The Gnew Gnome, are they just as useless and lame as the others?

[Dagger75]

Since the I hate gnome thread seems to have surfaced again

http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24454

I thought I might add my 2 cents to the 3.5Ed gnome and see if they still suck.

Well changing favored class to bard from illusuionists helps the trickster idiocy of them.

The new picture of Gimble also looks pretty cool.

As for my old campaing were I tried to bring back gnomes as a race of evil demon summoning mages, feared by the populace well they party laughed at this. I think the stupidity of gnomes as tricksters is ingrained into to many players heads.
I really must blame Hickman and Weiss for the Tinker Gnomes and the way gnomes are played in general. That has ruined the race for me. I really don't mind the tinker aspect of the race, it is the way it was shown. I mean they built catapaults to launch people up to the second floor. That is not was a ingenius group of people would do.

So basically I am hoping that gnomes change with the times. I will give them a chance in any new 3.5 game.

 

[Virgil Sagecaster]

I agree with ya 100%! The Bard class is a whole different story.....

H.O.G.B Haters Of Gnomish Bards

 

[Eternalknight]

Wouldn't it be cool to see Gimble singing Bad to the Gnome (sung to the tune, of course, of Bad to the Bone).

 

[Mouseferatu]

As for my old campaing were I tried to bring back gnomes as a race of evil demon summoning mages, feared by the populace well they party laughed at this. I think the stupidity of gnomes as tricksters is ingrained into to many players heads.

I had that same problem. I was doing a "many islands on an oceanic world" setting (which didn't go very far for other, unrelated reasons), and I had intended for the gnomes to be the primary servitor race of an ancient evil empire.

I practically got laughed out from behind the DM screen.

I managed to solve the problem, but still keep the basic feel, by going with spriggans as opposed to gnomes, but it was still a close call.

Personally, I think the problem is that not many people really know what to do with gnomes. As has been pointed out many times, gnomes (at least in the D&D sense) don't have the same mythical/literary underpinning that the other races have. Sure, there's all kinds of stuff you can do with them, but a basic understanding of the race doesn't come as easily for many people--myself included--as it does with the others. (The travesty of tinker gnomes didn't help either.)

I think gnomes have the potential to be one of the coolest--or most menacing--races out there. But I think very few players (or DMs, for that matter, and again I have to be honest and include myself) can be easily made to see that.

At the risk of offending the gnome-lovers here, I wonder if they really should be a core race. Don't get me wrong, as I said, I don't hate them. I think they have real potential. But I don't think they really fit into the "core paradigm" as well as the others. The game's already got short folk (halflings and, to a lesser extent, dwarves), and it's already got magic-oriented people (elves). I'd rather have seen something quite different as a core race--something that doesn't overlap with the others--and seen gnomes included as an option, or a "monster frequently used as a PC race" like goblins or tieflings.

 

[Gez]

The game's already got short folk (halflings and, to a lesser extent, dwarves), and it's already got magic-oriented people (elves).

The old "niche" argument. I don't see the problem, myself -- each race has one, save... the half-elves.

Dwarf: Fighters, with a lawful and clannish background, but frequently seen as ill-tempered, dim-wited, and hygienophobic(gully dwarf influence ?).
Elf: Multiclassed fighter/wizard, with a background ranging from faeries to melnibonean through noldors and sex-fantasies...
Gnome: Illusionists, druids, and alchemists, although plagued by the kamikaze tinker archetype from Dragonlance.
Halfling: Nimble and curious rogues, but there again, plagued by Dragonlance's vision of them as kleptomaniacs with the common sense of a lemming (the green-haired, blue-robed ones from the game by Psygnosis).
Half-elf: Angst-filled fringers. Sometimes bard.
Half-orc: Dim-witted barbarians. Like dwarf, but worse, and speaking like Mr T.
Human: Your average multipurpose race.

 

[DreamChaser]

The old "niche" argument. I don't see the problem, myself -- each race has one, save... the half-elves.

Dwarf: Fighters, with a lawful and clannish background, but frequently seen as ill-tempered, dim-wited, and hygienophobic(gully dwarf influence ?).
Elf: Multiclassed fighter/wizard, with a background ranging from faeries to melnibonean through noldors and sex-fantasies...
Gnome: Illusionists, druids, and alchemists, although plagued by the kamikaze tinker archetype from Dragonlance.
Halfling: Nimble and curious rogues, but there again, plagued by Dragonlance's vision of them as kleptomaniacs with the common sense of a lemming (the green-haired, blue-robed ones from the game by Psygnosis).
Half-elf: Angst-filled fringers. Sometimes bard.
Half-orc: Dim-witted barbarians. Like dwarf, but worse, and speaking like Mr T.
Human: Your average multipurpose race.

LMAO. I totally agree with you. I like your descriptions.

And on the subject of "there are already short races"

.NOT EVERYTHING IS FRELLING JRR TOLKEIN!!!!!!!

I would like to point out that the gnome is oft maligned and also happens to be the only of the races that did not appear in some form in the HOLY TRILOGY (plus prequel, etc) OF FANTASY.

I personally think that the changes to gnome are great.

I personally think dwarves should be +2 to con, -2 to Dex with a ancient tradition of pride and craft (I like Tolkein dwarves...followed closely by Athas dwarves).

I am honestly getting tired of elves and have more recently been making them degenerate and evil (Tolkein's elves worked great in the books but *shudder* in a game, not so well.)

I love the 3e halfling. It is the best since the creation of the game. The idea of semi-nomadic "gypsy" style folk is a great archetype for them.

Half-elf and half-orc are assine holdovers. The idea of a cross breed should not be a core race...it should be the exception. Even in the most liberal demographics, half-elves should not be as common as they are in the ordinary D&D game. If they were, both species would quickly blend into one.

And humans! Don't even get me started on thoses. Could they be more derivative? LOL

All of the above is half tongue and cheek and 100% JMHO. I only posted to point out that one person's travesty is anothers excellence and that races are perhaps the most changed parts of the game (just look at the HUGE number of sub-races there are).

And I have to say for people who claim to dislike the gnome to complain about the changes to said race seems a little bass ackwords IMO.

"I hate this race!" you claim, "And D@m# it all, they went and made me less likely to play it! Now I REALLY hate it."

I guess I just don't get it

DC

 

[Mouseferatu]

Heh. For what it's worth, I like the changes they've made to the gnome.

And like I said, I don't hate gnomes. I think they should still be part of the game. Just not sure they should be a core race.

See, in my experience--and I'm fully prepared to acknowledge that my experience may not be the norm, but it's all I have to judge by--enough people don't "get" gnomes that they're actually played less often than some of the monster races. I have actually seen more kobolds and goblins played as PCs in all my years of D&D than I have gnomes.

If my experience is common--and I don't know if it is--then maybe something else should have been used as a core race, with gnomes available as "monsters-as-PCs" for those who do like 'em. 'sall I meant.

(I've also seen far more half-elves and half-orcs, for the record.)

 

[Darth Shoju]

I agree

I agree, gnomes have been made into a kinda goofball race. Thing is, in most real-world mythology they are really quite frightening and dangerous. In my homebrew campaign, I didn't allow gnomes a PC race and made them more like their evil mythological counterparts. I too was greeted with skepticism from my players about "evil gnomes". They really didn't take them too seriously. I was planning on trying to change that attitude but unfortuneately never got a chance to fit it into the campaign.

As much as I love the Chronicles trilogy, I think Weis and Hickman did set a bit of a precedent for "silly" gnomes, although other authors have played a hand in spreading the stereotype (I think R. A. Salvatore did it in his Woods Out Back trilogy...another of my favorite authors though.)

However, to present another side of the story, in the Greyhawk campaign I play in my friend plays a gnomish wizard/master alchemist. He's manipulative, intelligent and has a pronounced mean-streak. Combined with the fact he is a butt-kicker and the old "goofy gnome" stereotype is largely dispelled.

I guess I'd have to say that the "silly gnome" sterotype can be overcome, but I'd like to see it completely done away with. If people want to play their character like that, then fine, but I think if they are going to be a core class they need to be taken a bit more seriously. I'm not really sure how to do this, but making their favourite class bard probably isn't going to help.

 

[The_Gneech]

Regarding Gnomes...

-The Gneech

 

[Darth Shoju]

lol

Lol that was funny stuff Gneech.