However, in all of the Eberron groups I've been involved in, we've used the
DocB
:88E: vs :coolcthul Who shall prevail?
Just like Talenta Halflings keep Rogue as their favored class, not because they are a culture of thieves, but because when they aren't raging, they tend to use their small sizes to their advantage by being sneaky.
Again, if you don't multiclass, then favored class is meaningless.
Wizard. Because remember, Favored Class is *NOT* a race's favorite primary class, its what they are most likely to multiclass into.
That is indeed the canon theory, as described in the Valenar dragonshard. Most Valenar soldiers are rangers, and most are single-classed rangers. But it's fairly easy for them to pick up a level of wizard if they want... getting a familiar, perhaps taking mount or mage armor.
If ranger is their favored class, then you're just as likely to see ranger/rogues, ranger/monks, ranger/barbarians, and so on. As is, what you see most often are pure rangers... but with the occasional ranger/wizard.
And as the dragonshard points out, arcane magic is a potent force on the modern battlefield. Most Tairnadal warbands have a dedicated conjurer or evoker. So while the typical Tairnadal soldier is a ranger, it's not just the Aereni who respect arcane magic.
Now, what you do in your own game is your own business - but that's the canon approach.
You know, I just realized that I made a typo up there. We use Wood Elves, not Wild Elves, as our Valenar. Mr. Baker's point is still valid, but we just never felt right about there being no statistical difference between the two populations.
So um, what are the statistical variations between an Aundarian and a Karnnathi? Just like with the humans, the elves are a single race, just with cultural differences. Why should the two cultures also be two seperate races?
That doesn't apply to humans as well, that is.
Which, if you think too hard about it, makes us even more likely to be avatars of chaos gods than Slaad...
... the bonus feat & skills are the human equivalent of the Elves' low-light vision, weapon proficiency, etc.
Not really. A bonus feat could grant Alertness - which would match one of the Elf racial traits. But what's the feat that can grant a baseline human lowlight vision? As far as I know that's a genetic trait - and most of the time, feats reflect skill.
Beyond that, are you suggesting that the elf's racial weapon proficiencies are GENETIC? That a Valenar is somehow born with the ability to wield a double-scimitar? Because as long as we're just talking about cultural differences in skill, we see that between the Valenar and Aereni in the fact that Valenar are trained with the double scimitar and Aereni aren't, and the fact that most Valenar soldiers are rangers and most Aereni soldiers aren't.
Looking to the Aundairian and the Karrnathi, you'll see this same variation. The Aundairian is more likely to be a wizard and to use his bonus feat on a wizardy trait; the Karrnathi is more likely to be a fighter and have a martial feat. What you don't have is a genetic predisposition towards this in the form of ability score modifiers. The Karrns don't innately get a bonus to Strength and the Aundairians don't have a bonus to Intelligence. And at the end of the day, there's nothing stopping a Karrn who spends his racial feat properly and puts his best ability score on Intelligence from being just as good a wizard as the Aundairian.
One of the things I like about Eberron is that it's placed the focus on cultural variation instead of physical variation - that an elf is an elf, and just as a human can choose to be a fighter or wizard, an elf can be a ranger or a wizard without actually having to be a genetically unique species bred for Wizardry. This is also tied to the fact that the Valenar aren't supposed to be all-rangers-all-the-time. According to the Valenar Dragonshard, "Magic also plays an important role among the armies of the Valenar. The ancient elves took the secrets of magic from their giant masters, and many of the heroes of old were wizards. Most Valenar warbands include at least one evoker or conjurer." They have bards and druids. They don't follow one path... so I don't personally want to change them into a separate species from the Aereni to reflect a purely martial path, when their mighty ancestors were supposed to be great wizards as well as warriors. The Aereni and Tairnadal value different things, but they're still bound together by common ancestry - and I like the fact that a change in culture doesn't automatically bring a physical variation.
Beyond that, are you suggesting that the elf's racial weapon proficiencies are GENETIC?
Heh, well...technically speaking...if every elf gets them, regardless of the environment they grow up in... :P
At any rate, you could do it both ways - there are only three branches of elves (drow, elf & half) or there are a bunch (aquatic, drow, gray, grugach, half, high, snow & sylvan). The latter could work for the same reason there are tons of giant races running around. If going the 'bunch' route, I'd recommend keeping the shadow dragonmark high elf specific.
Heh, well...technically speaking...if every elf gets them, regardless of the environment they grow up in... :P
This, of course, is true. However, I'd argue that the weapon proficiencies reflect an assumed culture - that the reason humans are so flexible is that humans are perceived as having myriad traditions, while All Dwarves Hate Orcs And Use Axes. For my part, I've tried to actually reflect this within the dominant cultures - so looking to the elves in particular, from this dragonshard:
While the Aereni place more importance on mystical knowledge than military might, they still respect the martial traditions of their ancestors. Every elf learns to use sword and bow as a child, and archery and stylized duels are a common form of recreation.
There's no question that Aereni culture is more rigid and fixed than any of the Five Nations - thus, the idea of every elf learning to use a bow is plausible, while in Thrane MANY people learn to use the bow - which they can do using that racial feat. The flaw comes when you have the elf who's grown up on the streets of Sharn - why does he know how to use a sword? At that point it's a case of the core mechanic simply not fitting the story of the setting. But I'd still argue that it's supposed to reflect cultural influence - not a genetic skill with a blade. And this is, of course, why the Tairnadal get double scimitar proficiency.
Smug has also hit on a key point. In my opinion, magic is a critical part of warfare in this world. As mentioned in the quote, while not all Valenar use arcane magic, some of their greatest heroes were wizards, and most warbands have arcane support. As such, even if I liked subraces, I'm not crazy about the Intelligence penalty of the Wood Elf. I see Tairnadal as emphasizing speed, cunning, and strategy in warfare, not brute force. I see them as making use of arcane magic when engaged in full war. For all of these reasons, I'm not crazy about an Int penalty, and I don't see the Strength bonus as being vital to their concept; they're about speed and finesse.
It's a game, and you should do what makes the game fun for you. But to me, both Tairnadal and Aereni are elves of Aerenal, linked by common ancestors; it's just the cultures that are different.
Not really. A bonus feat could grant Alertness - which would match one of the Elf racial traits. But what's the feat that can grant a baseline human lowlight vision? As far as I know that's a genetic trait - and most of the time, feats reflect skill.
You have totally missed my point...
I didn't mean that they are the equivalent mathematically or statistically. What I mean is that low-light, weapon proficiencies, etc. are what makes the Elves unique as a race. The bonus feat and skills are what make Humans unique as a race. That is how they are equivalent.
Since His Bovine Infernality brought it up, the question of assumed culture is one that I believe has plagued the PHB races from the beginning. I designed a campaign world that incorporates all of the XPH and CPsi races in exactly the circumstances as-written, and it took me 6 drafts to get the map to make sense. I can't imagine trying to design a campaign world wherein all of the racial enmities listed throughout the PHB and MM exist for obvious, or even logical, reasons of proximity or geography.
A perfect example would be the Orc tribes that live in the Mror Holds. Now don't get me wrong, they are written into the story very well and "have a place," so to speak. But honestly, honestly, would they be there at all if there were no Dwarven racial bonuses against Orcs? I doubt there would have been any compelling reason to place a "lost" Orcs tribe on the exact opposite end of the continent from all of their cousins otherwise.
But at the same time, you have Halflings retaining their bonuses against Giants, which makes little to no sense at all, since not even ogres are common on the Talenta Plains, and the average Halfling has never even seen, much less fought, a "true" Giant. So is that proof agaisnt my theory on the Orcs of the Mror Holds, or just an inconsistency that the development team missed?
See? Frustrating...
You have totally missed my point...
And I think you're missing mine.
What I mean is that low-light, weapon proficiencies, etc. are what makes the Elves unique as a race. The bonus feat and skills are what make Humans unique as a race. That is how they are equivalent.
Right. But the issue here isn't actually about whether humans and elves are equivalent. It's comparing wood elves and high elves, Valenar and Aereni, and Karrns and Aundairians. As it stands, Karrns and Aundairians are both human. From a genetic standpoint, they are identical. They all, as you have said, possess the bonus feat and additional skill points. Aundairians have a cultural predisposition to use arcane magic, and MAY use that feat on something related to it... but they don't have to, and they don't have an innately higher intelligence than the Karrns. While despite their martial pride, Karrns don't have an innately higher Strength than Aundairians. Each nation has a strong cultural direction, but this hasn't affected their physical traits.
So the question is why elves should be any different. As has been noted, the Valenar value magic and the Aereni practice swordplay. So why should the Valenar have racial Strength and Intelligence modifiers that the Aereni do not? They are the same race with the same ancestors, separated only by culture. Why do they get this bizarre dimorphism, when humans are humans are humans?
As it stands, nothing stops the Karrn from being just as powerful a wizard as the Aundairian. I like to keep that the same with Valenar and Aereni - especially since some of the heroes of the Valenar were wizards. Once you slap a racial Int penalty on the Valenar, that becomes more difficult.
But honestly, honestly, would they be there at all if there were no Dwarven racial bonuses against Orcs? I doubt there would have been any compelling reason to place a "lost" Orcs tribe on the exact opposite end of the continent from all of their cousins otherwise.
It's not just a lost tribe; 10% of the humanoid population of the Mror Holds is made up of orcs. Essentially, the goblins dominated the center of the continent; the orcs existed along the coast and the places where the goblins avoided. What's now Valenar was contested between the Valaes Tairn and the Dhakaani, and what's now Q'barra has always been home to lizardfolk (who have clashed with orcs in distant times). And there were orcs in the Lhazaar region who were largely butchered by Malleon the Reaver and his kin in the Sarlonan invasion. So at various times, orcs have been widely spread across the land; the Mror Holds is simply the last major stronghold of the eastern orcs.
So honestly, honestly, yes. Once they were widespread, they were unable to compete with the Dhakaani, and this resulted in them living on the fringes of the empire.
But at the same time, you have Halflings retaining their bonuses against Giants, which makes little to no sense at all, since not even ogres are common on the Talenta Plains, and the average Halfling has never even seen, much less fought, a "true" Giant.
I don't overthink it too much, because there's no way to have it make absolute sense. Even if you said that the presence of orcs in the Mror Holds was why dwarves are good at fighting orcs, why does that translate to the dwarves of Breland?
With that said, I tend to think of the bonus some races have against giants as simply reflecting a natural ability to outmanuever the clumsier giants as opposed to specialized training to counter specific techniques used by those races - after all, it's not like ogres and true giants have anything in common in Eberron. Thus, both the Boromar halfling and Talenta hafling are equally skilled at dodging giants because it's not actually a cultural thing, but rather, essentially, a physical trait. Why this only helps against giant-class creatures and not all large creatures is another matter entirely... but it's all a question of which answer you find easier to suspend disbelief.
Of course, all of these issues become moot in fourth edition (in which dwarves no longer have innate racial bonuses against orcs, etc) - which is just one more reason that I think 4E works well with Eberron.
OK, first of all, I want to apologize for making a post that was 100% failure. This is the penalty I pay for making posts at the sleep-deprived hour of 3 am.
What is more embarrassing than posting that failure of an argument is this: not only have I made that argument on the boards before, AND been corrected on it, BUT at the time I told myself that I would remember the incident as an object lesson in "checking thy facts before posting."
So, on the whole, I'm just going to shut up now and stop making an @ss of myself.
