It's the Romulans who are the Space Elves. They're warlike, emotional, and have serious superiority complexes. The Vulcan are space Vedalken. That's how they got that name...

Manga Toppo beat SSB Goku by clocking him in the nuts.

Which of your DnD elven races tends to be the 'what is our purpose for even existing?' bunch? On the flip side, which of the DnD elven races is tends toward brutal pragmatism (not necessarily the herp derp chaos of Salvatore's drow houses, mind).

I kind of want to ask the question of "which DnD creature types aren't represented by an MtG creature type?" as well while we're at it.

I know Bard is one of them.

You know, I'm now thinking of how a d&d bard would annoy a kaladesh dwarf...

I am a dwarf and I'm digging a hole! Diggy diggy hole! Diggy diggy hole!

I mean, there are bards. There's just no creature type.
By same merit, Sorcerers and Rangers aren't creature types.

Bard isn't a bad option. Musician's a little broader, but I think the RPG connection is more important.
THe sorcerer, warlock, etc. can all fit under Magic's existing types. Without D&D's mechanical meanings, there's not much point in giving them mechanically different creature types.
Spellblades, war lords, cavaliers and other niche classes can just be whatever existing type they fall under.
Psionic classes have no MTG equivalent. A "Psychic" creature type sounds like a good idea. Or is all psionic in MTG accomplished through wizardry? MTG's magic system is a little more clarified than D&D's, so there might not be leeway for psychics.
Berserker and Monk actually are rare MTG types.

What? Just classes?

Well, dwarves, elves, orcs, gnomes, and humans are all covered.
Halflings were mentioned in passing during one of the novels, but ultimately, they aren't really a thing. Kithkin arguably are their stand in, but it's only even arguably because some elements of creative swear they aren't meant to be despite many, MANY similarities.

Once you get into creature types it starts getting weird and finicky, brand management-y, and intellectual property-y. But I guess if I'm not WOTC I don't have to care!

Owlbears would just be bears and birds.
Most aberrations would fit under horror, but that it's not perfect. I guess a Beholder could fit, but I'd rather see a beholder creature type.
Slaad are described as frog-like, but I don't think they're technically frogs, so slaad's a go. Those could be cool cards. The color theming would be a pain though.
Mimics stand out for not fitting anywhere.
One-offs like the Tarrasque could warrant their own types.

I don't think a Beholder would fall under Eye. Ironically, this is because it has too many eyes.

In between doxing and Halloween distractions I found this day to be disappointingly unproductive, but other than the aforementioned incident it was very pleasant.

Anyone thinking about trying their hand at nanowrimo this year?

On it, though I'm a NaNo Rebel trying tofinish, rather than start, a project.

Nano-whatnow?

Sorry I'm kind of new to this.

My wife's doing some novel writing off of the back of a cute tumblr prompt.

No, I'm far too aware that my creativity and subsequent productivity are far too influenced by my moods to reasonably be expected to push out anything sufficient for it.

I haven't been around the past few weeks because life is difficult always, but just wanted to throw out there I'll be at GP ATL this weekend cubing, playing EDH, and maybe doing some side events. I might take along a totem/sign to get people to sit down and cube with me but IDK. If you see a relatively fat guy with a beard around 6'2" cubing, it's probably me. Feel free to say hi if you are there and you're all welcome to play with me

Hope all is well with everyone

Oh my god! I just realize that somebody has to keep their cube in a hollowed out Gamecube! It has a handle on it and everything!

Well isn't that handy?