Kae'Yoss said:
And to be honest: While I have no problem with a dozen different elven subraces (or dwarven subraces, or any subraces), the distinction between somewhat wild/woody elves and very wild/woody elves always did seem excessive to me. I can understand having gold/sun elves and moon/silver elves as well as wood elves, plus sea elves and drow. I can even see how star elves make sense, but making wood elves as well as wild elves always seemed a bit like having seawater elves and freshwater elves or something.
Or like having Deep Sea Elves (Dargonesti) and Shoal Elves (Dimernesti) from
Dragonlance? Yes, subraces have been done to death!
However, I have to agree with you. A distinction that models High Elves, Wood Elves, Dark Elves and Sea Elves (if you want them) makes sense. And quite honestly, I think 4e's just calling the first three Eladrin, Elf, and Drow for naming purposes. That way, you can avoid silly things like:
Player 1: "What race is your character?"
Player 2: "I'm an elf. I like the benefits I got for going into wizardry."
Player 1: "Elves are nature guys...live in trees...use bows...like Legolas."
Player 2: "Nooo...I'm a HIGH elf. We live in trees but we make great spellcasters. What you're talking about are wood elves."
Player 1: "Bloody elves..."
It amazes me that with so many people ripping on Tolkien-based fantasy, they're clinging desperately to a concept
he made up - that elves can be differentiated by subrace. Even the terms Grey, High, Star, and Sylvan are his.
Tolkien's list is a holy mess. But dividing elves into 2 categories (not counting Drow) fits both his work and the common perception of the various subraces in D&D. We can have the woodsy elves, and the secluded mystical eladrin. Why are people getting into such an uproar over terminology?