Azzy
ᚳᚣᚾᛖᚹᚢᛚᚠ
I think Pathfinder has had the best take on gnomes in any setting that I've looked at.
I think Pathfinder has had the best take on gnomes in any setting that I've looked at.
Zeromaru X
Arkhosian scholar and coffee lover
I guess, I'm going to say 4 leaning toward 5. I like that rules came from the setting, but sometimes the DM must have to do rulings about things that couldn't have been expected when the campaign was proposed. Like, trying a new mechanic or race and the like.
I'm all about consensus with my players, tho. I like to work with them, that's why my homebrew setting is open-ended (Nentir Vale mixed with FR and Eberron elements). I don't see the point of playing in an official setting and don't following its tropes.
As for gnomes, no player of mine has ever played one, and I don't know how to approach them when the time comes. I prefer them over halflings, tho. I've never liked hobbits.
I'm going to check PF approach of gnomes.
I'm all about consensus with my players, tho. I like to work with them, that's why my homebrew setting is open-ended (Nentir Vale mixed with FR and Eberron elements). I don't see the point of playing in an official setting and don't following its tropes.
As for gnomes, no player of mine has ever played one, and I don't know how to approach them when the time comes. I prefer them over halflings, tho. I've never liked hobbits.
I'm going to check PF approach of gnomes.
Last edited:
Henry
Autoexreginated
A good place to start is https://pathfinderwiki.com/wiki/Gnome
While the PathfinderWiki is not maintained by Paizo, it does draw its material from official Paizo sources, so it's a good place to get a starting paraphrase of the existing world material, and it has a very extensive "references" section.
I kind of like their description as "a wounded race."
Zeromaru X
Arkhosian scholar and coffee lover
Oh boy, their physical appareance already sold me their approach. I prefer this over the dumb-looking D&D ones.
jasper
Rotten DM
Oh look. Is that Halfling Cute with her Goth look and punk hairstyle. How 80s. Barf.
Henry
Autoexreginated
To each their own -- still beats the 1970's "obese hairy-toed children" or the D&D5 Funko POP! halflings.
oreofox
Explorer
The Pathfinder take on gnomes is different, but I prefer my take on them more. Of course, I may or may not be biased
As for that image in the link: I like it for a gnome druid. She looks like a druid. Kinda reminds me of Vidania the 3rd edition iconic druid (though I prefer Vidania over the PF gnome). Also, Pathfinder halfling > 5e D&D halfling by a long shot (visually speaking). Also, I am not a fan of the vast majority of the artwork WotC went with for their core books (PHB, DMG, MM). They are not that great, IMO. They are done really well, but I just can't stand to look at them.
As for that image in the link: I like it for a gnome druid. She looks like a druid. Kinda reminds me of Vidania the 3rd edition iconic druid (though I prefer Vidania over the PF gnome). Also, Pathfinder halfling > 5e D&D halfling by a long shot (visually speaking). Also, I am not a fan of the vast majority of the artwork WotC went with for their core books (PHB, DMG, MM). They are not that great, IMO. They are done really well, but I just can't stand to look at them.
Azzy
ᚳᚣᚾᛖᚹᚢᛚᚠ
And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
On the poll:
Voted for option 3 - the setting determines what can/cannot be played; and as the DM decides or designs the setting that means the DM makes these decisions. In practice there's some option 4 in there as well, but the example given (no evil PCs) ensures I won't vote for it.
As for option 5, my view is that once a campaign starts the major elements e.g. what races/classes/etc. are allowed or banned should be as baked in and unalterable as possible; in particular with reference to what's allowed - if something's allowed once it then has to be allowed throughout, to maintain internal consistency. Something banned can always be introduced later if it makes sense or if something's changed in the meantime - an example from my own DMing is that I started one campaign by banning Monks outright, then a few years in I redesigned the class from the ground up and found an in-fiction means of introducing them so I could see how they played (not well, leading to another redesign later which has worked out much better).
New material that is released after a campaign's start is assumed to be banned unless and until the DM says otherwise.
On session 0: (actually session -1; session 0 is roll-up night)
If I had a session -1 and asked my players what they wanted from a setting/world/campaign before starting to design it I'd probably be wasting my time, as there'd likely be a 1-to-2-year gap between session -1 and session 0 and chances are those players would long since have - quite reasonably - moved on to somethng else.
Instead I just design it, then see if anyone wants to play in it. So far, so good I guess...
On Gnomes:
I've never been a huge fan and, like others here, can't find their equivalent in any significant written works. But some of the most successful and longest-lasting PCs I've DMed have been Gnomes, and so I keep them around despite myself. That said, in my current campaign you have to be (un)lucky to get the chance to play one: they're not a chooseable race in most areas and thus you have to roll on a table where you're somewhat stuck with what you roll (the only out-clause is that Human is always a chooseable option).
Voted for option 3 - the setting determines what can/cannot be played; and as the DM decides or designs the setting that means the DM makes these decisions. In practice there's some option 4 in there as well, but the example given (no evil PCs) ensures I won't vote for it.
As for option 5, my view is that once a campaign starts the major elements e.g. what races/classes/etc. are allowed or banned should be as baked in and unalterable as possible; in particular with reference to what's allowed - if something's allowed once it then has to be allowed throughout, to maintain internal consistency. Something banned can always be introduced later if it makes sense or if something's changed in the meantime - an example from my own DMing is that I started one campaign by banning Monks outright, then a few years in I redesigned the class from the ground up and found an in-fiction means of introducing them so I could see how they played (not well, leading to another redesign later which has worked out much better).
New material that is released after a campaign's start is assumed to be banned unless and until the DM says otherwise.
On session 0: (actually session -1; session 0 is roll-up night)
If I had a session -1 and asked my players what they wanted from a setting/world/campaign before starting to design it I'd probably be wasting my time, as there'd likely be a 1-to-2-year gap between session -1 and session 0 and chances are those players would long since have - quite reasonably - moved on to somethng else.
Instead I just design it, then see if anyone wants to play in it. So far, so good I guess...
On Gnomes:
I've never been a huge fan and, like others here, can't find their equivalent in any significant written works. But some of the most successful and longest-lasting PCs I've DMed have been Gnomes, and so I keep them around despite myself. That said, in my current campaign you have to be (un)lucky to get the chance to play one: they're not a chooseable race in most areas and thus you have to roll on a table where you're somewhat stuck with what you roll (the only out-clause is that Human is always a chooseable option).
Seeing as how I've yet to see any players play the different races as actually different anthropologically and sociologically rather than just variant personality types (which means every single one of their characters could be a human being and they'd play the character exactly the same way)... having gnomes and seeing them played has not been better or worse than having dwarves, elves, halflings, dragonborn etc. etc.
Pretty much every single race when they are played just devolves down to "how is my 'dominant' attitude in-character different than me being a normal person"? The people who play dwarves are gruff most of the time, the halfling players are child-like most of the time, the elf players are stand-offish most of the time. So for the gnomes... you just need a setting that decides on their dominant personality type and then they fit right in. In Eberron (which my current campaigns are), the gnomes are intellectual and conniving most of the time. And thus there's no problem with having them and they easily find their place in the game.
Pretty much every single race when they are played just devolves down to "how is my 'dominant' attitude in-character different than me being a normal person"? The people who play dwarves are gruff most of the time, the halfling players are child-like most of the time, the elf players are stand-offish most of the time. So for the gnomes... you just need a setting that decides on their dominant personality type and then they fit right in. In Eberron (which my current campaigns are), the gnomes are intellectual and conniving most of the time. And thus there's no problem with having them and they easily find their place in the game.
Similar Threads
- Poll
- Poll
AD6_gamerati_skyscraper
Recent & Upcoming Releases
-
April 16 2024 -
May 31 2024 -
June 3 2024 -
June 4 2024 -
June 18 2024 -
July 16 2024 -
September 17 2024 -
October 1 2024 -
November 12 2024 -
February 18 2025
