What's with the Gnome Hate?

[Logos7]

but to echo what other's have said,

because they compete with not one but two staples in the phb.

They compete with halflings on the size and trickery factor
(and personally my halfing to gnome usage is about 5:1)

They compete with Elfs on the nature and magic factor
(and lack the subraces to really do it, which is not a dig at the gnomes so much as the sad truth about elves)

Unlike the half elf and the half orc who are both supported better in literature and role wise. (the half elf is the dilantee and diplomacy whore, the half orc is the bruiser )

 

[Doug McCrae]

Just like the Gnomes in Western European fairy tales?

The short trickster spirit, which goes by lots of different names - brownie, hobgoblin, pixie, fairy, elf - is a common archetype in fairy tales, yes. But that doesn't make it a viable PC race. These creatures aren't protagonists, they are mostly obstacles for the hero to overcome.

The trickster probably works best as either a monster to be opposed or as an annoying NPC the PCs have to bargain with.

 

[taliesin15]

Absolutely. I just noted that gnomes were the first to go.

We've come to different conclusions. In any case, it hardly matters to me, as I won't be running 4e and none of the players really care to invest $100+ right now with gas prices at $4/gallon and climbing.

Rakshasas.

That of course is consistent for a game of Indo-Asian flavor--or at least one in which Asian elements are present. As my game is mainly Euro-centric (if anything RW-based), elements such as Rakshasas don't come into play. In fact, I've never used one as a DM or seen one in a game as a player since I started with original D&D in 1979. As a monster. I might add, this is the first time I've heard someone suggesting a Rakshasa as a Core Race for PCs. Certainly more appealing to me than the wet-rag Tiefling.

The problem with such a limited niche is that it's not pre-supposed without the existence of gnomes. Remove gnomes from a game, and nobody asks, "Hey, where's the race that's associated with the school of Illusion?"

And is known as a trickster race, and the only one that usually gets along with Elves, Dwarves, Halflings and Humans. And its the only one I can think of that consists of Eclectic Intellectuals. Since my game is grounded in myth and folklore of Europe, if there was going to be a cut it would Halflings, as they don't exist before Tolkien (unless say you associate them with Leprechauns or other Fey).

After all, nobody is asking where the races are that are associated with Necromancy, Abjuration, Conjuration/Summoning, Divination, or whatnot. It's a niche created to give gnomes something to do, not a pre-existing niche that called out to be fulled.

Largely because none of these were PC Classes in 1st Edition? Nor in myth and folklore?

Same thing. It's sort of in the same lines as "What race is typically described as being the smaller and more magical kin of dwarves?"

But again, that's the static point of view that completely ignores myth and folklore of gnomes.

or, to reverse the devil's advocate position, "What race is described as the fallen remnants of a human race tainted with infernal evil?"

Aren't there already about a dozen possible answers?

It's added flavor to help make the race distinct, but it doesn't posit a vital role for the race that couldn't be used by others. If someone says "I want to have a community hidden by illusion" and there are no gnomes in the game, they can use elves or humans or really any other race: they don't have to invent gnomes to make an illusion-hidden community make sense.

This is pure sophistry, I've given counter examples, and you aren't really arguing against my point. This sort of thing can be done with any race, any monster, possibly even animal. The association with Illusion (to give one example) is deeply grounded in myth going back hundreds (possibly thousands of years in oral tradition), and is well-established in the game, going back to almost the beginning.

Personally, I think the real problem is WoTC messed up by making the Gnome's favored class the Bard, they arbitrarily changed the appearance of the Gnome, had pretty lame artistic depictions of the Gnome in the core rulebooks, probably had little familiarity with Gnomes of myth having been themselves grounded more on videogames than books, and are simply trying to whitewash the whole thing by excluding them in the new edition. It also erases one of the great contributions by Gygax & Co., thus further marking their territory.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

(responding to Sylrae's original post)
I've been gaming since the late 70s and seen numerous players use both halflings and gnomes successfully. In a campaign that concluded a year ago, one player was running a Halfling Druid, which was highly unusual to me, but I think he did a splendid job.

Halfling druids are a staple of EverQuest. He might have gotten that from there.

I still don't understand the "logic" behind 3.5's Gnome favored class as Bard. All the other core races are more logical for that class save Half-Orc and Dwarf. Why not Illusionist as Gary Gygax and his associates designed it? The 1st edition Gnome paradigm is the most original race template, or, put another way, the only one that doesn't blatantly rip off Lord of the Rings. Well, it does rip off Western European fairy tales and suchlike, but that's way OK for me. Drawing from age old myths means you're using something that has inherent staying power, and not something that's going to obsolete in 4-5 years when the NEXT edition of D&D comes out, superseding the one that's only been out for a few weeks.

The theory was this:

1) Elves already had wizard as a favored class (instead of ranger, which they should have had, IMO), and having gnomes have a favored class that was a sub-set of the elves' favored class was a bad call for a PHB race.

2) The bard spell list has lots of illusions and charms on it.

3) Gnomes have always been portrayed in myth as being wise and bardic lore replicates that nicely.

The problem, though, is that they didn't really make bards more than troubadours in the PHB in a meaningful way, and a whole race of troubadours seems strange to people. I think they could have plumped up the gnomish racial description to talk about how important folk songs, folk dances and even work songs are to the gnomish people, but WotC didn't seem to get there would be an issue with players on this.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Halflings got trickster covered, high elves/eladrin got glamour covered, dwarves got craftsmen covered.

The 3E/4E halflings only have trickster covered because they're kender who pretend otherwise.

 

[Vocenoctum]

Dragonlance (and Spelljammer) used the atrocious Tinker gnome concept a.k.a "we blow ourselves up more than we blow the other guy up"

Actually, there were real gnomes in Spelljammer, and they hated Tinkers with a passion, IIRC. Nice aesthetic ships woven with magic and illusion and then some jackass thinks they're a tinker... I'm sure it led to plenty of murders cloaked in illusions.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

And this seems like a good time to link to the Unified Theory of Gnomes, which still works just fine in 4E, despite the current loss of illusions as a meaningful category of magic, since gnomes are just so darned good at hiding.

 

[taliesin15]

Halflings got trickster covered, high elves/eladrin got glamour covered, dwarves got craftsmen covered.

Halflings aren't tricksters by nature (unless you change the profile), Elves aren't the only ones using Magic, and Dwarves certainly aren't the only ones who are craftsmen. Surely you are aware that there are many kinds of crafts that Dwarves aren't particularly known for mastery in?

So you're saying gnomes are so uninteresting you had to give them the dwarves schtick?

I can certainly understand someone new to D&D might have that POV. However, Gnomes have always had some of the same "schtick" (some of it shared by other races, such as Humans), and if you've been reading my posts you can easily glean that I find them far from uninteresting, in fact as the most eclectic race, and the intellectuals with a sense of humor, they are every bit as fascinating to me as Elves. Perhaps you see them through a rather myopic and unimaginative lens?

And half-elves.

Who are not particularly trusted by Dwarves. A little hole in your theory there.

 

[Vocenoctum]

Halflings got trickster covered, high elves/eladrin got glamour covered, dwarves got craftsmen covered.

Traditionally (in D&D) Gnomes have been the finer craftsman. The dwarves were blacksmith's and the gnomes were jewelers. All the dwarven craftsmen stuff kind of glosses over the uber-elf craftsman too though.


Elves tend to the "overpowered" side of magic, grand illusions and world altering magic, gnomes tend to the minimalist approach of things. They live in hills rather than grand tree cities or mountain fortresses. They rely on wit and intelligence to see them through rather than brute (physical or magical) force.

And they do it all with a sense of humor.

IMO, gnomes are about inspiration and quick wits. The "stats like dwarves" is a 3e conceit. Gnomes were smart (+ int) but not always the most careful thinkers (- wis).

Gnomes fell by the way side because:
1) they're small. People have a serious problem with a small race being useful in a fight. Sure they can work with a human plunging 3' of cold steel into a 300' dragon and that's fine, but a 3' race plunging 1 & 1/2' of cold steel into a human, that's "silly".
2) They don't have a niche in Tolkien. People came to D&D through pop culture, and tightly defined niches help them visualize. The fact half the people that play the game decry the limits of classes and alignments and other role-restrictions while lambasting gnomes for not having such a restriction... well that's just standard on the internet.
3) They are not well represented by the folks that run the game. Monte Cook said once that he wanted gnomes out of 3e but they caved. (He also made a comment for AU that he tossed the one race in as a nod to the fans that, for some reason, wanted a small race.) Greenwood never really integrated them into FR, and they were easy to fall by the way side.

Folks really didn't want to be bothered doing the work to understand their contribution and bring them through to the later editions, so after Greyhawk/1e, they languished. When "Illusionist" became a part of Wizard, it became even more redundant.


4e is designed with the idea that anything too difficult to adjudicate gets cut. Grapple wasn't ready for prime time, nor Shapechanging. Gnomes don't have a niche, so bump them. I am pretty sure halflings also would have gone bye bye if not for their protected status in the Tolkien Pact.

 

[taliesin15]

The short trickster spirit, which goes by lots of different names - brownie, hobgoblin, pixie, fairy, elf - is a common archetype in fairy tales, yes. But that doesn't make it a viable PC race.

This is a matter of opinion, and one could add dwarves to your list there. Conversely, there are giant-kind too, matter for another thread. If you are going to condemn gnomes by such an argument, you also condemn halflings, elves and dwarves. Which you can do in your own campaign. And that's kind of the point. Gnomes are a well-established Core Race in D&D (and in myth/folklore) and they aren't going away anytime soon.