Photos of the new Gnome (PHB2)

[JackSmithIV]

Personally, I'm going to focus on the gnome having interesting racial features that make them look unique and fun to play. As someone still on the fence with 4e, I put that in the "win" column.

QFT. People tend to forget what matters.

But I'm sure I'm wrong.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Personally, I'm going to focus on the gnome having interesting racial features that make them look unique and fun to play. As someone still on the fence with 4e, I put that in the "win" column.

*Nods* In fact this is the case when DMing for all races. I quite literally go to my players, "just look at the mechanics". Once they choose the race they like the most then together we craft what the race actually is, what it looks like, acts, etc.

Sometimes it is fairly close to the original, other times it is way out there.

 

[D.Shaffer]

Why D&D writers have decided to throw out all the wonderful strangeness of real-world myth and replace it with rubbish, I still don't understand.

Whose version of legend and folklore are they going to use? It's not like fey lore was codified. You can find 5-6 different descriptions and conflicting backgrounds with any random name you grab. And then there's the fact they have to make it into playable game stats.

 

[Rechan]

Whose version of legend and folklore are they going to use? It's not like fey lore was codified. You can find 5-6 different descriptions and conflicting backgrounds with any random name you grab. And then there's the fact they have to make it into playable game stats.

And competing with 30+ years of gaming tradition.

Folklore elves have little to do with Tolkien elves. Etc.

 

[Hella_Tellah]

Whose version of legend and folklore are they going to use? It's not like fey lore was codified. You can find 5-6 different descriptions and conflicting backgrounds with any random name you grab. And then there's the fact they have to make it into playable game stats.

Yeah, there are many variations, but at least use some of the awesomeness of folklore. Barbegazi are maybe too silly for everyone's campaign, but German kobolds are a creepy sort of awesome (come to think of it, does D&D have even one household spirit?). Or let's just take water nymphs, for one example. What about a water elemental who needs to marry and bear a mortal's child in order to get her own soul? Or a different watery ghost, a young woman violently murdered who becomes a ghost and tricks men into drowning themselves? Or women who die in child birth, doomed for the rest of their lifespan to live as an omen of death?

I do this myself, in my games, so its not like my needs aren't being met here. It's just a shame that the creatures in the core monster books have almost no story hooks to them. At least, nothing to compare to the oddities of real-world myth. Personally, I'd rather get a Monster Manual that devotes two or three pages to each creature, rather than the sparse writeups we've seen historically. The way World of Darkness books write up monsters works best for me, really--twenty or so per book, but man, what a wealth of story potential!

 

[lutecius]

Dwarves are built more like heavyweight boxers. Designed for strength over speed. They're short with compact thick muscles. They have a con bonus. Where are you seeing tubby?

Elves/Eladrin are built with long thin muscles which is true to a race that has a dex bonus. They're built like runners.

Both races are commonly depicted in shape just in different ways.

It's not about "bare mid-drifted babes or badass athletes." It's about pictures that actually match the stats.

If you take the stats of the average D&D character, but then depict it with a dumpy overweight old man, you're not really doing an accurate representation. The two adventurers depicted are a bard and a warlock. Chances are both of them are going to have pretty decent stats, and pretty decent cons to boot.

You can depict the average gnome any way you want, but an adventurer probably isn't going to match it. Just like your average adventuring human isn't going to look like the average human. He's got to be in shape, otherwise he's not going to last that long.

The average D&D adventurer spends his time unable to overeat, walking long distances, fighting with weapons, dodging monsters, dodging weapons, and otherwise just being active. He's going to be in shape.

If this were a picture of some commoner gnomes in gnome village I might agree with you. But they're not, they're adventurers.

Whether it's muscle or fat, dwarves are certainly not built like heavyweight boxers. Anyone with that waist-to-height ratio would be considered tubby.

As for "pictures that actually match the stats"... ha ha, funny. First, I'd be happy if 4e's fluff matched the stats. Then, 3-4 foot humanoids (with smaller skulls than children or real dwarfs of the same size) having strength and intelligence scores comparable to those of humans defies the laws of biology. Whether they look in shape is fairly trivial.

Also, elves and dwarves don't vary much in appearance, regardless of stats or activity. According to phb, even the strongest eladrin look athletic rather than musclebound. And should a Dex 18 dwarven rogue be as thin as the phb2 gnomes? Have you seen fat, sedentary elves? (RL elf-players don't count)

My point is that fantasy races have fantasy physiologies and what constitutes "in shape" differs from one race to another. Why should gnome be subject to human standards?

I don't believe the designers/artist wanted lean gnomes because it was more realistic for adventurers. Seeing this picture, I'm convinced they just wanted hotter / badasser gnomes.

Anyway, I don't think anyone was clamoring for butterball gnomes or halflings. After all, hobbits were more childlike than actually fat and in previous editions gnomes were often called skinny dwarves. It's a more matter of body proportions. These new gnomes are just too slender and elf-like. But this just is a fluff/art gripe. As others have said, if the crunch is good…

 

[I'm A Banana]

I do this myself, in my games, so its not like my needs aren't being met here. It's just a shame that the creatures in the core monster books have almost no story hooks to them. At least, nothing to compare to the oddities of real-world myth. Personally, I'd rather get a Monster Manual that devotes two or three pages to each creature, rather than the sparse writeups we've seen historically. The way World of Darkness books write up monsters works best for me, really--twenty or so per book, but man, what a wealth of story potential!

Word up. Especially in 4e, I don't need that many more monsters per book. What I need is more ideas on how to use them, including background info.

WoD might be a little much for a game as combat-heavy as D&D, but I'd love to return to the 1 page per monster format from 2e (with more devoted to groups of enemies).

I don't believe the designers/artist wanted lean gnomes because it was more realistic for adventurers. Seeing this picture, I'm convinced they just wanted hotter / badasser gnomes.

Probably. We have evidence that there will be more attractive half-orcs. Aesthetics for adventurers seems to be very important in 4e, which is a little odd considering how cartoony a lot of the 4e illos are.

It's like WotC doesn't see what's fun about playing a fat little trickster who also happens to slay dragons with those tricks, or an ugly, greasy berserker who also happens to go on adventures.

I long for the day when I can play my half-orc version of Charles Bukowski, or my gnome version of Santa Claus in an adventuring party.

 

[pawsplay]

Gnomes:

 

[Wormwood]

Gnomes:

And with that, I now hate gnomes in *every* edition of D&D.

 

[pawsplay]

My work here is done.