D&D General Why Do People Hate Gnomes?

[Bolares]

Maybe so, but a company publishing a game can't afford to devote attention to every "personal" game. The product needs to resonate with pop culture.

D&D today is big enough to have the power to influence (to an extend) pop culture. A lot of D&D races don't have resonance outside the game, but are really popular...

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

I had an idea last night:
I'd make them small fey with huge elemental themes, something like the the genasi of the Feywild or the Feywild answer to the mephits. Ex-slaves of the Formorian (4e lore), sold to other giant lords on the prime. Serve the fey court as teachers and emissaries to the elemental chaos. An elder gnome can become a Chwinga upon their death.

With 4 subraces:

• Svirneblin (Earth themed, enemies of the kobold and xorns, friends of the Korred and galeb dhur)
• Sylph (wind themed, can glide, enemies of harpies and friends of giant birds)
• Salamandir ( fire themed, heated bodies, enemies of firenewts, friend of Azers)
• Naiad ( water themed, breath under water, enemies of Merrows and friends of Locatath)

Possible variant: Nisse (ice themed), Steam/Smoke (tinker?)

All of them have:

• the classic Gnome magic resistance + resistance to their element (fire & water) or different movement (earth & air)
• Small size + can move through tiny space without squeezing
• +1d4 to their choice of 2 tools
• Can speak their specific elemental language + with tiny or small animals related to their element (harder for fire, I guess)

 

[Mecheon]

I didn't say plasmids were a bad thing. They aren't. Plasmids are where unique is a good thing.

Gnomes being "unique" on the other hand is because they are a disparate collection of traits. Forest gnomes are irrelevant wannabe halflings. And rock gnomes are watered down tinker gnomes. The only things you can do with forest gnomes you can't with halflings are ultra-specific and rock gnomes should be a background. It's unique in that it's an odd, spiky shaped piece.

'Unique' gives them more archetypal value. There's more roles they can play rather than being pidgeon-holed into one or two

Take for example everyone's massive standout race, Tieflings. From the simple origin being "You've got lower-planer blood", massive imagination results because it doesn't go too deep into forcing you into an arcetype. Halflings on the other hand are hodge-podged into their role of "Friendly village type", unless they're the one or two weird halfling types that play against form and are scarely halflings at that point

So they don't have an identity. You just wish they did.

They have three identities. Just like how elves are everything from "Arrogant lords in towers" to "Forest lovers who'll shoot you on sight" to "Underground demon worshippers". There's no one stereotypical Elf that'll apply to all of that, why should it be to other ones?

Translation: if you make gnomes more gonzo than they have ever been and give them powers they have never previously had which actively dilute their thematic connect to their roots you might be able to forge an identity for them. There's a reason it's burrowing mammals for the earth elementals.

Or, y'know, bring in common pop-culture traits. Given they're the small, forest living fey, its a Common Pop Culture Trait they can talk to animals. Plus, they could do it in former editions (As a spell, mind). Is this truly 'gonzo'? You're just expanding upon a seed in previous lore and expanding it into something greater, something that goes along with past characterisation and the pop-culture image of them. They already have 90% of the ability, just extend it to larger creatures

Which is entirely unrelated to forest gnomes. But the tedious joke that is Tinker Gnomes should not be core - they should be restricted to Dragonlance and Gonzo settings like Spelljammer. Tinker Gnomes screw up worldbuilding by being a one note joke. They admittedly are only the third worst race in the Krynn Quarantine Zone (kender and gully dwarves being 1 and 2)

So now we've shown that the only vaguely popular gnomes do not belong in the core but are very setting specific then we have them in the right place. Out of core. Or you can have them in core as a race that's basically a background.

Who said they have to be jokes? Just, ditch the 'their technology doesn't work', which rock gnomes have never had anyway, that's a tinker gnome thing. Blam. No joke. You've a reason for the eminant trapmakers, the Kobolds, to dislike them. Heck, the first big looking into gnomes basically said "Yeah they just have a floating mechanical sky city and have invented powered flight". Krynn may have made the tinker gnome thing popular, but other stuff's taken it

I can't see how a technology focused race wouldn't be able to exist in either Greyhawk, with its god of technology and crashed spaceship, or FR.

And if we were to make them a subspecies of halflings not one thing of value would be lost. They're small, they're friendly, they are good at hiding, and they are overmatched.

What do we gain from this? Erasing every part of unique stuff the gnomes have but slapping them with the brush of "Oh yeah they're halflings". Halflings, the race with no origin. Halflings, the race who are eternally Just There. Halflings, the race with no cities of their own, the race with no accomplishments

What do we gain from removing gnomes? Because I cannot see any gain. Nothing.

That you are even asking the question shows the problem. Gnomes are all gimmick, zero substance. Halflings meanwhile are small overmatched everyman characters who are good at hiding because most of them need to stay out of the way.

So do goblins. Or kobolds. And both of them have more on top of that.

Stouts are classic second breakfast enjoying hobbits known for their love of food and enjoy eating. And are able to eat a wide range of things, whether because they've scrabbled for food or simply enjoy a more varied diet than most. And lightfoots are halflings pushed to the margins and who excel at hiding and staying hidden from larger, more dangerous foes.

Tallfellows meanwhile are lightfoots who have a little non-halfling ancestry. For all their claims of who the tall stranger was it was probably a human. After all humans are cross-fertile with everyone else. More importantly Tallfellows aren't directly in 5e as a subrace so they are irrelevant. And yes I agree that Tallfellows were never deserving of being a subrace.

Halflings are a race with substance. Gnomes just have gimmicks - and you want to change gnomes to full Dr. Doolittle

So basically the grand difference is just 'Urban' or 'Rural', is what you're saying. That's all the difference the two races have. Compared to elves who've got their whole 'Magical', 'Deep Forest' and 'Underground' split.

Those two races are barely a gimmick between them, and you could lose either of them and not lose much. Compare to elves, where if you lost one of those sub-races, there'd be people wailing. And no, I want to inject some fantasy into the fantasy game where any level 1 druid can talk to animals anyway, so the race with fey ties may as well do it as well.

Meanwhile gnomes have been desperately scrabbling for an identity and there is no thematic coherence between the subraces.

Ah yes, like the thematic coherence between the types of elves and their famous "These are the magical ones who live in ivory towers", "These are the ones who live in the forests and will gut you for hurting nature", and "These are the spider loving underground ones"

When the most known reason for having subrace splits barely has any coherance between its three most well known, most popular, the three people will gut you for removing, is that really something to strive to? Do we want more subraces as different as the types of elves? Or ones you can barely tell the difference between and seem to be living situations more than anything?

And if you try can do the same for halflings. But it's easier to have uniqueness when you're lacking in coherence and identity.

"Identity" is something they have. 'Coherence' I'd argue they have as well. Rocks, forest, underground, all earthy things. Technology is built of metal, found in the earth, so those who delve can experiment more. Plus, well, saying halflings are unique and have a solid identity is... Well, they have an identity. That identity is "Hobbits with the serial numbers filed off" and everyone knows it. Halflings don't have an identity of their own outside of copying off of Tolkein.

We have the numbers. And no it isn't for the overwhelming majority.

Is there really that much support to remove gnomes and fold them into halflings? I'd be interested to see how people handle this because I reckon most folks would probably be of the mind 'No, keep them seperate'. Regardless, what do you even gain from such? Eroding away what makes gnomes, gnomes, and just slapping the traits into halflings, the race who doesn't even have an origin story in all but one setting?

A trivial amount. Anything, true or false, was used to complain about 4e.

The lack of gnomes and half-orcs was one of the bigger ones.

So the reason to keep gnomes is that a tiny disgruntled minority will complain about the removal of the most superfluous and least popular race in D&D. OK.

They're part of D&D. They've been part of D&D for decades. Playable for decades. They're not the most popular, sure, but if we were removing for popularity, know what's below them? Goliaths. Tabaxi. Tortles. Kobolds. Changelings. Goblins. Satyrs. Centaur. Minotaur. Basically every later race except Genasi, and even Genasi are only barely above gnomes. So many races that have been around for a while. Gnomes still tower eternal above them. Should we just remove them? Just strip away all of the sometimes awkward stuff that D&D's had, just to make it neater in the end?

Agreed that this would be a good change. And goblins could soak up what was left of gnomish identity without trouble. Goblin tinkers are a classic. And why goblin tinkers are vastly better than tinker gnomes is that no one even tried to pretend there's an entire one note joke subrace of them which means that although they can be almost as annoying they don't have the worldbuilding issues.

Of course though, that isn't how goblins are presented (As much as I, a Warcraft fan, do like my tinker goblins). Gnomes are still the small friendly Fey group who have an inventive streak, as likely to be found in the forest or in the workshop. Its an identity that's stood. No, they've not always got the best history of using it, but its something

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Can speak their specific elemental language + with tiny or small animals related to their element (harder for fire, I guess)

Perhaps fire is associated with animals that transform or "die" and are "reborn," e.g. caterpillars become butterflies, while some animals hibernate for the winter, or amphibians (like salamanders!) transform from tadpoles to adult forms with legs and such.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Rejected. The prompt was for different characters. The fact that the characters provided don’t meet your arbitrary criteria for personalities is irrelevant.

What is more, these aren’t personalities, they are character archetypes that are resonant with the 5e lore for gnomes.

The lore specifies that gnomes are highly intelligent, curious, prone to obsess about specific topics, small, mischievous, pranksters, friendly, tend towards wanderlust, use of illusion magic. Forest gnomes have in addition the traits of being reclusive, forest-dwelling, able to speak to small/burrowing animals. Rock gnomes have in addition the trait of tinkering and being good with machines.

5: everything after "shy reclusive" is not a personality, and "shy recluse" is nowhere near enough to call it a personality6

Archetype: character that gets along better with animals than humans.
Examples: Newt Scamander, many westerns
Resonance in lore: reclusiveness, forest-dwelling, ability to speak with burrowing animals.

6: what is with all these "one personality trait and a profession" descriptions? Ditto the above just with "confident" and "master of illusion magic."

Archetype: user of illusion/misdirection who oozes confidence. Overlap with archetype of “small” character who compensates by sounding extra confident.
Examples: Oz the Great and powerful, Loki in his live-action series.
Resonance: small, intelligent, affinity for illusion magic

7: this is literally #1 with extra flavor

Archetype: Witch (with added twist of having animals report back to her)
Examples: too numerous to count
Resonance: forest-dwelling, reclusive, intelligent, ability to speak to animals

8: again...one personality trait + profession does not a personality make.

Archetype: cautious, meticulous engineer
Examples: Al Giordano from Sahara, Dorfman from flight of the Phoenix
Resonance: high intelligence, prone to obsession, affinity for tinkering

 

[Bolares]

Rejected. The prompt was for different characters. The fact that the characters provided don’t meet your arbitrary criteria for personalities is irrelevant.

What is more, these aren’t personalities, they are character archetypes that are resonant with the 5e lore for gnomes.

The lore specifies that gnomes are highly intelligent, curious, prone to obsess about specific topics, small, mischievous, pranksters, friendly, tend towards wanderlust, use of illusion magic. Forest gnomes have in addition the traits of being reclusive, forest-dwelling, able to speak to small/burrowing animals. Rock gnomes have in addition the trait of tinkering and being good with machines.

Archetype: character that gets along better with animals than humans.
Examples: Newt Scamander, many westerns
Resonance in lore: reclusiveness, forest-dwelling, ability to speak with burrowing animals.


Archetype: user of illusion/misdirection who oozes confidence. Overlap with archetype of “small” character who compensates by sounding extra confident.
Examples: Oz the Great and powerful, Loki in his live-action series.
Resonance: small, intelligent, affinity for illusion magic


Archetype: Witch (with added twist of having animals report back to her)
Examples: too numerous to count
Resonance: forest-dwelling, reclusive, intelligent, ability to speak to animals


Archetype: cautious, meticulous engineer
Examples: Al Giordano from Sahara, Dorfman from flight of the Phoenix
Resonance: high intelligence, prone to obsession, affinity for tinkering

Yeah, I don't get that. Someone asked for an archetype. When we gave about nine, they were criticized for not being fully fleshed characters with backstory and personality.... I know they aren't, that was never the point of it.

 

[AnotherGuy]

What is not to like. My primary exposure to and appreciation for gnomes was from the Dragonlance's prelude Darkness and Light. It is amazing how the novels more than the game may have influenced our likes and dislikes.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Not that I can find. There was, however, this thread:

D&D General - why do we have halflings and gnomes?

why do we have halflings and gnomes? I get that they are classic and all that but I can't for the life of me figure out the appeal of them or what to do with them in a setting? I know why Tolkien used hobbits but I do not see who the use them in a non-story setting (gaming settings are...

www.enworld.org

It is somewhat ironic that it was started by @Mind of tempest, who seems to have had a massive change of heart about gnomes in the past 18 months!

I do change my mind on gnomes, I see them as lacking a strong core and needing artistic guidance and a place to stretch their wings.

...and play a lot more practical jokes than wisdom would dictate.

cultures normally have odd behaviours that seem insane to outsiders but make sense internally.

I had thought most of the gnomes' behaviour and how they go about living makes far more sense if it was an adaptation to hide from something, not like kobold who compete with them but a large predatory races, forest and Underdark gnomes are likely closest to the ur stock of this people and they survive be being crafty and hiding a great deal while the rock gnome seems to be symbiotic to larger better-defened cites made by other races far better built for combat it would all make their love of tools and magic as they are some of the few ways to level the playing fields.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Yeah, I don't get that. Someone asked for an archetype. When we gave about nine, they were criticized for not being fully fleshed characters with backstory and personality.... I know they aren't, that was never the point of it.

The request was for personalities. That's why I have looked for personalities, and not other things...

Can you imagine two gnomes with very different personalities?

Case closed.

Quoted, if you want the original text.

 

[Neonchameleon]

'Unique' gives them more archetypal value. There's more roles they can play rather than being pidgeon-holed into one or two

No Unique doesn't. A big problem gnomes have is that their niches are neither conflicting nor contrasting but are basically unique.

Halflings drift more easily than gnomes because what they are is something other than a grab bag of tropes thrown together without thematic coherence. And that is why as of 2017 they were more popular than gnomes in every single class except wizard, druid, and by the thinnest of margins, warlocks.

Take for example everyone's massive standout race, Tieflings. From the simple origin being "You've got lower-planer blood", massive imagination results because it doesn't go too deep into forcing you into an arcetype. Halflings on the other hand are hodge-podged into their role of "Friendly village type", unless they're the one or two weird halfling types that play against form and are scarely halflings at that point

Meanwhile gnomes are hodgepodged into their role of "like halflings but with random subrace-determined magic". Which is why halflings are more popular in every class except the ones where the random magic hits the class on the nail and, by the narrowest margin, warlocks.

Halflings have an identity. Gnomes have gimmicks.

They have three identities. Just like how elves are everything from "Arrogant lords in towers" to "Forest lovers who'll shoot you on sight" to "Underground demon worshippers". There's no one stereotypical Elf that'll apply to all of that, why should it be to other ones?

There are reasons elves get complained about.

Or, y'know, bring in common pop-culture traits. Given they're the small, forest living fey, its a Common Pop Culture Trait they can talk to animals.

They already can... Burrowing mammals. But once more this is a gimmick.

Plus, they could do it in former editions

It has always only been burrowing mammals.

Who said they have to be jokes? Just, ditch the 'their technology doesn't work', which rock gnomes have never had anyway, that's a tinker gnome thing. Blam. No joke.

Just halflings with a completely different gimmick from being able to talk to animals. And this is why gnomes as a race in 5e are a failure. The ones who play Dr Doolittle are basically entirely unrelated to the fiddlers.

If you wanted a coherent theme between the two rather than to make a grab bag of unrelated tropes and pass it off as a race you'd give the rock/tinker gnomes psychometry and as such able to listen to objects. Forest gnomes communicate with animals, rock gnomes with objects. Very different uses coming from the same place.

What do we gain from this? Erasing every part of unique stuff the gnomes have but slapping them with the brush of "Oh yeah they're halflings".

And not a thing of value is lost. Because gnomes are not a race, they are tropes shoehorned into a race that is only there because it has been there from the start and changes every edition from one unpopular choice to another, never really finding an identity between gnomes and dwarves.

What do we gain from removing gnomes? Because I cannot see any gain. Nothing.

We gain less space taken up and the ability to include e.g. goblins. What do we gain by keeping them? What do they actually do that halflings or goblins don't?

So do goblins. Or kobolds. And both of them have more on top of that.

And are hostile. Which is a different experience to the newbie PC hesitant halfling. I agree both races have a lot more going on than gnomes do however.

So basically the grand difference is just 'Urban' or 'Rural', is what you're saying.

Comfortable and poor is more like it. Stout Farmers are definitely rural - but Stout Burgomeisters are urban

Those two races are barely a gimmick between them,

Indeed. They have substance. They leave pure gimmickry to the gnomes. Of course you could mix the two by making gnomes halfling subraces.

When the most known reason for having subrace splits barely has any coherance between its three most well known, most popular, the three people will gut you for removing, is that really something to strive to? Do we want more subraces as different as the types of elves? Or ones you can barely tell the difference between and seem to be living situations more than anything?

I'd rather ditch subraces other than in rare cases (like Dragonborn and genasi). But if we try to remove gnome subraces what's left? Which wins? Neither is necessary to the other or follows from the core concept. They are just gimmicks.

Is there really that much support to remove gnomes and fold them into halflings?

Is there really much support to keep the game's least popular core race?

Which would you prefer? No gnomes or a halfling subrace?

Eroding away what makes gnomes, gnomes,

And there's nothing to lose here. This is the problem.

The lack of gnomes and half-orcs was one of the bigger ones.

Lol. No.

They're part of D&D. They've been part of D&D for decades. Playable for decades. They're not the most popular, sure, but if we were removing for popularity, know what's below them?

Non PHB races. Gnomes only stay in the PHB through inertia.

Goliaths.

Above gnomes.

Gnomes still tower eternal above them.

Gnomes have a leg up thanks to being in the PHB and still are unwanted.

Should we just remove them?

No. Just drop them from the PHB.