Concerning Elves

[DracoDruid]

Ok, this might be a personal preference, but I doubt being the only one.

I think it's time for D&D to take an important step away from Lord of the Rings.
Meaning, stop displaying Elves as those otherwordly, near deathless, never-sleeping race.

I personally don't like the following abilities:

Immunity to Magical Sleep (I mean, common! Let them sleep like every body else! Meditation for 4 hours. That's just.. hmpf..)
They get a +2 save against enchantments. That's totally enough.

Unnatural Beauty
Now this really p***sses me off. Sorry. They are Elves, not "beautiful humans". "They are foreign, they are alien, they are strange." Like every other of those non-humans.

...Puh. That one really got me... I need a brake. ;)

[Charlie Brooks]

Eh...I like Tolkien elves. I have yet to understand why Tolkien being in D&D is a bad thing. His works are the most popular and influential pieces of fantasy literature in the modern world, so it makes sense to me that a game designed to emulate popular fantasy tropes would have a healthy dose of Middle Earth in it. While I like the weirder stuff that D&D has produced like Dark Sun and Planescape, the generic fantasy core setting makes it very easy to introduce new players. If I tell a new player that she can play an elf, then it's pretty likely she'll think of Elrond and Legolas right off the bat. I'd rather not then spend time explaining why that mental image is wrong.

I will agree that I like the idea of elves that sleep like everyone else, though. While I don't think it's a big sticking point, it's easier for me to just assume that all humanoids have to sleep about eight hours by default.

[Kirth Gersen]

The Norse myths that Tolkien ripped off for his elves had them a celestial race: alien, otherworldly... and beautiful. They had unearthly beauty in the Celtic folk tales as well. So this isn't just a Tolkien thing; it's part of their roots, all the way back to the dark ages. To say that "elves lack unearthly beauty" is to say that your elves are different from the ones we've been dealing with for the last 1,500 years. Which is OK for specific campaign settings, but probably doesn't work for core rules.

Then again, to be more true to the roots, elves should have the Fey type, rather than being classified as Humanoids -- but that's a mechanical change needed for game balance (immunity to sleep and +2 vs. enchantments is a lot less useful than blanket immunity to all "X person" spells). I'll agree with Charlie, though, that as long as they're humanoids, not sleeping is pretty goofy.

[Syltorian]

I like the not sleeping bit, though I do not care if it goes away or stays in. It's easy enough, and I believe minor enough to rule back in; most of the effects I like (makes an elven community run differently, creates different hobbies and lifestyles) are cosmetic, as far as I see, so it's not a big issue for me.

However, the 'unnatural beauty' seems off to me. Not because elves are not beautiful. Traditionally, they are. But for the following reasons:

1) The ability is subject to DM discretion. I assume that is due to the fact that the DM might not want a character to gain some specific NPCs as allies too easily. But any ability that is subject to DM discretion seems to me to lead to discord amongst the group. A player choosing an elf under this system may do so because he wants to make friends easily; if the DM negates this too often, that's going to cause bad blood. Of course, this is true of any ability to an extend (and Diplomacy skills), but this ability could cause some problems on this front.

2) Traditionally, elves are beautiful. But traditionally, a person meeting an elf (in myth, of course) tries to run away, touch iron or make warding signs. They refuse to give in to their offers, or they are lost. They do not react to them in friendly ways: Elves are attractive, but above all they are scary. Not in Tolkien, maybe, but in those myths and songs of Germanic folklore (Erlkonig, etc) I know. So, by that reasoning, the reaction might go down a level, rather than up.

3) Unnatural beauty creates some problems... in D&D, as far as I am aware, elves do not get on with dwarves. Yet now, the dwarves are suddenly friendly, unless they start out less than indifferent? So, as a DM in a classic campaign, I either have to use the 'DM arbitration' and tell the player his ability does not work, or I have the dwarves suddenly appreciate the flighty elves. Dwarves are merely an example; this goes for everyone from logging communities that do not appreciate the defenders of the forest to human nations that are simply xenophobic.

4) What happens if a character gets scarred, undergoes mortification (e.g. Eberron elves), contracts a visible disease, etc? Okay, one example is setting-specific, and there are no strict rules for the others. So let's say the elf runs around in full plate armour with the visor down. Is he still unnaturally beautiful? Do I have to use DM arbitration at every time? I guess I may be putting too much into the word 'beauty' here, and the elf may have supernatural charm rather than physical beauty... but then, does an elf with Cha 5 get this too?

Despite the lengthy post, I'm not vehemently against this ability. The DM arbitration gives me enough leeway to make it apply only when I feel like it, but as I said, if those situations do not coincide with the player's opinions, some bad blood could be created.

[Kirth Gersen]

Syltorian,

You make some excellent points. I'm at a loss as far as how to modify the existing ability; maybe keeping the name but replacing the mechanics with a +2 racial bonus to Intimidate (and maybe Diplomacy) is the way to go?

[Praetor Gradivus]

As long as we are talking about elves...
I've always had a hard time seperating the Sidhe from DND Elves and so have always been at a loss as to why they're usually portrayed as short and why wizard is their favored class. Sidhe magic seem to be more animistic in nature (Druid) with some practicing enchantment (Enchanter or Bard). For backward compatability, favored class needs to stay wizard but usually when I DM a campaign I do away with most of the subraces (that is, different elves are different culturally not physically) and allow the PC to pick either Druid or Bard or Ranger as their favored class (The last in difference to everyone who thinks Legolas is the elf ideal).

[Kirth Gersen]

For Sidhe in my homebrew camapign, I'm using elves with the celestial template, and making many of them prestige bards (from Unearthed Arcana/SRD) starting off as enchanters, druids, or beguilers.

[Selk]

Syltorian, if you're in a game where bad blood is created over the DM's interpretation of how appearance and racial bias affects interactions, I don't think there's a system that would help.

Asking for rule set that elegantly reflects the nuances of psychology and sociology is insanely ambitious. At some point you have to defer to the DM's common sense.

[Syltorian]

Selk wrote:

Syltorian, if you're in a game where bad blood is created over the DM's interpretation of how appearance and racial bias affects interactions, I don't think there's a system that would help.

Asking for rule set that elegantly reflects the nuances of psychology and sociology is insanely ambitious. At some point you have to defer to the DM's common sense.

I quite agree - and that is why I don't like the Unnatural Beauty ability.

To me, this ability tries to establish just such a system. What I am asking for is not an elegant solution. On the contrary, I agree that it is impossible to provide one. So I would prefer if the system left this completely to the DM's common sense and the circumstances of the campaign, rather than have the written material attempt to create such a rule for interaction while at the same time admitting that it doesn't work. (I see this admission in the need for the DM's discretion rule, which you don't need with, say, stonecunning).

To clarify my opinion on possible player-DM conflict: My meaning was not that bad blood is created over the DM's interpretation of social interaction, but over the DM actively negating an specific, existing ability that the player might have chosen the race for. And one that is meant to be balanced against other races (i.e. the elves get this ability instead of another one which the DM does not negate). If this ability did not exist in the first place, I don't think there would be any bad blood about what the DM decides happens in a social encounter - at least, none that the system can do anything about as you say.

So, (IMO, of course) the most elegant solution is simply to leave the rules out of this completely, and get rid of Unnatural Beauty (in the current form).

[Selk]

That's a nice explanation, and I'm inclined to agree with you. Right then, let's remove Unnatural Beauty as a statistic and just make it a descriptive element in the race section.

Consider the suggestion sent to Mr. Bulmahn's underground lair, via vacuum tube!

[Shisumo]

The same argument can be made for getting rid of all social interaction mechanics entirely. Either the players trust the GM to roleplay fairly, or they don't. The mechanics provide a guideline for NPC/PC interaction, but that only works if the players will accept that the GM can interpret those results accurately. If they don't, then you might as well nuke the Diplomacy skill as well. If they do, then the mechanics - including Unnatural Beauty - are fine.

As for the examples cited before, characters who are not at least "indifferent" to the elf are unaffected by the ability. This includes people who are inclined to hide or seek magical protection upon seeing them (even if that's a completely different kind of elf than what D&D draws from) or those who affected by racial or cultural prejudices against elves (though again, dwarves vs. elves is not set in stone in D&D, it's a flavor aspect of certain campaign settings). Unless you can describe the person as at not unfriendly or hostile, then Unnatural Beauty has no impact.

[Neithan]

It's still in 1.1. Though I'm an elf-fan myself, I know of a lot of people with a really strong animosity towards elves, which comes in fact almost always from elves being portaited as "so much batter than your character".
And unfortunately, such prejudices are not unfounded.
In any situations, game designers should prevent elves from being put onto a pedestal. Unnatural Beauty has practically no real effect on the mechanics, but makes the said situation even worse.

[Matthew Morris]

I think we should move away too. Why not take away unearthly beauty and replace it with a +2 on craft checks and a +2 on profession baker?

Then we can shrink them down to about 2 feet tall, and tehy can live in trees, or at the poles...

[GeraintElberion]

I have found the 'elves don't sleep' thing useful in my games.

If a low-level party has one elf then a sleep-casting opponent creates a cool scene. If not the opponent just wins (or has weak spell dc and sends nobody dozing).

If the players have to keep watch the elf can cover the casters, ensuring that the pcs don't spend 12/13 hours of each day resting.

But I can understand the desire to get rid of it.

Not a fan of grace though.

A better mechanic might be this
"Flawless Beauty

Elves have a flawless beauty that others find astonishing, for good or ill. Elves have a +4 to diplomacy checks when engaged with intelligent creatures that can appreciate a humanoid form."

So, unintelligent species and smart creatures like beholders would ignore the check; but for humanoids an elf in full battle frenzy might seem especially intimidating, whilst an elf in courtly robes might seem more commanding and self-possessed.

[Lenarior]

I've acctually never seen elves as better than humans, or unearthly for that matter. in our group elves are considered girlish and weak. Except for the ever so excelent Dark Sun elves, who run alot.

[Klyndak]

Matthew Morris wrote:

I think we should move away too. Why not take away unearthly beauty and replace it with a +2 on craft checks and a +2 on profession baker?

Then we can shrink them down to about 2 feet tall, and tehy can live in trees, or at the poles...

If yer want ter perfect the elf, ya shrink 'im down, give 'im a beard and put 'im in a mine with a pick.

;)

[DracoDruid]

Yeah. Personally, I like the Elves from Earth Dawn. Better to say, I like the way ALL the races are handled in Earth Dawn.
But I hate the System. And (A)D&D is family to me. You never cross with family, right? ;)

[Wicht]

Charlie Brooks wrote:

Eh...I like Tolkien elves. I have yet to understand why Tolkien being in D&D is a bad thing. His works are the most popular and influential pieces of fantasy literature in the modern world, so it makes sense to me that a game designed to emulate popular fantasy tropes would have a healthy dose of Middle Earth in it.

Hear, hear.

[DracoDruid]

Cause some off us have grown up and don't see the world black and white anymore.
It's gray baby, grey!

(sorry, no offense. At least not a big one...)

[Pneumonica]

Syltorian wrote:

To clarify my opinion on possible player-DM conflict: My meaning was not that bad blood is created over the DM's interpretation of social interaction, but over the DM actively negating an specific, existing ability that the player might have chosen the race for. And one that is meant to be balanced against other races (i.e. the elves get this ability instead of another one which the DM does not negate). If this ability did not exist in the first place, I don't think there would be any bad blood about what the DM decides happens in a social encounter - at least, none that the system can do anything about as you say.

This actually has a clear statistical effect - anybody who would otherise be Neutral or better on first impression is pushed one step upwards, to a maximum of Helpful. This seems fairly clear.

The dwarf/elf (or any race/elf) animosity is encapulated in this - they don't start neutral, they start Hostile.

The issue that you're pointing out is a DM simply "god-modding" social situations, rather than using the rules as put. The rules as put are neither cumbersome nor broken, so a DM ignoring them is doing so purely for one of two reasons:

1) Doesn't want rules for roleplay, in which case the Diplomacy, Gather Information, and Sense Motive skills are rendered useless as well, and to a lesser extent Bluff, Intimidate, and the Bard class.

2) Doesn't want to RP "fluff", rather just wanting to agress foreign peoples, kill them when they defend their homes, and steal their stuff, in which case it's the same as 1 but for very different reasons.

Personally, I like the idea of elves following close to the golden ratios for facial and body proportions. It follows the Tolkein heritage for the Elves, since the Elves in modern fantasy come from Tolkien and nowhere else (they're nothing like the Sidhe or the Alfar aside from being magical and humanoid).

[Syltorian]

Pneumonica wrote:

The dwarf/elf (or any race/elf) animosity is encapulated in this - they don't start neutral, they start Hostile.

You and Shisumo bring up a good point. It's true that the racial dislike (and, in the case of pre-Tolkien elves, superstitious fear) will cause an unfriendly or hostile starting point, and thus remain unaffected by the ability. It still feels strange (to me), but at least this factor alleviates my problems with this ability to a considerable extent.

What I do still have problems with is how this would interact with elves whose body is hidden by, say, full-plate or a mask, or who are scarred - or conversely, whether this ability, if kept, should be made available to other races that are supposed to be beautiful, such as Eberron's kalashtar and some fey-touched.

Also, for the record, I do think Diplomacy (as per the PHB) is problematic, unless the DM rules that some NPCs simply will not do some things no matter what. A sufficiently min/maxed character could talk Sauron into redemption (provided you survive the minute it takes to make your Diplomacy check).

Of course, no rule is safe from really maxing out on the ability...

[LilithsThrall]

If there's one thing I don't like about elves, its that their favored class is Wizard.
I'd like to see it become Sorcerer.
In my mind, elves are fey. They are natural casters. They don't study books - the more racist/xenophobic among them would regard spellbooks as a 'human crutch'.

[DracoDruid]

And I would even say they are Rangers or Druids!

But that's the point with elves. Especially with the sub-types, the Elven race is blurred.
I mean, common. Wood Elves with +2 Strength?! No way.

I really like the idea of Warcraft, where the original Elves were creatures of the land and separated a long time ago into another race which was crazy about magic.

For myself, I tend to make Elves "creatures of the land" (calling them Elune) giving them Survival and Knowledge (Natur) as +2 bonus and/or class skills and giving them a Bonus "Favored Terrain" depending on their heritage and/or animal-empathie.
Meaning, Sea Elves get Oceans/Sea, Wood Elves (Forests), Snow Elves (Iceland), etc.
(No mountain/hill-elves since the dwarves scared them away long ago)

And one other cousin-race (the Eldar) which get the same bonus on spellcraft and Knowledge (Arcane). And some magical bonus feat, which I don't know yet or a general spell power bonus.

[LilithsThrall]

DracoDruid wrote:

And I would even say they are Rangers or Druids!

But that's the point with elves. Especially with the sub-types, the Elven race is blurred.
I mean, common. Wood Elves with +2 Strength?! No way.

I really like the idea of Warcraft, where the original Elves were creatures of the land and separated a long time ago into another race which was crazy about magic.

For myself, I tend to make Elves "creatures of the land" (calling them Elune) giving them Survival and Knowledge (Natur) as +2 bonus and/or class skills and giving them a Bonus "Favored Terrain" depending on their heritage and/or animal-empathie.
Meaning, Sea Elves get Oceans/Sea, Wood Elves (Forests), Snow Elves (Iceland), etc.
(No mountain/hill-elves since the dwarves scared them away long ago)

And one other cousin-race (the Eldar) which get the same bonus on spellcraft and Knowledge (Arcane). And some magical bonus feat, which I don't know yet or a general spell power bonus.

Actually, I'd prefer Rangers myself, but I wasn't sure how well that'd go over.

I wouldn't use the eldar. Read my take on the gnomes as the intellectual race. With that, eldar seem too redundant (and not nearly as interesting as the gnomes are).

[Plognark]

I like the 3.PF Elves.

[KaeYoss]

D&D really has to not step away from D&D. Since 4e does, someone's got to carry on 30 years of legacy.

[Pneumonica]

Syltorian wrote:

Also, for the record, I do think Diplomacy (as per the PHB) is problematic, unless the DM rules that some NPCs simply will not do some things no matter what. A sufficiently min/maxed character could talk Sauron into redemption (provided you survive the minute it takes to make your Diplomacy check).

Of course, no rule is safe from really maxing out on the ability...

Actually, the control on this one is already written in - it doesn't work if the target won't listen. They might not even listen if they're helpful. Great example in-game:

"Kobolds have killed (level 12 Paladin)! You have to call for help!"
"No, silly. There's no possible way for a Kobold to do that, you're just confused. (Casts calm emotions and a couple other spells that make it impossible for the character to believe the Paladin is dead). There, see?"

DracoDruid wrote:

But that's the point with elves. Especially with the sub-types, the Elven race is blurred.

I mean, common. Wood Elves with +2 Strength?! No way.

Comes from the literature. In the novels, Legolas wasn't a flimsy, prissy stick figure. He was broad-shouldered with a head of black hair and was rugged and powerfully built. Although he wasn't a wood elf, he is taken as the definitive wood elf (and other wood elves were similar). Elves in general weren't small, frail, or weak in Tolkein. Quite the opposite.

[B_Wiklund]

Please drop Unnatural Beauty.

[Neithan]

Pneumonica wrote:

DracoDruid wrote:

But that's the point with elves. Especially with the sub-types, the Elven race is blurred.

I mean, common. Wood Elves with +2 Strength?! No way.

Comes from the literature. In the novels, Legolas wasn't a flimsy, prissy stick figure. He was broad-shouldered with a head of black hair and was rugged and powerfully built. Although he wasn't a wood elf, he is taken as the definitive wood elf (and other wood elves were similar). Elves in general weren't small, frail, or weak in Tolkein. Quite the opposite.

+2 Dex and -2 Con isn't really that much. Because for every Con 16 human, there's also a Con 14 elf. And though not as tough as Con 16, a Con 14 elf is still not a whimp at all. It's just a general tendency that the elven scribes are are a bit more frail than human scribes, and that strong powerful human warriors are a bit more powerful build than strong elven warriors.

But +2 Str and -2 Con doesn't make much sense. When I used subraces, wood elves simply had +2 Dex and -2 Cha.

[Stephen Klauk]

My only gripe is the ears. I don't like the look of the elf's ears in the preview. I much prefer the older "Spock" ears we've seen on the elves, not the ones that look like something off the Flying Nun.

[Brent Evanger]

I don't like immortal (or near immortal) elves... at least not in an rpg.

Why in the world would they want to go adventuring and risk eons of life for some petty short-term goal like a few gold pieces?

And... if they did want to go adventuring, why are they so BAD at it (i.e. if you lived forever, why wouldn't you spend a few centuries training before setting out? Why are they inept 1st level characters? It seems foolhardy)

[stonechild]

Stephen Klauk wrote:

My only gripe is the ears. I don't like the look of the elf's ears in the preview. I much prefer the older "Spock" ears we've seen on the elves, not the ones that look like something off the Flying Nun.

Rabbit ears are the reason they have such good balance, you can't take that away :p

I'm all for removing them from Tolkiens vision. I say make then like the brownies in Willow :)
Seriously through, while everything in the game is DM's discretion, having to list that in the description, means to me at least that it's a weak concept. One I wouldn't use anyway, but that's just me. I'd just as soon give them a +2 to acrobatics checks to represent their slim, graceful builds, or was it the ears?

[Studpuffin]

That 4 hours meditation has always irked me. What do they do for four hours while everyone else has to rest? Would an Elf Barbarian really meditate? Would a chaotic-tendancy race really meditate?

Immunity can stay, but that 4 hours has been game breaking at low levels with ever alert elven rangers, druids, and rogues always on look-out.

[DracoDruid]

Oh right! I forgot THAT.
Elves as immortals. PAH!
Don't understand me wrong. I LIKE Elves, but not the way they are right now.

No (real) sleep, near immortality and (now) unearthly beauty are all things that point to FEY and not to humanoid.
Make them Fey and I might say ok, but then I (as a GM) would really have to think about them as PCs.

In my games, I made an easy rule about races and aging. I took the humans as the standard and gave every other race an aging-multiplier.
(Usually: Dwarves x2, Elves x1,5 ...)

But to quote a sentence from one of my groups:

Human fighter: "So master elf. You might be a hundred and thirty years old, but you left your mothers titty with thirtyfive and got your first pubic hear about 90 years after ME! So don't call ME boy!"

[DracoDruid]

Ok another one:

Am I the only one who would think Elves getting STR -2 instead of CON?
Reason: CON is for Hitpoints, sure, so the frail elves are weaker on that, BUT: CON is the main ability for Fortitude checks and those include: Resistance to sickness, poison, fatigue, and what not.

So a -2 to CON would also imply that Elves get sick more often, have greater problems with poisons and loose their breath quicker then humans.
Is that so?

I would say, give them -2 STR instead. They are frail, they aren't as "mussled" as humans, but they are as persistant as humans.

Besides, since they get +2 DEX they are good candidates for Weapon Finesse as a bonus feat. That way they wouldn't be that handicaped in melee.

[Khalarak]

I personally really like the unearthly beauty. It might be better to clarify it as supernatural rather than extraordinary, though. As was said, anyone who doesn't like elves still doesn't like them; the ability simply polarizes people into either elf-haters or elf-lovers, which seems appropriate for such an ancient, mythic race. People are going to have strong opinions.

Also, on the note of the fully-armored elf; as I said, this ability might be better represented as more a supernatural aura of grace and majesty rather than simple cosmetic beauty. Though if that were the case, I'd think swapping around elves' and gnomes' mental bonuses and making elves sorcerers would work better. Which, IMO, makes more sense anyway, especially when they take the fey bloodline.

The main point mentioned that I think holds water best is the issue of 1st-level elves, which I've always had a hard time swallowing. In my personal campaign, only incredibly rare heroes are even PC classes, and fewer still make it past 1st level no matter what their race, but I know that's kind of unusual. Dun really have a good answer for this.

[yellowdingo]

Khalarak wrote:

I personally really like the unearthly beauty. It might be better to clarify it as supernatural rather than extraordinary, though. As was said, anyone who doesn't like elves still doesn't like them; the ability simply polarizes people into either elf-haters or elf-lovers, which seems appropriate for such an ancient, mythic race. People are going to have strong opinions.

Also, on the note of the fully-armored elf; as I said, this ability might be better represented as more a supernatural aura of grace and majesty rather than simple cosmetic beauty. Though if that were the case, I'd think swapping around elves' and gnomes' mental bonuses and making elves sorcerers would work better. Which, IMO, makes more sense anyway, especially when they take the fey bloodline.

The main point mentioned that I think holds water best is the issue of 1st-level elves, which I've always had a hard time swallowing. In my personal campaign, only incredibly rare heroes are even PC classes, and fewer still make it past 1st level no matter what their race, but I know that's kind of unusual. Dun really have a good answer for this.

But "Unearthly Beauty" is Dryads...Elves are seen to have diverged from the Tree.

[Asgetrion]

B_Wiklund wrote:

Please drop Unnatural Beauty.

Why? It's one of the things I like best in PF -- it fits the image and theme of "Tolkienish" D&D elves and is far better than giving them a bland and inappropriate flat +2 to CHA. And the mechanical benefit is far less, IMO, since it only applies to NPCs who are at least Indifferent towards elves. I've wanted to see a racial ability like this since...well, BD&D, since IMO elves are supposed to feel a bit more "fey" and "otherwordly" than the other races.

[firbolg]

Wicht wrote:

Charlie Brooks wrote:

Eh...I like Tolkien elves. I have yet to understand why Tolkien being in D&D is a bad thing. His works are the most popular and influential pieces of fantasy literature in the modern world, so it makes sense to me that a game designed to emulate popular fantasy tropes would have a healthy dose of Middle Earth in it.

Hear, hear.

Indeed- I love the unearthly beauty aspect to the Elves- my own house rules go one step further; Elves are susceptible to Cold Iron (for the purposes of my game it's Iron wrought from Meteorite: treat as slaying). and cannot be Resurrected under any circumstances. It acts as a counterbalance to their near-immortal status and gives a nice fluff vibe for my players to work with.

Been using these for the last few years and my group has really embraced them. One player, who decided to be an Elf warrior, commented to the effect that it gives consequences for his racial choice and some meat for his roleplaying, in a way that Dwarves and Halflings always have had.