Should there just be one sort of elf?

[Klaus]

there are endless varieties of humans in our world, why not endless varieties of elves and dwarves and every other thing. this would be something like regional specialties.

Because human variety is cultural, nothing more. And so should be the differences between elves that live in the woods, in the mountains and elsewhere.

If anything, only cultural mechanics should change, like the elves' Weapon Proficiencies.

 

[Uzzy]

So, what would be wrong with having a good cultural background to each of the different elven racial types along with mechanical differences? I've always thought that the Forgotten Realms showed the different cultural backgrounds quite well, especially in sourcebooks such as Races of Faerún. Don't see what's wrong with having some mechanical differences on top of that.

 

[pweent]

There should absolutely be just a single set of mechanics for elves in 4e.

That said, with the implication that races grant additional abilities as you increase in level, and there being player choice involved in the abilities you get, I think there's plenty of room to have the single set of mechanics customizable enough that you can say, "Take features A and B for a High Elf, A and C for a Wood Elf, C and D for a Gutter Elf..."

 

[Banshee16]

1) It's lazy of the designers to create a new monster instead of doing the slightly harder work of making a new culture cool on its own merits.

2) Their primary appeal seems to be for folks who want to play an elf, but can't handle not having The Optimal Race for My Class and thus are able to grab the barbarian elf, fighter elf, sorcerer elf, monk elf, or whatever, as appropriate. It makes a mockery of the notion of a favored class.

I disagree. To state that it's lazy of the designers, or simply powergaming by players is a qualitative opinion

Personally, I like having the grey, high, wild, sea, dark elf breakdown. They're part of the tradition of the game, harkening back to 1st Ed.

The elves have been around far longer than humans. They are a highly magical, fey race, and it's possible that magical means led to their evolution.

In most cases, except for the wild elf strength thing, I really don't think they have that many advantages anyways. Of course, that's my opinion.

One thing I've noticed is that for 4E they reference "elven evasion". If that's the case, I wonder what it is? A big complaint about 3E was that, though described as a magical race, elves really weren't that magical....they didn't have an advantage or anything. Evasion, if we assume it's similar to what it was like in 3E, isn't much of a magical trait.

Banshee

 

[Banshee16]

The Secrets of the Realms seminar at GenCon talked about their being no mechanical difference in sub-races. The only differences would be cultural. It looks like we get our wish no sub-races in 4E.

That'll last as long as when they start selling splatbooks.

Banshee

 

[WarlockLord]

2 kinds:
1)Happy Hippy Elves

2)Drow

Guess who's dominant? But really, drow should be different: they've had a while to evolve that way (and a different environ to evolve to, more odd spells slinging around to evolve the SR...

but really, SR can be replaced by a +2 to saves and AC against all spells. Or postponed to 12th level.)

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Personally, I like having the grey, high, wild, sea, dark elf breakdown. They're part of the tradition of the game, harkening back to 1st Ed.

Old stuff is not automatically better. Consulting wacky charts to figure out if you've hit something, bad. Some numbers going up, others going down, bad. Elven groups that exist only in one valley getting their own stats, bad.

In most cases, except for the wild elf strength thing, I really don't think they have that many advantages anyways.

You seem to have missed the "lalalalalala, gray elves are the best mages" stuff that goes on here periodically. One race shouldn't be the optimal choice for three different core classes.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

The Secrets of the Realms seminar at GenCon talked about their being no mechanical difference in sub-races. The only differences would be cultural. It looks like we get our wish no sub-races in 4E.

I hereby spike the ceremonial football and declare victory.

/spike

 

[Gentlegamer]

My favorite gaming elf is the Grunge Elf, from the HACKMASTER game.

 

[AFGNCAAP]

I think the subraces of core races should go. IMHO, they should have gone with racial class restrictions, % stats, stat maximums based on gender, max levels for demihumans, seperate XP charts, & the rest....

The concept of subraces, IMHO, was essentially retrofitting a race to work better with a particular class. In earlier editions, it's possible for a subrace to level in a class not normally allowed for the default race, or could achieve a higher max level in a class or two than other races. Its mechanical aspects and advantages had more to do with the race than any cultural issues.

Why play a normal elf barbarian when a Wild Elf would be so much better for it? Or a normal elf wizard when Grey Elves are perfect for wizards? Race choice primarily became an optimization of a class selection with the subraces.

Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if a d20 Star Wars fan wrote up a subrace of Wookiees that are more adept at using the Force compared to other Wookiees. Despite any backstory added, it'd effectively just be an option for folks who'd want to play a Wookiee Jedi without taking a hit to the stats that modify Force power use.

I think the racial feats idea would work fine for developing characters of different cultural backgrounds, if they work it that way. I agree that racial modifiers & traits should be biologically-based instead of culturally-based.