New Design article: Elves

[freyar]

I'm pretty disappointed, actually. First off, the change in elves doesn't seem like much, as (like several people have noted) the "ranger" elf is an option in 3e along with the "arcane" elf (to avoid listing all the subraces). To me (and I know we haven't seen enough to make any statements for sure), it sounds like 4e will have 2 elven subraces (ok), but the designers are calling one of them "eladrin" just to avoid subraces. Meanwhile, they're retconning another creature type. And it doesn't sound as if eladrins have anything to do with celestial or any kind of extraplanar beings. Makes me wonder about tieflings, too.

 

[ajanders]

As far as I can tell, it looks like...

Elf = hippie elf
Eladrin = poncy elf

No, no, no.

Poncy is a talent tree for elves. It replaces the homebrew "Ponce" prestige class.
Elves don't need xp to be poncy, they just start right in.

 

[Mouseferatu]

To me (and I know we haven't seen enough to make any statements for sure), it sounds like 4e will have 2 elven subraces (ok), but the designers are calling one of them "eladrin" just to avoid subraces.

Well, like you said, we can't say anything for sure. But to me, I didn't get "subraces." I got "two races that happen to be related." Not quite the same thing. My impression (again, from what little we know) is that the eladrin are a lot closer to the "true fey" than the elves are.

Meanwhile, they're retconning another creature type. And it doesn't sound as if eladrins have anything to do with celestial or any kind of extraplanar beings.

I don't think "retcon" is a bad word. If the eladrin--which always resembled elves--make more sense as an otherworldly fey than an otherworldly celestial, I'm all for it.

Makes me wonder about tieflings, too.

Me, too. Of course, we may have differing opinions about the answers.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Makes me wonder about tieflings, too.

Orc subrace.

 

[Masquerade]

Meanwhile, they're retconning another creature type. And it doesn't sound as if eladrins have anything to do with celestial or any kind of extraplanar beings. Makes me wonder about tieflings, too.

Lost me here. The term "retcon" would suggest "continuity," but what we're seeing with 4e is a new setting (with "points of light" and whatnot). What the name meant in older editions is scarcely relevant to this new setting.

(Maybe the reuse of the name doesn't bother me at all because I wasn't around to experience the 2e eladrin, whatever they were. To me, it's a cool name and an entry in the MM I never more than glanced at.)

 

[Loincloth of Armour]

I'm torn in my opinions...

I like the idea of elves 'getting back to nature'. I want my elves to use more natural magic and live in harmony with the natural world. Hearing that they have a fey background pleases the story-teller inside of me. Getting away from bookish wizards will help with that feel.

However, by making Eladrins a playable race (and related thematically to elves) I wonder if we're just getting subraces under different names. I'll wait until I hear more about the eladrin.

For stat modifiers (assuming they exist), I'm betting elves will look like:

• +2 to dex (no reason to change this, also good to promote them as archers)
• -2 to Chr (haughty and emotional)
• Rerolls for Survival and Perception to support the 'live with nature' and 'notice things other miss'

And since there's strong hints there will be half-elves... will there be half-eladrin too?

 

[Jer]

Lost me here. The term "retcon" would suggest "continuity," but what we're seeing with 4e is a new setting (with "points of light" and whatnot). What the name meant in older editions is scarcely relevant to this new setting.

I smell a fight brewing ...

(I don't like the word "retcon" for this stuff either - none of these changes have to propagate backwards to previous settings. It would only be a "retcon" if they come out with a new campaign setting book for the old setting that keeps the story changes instead of reverting to the elements of the old setting, IMO).

(Maybe the reuse of the name doesn't bother me at all because I wasn't around to experience the 2e eladrin, whatever they were. To me, it's a cool name and an entry in the MM I never more than glanced at.)

Actually, if you wouldn't mind looking over the entries in the MM and giving your opinion on what you see, I'd be interested. I've liked the Eladrin since Planescape, so I'm a bit biased about them. But I've always seen them as a type of "ascended elf" myself, so the idea that Eladrin and elves might be related is not very jarring to me.

 

[William Ronald]

It does make a bit of sence in the "points of light" model. This time the 'Elder race' is divorced from the material world. They have thier degenerate off-shoot, the elves, living in the material world, while their great empire lies Elsewere. The real world can slip into decay since 'the Uber Race' is too distant to save it.

Or they may be in the world, trying to save it, but be not entirely of this world. So, perhaps the Eladrin are now the Gray Elves of first edition, but with a focus on logic, reason, and diplomacy as opposed to their more passionate kin. I suspect that both the eladrin and the tieflings will be stuck in the world of the default setting.

Of course, what frankthedm said may be true, or may be the view of members of some of the other races. At this point, we don't know.

As for dealing with changes, perhaps in some campaigns (like the Realms) the eladrin and the elves see themselves as one people, and other races may have just confused the two of them. (This might be a source of humor to both eladrin and elves.)

 

[ruleslawyer]

*weeps*

Heh, i've been trying for YEARS to strip that cliche from people. Evles are elves, Not humans of a different color. I know its difficult people to put your mind into that of another sentient race, but elves should act like elves. Why bother to play one if your just going play a human in a funny suit? Play a damn human and sweet talk your GM into giving you the racial stats for goodness sakes!

My "humans in funny suits" comment was tongue-in-cheek. What I was suggesting is that it is awfully hard to RP the Tolkienian ancient, immortal, fundamentally-eldritch High Elf, whereas the avari-type wood elf might be close enough to comprehensible to play fairly well. It's like the problem with truly alien aliens (and why almost all sympathetic aliens in sci-fi books, TV, and movies are human-like with one or two exaggerated traits); the further away you get from human, the further your frame of reference shifts until it's nearly impossible to empathize. There's a reason why the High Elves show up in LotR as lofty NPC-types rather than being the main protagonists of the story, and why the Tolkien saga that showcases them front and center (the Silmarillion) is written in the style of a viewed-from-on-high chronicle rather than a living, breathing story.

I don't understand this comment. Tolkien's elves were nature freaks. Great warriors and masters of (what they called) craft, but definitely not "high arcane" beings (granted, Tolkien's magic and D&D's magic is entirely different, so there's really no comparison in that case).

Spot on as to the second and third points, but the "nature freak" thing isn't really a major element of high elves in Tolkien's work; that role belongs largely to wood elves; Lothlorien is more fey than woodsy, as is Rivendell. Sure, they're arguably "more in touch with nature" than the Secondborn, but not more than even halflings, and really, it's just part of the "elves are just better and more spiritual" element of Tolkien's high elves.

 

[Wolfspider]

Just remember folks...

Elves are doomed.

Elves cannot win.