D&D General Why Do People Hate Gnomes?

[Argyle King]

Ironically, I'm of the reverse opinion when it comes to gnomes. I think they should be merged with halflings to create "hinnfolk" or whatever one wishes to call them.

Svirfneblin and "ghostwise" halflings thus merge into a singular subtype, as do forest gnomes and lightfoot halflings, giving you four options: ghostwise (deep-dwellers with psi leanings), cragstep ("rock" gnomes, enigmatic tinkerers/chemists), stoutheart (plains-dwelling herders), and lightfoot (tree-dwelling, animal-taming hunters). That gives each subtype a clear focus and thematic concept. It also ties the resulting race to a conceptual reason for their differences, with lightfoot and stoutheart being more animal-oriented, while the underground-dwelling ghostwise and cragstep ones lean toward industry and the creepy-crawlies that live at the lower boundaries of the world.

I don't see that view as being the reverse of what I said.

Tinker Gnomes and Garden Gnomes are two very different concepts. Likewise, the woodsy-elf type and the grey-fey elves were different concepts.

Breaking them into two different conceptual spaces is something I see as good. But, for me, I think having two broad categories would be fine; those two could be fine tuned with cultural choices and background choices.

 

[MarkB]

I know this is an unpopular opinion, but, I rather hope that the revised PHB drops gnomes in favor of another small race like kobolds. Just to give something else a chance to gain some traction. Don't make it impossible to be a gnome PC, of course. Keep the shorter race write up somewhere, but, I don't think it needs to be in the PHB. If gnomes haven't gained traction after fifty years in the PHB, maybe it's time to give something else a chance.

ducks and hides since the last time I floated this idea, I got massively dog piled on.

It's been done before.


And, notably, even WotC can't portray them as not silly and annoying.

 

[Tonguez]

I know this is an unpopular opinion, but, I rather hope that the revised PHB drops gnomes in favor of another small race like kobolds. Just to give something else a chance to gain some traction. Don't make it impossible to be a gnome PC, of course. Keep the shorter race write up somewhere, but, I don't think it needs to be in the PHB. If gnomes haven't gained traction after fifty years in the PHB, maybe it's time to give something else a chance.

ducks and hides since the last time I floated this idea, I got massively dog piled on.

I’d be happier if they went full Fey, allowed Gnomes to be Tiny sized - also give them the dodge bonus, 4e reactive stealth And maybe misty step.

of course my favourite halflings are the Birthright Shadowwalker halflings who are refugees from the Shadow World, so yeah fey all round

 

[Seramus]

Dragonlance was extremely popular for a while, enough that the "reckless science gnome" trope became nearly ubiquitous for almost two decades. When groundbreaking games like Everquest came out, they used... reckless science gnomes. Then World of Warcraft followed them and became even more popular, and they used... reckless science gnomes. Etc.

These days the trope has settled down, but the general sense of barely being able to take them serious has lingered. The lack of clear racial identity has done them no favors dispelling this, it's just sort of fading over time like flatulence.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I don't see that view as being the reverse of what I said.

Tinker Gnomes and Garden Gnomes are two very different concepts. Likewise, the woodsy-elf type and the grey-fey elves were different concepts.

Breaking them into two different conceptual spaces is something I see as good. But, for me, I think having two broad categories would be fine; those two could be fine tuned with cultural choices and background choices.

Er...perhaps I explained myself poorly.

"Gnome" as a distinct ancestry would cease to exist. They would be part of an over-arching "hinnfolk" group, in the same way that (in 5e) metallic, gem, and chromatic are not totally distinct things, but individual variations on the fundamental "dragonborn" group.

My overall ancestry classification would make each ancestry have three or four options to choose from within that umbrella. (Humans would be the only one with three, though one of those would be "dual-blooded" people like half-elf, half-orc, aasimar, tiefling, etc. and would thus offer HUGE variety. I just couldn't come up with a fourth option for human beyond "regular everyday humans," "dual-bloodline humans," and "humans made Weird™ by living IN SPACE.")

 

[Argyle King]

Er...perhaps I explained myself poorly.

"Gnome" as a distinct ancestry would cease to exist. They would be part of an over-arching "hinnfolk" group, in the same way that (in 5e) metallic, gem, and chromatic are not totally distinct things, but individual variations on the fundamental "dragonborn" group.

My overall ancestry classification would make each ancestry have three or four options to choose from within that umbrella. (Humans would be the only one with three, though one of those would be "dual-blooded" people like half-elf, half-orc, aasimar, tiefling, etc. and would thus offer HUGE variety. I just couldn't come up with a fourth option for human beyond "regular everyday humans," "dual-bloodline humans," and "humans made Weird™ by living IN SPACE.")

Right, I get that.

That's still in line with what I was saying. Things are just arranged different.

For me, the idea is to still cut it down to what is basically 2: the country/nature version and the city/tinkery version. I think fine tuning either of those could be done with a cultural lens for a setting or a background choice.

I may have worded things poorly, but that's what I liked about what 4E did with elves. That Edition took a very broad and vaguely defined D&D concept and create space for two related but different concepts.

Personally, I'd also be okay with @Hussar suggested. Cut "gnome" from the PHB and put something else there. That's an idea which could co-exist with what you've said. If halflings and gnomes are combined into one idea, that allows space for including something else.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

Er...perhaps I explained myself poorly.

"Gnome" as a distinct ancestry would cease to exist. They would be part of an over-arching "hinnfolk" group, in the same way that (in 5e) metallic, gem, and chromatic are not totally distinct things, but individual variations on the fundamental "dragonborn" group.

My overall ancestry classification would make each ancestry have three or four options to choose from within that umbrella. (Humans would be the only one with three, though one of those would be "dual-blooded" people like half-elf, half-orc, aasimar, tiefling, etc. and would thus offer HUGE variety. I just couldn't come up with a fourth option for human beyond "regular everyday humans," "dual-bloodline humans," and "humans made Weird™ by living IN SPACE.")

Why not merge humans and elves into a "tallfolk" group as well?

 

[cbwjm]

They know what they did.

 

[Minigiant]

Dragonlance was extremely popular for a while, enough that the "reckless science gnome" trope became nearly ubiquitous for almost two decades. When groundbreaking games like Everquest came out, they used... reckless science gnomes. Then World of Warcraft followed them and became even more popular, and they used... reckless science gnomes. Etc.

These days the trope has settled down, but the general sense of barely being able to take them serious has lingered. The lack of clear racial identity has done them no favors dispelling this, it's just sort of fading over time like flatulence.

The other thing is most settings these days go full on integration of tinker-science or magic science that gnomes don't feel special or the setting has almost none of it to make gnomes near non-existent.

Either way, gnomes then either have to go full silly to stand out or full faulty to display why their ideas aren't accepted.

 

[CleverNickName]

Serious question, as I've seen a ton of people online that play D&D make jokes about Gnomes or say how much they hate them. More than Kender, actually.

So . . . what is it about Gnomes that makes people hate them so much? Or such easy targets for jokes online?

When I started playing D&D back in the 1980s, gnomes were monsters: they were listed in the Monsters section of the red box rulebook, and they were described as greedy, pointy-nosed dwarves that only cared about money. So that was my first, and lasting impression of gnomes...long before there was a such thing as a 'tinker' or an 'artificer.' Gnomes were cannon-fodder, moneygrubbing little dwarves that only wanted to rob or cheat you.

And that remains my impression of gnomes, and nothing has been able to change it. "Oh but they're good tunnel engineers," you might say. "They're really good at machines and metalwork, they're really clever craftsmen, they're..."

Let me finish that last sentence for you: they're dwarves.

"But but but illusions!" you will declare. "But forest magic, and nimble fingers, and..."

Sorry to interrupt, but you're just talking about a dwarf with levels of wizard, or druid, or rogue. This is not enough of a case to create an entire character race off of. If you simply cannot help yourself, if you absolutely cannot live without gnomes in your game for some reason, be honest with yourself and make them a subclass of dwarf. Because they're dwarves.