Give me choices!

[GeorgeFields]

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!

My current group has no cleric. They seem to be getting along alright.

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

Yeah...they're already defining "roles" for the classes. It seems almost the same to me if not MORE of a requirement to have them.

They've said as much.

Cheers!

They've also said 4th addition was "a ways off".

 

[MerricB]

One thing I am optimistic about is the seeming stronger definition of classes themselves in 4E; they seem to be saying that classes won't step on one another's toes as much as what happens in 3E now. However, I'm getting mixed messages on this point, because of the flap about clerics having no fun performing a major class function (buffing and healing!) or thieves who can't sneak attack certain creatures.

Henry, what I interpret that to be is that the essential "keep the party going" roles are more spread out. You don't need a cleric to recover after you're hurt.

However, the cleric is still best at buffing and healing - it's just that they don't spend an entire action buffing to the exclusion of everything else.

Leaders give buffs and healing - the Cleric probably heals the best, the Warlord buffs the best, and the Paladin has a small leadership role as seen through the smite secondary abilities.

Cheers!

 

[MerricB]

My current group has no cleric. They seem to be getting along alright.

What levels, what classes, what monsters, and what lethality rate?

Also: do they have access to healing in town; and how long their excursions into the wilderness?

Cheers!

 

[GeorgeFields]

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

Not everyone.

 

[Abstraction]

In my homebrew game, gnomes were the masters of the seas and rivers and definitely had a role not filled by other races. Looks like the 4E halflings killed them and took their stuff.

 

[Clavis]

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.

In Irish folklore, there is the idea of the Hollow Hills. The realm of the Good People is literally inside the hills, and the hills are larger on the inside than they are on the outside. Inside the hollow hills everything is an illusion, and time itself is different. That's how I see Gnomish settlements. They are built into earthen mounds, but surrounded by illusions. Inside, the rooms may have permanent illusions to make them look like different outdoor environments. Those that don't aren't the somber gray vaults favored by dwarves, but brightly colored, well-lit by magic, and accented with multi-colored stones and precious metals.

Real D&D Gnomes (not the 3.5 edition abominations of that same name) are actually closer to the creatures of authentic fairy lore than D&D Elves or Dwarves, so I find the people who think Gnomes have "no mythology" puzzling. I think people mistake Tolkien for authentic folklore, which is a big mistake. The Dwarves and Elves of Tolkien are his own creations, which he uses to tell his own story. That countless authors after him have pirated his ideas speaks to his stature as a fantasist, but does not change what the old folklore actually said. In authentic lore, Fairies (such as Gnomes) live underground, use illusionary magic (glamor), can speak with animals, often look like they are incredibly old, and have very strange senses of humor. Sound familiar?

 

[KingCrab]

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

Interesting. I dig your idea and style of gnome and henceforth promise to never throw fruit at them.

 

[MerricB]

In authentic lore, Fairies (such as Gnomes) live underground, use illusionary magic (glamor), can speak with animals, often look like they are incredibly old, and have very strange senses of humor. Sound familiar?

Definitely. They make great NPCs.

Seriously, I do think gnomes have an excellent mythological background... but they don't have a good one in terms of being a PC race, especially when you also include dwarves and elves.

Cheers!

 

[GeorgeFields]

What levels, what classes, what monsters, and what lethality rate?

Also: do they have access to healing in town; and how long their excursions into the wilderness?

Cheers!

Still low levels, 2-3.
Rogue, Sorcerer, Duskblade. Swashbuckler, Barbarian, Wizard, Psychic Warrior.
Rats, NPCs, gnolls, stirges, rats, spiders and snakes.
No deaths, yet.

Healing access is limited.
Excursions are 5-10 game days.


Thus far, I'd say 75% of the game has been urban. Your questions suggest the only type of D&D adventure is a tromp into the wilderness fighting monsters. If that were the case, we wouldn't even play D&D, we'd play WoW and sit in the forest killing boars for two months.

 

[Clavis]

Definitely. They make great NPCs.

Seriously, I do think gnomes have an excellent mythological background... but they don't have a good one in terms of being a PC race, especially when you also include dwarves and elves.

Cheers!

Myself, I prefer to relegate Dwarves to the NPC role. Nobody I've ever DMed for ever wanted to play one, and I have zero personal sympathy for them as usually presented. I tend to only use them for comic relief.