Oh Yeah.. Gnomes...

[prosfilaes]

That's about as reasonable as saying that humans don't generally know that there's a difference between Great Danes and Shetland Collies - both dogs, who'd notice more than that?

It took me about 15 minutes to have any real image of what those two dogs look like. I think it fair to say that outside the west, most people don't know the difference between Great Danes and Shetland Collies. For me, they're both just dogs for all I really care. Hill giants aren't the brightest thing on the block, either, and why would they really care?

Halflings and gnomes aren't just short by human standards, they're preschooler size. On getting to know a fair number of preschoolers, that just doesn't wash with me any more. YMMV.

You never answered my main point, though. Why is it preposterous that a halfling could go up against a human twice their height and win, but not at all preposterous that a human could go up against a giant three times their height and win? Realistically, no human is going into melee with a giant and surviving a hit or doing significant damage to it, much less a Colossal dragon 35 feet long and weighing a million pounds. Why is one problem overcomable and not the other?

 

[Nyaricus]

Or, alternately, instead of dividing their flavor up into three tiny piles, 4E should have NO subraces of gnomes (and arguably of any race) and cherry pick all the best flavor to create new baselines for each race.

Actually, subraces have been around for a LONG time. Take Nordic Mythology (which gives D&D many of it's... D&Disms) and you have Frost Giants, Cliff Giants, Storm Giants, Mountain Giants, Sea Giants, Fire Giants and so on. You have Light and Dark Elves. You have A bunch of stuff. The Greeks has Lesser and Greater Cyclopeses. The Celts had Trooping and Solitary Faries. Etc. So I think sub-races will stay. However, this is really more of an issue with racial identity than anything. There was an awesome 'Motivational Poster' from that other thread (or a link therein) that said "GNOMES: Another edition, another racial identity". That hits the nail pretty much on the head, don't you think? Not to mention that they got rid of the +2 Int, -2 Wis from AD&D, which was one of the reasons why my first character in 3.0 was, infact a gnome (no less than a gnomish bard, in fact - and you read that right: 3.0), they had such great flavour! Now they are washed out, with the bard as favoured class.

Of course, in 3.5, with the advent of the Beguiler, I beleive I've found their new favoured class, hands down, while playing in Forgotten Realms. But are we, or should we, really have to wait for 3.75 or 4th edition to get a reason, coherant base race out of the gnome? Right now, it's not just a 'forgotten folk' - it's a back sheep.

Illusionists who live in the woods and are close to nature sounds pretty darn fey-like to me, especially since fey in English folklore often lived in hollow hills, which certainly sounds a whole lot like gnome burrows.

Absolutly. If I had it my way (and, luckily, I have a homebrew I can do so in) I've have gnomes have the fey type, and be a non-PC race. I think they'd be a great side-quest to retreive a stolen item and have to work you way through a bunch of traps - maybe harmless, maybe not. Running through a gnome warren with gnomes melded into the walls or floor via magics (or just hiding in secret tunnels and what not) would be great! But we are instead stuck with what has been wrought. It's not unfixable, but it's definitly at the point where somehting needs to be done, IMO.

And yes, if Beguilers were in the PHB, that seems like a cinch for their preferred class, although really, giving every race two preferred classes would be a lot better, if they didn't just drop the concept altogether. Beguiler/Druid as a preferred classes would give you a quick shortcut to understanding the race better than the current attempts do. (I like Races of Stone, but the philosophical stuff about duality and illusion and reality seemed very grafted-on to me.)

Personally, I've gone a step further IMC - I have simply banned certain classes for certain races, and given each class a list of 'allowed classes'. Free multiclass between them all (after all, mutliclasses forces you to spread you focuses thinner than a single class would) and they are all themed appropriatly. Of course, most of the leg work of this setting has yet to be done, but I have big plans on the classes, hopefully which will have rough drafts posted here at EN World sometime in the next few months.

But giving multiple choices for favoured class would be great. That is one of the things that have always bothered me about D&D in general; becasue so what if these are the archetypical adventurers of the given races? You need more than one color to make a rainbow, right? So it, seems... shortsighted that every adventurer who is a gnome is a bard, since the penalties otherwise are atrocious. Don't you need strong people in other fields? Like magic, divine magic, fighting, skilled misc.?? Yes, you do. But D&D doesn't allow such, unless you are a human, which seems odd. Personally, this is one of the reasons why I've done what I have done, and I think it's for the better. It gives my players expectations for the type of game I run, adn with what themes, and it, in a lot of cases, makes sense.

 

[IamTheTest]

Ive always liked the gnome. Then again, Ive always thought that everything has a place somewhere in DnD...thats kinda why I like it.

 

[InVinoVeritas]

I was called a gnome in one of the online D&D tests, and yeah, I like them a lot.

The most successful character I played was a gnome rogue/wizard--in many ways a stereotypical curious, likable trickster, but also a guy with a knack for cracking puzzles in ways that drove the DM batty, more survivability than anyone expected (with a 16 Con, a rogue/wizard essentially has twice the number of hit points, plus good saves), and an excellent box-man and mentor as well.

One of the things about gnomes, though, is that they pretty much require on-the-fly creativity on the part of the player. Prestidigitation, Dancing Lights, and Ghost Sound are very strong if you can play just the right effect at just the right time. That's not easy. Illusions also require that same level of situational analysis. You don't need that level of open-endedness with the other races. You pick your tools, and then you use them. A gnome's tools don't really tell you what they are or how to use them. You don't get the direction as you do with other races. Sure, the human's open-ended, too, but at least with the human, you choose what you want and stick with it. The gnome's abilities can't be the same thing in all situations.

 

[jeff37923]

I have a feeling that gnomes could work if they were portrayed as wily tricksters who are dedicated to guarding the lands of the fey. Otherwise they are just, well, bland. In 25 years of gaming, I've never had a player want to roll up a gnome character.

I like the idea of using gnomes as the scapegoats of the fantasy world pretty well. If they are the tinker gnome type, then at some point one of those inventions is going to destroy a civilization. Or even a world, the Polyhedron issue which carries Spelljammer over to 3.X hints at the gnomes destroying their own world - I like that, gives 'em character.

 

[Nyaricus]

The most successful character I played was a gnome rogue/wizard--in many ways a stereotypical curious, likable trickster, but also a guy with a knack for cracking puzzles in ways that drove the DM batty, more survivability than anyone expected (with a 16 Con, a rogue/wizard essentially has twice the number of hit points, plus good saves), and an excellent box-man and mentor as well.

One of the things about gnomes, though, is that they pretty much require on-the-fly creativity on the part of the player. Prestidigitation, Dancing Lights, and Ghost Sound are very strong if you can play just the right effect at just the right time. That's not easy. Illusions also require that same level of situational analysis. You don't need that level of open-endedness with the other races. You pick your tools, and then you use them. A gnome's tools don't really tell you what they are or how to use them. You don't get the direction as you do with other races. Sure, the human's open-ended, too, but at least with the human, you choose what you want and stick with it. The gnome's abilities can't be the same thing in all situations.

See, that's cool Throw in some nature stuff, and it's even better, IMO. But D&D gnomes are teh suck as-is.

 

[Cedric the Namer]

No Gnomes?

You gotta have the gnomes!
Who else can provide your campaign with the gnome titan racial ability of groin stomp.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Actually, subraces have been around for a LONG time. Take Nordic Mythology (which gives D&D many of it's... D&Disms) and you have Frost Giants, Cliff Giants, Storm Giants, Mountain Giants, Sea Giants, Fire Giants and so on. You have Light and Dark Elves. You have A bunch of stuff. The Greeks has Lesser and Greater Cyclopeses. The Celts had Trooping and Solitary Faries. Etc. So I think sub-races will stay.

This is a game. Design decisions should be made on what's best for the game. If D&D were truly trying to ape mythology, it'd look very different.

Instead of creating new cultures, D&D designers for decades have insisted on new cultures actually being separate subraces (and people worry that D&D is politically correct!). There's a handful of times where it's needed -- obviously drow really are different from surface elves -- but most of the time, slapping a new typical alignment and new behaviors on them would be sufficient.

But then, it's hard to stuff a monster book with them.

 

[Shades of Green]

The main problem I have with gnomes is the lack of a good niche for them, both setting-wise and metagame-wise. The other races are:

Humans are just Humans; the "usual" to compare all the unusual/magical/mystical stuff to; they are also (understandably) the easiest race to roleplay and the race with the most inspiration for (history and most fiction, including non-fantasy, ofcourse).

Elves are mystical, magical fey-people with a deep connection to nature; they tend to be far more "in tune" with magic than the other races, and have a strange aura of mystery and mysticism on them wherever they go. They are also deep into art, and far less concerned about serious industry or commerce.

Halflings are "cute" (tell it to someone they pickpocket!), hairy-foot small people who live in burrows, like to enjoy their lives (eating, drinking, comfortable dwellings and so on), are courious and, ofcourse, tend to be a bit sneaky and nosy and see "thief" as a "respectable profession". They tend to be good merchants, entertainers, petty criminals and small-time farmers, but rarely bureaucrats, soldiers or industrialists.Think a cross between Tolkien's Hobbits and Gypsies.

Dwarves are short, stocky, grumpy, love gold but prefer a job well done more than it (especially well-crafted items), like to work and don't hesitate to fight; they are deep into smithing, mining, smelting, heavy construction, jewelery and technology (steamwork and clockwork IMC). They are great engineers, soldiers, inventers and industrialists, as well as decent traders (but not as good in haggling as a Human or a Halfling), but rarely good mages (except than magic related to machines and/or craftmanship and/or their gods), and usually see nature as a collection of raw materials to transform into super-quality crafted objects rather than something that has to be revered.

Orcs/Half Orcs are big, short-tempered, quick to anger, strong, and in some cases not-so-bright (though there ARE several very smart half-orcs); they tend to be quite loyal to their families or tribes; they like to fight and to hunt, but can often be found doing grunt work or working as farmers or as (low to mid quality) smiths.

No, gnomes are supposed to be short, burrow-dwelling, nature-connected, few-connected tricksters who are good with machinery and magic and love gemstones.
Short, burrow-dwelling tricksters? Halflings could easily fill that niche.
Nature/Fey Connected who are good with magic? Elves do that quite well.
Good with machinery and magic and love gemstones? Dwarves readily fill that role.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I agree on the niche issues. With 3E turning halflings into Age of Mortals kender (essentially), I've moved the hobbit flavor over to the gnomes, myself. Honestly, though, the next incarnation of the game could probably merge halflings and gnomes without much hassle beyond people's preconceptions being momentarily shaken up.