused the name?

Nope, that's not why I like "eladrin". Honestly, I'm not up on my Tolkien or Warhammer, so that was news to me, and I don't really care if it's original or not. I like it because it rolls off the tongue smoothly, and seems to fit my idea of how elves would talk. If WoTC is consciously using those sources as a "root" that's fine with me, because it works.

Personally, I only have a minor quibble with Warlord, and I can accept Eladrin, it's a fine-sounding fantasy name, there are much worse fantasy names. Though I strongly dislike certain wizard traditions...

Cheers, LT.

Agreed on warlord. I'm reserving judgement on it until I read the class description. I find the name hard to criticize it until I see a bit more on it, but it does seem a little out of pace with the other class names. I can see adventurers sittting around a tavern chatting in character about "wizards, clerics, and fighters", and maybe even "rogues"....but "Hey we need a warlord" just seems wrong because of the status and other connotations of the word. I would think they would just say "warrior" or "fighter". And I know that there shouldn't necessarily be in character conversations mentioning class names...but there are.

I'm ok with the wizard traditions, but I can see where others would object. They seem like campaign specific names, when they should be a bit more generic and easily applicable to any campaign.

 

[Gargoyle]

I can see the OPs point. I think it's similar to making Tieflings a core race and then reasoning - well, all the Tieflings popping up need to have something to do, so let's make a core Warlock class to complement them. And it's not my opinion, it has been quoted somewhere. Such a move and such reasoning - making assumptions regarding demographics and flavor, are more fitting for a particular campaign setting, IMHO.

I think it probably went more like:

"Ok, we've made the warlock into a core class, and we've gotten rid of some races we think suck. We need to put a core race into the book that complements the warlock."

As long as the goal is to give us more options that are fun, I'm ok with them changing or expanding the implied setting.

 

[Clavis]

Eh. If people can grok "tauren", they can grok eladrin.

I been playing D&D for 23 years.

What the f**k is a "tauren"?

See the original poster's point?

 

[Fifth Element]

How do you determine that a "D&Dism" is unecessary? Which ones are necessary?

Wait, don't tell me. It's a matter of personal taste, right?

 

[Wiseblood]

I been playing D&D for 23 years.

What the f**k is a "tauren"?

See the original poster's point?

What is grok?

If I have inferred correctly is is akin to the word "say". Which, I feel obligated to point out, is easier to type than grok. What would I know? I don't have 15,000 posts to my name.

To the OP. Eladrin is like a garnish. It doesn't actually add anything that wasn't there before.

Warlord, I agree, is a misnomer. It implies a leadership role with regard to civil military while not actually supplying anything of the sort. If on the otherhand, Warlord came with a handful of armed peasants as a class feature, I could get behind the name.

The D&D isms are there to show you. Hey we're different now.

 

[see]

What is grok?

To quote the book that introduced the word: "'Grok' is drink."

(In practice, it means "to understand", with connotations of deeply, thoroughly, and intimately.)

 

[The Ubbergeek]

In game terms =/= our of game terms.

Just because the name of the class is... say, Barbarian, it do not make you a barbarian in game. It could hum... Berzerker in classical faux europe setting, Orang Amok or something in south asian one, maybe, etc...

see?

 

[WhatGravitas]

What is grok?

You could also say, it means not only to understand an idea, but to get it completely - in any case, Wikipedia is your friend!

Cheers, LT.