Community

The problem here is these and other things mean different things to players of 4e and to players of earlier editions. Sometimes vastly so.

If we're going to invest in a continuitous history of the game, we really should put these things back to how they were presented in prior editions. I'm sure there's some great stuff about the newer versions, but those should have been given different names or, at least, simply been setting-specific variations so as to not cause unnecesary disconnect with prior versions and the alienation of those who enjoyed them.

Now, don't misunderstand me--I'm not trying to take away the new toys, I'm all for keeping the 4e versions, too. However, they need to be addressed--either with different names or as specific variations.

Edit:

Okay. Perhaps I wasn't as clear as I should have been about the purpose of this thread (I was trying to be brief so I could get back to work).

I'm trying to engage a conversation here about an issue that I think needs to be discussed. What we should be discussing is how to verbally represent the different versions of creatures and such in 5e because some yahoo had the dubious idea to take terms that had an establish meaning in D&D lore and apply them to something different in 4e. Whether or not the new versions that came out of this dubious dicision turned out to be "better"or not, isn't really the topic and not something I care to debate--that's all entirelu subjective. More important is that various settings may feature only some versions of these creatures, and others (especially homebrewed settings) may have both.

Anyone suggesting that either the new or old version need to be dropped from 5e support is also not adding anything useful. The alignments (or lack thereof), settings, cosmologies, critters, et al. need to be supported in 5e regardless of what you (or my) personal preference. Anyone arrguing that point isn't adding anything constructive. So, anybody suggesting the removal of any of the above, please take it to a more appropriate thread because it's neither needed or wanted here. 5e is supposed to be inclusive, so let's try to keep that goal ourslves.

So, with that said and the basic asumption that both versions of the creatures will be in 5e, what are your thoughs about how to include them without being obtuse or confusing?

I'm all for maintaining the continuity of D&D lore.  Yeah, there were some big differences but the potential for a disconnect is minor at best.  As Crimson Concerto notes, these things weren't exactly iconic 'til now.  

In any case, giving these races a specific name or variation is a nice compromise.  I'd move forward myself, not backward.  That is, I'd stick with Deva for the 4e race and call Aasimar something else.  I'd keep Eladrin and call the Celestial race someting else.  I'd not bother with Tieflings; I'd prolly go with the idea that there are many different kinds out there.

That's the wonderful thing about the worlds of D&D I think:  There's room for everything and it all fits somehow .

Mar 7, 2012 -- 10:39AM, Azzy1974 wrote:

Also, I don't see how you can say that the previous incarnations are "not iconic"... if the people you've played with primarily know 4e, of course they're primarily know 4e's versions.

Here's the thing: The people I play with don't primarily know or prefer 4E. They primarily know and prefer 3.5, at least in the majority of the groups that I play in, but that doesn't matter. The vast majority of them still only know Eladrin and Deva by their 4E incarnations. I just asked some of them, half didn't even know "Eladrin" was a thing in 3.5, and the half that did don't really care about their 3.5 incarnation at all, so it doesn't matter. Not iconic. I didn't even know that Deva were a thing pre-4E until I heard that from this thread, and I started back in 3E and have played most of my campaigns in 3.5.

we ran Eladrins as the Seelie court/Faery, an Alternative to playing elves. Wherever people needed to play a powerful faery being, the Eladrins fit the bill almost perfectly. 2e Eladrin were OP, but by thinking of them as the Angels for Elves, and then vaguely alluding to the idea that Avalon was sort of like where King Arthur went as his heaven, and Oberon and Titania were like the king and queen of fay creatures like Elves and Faeries, and were also gods, I got the impression that Arborea (place of Trees) was just Avalon in disguise.

It basically made for a Nice
Chaotic Good - Elven - Fay/Eladrin - Arborea
variant of
Lawful Good - Human - Angel/Aasimon - Seven Heavens 

This balanced Races from Birth to death to the after life, and that was pretty cool.

I would always go with the more powerful version of any very cool, very large, or very legendary creature, and tone down the rest. I've heard of Faeries, including ones so powerful they can grant wishes and turn pumpkins into Carriages, or turn into a ball of light and zip about like energy beings. The Eladrin in the 4e don't resemble Faeries to me, they resemble teleporting elves.

Again, I still think Eladrin were OP and I agree with them staying that way, even though I don't like them at all. It's the Joker confessing Batman doesn't actually suck that bad.