Please Bring Back Grey Elves and Hobbits.

I would like to see sub-races return to the "races" in 5e.

Center in point: Please bring back the Grey elves and High elves. Please. While  there is nothing wrong with the 4E "Eladrin" it isn't an Eladrin  (as defined in previous editions) but more of a styled grey elf. I want my  grey and high elf back to join the "wood elf" (the default elf in 4E).   In fact I want my valley elves, drow elves, and aquatic elves. And I am  not just talking about elves. I want the old "sub-races" or races of the  species back. I want old school halflings: tall-fellow, hair-foot,  stouts, and also light-feet (from 3e/4e). Would it hurt to pay a little  fee and call them Hobbits again? It would be awesome I think and well worth a couple of disclaimer lines in the Player's Handbook. Hobbits!
Sub races can be handled via racial feats like they are in 4e. The elf for every situation and climate was pretty lame.

Hobbits have a special ability. It's called "Summon Lawsuit from the Tolkien Estate". 
D&D won't be calling them hobbits until tolkein's estate is ok with it or the copyright terms expire.  Supposedly Tolkein's estate sent threatened TSR about it back in the early 70's.  And the late 70's editions got rid of them along with Balrogs and Ents.
D&D won't be calling them hobbits until tolkein's estate is ok with it or the copyright terms expire.  Supposedly Tolkein's estate sent threatened TSR about it back in the early 70's.  And the late 70's editions got rid of them along with Balrogs and Ents.


You miss my point entirely. You see where I said they could pay a fee and call them Hobbits? Hasbro has money and connections and they are way more business savvy than the late Gary Gygax. Hasbro could make a deal with either the new Tolkien estate or even the new film producers and call them Hobbits. Having hobbits in the player's handbook doesn't mean that anyone would have to rewrite "The Hobbit" again. It would be a small thing in the big picture but very welcome to some of us. Could also be great for cross promotions.
Or, just call them hobbits yourself? They're not gonna spend money on a name. It's just a name.
Hobbit is the In-Tolkein-World version of Halfling. It is their specific title. All Hobbits are Halflings, not all Halflings are Hobbits.
Hobbit is the In-Tolkein-World version of Halfling. It is their specific title. All Hobbits are Halflings, not all Halflings are Hobbits.


Correct as far as D&D goes. What I am suggesting is that hair-foot halflings could be acknowledged as Hobbits in the Player's Handbook (with appropriate permissions naturally). Light-feet certainly don't fit into the Hobbit mold while Tallfellows and Stouts are based on renamed Tolkien hobbit variants it doesn't necessarily have to be so acknowledged. Long live the Kuduk! Bring back Grey Elves!
D&D won't be calling them hobbits until tolkein's estate is ok with it or the copyright terms expire.  Supposedly Tolkein's estate sent threatened TSR about it back in the early 70's.  And the late 70's editions got rid of them along with Balrogs and Ents.


You miss my point entirely. You see where I said they could pay a fee and call them Hobbits? Hasbro has money and connections and they are way more business savvy than the late Gary Gygax. Hasbro could make a deal with either the new Tolkien estate or even the new film producers and call them Hobbits. Having hobbits in the player's handbook doesn't mean that anyone would have to rewrite "The Hobbit" again. It would be a small thing in the big picture but very welcome to some of us. Could also be great for cross promotions.


Or not. It's just a name. There is no reason to pay money just to use a name unless that name is going to draw in extra money. You can change the name yourself. There's no reason for WotC to spell everything out for you.
Owner and Proprietor of the House of Trolls. God of ownership and possession.
It's just a name. There is no reason to pay money just to use a name unless that name is going to draw in extra money. You can change the name yourself.


The reason is immersion. It has very little to do with money. If such a deal was struck it likely wouldn't involve much money at all. All that is required is some very basic permission and a disclaimer. WotC isn't spelling anything out to anyone. We all know where halflings came from. It would just be a nice acknowledgement and fun bit for the Player's Handbook and also helpful for fantasy newcomers.
If it wouldn't involve very much money at all, it would have already been done.  

And I don't see how "hobbit" is any better than 'halfling" for immersion.  Preference, now, preference it makes a difference for.  But not immersion.
Seriously, though, you should check out the PbP Haven. You might also like Real Adventures, IF you're cool.
Knights of W.T.F.- Silver Spur Winner
4enclave, a place where 4e fans can talk 4e in peace.
There really isn't much difference between the elven races other than the dro and aquatic elves, I'd persomnally like the dro to return to the depths of the earth or where ever the reside on each world and stay the vile monsters they are.

I hate having to tell players that they will find themselves the victims of murdurous crowds and bounty hunters if they choose to play them as characters. 

I know that some are attached to them as a playable race, but I ain't.

If the racial limits of the older games is used then the different elves, halflings, and dwarves makes more sense since each had different maximums and available classes. I believe that the generic elf fills these niches as well by flavor as by rules.

Of course I already own the older books and have all of the race rules at hand already, one of the side effects of being around long enough to have collected three editions worth of stuff and a book or two from another. I have no problem using background rules other than from the curret edition, especially since all of those races already exist in my own homebrew world.
The way I wanna see subraces handled is by breaking up races into inherent and cultural traits.

Inherent traits define you as a dwarf an elf or a human.

then every race has a pool of points whith which they can buy cultural abilities based on their subrace/civilization/whatever, so drow, grey elves, and sun elves are all elves, but they purchased cultural abilities from different lists. 
The way I wanna see subraces handled is by breaking up races into inherent and cultural traits.

Inherent traits define you as a dwarf an elf or a human.

then every race has a pool of points whith which they can buy cultural abilities based on their subrace/civilization/whatever, so drow, grey elves, and sun elves are all elves, but they purchased cultural abilities from different lists. 

Seconded.
Here's your species.  Build your own subrace.  Here's a short list of ideas.

The way I wanna see subraces handled is by breaking up races into inherent and cultural traits.

Inherent traits define you as a dwarf an elf or a human.

then every race has a pool of points whith which they can buy cultural abilities based on their subrace/civilization/whatever, so drow, grey elves, and sun elves are all elves, but they purchased cultural abilities from different lists. 


This would be fine. I am not sure about using "points". I would be perfectly happy with all elves having inherent elven traits with different cultural abilities based on whether they are wood, grey, high, dark, valley, or aquatic elves. There is no need for Grey/High/Eladrin or Drow to be considered a separate race. They should largely function as all other elves except for their specific cultural abilities in addition to the normal elven traits.
Tlantl, for my campaigns the dark elves or Drow have always been considered "monsters" by the world at large as in most editions of D&D. I don't buy into the Drizzt Do'Urden effect that many players like to embrace. Those novels even go through pains to show that dark elves are not a playable race and he is a particular special individual but people like to copy what they like.
It's just a name. There is no reason to pay money just to use a name unless that name is going to draw in extra money. You can change the name yourself.


The reason is immersion. It has very little to do with money. If such a deal was struck it likely wouldn't involve much money at all. All that is required is some very basic permission and a disclaimer. WotC isn't spelling anything out to anyone. We all know where halflings came from. It would just be a nice acknowledgement and fun bit for the Player's Handbook and also helpful for fantasy newcomers.




No, using the term "Hobbit" has EVERYTHING to do with $ - from the only perspectives that matter on the topic (WoTC/Hasbro & the Tolkkien Estate).     

See, WoTC/Hasbro isn't going to spend ANY money to use the name "Hobbit". 
Not a lot of $, not some $, not even a little bit of $. 

Because even a dime spent on it is more than the end effect is worth. 
If it were worth the $ from a buissiness standpoint?  Then WoTC or Hasbro (or likely TSR before them) would've allready written the check & locked the deal in decades ago.
That they haven't tells the story.

Instead?  WoTC can simply show you a picture of a "halfling" - be it short & fat, short & slender, slightly taller, etc & let your imagination make the link that these are the same creatures JRRT wrote about.
And really, making that link's not that hard to do.
{Hmm, look; A short person with hairy bare feet.....  Didn't I see those in a few movies recently?  Or read about them in a book by some JR guy?  I wonder if whoever made this game saw those movies/read those books??}
I mean seriously, if you're already familiar with Hobbits you KNOW what halflings are.
And if you're SO new to fantasy that you don't know about Hobbits?  Then it doesn't matter that WoTC calls them halflings instead.
It's just a name. There is no reason to pay money just to use a name unless that name is going to draw in extra money. You can change the name yourself.


The reason is immersion. It has very little to do with money. If such a deal was struck it likely wouldn't involve much money at all. All that is required is some very basic permission and a disclaimer. WotC isn't spelling anything out to anyone. We all know where halflings came from. It would just be a nice acknowledgement and fun bit for the Player's Handbook and also helpful for fantasy newcomers.

If your group wants to call them hobbits, there is nothing stopping you.  There is absolutely no reason to put it in the rulebook.  I personally like 4E halflings a LOT better than roly-poly hillbillies.

If your position is that the official rules don't matter, or that house rules can fix everything, please don't bother posting in forums about the official rules. To do so is a waste of everyone's time.
I always just called them orc-bait.
Because even a dime spent on it is more than the end effect is worth. 
If it were worth the $ from a buissiness standpoint?  Then WoTC or Hasbro (or likely TSR before them) would've allready written the check & locked the deal in decades ago.


I disagree. Hasbro hasn't owned D&D for even a single decade yet. They have the ability to make the deal if they were inclined to.
Because even a dime spent on it is more than the end effect is worth. 
If it were worth the $ from a buissiness standpoint?  Then WoTC or Hasbro (or likely TSR before them) would've allready written the check & locked the deal in decades ago.


I disagree. Hasbro hasn't owned D&D for even a single decade yet. They have the ability to make the deal if they were inclined to.



Umm, WotC bought TSR in 1997, and Hasbro bought WotC in 1999. Well over a decade.

D&D Halflings have seperated themselves from the hairy foot hobbits, and that's a good thing. This is not Lord of the Rings: The Roleplaying Game. It's Dungeons and Dragons. If you want Hobbits, write "hobbit" on your character sheet. 
Lord of the Rings has its own RPG.  You can go play that if you want fat, lazy, cowardly fatling hobbits.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
If anything, seperate halflings even further. Eberron halflings as the default.

Elves, too. Valenar elves rule.  
If anything, seperate halflings even further. Eberron halflings as the default.

Elves, too. Valenar elves rule.  



IMAGE(http://i199.photobucket.com/albums/aa279/LolaBonne/brohoof.png)
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
Umm, WotC bought TSR in 1997, and Hasbro bought WotC in 1999.
...
D&D Halflings have seperated themselves from the hairy foot hobbits, and that's a good thing. This is not Lord of the Rings: The Roleplaying Game. It's Dungeons and Dragons. If you want Hobbits, write "hobbit" on your character sheet. 


Time does fly indeed! Still my statement is valid. Hasbro has the power! In fact, they have over eight thousand powers!

I don't want it to be Lord of the Rings: the role-playing game. However, it is clearly accepted that Gygax used bits of Tolkien, Jack Vance, and lots of other stuff when he made D&D. Much talk has been made about D&D Next recycling parts of every edition and some talk came out of the convention about how halflings were depicted as too athletic now.

Bringing back the classic sub-races including the hobbit could only be a good thing. You could then be free to ignore them if you don't like them.
There's nothing in it for them is the thing. It's ONLY a name. They would just tell you the same thing I'm telling you. Write hobbit on your sheet. Doesn't cost them a dime, and you have a hobbit. It doesn't have to say hobbit in the book for that to happen.
Lord of the Rings has its own RPG.  You can go play that if you want fat, lazy, cowardly fatling hobbits.


I actually want support for hairfoot, tallfellow, stoutish, and light-feet halflings. I said calling harfoots as Hobbits would be a bonus. The important bit here is support for the sub-races.
The way I wanna see subraces handled is by breaking up races into inherent and cultural traits.

Inherent traits define you as a dwarf an elf or a human.

then every race has a pool of points whith which they can buy cultural abilities based on their subrace/civilization/whatever, so drow, grey elves, and sun elves are all elves, but they purchased cultural abilities from different lists. 

Seconded.
Here's your species.  Build your own subrace.  Here's a short list of ideas.




Hear hear!

This also seems to fit well with the theme of enabling more or less complexity/control at the individual game level. Want a simple life, with only the "basic" races? You got it. Want your very own, custom designed grey elf, high elf, wood elf, etc elf? You got that too. Seems like a great idea.
First, it would make the most sense for them to continue to call them halflings if only because trying to buy and attach the name Hobbit has almost assuredly been brought up by at least one person since Hasbro acquired WotC, and probably even before that when WotC acquired TSR.

Second, I like the ideas of a race with specific racial attributes for overall the races (Dwarf, Eladrin, Gnome, Human, etc) and something similar to the exchangeable "racial traits" within both one of the recent dungeon mags and a rejected article Crimson Concerto wrote.  Then let there be exchangeables from campaign worlds (Ebberon, FR, Athas, etc) and also allow backgrounds to give a bit more power to characters' societal impact.

"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody." --Bill Cosby (1937- ) Vanador: OK. You ripped a gateway to Hell, killed half the town, and raised the dead as feral zombies. We're going to kill you. But it can go two ways. We want you to run as fast as you possibly can toward the south of the town to draw the Zombies to you, and right before they catch you, I'll put an arrow through your head to end it instantly. If you don't agree to do this, we'll tie you this building and let the Zombies rip you apart slowly. Dimitry: God I love being Neutral. 4th edition is dead, long live 4th edition. Salla: opinionated, but commonly right.
fun quotes
58419928 wrote:
You have to do the work first, and show you can do the work, before someone is going to pay you for it.
69216168 wrote:
If you can't understand how someone yelling at another person would make them fight harder and longer, then you need to look at the forums a bit closer.
quote author=56832398 post=519321747]Considering DnD is a game wouldn't all styles be gamist?[/quote]
Hobbits are terrible.


As a story element for a novel series, they're alright. As a race for a RPG, no. They're awful. Extremely awful.


Halflings are cool. Hobbits are lame.
Skeptical_Clown wrote:
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
104340961 wrote:
Pine trees didn't unanimously decide one day that leaves were gauche.
http://community.wizards.com/doctorbadwolf/blog/2012/01/10/how_we_can_help_make_dndnext_awesome
Try again if Matt Smith ever wears a Hobbit on camera.
Try again if Matt Smith ever wears a Hobbit on camera.




Well, there is that...
Skeptical_Clown wrote:
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
104340961 wrote:
Pine trees didn't unanimously decide one day that leaves were gauche.
http://community.wizards.com/doctorbadwolf/blog/2012/01/10/how_we_can_help_make_dndnext_awesome
I would rather subraces return to nonexistence, myself.  Never really seen the point.  An elf is an elf, a halfling is a halfling.  You want to call yourself a Splat Elf or a Nosehair Halfling, knock yourself out; your stats shouldn't change.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
I agree that Eladrins should go back to being extraplanar badasses, even if they are cheap overpowered members of Oberon's Seelie court. Having Demons and devils for law and chaos evil, and having elven angels and human angels for law and chaos good made for a nice sense of balance.
Options are Liberating
I would rather subraces return to nonexistence, myself.  Never really seen the point.  An elf is an elf, a halfling is a halfling.  You want to call yourself a Splat Elf or a Nosehair Halfling, knock yourself out; your stats shouldn't change.




Honestly, there's nothing particularly unrealistic or strange about species that are noticeably different depending on what environment they come from. Humans are fairly rare in how little we change due to environment.

So arctic elves or dwarves being mildly different from temperate dwelling elves or dwarves is perfectly sensible.

Now, I'd rather see them added in a fashion similar to their treatment in Heroes of Neverwinter. You pick elf, then, you can select the wood elf subrace, and change your skill bonuses, maybe you racial power, maybe something else. But it's all in one race package.
Skeptical_Clown wrote:
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
104340961 wrote:
Pine trees didn't unanimously decide one day that leaves were gauche.
http://community.wizards.com/doctorbadwolf/blog/2012/01/10/how_we_can_help_make_dndnext_awesome
I would rather subraces return to nonexistence, myself.  Never really seen the point.  An elf is an elf, a halfling is a halfling.  You want to call yourself a Splat Elf or a Nosehair Halfling, knock yourself out; your stats shouldn't change.




Honestly, there's nothing particularly unrealistic or strange about species that are noticeably different depending on what environment they come from. Humans are fairly rare in how little we change due to environment.

So arctic elves or dwarves being mildly different from temperate dwelling elves or dwarves is perfectly sensible.

Now, I'd rather see them added in a fashion similar to their treatment in Heroes of Neverwinter. You pick elf, then, you can select the wood elf subrace, and change your skill bonuses, maybe you racial power, maybe something else. But it's all in one race package.




Also note that (especially before modern technology) a Scandinavian and a Arab Bedouin living in the Sahara could very easily have slightly different stats in dnd. That is, they would have bonuses to survival (Nature in 4e) checks in their environment, and to endurance checks to not die from the natural hazards around them. A Scandinavian has a layer of fatty tissue that actually insulates them from the cold. They are physically less susceptible to the cold than people from even temperate climates, much less from a desert. A similar amount of adaptation occurs with desert dwellers.

It's not hard (or unrealistic) to image another humanoid species that adapts more dramatically to their environment.
Skeptical_Clown wrote:
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
104340961 wrote:
Pine trees didn't unanimously decide one day that leaves were gauche.
http://community.wizards.com/doctorbadwolf/blog/2012/01/10/how_we_can_help_make_dndnext_awesome
Lord of the Rings has its own RPG.  You can go play that if you want fat, lazy, cowardly fatling hobbits.



You say that like those are character flaws!!!

Let me explain how us hobbits view it.
Fat = A proper and respectful hobbit who compliments his hosts by eating all the food put in from of him.
Lazy = A proper hobbit is not afraid of hard work but isn't selfish enough to hog the joy of work.  A good hobbit is fine with letting other enjoy working around him.
Cowardly = A proper hobbit prides himself on prudence and intelligence.  Why pick fights with big, smelly creatures when they can just as easily be avoided?
Fatling = See "Fat" above.
Hobbit = The most civilized and sensible race in the world.

Everyone clear on that now?  Wink         
Cowardly? There's four hobbits in this little trilogy that would like to have a word with you...

What hobbits are shown to be cowardly? Unless you're confusing cowardly for... Is not a violent sociopath mercenary that runs around raiding the cavern dwellings of primitive societies for wealth and bloodlust.  Then yeah, hobbits would much rather have family parties and plant torenia (the name of the plant Samwise is fondling at the beginning of the Fellowship movie).

But seriously - just call them hobbits in your game, yeah? Just because the books call them halfings... doesn't mean you have to.

===

I don't believe races should have static bonuses or powers ever again... so in that aspect I agree with Salla (though I don't think he/she meant it that way)
Humans are fairly rare in how little we change due to environment.

Humans simply change the environment.  We're awesome that way.

No, using the term "Hobbit" has EVERYTHING to do with $ - from the only perspectives that matter on the topic (WoTC/Hasbro & the Tolkkien Estate).     

See, WoTC/Hasbro isn't going to spend ANY money to use the name "Hobbit". 
Not a lot of $, not some $, not even a little bit of $. 

Yep.

I mean seriously, if you're already familiar with Hobbits you KNOW what halflings are.
And if you're SO new to fantasy that you don't know about Hobbits?  Then it doesn't matter that WoTC calls them halflings instead.

And that right there is the best explanation as to why it is not worth the money.
Owner and Proprietor of the House of Trolls. God of ownership and possession.
A big part of the reason that the Hobbit movies are just being made now is that Christopher Tolkien guards his fathers IP as jealously as George Lucas with Star Wars. I severely doubt he would be okay with renting the name hobbit to DnD.
Humans are fairly rare in how little we change due to environment.

Humans simply change the environment.  We're awesome that way.




We really are. Language, adaptabillity, casual reasoning, opposable thumbs and a very strong drive to control our surroundings have made us an optimal survivalist. There are negative side effects, but we really are pretty damn cool.
Skeptical_Clown wrote:
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
104340961 wrote:
Pine trees didn't unanimously decide one day that leaves were gauche.
http://community.wizards.com/doctorbadwolf/blog/2012/01/10/how_we_can_help_make_dndnext_awesome
Sign In to post comments