Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="steeldragons" data-source="post: 7290688" data-attributes="member: 92511"> <ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> Given that you have two distinct peoples I see no reason you couldn't use both. I would think, based on their cultural differences that it would be fairly easy to discern one type from the other anyway...among anyone who knows anything about gnomes which, I presume, most of this people on this world would. I'd probably go for "industrious engineering miniature elf" type gnomes and the more wild looking, brightly colored, anime-ish PF gnomes for the Wild. But you could easily meld the two together to make them your own. Just following along a simple cultural generalities (perhaps even cliches) of the "more technological and scholarly -understandably more 'civilization' based- obsessed society" vs. the "Wild" more in tune with nature -one might say more "rural" minded, and taking into account the presumption that you will have them as the typically D&D/PF long-lived race (anything from 500-1500 years I think they've been over the decades), that 30-50 offspring with the Wild gnomes makes sense while the more distracted always tinkering figuring-things-out magi-science guys might produce significantly less...I'd say/guess around half that sounds about right. Well, that's entirely up to you and just how specifically "granular" (or innately magically meldy?) you want to make them. I don't know that you need to have "[fresh] Water" gnomes for rivers/lakes/streams, and then "Sea gnomes" on top of that...unless you wanted to borrow frmo Dragonlance again [their sea elves] and justify them as kind of "shallow water" gnomes that could be fresh or salt water shores and shoals and coral reefs and the like, and then "deep water -far out and far under the sea only" gnomes. I don't really think that's necessary, especially if you already want to have Swamp gnomes and Forest gnomes. Let the forest gnomes handle the rivers and streams and lakes in their woods. The swamp gnomes would do the same with the abundance of moisture in their domain. I liked the "Wave" gnome idea and make them just shallow water shoreline/coral reef builders and sea cave carvers kind of gnomes (add deep sea ones later on if you really want). Obviously they need a swim speed, I personally would probably just save myself the future game trouble of counting "breath holding" rounds and make them amphibious...maybe the ability or magic to speak to sea mammals (I'm thinking a great affinity for sea otters! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /> ) and marine birds...some water-bending magic kind of stuff for the powerful ones. My only other note would be - and I really don't have an answer for this. It's entirely up to you - but with the rabbits, are a grasslands gnome really necessary? Other than that, I think your list looks pretty solid. I'd go with Forest, Mountain, "Wave" (and "Plains" if you want). Save the Desert, Jungle, and Deep Sea varietals for some later supplement or specific adventure that introduces them as a non-[initially]-PC offshoot. My vote's on "Cog." "Tek," first of all should be "Tech" if you're going to use it. "Tek" just reminds me of bad Gygaxian Greyhawk purposely misspelled terms ("Nyr Dyv" - anyone up for a "Near Dive" in the Nyr Dyv sea?)...and that just bugs me. Also, if you go with "Cog" then a colloquialism used for that kind of gnome could be "Coggers" which, gnomes interacting with humans generally looking like little old men, is obviously from which the human term "codger" for a grumpy older man is derived. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></li> </ul></blockquote>

Verification