Gnome haters? It's Lockwood's fault!

[prosfilaes]

Ahem...

Bardic Music
Once per day per bard level, a bard can use his song or poetics...

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.

Poetry and chanting aren't music.

 

[Estlor]

What about a gnome bard with the Bardic Knack ability from PHB2 subbed in for Bardic Knowledge.

You end up with a silly little man that can do a little bit of everything, considers rats the greatest of informants, and can pull out a variety of magical spells in a pinch. Yeah, he doesn't "know" as much as a bard with Bardic Knowledge, but don't scoff at subbing in your level for skill ranks once you get up around 10th level. Knowledge (Arcane), Knowledge (Local), Knowledge (Nobility and Royalty), Knowledge (Religion), and Gather Information checks start to become very easy for our gnome bard with Bardic Knack.

And if you put your ranks into Perform (oratory) or something of the like, he's sounding very much like an old D&D gnome, just with some added, ahem, inspirational ability.

 

[toddlock]

Regarding the rescuing of Gnomes

I've enjoyed reading this thread!

Here's the whole story, as I remember it (it has been a few years):

The gnomes were headed toward oblivion, precisely because the game designers didn't know what to do with them. They didn't like that they were just smaller, cuter dwarves, but had only the "illusionist trickster" concept in mind for them. Sam and I were talking about them, and about how the Tinker idea was sort of fun but mostly useless, because they were generally inept at it. We imagined that there might be a useful and fun niche for characters who liked to invent stuff--and not necessarily steampunk, by the way--that for the most part only they would be able to keep functioning well, but which would open up a character to wild exploration. When we trotted out that drawing and our thinking, the large majority of the designers loved it. "*I* wouild play that character!" was commonly heard.

The problem was that it came very late in the developmental process, and there simply wasn't time to develop the rules to support the idea. So what did they do? Illusionist trickster.

What can I say? I never liked gnomes either, for a lot of the same reasons I didn't like earlier dwarves: comic relief, not cool enough to play. You can agree or disagree with that as much as you want--I like what we did with the dwarves, visually. We had hoped the gnomes would find a way to be cool, in a way unique to them. It sounds ike the Eberron gnomes may have satisfied the need for some.

So I won't apologize for saving the gnomes, only for not doing it in time to make them cool . . .

Todd Lockwood

 

[sjmiller]

Poetry and chanting aren't music.

Umm, the last time I studied music, most specifically liturgical music, chanting was thought of as a type of music. It is pretty much the earliest form of music. Now, poetry can be lyrical, but it is not necessarily music.

 

[Gold Roger]

I wonder why the consideration of beguiler as the gnomes favored class hasn't been considered in this thread jet (it has been in others).

Personally, I think the beguiler is exactly my gnome. Others may underestimate him, but in the end he pulls the strings.

He's secretive, recousefull and versatile, soically very able and has a special knack for illusions and enchantments.

One of the other posters in favor of trickster gnomes has mentioned coyote, who is also mentioned in the PHB2 as an inspiration for the beguiler class.

 

[Klaus]

I've enjoyed reading this thread!

Here's the whole story, as I remember it (it has been a few years):

The gnomes were headed toward oblivion, precisely because the game designers didn't know what to do with them. They didn't like that they were just smaller, cuter dwarves, but had only the "illusionist trickster" concept in mind for them. Sam and I were talking about them, and about how the Tinker idea was sort of fun but mostly useless, because they were generally inept at it. We imagined that there might be a useful and fun niche for characters who liked to invent stuff--and not necessarily steampunk, by the way--that for the most part only they would be able to keep functioning well, but which would open up a character to wild exploration. When we trotted out that drawing and our thinking, the large majority of the designers loved it. "*I* wouild play that character!" was commonly heard.

The problem was that it came very late in the developmental process, and there simply wasn't time to develop the rules to support the idea. So what did they do? Illusionist trickster.

What can I say? I never liked gnomes either, for a lot of the same reasons I didn't like earlier dwarves: comic relief, not cool enough to play. You can agree or disagree with that as much as you want--I like what we did with the dwarves, visually. We had hoped the gnomes would find a way to be cool, in a way unique to them. It sounds ike the Eberron gnomes may have satisfied the need for some.

So I won't apologize for saving the gnomes, only for not doing it in time to make them cool . . .

Todd Lockwood

May I be the first to say, welcome Todd!

 

[Nyaricus]

May I be the first to say, welcome Todd!

Indeed: Welcome to EN World May I say that you are an amazing artist, as well as having this interesting backstory to boot

Tell me: have you ever asked Wizards R&D when a technology-based base class for the gnomes would (ever?) be created, or even a steam punker?

Thanks for the backstory toddlock

 

[rounser]

You know, I heard that Monte Cook, looking back over 3.x, said that he now wishes that Orcs were a core race and had barbarian as a favoured class, and that the half-orcs would be the 'inbetween' race (like half-elves are).

I think they should go a step further; no half-orcs, no orcs. PC monsters should be a novelty, not a standard, IMO.

Give the strength bonus and barbarian favoured class to dwarves....it's easy to envision a dwarvish berserker, and a bonus to constitution doesn't have as much currency as a bonus to strength. That would bring dwarves back into the game with a bullet, and get rid of a lot of obnoxious roleplaying (as in, orcs are obnoxious, and I don't want them in PC parties because they cause unnecessary disharmony, using the race as an excuse. They're designed to be killed by PC parties because they're obnoxious and unreasonable, not tolerated as a necessary evil because they have +2 to strength....and that bonus means they're everywhere. :\ They're the new "I'm chaotic neutral, so I can do anything".)

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"! Hardly inspiring stuff for generating enthusiasm for playing the race.

 

[John Q. Mayhem]

I've enjoyed reading this thread!

Here's the whole story, as I remember it (it has been a few years):

-snip-

Todd Lockwood

Awesome, and thanks for chipping in! I really enjoy your art, especially (as I mentioned before) the MM gnome and the illustration for elven chain.

 

[rounser]

That art looks so much better as those beautiful sketches, IMO. It's a pity that colour is a requirement to help sell books, because I really think they lose something once it's added.