New Design article: Elves

[Av3rnus]

If you know a better name for outsiders, out with it! The concept does warrant a different type: They're creatures composed of ideals, not of flesh and blood.

I'm ok with the concept, but mechanically it seems weird.

For instance, in 3.5E, say you have two rangers, each with a favored enemy:

Ranger A has favored enemy (evil outsider)
Ranger B has favored enemy (chaotic outsider)​

Both rangers are equally effective against demons (chaotic, evil). Ranger A's special training, however, also helps them take down devils (lawful, evil). Ok, this seems fitting, especially since we're used to grouping demons and devils under the umbrella of 'fiends'.

Ranger B, meanwhile, is also effective against... slaads and eladrin? And Ranger C, who has favored enemy (lawful outsider) is best pitted against devils, formians, and archons? Somehow, those groupings don't seem as natural to me.

I think there could be a more intuitive taxonomy, starting with 'fiends' and 'celestials'.

Giants could be done away with it. The only difference between a giant and a monstrous humanoid is size, and sometimes, not even that.

Agreed. For that matter, I'm not sure why there's such a big difference between monstrous humanoids and regular humanoids.

 

[hong]

Agreed. For that matter, I'm not sure why there's such a big difference between monstrous humanoids and regular humanoids.

Well, I personally don't really want charm and dominate person to be even more powerful....

 

[Jer]

Well, I personally don't really want charm and dominate person to be even more powerful....

I think that points to a flaw in the implementation of charm and dominate spells and not so much in the taxonomy of "humanoid/monstrous humanoid/giant" myself. I'd like to see them fix the broken spells and set up some kind of taxonomy that actually makes sense.

(Seriously - what's the distinction between "giant" and "humanoid" really? Giants are just Large-size or larger humanoids.)

 

[frankthedm]

Sorry, there are very few decent ways to rationalize the ranger favored enemy bonus. If having a reason is very important to the DM, Change the bonus form Extraordinary to Supernatural and call it a gift of some spirit of the hunt. If the anatomical differences between humans and a halfling cause the bonus to go away, so should the differences between a gryphon and a hydra.

Only thing that gets around the favored enemy bonus is being incorporeal or being invisible.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#invisibility Invisibility does not, by itself, make a creature immune to critical hits, but it does make the creature immune to extra damage from being a ranger’s favored enemy and from sneak attacks.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#incorporeality
Incorporeal creatures are immune to critical hits, extra damage from being favored enemies, and from sneak attacks.

Doesn't say anything about that. They don't cut living trees. They don't seem reluctant to cut living meatbags.

They probably eat the meat of anyone stupid enough to annoy them.

I think the Idea of elves using human body parts to build thier homes and gear is a wonderous idea. Buildings made from piled skulls. Ladders made of human bones. Bows made from a giant's rib and dwarven sinew for a string.

 

[DarthDiablo]

Mechanically I like where this is going. Fluff-wise (in terms of names) I'm still undecided. I've always had issues with the elf. The fighter/magic-user of the B/X sets kinda made sense, but by the time we hit 3E the whole wizard-favored class thing made no sense to me at all. If elves were so in tune with magic, wouldn't they be more like sorcerers than wizards? If they were supposed to be closer to nature, druid or ranger would be more applicable. So I like the changes in that respect.

The names I'm not so sure about. They could have call Eladrin High-Elves, and Elves Wood Elves as many others have already suggested. However, I do like the removal of the sub-types. After all, we don't have human subtypes, even though humans have sever sub-races. Having 2 or 3 subtypes is okay with me, but after reading the FR Races of Faerun, it made me ill very quick.

Having said that, using Eladrine (Eldar!?!) as the more fey/magical of these "cousins" makes sense, as does making the proper elves more nature-based. If drow are another cousin, as opposed to sub-race, that appeals to me too. I never liked the drow/lloth split from the other elves, so they became darkskinned & evil story. It's too racist for modern times. In this new version they may have always been darkskinned, thus moving 1 step away from the "black is bad" stereotype.

If Elves, Eladrin & Drow are now all "cousins" the fables of their origins can now be just that. Fables. Not D&D canon for how all these sub-types came about. Fantasy stories are better based in myth & legend than meta-plot creation stories. That way you can adjust your campaign without having the rule-lawyers argue why your backstory is wrong & doesn't conform to most recent rulebook. It also makes the races further removed from each other, thus justifying the differences between all of them.

 

[Mercule]

Sorry, there are very few decent ways to rationalize the ranger favored enemy bonus. If having a reason is very important to the DM, Change the bonus form Extraordinary to Supernatural and call it a gift of some spirit of the hunt. If the anatomical differences between humans and a halfling cause the bonus to go away, so should the differences between a gryphon and a hydra.

I think the favored enemy concept is a sound one. I just don't think it needs to be an inherent part of the ranger class. It should be one option on the talent tree.

 

[Blackwind]

I wonder what this change will mean to bladesingers.

Dunno, but I'd love to play an eladrin paladin/wizard... assuming the new multiclassing rules are viable (which admittedly I have no reason to assume at this juncture).

Off topic somewhat, but the bladesinger concept can be represented in a lot of different ways, mechanically. I almost feel like a single-classed bard with perform dance and sing would cut it. And then there's the duskblade...

 

[Pale]

When I need good guy celestials, I need angels. I don't need dog-headed men, I don't need more-elf-than-elves, I just need angels. I'm not in love with the D&D versions (seriously, why green and bald?), but they're what I reach for instead of the other choices, as flavorful as they might be.

Emphasis mine.

From the thread entitled "Ask Gygax XIII" or something similar, Gary himself says that he did not (and does not) base game elements on Christian beliefs. The "Deva" comes from Theosophy. Below is a direct link to the Deva section on wikipedia. I'm sure you could find out more on "why green and bald?" if you're so inclined.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deva_(New_Age)

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Emphasis mine.

From the thread entitled "Ask Gygax XIII" or something similar, Gary himself says that he did not (and does not) base game elements on Christian beliefs. The "Deva" comes from Theosophy. Below is a direct link to the Deva section on wikipedia. I'm sure you could find out more on "why green and bald?" if you're so inclined.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deva_(New_Age)

At the end of the day, to most people, a winged good guy from Heaven is still an angel, no matter what you call it.

I appreciate why Gygax did what he did, but once the word "angel" appeared in the Monster Manual at all, the green and bald should just go. Let them have variable appearances, depending on individuals, but drawing the line at keeping them looking like an old Star Trek alien seems (and has always seemed) an odd artistic choice.

 

[Merlion]

Mechanically I like where this is going. Fluff-wise (in terms of names) I'm still undecided. I've always had issues with the elf. The fighter/magic-user of the B/X sets kinda made sense, but by the time we hit 3E the whole wizard-favored class thing made no sense to me at all. If elves were so in tune with magic, wouldn't they be more like sorcerers than wizards? If they were supposed to be closer to nature, druid or ranger would be more applicable. So I like the changes in that respect.
.

This is more a problem with the mage classes. Remember, Sorcerers didnt come along until later.

Thats why I wish they had a mage class without a built in "born mage" or "learned mage" nature.


I feel somewhat the same about the nature/druid thing. I could kind of see druid and wizard a bit less seperated. Or at least less of this idea that "arcane" magic is somehow unnatural, "divine" god-magic maybe is or isnt and "divine" "right from nature magic" is definitely natural.