What doesn't belong in the "core"

Crazy Jerome

First Post
I dislike tieflings so much that I doubt I'll ever run a campaign where they are even permitted. I might bend a little if anyone else in my group cared, but they don't like them either. Not as much as I don't like them, but enough.

However, in no way have I ever, or will I ever, lobby to have them excluded. The valid reason to exclude them is to make space for something else that more people like, and we don't really have any good way to individually determine that, from the outside looking in.

Double-bladed swords, however, are simply stupid, and should be taken out back and shot. :D
 

log in or register to remove this ad





Oni

First Post
i think that asian, psionic, extraplanar, and campaign-specific material should be excluded from core.

I hadn't really thought about it before now, but I'd be happy to see the psion in the core just to expand people's minds a little bit about the kinds of weird pulpy worlds D&D can represent.
 

Nivenus

First Post
I call this race "High Elf." There was already an eladrin race and 4E obliterated it.

Eladrin were the bread and butter of the Chaotic Good Outer Planes. I miss them. :.-(

This is the only thing that really bothered me about eladrin - the name confused two different and prior entirely different races together and muddled them. Since 4e's initial release they've tried to solve this problem with varying degrees of success but at the end of the day it still feels like an unnecessary blunder.

A similar sort of things happened with 4e's archons (CE elementals) vs. 3e's (LG celestials), except moreso. The two are mutually exclusive.

To be honest, I'm not entirely sure why they didn't just give them different names. 4e eladrin could easily be called "sidhe" (which are their nearest fantastical analogue anyway) or "eldar" (high elves of Middle-earth and the space elves in WH40K) and archons could have been... something else.
 

harlokin

First Post
This is the only thing that really bothered me about eladrin - the name confused two different and prior entirely different races together and muddled them. Since 4e's initial release they've tried to solve this problem with varying degrees of success but at the end of the day it still feels like an unnecessary blunder.

A similar sort of things happened with 4e's archons (CE elementals) vs. 3e's (LG celestials), except moreso. The two are mutually exclusive.

To be honest, I'm not entirely sure why they didn't just give them different names. 4e eladrin could easily be called "sidhe" (which are their nearest fantastical analogue anyway) or "eldar" (high elves of Middle-earth and the space elves in WH40K) and archons could have been... something else.

The could certainly work as Sidhe (except in Birthright, where that would be Wood Elves).

On the other hand I have always hated the Celestials, Eladrin etc. Whole races of powerful, good aligned beings, who could rescue everything, but just can't be bothered. To my mind the only reason they were there was previous edition's obsession with symmetry.

Games like Earthdawn/WoD/CoC have far more scary fiends mostly because there is nothing to save you from them.
 

Nivenus

First Post
On the other hand I have always hated the Celestials, Eladrin etc. Whole races of powerful, good aligned beings, who could rescue everything, but just can't be bothered. To my mind the only reason they were there was previous edition's obsession with symmetry.

Games like Earthdawn/WoD/CoC have far more scary fiends mostly because there is nothing to save you from them.

That only strikes me as a problem if you think good deities are a problem. Which is an open question, I suppose, but they've been in every version of the game.
 

fuindordm

Adventurer
Yes, but they weren't actually called warlords. Calling a character a specific class name is how we know that Aragorn is a Ranger, Gandalf is a Wizard and Bilbo Baggins is a Burglar (Thief).

It's not because Tolkien liked to give titles that class names have to be recognizable titles.

I can think of a few 'warlords' in LotR. Faramir seems like a good candidate, for all his sneaky rangery skills. Denethor was also probably more of a leader than a fighter. Eomer of the Rohirrim. Anyone who did as much good by inspiring the troops and planning battles as they did just by swinging a sword.

In real life, leadership is a recognizable and useful skill. Why get hung up on any particular class name for the leader/fighter archetype?
 

Remove ads

Top