Give me choices!

[Waylander the Slayer]

In reverse order:

Because the paladin can still smite an enemy while giving a bonus to an ally. That way, he doesn't have to give up his attack to use his spells.

Yes. Bards, for example. Fighters at high levels. I could go on.

Yes. Particularly the cleric and druid, which were capable of doing the fighter and ranger's jobs better than the fighter and ranger.

Classes in previous editions could be built in multiple ways. For instance, the archer cleric, or the lightly armored, skirmishing fighter. Most of these builds (except the ones involving clerics and druids) were sub-optimal.

What's the distinct flavor of gnomes? How are they not a mixed-up hodgepodge combining elements of dwarves, elves, and halflings? The more similar races you have, the greater the possibility of confusing overlap. More to the point, with open access to all classes, halflings and gnomes were just TOO similar. And if you need more evidence, there was even a Nodwick strip discussing the ridiculous similarity among the short races.

If someone can give me an example of distinctive flavor for "gnomes" that doesn't immediately invoke either "villain" or "comic relief," I want to hear it. And until that happens, the gnome race lacks a meaningful niche.

So giving up an attack to use spells is "allowing someone else to have fun at your expense?" OK, I guess then all classes should be fully self sufficient and be able to do everything. Oh wait, what's the point of having a party? So a paladin who forgoes his attack, even to his own jeapordy to lay on hands on a party member is getting shitted on?

What exactly does open access to all classes mean? You state that the halfling and gnome are "too similar." How so? Other than height? How is a gnome a villain or comic relief? Are they naturally written to be comedians? Are illusionists comedians? Are they naturally stated somewhere to be villains? So what exactly is a humans nitche according to you?

What exactly are you basing "your sub-optimal" build comments on? Do you compete at the table for whose character is "optimal"? Maybe try to kill other party members in PvP combat? What? Again, how is this all "having fun at the other guys expense?" It sounds more like a player issue rather than anything else.

 

[Waylander the Slayer]

Indeed. I've no problem with optional support characters in theory.

The problem is the practice of requiring every group have a cleric... when the group doesn't have someone who wants to play one. It's the biggest problem with 3e. If you don't have a cleric in a 3e group, you are really in trouble.

Cheers!

So is this a prediction that 4E will not "require" certain core builds?

 

[Wolfspider]

Indeed. I've no problem with optional support characters in theory.

The problem is the practice of requiring every group have a cleric... when the group doesn't have someone who wants to play one. It's the biggest problem with 3e. If you don't have a cleric in a 3e group, you are really in trouble.

Cheers!

See my above post. The party I am running just added a cleric last week. No one played a cleric in the seven years before that. (And the cleric they now have is a priestess of Wee Jas and not really the healing kind. If you interrupt her and tell her to heal you, she'll tell you where you can stick that wand of cure light wounds.)

 

[Patlin]

Mentioned gnomes getting the axe to my wife a minute ago she had an interesting comment.

Wife: I can only think of one person who ever played a gnome anyway, Steve.
Me: You've played a gnome.
Wife: Oh yeah, that's true... but only for the +2 Con.

Nothing special about the Gnome, then, as far as she's concerned. Might as well be a short human with a few extra hit points. I'd have to agree with Merric on that point.

 

[Wolfspider]

Mentioned gnomes getting the axe to my wife a minute ago she had an interesting comment.

Wife: I can only think of one person who ever played a gnome anyway, Steve.
Me: You've played a gnome.
Wife: Oh yeah, that's true... but only for the +2 Con.

Nothing special about the Gnome, then, as far as she's concerned. Might as well be a short human with a few extra hit points. I'd have to agree with Merric on that point.

If we're going to keep with the anectdotal evidence here, every player in my group has had a gmomish PC at one point. We love them.

My favorite was Gillas Touchstone, a foppish dandy of a bard. Sigh. The good ol' days.

 

[MerricB]

So is this a prediction that 4E will not "require" certain core builds?

They've said as much.

Cheers!

 

[Waylander the Slayer]

So how exactly are halflings any different? They are short humans, they even look like short humans, or overweight short humans. And dwarves, they are overweight short humans with bad tempers and beards. The only distinction is the +2 con, really.

 

[Scholar & Brutalman]

In 1E, Gnomes were sort of like dwarves, except they had some illusionists.
In 2E, Gnomes were illusionists - but illusionists were weak magic-users.
In 3E, Gnomes were sort of like dwarves or elves, except not.
In 3.5E, Gnomes were good bards.

I think the tinker/artificier gnome is a good identity, but it has a mechanical problem - if you present a race that can make lots of cool toys, you need to provide rules for how players can make those cool toys. I suspect that might be why the full gnome write-up will be in a later PHB, along with an Artifice power source.

I'm puzzled as to why the half-elf seems to have made a return since Races and Classes, which reportedly doesn't mention them at all. There's another race with no flavour - where did the "inspirational leader" stuff come from?

As for half-orc, the "child of rape" thing was always a bother to me (though why that's rarely mentioned with half-elves I don't know), and the race didn't have much going for it otherwise.

I think a new edition is exactly the right time for underperforming game elements to be removed from core, so I approve of Wizards' changes. Why they seem to have put the half-elf back in though...

 

[MerricB]

Be careful not to confuse your personal experience with combat in D&D3.5 with everyone's experience. For example, I never in 7 years of heavy play ever observed a single combat that went the way you described. Characters loaded up on healing potions and healed themselves in combat when they needed it and let the cleric blast away along with the wizard.

Indeed, but I dare say that my anecdote has been repeated substantially amongst gaming groups.

Certainly the Bard casting Haste and using Bard Song as their first two actions - that's been seen very often indeed.

Cheers!

 

[Waylander the Slayer]

They've said as much.

Cheers!

I'd love to see the party with a warlock, wizard, sorcerer and rogue.