Give me choices!

[TerraDave]

Gnome as a word doesn't exist in the Nordic languages with that meaning. Elves are male fairies in the folklore and a magical people in the sagas (very little is known from those sources except that regular elves are good and dark elves are blackskinned, live under the earth and are evil. They also like crafting so some people believe that dark elves (svartalver) and dwarves might be the same thing). Dwarves are creatures that live underground, crafting stuff. At least one dwarf was strong enough to kill a god so they are powerful in the sagas. In the folklore dwarves aren't mentioned much but they are generally mean and magical. Nisse, as you call it, are more often refered to as Tomte. Those are grumpy, small, fey like creatures that help you out with your farm if you give them food and ruins stuff for you if you don't.

As you can see, neither the name or any of the examples that you gave have any connection in Nordic folklore. Also, no creature in Nordic folklore is like the D&D gnome.

This is coming from "to which the name has been applied" in my post?

Not really my point, but ok.

People translate nisse and tomte as "gnome"--I am not making it up. Tolkien wrote early stories with the word "gnome", and they where not alchemical spirits. Again, there is that Gnomes book...Gnome is used, in English, to refer to certain creatures from western european folklore. "Gnomes" have a mythological basis.

No creature has an exact D&D corespondence. And how they are translated can be...interesting...but that is another story.

And beside: "small grumpy fey", what is wrong with that?

 

[med stud]

This is coming from "to which the name has been applied" in my post?

Not really my point, but ok.

People translate nisse and tomte as "gnome"--I am not making it up. Tolkien wrote early stories with the word "gnome", and they where not alchemical spirits. Again, there is that Gnomes book...Gnome is used, in English, to refer to certain creatures from western european folklore. "Gnomes" have a mythological basis.

No creature has an exact D&D corespondence. And how they are translated can be...interesting...but that is another story.

And beside: "small grumpy fey", what is wrong with that?

I answered to this point:

D&D gnomes tap both alchemy and folklore origins.

My counterpoint was that D&D gnome has no foundation in Norse folklore. Even if dwarves, elves and tomtar are translated to "gnome" in English, none of the three creatures have anything in common with the D&D gnome.

If Great Britain myths, though, have gnomes that are big nosed, talks with animals and live in burrows, then D&D gnomes have mythological origins. Otherwise I think the D&D gnome has Gygax foundations. Nothing wrong with that but it would be false to state that the D&D gnome deserves some kind of respect for it's mythological foundations.

 

[med stud]

And Dragonborn have a better PC race background?

The have a higher "cool" factor than the gnome, granted. But Dragonborn as a Core PC race in the corest of core books, the PHB?

I rather think that instead of an "identity crisis" the reason why th gnome and half orc (again) got shucked out was to replace them with the "cooler" races of Dragonborn and Tiefling.

It would have been easy to come up with sound mechanics AND sound fluff for both races (see Whizbangs idea or the Gnomes in Midnight or Dragonlance).

But cool sells better and therefore Gnomes are out.

First of all, I don't see why you shouldn't replace the gnome with a race with a "cool"-factor.

Second, the main problem with gnomes in D&D is that dwarves and elves leave no natural place for the gnomes to be. The elves are the nature- loving magic geniuses, dwarves are the underground mastercraftsmen. The gnome as in 3.0 has no real role to fill. You can construct a role for them but then it (IMO) makes more sense to bring in another race that you don't have to shoehorn into something.

 

[MerricB]

If each class uses the same progression, can wear the same armour, can hit on the same number, can use "powers" or "spells" that are effectively equivilent....how does this lead to a stronger distinction between classes?

Because not every class can wear the same armour, hit on the same number, or use powers that are equivalent.

Armour
In AD&D, it is legal for wizards to wear platemail if they are a multiclass elf fighter/wizard. Same thing applies in 4e. Human Wizards won't wear platemail without needing to specialise in it first - which will diminish their power in other areas.

Hit on the same number
This is an interesting one. I can pretty much guarantee that a Fighter will be better at hitting an Orc with a sword than a Wizard will with the same weapon.

However, to make it more interesting, opponents now have _four_ defense values: AC, Ref, Fort & Will.

I expect the Fighter will be attacking (most often) AC and Fort; the Wizard the Ref and Will.

So, their total bonuses with their primary attack forms may be the same (Fighter gets +10 to attack AC, Wizard gets +10 to attack Will), but because the defense values are different, they have differing effectiveness against different monsters.

Powers have same effects
Where do you get that from?

Wizard casts fireball. Attacks Reflex, and deals 3d6+5 (or half) damage to several opponents.

Fighter swings sword. Attacks AC, and deals 2d6+20 (or none) damage to one opponent.

Not seeing the overlap in the effect.

That you don't need a cleric just means that Ability Drain isn't something you need Restoration (something that only a 7th level cleric can cast) to fix any more.

Cheers!

 

[JamesP]

The most interesting campaign I played was a swashbuckling airship pirate campaign where everyone made and brought their characters in advance. Everyone made some rogue or rogue like character. Everyone had d6'es and skill points out the ass. Nobody could heal. It was the most amusing game I've ever played, and we didnt even miss the cleric.

That sounds like soooo much fun!

I love making absurd (in a good way) parties like that (think lizardman mercenaries). In my experience, they haven't lasted long (the party of halfling monks springs to mind), but have worked as a great distraction from another more serious campaign.

 

[Raven Crowking]

What about levels? The so-called sweet spot spread throughout the whole gamut of D&D levels means the math has been altered so that it feels the same in terms of probabilities. So there's a danger that all levels end up feeling the same, apart of the fact you throw four orbs of fire instead of a magic missile (assuming of course the meteor swarm still exists... ).

4E makes me think of the Incredibles: "If everyone's special... no one is."

That isn't a problem that I have, but I do think that 4e is headed toward a more homogenous experience than 3e, which in turn was a more homogenous experience than 1e or 2e.

Older editions took the view that different classes should have different "approaches" to the game....a magic user simply could not and should not mix it up in combat like a fighter. I have a hard time with classes that allow every class to do every thing while at the same time declaring that they have greater differences.

If you start with "This class is unfun because you have to wait while the X does Y, so you should be able to do Y, too" I very much doubt that you're going to end up with greater levels of distinction.

RC

 

[med stud]

That isn't a problem that I have, but I do think that 4e is headed toward a more homogenous experience than 3e, which in turn was a more homogenous experience than 1e or 2e.

Older editions took the view that different classes should have different "approaches" to the game....a magic user simply could not and should not mix it up in combat like a fighter. I have a hard time with classes that allow every class to do every thing while at the same time declaring that they have greater differences.

If you start with "This class is unfun because you have to wait while the X does Y, so you should be able to do Y, too" I very much doubt that you're going to end up with greater levels of distinction.
RC

The problem is when the game is mostly about combat. The combat rules in D&D are the most detailed rules in the game and combats generally take longer time than skill uses so as long as there is a combat in a session, combat will get more screen time than, for example, burglaries. In that case it makes sense that all classes can do something during combat.

 

[Imaro]

My thing is...aren't the different approaches to combat what make the classes...well different? I guess what I'm saying is, if you want to approach combat, and even the game, in a certain fashion...then don't you pick the class that best suits that approach?When I play a rogue or wizard I don't expect to be able to go toe to toe with an ogre in melee and not get creamed. Just like when I pick a fighter, I don't expect to be able to hurl area attacks or find ancient traps. If I can do these things, I expect to have to make a major sacrifice to step on the toes of another class.

 

[Badkarmaboy]

I'm not sure I see how "more defined class roles" leads to a more homogenized experience or one unified class with talent trees as Raven Crowking put forth (not sure if you were joking, sorry).

Come February we should have some answers, good and ill. D&D Experience will have 4E available for play in the form of Living Forgotten Realms introductory adventures.

 

[Raven Crowking]

The problem is when the game is mostly about combat. The combat rules in D&D are the most detailed rules in the game and combats generally take longer time than skill uses so as long as there is a combat in a session, combat will get more screen time than, for example, burglaries. In that case it makes sense that all classes can do something during combat.

The combat rules have always been the most detailed rules in the game, and yet the game has not always been "about" combat in the way 3e (and, apparently 4e) make it out to be. 1e and 2e were very much about exploration, and you could optomize a character (especially in 2e) for all sorts of non-combative things.

It seems to me that the basic unit of 1e was the setting itself (such as a dungeon). Thus, each of the classes needed to contribute toward exploration of the setting. The thief could climb walls, the wizard could find the path, the cleric could tell you whether pulling that lever would bring weal or woe. And, while the game system itself may have had rough patches, the approach that the game system took, in 1e and prior to 1e, was (IMHO) the best approach any edition of D&D has ever taken.

When you make one facet of the game all-important, by necessity you limit diversity. When Imaro says,

I guess what I'm saying is, if you want to approach combat, and even the game, in a certain fashion...then don't you pick the class that best suits that approach?When I play a rogue or wizard I don't expect to be able to go toe to toe with an ogre in melee and not get creamed. Just like when I pick a fighter, I don't expect to be able to hurl area attacks or find ancient traps.​

that, in and of itself, assumes that something other than going toe to toe with an ogre is melee is equally valid, equally fun, and is given roughly the same weight by the game. Designing a game where everyone is equal in all ways is a step away from improving the game, not a step forward, from my point of view.

RC