D&D 5E Bring Back Gnomes!

[Neonchameleon]

I disagree that they are too much like dwarves or elves; they have an identity all their own. (The mere fact that both similarities are argued should be a clue.) Though I will agree that the nerfing of Illusionists in 2e was a major disappointment that affected them sorely.

Not really. 1e gnomes were in what is now the wood elf niche as elves expanded with about fifty different subraces. 3e gnomes were dwarf wannabes (underground rather than forest dwelling, speak with burrowing animal, dwarflike crafting). It's separate concepts because the elves took the gnomes homeland until 4e. And in 3.5 as if the gnomes weren't the butt of enough jokes they made them have their favoured class as the most mocked class: the bard. (Yes, bards rock - sometimes literally - but they were definitely mocked).

 

[bogmad]

The races seem pretty simple to home-brew. Anyone have any write-ups for what they'd like to see with gnomes?

 

[Viking Bastard]

I'll echo the gnome love. I think they have a fairly solid archetype, as the non-Tolkien dwarf.

 

[Stormonu]

Having run B/X for the first few years of my D&D career, I wouldn't miss them much - they've been unevenly and ill-defined for a long time. That said, my play group constantly uses them so it'd be a strike against going to 5E if they weren't in core.

 

[steeldragons]

Maybe because I've spent the most time in 1e (and 2e), but I've really never understood the anti-gnome sentiments...or "gnomism," if you will. ;P

Can't say I've seen tons in play...or played many myself (I did have one that was a particularly lot of fun). But there was never any thought or discussion on "they're too close to dwarves" or "they're just short wood elves" or whatever. They were gnomes. They were around. Nobody minded. Some had fun.

Why they somehow, now, just don't match up/warrant being a core PC race, I don't get.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Please allow a minority report: gnomes have become kender in drag; they can afford to wait for a supplement.

Though if we have to add races to the PHB beyond the typical human/elf/dwarf/halfling/half-elf, I'd prefer gnomes and half-orcs over dragonborn, tieflings, or other recent arrivals.

 

[GX.Sigma]

Mike Mearls on "the gnome effect:"

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20110322

 

[Sunseeker]

Gnomes and Halflings(who are already in but bear with me) fall into the same hole for me. What makes them unique other than being a short version of an existing race? Halflings are basically short humans. Their society, their lives, their livelyhood are all basically human. How are Gonmes not just short elves? They're fey, they're magically inclined, they're more practical jokers than arcane masters, but they're just as much tree-huggers. What do they really have that defines them?

Dwarves have different society, different livelyhoods, different outlooks on life. Same applies to elves when you compare these races to humans. What's worse though is that none of these races are distinctive.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Dwarves have different society, different livelyhoods, different outlooks on life. Same applies to elves when you compare these races to humans. What's worse though is that none of these races are distinctive.

Which race are the tall dwarves?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Looking back to the European lore that gave D&D creatures like elves, gnomes, dwarves, gnomes, goblins, etc.- many of which were interchangeable*- the problem with gnomes in D&D becomes clear: by and large, when given an opportunity to include a creature of that kind, the designers tended to default to "elves".

IOW, its not that gnomes can't be cool, its that elves got most of the cool bits that could have gone to other races, gnomes included.







* this is the Transitivity of Fey