That's a Wood Elf?

[Grimmjow]

The way they describe and stat the wood elf in the play test makes me feel more like they made a wild elf than a wood elf. To me a wild elf should have dex bonus and the ability to hide in natural weather feels good to me too. While a wood elf (i feel) should have a +1 wisdom, and some kind of animal empathy power.

I understand that druids will have an empathy power but maybe they could say "Druid can talk to animals, while wood elves can only feel emotions from them."

What do you guys think?

 

[The Shadow]

I would rather see the number of elf subraces kept to a minimum. Are wood elves and wild elves so different that they need different abilities? Really?

In fact, 'wild' almost strikes me as a background that could be taken. You could have a 'wild man' raised by wolves or something, rocking the whole Tarzan vibe. Wild elves would be a tribal society of wood elves that all or mostly take that background.

No valley elves this time around, please.

 

[Grimmjow]

I would rather see the number of elf subraces kept to a minimum. Are wood elves and wild elves so different that they need different abilities? Really?

In fact, 'wild' almost strikes me as a background that could be taken. You could have a 'wild man' raised by wolves or something, rocking the whole Tarzan vibe. Wild elves would be a tribal society of wood elves that all or mostly take that background.

No valley elves this time around, please.

The more sub races the better! (just not all in the core mind you)!

but i dont think having three sub races of elf in core would hurt. The arrogant elves. The barbarian like elves. And the druid like elves. sounds okay to me

 

[billd91]

I would rather see the number of elf subraces kept to a minimum. Are wood elves and wild elves so different that they need different abilities? Really?

In fact, 'wild' almost strikes me as a background that could be taken. You could have a 'wild man' raised by wolves or something, rocking the whole Tarzan vibe. Wild elves would be a tribal society of wood elves that all or mostly take that background.

No valley elves this time around, please.

Why knock the valley elves? They had their place in Greyhawk (as did the wild elves). Is it the elf's (or game designer's) fault if the elf-playing fanboys annoyed a lot of people?

That said, keep the core light. Two varieties are fine. Save the sub-group expansion for the setting or other expansion books.

 

[stoloc]

The more sub races the better! (just not all in the core mind you)!

but i dont think having three sub races of elf in core would hurt. The arrogant elves. The barbarian like elves. And the druid like elves. sounds okay to me

Having 3 subraces in core is 2 to many in my opinion. If you absolutely must stretch it to 2 that would be the max I would want to see.

If you want more put it into a complete Elves book so the rest of us don't have to worry about it if we dont want to.

 

[ComradeGnull]

The more sub races the better! (just not all in the core mind you)!

but i dont think having three sub races of elf in core would hurt. The arrogant elves. The barbarian like elves. And the druid like elves. sounds okay to me

'Druid elf' sounds like a primitive tribe elf that has the Druid class. We don't need a subrace for each class role- that's what Classes are for. The Wood Elf from the playtest rules seems like a perfectly good Wood Elf, and similar enough to the earlier sources- live in the wild lands, naturals at moving through the forest, etc. Giving them druid-like features as well seems to be over-specifying a bit- a bit of the 'Elves that live next to a river are River Elves' syndrome.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Subraces as an excuse to specify who gets +1 to which ability is a lousy mechanic, as far as I'm concerned. If we must have subraces, then I'd like to see three things changed:

• No ability score adjustments in the sub races. Let elves pick between +1 Dex or Int or Cha as fits the individual character.
• Expand the traits of the sub races to make them stand out as different, with each trait contributing well to the theme--or leave that subrace out.
• Humans also have subraces.

Of course, if we could drop "subrace" for "culture" that would be even better. It makes a clear distinction between nature versus nuture in the "racial" descriptions, and makes it clear what happens when a human gets raised by wood elves. "Culture" as a subordinate element of race is not as good a design as "culture" as a totally independent element, but I can see it as a good compromise between good design, D&D traditions, and ease of character building. The off-beat exceptions would be easy enough to house rule.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

I like Warhammer Wood Elves and think that is how elves should be portrayed. So yeah, Wood and Wild Elf should just both fall under the same umbrella of "Wood Elf," IMO.

(The Elf and Eladrin distinction was one thing I liked about 4E.)

 

[The Shadow]

but i dont think having three sub races of elf in core would hurt. The arrogant elves. The barbarian like elves. And the druid like elves. sounds okay to me

The arrogant elves? Is there another kind?

(I do like elves, honest. But I'm also aware of how they are commonly played.)

Why knock the valley elves? They had their place in Greyhawk (as did the wild elves). Is it the elf's (or game designer's) fault if the elf-playing fanboys annoyed a lot of people?

I admit it's been a really long time since I've looked at the valley elves, or Greyhawk stuff at all, honestly. But I distinctly recall thinking, "Is this *really* worth a new subrace?" ComradeGnull's comment about "River Elves" is apropos.

Of course, if we could drop "subrace" for "culture" that would be even better.

Agreed... and it would let humans get some actual traits, too.

 

[ComradeGnull]

I admit it's been a really long time since I've looked at the valley elves, or Greyhawk stuff at all, honestly. But I distinctly recall thinking, "Is this *really* worth a new subrace?" ComradeGnull's comment about "River Elves" is apropos.

Can't really take too much credit for it- I think Keith Baker came up with the idea in an article on why he limited the subraces in Eberron.

Anyhow, part of the problem is that Race in D&D has traditionally encompassed several different things- biology, culture, and background/occupation. Next is attempting to split out the background/occupation aspect- if you were an Elven fisherman, you can just take the 'Fisherman' background instead of needing to create 'Fishing Elves' or whatever- but the biology vs. culture aspect is still quite blurry.

Pathfinder took a stab at this with their alternate Racial features, but subraces still seem to be the go-to for cultural differences- thus we end up with Desert Dwarves, City Halflings, Lowland Elves, whatever.

If these were Humans instead of demi-humans and in the real world rather than the game world we would say: look, a person living in Sao Paolo in Brazil does not have a different biology from a person raised in a Amazon basin tribe (though different nutrition and medical care may have produced slight differences, like one person being taller). They have the same underlying biology, but slightly different skills because of their cultural backgrounds. Because D&D hasn't ever separated Race from Culture, we end up with this slightly silly situation where you need to make Jungle Humans and City Humans a separate race if you want to mechanically differentiate a Fighter who grew up in a city from a Fighter who grew up in a hunter-gatherer tribe.