The changes to gnomes in 3.5e

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

A barbarian, by its original definition, is one who is not Greek.

Which is obviously someone who is not part of civilization!

 

[Biohazard]

A barbarian, by its original definition, is one who is not Greek.

Ah, I see. You're pointing out that Barbarians in D&D are not Greek. Well observed!

 

[FireLance]

Uh, dude, you're wrong there. A barbarian, by *any* definition, is one who is apart from civilization.

Thank you for an excellent example of how a class can be pigeonholed because of its name. So a character like Porthos from The Three Musketeers has to be a fighter with anger management issues because he's civilized and can't be a barbarian.

 

[Biohazard]

Thank you for an excellent example of how a class can be pigeonholed because of its name.

Dude, all classes are pigeonholed to a certain extent; that's what a class *is*by definition. If you want to make a wizard who doesn't cast spells, yer outta luck. Because the word "wizard" *means* "One who casts spells." So is that "pigeonholing"? I guess it is, in a sense. That's the nature of the class system, bub. Don't like it? Play GURPS.

As for this barbarian nonsense, anyone with an education can tell you that a barbarian is one who is apart from civilization. [Shrug] Don' blame me, bub. That's just what a barbarian *is*. I didn't invent the language; I just speak it.

 

[Biohazard]

Thank you for an excellent example of how a class can be pigeonholed because of its name. So a character like Porthos from The Three Musketeers has to be a fighter with anger management issues because he's civilized and can't be a barbarian.

If you think a barbarian is simply an angry fighter, then *you* are guilty of pigeonholing far more than I.

 

[Knoxgamer]

I have an education. The Barbarian class is not meant solely for uncivilized characters. I often think of Germanic or Native American tribes when I consider the class. Another example would be the Barbarian class as presented in Rokugan. The Barbarian is the Berserker, a warrior trained to go into a rage during combat. The "Barbarian" was still a samurai, however, and quite civilized.

Perhaps you should consider what culture the "Barbarian" is foreign to within your campaign world?

 

[FireLance]

Dude, all classes are pigeonholed to a certain extent; that's what a class *is*by definition. If you want to make a wizard who doesn't cast spells, yer outta luck. Because the word "wizard" *means* "One who casts spells." So is that "pigeonholing"? I guess it is, in a sense. That's the nature of the class system, bub.

Fair enough. I suppose the main problem is that while I do see casting spells as the essence of a wizard or sorcerer class, I do not see being uncivilized as the defining characteristic of the class that is currently called the barbarian.

As for this barbarian nonsense, anyone with an education can tell you that a barbarian is one who is apart from civilization. [Shrug] Don' blame me, bub. That's just what a barbarian *is*. I didn't invent the language; I just speak it.

Which is why I think the class should be re-named. Perhaps berserker would bring across the point that the class taps into rage without the baggage of the term barbarian.

 

[Knoxgamer]

As to Gnomes, I very much agree that Bard suits them best. When I envision how the typical Gnome uses Illusion, I think of entertainment and trickery - both of which the Bard excels at.

 

[jerichothebard]

In my campaign, gnomes' favored class is cleric.

Which gives them a really interesting twist, IMO. They are creatures of paradox - the most worldly, in their tinker-style madness, but also the most devout.

Too bad no one's playing one right now.

jtb

 

[Tinker Gnome]

In my campaign, gnomes' favored class is cleric.

Which gives them a really interesting twist, IMO. They are creatures of paradox - the most worldly, in their tinker-style madness, but also the most devout.

Too bad no one's playing one right now.

jtb

Ohh, I would play a Gnome like that.