D&D 4E Rich Baker on Gnomes in 4E

[Mistwell]

"Gnomes will likely get a "full" PC race writeup in 2009"

That was the first sentence of the WOTC information provided.

And yet, some people read that as "Gnomes are a marginal race that will not get a full PC writeup, though there might be some small stuff on them in the DI for a fee".

He even put the word "full" in quotes, to make it clear. And still, people mentally seemed to have skipped over that word, gone down to sentences that were not in response to the gnome question, and re-written the whole thing in their mind to complain that gnomes are going to be ignored.

Yes, you will have to wait until 2009 for the full writeup, which is after the 2008 Monster Manual writeup. Is that really such a big deal?

I believe, by the way, that Gnomes were not in all prior players handbooks. This idea that they were in 30 years of initial game books is not accurate.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Yes, you will have to wait until 2009 for the full writeup, which is after the 2008 Monster Manual writeup. Is that really such a big deal?

For lovers and users of gnomes, sure it is.

But yes, I think the misunderstanding (deliberate or otherwise) is kind of absurd. Rich Baker is not, AFAICT, calling gnomes marginal in this post. To get offended at this is to already be offended.

Gnomes aren't in the PH1. Nothing, at this point, will ever change that fact. Yes, for some people that's a big deal, and they have every right to complain about it, but said complaining won't get much done. WotC already has their minds made up: gnomes aren't in. There's not a whole lot to be gained from getting offended by that at this point. What might be smarter is to try and be one of the first people to post an "old school gnomes" write-up to Gleemax or your own personal website. It's a problem WotC isn't going to fix for a while. It's up to you to do it.

 

[JohnSnow]

IMO, anyone who can't understand that we don't know what WoTC considers minor races and may not agree with that and continues to defend WoTC based on that, isn't understanding what's being written here here.




Not arguing that. However, WHAT IS A MARGINAL RACE?

In this context, it refers specifically to avariel (winged elves) and sea-elves.

Rich did not invent the term, merely re-using the one Another Gnome used. I doubt WotC uses the term "marginal race" in the office. How do they view "other races" and how do they decide whether a race is "minor?" I imagine they'll base their support, as always, on player request. That doesn't mean that asking for a race will make it major. It means that if lots of people request it, WotC will probably consider it worth supporting.

There's some very illuminating material on the subject in Races and Classes. I'll quote a few relevant lines...

Just how many PC races were out there? To my surprise I came up with 135 PC races, ranging from the aarakocra to the yuan-ti tainted one - and that was not even counting every monster that we provided with a level adjustment, or the races presented in Savage Species or Dragon Magazine. Heck, we had eleven races of elves.

Some of these races were clearly core concepts of the game. You couldn't imagine a D&D game without elves, dwarves, humans, or halflings. Another half-dozen or so races seemed to merit a close look based on legacy value if nothing else - for example, gnomes, half-elves, or half-orcs. After that we had a couple dozen character races from a wide variety of 3rd Edition sources that were particularly interesting, evocative, or creative...

To begin sorting out the list of races, I noted for each one its source, "traction" (my assessment of which races were actually getting played based on what we could find in online chatter and office games), and "hook," a one-sentence reminder of what a race was...We prioritized the list into character races that had to appear right away in 4th Edition, character races that should eventually appear, character races that we might bring in the new edition given the right product, and character races we would deliberately never print again.

Once we had this list, we asked ourselves the question, "What's missing?"...We realized that we had several varieties of "dragon man" rattling around in the system, and that we might combine them into a single character race with its own unique culture, society, and mechanical niche.

With our big list of character races pared down to a more manageable collection, we took a look at our planned produce schedule and began to pencil in specific races for specific products. We decided that the first Player's Handbook needed the tiefling - one of our most popular and evocative "second stingers" throughout 2nd and 3rd Edition...and the dragonborn, a "new" character race. Even though the dragonborn didn't have any kind of history with the audience, we felt that it was important to grow the D&D world by allowing the mix of characters to evolve in the new edition.

So, the race list at WotC is clearly far more complex than "iconic" and "marginal." And I think it's a disservice to real discussion to continue using the term "marginal."

And besides, gnomes' FULL writeup will no doubt be in PHB II, which is hardly "marginal."

 

[Incenjucar]

They need to make another gnome cartoon, this time with the gnome curled up in a corner and shivering in terror, begging to be left alone, surrounded by angry fans, while Lawrence the Badger stares up wide-eyed at the throng in his master's defense.

--

As for the gnomish racial feats.. you know... I have no idea if they'll be in there, and you have no idea if they'll be in there, or even how it's going to work.

So I'm just not going to speculate right now.

 

[LightPhoenix]

The problem with Gnomes wasn't that they weren't popular, or mechanically sound, or interesting.

The problem with them was that aside from Kender (shudder) they never really had any sort of definition. They were always "the other small race," with a bunch of random uncohesive characteristics, and that's what got them cut from the PHB. It was a lack of focus.

Now, maybe they could have worked harder to give them focus and get them in the PHB, at the expense of something else.

My personal theory is that they actually did re-envision Gnomes, and chose to emphasize the nature part (and maybe worked in some elemental stuff). What with Druids being left out as well, I wouldn't be surprised if Gnomes were deliberated taken out of the PHB knowing that the Druid would need a lot of work - too much to get into the PHB1. However, that's somewhat perfect for the PHB2. Hence, Gnomes in 2009. There may be notes in the FR book, however I don't think it will include a full write-up.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Seems to me that Gnomes will have to get a full write up when ever Eberron is re-released since they are major players in Eberron, haveing country and a dragonmarked house.

 

[glass]

For lovers and users of gnomes, sure it is.

What, both of them?


glass.

 

[med stud]

I think many people make this more personal than it is. If you are making games as a profession, especially at such a scale as WotC, I don't think you keep many things due to emotional attachment but more due to popularity and distinctivness.

I think that if everyone saw the gnome being as great as the gnome lovers do or if WotC made polls and other observations that showed that gnomes were really popular, then gnomes would be in the PHB.

I don't think that there is some kind of anti- gnome agenda going at WotC where the evil designers, despite the wants and needs of the customers, take out gnomes just because they can.

I understand the disappointment if you like gnomes. But I don't understand the outrage about it.

 

[Falling Icicle]

I understand the disappointment if you like gnomes. But I don't understand the outrage about it.

Well, just ask yourself what class or race is your favorite to play, and then ask yourself how you would feel and react if that class or race was removed/backshelved in 4e.

 

[Baduin]

If you want a new image for Gnome, it is best to return to basics. Gnome was invented by Paracelsus. In his book "Liber de nymphis, sylphis, pygmaeis et salamandris et de caeteris spiritibus" it is described as a small earth elemental. Its name is connected with "gnosis" (knowledge in Greek).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elemental
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paracelsus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnome
http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/celt/tfm/tfm072.htm
http://www.digibib.tu-bs.de/start.php?suffix=gif&maxpage=792&derivate_id=702
http://www.digibib.tu-bs.de/view_pa...eServlet/DocPortal_derivate_00000702&offset=0

In German legends and literature there are, under different names, spirits of the earth and mines. They can show miners a way to new ore deposits or cause a disaster.

I would envision them as a race of earth elementals from Elemental Chaos, similarly like eladrin are fey from Feywild. In the Primary world they can dwell in the mines and other earth-connected sites. Their racial abilities should emphasise their connection with Elemental Chaos and Earth Element and their knowledge, especially of earth. They can have some illusory abilities which would allow them to seem a living creature, a small man or a less stoutly build dwarf (many spirits from Germanic legends have such abilities). At higher levels a racial feat could allow them to turn invisible.

Such racial feats as moving through earth or stone, shaping stone, detecting treasures, and at a higher level causing earthquakes would be very useful in a dungeon environment. At paragon and epic level, their racial feats could connect to Elemental Chaos - an ability to transfer to Elemental Chaos (with companions) or ability to safely travel in it would be undoubtly useful.