4 Ed Elf preview

[Matthew]

Why? Few elves, overall, choose to become clerics. NPCs aren't optimal, and elves making good PC clerics doesn't make Elven culture lend itself to religious devotion.

If that were the case, they might as well have said that few Elves choose to become adventurers, preferring to remain in NPC Classes, if you see what I mean. Presumably, this is a measure of the adventurer population, rather than the population at large.
Of course, if you see player characters with player character classes as fundamentally different from NPCs with player character classes, then I'm just at odds with the design methodology. I don't see a distinction between PC and NPC Adventurers, least of all in terms of optimisation.

[Rachel Lorelei]

The distinction between PC and NPC characters with class levels is that the PC character is created with the advantage of metagame knowledge. Elves don't know that those elves who become clerics are on average a little more potent than, say, Eladrin who do the same. Players do, so they might create an elven character who becomes a cleric for whatever reason.

[Tallis]

Not that it matters in the slightest in actual play, but I notice that elf maximum age is "over 200", whereas (a long time ago) it used to be "about 650"...

...and a long, long time ago the maximum age was 2000years (for grey elves). They just keep dying younger an younger.

[Matthew]

The distinction between PC and NPC characters with class levels is that the PC character is created with the advantage of metagame knowledge. Elves don't know that those elves who become clerics are on average a little more potent than, say, Eladrin who do the same. Players do, so they might create an elven character who becomes a cleric for whatever reason.

Which, I believe, is what I am calling shenanigans on. Why bother saying that few Elves become Clerics if you then expect it to be one of the main Class choices of mechanically minded players who choose Elves? That appears to be sending mixed messages to the audience, as far as I can see.

[Rachel Lorelei]

Which, I believe, is what I am calling shenanigans on. Why bother saying that few Elves become Clerics if you then expect it to be one of the main Class choices of mechanically minded players who choose Elves? That appears to be sending mixed messages to the audience, as far as I can see.

Because... PCs don't have to be typical members of their culture? And, in fact, often aren't? Few elves become clerics. If a third or a quarter of PC elves become clerics, that makes maybe half an elven cleric a PC party (which is the only PC party in the world). That's hardly creating an abundance of clerics.

Making an elven cleric creates an elven cleric in the world. It doesn't say anything about overall default-elven-culture trends. I don't see the shenanigans.

[Matthew]

Because... PCs don't have to be typical members of their culture? And, in fact, often aren't? Few elves become clerics. If a third or a quarter of PC elves become clerics, that makes maybe half an elven cleric a PC party (which is the only PC party in the world). That's hardly creating an abundance of clerics.

Making an elven cleric creates an elven cleric in the world. It doesn't say anything about overall default-elven-culture trends. I don't see the shenanigans.

Surely, that applies to NPC Adventurers, not just PCs, or are you saying that PC Adventurers should be marked out from NPC Adventurers as special in some way? If that's the case, then why bother with Adventurer Classes at all? Why not only make special Player Character Classes that are only available to actual Player Characters? Maybe that's what they're doing, I don't know.

Seriously, though, if you really don't think these two statements are at variance, then that's your perogative; I don't imagine that there's much point my trying to convince you otherwise.

[Rachel Lorelei]

Surely, that applies to NPC Adventurers, not just PCs, or are you saying that PC Adventurers should be marked out from NPC Adventurers as special in some way? If that's the case, then why bother with Adventurer Classes at all? Why not only make special Player Character Classes that are only available to actual Player Characters? Maybe that's what they're doing, I don't know.

Adventurer classes exist to provide humanoid opponents with PC-style abilities as enemies, I'm guessing. I'm not saying PCs should necessarily be special (although they already are, by virtue of the game being about them)--I AM saying that the PCs are 4-6ish people in a huge world, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with one or more of them defying the cultural trends of their race, for optimization reasons or otherwise.

Seriously, though, if you really don't think these two statements are at variance, then that's your perogative; I don't imagine that there's much point my trying to convince you otherwise.

I just don't see your point. Are you suggesting that PCs should always follow the guidelines? How is "few" or "many" even meaningful in PC creation, when you're making one character?

Elves can become clerics. Most of the time, they don't--that means the world won't have many elven clerics. It will have some. Maybe a PC will be one of them more often than not, since elves are good at it. Where's the conflict? Elven clerics are still rare.

I'm not sure of why you have a problem. Do racial trends have to match up with optimal mechanics, for you? If not, where's the problem with elven cleric PCs being one a small number of elven clerics, rather than one of many?

[Matthew]

Adventurer classes exist to provide humanoid opponents with PC-style abilities as enemies, I'm guessing. I'm not saying PCs should necessarily be special (although they already are, by virtue of the game being about them)--I AM saying that the PCs are 4-6ish people in a huge world, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with one or more of them defying the cultural trends of their race, for optimization reasons or otherwise.

Neither am I. What I am questioning is the wisdom of making these two statments:

Elves generally aren't Clerics.
You should choose an Elf if you want to play a Cleric.

Player 1: "I want to play a Cleric."
Player 2: "You should choose Elf as your race, then."
Player 1: "I thought Elves generally weren't Clerics?"
Player 2: "Who cares? You derive the best mechanical advantage from going against the stereotype."

Seems bonkers to me, especially when the stereotype has been created as part of this edition.

I just don't see your point. Are you suggesting that PCs should always follow the guidelines? How is "few" or "many" even meaningful in PC creation, when you're making one character?

Elves can become clerics. Most of the time, they don't--that means the world won't have many elven clerics. It will have some. Maybe a PC will be one of them more often than not, since elves are good at it. Where's the conflict? Elven clerics are still rare.

The point is that this encourages a disproportionate number of Player Character Adventuring Elf Clerics, as opposed to Elf Fighters, Warlords or whatever. I'm saying that the guidelines don't match up.

I'm not sure of why you have a problem. Do racial trends have to match up with optimal mechanics, for you? If not, where's the problem with elven cleric PCs being one a small number of elven clerics, rather than one of many?

I don't have a problem, but I don't think the designers have connected these two statements. In fact, I suspect that this is an editorial oversight libel to confuse new players. And, yeah, I do think racial trends should match up with optimal mechanics, but more importantly I think mechanics and mechanical advice should support the description of the default setting.

If the advice refers only to the +2 Bonus to Wisdom, then there are two expectations in play. Elf Player Characters generally have a higher than average Wisdom, so you should play one if you want to be a Cleric, or that Player Characters should have the maximum possible score in their prime Attribute, so you should choose an Elf if you want to be a Cleric. Either way, it sounds like a party is fairly likely to have an Elf Cleric in it. Of course, that rather depends on the context [i.e. what is recommended of the other races].

It seems to me that they would have been better served saying "you should put your highest Attribute in Wisdom if you want to play a Cleric," which is perfectly reasonable. Why bother saying you should choose an Elf if you want to play a Cleric? I suspect somebody just looked at the mechanics and paid no attention to the associated decription (or vice versa).

If the intended meaning is "Though few Elves choose to become Clerics, their Racial Wisdom Bonus means that they can derive a mechanical advantage from doing so," then it needs to be clearer, in my opinion.

[dentrag2]

im ok with it, but if i have to deal with overpowered elves.......

Why cant we get kobolds as a player race? they have a level adjustment of plus 0, so it should be ok. besides, i like kobolds......

[dr awesome phd]

Eh, I'd have to say that I'm pleasantly surprised. While some of the post has no point of reference (i.e. "Squares" for movement, which is probably just a 5' increment anyway), it was still very exciting to see some of the things they've done and read a little fluff, too.

[Theli]

Dear god I hope elves are the only race with something like this. This could become a book-keeping (and mapping) nightmare. Not to mention it makes no f-ing sense. If the elf spots something, he should tell you. There is no reason that having somebody near you should make you more perceptive without them somehow transmitting the information to you.

(Copying this from another thread to keep all the discussion in one place...)

Actually, it may not be a bookkeeping issue. It seems that perception isn't going to rolled in most cases. The DM will just have a list of the perception values of each of the members of the party, and they would compare the DC, of whatever it is to be spotted, to this number.

So if the elf is indeed the best spotter, they will automatically see everything first for whatever can be seen. And others will be able to see IN ADDITION to the elf.

Chances are, it's main use is to help people keep from being surprised.

It's no easy to figure out why it might make sense as simply the result of an elf's *presence*, so hopefully they'll do a good job of explaining it. Although I'm kinda wary that they may simply go the "magical aura" route. As if the elf's magical nature helps their allies see and hear...

[Crow]

(Copying this from another thread to keep all the discussion in one place...)

Actually, it may not be a bookkeeping issue. It seems that perception isn't going to rolled in most cases. The DM will just have a list of the perception values of each of the members of the party, and they would compare the DC, of whatever it is to be spotted, to this number.

So if the elf is indeed the best spotter, they will automatically see everything first for whatever can be seen. And others will be able to see IN ADDITION to the elf.

Chances are, it's main use is to help people keep from being surprised.

It's no easy to figure out why it might make sense as simply the result of an elf's *presence*, so hopefully they'll do a good job of explaining it. Although I'm kinda wary that they may simply go the "magical aura" route. As if the elf's magical nature helps their allies see and hear...

Thanks for the copy over.

If somebody has a higher perception rating than the elf, then there might be some problems. But if they go on to explain it as "magical" like you say, there isn't a whole lot to say past that.

When I mentioned book-keeping problems, I was thinking more for the DM. The DM seems to have plenty to think about already than which characters are within X ft. of the elf at any given time. And then if you need to be worrying about who is within x ft. of the dwarf, etc... If they make this something that is common among the races, each race having something special that it imparts on allies within x ft...It will get old really fast.