Idea for 5E

[rounser]

But eladrin and warlords? Really?

Willowy fey who disappear in the blink of an eye, and charismatic leaders who can exhort their companions to great efforts, make them get up and keep going when they want to fall over and die, through nothing more than the power of their speech? You don't get any more "mythological fantasy" than that.

Neither have fictional or mythological basis under a name as specific as that, which is why the names are contrived. The teleporting thing is a matter of taste (if I want pixies and sprites and faeries, I'll have them as pixies and sprites and faeries, not "eladrin" whatever the heck they are, thank you very much), and the concept of warlord was hard to name because it has no basis as a trope.

It's not even a leader, it's a kind of drill sergeant/expert on everything/cheerleader, and by default it's existence makes a mockery of both the expertise of the other classes, the independence of other characters, and turns every party into a military outfit.

They're both bad design for the core and the implied setting, IMO, but that's neither here nor there. They should definitely be optional, and that's what we're discussing here. Referencing them in text and artwork everywhere doesn't do that. It's good that you like them, but surely you can see some obvious problems with them.

 

[rounser]

But your campaign isn't forced into allowing wuxia dragonborn katana-wielding warlocks if you (the DM) don't want them to be there. Yes, they're in the PHB. So what?

Because before this edition, I've never had a PHB that made me save to disbelieve in the game. 4E does that to me whenever I look at the artwork in the PHB alone, let alone the flavour text.

 

[Mouseferatu]

It's good that you like them, but surely you can see some obvious problems with them.

We're gonna have to do the vaunted "agree to disagree" thing here, because I don't see any "obvious problems" with them, I don't agree that the warlord has anything resembling the negative impact on expertise or independence that you're describing (and yes, I've played with one in the party), and I see both warlords and eladrins (regardless of name) as both having a much stronger myth/fantasy "pedigree" than many aspects of D&D that have been around a lot longer than they have.

 

[rounser]

We're gonna have to do the vaunted "agree to disagree" thing here, because I don't see any "obvious problems" with them, I don't agree that the warlord has anything resembling the negative impact on expertise or independence that you're describing (and yes, I've played with one in the party), and I see both warlords and eladrins (regardless of name) as both having a much stronger myth/fantasy "pedigree" than many aspects of D&D that have been around a lot longer than they have.

That's okay. I think there's room for a D&D for those who disagree with you and WOTC, though. It's irrelevant to the topic, anyway.

 

[vagabundo]

We're gonna have to do the vaunted "agree to disagree" thing here, because I don't see any "obvious problems" with them, I don't agree that the warlord has anything resembling the negative impact on expertise or independence that you're describing (and yes, I've played with one in the party), and I see both warlords and eladrins (regardless of name) as both having a much stronger myth/fantasy "pedigree" than many aspects of D&D that have been around a lot longer than they have.

I feel it is the strength of their DND pedigree that most people have more of a problem with than their Fantasy or Mythological basis.

The Eladrin/Elf divide makes perfect sense to me and the Warlord clicked too, but I can see why they would not be to everyone's taste. However the Warlord class makes it possible for an all martial, no-magic campaign without running too many house rules, something I'm trilled with - the more genre campaigns I can run with the three core books the better IMO.

@ the OP: I'm hoping we'll see a bit of a different feel to the PHBII/DMGII/MMII. Not sure what that feel is; mixing Goliaths, gnomes with barabrians and Bards doesnt give me a coherent setting, seems a little bit of a mish-mash, but I'll wait and see.

After the 4e DMG I'm really excited to see what is in the DMG II, now that is a turn up for the books!!

 

[AlexS]

Because before this edition, I've never had a PHB that made me save to disbelieve in the game. 4E does that to me whenever I look at the artwork in the PHB alone, let alone the flavour text.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by 'save to disbelieve' but fair enough, you don't like the artwork. Different strokes, I suppose. I'm not mad keen on some of it either, but then again, as far as I'm concerned, it's no big deal- I can find my own character illustration or just make something up in my head. Once we're playing the game, I don't really need to look at the PHB very often.

As for eladrin and warlords, going to have to agree with Mouseferatu here. Eladrin are just high elves. Yeah, it sucks having three types of elf in the PHB, but if it stays that way, it's better than the countless variations that have plagued 3rd edition, just so people could power-game their mary sue. Warlords, I kinda see as King Arthur to the fighter's Lancelot. Sure, he may not be quite such a skilled warrior, but he's the tactical genius, rousing the men to greater things.

 

[rounser]

I feel it is the strength of their DND pedigree that most people have more of a problem with than their Fantasy or Mythological basis.

What basis? Eladrin is a made-up word, and "warlord" doesn't mean what WOTC wants it to mean. "Tactician guy who gives orders" is a military trope, no Conan or Merlin would put up with such an upstart. Neither deserves core D&D status, and yet, there they are.

Does every adventuring party with a warlord in it become Bad Company? A bunch of mercenaries with a leader shouting orders? I don't dig that. I think that's bad design.

 

[rounser]

you don't like the artwork.

Actually, I do. I just don't want to look at dragonborn - they're ugly, they don't exist in the D&D implied setting (yes, I made my save to disbelieve), I don't want them to exist in it, and I don't want to think about them. I have the same trouble with warforged.

If the design of both wasn't so ugly, I think I'd have less problems with them. Are they both by WAR?

Eladrin are just high elves.

THEN WHY AREN'T THEY CALLED FREAKING HIGH ELVES? That name is self-explanatory, whereas "eladrin" seems contrived and requires explanation. Trademarks? It's not even a good name, it's like someone looked at "eldar" and went, "OK, can't use that, let's come up with a second-rate version of it", and here we are.

 

[AlexS]

Take a chill pill, dude, and breathe. So you don't like the nasty dragonborn. Are a few pictures really that much of a deal-breaker? How else would a humanoid dragon look? I'm not sure how else they could've gone with the look.
I can't stand half-breeds, but I can live with them in the core rules, because I know other people like them.

As for the name 'eladrin' I just don't see your problem. It sounds about as viable an elvish word as any of the crap that Tolkien made up. It also means that they don't necessarily have to be elves- it helps make a distinction for those new to the game, and means they're a distinct entity for feats and so on.

Your argument seems to be that you want a rulebook made to your personal tastes, with what everyone else who likes something contrary to the One True Way having to get something else. Sorry, but I just don't see it happening.

 

[rounser]

Your argument seems to be that you want a rulebook made to your personal tastes, with what everyone else who likes something contrary to the One True Way having to get something else. Sorry, but I just don't see it happening.

It happened for 3-6 editions of the game just fine. 4E is the edition made to someone's "personal tastes", and boy, does it show.