Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The Spectrum Rider" data-source="post: 936395" data-attributes="member: 10777">I know this has been discussed at length, but I wanted to weigh in.Of all the 3.5 changes I've read about, the only one that seems completely unmotivated and counterintutive - one that doesn't seem to have any reason behind it - is the decision to change the gnome's favored class from illusionist to bard.  What problem is being solved here? Exactly whose complaint is being answered? Most of the defenses of this change seem to have to form of "you know, bards can be very illusionist-like if they want to be - even more so in 3.5!"  Which strikes me as a little circular.  Yes, bards can get illusion spells, and do some tricky things.  But that's even more true of illusionists, isn't it?To me, the cognitive dissonance comes down to this: in the 2nd edition we had the gnome race.  And we had the bard class.  And gnomes weren't even ALLOWED to be bards!  Now, I have no objection to gnomish bards, and under 3rd-edition rules they make as much sense as halfling monks, half-orc wizards, and all the rest.  But when exactly did being a bard become the natural thing for gnomes?  Have gomes changed so much from the 2nd edition?   Have bards?In addition, I always thought of gnomes as a somewhat secretive and clannish race - not quite the bardish type that, say, a half-elf would be.I wouldn't mind if illusionsists (and the other specialists, for that matter) were given a little more flavor - some additional appropriate class skills (like Bluff), or some specially designed feats for them to choose.  But to change the gnome's favored class this way strikes me as being completely from out in left field.The Spectrum Rider</blockquote>

Verification