D&D General Why Do People Hate Gnomes?

[Micah Sweet]

Why should I care about what a rando on the street thinks about elves? D&D is a really personal game, that means different things for different people. We keep trying to find "the real" answer to things... that doesn't exist. Some people need their game to resonate with pop culture, others don't.

Maybe so, but a company publishing a game can't afford to devote attention to every "personal" game. The product needs to resonate with pop culture.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

This isn't true at all. Gnomes have a lot of representation in widely known myth, folklore, and stories. The problem is that D&D gnomes aren't mythological or folkloric gnomes at all.

I don't see how this is really any different from what I said. Would it have been better if I said "D&D-like gnomes"? "Elves" of some form exist all over the place in myth, but "elves" as they appear in D&D were basically invented by Tolkien, so...I figured that was sort of a given.

Even apart from that though, gnomes really aren't THAT common in mythology. In fact, "gnome" proper doesn't even appear in mythology at all; the term was invented by Paracelsus in the late 16th century, from the Latin gnomus, thought to be an accidental corruption of genomos, "living in the earth" or "earth-dweller." As a result, gnomes were essentially unknown to even folklore until the 19th century, at which point they were pretty much already the "garden gnome" shape and presentation we're familiar with today (often including the red, peaked hats.) Even where they appeared, they were essentially just a synonym for all the other words for "little people," e.g. leprechaun, fairy, goblin, brownie, sprite, and elves, since that term meant little beings like Thumbelina or Tom Thumb before Tolkien completely reinvented it.

 

[Yaarel]

I equate "gnomes" with the Scandinavian tomte/nisse.

These are a kind of nature being. However, they are explicitly human-oriented rather than wilderness-oriented. They are the consciousness of a human house or other human structure (including mine or ship).

In this sense, the tomte/nisse resemble the British hob/brownie that is a house sprite.

Hence, the gnomes are super-domestic and become part of the home that they inhabit. Heh, they are somewhat like a "smart home" monitoring everything. They usually inhabit a house that humans already occupy! Then they get engrossed in human house and farm activities. The gnomes often use magic to help out if they like the occupants of the house. They often look after the animals in the home or farm.

I would probably combine gnome and halfling, with the understanding that the gnome are fey and the halfling are material with fey ancestry.

Normally, the gnomes inhabit a material home while dwelling in the feywild version of the home. But halfling roommates are also a thing.

Even when halflings form autonomous communities, they still like being part of a human town.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Frankly I'd eat halflings up before gnomes. Halflings don't talk to small animals or live in mushroom houses, but that's gnomish stuff. The gnomish subraces have differences between them, whereas the halfling ones are just stat differences at most to the point they're basically half-elf and half-dwarf, halfling edition. We want to consume the more unique race and put it in that why? We literately could just throw out two whole ones and just make a single 'Halfling' race, plus why are Ghostwise halflings even halflings? They're gnomes. Small fey creatures talking to animals? How is that not fey?

You're talking about a race being "unique" as if that is in and of itself a strength rather than a weakness. If they are unique it means that they aren't that popular and no one else wants that space and although this may be justifiable for e.g. plasmids it means that for a humanoid race they are very niche.

The gnomish subraces having differences between them is partly because forest gnomes are just halflings and partly because there is no thematic consistency and coherence to them. They aren't there because they are wanted. They are there because people are scrabbling around for something, anything, to do with gnomes because they've been in D&D since the beginning when they were off-brand dwarves. And once we've thrown off-brand dwarf out of the gnomish archetype pretty much all we have left is off-brand halfling and one note joke race that would be far better worldbuilding tied to a specific fantasy university (or even to a specific subclass) than it is by making one of the subraces into a risible self-destructive monoculture.

If we look at the existing gnome subraces in 5e we only have three (plus the mark of scribing). In the PHB we have the thematically unrelated discount halflings of the forest gnomes, and the bad joke of the rock gnomes. And then we have deep gnomes who just have better darkvision and better hiding by rocks. Once they stopped making underdark races more powerful there should have been no reason for them to be a separate subrace other than that both the core subraces are so bad.

The interesting thing about gnomes popularity in 5e is that they are one of the most powerful races in the game thanks to their magic resistance - and despite that they are the consistently least popular PHB race. The most popular gnome subrace (rock gnomes) are based on a bad joke that's bad worldbuilding, and I can't even find Forest Gnomes on the list at all. Deep Gnomes are more popular because they aren't just halflings. So if we removed one core subrace then the game's worldbuilding would be improved - and if we removed the second core subrace no one at all would care. And Deep Gnomes are at least something.

 

[Mecheon]

You're talking about a race being "unique" as if that is in and of itself a strength rather than a weakness. If they are unique it means that they aren't that popular and no one else wants that space and although this may be justifiable for e.g. plasmids it means that for a humanoid race they are very niche.

mate, did you not see the amount of 'SLIME PEOPLE' madness that folks on the internet went for Plasmids? Folks gonna go crazy for them once Spelljammer's out

The gnomish subraces having differences between them is partly because forest gnomes are just halflings and partly because there is no thematic consistency and coherence to them. They aren't there because they are wanted. They are there because people are scrabbling around for something, anything, to do with gnomes because they've been in D&D since the beginning when they were off-brand dwarves. And once we've thrown off-brand dwarf out of the gnomish archetype pretty much all we have left is off-brand halfling and one note joke race that would be far better worldbuilding tied to a specific fantasy university (or even to a specific subclass) than it is by making one of the subraces into a risible self-destructive monoculture.

Here's the problem though, gnomes have a bit of an identity, its just WotC won't lean into it harder.
Forest gnomes are your David the Gnomes. They should just be able to talk to all animals because, why not? Really gonna be a danger to talk to a bear?
Rock gnomes are you tinkers, and consumed the tinker gnome in its entirity. Just, lean into that. I mean, they could be with, Spelljammer and Autognomes being a race there
Deep gnomes are the one friendly Underdark race with camo powers

What are the gimmicks for halflings? Describe Tallfellows or Stouts without using "Elves" or "Dwarves", because you could literately just call them "Half-elf halfling" and "Half-dwarf halfling" and nothing would change. When two of the longest lasting subraces of something barely have any identity to them, is the soltuion really to break apart the other thing that at least has some identity? As mentioned earlier, I give Ghostwise their originality (well, i mean, they're just Elfquest elves and frankly should have been elves just because, but, whatever), but when 'Faerun specific random subrace'

You can come up with multiple gnomish villages and have each feel unique. 90% of what I've seen for Halflings is "Its the shire, again" or "Its the halfling mafia, again"

If we look at the existing gnome subraces in 5e we only have three (plus the mark of scribing). In the PHB we have the thematically unrelated discount halflings of the forest gnomes, and the bad joke of the rock gnomes. And then we have deep gnomes who just have better darkvision and better hiding by rocks. Once they stopped making underdark races more powerful there should have been no reason for them to be a separate subrace other than that both the core subraces are so bad.

mate. Its Dungeons and Dragons. The series that, after the good-in-idea, bad-in-execution first race idea, decided that the second most evil race they could make for the Book of Vile Darkness was "Halflings but they're jerks". The series with five different frog people, three of who are evil. New races and stuff to play is what people want and what people actively seek out

The interesting thing about gnomes popularity in 5e is that they are one of the most powerful races in the game thanks to their magic resistance - and despite that they are the consistently least popular PHB race. The most popular gnome subrace (rock gnomes) are based on a bad joke that's bad worldbuilding, and I can't even find Forest Gnomes on the list at all. Deep Gnomes are more popular because they aren't just halflings. So if we removed one core subrace then the game's worldbuilding would be improved - and if we removed the second core subrace no one at all would care. And Deep Gnomes are at least something.

Halflings have lucky. Like, if we're talking 'powerful races', Halflings have Lucky. Also if talking powerful stuff, I'd be putting the original Yuan-Ti and Satyr's proper magic resistance well before gnomes

Also, I doubt the worldbuilding would be removed from removing one longstanding race, and we have a blatent showing of such given how much people complained about gnomes being gone in 4E. Remember? They tried to remove gnomes, and people complained. Roll them into halflings, something that are characterised as nothing more than just tiny humans and have nothing to do with gnomes outside of being short? People will absolutely complain further.

Frankly, I think you'd improve the worldbuilding far more by removing Half Orcs and adding in Goblins and Orcs as core races because then you get your scrunkos and a bruiser race that doesn't have the half-orc's baggage

(Also, as for why D&D's maligned gnomes for so long, my go-to on such is always going to be the sheer avoidance they ever did of ever mentioning fey in the past. Mind, may have been the attitude at the time given nowerdays 'Terrifying fey lord' is something of respect)

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Here's the problem though, gnomes have a bit of an identity, its just WotC won't lean into it harder.

Why would they? What's the benefit?

 

[Yora]

Yeah. I understand that Halflings have to be in D&D because of Tradition and Tolkien, but Gnomes have a far more interesting niche than Gnomes. Halflings are just short humans with a few minor kender mechanics bolted on. Gnomes are the non-Tolkienesque folklore elves/dwarves. They're helpful fey spirits that tinker and dabble in magic.

I've long been thinking that having both halflings and gnomes in the same campaign is redundant.

And gnomes are clearly the better of the two. Halflings have the thing wherenthey are thieves, and that's literally their only thing. And thief is a class, not a race.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

On the subject of the power of racial features vs popularity of the associated race, there's basically no correlation, and it's trivially easy to prove.

Halflings with their luck barely hit the top 8 (and that only if you lump together subraces), and gnomes don't even crack the top 10. Meanwhile, PHB-standard dragonborn are among the weakest options in the game, significantly lower than every other PHB option. (The Fizban's updated Metallic/Chromatic/Gem options are a significant improvement, but we've never seen any data on how much they've been played, as Fizban's is much more recent than the most recent D&D Beyond statistics.) Yet dragonborn have essentially only grown in popularity across 5e's lifespan; the above chart is not the most recent one, which showed dragonborn had overtaken tieflings.

Meanwhile, half-elves are one of the most baseline powerful races, being one of the only races that offers +2/+1/+1, and giving extra skills and other benefits. They've also been consistently the third-most popular individual option (behind standard human and variant human) for essentially the game's entire run. (If you lump subraces together, IIRC half-elf is slightly behind Elves collectively. But it's never been out of the top 5, no matter how you slice things.)

Popularity of ancestry options in 5e has no clear relationship to the power of those options. It's mostly what people think sounds pretty cool.

 

[Neonchameleon]

mate, did you not see the amount of 'SLIME PEOPLE' madness that folks on the internet went for Plasmids? Folks gonna go crazy for them once Spelljammer's out

I didn't say plasmids were a bad thing. They aren't. Plasmids are where unique is a good thing.

Gnomes being "unique" on the other hand is because they are a disparate collection of traits. Forest gnomes are irrelevant wannabe halflings. And rock gnomes are watered down tinker gnomes. The only things you can do with forest gnomes you can't with halflings are ultra-specific and rock gnomes should be a background. It's unique in that it's an odd, spiky shaped piece.

Here's the problem though, gnomes have a bit of an identity, its just WotC won't lean into it harder.

So they don't have an identity. You just wish they did.

Forest gnomes are your David the Gnomes. They should just be able to talk to all animals because, why not? Really gonna be a danger to talk to a bear?

Translation: if you make gnomes more gonzo than they have ever been and give them powers they have never previously had which actively dilute their thematic connect to their roots you might be able to forge an identity for them. There's a reason it's burrowing mammals for the earth elementals.

Rock gnomes are you tinkers, and consumed the tinker gnome in its entirity. Just, lean into that. I mean, they could be with, Spelljammer and Autognomes being a race there

Which is entirely unrelated to forest gnomes. But the tedious joke that is Tinker Gnomes should not be core - they should be restricted to Dragonlance and Gonzo settings like Spelljammer. Tinker Gnomes screw up worldbuilding by being a one note joke. They admittedly are only the third worst race in the Krynn Quarantine Zone (kender and gully dwarves being 1 and 2)

So now we've shown that the only vaguely popular gnomes do not belong in the core but are very setting specific then we have them in the right place. Out of core. Or you can have them in core as a race that's basically a background.

Deep gnomes are the one friendly Underdark race with camo powers

And if we were to make them a subspecies of halflings not one thing of value would be lost. They're small, they're friendly, they are good at hiding, and they are overmatched.

What are the gimmicks for halflings?

That you are even asking the question shows the problem. Gnomes are all gimmick, zero substance. Halflings meanwhile are small overmatched everyman characters who are good at hiding because most of them need to stay out of the way.

Describe Tallfellows or Stouts without using "Elves" or "Dwarves",

Stouts are classic second breakfast enjoying hobbits known for their love of food and enjoy eating. And are able to eat a wide range of things, whether because they've scrabbled for food or simply enjoy a more varied diet than most. And lightfoots are halflings pushed to the margins and who excel at hiding and staying hidden from larger, more dangerous foes.

Tallfellows meanwhile are lightfoots who have a little non-halfling ancestry. For all their claims of who the tall stranger was it was probably a human. After all humans are cross-fertile with everyone else. More importantly Tallfellows aren't directly in 5e as a subrace so they are irrelevant. And yes I agree that Tallfellows were never deserving of being a subrace.

Halflings are a race with substance. Gnomes just have gimmicks - and you want to change gnomes to full Dr. Doolittle

When two of the longest lasting subraces

Objection. Tallfellows have gone. Yes there was just about nothing to them.

Meanwhile gnomes have been desperately scrabbling for an identity and there is no thematic coherence between the subraces.

You can come up with multiple gnomish villages and have each feel unique.

And if you try can do the same for halflings. But it's easier to have uniqueness when you're lacking in coherence and identity.

New races and stuff to play is what people want and what people actively seek out

We have the numbers. And no it isn't for the overwhelming majority.

Also, I doubt the worldbuilding would be removed from removing one longstanding race, and we have a blatent showing of such given how much people complained about gnomes being gone in 4E.

A trivial amount. Anything, true or false, was used to complain about 4e.

Remember? They tried to remove gnomes, and people complained. Roll them into halflings, something that are characterised as nothing more than just tiny humans and have nothing to do with gnomes outside of being short? People will absolutely complain further.

So the reason to keep gnomes is that a tiny disgruntled minority will complain about the removal of the most superfluous and least popular race in D&D. OK.

Frankly, I think you'd improve the worldbuilding far more by removing Half Orcs and adding in Goblins and Orcs as core races because then you get your scrunkos and a bruiser race that doesn't have the half-orc's baggage

Agreed that this would be a good change. And goblins could soak up what was left of gnomish identity without trouble. Goblin tinkers are a classic. And why goblin tinkers are vastly better than tinker gnomes is that no one even tried to pretend there's an entire one note joke subrace of them which means that although they can be almost as annoying they don't have the worldbuilding issues.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I've long been thinking that having both halflings and gnomes in the same campaign is redundant.

And gnomes are clearly the better of the two. Halflings have the thing wherenthey are thieves, and that's literally their only thing. And thief is a class, not a race.

Gnomes are clearly the worse of the two, both empirically (they are less popular) and thematically (being barely related to each other).

And no, thief isn't halflings' only thing although it is a popular combination. If we look at the old 538 stats from D&D beyond then about 1 in every 3.5 halflings was a rogue ... and 1 in every 3.5 gnomes was a wizard. Halflings were more popular than gnomes in every class except wizard, warlock, and druid - and despite it being the 3.5 gnome's favoured class halfling bards were twice as popular as gnome bards.