For the first time... apprehension

[VirgilCaine]

Indeed. D&D is sword-and-sorcery in the style of Robert E. Howard et al.

FAIL.

I've only read a few of Howard's original Conan stories, but I would best describe them as not D&D.

 

[Dormammu]

2) Moorecock - no dwarves, gnomes, orcs, halflings, goblins, and (arguably) no 'elves', no clerical magic, no cast and forget spells

Personally, I think the best way to make elves interesting is to make them more like Melnibonéans.

 

[Hairfoot]

I've only read a few of Howard's original Conan stories, but I would best describe them as not D&D.

So it's understandable that you would know nothing of his other, pulp, work, or the numerous authors and artists who come under "et al".

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

In the hands of a poor DM, you're right... the use of skill points in social/role playing skills only serves to make you a poor warrior. Clever use of skills by the DM, however, brings those skills to life and makes them desirable... further keeping the game well balanced and allowing a player to paint a fuller picture of who their character is. Gather information is one of my favorite skills, in fact, because its use has lead to many of the most memorable role playing encounters I've ever been a part of.

Ultimately, there has to be a mechanic that allows the character to be better at something than the player is. Without social skills, you can't have that.

You should take a look at the new "Full-Time Wizard" article on the Wizards website:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drcw/20071214

Apparently, the following skills are still in: Arcana, History, Diplomacy, and Insight. And there have been conversations elsewhere about how "social encounters" will be built up more, so that skills like Diplomacy and Insight are actually laid out in more detail.

What they seem to be removing are the "pure fluff" skills, like most of the Knowledge and Profession ones, which mostly end up being a way of penalizing players for taking their character backgrounds seriously.

 

[VirgilCaine]

So it's understandable that you would know nothing of his other, pulp, work, or the numerous authors and artists who come under "et al".

I...don't understand. If those other stories are anything like the original Conan stories, I would disagree with his statement, but I know that Conan =!= D&D.

 

[IanB]

The Conan stories match the feel and tone of a lot of games of D&D I've played a lot better than LOTR, but there's really quite a lot of both of them in D&D.

I'd say Fritz Leiber's stuff is the best "match" overall, personally.

For what it's worth, "I've only read a few..." isn't very solid ground to base your all-caps "FAIL" assessment on, I would say.

 

[dmccoy1693]

Wizards isn't tossing the gnome completely.

They're tossing it from the PHBI. That's enough. They reimagined elves for the PHBI. Why not Gnomes? Don't give them a good ability to hear, but a good ability to discern what's being said to them. Drop the +2 to listen and give them a +2 to sense motive (because now they are good at seeing past the illusion of lies). Maybe make them good performers instead of alchamists? A bonus to a perform skill instead of craft alchemy. Give them an ability bonus that'll make them good illusionists and bards, -2 Str, +2 Int, +2 Cha. Drop speak with borrowing animals entirely and make their CHA dependent illusions there regardless if their CHA is above a 10.

Hey, I think I just made gnomes good bards and illusionists.

 

[kennew142]

They're tossing it from the PHBI. That's enough. They reimagined elves for the PHBI. Why not Gnomes? Don't give them a good ability to hear, but a good ability to discern what's being said to them. Drop the +2 to listen and give them a +2 to sense motive (because now they are good at seeing past the illusion of lies). Maybe make them good performers instead of alchamists? A bonus to a perform skill instead of craft alchemy. Give them an ability bonus that'll make them good illusionists and bards, -2 Str, +2 Int, +2 Cha. Drop speak with borrowing animals entirely and make their CHA dependent illusions there regardless if their CHA is above a 10.

Hey, I think I just made gnomes good bards and illusionists.

I doubt that the designers couldn't make a better gnome. I think that marketing probably told them that gnomes aren't very popular, and that tieflings and a dragon-based race would be very popular. I don't really have a dog in this race, since I only play humans, but I have to say that I find gnomes be uninteresting. Not every race can be in PHB1. Just because a race has been in the PHB since the beginning shouldn't mean that it should be there in every future edition. The rules for playing gnomes will be in the MM, and the FR book, and the Eberron book. We've seen no evidence that gnomes will written out of those campaign books.

I personally would have rather seen changelings, shifters and warforged in PHB1. [Heck, they could have removed elves !]

No one is saying you can't play a gnome. Since the MM and the PHB are now coming out at the same time, you don't even have to wait.

 

[dmccoy1693]

I doubt that the designers couldn't make a better gnome.

I'm quite certain they could make a better gnome. But the fact of the matter is is that for the 3.5 PHB, they didn't. I'm just saying that its a self fulfulling prophesy. Make gnomes poorly in the 3.5 phb and they're not popular. Well, duh. If they made gnomes better, they'd be more popular.

Just because a race has been in the PHB since the beginning shouldn't mean that it should be there in every future edition.

At the heart of it all, this is where our differences reside. I feel that to staying true to the original is where the game belongs. (Same is true with Beowolf. I'm not such a fan of the new movie It wasn't true to original poem. The original poem, IMO, is one of the things that inspired LotR and OD&D and similar.)

The rules for playing gnomes will be in the MM, and the FR book, and the Eberron book. We've seen no evidence that gnomes will written out of those campaign books.

Have we actually received confirmation that gnomes will be in the FRCS and EbCS? Until I see confirmation that they'll be in those CS books, I'd sooner believe that the book will simply allow players to play what's in PHB 1-whatever. As far as them being in the MM, who cares if Gnomes are there if they make Gnomes bad again. They CAN makes gnomes good. Questions is: Will they? They have the capacity to make them good. Will they use that capacity?

 

[kennew142]

Have we actually received confirmation that gnomes will be in the FRCS and EbCS? Until I see confirmation that they'll be in those CS books, I'd sooner believe that the book will simply allow players to play what's in PHB 1-whatever. As far as them being in the MM, who cares if Gnomes are there if they make Gnomes bad again. They CAN makes gnomes good. Questions is: Will they? They have the capacity to make them good. Will they use that capacity?

I don't have the link handy, but we have been told that gnomes will still be part of Eberron, as will the nation they control and the dragonmark they alone carry.

I am assuming the same will hold true for the Forgotten Realms, although they have never been a really big part of that setting.