Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DarthDiablo" data-source="post: 3757314" data-attributes="member: 55048">Mechanically I like where this is going.&nbsp; Fluff-wise (in terms of names) I'm still undecided.&nbsp; I've always had issues with the elf.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; If elves were so in tune with magic, wouldn't they be more like sorcerers than wizards?&nbsp; If they were supposed to be closer to nature, druid or ranger would be more applicable.&nbsp; So I like the changes in that respect.&nbsp; The names I'm not so sure about.&nbsp; They could have call Eladrin High-Elves, and Elves Wood Elves as many others have already suggested.&nbsp; However, I do like the removal of the sub-types.&nbsp; After all, we don't have human subtypes, even though humans have sever sub-races.&nbsp; Having 2 or 3 subtypes is okay with me, but after reading the FR Races of Faerun, it made me ill very quick.&nbsp; Having said that, using Eladrine (Eldar!?!) as the more fey/magical of these &quot;cousins&quot; makes sense, as does making the proper elves more nature-based.&nbsp; If drow are another cousin, as opposed to sub-race, that appeals to me too.&nbsp; I never liked the drow/lloth split from the other elves, so they became darkskinned &amp; evil story.&nbsp; It's too racist for modern times.&nbsp; In this new version they may have always been darkskinned, thus moving 1 step away from the &quot;black is bad&quot; stereotype.&nbsp; If Elves, Eladrin &amp; Drow are now all &quot;cousins&quot; the fables of their origins can now be just that.&nbsp; Fables.&nbsp; Not D&amp;D canon for how all these sub-types came about.&nbsp; Fantasy stories are better based in myth &amp; legend than meta-plot creation stories.&nbsp; That way you can adjust your campaign without having the rule-lawyers argue why your backstory is wrong &amp; doesn't conform to most recent rulebook.&nbsp; It also makes the races further removed from each other, thus justifying the differences between all of them.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DarthDiablo, post: 3757314, member: 55048"] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification