Talk:Genasi

"sunsoul, sandsoul, icesoul or embersoul"
From what I can tell from Dragon #396 they are from Dark sun? should we add them any way? Terrorblades - This is recorded live at  13:56, May 14, 2014 (UTC)


 * Blades, unless they have a connection to the Realms, I would say no. Thoughts anyone? - Darkwynters (talk) 21:46, May 14, 2014 (UTC)


 * You could mention them in the "notes" section, or put external links to a DarkSun wiki if it exists. But without a connection to the Realms, they should be footnotes at best, I suppose. &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 22:05, May 14, 2014 (UTC)


 * On that note the "Para-genasi" don't seam to have any connection to the realms (As far as I can see) they don't seam to be any campaign specific. But on the other hand its seams completely natural that they would exist. And I don't know if I can find any other sources for them other then that dragon magazine.Also cant find wiki pages any of them :/ (Dark Sun genasi) Terrorblades  - This is recorded live at  08:20, May 15, 2014 (UTC)

Genasi Status with 5e
What did 5e do with genasi? Are they back to being separate races? Or are they still considered a single race as they were with 4e? (I hope it's the former, because I hate what they did with 4e.) ~ Lhynard (talk) 20:29, October 31, 2015 (UTC)

Notes for Development
I've copy-edited the article to use past tense, standard sections, and simplified referencing, so it can sit in our top 50. However, I'll leave some notes here for any future development, since Lhynard has short-listed it for the Video Project.

First, the genasi detailed in 3rd-edition are very different in nature, appearance, and personality to those in 4th-edition. Then 5th edition seems to have taken them back to the earlier 3e depiction (as with a lot of things, it seems). I'm not sure yet if they're irreconcilable, but the article might need a split to avoid contradictions or ambiguity between the two types.

Second, the article feels heavily over-written and over-explained. It could be simplified greatly, after reference to the source texts and the potential split. — BadCatMan (talk) 10:34, February 7, 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the work so far.


 * Yeah, the 4e stuff is, as is typical, vastly different and needs to be dealt with. My plan is to handle most of it in the history section. In 4e, a genasi could change its type. It makes sense to speculate that this was due to the elemental planes collapsing together to form the Elemental Chaos. Ao apparently restored the individual elemental planes after the Second Sundering.


 * ~ Lhynard (talk) 13:53, February 7, 2018 (UTC)


 * There still exists an Elemental Chaos in 5e, described as a distant merging of the elemental planes (see Dungeon Master's Guide 5th edition, pp. 52–53). It also shows up in the 5e version of the Great Wheel cosmology (see this figure). If you think of 5e as a "soft reboot", then it makes sense that the individual planes were reformed, but retained some kind of connection in their farthest reaches. In any case, the genasi presented in 5e don't have anything to do with the Elemental Chaos. &mdash Sirwhiteout (talk) 14:58, February 7, 2018 (UTC)


 * Right. They can no longer change manifestations. They are back to being tied to a single element now. ~ Lhynard (talk) 15:03, February 7, 2018 (UTC)


 * The DMG states that "weird hybrid elementals" are natives to the Elemental Chaos. So, combined elementals are still a thing in 5e. BTW, wouldn'd be easy to say that 4e Genasi are the ones from Abeir? I mean, the only genasi we say in novels during the 4e era (and that used the 4e descriptions) were those native to Akanûl. And in that way, we don't contradict stuff (as those Genasi were used novels, and stuff). --Zero (talk) 17:03, February 7, 2018 (UTC)