Eladrins are celestials, not elves!


4th Edition

101 to 150 of 258 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

Set wrote:
Quote:

"Player's can't handle making their own saving throws, so let the DM do that." [/quote

As for the notion that the different Eladrin monster races (Coure, Firre, Ghaele) will become some sort of epic paragon path destiny thingies that Eladrin PCs could follow, that's about the most bizarre thing I've heard yet from 4E. Wow. I wonder if a lycanthrope can take an epic path that turns him from a werewolf into a werebear? Can a halfling take an 'epic path' that lets him become a dwarf, and then perhaps a human?

The transition from eladrin to firre, coure etc is purely speculation on my part (and others) - nowhere has WOTC said that. Given that the noble houses of the eladrin have taken the names of the 3.5E monsters, I don;t think its unreasonable to speculate that PCs might gain a chance ot emulate the former 'monsters' powers.

If 4E is reimagining races/creatures then it's not certain that the former eladrin will be separate monsters anymore. It would thus be nothing like a halfling turning into a dwarf, it would be more akin to a PC gaining the celestial template through a prestige class (by way of example) in the current rules.

Again, nowhere have WOTC said this, it is purely the musings of myself and others on other boards.


CEBrown wrote:


...The attitude they're giving behind the changes strongly implies that WotC believes the players and DMs are lazy or stupid... But everything I've seen from WotC so far regarding 4e strongly implies this attitude at the design level.
Sebastian wrote:
I suppose to the extent you attribute this perception to their PR, I agree. But, to the extent this perception is caused by the substance of the changes themselves, I disagree.

I agree with CEB here -- WotC's marketing language is patronizing, at best. They seem to have bought into the worst of advertising mindsets, which is the belief that anything they say or do will be believed and followed with puppy-like devotion.

My enthusiasm for 4/e would be a lot higher if they'd just stop telling me how much better their new products are for me. As a customer, I don't appreciate them deciding that for me, and I certainly don't like the assumption that I'll believe them -- I'm not a brainless idiot.

OK, sure, that's what advertising is supposed to be about, but I think theirs is a bit transparent, and thus insulting.

IMHO, but a lot of people are getting the same impressions.

Dark Archive

FabesMinis wrote:

I believe they first made their appearance in the Blood Wars CCG (based on Planescape) and they then got AD&D 2E stats in Planescape Monstrous Compendium 2.

So... does that make eladrin better or worse? ;)

Cool. Thanks.


crosswiredmind wrote:
You have every right to be skeptical. This game could very well suck. But it won't suck because they changed the story of where elves come from. That you can change to be whatever you want.

I agree 100%.

However, I think many of WotC's changes are contributing to the skepticism. Given a lot of public opinion, WotC would be well-served spending some time showing us how the game will remain intact. No, I don't know how they'd go about doing that, but I'm pretty sure someone at WotC is supposed to get paid for public relations -- recent evidence notwithstanding.

BTW, I don't agree that D&D is "old and it shows." In fact, I think 3.x has done a pretty good job of saving the game from that. Problem is, I think WotC agrees with you. As a result, we have gotten:

  • Eberron, a cool setting, but well outside mainstream swords & sorcery fantasy. Its unique flavor makes it a niche product, not the makings of one of two supported campaigns.
  • Online magazines. Are they better for us? Who can tell? So far we've only seen fewer game-useable columns per issue, moved to bimonthly release, and continued to miss or ignore deadlines.
  • Digital Initiative. See vaporware.
  • A new version of the game with little evident backward-compatibility.
Resulting public reaction is hardly going to be one of confidence.

WotC seems hell-bent on redefining the D&D experience, with little regard for who doesn't want to go along. If that's not the case, they need to manage public perception better to convince us otherwise.

Please note I've not criticized 4/e in any way -- I expect it to be a good game. But I think there is a disturbing history of missteps from WotC that can seriously damage customer confidence and loyalty (as has happened).

IMO :)


And I still think eladrins can replace some elves :)


Regardless of what changes are wrought by 4E, I will stand by my homebrew; where there are no eladrin subrace of elves. ;)


Let me add to a couple of posts ago: look here.

One of the strengths of D&D has been that the core rules are very generic in content. That makes the game adaptable.

The language of the article above, though, is very distinct in flavor. I don't think they're trying to make a game we can play our way -- they're trying to make a game we play their way.


Sebastian wrote:


I suppose to the extent you attribute this perception to their PR, I agree. But, to the extent this perception is caused by the substance of the changes themselves, I disagree.

Well, without the actual rules themselves to go by, all I have to judge them by is their PR...


Well, I just picked up Wizards Presents: Races and Classes.

I think they're trying hard, and doing well. In an attempt to alienate the OP and a bunch of others here, grey elves are being changed to the Fey type IMC.

But we'll have to see if my campaign can be converted to 4/e easily. If not, I'm going to miss out on a cool game system, and they're going to miss out on my money.

:)


Tatterdemalion wrote:

Well, I just picked up Wizards Presents: Races and Classes.

:)

I prefer to show WotC no support by NOT buying their books (especially their preview books)... but that's just me. ;)


Chris Perkins 88 wrote:
I prefer to show WotC no support by NOT buying their books (especially their preview books)... but that's just me. ;)

You're not alone, and this purchase is unusual for me. The art is nice, and I think morbid curiosity got the best of me :)

Reading it gives a fairer picture of where WotC is coming from. I think they've made a conscious (and IMO reckless) decision to make a new game, with little obligation to earlier content.

I think the business decision is defensible, but time will tell.


Tatterdemalion wrote:
Chris Perkins 88 wrote:
I prefer to show WotC no support by NOT buying their books (especially their preview books)... but that's just me. ;)

You're not alone, and this purchase is unusual for me. The art is nice, and I think morbid curiosity got the best of me :)

Reading it gives a fairer picture of where WotC is coming from. I think they've made a conscious (and IMO reckless) decision to make a new game, with little obligation to earlier content.

I think the business decision is defensible, but time will tell.

Sorry to bust on you... I meant it (mostly) in jest. Part of me wants to get the book in order to form a more informed opinion but, more and more, what I'm reading at EN World, Gleemax Central and here is holding my WotC purchases at bay.


Charles Evans 25 wrote:


(Another example is that a 'gorgon' in D & D for a while now has been 'officially' a tauric creature with petrifying breath, whereas in classic literature, a gorgon was in fact what Medusa and her two immortal sisters were.)

EDIT:
The Longman Concise English Dictionary definition of a gorgon is: noun1capitalized any of 3 sisters in Greek mythology who had live snakes in place of hair and whose glance turned the beholder to stone 2 an ugly or repulsive woman [Latin Gorgon-, Gorgo from Greek Gorgon]

Being Greek myself I can assure you that what the dictionary pointed about gorgon is wrong, since gorgon is the sea-creature half-female human torso with a fish tail were legs should be (Yes, mermaid). Anyway, perhaps you shouldn't stick with real world interpretations because the word goblin have different meaning across cultures


Ok im going to take a big risk now, a few says from now a severed orc head will be hanging on my front door, curtesy of the TLF (third edition liberation front).

I actually like that they have the guts to change things, and to update the game for a new generation. Not that i dont like the old cosmology and mythos, but i have to admit the new stuff seems more dynamic and modern (boo, hiss !!) to me.

And shoot me if you want, i like modern and new.

The idea to meld the Eladrin race and elves, good idea.

The elimination off subraces, finally

The teifling as a standard race, near perfection as i have been playing a sexy, sultry and deadly female fighter/warlock for some time now and i am overjoyed that i will no longer be penalised for it. Their updated looks, in the words of a fellow genius (wohooo!!)

That gnomes have been shelved until they can reworke them as they should be, good choice. In 11 years of DM'ing the same group we have had 1!!!! gnome character. The general consensus when i tried to promote was that they just wern't interestin enough

Halflings slightly taller, and a river folk. Almost as nice as the nomadic dino riding halflings.

Ok take your best shot, ill take cover behind my more or less useless DMG.

Dark Archive

I agree. Some of the updates are really getting me stoked. Especially in regard to the Eladrin.

I've always been a proponent of making elves more fey. When I read the following in Races & Classes, I thought it was awesome:


Most Eladrin communities exist close to the ever shifting border between the Feyworld and the world. The city of Shinaelestra, for example, shifts onto the world at each midnight, replacing a glade deep within the Howling Forest for a few hours before returning to the Feywild with the first light of dawn. Jenn-Tourach crosses over onto a mountaintop for only a single day at midsummer.

See, stuff like that I find extremely sweet. Also there is:

Even the beautiful palaces of the eladrins can be welcoming in the daylight but places of terror when the sun fades from view.

Pure. Awesome.

Scarab Sages

DangerDwarf wrote:

I agree. Some of the updates are really getting me stoked. Especially in regard to the Eladrin.

I've always been a proponent of making elves more fey. When I read the following in Races & Classes, I thought it was awesome:


Most Eladrin communities exist close to the ever shifting border between the Feyworld and the world. The city of Shinaelestra, for example, shifts onto the world at each midnight, replacing a glade deep within the Howling Forest for a few hours before returning to the Feywild with the first light of dawn. Jenn-Tourach crosses over onto a mountaintop for only a single day at midsummer.

See, stuff like that I find extremely sweet. Also there is:

Even the beautiful palaces of the eladrins can be welcoming in the daylight but places of terror when the sun fades from view.

Pure. Awesome.

OK, great, you like those changes. Why can't you implement them in your 3.x game? (or your 2e game... if I remember correctly you don't play 3.x...)

Dark Archive

hmarcbower wrote:


OK, great, you like those changes. Why can't you implement them in your 3.x game? (or your 2e game... if I remember correctly you don't play 3.x...)

Because now that they are in 4e I don't have to.

Scarab Sages

hmarcbower wrote:


OK, great, you like those changes. Why can't you implement them in your 3.x game? (or your 2e game... if I remember correctly you don't play 3.x...)
DangerDwarf wrote:

Because now that they are in 4e I don't have to.

OK - it's a good thing you like other stuff about 4e too, then. :)

But this seems like one of those prime items (if one likes it) that could be lifted out of the 4e fluff and dropped right into 3.x fluff. Personally I'm fine with elves the way they are, but it's nice to see the different takes on it.

As for the mechanics... well, that's a different story. The fluff is interesting, though.

Dark Archive

hmarcbower wrote:
But this seems like one of those prime items (if one likes it) that could be lifted out of the 4e fluff and dropped right into 3.x fluff.

Yep. Such is the nature of fluff. Easily extrapolated from one system for use in another. Truth be told, I'll probably jack this for my C&C and AD&D games too.

Dark Archive

DangerDwarf wrote:
Yep. Such is the nature of fluff. Easily extrapolated from one system for use in another. Truth be told, I'll probably jack this for my C&C and AD&D games too.

Yup, elves were supposedly fey and chaotic and dangerous back in 1E, and I never gotten around to neutering them into the flower-children of 2nd Editions Complete Book of Elves. In Greyhawk, there's an elven nation that is fickle and unreliable even to it's allies, and whose people spend more time in fey rites and passing through a gate to their own fey realm than attending matters on Oerth (sitting out the entire Greyhawk Wars, for instance and letting Iuz and the Scarlet Brotherhood conquer half of their allies!). I hardly imagined that 4E would be bringing the Greyhawk style / fey-centric Elves back into the mainstream, but I guess everything comes around...

The only serious 'fluff' difference I am seeing with the 'New Elves' (who are ironically pretty much the 'Classic Elves' of 1st Ed, but better developed) is that they are taller again, since short is no longer cool. (Much like Marvel's Wolverine character, who was short when introduced, but has gotten progressively taller as he's gotten more popular, until he now stands taller than several of the team-mates who used to tower over him.)


Set wrote:

The only serious 'fluff' difference I am seeing with the 'New Elves' (who are ironically pretty much the 'Classic Elves' of 1st Ed, but better developed) is that they are taller again, since short is no longer cool. (Much like Marvel's Wolverine character, who was short when introduced, but has gotten progressively taller as he's gotten more popular, until he now stands taller than several of the team-mates who used to tower over him.)

ROFL... I was at the last Chicago ComiCon (before Wizard took it over), and saw someone whom I later found out to be Chris Claremont gently berating (yes, it's possible - I wouldn't have guessed it before seeing it) a would-be artist for drawing Wolverine too large overall. He complimented the guy's backgrounds and his depiction of The Punisher then spent about 5 minutes pointing out the flaws when the artist drew the two "heroes" together "5'3'. 6'+. They have different frames. You're good, but you need to work on scale..."


Set wrote:
The only serious 'fluff' difference I am seeing with the 'New Elves' (who are ironically pretty much the 'Classic Elves' of 1st Ed, but better developed) is that they are taller again, since short is no longer cool.

When it comes to elves, short was never cool. It's great for gnomes, dwarves, and halflings, tho!

(Those guys who live at the North Pole, and the ones who make shoes and/or cookies? Not really elves. Totally gnomes. IMO.)

-The Gneech

The Exchange

Pax Veritas wrote:
Now, what is significant about our posts on the PAIZO messageboard is that unlike XPUD, PAIZO listens eagerly to its fans. This is in fact a sharp contrast to several of the issues we have with the current stewards of our game (see issues explained in Dungeon Grrl's recent post). So in some ways, we can affect what happens next to the game we care about and in ways that are larger than just ourselves. @Crosswired... can you at least appreciate that?

I understand that you believe that Wizards are stewards of D&D. That they have insulted you and that they are squandering their trust.

I know you guys are upset. I am sorry that you are.

But frankly, I can't get behind that perspective. Wizards are not the stewards of D&D - they own it. They know, better than any of us, how the game is selling and what they need to do to survive as a company.

They control the brand. They decide who their marketing will target. They decide what D&D is and what it will be.

You can disagree with it. I wholeheartedly support your right to complain. I agree with a whole lot of the things you guys have said. But I do not agree with the 4E opponents when they get pissed over fluff changes, or the content of an advertisement, or that there is some kind of immutable mythology that cannot change.

I enjoy talking to people that have rational objections to 4E. I do get a bit more strident when I read things like - OMFG they changed a demon into a devil!

I have a lot more respect for those that do not like the end of the saving throw. That is a legitimate gripe and one that I can actually support. But it's not enough for me to give WotC a massive wedgie and walk away.

I would love to have a civilized conversation about the pros and cons of 4E but it seems that is nearly impossible here.

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8

crosswiredmind wrote:
Pax Veritas wrote:
Now, what is significant about our posts on the PAIZO messageboard is that unlike XPUD, PAIZO listens eagerly to its fans. This is in fact a sharp contrast to several of the issues we have with the current stewards of our game (see issues explained in Dungeon Grrl's recent post). So in some ways, we can affect what happens next to the game we care about and in ways that are larger than just ourselves. @Crosswired... can you at least appreciate that?

I understand that you believe that Wizards are stewards of D&D. That they have insulted you and that they are squandering their trust.

I know you guys are upset. I am sorry that you are.

But frankly, I can't get behind that perspective. Wizards are not the stewards of D&D - they own it. They know, better than any of us, how the game is selling and what they need to do to survive as a company.

They control the brand. They decide who their marketing will target. They decide what D&D is and what it will be.

You can disagree with it. I wholeheartedly support your right to complain. I agree with a whole lot of the things you guys have said. But I do not agree with the 4E opponents when they get pissed over fluff changes, or the content of an advertisement, or that there is some kind of immutable mythology that cannot change.

I enjoy talking to people that have rational objections to 4E. I do get a bit more strident when I read things like - OMFG they changed a demon into a devil!

I have a lot more respect for those that do not like the end of the saving throw. That is a legitimate gripe and one that I can actually support. But it's not enough for me to give WotC a massive wedgie and walk away.

I would love to have a civilized conversation about the pros and cons of 4E but it seems that is nearly impossible here.

New Coke.

The Exchange

Tatterdemalion wrote:
crosswiredmind wrote:
D&D is 30 years old and it shows. That is the heart of the problem.
Benoist Poiré wrote:
...I couldn't disagree more with the statement that D&D is "old and it shows". That's just nonsense to me.
crosswiredmind wrote:
Can you elaborate?
Excellent question. Can you?

Yes.

Armor should block damage and not make it harder to hit your target.

Spell slots - D&D is like the last game to still have them.

Why can a house cat kill a commoner.

Elves (who live a really long time) start out older than everyone else yet they seem to have learned just as much. Then they take the same amount of time to reach their potential. Then what?

What the heck is a hit point?

etc.

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

Tarren Dei wrote:
crosswiredmind wrote:


I would love to have a civilized conversation about the pros and cons of 4E but it seems that is nearly impossible here.
New Coke.

Way to prove the point regarding civilized conversation.

The Exchange

Tarren Dei wrote:
New Coke.

So, did Coca Cola go out of business? Are they worse off now then they were then?

If 4E is "New Coke" then it will become rapidly apparent. They will make changes and things will move on.


I have hit points...........??????????????

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8

Sebastian wrote:
Tarren Dei wrote:
crosswiredmind wrote:


I would love to have a civilized conversation about the pros and cons of 4E but it seems that is nearly impossible here.
New Coke.
Way to prove the point regarding civilized conversation.

I think the Spartans' rhetorical style was underrated but if civilized is what you want, then "New Coke" was intended as an analogy; the analogy being that just as the change from Coke to New Coke was a marketing ploy to attract customers away from Pepsi, so 4e seems to be a marketing ploy to attract customers from other games. According to this article: "Coke spent a considerable amount of time trying to figure out where it had made a mistake, ultimately concluding that it had underestimated the public impact of the portion of the customer base that would be alienated by the switch." The same seems to be happening on WOTC boards as well as here.

I was also implying that there is a faulty assumption in Crosswired's logic that the corporation knows better than the customers what the customers want. Crosswired wrote: "They know, better than any of us, how the game is selling and what they need to do to survive as a company." The New Coke analogy again suggests this is untrue.

If that is civilized enough for you, then I will return to my usual scowling and taciturn disposition.

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

Tarren Dei wrote:


If that is civilized enough for you, then I will return to my usual scowling and taciturn disposition.

Civil wasn't the issue. Conversation was.

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8

Sebastian wrote:
Tarren Dei wrote:


If that is civilized enough for you, then I will return to my usual scowling and taciturn disposition.

Civil wasn't the issue. Conversation was.

Crosswired seems to be having enough conversation for the both of us. :-P

The Exchange

Tarren Dei wrote:
I was also implying that there is a faulty assumption in Crosswired's logic that the corporation knows better than the customers what the customers want. Crosswired wrote: "They know, better than any of us, how the game is selling and what they need to do to survive as a company." The New Coke analogy again suggests this is untrue.

Do either of the two things I said in that sentence imply that 4E is what customers want?

No. I have said in several posts that 4E could suck.

The statement above is to counter those that believe they have better insight into the financial health of D&D then Wizards does. I have heard people say that it's all about greed. That D&D sales are good enough to sustain a company like Wizards.

I believe that is an erroneous assumption.

The solution that WotC has created for the long term health of its bottom line may very well turn out to be "New Coke" or it may be that they have a better handle on what customers want than the haters have given them credit for having.

I don't know which is closer to the truth. The sales of 4E will tell the tale.

Personally I like what I have seen so far and only the release of the final rules will tell us if they hit the mark or missed it as badly as some here would want.

And that is what I do not get. This irrational desire to see 4E fail baffles me.

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8

crosswiredmind wrote:


And that is what I do not get. This irrational desire to see 4E fail baffles me.

It doesn't seem at all irrational to me but all the words that come to mind to explain it are from French social theory.

Spoiler:
People have invested time and money in a version of the game. Their investment in that game is not just an investment in a set of books but in the social opportunities (social capital) that those books and the knowledge gleaned from them purchases. New players who learn the 3.x ruleset add to the exchange value of their knowledge (cultural capital) by invigorating the market. Changes in the game reduce their opportunities to draw upon their cultural capital and, in fact, decrease its value. The fact the game "could suck" simply makes the market even more unpredictable and does little to insure their investment.

Now don't ya wish you hadn't pushed the spoiler button? ;-)


Mormegil wrote:


Being Greek myself I can assure you that what the dictionary pointed about gorgon is wrong, since gorgon is the sea-creature half-female human torso with a fish tail were legs should be (Yes, mermaid). Anyway, perhaps you shouldn't stick with real world interpretations because the word goblin have different meaning across cultures

Thank-you.

As with Russ' response this helps me with the point that I evidently did not try to make clearly enough the first time:
That given the diversity of definitions across history and cultures, if WotC want to suddenly decide that in their game a label (in the specific example put under examination by the poster of this thread, 'eladrin') is suddenly going to be attached to something different from what it formerly meant, then they are hardly the first- or likely to be the last- people to ever do it.

Furthermore, there is no mention that I have yet heard (I would be grateful if someone can please point me to a press release that specifically states otherwise) that there is going to be a 'mass extinction' event of the 'celestials-formerly-known-under-3.5-collectively-as-eladrin'; given that WotC have half a dozen 'core supplement' Annual Monster Manuals to fill, I suspect that the dreaded Tulani, Ghaeles, etc will still be there to mess around as 'DM gets the campaign back on track' plot devices for years yet.

Yes I agree that this relabelling of concepts clearly causes considerable upset, frustration (that their opinions are not being paid attention to and sufficiently valued in particular- many people like to feel that their opinions are at least being paid attention to by others), and/or confusion to a great many people familiar with older versions of the game, but given that Hasbro/the WotC subdivision are the D & D 'owners' they are entitled to do whatever steps they think necessary in designing their new product (i.e. 4th edition) that they feel will guarantee sales to their target audience.


crosswiredmind wrote:


Yes.

Armor should block damage and not make it harder to hit your target.

Spell slots - D&D is like the last game to still have them.

Why can a house cat kill a commoner.

Elves (who live a really long time) start out older than everyone else yet they seem to have learned just as much. Then they take the same amount of time to reach their potential. Then what?

What the heck is a hit point?

etc.

So, why is it that you play D&D in the first place? Just wondering because it seems there are plenty of roleplaying games out there that don't have what you consider to be D&D's "baggage"?

PS: I'm not trying to be rude or snarky... it just seems like you don't like a lot of what distinguishes D&D from every other fantasy RPG.

The Exchange

Tarren Dei wrote:
crosswiredmind wrote:


And that is what I do not get. This irrational desire to see 4E fail baffles me.

It doesn't seem at all irrational to me but all the words that come to mind to explain it are from French social theory.

** spoiler omitted **

Now don't ya wish you hadn't pushed the spoiler button? ;-)

No, not at all.

I understand that argument. At a certain level it makes sense.

But gamers tend to adapt to new rules and new worlds very very well. The social and cultural capital are not tied up in a particular set of rules or setting. Social and cultural capital are generated by the community through all of its activities. I do not see 4E as a threat to gamer culture - neither social nor cultural capital will be threatened by the ever changing landscape of edition changes, nor from the seemingly arbitrary and capricious shifting and shuffling of fluff.

The Exchange

TheDMFromPlanetX wrote:

Ok im going to take a big risk now, a few says from now a severed orc head will be hanging on my front door, curtesy of the TLF (third edition liberation front).

I actually like that they have the guts to change things, ...

Ok take your best shot, ill take cover behind my more or less useless DMG.

I agree with TheDMFromPlanetX. There are several changes that are being hinted at in 4e that I do not like, but this is not one of them. I don't like the rule changes that are making this edition 4.0 instead of 3.75. I like the Digital Initiative and some other things. The racial changes are an examples of a change that makes sense from one old timers perspective.

Elves are based on Tolkien and Tolkien's Elves had obvious 'celestial' connections. Old D&D trying to make 'Wood Elves' more Fey only worked for half the players. The creation of numerous sub-races are peoples ways of satisfying everyone. This solution elimates sub-races and gives a solution that should satify most. (maybe)

Along this line, WotC has identified that the Warlock class is very popular and should be a core class. It makes sense to give each core class an iconic race and Tieflings make sense as the iconic Warlock.

Still along this line, is that Gnomes are just a type of Halfling, as are Hobbits, Kender, and all the other sub-races. I have a house rule that a 'Sword of Halfing Bane' hurts all these creatures equally since they are basically the same thing.

I don't mind these type of changes. They could have incorporated it into a backwards compatible edition. It is the 'other' changes that bother me.

The Exchange

Chris Perkins 88 wrote:

So, why is it that you play D&D in the first place? Just wondering because it seems there are plenty of roleplaying games out there that don't have what you consider to be D&D's "baggage"?

PS: I'm not trying to be rude or snarky... it just seems like you don't like a lot of what distinguishes D&D from every other fantasy RPG.

It is a very fair question.

I play because 3E took a huge leap forward on the RPG evolutionary scale. It has some real bright spots and the rules system is very solid. Living Greyhawk was a fantastic campaign. Worlds like the Kingdoms of Kalamar and Eberron brought with them some wonderful opportunities for roleplaying.

But the flaws began to show through as the years went by - and as characters reached higher levels. The cheese weasels and munchkin gamers tore holes in the rules while new gamers struggled to take it all in. Combat dragged on for way too long. At higher levels combat was just ridiculous.

While D&D has taken small steps towards a modern set of rules other games have zoomed past it. Fudge, Blue Planet, Call of Cthulhu, GURPS, Warhammer Fantasy Role Play, 7th Sea, Legend of the Five Rings, and others have moved forward while D&D has been stuck with class, level, hit point, saving throw, spell slot, and the like.

3E mechanics like feats, skills, and prestige classes have helped to paper over some of the holes it has not been enough. More needs to be done or D&D will always be stuck in the 1970s.


crosswiredmind wrote:


And that is what I do not get. This irrational desire to see 4E fail baffles me.

Believe it or not, I have to agree with you here.

I dislike about 75% of what I've seen of 4E. I wish they weren't calling it Dungeons & Dragons because it looks like it won't play at all like anything previously using that name did.
But I have no desire to see it fail; failed games hurt the industry, and THAT I have no wish to see.
I simply wish to air my grievances and hope for the best...


crosswiredmind wrote:
I would love to have a civilized conversation about the pros and cons of 4E but it seems that is nearly impossible here.

A good deal of this of the conversation has been quite civil -- much of it not casting aspersions upon the manners and intellect of the people here.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
crosswiredmind wrote:
Why can a house cat kill a commoner.

Google "Kilkenny cat."

Domestic cats can get fairly large: 2+ ft. long (not counting tail) and 25+ lbs. They are carnivorous hunters. If they take a person by surprise and hit a vital spot, it's possible that they can kill a human.

Dark Archive

John Robey wrote:

When it comes to elves, short was never cool. It's great for gnomes, dwarves, and halflings, tho!

(Those guys who live at the North Pole, and the ones who make shoes and/or cookies? Not really elves. Totally gnomes. IMO.)
-The Gneech

See, and people are slamming on WotC for ditching the gnomes to introduce yet another race of elves, and it was Santa all the time! Santa's the one who nerfed the gnomes and replaced them with 'elves!' The red menace what comes in the night!


Tatterdemalion wrote:
crosswiredmind wrote:
I would love to have a civilized conversation about the pros and cons of 4E but it seems that is nearly impossible here.
A good deal of this of the conversation has been quite civil -- much of it not casting aspersions upon the manners and intellect of the people here.

This is further complicated by the fact that it's deucedly difficult to seriously debate the "Pros" and "Cons" of something that nobody at least nobody not under an NDA) has actually seen yet... :D


My original intention for this thread was not to focus solely on Eladrins being elves and not celestials. The topic, actually, represents the entire vision of D&D that WotC seems to be forcefeeding to us without any clear reason as to why?

I have heard WotC's reasons for why magic has to work differently, for why the paladin needs to be "cooler", for why the gnome might not be in the first PHB, for why half-orcs might not be in the first PHB---

But I have not heard any solid reason for why the Abyss was ditched for Elemental Chaos, why the Nine Hells suddenly envelops every Outer Plane, why they couldn't keep the succubi/erinyes distinction and just make the two a little more unique, why eladrins are no longer celestials, why schools of magic has been ditched, and etcetera.

I was in the neutral zone for 4th Edition in the beginning. My first thought was,"Well, I'll use their rules that work in my games and continue using 3.5E rules that still would work for my 4E games." This was because I (naively) thought 3.5E to 4E change would be a similar change as 3.0E to 3.5E was. I was ready for that.

But my hatred began to boil once their concepts and visions began tearing away the "sacred cows" and traditions that makes D&D the game we all recognize, play, argue over, house rule, and DM together. The more of these "changes" I have heard, the more I grew frustrated.

---Why destroy an entire campaign setting just to make the magic rules fit?
---Why fuse succubi and erinyes when it is very clear to people who do just a little bit of reading the fundamental differences between the two?
---Why model every creature in D&D into a creature that you MUST kill and loot?
---Why destroy D&D's concepts of Law, Chaos, Neutrality, Good, and Evil?
---Why alter the entire cosmology (again) to make certain planes more appealing to adventure in? Why not just decorate those planes instead, would that not have been easier while staying true to the D&D experience? (heck, all they had to do was revive PLANESCAPE! Problem solved)
---Why did all elves in every D&D setting suddenly increase in size?
---What was wrong with 1st through 9th-level spells? Now 1st-25th? Doesn't that just complicate things? Was it hard to conceive that Spell Level and Character Level were two different concepts? Why do spells have at will, per encounter, and per day? Doesn't that make things more "complex"?

These, and many more concerns, were not addressed when they should have been by WotC. Then WotC has the audacity to sell you two 96-page booklets of nothing but 4th Edition previews. Which are not really previews at all because they stated they were all subject to change by June, anyway. Then as they explain to you their design decisions and the "whys", it's on the mechanics, not the fluff.

I've read parts of "Wizard Presents: Races&Classes". These guys have literally contradicted themselves several times in that book, it makes me wonder if they still have a clue as to what they're even doing.

This, and the shameful advertisement that showcases 4E as the best edition ever and all your other games were totally moot and sucky up until this point, has turned me off from 4th Edition.

That, and the fact that NONE of your earlier edition material will work at all in 4E. Start a whole new campaign, they say. Start a whole new game, in fact. Sorry about converting material, it's just impossible. I still get use of my 1E and 2E material in my 3.5E games. I still can use 3.0E material just fine, or minor tweaks, in my 3.5E games just fine. But nothing at all will ever work in 4E?

My question is, how do I continue my campaigns with the material we all heavily use (we own ALL 3.5E books) in 4th Edition? We simply can't! Our campaigns truly have to end, even if we wanted to continue on with 4E. Even if we wanted to continue our campaigns with 4E three or five years from now, it still won't dent anything we have established in our 3.5E games.

That has been another great problem with me even trying 4th Edition with my current players. We simply can't. First, we run a FR campaign. For us to try 4E in our current FR games, we'd have to use the "destroyed" Realms set 100 years into the future, killing off all current and cherishable Realms characters and NPCs we've designed.

So my whole point with that is, even if we WANTED to move to 4th Edition, the system won't let us. When we switched from 3.0 to 3.5, it wasn't any problem at all! We kept the same characters, same storyline, same NPCs...a few feat and skill changes...and we continued as if nothing happened!

In other words, at this point in the lifespan of D&D, it's "Do or Die". Can't play 4E because you don't want to throw out years of establishment and consistency from your sessions? Too bad. At least a 1E or 2E player can move to 2E or 3E without destroying their old games.

2E was an addition to 1E.
3.0E was a clean-up, expansion, and addition to 2E.
3.5E was an upgrade of 3.0E.
4E is the slayer of all editions prior to it.

And that is what D&D 4th Edition truly is. A whole new game, with the name used only for market value and nothing else. That is how I feel, and I know no amount of whining, debating, or anger will ever change that. I know complaining about it is moot. It won't ever change a damn thing with WotC's warped visions.

But that is all I have. I have my right to b$~&# and complain at this moment and my power of the dollar. My right to not spend a penny on D&D 4E at all. It may or may not do much, but it's all I have. It's all any of us that really don't care nor like what 4E is doing to the game really have at this time and to the days of our death.


Razz wrote:

I have heard WotC's reasons for why magic has to work differently, for why the paladin needs to be "cooler", for why the gnome might not be in the first PHB, for why half-orcs might not be in the first PHB---

They specifically WON'T be there, from what they've been saying.

Razz wrote:


But I have not heard any solid reason for why the Abyss was ditched for Elemental Chaos, why the Nine Hells suddenly envelops every Outer Plane

I was thinking about this the other day and it hit me that each version of the Other Planes of Existence could be "wrong," including this one (aside from Planescape which is ... distinctive); they're based on what creatures on the Prime Material plane BELIEVE them to be - this could be WILDLY inaccurate based on reality, and could allow different worlds to have different Planar landscapes attached - in theory. Once someone starts plane walking, well, then they find out the truth, whatever it may be...

Razz wrote:
---Why fuse succubi and erinyes when it is very clear to people who do just a little bit of reading the fundamental differences between the two?

This one seems kind of silly - but, I stumbled on something a few years back - not sure where - that said, essentially, the two words have the same meaning; one's Greek and the other is something else...

Razz wrote:
---Why model every creature in D&D into a creature that you MUST kill and loot?

Because that's how a lot of people play anyway, apparently (the success of HackMaster could easily "prove" to those who haven't actually PLAYED it, this, as does the popularity of MMORPGs). Why not make it official?

Can't respond to the rest of these - either I have no clue either, or I agree with you... Or both.

The Exchange

Razz - they can make up whatever fluff they want and they owe us no justification. You owe them nothing and do not have to buy into 4E.

D&D is not a sacred trust passed down from designer to designer. Its a brand owned by a company that want to take it in a new direction and there is nothing you can do except not buy it. Sure - you wanna organize a boycott then go right ahead. WotC has done no wrong so it would be kind of baseless but do whatever you want.

The Exchange

Dragonchess Player wrote:
crosswiredmind wrote:
Why can a house cat kill a commoner.

Google "Kilkenny cat."

Domestic cats can get fairly large: 2+ ft. long (not counting tail) and 25+ lbs. They are carnivorous hunters. If they take a person by surprise and hit a vital spot, it's possible that they can kill a human.

Yes but only if that person is highly allergic and the cat is half dragon.


crosswiredmind wrote:
Dragonchess Player wrote:
crosswiredmind wrote:
Why can a house cat kill a commoner.

Google "Kilkenny cat."

Domestic cats can get fairly large: 2+ ft. long (not counting tail) and 25+ lbs. They are carnivorous hunters. If they take a person by surprise and hit a vital spot, it's possible that they can kill a human.

Yes but only if that person is highly allergic and the cat is half dragon.

You've obviously never tried to give a cat a pill...

Or tried to keep a Bengal kitten out of a place that that cat WANTS to be in...

For something so little, they can do a HECK of a lot of damage with those claws...


Razz wrote:
My original intention for this thread was not to focus solely on Eladrins being elves and not celestials. The topic, actually, represents the entire vision of D&D that WotC seems to be forcefeeding to us without any clear reason as to why?

As I've said before, I think the 4/e business decision is defensible.

D&D 3.5 has an arguably high complexity level (even the simplified, improved stat block is hard for many to read) and is difficult to design for -- new additions can be hard to accurately balance with existing rules and even making an NPC for a high-level adventure is a lot of work.

Better to redesign the game using lessons learned (as was done with 3.0/3.5).

That's the why, as I understand it. That doesn't mean I don't think they're making (sometimes big) mistakes. I still think they may be throwing out the baby with the bath water.


Tatterdemalion wrote:

That's the why, as I understand it. That doesn't mean I don't think they're making (sometimes big) mistakes. I still think they may be throwing out the baby with the bath water.

I'm getting the impression they're keeping the WATER and throwing out the baby and the tub instead...

101 to 150 of 258 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 4th Edition / Eladrins are celestials, not elves! All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.