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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 8683388" data-attributes="member: 87792">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.So they don't have an identity. You just wish they did.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.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.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.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.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 Objection. Tallfellows have gone. Yes there was just about nothing to them.Meanwhile gnomes have been desperately scrabbling for an identity and there is no thematic coherence between the subraces.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.We have the numbers. And no it isn't for the overwhelming majority.A trivial amount. Anything, true or false, was used to complain about 4e.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.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.</blockquote>

Verification