Gnome haters? It's Lockwood's fault!

[Dragonbait]

I dropped rock gnomes from my setting, and kept forest and deep gnomes. Doing this gave them a more nature-based, fey-like identity.

I heard that they once thought of making gnomes little guys, like the Keebler elves. I think that was the 1ed to 2ed transition or maybe it was the 3e version.

 

[Gez]

My gnomes are mystical scholars. They would probably know how to make gunpowder, with their knowledge of alchemy; however they would not want to make guns and other gizmos. They're more scientists than techies in that respect; they crave knowledge for knowledge's sake, rather than for its practical applications.

They actually have more spiritual reasons for knowing things. It's the road to enlightenment. The typical gnome character classes are Wizard (may be specialized in alchemy*, illusion or divination) and... Monk (with racial substitution levels).

* My specialist wizards do not get extra spell slots. Instead, they get special class abilities every few levels. This allows me to make specializations for aspects of wizardry that are not schools of spellcasting, like alchemy and item creation.

 

[Monte At Home]

All right, here's what I don't get. If all the R&D guys found Gnomes totally uninspiring as "Little guys with Illusions and banana peels" and loved lockwoods engineer gnomes but didn't have time to to the technologist gnome justice before 3.0 was released...why in blazes haven't we seen any attempts in that direction?

Because that's not exactly what happened. We did like Todd's sketches, but the real reason gnomes got put back in the game was because Peter Adkison demanded it. His rationale was that there shouldn't be anything that was in 2E that isn't in 3E (that's a flawed goal that you can only take in broad strokes, but in principle, it's not a bad requirement for him to make). Basically, he didn't want anyone to be able to say that they wouldn't make the switch to 3E over something as small and ultimately easy to have prevent as "but there's no gnomes."

Two of the three core designers did really love the idea of gnome technologists, but ultimately there wasn't room to put rules for that in the PH. So the concept was more or less dropped entirely from core gnomes. Which is why they went back to being illusionists. (And then eventually, for some reason, bards.) Plus, it's that kind of thing that made 2E to 3E conversion more palatable and possible. It may mean something different to be good with illusions, but your 2E gnome illusionist, converted to 3E, is still a good illusionist.

 

[James Heard]

I like playing gnomes. I think the first couple of characters I played in 3E were gnomes. I'd probably play a lot more gnomes if their stats weren't a little wonky and more GMs didn't possess an unnatural fear of gnomes. On the other hand the fear works, you play a gnome and people eyeball you, never quite certain when you're going to gnome out and go nuts. It's great.

 

[Staffan]

I think D&D could use more Gimli and less Grishnack, not more...WHFRP gets the dwarven "damn the torpedoes" attitude right with demonslayers, IMO, whereas D&D gives dwarves "defenders"!

Dude, you do know that Warhammer's Slayer dwarves are considered outcasts, don't you? The idea is that they've done something that caused them to lose all honor, but dwarven society doesn't allow suicide as a way out. So, they dye their hair orange and make it all spikey, and go out to try and get killed in battle.

 

[Vanuslux]

When I think of gnomes, I always think of that kook in The Neverending Story. Engywook is totally my vision of gnomes.

 

[Nyaricus]

Because that's not exactly what happened. We did like Todd's sketches, but the real reason gnomes got put back in the game was because Peter Adkison demanded it. His rationale was that there shouldn't be anything that was in 2E that isn't in 3E (that's a flawed goal that you can only take in broad strokes, but in principle, it's not a bad requirement for him to make). Basically, he didn't want anyone to be able to say that they wouldn't make the switch to 3E over something as small and ultimately easy to have prevent as "but there's no gnomes."

Atkinson definitly had a great goal to meet in the transition from 2e to 3e, and the way you put it Monte I'd have to agree with your veiw on it, but I can personally never get it out of my head the gnomes stat bonuses in AD&D - that is, +2 Int, -2 Wis. To me, that makes gnomes, gnomes so much better than a "WTF?" -2 Str +2 Con.

Of course, that's just my opinion

Two of the three core designers did really love the idea of gnome technologists, but ultimately there wasn't room to put rules for that in the PH. So the concept was more or less dropped entirely from core gnomes. Which is why they went back to being illusionists. (And then eventually, for some reason, bards.) Plus, it's that kind of thing that made 2E to 3E conversion more palatable and possible. It may mean something different to be good with illusions, but your 2E gnome illusionist, converted to 3E, is still a good illusionist.

So, just a question for you Monte, but which concept do you like better/think is more appropriate: Gnome Beguilers, Gnome Artificers, Gnome Illusionists or Gnome Bards?

Actually, that's a cool question and I think I'll start a poll on that bad boy - but I'd still love to get your feedback on this here.


Vanuslux, awesome picture dude

 

[I'm A Banana]

I like the gnome bard. They were like "Hey, gnomes don't really have a niche. They're kinda like dwarves, and halflings, and elves, and tinkers, and tricksters. And neither do bards. They're kinda like healers, rogues, wizards, and singers. Let's put 'em together, they can be wierd together."

It was a match made in paragon half-dragon bipedal treant heaven of legend.

 

[Tonguez]

When I think of gnomes, I always think of that kook in The Neverending Story. Engywook is totally my vision of gnomes.

good example.

Me I've always thought of Tom Bombadil as a Gnome

Along with Pratchetts Nomes, Nac Feegle and Brownies

add a touch of the Borrowers

and Smurfiness too

 

[demiurge1138]

Atkinson definitly had a great goal to meet in the transition from 2e to 3e, and the way you put it Monte I'd have to agree with your veiw on it, but I can personally never get it out of my head the gnomes stat bonuses in AD&D - that is, +2 Int, -2 Wis. To me, that makes gnomes, gnomes so much better than a "WTF?" -2 Str +2 Con.

That's because one of the big design paradigms in 3e was to minimize player races with racial bonuses to stats that change DCs. Penalties were alright, as the half-orc shows, but the designers apparently didn't want any one race dominating spellcasting (as gnomes with +2 Int would definately be the superior wizards).

And then the MM came out with all the elven subraces. Funny how life works.

Demiurge out.