Photos of the new Gnome (PHB2)

How quickly we forget! That's not nearly enough straps, spikes, or weapons to be a 3e gnome.

re_Gimble72.jpg

True, my little fellow has a much more 1E/Ars Magica look I think ;)

AD
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I think they got gnomes pretty good this time around. They have a good "hook."
Yes, possibly for the first time. I barely even knew the race existed in the 1e/2e days, outside of DL's tinkers - gnomes didn't seem to serve any significant purpose and I rarely saw them in adventures or in setting materials. And they never showed up in the artwork (insert invisibility joke here). In 25+ years of playing D&D I think I've only seen 1 gnome PC (a 3e bard). For the first time though, I would consider playing these gnomes. It's not just that they have a good "hook" - the abilities of the race back up and reinforce the hook.

Halflings are a bit more troublesome from the 4e perspective because there isn't a big reason to have them there. The 4e halfling doesn't satisfy purists (they ain't hobbits!), and it doesn't satisfy people looking for the new stuff either (they lack a strong archetype in the way that dwarves and elves and gnomes have strong archetypes).
Plus the archtype keeps getting messed with. In 3e they were little gypsies, complete with wagons. A possibly bigoted take for a race that's most often associated with thieving, but at least it's something that people know and can identify with. In 4e, they're dreadlocked riverfolk, which just isn't a very interesting hook to hang a character concept on (which I think also comes out in the very lackluster halfling racial feats).
 

Spatula said:
Yes, possibly for the first time.

Probably, yes. While individual settings often had pretty good gnome ideas (hobbits or tinkers or spies or whatever), the game as a whole didn't know what to do with them until 4e.

In 4e, they're dreadlocked riverfolk, which just isn't a very interesting hook to hang a character concept on (which I think also comes out in the very lackluster halfling racial feats).

For most character creation choices, it's all about the archetype. The halflings presented in the core 4e rules don't fit an archetype very well.

Which is why I gave them the "thug" archetype IMC (which their boldness, athletics, and stealth actually reinforce, to a large degree).
 

Incidentally, doesn't this count as a breach of WotC copyright? As in, text from the books posted verbatim? After all, if someone scanned those same pages from PH2 and posted the scans, that would be illegal, right?
 


Uh... they look just like the halflings...

The hair Joe, look at the hair. No human in his right mind would have hair like that! :lol: I like a lot of Steve Argyle's work, but not that piece. Maybe its just the picture, but yuck. Then again, I've always hated gnomes so maybe its my racial prejudice.
 

Probably, yes. While individual settings often had pretty good gnome ideas (hobbits or tinkers or spies or whatever), the game as a whole didn't know what to do with them until 4e.



For most character creation choices, it's all about the archetype. The halflings presented in the core 4e rules don't fit an archetype very well.

Which is why I gave them the "thug" archetype IMC (which their boldness, athletics, and stealth actually reinforce, to a large degree).
So your halflings are rogues with the Ruthless Ruffian or Acrobat Rogue builds, eh?

;)
 

Ridiculous. Okay, I can live with wanting to make them 'a monster' (I grit my teeth referencing that...) and thus not privy to the playable race list even though dragonboobs and demons apparently can be playable. :confused:

But if you're going to make them monsters, then make them freaking monsters. These half-ass pictures of spikey haired 10 year olds cos-playing Link (poorly at that) don't cut it.
 

Tbh I get how halflings are. Maybe because of Races and Classes.

This is very true. But I don't understand why people claim that halfling have no flavor in the new edition, or that they're just short humans. Sure, they're not hobbits, but they absolutely have their own flavor. Just look in the PHB. People might argue that they "don't have their own culture", but that kind of is their culture. They're adaptable, warm, friendly, curious, rich with oral tradition. And they kind of have the whole gypsy-traveler thing going on. They're very close with other civilizations, and get along well with most. I don't think they need their own plane, a lost kingdom, or the Shire to be unique.

Ridiculous. Okay, I can live with wanting to make them 'a monster' (I grit my teeth referencing that...) and thus not privy to the playable race list even though dragonboobs and demons apparently can be playable. :confused:

But if you're going to make them monsters, then make them freaking monsters. These half-ass pictures of spikey haired 10 year olds cos-playing Link (poorly at that) don't cut it.

What are you talking about?

What you're saying is that if it's in the monster manual first, it should absolutely not make it as a playable race?
 

Klaus said:
So your halflings are rogues with the Ruthless Ruffian or Acrobat Rogue builds, eh?

If that helps them kill stuff for the Raven Queen and deck themselves out in enough gold and jewels to equal their body weight, sure. ;)
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top