Give me choices!

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

That always really disturbed me. I certainly don't see their race as being entertainment specialists.

Do you see them as generalists who are familiar with magic, love talking to other races, are proficient with enchantments and illusions and are full of obscure facts?

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Does your group have a clear common understanding of what a typical Gnome is? I'm interested to hear it, because I can't even picture a gnomish town. The images of gnomes are so inconsistent nothing seems to stand out.

They're not inconsistent, they're almost non-existent. (They appear in vastly more books than dragonborn or tieflings, though.)

Since halflings are now and apparently forevermore kender-lite, I'd say starting with Hobbiton, but hiding it behind illusions and tricks of clever geography, guarded by animals as well as hidden gnomish sentries, is a good way to start.

 

[Scribble]

This sort of thing is only possible in the beginning of an edition. If you keep coming out with more and more classes with the additional books, there tends to be less space for each of the classes to have their own thing. It's probably good that they're starting out with this intention, but it can't last.

Eh I think that all depends on how well the multi classing system works in my opinion. But then again, maybe you're right...

My only worry so far, is that while each class will have it's own unique powers and abilities... they'll all be "the same," just with different colored paint.

By that I mean, if every character gets an ability styled out like the paladin smites... What's really the difference aside from the type of powers, and flavor of said powers?

Green fire ball, red fire ball, purple fire ball... in the end they all do 1d6/level*


* Prior to 4e, that is...

 

[KingCrab]

Do you see them as generalists who are familiar with magic, love talking to other races, are proficient with enchantments and illusions and are full of obscure facts?

Definitely moreso than as bards. I started my first serious game in 1st edition so I'll probably always see them as being connected to illusion. I don't see gnomes as rock stars though.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Definitely moreso than as bards. I started my first serious game in 1st edition so I'll probably always see them as being connected to illusion. I don't see gnomes as rock stars though.

I just described a bard who doesn't use bardic music.

Music, incidentally, isn't required to use "bardic music":

While these abilities fall under the category of bardic music and the descriptions discuss singing or playing instruments, they can all be activated by reciting poetry, chanting, singing lyrical songs, singing melodies, whistling, playing an instrument, or playing an instrument in combination with some spoken performance.]

A gnomish storyteller who uses illusions and enchantments and knows lots of strange lore and is forever telling funny stories and posing puzzling riddles is a bard under 3.5.

It works fine, once you file off the name "bard" and just look at what the class consists of.

 

[KingCrab]

I just described a bard who doesn't use bardic music.

Music, incidentally, isn't required to use "bardic music":

A gnomish storyteller who uses illusions and enchantments and knows lots of strange lore and is forever telling funny stories and posing puzzling riddles is a bard under 3.5.

It works fine, once you file off the name "bard" and just look at what the class consists of.

You're right, though most of the forms they list do involve music of some sort. It's only poetry or chanting that's left. I guess they could chant strange lore or make it rhyme if they tried, but the image doesn't really work in my head. And I still see gnomes tied to illusion and not so much to enchantment.

What do you see as distinguishing the gnome from the other races?

 

[MerricB]

Eh I think that all depends on how well the multi classing system works in my opinion. But then again, maybe you're right...

My only worry so far, is that while each class will have it's own unique powers and abilities... they'll all be "the same," just with different colored paint.

By that I mean, if every character gets an ability styled out like the paladin smites... What's really the difference aside from the type of powers, and flavor of said powers?

Green fire ball, red fire ball, purple fire ball... in the end they all do 1d6/level*

Indeed: a worthy concern.

My feeling is that you'll *definitely* see differences in the way the classes operate.

As a simple example: consider the wizard casting a mass-effect spell, and the warrior hitting a creature for a lot, and the rogue darting in, hitting once, then darting back.

Each is effective, but each is effective in a different way.

I expect we'll see a lot less of "I do exactly what you do, but worse"... which pretty much covered the bard, and possibly the monk. Second best in everything should be something of the past.

Cheers!

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Third post in this archive. Too much to cram into a sig, sorry.

And all of this is being used in practice, not just in theory. I play a gnome illusionist/bard/gnome paragon this way in a Ptolus game, and in the game I run, there's two player character gnomes and a gnome settlement based on illusion, trickery, respect for nature and a love of steampunk technology.

 

[MerricB]

Do you see them as generalists who are familiar with magic, love talking to other races, are proficient with enchantments and illusions and are full of obscure facts?

Honestly, that sounds quite a bit like a Tolkien Elf (or Gandalf. Hey, Gandalf's a gnome! )

Cheers!

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Honestly, that sounds quite a bit like a Tolkien Elf (or Gandalf. Hey, Gandalf's a gnome! )

That's what makes him awesome.