PDA

View Full Version : bonus unlockable 4e race



Rex Blunder
2007-11-06, 09:43 PM
It's been hinted before that there would be another base race in the PHB beyond the ones we know about. In a post by Michele Carter (http://www.gleemax.com/Comms/Pages/Communities/BlogPost.aspx?blogpostid=20346&pagemode=2&blogid=7576), that's all but confirmed.



me: Andraste, eladrin warlord
Bruce Cordell: Melech, tiefling warlock (not infernal, naturally *snicker*)
Jeremy Crawford: Alex, human wizard
Matt Sernett: Bartho, human fighter
Shawn Blakeney: Balasar, --hey! look over there! shiny thing!-- ...where was I? oh, right-- cleric

Do you think it's one of the usual suspects - orc, goblin, warforged, drow - or entirely new intellectual property? I kind of think it might be something entirely new, or they wouldn't be being so coy about it.

Also of interest:
"The geography of Chris's campaign world is broken into hundreds of small islands, with a slightly despotic (to some of the characters' minds, anyway) empire holding sway over them all."

"Balasar arrived on a warship with his people. That's the empire's people, by the way."

Arbitrarity
2007-11-06, 09:54 PM
0.o.

Clearly, it's an easter egg in the .xmls of the online game, only unlockable if you hack it correctly! :smallbiggrin:

Eeeevil videogame :smallwink:

Neon Knight
2007-11-06, 09:56 PM
An empire of Kender?

Run for the hills!

Lord Tataraus
2007-11-06, 09:59 PM
Hm...empire...lots of islands....goblins? water goblins?! water goblin ninjas?!?!

I'm betting on something we haven't seen before, also I bet it will be a let down when they finally reveal it (for most of course, since someone is always let down by 4e stuff).

Kyeudo
2007-11-06, 10:09 PM
I'd say that if there is an unlockable race, its gonna be Gnomes, since Eberron needs gnomes to work.

Doresain
2007-11-06, 10:14 PM
it will be wookiees...thats my story and im sticking to it

ocato
2007-11-06, 10:21 PM
Wookiee Warblade, most OP character concept ever? Maybe.

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-06, 10:23 PM
I'll guess a race nobody's guessed before:

Theracopes - they've become very popular ever since their introduction as a PC in Van Richten's Guide to werebeasts.

MCerberus
2007-11-06, 10:25 PM
hmm... Balasar sounds like a good name for a lizard-like creature.

Sundog
2007-11-06, 10:27 PM
Klingons. They announce Paramount's takeover of the company just before the 4E release.

Snadgeros
2007-11-06, 10:40 PM
MINDFLAYERS! Make it MINDFLAYERS! That would be SO AWESOME!:smallbiggrin:

jamroar
2007-11-06, 10:47 PM
Also of interest:
"The geography of Chris's campaign world is broken into hundreds of small islands, with a slightly despotic (to some of the characters' minds, anyway) empire holding sway over them all."

"Balasar arrived on a warship with his people. That's the empire's people, by the way."
I'm thinking Shadar-Kai. They're one of the new "created for 3rd ed." races Wizards seems to be pushing to be the next greatest thing, and fills the niche of those who want to play dark emo Elric ripoff antiheroes drow-like PCs nicely without the baggage of coming from a decidedly evil isolationist society.

Thinker
2007-11-06, 10:54 PM
I'll guess a race nobody's guessed before:

Theracopes - they've become very popular ever since their introduction as a PC in Van Richten's Guide to werebeasts.

Does every post of yours have to revolve around Ravenloft or reference it in some way? It seems a bit obsessive.

Anyway, gnomes would make some sense, as would Aasimar.

Magi_Ring_O
2007-11-06, 10:56 PM
It did sound pretty much like a kender, til I saw the cleric bit. It's probably a reworked gnome race.

Rex Blunder
2007-11-06, 10:57 PM
hmm, shadar kai... well, wizards definitely seems to think they have traction (https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20060106a). Two races who have a history of dark pacts seems a little much though.

Artemician
2007-11-06, 10:57 PM
Does every post of yours have to revolve around Ravenloft or reference it in some way? It seems a bit obsessive.

Anyway, gnomes would make some sense, as would Aasimar.

He can talk about Ravenloft all he likes. It's a free internet.

@OP: I'm going with the Aasimar crowd. They put in Tieflings, how can they just drop their shinier cousins just like that?

Thinker
2007-11-06, 11:03 PM
He can talk about Ravenloft all he likes. It's a free internet.
In soviet russia, Ravenloft talks about you! :smalltongue:

Mewtarthio
2007-11-06, 11:04 PM
Hm... All we know is that the new race is either easily distracted by shinies or thinks we are. Personally, I'm going with the Awakened Tyrannosaurus Rex, as per Grant and Malcolm's performance in Jurassic Park (Grant for showing how easy it is to distract a T-Rex, Malcolm for showing us how stupid it is to distract a T-Rex).

Human Paragon 3
2007-11-06, 11:04 PM
Aasimar Cleric would fit, too. Also, despotic Aasimar empire? Niiiice.

I don't think the new race is distracted by shinies. I think that was meant as a distraction (in jest of course, since it actually drew attention to, not) away from the mystery race.

Mewtarthio
2007-11-06, 11:12 PM
I don't think the new race is distracted by shinies. I think that was meant as a distraction (in jest of course, since it actually drew attention to, not) away from the mystery race.

:amused: You mean it's not a sentient T-Rex?

Yeygresh
2007-11-06, 11:17 PM
My guess: Spider-People. Or Night Elves, I can't choose.

It's just going to be some race that's aimed towards the current generation(something Anime-ish). Not that that is necessarily a bad thing, Tieflings were added to the PHB solely because they appealed to their target audience(or so I've heard), and I think Tieflings are an enjoyable race(I'd play them more often, save for that pesky LA).

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-06, 11:23 PM
To tell the truth I know a lot of people hope it's kender, but kender are unique to Dragonlance and have been kept so unique to dragonlance, that there were actual rules that prevented kender and half-lings from being in the same domain at the same time (outside of ravenloft and spelljammer).

I sincerely hope it's not kender.

dragonseth
2007-11-07, 01:11 AM
Hmm. Aasimar seems likely, but why would they bother hiding that? It seems so obvious since Tieflings are there. Maybe some new race with a connection to dragons? Like Dragonborn (I know it's not a race, technically) and Spellscales?

Mike_Lemmer
2007-11-07, 02:16 AM
I'd guess fairies. A small creature that can fly could be interesting, even more so if they actually made an empire. "It isn't an empire, it's a game with living pieces!"

horseboy
2007-11-07, 02:27 AM
I'd guess fairies. A small creature that can fly could be interesting, even more so if they actually made an empire. "It isn't an empire, it's a game with living pieces!"

*Shudders at the thought of a windling empire*

Aquillion
2007-11-07, 04:18 AM
I hope it isn't something too setting-specific, like Kender or Drow (yes, I know they've put Drow in multiple settings. They're still very setting- and backstory-specific. Nobody is 'just a Drow'; they don't belong in core.)

I doubt it would be something that can fly. Most flying creatures require an LA, and the ones that don't are not something you'd want to use in your very first game. I think they want to keep the core books down to the basic, easy-to-use-in-all-circumstances stuff... more advanced things can wait for other books.

And if it's just Aasimar, why would they make a secret out of it? They didn't make a secret out of Tieflings.

EDIT: Also, that post has some hints in it, really:

The geography of Chris's campaign world is broken into hundreds of small islands, with a slightly despotic (to some of the characters' minds, anyway) empire holding sway over them all.

The three natives already have ties of friendship, and Andraste and Alex were becoming acquainted over some shared commonalities, when Balasar arrived on a warship with his people. That's the empire's people, by the way.

But it quickly became clear that Balasar had an agenda that might be more in line with the other PCs', and we won't necessarily need to hold his race against him. (Heh.) (Do I need to add here that it's entirely the nature of Chris's campaign setup suggesting our attitudes, and not official material? I suppose so.)
I really can't imagine a slightly despotic Aasimar or fairy empire, or a Kender empire at all. Presumably it is also a race that is very recognizable on sight for it to get that reaction. And not Drow or anything with weird restrictions like that, since they couldn't really hold 'hundreds of small islands.'

RTGoodman
2007-11-07, 08:04 AM
I don't know - it seems to me that it could just be that the writer of the post didn't remember the race of the cleric, and tried to distract us (the readers).

But if there is some secret race, I hope it's either Gnomes or just something new. I don't like Eberron (so I don't want it to be any of the related races), and I just don't like the idea of some of the other races (Drow, for instance) becoming main player races.

Dausuul
2007-11-07, 08:34 AM
Count me in the shadar-kai camp. Aasimar are frankly not exotic enough to justify concealing them--we've got tieflings, it should be no surprise to get aasimar. Kender... nobody wants to go there. But shadar-kai are already established as major players in the shadow-plane in 4E cosmology, and they make a good counterbalance to the eladrins.

Overlard
2007-11-07, 09:10 AM
Have I missed shadar-kai information somewhere? This is the first time I've heard of them at all, let alone in 4th edition.

Zincorium
2007-11-07, 09:22 AM
Have I missed shadar-kai information somewhere? This is the first time I've heard of them at all, let alone in 4th edition.

Shadar Kai are in the fiend folio, page 150. They might have been reprinted somewhere newer, but I couldn't tell you where. However, they were in the new 4th edition miniature set, so we know for sure that they are in the game.

Personally, I kind of like the ideas behind the shadar kai, although how they would fit into the game as a regular PC race I'm skeptical.

Telonius
2007-11-07, 09:33 AM
It's been hinted before that there would be another base race in the PHB beyond the ones we know about. In a post by Michele Carter (http://www.gleemax.com/Comms/Pages/Communities/BlogPost.aspx?blogpostid=20346&pagemode=2&blogid=7576), that's all but confirmed.



Do you think it's one of the usual suspects - orc, goblin, warforged, drow - or entirely new intellectual property? I kind of think it might be something entirely new, or they wouldn't be being so coy about it.

Also of interest:
"The geography of Chris's campaign world is broken into hundreds of small islands, with a slightly despotic (to some of the characters' minds, anyway) empire holding sway over them all."

"Balasar arrived on a warship with his people. That's the empire's people, by the way."

Jaegermonsters, maybe? Or maybe I've been reading too much Girl Genius. :smallbiggrin:

Overlard
2007-11-07, 09:34 AM
Shadar Kai are in the fiend folio, page 150. They might have been reprinted somewhere newer, but I couldn't tell you where. However, they were in the new 4th edition miniature set, so we know for sure that they are in the game.

Personally, I kind of like the ideas behind the shadar kai, although how they would fit into the game as a regular PC race I'm skeptical.
That would explain it, FF is one of the few books I don't have.

boomwolf
2007-11-07, 10:00 AM
Gnolls or Kobolds.

Arakune
2007-11-07, 10:05 AM
troglodites?

Fax Celestis
2007-11-07, 11:12 AM
I'm with the Aasimar crowd.

AKA_Bait
2007-11-07, 11:17 AM
Sadly, I'm with the Shadar-Kai folks. They are pretty recognizeable and seem to be a favored child of WotC at the moment. They can probably reverse engineer them to be a no adjustment race, since it's a +1 and racial hit dice.

Personally, Yuan-ti would be cool in my book but I doubt it.

daggaz
2007-11-07, 11:23 AM
My guess: Spider-People. Or Night Elves, I can't choose.

Spider people would actually be quite cool. Hmmm, I had better go check the homebrew forums for something a lot better than ettercaps.

Fax Celestis
2007-11-07, 11:48 AM
Spider people would actually be quite cool. Hmmm, I had better go check the homebrew forums for something a lot better than ettercaps.

Here you are.

hamlet
2007-11-07, 11:55 AM
You know, I can't help but wonder what happened to the days when playing a human, elf, dwarf, gnome, or halfling was cool enough for us. Now I see games where that's considered "too restrictive" and have actually had people walk out because they weren't permitted to play their "half troll mind flayer sorcerer."

This is just my opinion, but I'm a great believer that the core books (back when, you know, once you bought the PHB, DMB, and MM you had all you really needed) should focus on the Tolkeinian type races, the classic D&D races and leave out for the time any "exotic" races. Those wierd races should be left for expansions and should be clearly labeled as optional.

But that's another problem I have with the recent crop of games. If it isn't strictly forbidden, it must be permitted and the DM refusing to let you have it is being unreasonable. This is being further enforced now by WOTC's plan to have "all core books" and publishing the PHB I, PHB II, PHB III . . . PHB XVIILV so playing "core only" will be an increasingly expensive option and anyone who wants to do something as simple as play with the classic D&D races will be forced to buy more books to do so.

RIP Gnomes. For that matter, RIP elves.

shadowdemon_lord
2007-11-07, 12:24 PM
What are you guys talking about their taking gnomes out of core? In the D&D podcast they specifically talk about gnomes in the latest episode. They can now talk to burrowing animals, but neither the gnome nor the animal will understand the other. It's this really strange ability that really should just get axed if their going to restrict it so much, but they can't because it's iconic for gnomes. And what's this about elves out of core (okay I haven't played one since 2e) but their still iconic to ALL D&D settings. How are we going to have forgotten realms with it's thirty different versions of elves if their not in the core? Grrrr....

Hannes
2007-11-07, 12:27 PM
My idea is that he's a human, and it was just to create false paranoia. Or a dwarf.

Sonofaspectre
2007-11-07, 12:32 PM
I vote Kobolds. Ever since Races of Dragons and the Dragonomicron or whatever came out, Kobolds have been pushed heavily. Not that that is a bad thing. I mean, really what other non-race race has as much attachment to both DRAGONS and DUNGEONS? I mean, Tucker's Kobolds are talked about just about in every setting and group I know, and Dragons getting the big pump means that a tiny draconic race would work out greatly. Plus, if the rumors are true that the gnome get the axe, the Kobold fits the exact same nitch, with better flavor, and is equally iconic.

I vote Kobolds.

SpikeFightwicky
2007-11-07, 12:37 PM
Despotic empire? Religious cleric? Shadar Kai? Sounds like a D&D version of the Yuuzhan Vong.

Either way, I'll definately have to look them up in the Fiend Folio.

Lord Tataraus
2007-11-07, 12:48 PM
Spider people would actually be quite cool. Hmmm, I had better go check the homebrew forums for something a lot better than ettercaps.

Try this. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=58502) (Note - under construction)

brian c
2007-11-07, 12:50 PM
Sadly, I'm with the Shadar-Kai folks. They are pretty recognizeable and seem to be a favored child of WotC at the moment. They can probably reverse engineer them to be a no adjustment race, since it's a +1 and racial hit dice.

Personally, Yuan-ti would be cool in my book but I doubt it.

Actually, from the first descriptions of 4e, it seems like they're doing away with level adjustments entirely and giving every race abilities that scale with level.

Still, I kinda hope its not Shadar-Kai just because I had never heard of them before all this.

I'm tending towards the theory that the person writing the post just forgot what race the character was, not that it's something secret. You know, it's possible that whatever island empire they're from is not homogeneous by race; maybe that empire has humans, elves, etc and the poster just forgot which he was.

Alternatively, what if he is of a different race, but not something that will be in the core books? I remember one of the earlier playtest reports had someone playing a "psion", but since there is no 4e psion yet it was just a wizard. Maybe he is a Shadar-Kai or whatever, but that doesn't mean that they'll be in the 4e PHB.

Temp
2007-11-07, 01:19 PM
If they have Tieflings in core, they're bound to release Aasimar within a year.

...But based on the Miniatures preview which featured as many Drow as it did halflings, normal elves, or Tieflings, I'm leaning in that direction.

Swooper
2007-11-07, 01:41 PM
What are you guys talking about their taking gnomes out of core? In the D&D podcast they specifically talk about gnomes in the latest episode. They can now talk to burrowing animals, but neither the gnome nor the animal will understand the other. It's this really strange ability that really should just get axed if their going to restrict it so much, but they can't because it's iconic for gnomes. And what's this about elves out of core (okay I haven't played one since 2e) but their still iconic to ALL D&D settings. How are we going to have forgotten realms with it's thirty different versions of elves if their not in the core? Grrrr....
That particular gnome was made with racial stats made by the DM of that particular game. It is mentioned that he's likely the only 4th Edition gnome being currently played. As sad as it makes me, it seems that gnomes won't be in the 4th Edition PHB1. :smallfrown:

Don't worry about the elves.. there was a Design & Development article that was all about elves. Sadly, they seem to be condensed into a single subrace, and are now somehow related to Eladrins:smallconfused:

Person_Man
2007-11-07, 02:09 PM
According to a Peter Schaefer (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=13749628&postcount=8), "Each race works best with two or three classes, thanks to a stat bonus or other feature, and none suck at any class."

These are the races we know:

Human: Probably still good at everything.
Dwarf: +2 Con, -2 Cha
Elf: +2 Dex, -2 Con (Wood Elves)
Eladrin: ? (Sun/Moon/High Elves)
Half Elf: ?
Halfling: +2 Dex, -2 Str
Tiefling: +2 Int, -2 Wis

WotC has promoted Tieflings as Warlocks, which are Cha based. There's also no other Arcane class, so it would make sense for Warlocks to stay Cha based. So I'm guessing Tieflings won't have a Cha penalty, or that WotC is retarded.

If we line up classes and races based on stereotypes and stat bonuses, I get this:

Cleric: Divine: Leader: Wis/Cha: ?
Warlord: Martial: Leader: Str/Con/Cha: ?
Fighter: Martial: Defender: Str/Con: Dwarf and ?
Paladin: Divine: Defender: Str/Con/Cha: ?
Ranger: Martial and/or Divine: Striker: Str/Dex/Wis?: Elf, Half Elf, and Halfling
Rogue: Martial: Striker: Dex/Int: Halfling, Half Elf and Tiefling
Warlock: Arcane: Controller and/or Striker: Cha/Dex: Tiefling and Half-Elf
Wizard: Arcane: Controller: Int/Con: Elf, Eladrin and Tiefling


So its seems that we need a race other then Human that can fill Fighter, Warlord, Cleric, and Paladin. If they give a Cha bonus to Half Elves or Eladrin, then its them. Otherwise, we need bruiser/martial race with a Cha bonus. That would also fit with the example: "Balasar, --hey! look over there! shiny thing!-- ...where was I? oh, right-- cleric"

Aasamir would make sense, but that seems to tread on the Eladrin fluff.

So right now I don't have a guess, other then to say that its unlikely to be another sneaky/different outsider/outcast type race, which is already covered by Tiefling, Halfling, and Half Elf.

leperkhaun
2007-11-07, 02:09 PM
I'd say that if there is an unlockable race, its gonna be Gnomes, since Eberron needs gnomes to work.


Actually that need not be true. The designers of Eberron have said that they wont be changing things around just because the players might not include a race in eberron.

There will still be gnomes and there will still be all the dragonmarks.

The designers have said that they are keeping eberron like it is, just shifting the rule set to 4e.

ehhh not only that i would have a hard time beliving that while gnomes might not be in the PHB, that they wont appear in the MM.

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-07, 02:14 PM
. So I'm guessing Tieflings won't have a Cha penalty, or that WotC is retarded.


Since when has WotC provided any proof they aren't retarded?

:tongue:

Rex Blunder
2007-11-07, 02:38 PM
I'm going to vote against gnomes.

"OK, we're definitely cutting gnomes, you guys!"
...
"There is a super secret new race we're introducing!"
...
"You guys are gonna love it!"
...
"Surprise! It's gnomes."

It would be hilarious, but I don't think even WOTC marketing is that inept.

Greenfaun
2007-11-07, 03:20 PM
Catfolk. Just to cheese off the "it's too anime!" faction EVEN MORE. :smallamused:

In all seriousness, though, I think they probably want another "Good at fighting" sort of race, and catfolk or goliaths or half-giants or trollkin or some other slightly scary race could fill that role. I hope they come up with something good. Personally, I'd be psyched if it was Shifters, but I think somebody already said those are in the MM but not a PC race.

Fhaolan
2007-11-07, 03:37 PM
Actually, it wouldn't surprise me to see something along the lines of goliaths, half-ogres, or troll-kin, or whatever you want to call it. A large-size standard character race.

I would *love* to see Centaurs. :) Not likely in the extreme, but I'd still like it.

AKA_Bait
2007-11-07, 03:38 PM
It would be hilarious, but I don't think even WOTC marketing is that inept.

I dunno... did you read Confessions of a Part Time Sorceress... the WotC marketing department never ceases to amaze me these days.


Catfolk. Just to cheese off the "it's too anime!" faction EVEN MORE. :smallamused:

In all seriousness, though, I think they probably want another "Good at fighting" sort of race, and catfolk or goliaths or half-giants or trollkin or some other slightly scary race could fill that role. I hope they come up with something good. Personally, I'd be psyched if it was Shifters, but I think somebody already said those are in the MM but not a PC race.

Goliath's seem possible too come to think of it. With half orcs gone they do need a 'smashy' race.

Artanis
2007-11-07, 03:58 PM
I have to agree that Aasimar are the most obvious choice, for reasons already stated. Even the "slightly despotic" bit is counterbalanced by the word "slightly" and the phrase "to some characters' minds"...which could technically mean having any rules at all, if the characters tend to be CN nutjobs or something. So Aasimar would fit.

However, the most obvious choice isn't necessarily the right one. Hobgoblins would also fit reasonably well (especially if you use the smart, nation-building version that's in Eberron), and there's several more (such as Drow or even Kobolds) that would fit what little info the post reveals.

Swooper
2007-11-07, 04:03 PM
I have to agree that Aasimar are the most obvious choice, for reasons already stated. Even the "slightly despotic" bit is counterbalanced by the word "slightly" and the phrase "to some characters' minds"...which could technically mean having any rules at all, if the characters tend to be CN nutjobs or something. So Aasimar would fit.

However, the most obvious choice isn't necessarily the right one. Hobgoblins would also fit reasonably well (especially if you use the smart, nation-building version that's in Eberron), and there's several more (such as Drow or even Kobolds) that would fit what little info the post reveals.
Wow, I'm going to go with optimism here and hope it's hobgoblins too. I like hobgoblins. Much more flavourful than durn half-orcs.

Morty
2007-11-07, 04:28 PM
Can anone explain what those "shadar-kai" are?
I personally hope that whatever new core race comes in, it's goblin, but I know that this hope is futile. But I'm cool as long as this race:
a) Isn't gnome
b) Makes at least some sense.

CabbageTheif
2007-11-07, 04:30 PM
if it was an aasimar, why would they hide it? they just said teifling. thats like saying "hey, we have a fighter, a wizard, and a cleric. bet you cant guess what the fourth one is!!" and as much as i (clearly) like kenders, i don't think its them for the universe argument; they are dragon lance, not Grey hawk. i honestly think that they just reworked the gnome and are trying to make us extra-excited about it by not telling us, therefor raising the appeal for it.

Swooper
2007-11-07, 04:41 PM
Can anone explain what those "shadar-kai" are?
In short: Emo shadow-fey. That, for some reason, all weild spiked chains. Propably why I hate them almost as much as said weapon.

Eldmor
2007-11-07, 04:44 PM
The warforged make sense to me as eventually creating an empire. Enough anti-war ones bonk their metal heads together and realize that the best way to prevent any more war is to make an empire they can control. The peace corp approach.
They fulfill the role of smashy race and they would probably be toned done from 3.5, seeing as a lot of people have the opinion of them being LA+1/2.

dragonseth
2007-11-07, 04:46 PM
Now that I notice the title of this thread, what do you mean by 'unlockable'?

I can see it now:
"You've just completed your 20th adventure. Now you have access to [insert race here]!"
Complete with a spinning 3d model of the race and a little ding sound.

Well, 4th is going to use computers quite heavily. I could certainly see this.:smallamused:

Morty
2007-11-07, 04:48 PM
In short: Emo shadow-fey. That, for some reason, all weild spiked chains. Propably why I hate them almost as much as said weapon.

Oh, for the love of... emo shadow-fey with spiked chains are actually worse than gnomes. I hope like hell they won't become a core race.

Nostri
2007-11-07, 04:53 PM
Now that I notice the title of this thread, what do you mean by 'unlockable'?

I can see it now:
"You've just completed your 20th adventure. Now you have access to [insert race here]!"
Complete with a spinning 3d model of the race and a little ding sound.

Well, 4th is going to use computers quite heavily. I could certainly see this.:smallamused:

I'm one of the people who's opinion of 4th has been, "Well, I'll look at it when it comes out and if I like it I'll buy it, if not I won't." But if we find out that that's the case I'm going to start a band of anti-4th Edition gamers like the world has never seen. We will strike terror into the hearts of millions and.....okay I guess I should stop now. I guess my point is that I can understand catering to a crowd who's been playing video games all their life and even basing some elements of design off of popular video games (per encounter abilities and the like) but "unlocking" hidden parts of books you've already bought by playing online is going too far.

So yeah, let's hope that prediction doesn't come true. :smalleek:

AKA_Bait
2007-11-07, 04:54 PM
Oh, for the love of... emo shadow-fey with spiked chains are actually worse than gnomes. I hope like hell they won't become a core race.

Oh, I quite agree with you that they are blindingly horrible and I really hope they are not the other player race. However... well you probably saw my earlier commentary about the WotC marketing department...

raygungothic
2007-11-07, 04:57 PM
hamlet: You said "Now I see games where that's considered "too restrictive" and have actually had people walk out because they weren't permitted to play their 'half troll mind flayer sorcerer'."
Surely these are the people you are GLAD are walking out? I know I'd rather let them leave than have to fight them...

You also said "But that's another problem I have with the recent crop of games. If it isn't strictly forbidden, it must be permitted and the DM refusing to let you have it is being unreasonable."
I hear this idea all the time, and it always leaves me a little confused. Where does it say that all this stuff is always permitted? I don't think the stated balance between permissive and restrictive has changed in the... erm... 17 years (good grief!) I've been playing D&D of various sorts. The default has always been that the books don't waste space on saying "subject to DM approval" every other paragraph, but that nothing is strictly automatic - it occupies a fuzzy space in between, and it's for different groups to reach their own consensus on.

Is there any indication that 4e will change this? Not that I have heard. (I will probably be as late an adopter as I have been of 3/3.5 - as in, only buying lots of it at the very end of its lifecycle - I just don't care how current my games material is as long as it's entertaining me :smallbiggrin: )

As for races... I don't really see the need for yet more weird races in core, but I won't mourn terribly if gnomes are missing. I am an anti-Elfist bigot and proud of it, so I don't think I'm qualified to offer a rational opinion on the Elf side of things.

Temp
2007-11-07, 05:07 PM
I hear this idea all the time, and it always leaves me a little confused. Where does it say that all this stuff is always permitted?The rules give guidelines to playing monsters, but they don't place emphasis on the thought that a player shouldn't expect to do so.
AD&D did do a better job to discourage this sort of thing and it looks like 4E will too.


The default has always been that the books don't waste space on saying "subject to DM approval" every other paragraph, but that nothing is strictly automatic - it occupies a fuzzy space in between, and it's for different groups to reach their own consensus on.
But since everything is equally up in the air for DM approval, it's no more unreasonable to assume that you can play a Fiendish Half-Giant Cancer Mage than it is to assume that you'll be able to play a Human Fighter.


Is there any indication that 4e will change this? Not that I have heard.Actually, I think the "Races" article mentioned limiting Racial options because each playable race would need a special level progression that would just be needless work to draw out for each monster in the MM.

I wouldn't expect not to see another Savage Species within a couple of years, though.

Morty
2007-11-07, 05:10 PM
Oh, I quite agree with you that they are blindingly horrible and I really hope they are not the other player race. However... well you probably saw my earlier commentary about the WotC marketing department...

I did, and it indeed doesn't surprise me that they're possible player race. Actually, I'm afraid that shadow fey with spiked chains will in fact become hugely popular.
Well, as long as they provide playable stats on orcs and goblinoids, I'm happy.

Fax Celestis
2007-11-07, 05:24 PM
Actually, Shadar-Kai are making more and more sense. Due to their whole Planar Triptych of the Shadowfell, Feywild, and Astral, I would assume there's one base race associated with each. Because of the Abyss' presence in the Astral plane, that'd mean that Tieflings are associated with the Astral, Eladrin with the Feywild, and Shadar-Kai with the Shadowfell.

Azerian Kelimon
2007-11-07, 05:28 PM
Yeah, makes sense, but we want D&D, not "Lame storyteller for NWoD who thinks all vampires are Ann Rice-esque tortured souls" games. Aasimar should be in, Good should always triumph. Fact is, I'm partial to thinking them people at WoTC are gonna say "Freebie!" and say TWO races are undisclosed. If that's the case, I'd be fine, if not, it wouldn't make much sense.

Fax Celestis
2007-11-07, 05:32 PM
Good should always triumph.

Says who? Really, that'd make for boring games if you knew that good would always win. There's no suspense and no potential for failure.

Azerian Kelimon
2007-11-07, 05:37 PM
Says who? Says the abstracts. Evil is the abscence of good, simply, so good always wins, IF it exerts itself. If not, Evil wins. Never understood why heroes fretted so much, if they just went around doing their heroic things they'd manage anyway.

Fax Celestis
2007-11-07, 05:41 PM
Says who? Says the abstracts. Evil is the abscence of good, simply, so good always wins, IF it exerts itself. If not, Evil wins. Never understood why heroes fretted so much, if they just went around doing their heroic things they'd manage anyway.

Evil is not the absence of good: you cannot have one without the other. If you only had good, you'd have "good" and "less good", and then "less good" would be the new evil.

Evil actually often wins because it is both easy to do and does not have reservations about methods to victory. A lack of moral qualms is a very empowering factor in the good/evil war.

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-07, 05:43 PM
Yeah, makes sense, but we want D&D, not "Lame storyteller for NWoD who thinks all vampires are Ann Rice-esque tortured souls" games. Aasimar should be in, Good should always triumph. Fact is, I'm partial to thinking them people at WoTC are gonna say "Freebie!" and say TWO races are undisclosed. If that's the case, I'd be fine, if not, it wouldn't make much sense.

I hate Ann Rice. She makes me sick. She's almost as bad as Ann Rand.

:shudders:

The only vampires I consider to allow in my games are vampires like Nick Knight. No tortured soul, just someone who's trying to be good while so many others are pure evil. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Knight_(Forever_Knight)

Although I prefer to ignore most of the last season of Forever Knight.

Azerian Kelimon
2007-11-07, 05:45 PM
Y'know why Good is often called Light (wrongly) and Evil is called Darkness (wrongly, again)? It's for this exact reason, because Evil is an abscence of good, like Darkness is just the abscence of light. As long as there's a little light, Darkness doesn't take over, and as long as there is some Good out there, Evil doesn't win. The reason that Good actually wins just by existing is that it denies the victory to evil, which, at the same time is self destructing. It's just a matter of time for Good to win, that's all.

Fax Celestis
2007-11-07, 05:49 PM
Y'know why Good is often called Light (wrongly) and Evil is called Darkness (wrongly, again)? It's for this exact reason, because Evil is an abscence of good, like Darkness is just the abscence of light. As long as there's a little light, Darkness doesn't take over, and as long as there is some Good out there, Evil doesn't win. The reason that Good actually wins just by existing is that it denies the victory to evil, which, at the same time is self destructing. It's just a matter of time for Good to win, that's all.

Bad metaphor. Shadows don't exist without light, but darkness does.

And, even within the metaphor, if you somehow manage to get rid of the shadows, you still have areas of "less light": these are darker than the surrounding areas.

Azerian Kelimon
2007-11-07, 05:52 PM
Of course, were would we fit Wizards' CG sample chars without those areas? :smallbiggrin:

Now, the big problem with that would actually be that neutrality would be working as Evil for a while, fundamentally becoming a substitute while trying to bring back ole evey. I doubt it would approve of Good vanquishing Evil once and for all. And then, all hell breaks loose.

Fax Celestis
2007-11-07, 05:54 PM
Of course, were would we fit Wizards' CG sample chars without those areas? :smallbiggrin:

Now, the big problem with that would actually be that neutrality would be working as Evil for a while, fundamentally becoming a substitute while trying to bring back ole evey. I doubt it would approve of Good vanquishing Evil once and for all. And then, all hell breaks loose.

It wouldn't be working as. In the absence of Evil, anything less than Good (or even anything less Good) would become Evil.

Swooper
2007-11-07, 05:55 PM
Oh, for the love of... emo shadow-fey with spiked chains are actually worse than gnomes. I hope like hell they won't become a core race.
What is it with people not liking gnomes? What's there not to like about gnomes!? :smallfrown:

Fax Celestis
2007-11-07, 05:56 PM
What is it with people not liking gnomes? What's there not to like about gnomes!? :smallfrown:

Their noses.

kamikasei
2007-11-07, 05:57 PM
What is it with people not liking gnomes? What's there not to like about gnomes!? :smallfrown:

Incoherence.

Azerian Kelimon
2007-11-07, 06:09 PM
I disagree there. Incoherence is excellent. Jan Jansen was full of win.

Now, the noses...yeah, that must be it. That, and having bard as preferred class.



On a side note, yeah, that's the bad thing. I once tried this scenario. Over time, all mortals became clinically immortal (As in, diseases don't kill you, swords do, for those who don't know about it. But you should know, given the huge vault of knowledge you seem to have. No, no sarcasm here, in case this seemed sarcastic, though it maybe is dry. But I digress.), and all became G, under the guidance of a really powerful mortal who ascended into an Abstract of a few things, Good among them. Sadly, The whole universe was duplicated after an accident, so a whole universe of evil doppelgangers popped up, and all the while, neutrality kept working against Good, trying to restore original Evil, and to remove the clone.


In the end, Good won, but because evil became outdated. Neutrality and Evil eventually merged with Good, with Good sealing and destroying them once and for all. Dang interesting campaign.

dragonseth
2007-11-07, 06:10 PM
I happen to like gnomes. They're nifty.

Mike_Lemmer
2007-11-07, 06:15 PM
Evil actually often wins because it is both easy to do and does not have reservations about methods to victory. A lack of moral qualms is a very empowering factor in the good/evil war.

Ahem, you're half-right, Fax.

"Evil sometimes wins because it is both easy to do and does not have reservations about methods to victory. But evil often loses because having no reservations about betrayal, backstabbing, and exploitation does not make many friends. And when the other evils are siding with the good guys against you..."

Temp
2007-11-07, 06:21 PM
I happen to like gnomes.
I like Gnomes, too.

I use them to replace Halflings and Dwarves--makes newbies create their own characters instead of just horking 'em from Tolkien.

Fax Celestis
2007-11-07, 06:22 PM
I disagree there. Incoherence is excellent. Jan Jansen was full of win.

Now, the noses...yeah, that must be it. That, and having bard as preferred class.



On a side note, yeah, that's the bad thing. I once tried this scenario. Over time, all mortals became clinically immortal (As in, diseases don't kill you, swords do, for those who don't know about it. But you should know, given the huge vault of knowledge you seem to have. No, no sarcasm here, in case this seemed sarcastic, though it maybe is dry. But I digress.), and all became G, under the guidance of a really powerful mortal who ascended into an Abstract of a few things, Good among them. Sadly, The whole universe was duplicated after an accident, so a whole universe of evil doppelgangers popped up, and all the while, neutrality kept working against Good, trying to restore original Evil, and to remove the clone.


In the end, Good won, but because evil became outdated. Neutrality and Evil eventually merged with Good, with Good sealing and destroying them once and for all. Dang interesting campaign.

That may make an interesting campaign, certainly, but that's not really how good-in-the-absence-of-evil should function.

Think of thus:

This bar indicates the scale of deeds from Evil to Good: the further to the left you are, the more evil you are, and the same with right and good. We'll leave Law and Chaos out of this because it's another level of complexity that isn't necessary for this argument.

|--------------------|

Now, assume we "destroy all evil". On the scale, this means removing the left half. Good job, go team. Let's alter the scale:

|----------|

Of course, you can see that evil is still present: after all, there's still a left end of the spectrum, and the rule regarding proximity to the left side hasn't changed. The only thing that has changed is the range of options available. So in order to actually "destroy evil and have good triumph", one needs to actually destroy good as well. And doing this makes you end up with a very boring scale. It looks like this, actually:

|

And, as you can see, this means that all actions are neutral because it is impossible to do good without also immediately doing evil: the scale is so narrow that nothing can actually be on it.

Azerian Kelimon
2007-11-07, 06:29 PM
Did I say that, in this campaign, eveyone was turned good? No shades of grey, good? If I destroy all neutrality and Evil, it ends more like this:


l--------l

And the whole set is:


l--------------------------l

THAT'S what makes sure Good doesn't turn into evil. That Good avoids doing certain things, and thus remians good. You COULD go detailed and add shades, but it's still Good. Good doesn't de facto change to Evil, that's what Neutrality would do. Good doesn't care about balance, remember that. And, Good is more than ready to live and let live, so why wouldn't different shades of Good survive?

Fax Celestis
2007-11-07, 06:38 PM
It would survive, certainly. But you're still left with "degrees" of good, and the "less good" degrees of good would thereby become the worst thing present, and would be perceived as evil since they are less good than what could potentially be.

Jasdoif
2007-11-07, 06:38 PM
That may make an interesting campaign, certainly, but that's not really how good-in-the-absence-of-evil should function.

Think of thus:

This bar indicates the scale of deeds from Evil to Good: the further to the left you are, the more evil you are, and the same with right and good. We'll leave Law and Chaos out of this because it's another level of complexity that isn't necessary for this argument.

|--------------------|

Now, assume we "destroy all evil". On the scale, this means removing the left half. Good job, go team. Let's alter the scale:

|----------|

Of course, you can see that evil is still present: after all, there's still a left end of the spectrum, and the rule regarding proximity to the left side hasn't changed. The only thing that has changed is the range of options available.To throw a monkey wrench, or rather to draw attention to the one that's already in place...alignments (and thus the classic forces of Good and Evil, as well as Law and Chaos) aren't simply social categorizations in the D&D world, they're tangible forces.

So, if a setting managed to permanently destroy Evil, you'd remain with Good and less-Good (ie, morally neutral). While "less-Good" would become "evil" from a social perspective, just like you're saying, it isn't actually the alignment-powering Evil that was there before.

Fax Celestis
2007-11-07, 06:42 PM
So, if a setting managed to permanently destroy Evil, you'd remain with Good and less-Good (ie, morally neutral). While "less-Good" would become "evil" from a social perspective, just like you're saying, it isn't actually the alignment-powering Evil that was there before.

Maybe that's the conversational breakdown then. //shrug

Azerian Kelimon
2007-11-07, 06:42 PM
Exactly. And it wouldn't even affect society (And for the record, this campaign was in freeform. Big debates on morals were commonplace.), since we're talking about really Good people, not jackazzes. A Good guy won't say "You're less good than me I kill you mllololololol". A Good guy is more likely to say "You're less good than me, but you're good. Keep tryin', you'll eventually be super good".

Jasdoif
2007-11-07, 06:45 PM
Maybe that's the conversational breakdown then. //shrugIt is the alignment system, after all; Breakdowns tend to be par for the course.

Azerian Kelimon
2007-11-07, 06:51 PM
As I said, this was freeform, so it actually has more to do with your definition on what happens to Good, and not what D&D says. I prefer it this way, 'coz after seeing Exalted, i knew how skewed the designers' perception of Good really was.

Daracaex
2007-11-07, 06:54 PM
About the Gnome-hating that seems to be going on everywhere:
I suspect that the reason so many people hate gnomes is the same reason I keep hearing "If they change the flavor of this, I'm not buying 4th Edition." Someone probably didn't like how Gnomes were made in a certain setting and then applied his bias to all gnomes everywhere. Then more people joined in his gnome-hating and the group grew and grew until now, where I believe it's actually popular to hate Gnomes and people say they do just because other people say they do.

And about the flavor comment I made up there, why are those people so narrow-minded that they don't feel they can simply change the flavor of whatever flavor they don't like for their home campaigns?

Person_Man
2007-11-07, 11:02 PM
Y'know why Good is often called Light (wrongly) and Evil is called Darkness (wrongly, again)? It's for this exact reason, because Evil is an abscence of good, like Darkness is just the abscence of light. As long as there's a little light, Darkness doesn't take over, and as long as there is some Good out there, Evil doesn't win. The reason that Good actually wins just by existing is that it denies the victory to evil, which, at the same time is self destructing. It's just a matter of time for Good to win, that's all.


Actually, it all goes back to Zoroastrianism, Manichaeism, and a few other ancient religions. They decided that light was good, and that darkness was bad. This was probably because the primary enemy of ancient civilization was literally darkness, cold, and ignorance. So light, fire, and knowledge were held up as good. And the two were thought of as literal opposites locked in an eternal struggle, because they literally were opposites locked in an eternal struggle. They did not have the protections of modern society, and the fanciful leisure of believing that there are shades of gray. They knew only the darkness of death or the light of life. These faiths had a very large impact on Judaism, early Christianity, and arguably all eastern hemisphere faiths/mythologies.

You know, I wonder if this falls under the discussion of history, and thus fair game for an alignment thread, or religion, which means I'm breaking board rules right now. If its the latter, I apologize to any Zoroastrians I might have offended.

brian c
2007-11-08, 12:14 AM
You know, I wonder if this falls under the discussion of history, and thus fair game for an alignment thread, or religion, which means I'm breaking board rules right now. If its the latter, I apologize to any Zoroastrians I might have offended.

Apology accepted.

raygungothic
2007-11-08, 06:31 AM
Temp - thanks for the answer, I see your point. I always hated the "these are monsters, those are player species, their mechanics are utterly different" approach of 2e, and the closer integration of the two is one of my favourite things about 3rd, but it probably only works for a certain sort of player group. Maybe 4e needs to more overtly state "check with the DM what sort of character would be appropriate before starting the campaign" or something like that, blindingly obvious but seemingly necessary...

I am amused by the mental image of a "Fiendish Half-Giant Cancer Mage", though, thanks :-)

Morty
2007-11-08, 03:10 PM
About the Gnome-hating that seems to be going on everywhere:
I suspect that the reason so many people hate gnomes is the same reason I keep hearing "If they change the flavor of this, I'm not buying 4th Edition." Someone probably didn't like how Gnomes were made in a certain setting and then applied his bias to all gnomes everywhere. Then more people joined in his gnome-hating and the group grew and grew until now, where I believe it's actually popular to hate Gnomes and people say they do just because other people say they do.

And about the flavor comment I made up there, why are those people so narrow-minded that they don't feel they can simply change the flavor of whatever flavor they don't like for their home campaigns?

It's not about how are gnomes presented in various campaign settings. It's about the fact that they're barely presented at all and don't seem to serve any real purpose. Why should there be a race that goes away unnoticed, except as comic relief?

Daracaex
2007-11-08, 08:44 PM
It's not about how are gnomes presented in various campaign settings. It's about the fact that they're barely presented at all and don't seem to serve any real purpose. Why should there be a race that goes away unnoticed, except as comic relief?

They shouldn't be. It wouldn't be hard for someone to change the role of gnomes in their world.

brian c
2007-11-08, 08:49 PM
They shouldn't be. It wouldn't be hard for someone to change the role of gnomes in their world.

And that just reaffirms the fact that they don't have a whole lot of a role. Can you imagine "changing the role of dwarves", or elves, or humans? If dwarves didn't live in the mountains, use axes and hammers, and mine and craft things, then they just wouldn't be recognizable as dwarves and people would be confused. The point being, gnomes don't have a very strong identity in D&D, so they kinda suck

Temp
2007-11-08, 08:55 PM
I am amused by the mental image of a "Fiendish Half-Giant Cancer Mage", though, thanks :-)That guy probably had a rough childhood, being a Half-Giant and all...

...then he found he had cancer.

:smallfrown:

*Actually--that was a bad example, now that I think about it. BoVD/BoED are the only books that do explicitly restrict player-use of their content.

horseboy
2007-11-08, 11:06 PM
And that just reaffirms the fact that they don't have a whole lot of a role. Can you imagine "changing the role of dwarves", or elves, or humans? If dwarves didn't live in the mountains, use axes and hammers, and mine and craft things, then they just wouldn't be recognizable as dwarves and people would be confused. The point being, gnomes don't have a very strong identity in D&D, so they kinda suck

Well, technically, last world I built elves were organic computers and dwarves were actually aliens that had crashed landed on an island chain living kinda like Hawai'ians.

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-08, 11:39 PM
Gnomes and Kender are best left in Dragonlance.

Lord Tataraus
2007-11-09, 12:16 AM
Gnomes and Kender are best left in Dragonlance.

Agreed, those gnomes actually work.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-11-09, 12:30 AM
Agreed, those gnomes actually work.

Don't forget Eberron gnomes. They're badasses.

Lord Tataraus
2007-11-09, 12:35 AM
Don't forget Eberron gnomes. They're badasses.

I don't like eberron much so I don't know much about it. So why are they're gnomes so awesome?
please don't be pranksters, please don't be pranksters, please don't be pranksters, please don't be pranksters...

Temp
2007-11-09, 01:34 AM
The "tinkerer" role is more prominent, for one.

tyckspoon
2007-11-09, 01:54 AM
Giant colonies with like a 20% rate of producing mad scientists. Yeah. The 'tinker gnome' concept is pretty cool, although the logical end result is a great increase in the world's tech level. Naturally, they're right at home in Eberron.

raygungothic
2007-11-09, 08:53 AM
That guy probably had a rough childhood, being a Half-Giant and all...

...then he found he had cancer.

A half-giant with cancer would be a tragic figure, though one would have to be very careful to avoid a slightly cheesy "Going to die but I kick ass" attitude. Super-OTT campaigns only.


*Actually--that was a bad example, now that I think about it. BoVD/BoED are the only books that do explicitly restrict player-use of their content.

That's interesting. I don't have those two but am curious to hear that they DO contain outright restriction statements. That changes my opinion, actually. I had thought that D&D just didn't talk about this issue as a matter of principle, but this implies a more permissive default than I'd believed. I don't like that... but it won't change the way I DM or play, so I don't know WHY I don't like it. Hmm.

Thanks for the info.

Morty
2007-11-09, 09:15 AM
They shouldn't be. It wouldn't be hard for someone to change the role of gnomes in their world.

If we start changing roles and identities then core races have no meaning anymore. If I want to, I can turn all races inside-out and make them nigh-unrecognizable. But in core, gnomes are just there, without any firm role or position.

hamlet
2007-11-09, 10:58 AM
If we start changing roles and identities then core races have no meaning anymore. If I want to, I can turn all races inside-out and make them nigh-unrecognizable. But in core, gnomes are just there, without any firm role or position.

And why, precisely, does every race (or, for that matter, class) need a "role"?

Should your role not be defined by what your character actually does rather than what the rules say he does?

This was the case in older editions and is the case in many other games that don't involve a monthly fee and a LAN line. Why do you need the rules to define a role for your character? That's what you, as a player, should be doing above and beyond the rule books.

Thinker
2007-11-09, 11:07 AM
He's saying there is no place in the world for gnomes. They have nothing unique, so why not just play a midget human?

hewhosaysfish
2007-11-09, 11:07 AM
And why, precisely, does every race (or, for that matter, class) need a "role"?

Should your role not be defined by what your character actually does rather than what the rules say he does?

This was the case in older editions and is the case in many other games that don't involve a monthly fee and a LAN line. Why do you need the rules to define a role for your character? That's what you, as a player, should be doing above and beyond the rule books.

Obviously I can speak on M0rt's behalf (at least until I've enslaved the world) but I'm not sure it's about rules. I think it's about concept, 'fluff', about about the purpose that the world builder has for putting that race in his world.

Morty
2007-11-09, 11:21 AM
And why, precisely, does every race (or, for that matter, class) need a "role"?

Should your role not be defined by what your character actually does rather than what the rules say he does?

This was the case in older editions and is the case in many other games that don't involve a monthly fee and a LAN line. Why do you need the rules to define a role for your character? That's what you, as a player, should be doing above and beyond the rule books.

As Thinker and hewhosaysfish already pointed out, it's not about the rules. It's about the place in the world. Core gnomes don't seem to have one, they're just sometimes around as tricksters or tinkers. It gets better in some campaign settings, but not everyone plays them. It applies to many sentinent races for MM as well too, but in case of gnomes it's more glaring, since they're in PHB.

hamlet
2007-11-09, 11:57 AM
Not unique? I'm sorry, but that's simply incorrect.

Quoted from second edition:


Gnomes live in underground burrows in remote hilly, wooded regions. They are clannish, with friendly rivalries occuring between neighboring clans. They spend thier lives mining, crafting fine jewelry, and enjoying the fruits of their labors. Gnomes work hard, and they play hard. They observe many festivals and holidays which usually involve games, nose measuring contests, and swapping of grand tales. Their society is well organized with many levels of responsibility, culminating in a single chief who is advised by clerics in matters directly relating to their calling.
<snip section about general make up of gnome community>
Gnomes are very much a magical part of nature, existing in harmony with the land they inhabit. they choose to live underground, but remain near the surface in order to enjoy its beauty.

Wow, that's pretty unique sounding to me.

Or how about the PHB


Kin to dwarves, gnomes are noticeably smaller than their distant cousins. Gnomes, as they proudly maintain, are also less rotund than dwarves. Their noses, however, are significantly larger.
<snip mechanics>
Gnomes have lively and sly senses of humor, especially for practical jokes. They have a great love of living things and finely wrought items, particularly gems and jewelry. Gnomes love all sorts of precious stones and are masters of gem polishing and cutting.

Ghomes prefer to live in areas of rolling, rocky hills, well wooded and uninhabited by humans. Their diminutive stature has made them suspicious of larger races, although they are not hostile. They are sly and furtive with those they do not know or trust, and somewhat reserved even under the best of circumstances. Dwelling in mines and burrows, they are sympathetic to dwarves, but find their cousins' aversion to surface dwellers foolish.

Seems very cool and very well placed in the ecological niche that is not covered by either halflings or dwarves.

I could go on to pull material from the Complete Guide to Gnomes and Halflings (another 2e sourcebook), but that's not core.

They don't have a specific role, but claiming that they're not unique or that they don't have a place in the world is flat out incorrect. Just seems that they got no love at all from WOTC.

Or, are you saying that they don't have a role as in "dwarves are good fighters, elves are good wizards/rangers, halflings are good thieves etc."? In that case, I'd argue that you are, indeed, talking entirely about mechanics which brings me back to my original question.

Why does the race have to stereotypically fall into one role?

....
2007-11-09, 12:05 PM
Hm...empire...lots of islands....goblins? water goblins?! water goblin ninjas?!?!

More like water goblin pirates!

Fax Celestis
2007-11-09, 12:06 PM
...I was under the impression that they were discussing 3e, not 2e.

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-09, 12:10 PM
Agreed, those gnomes actually work.

With an acceptible *75% accuracy rating :biggrin:

*it's best not to inquire about the other 25% of the time.

brian c
2007-11-09, 12:14 PM
Not unique? I'm sorry, but that's simply incorrect.

Quoted from second edition:



Wow, that's pretty unique sounding to me.

Or how about the PHB



Seems very cool and very well placed in the ecological niche that is not covered by either halflings or dwarves.

I could go on to pull material from the Complete Guide to Gnomes and Halflings (another 2e sourcebook), but that's not core.

They don't have a specific role, but claiming that they're not unique or that they don't have a place in the world is flat out incorrect. Just seems that they got no love at all from WOTC.

Or, are you saying that they don't have a role as in "dwarves are good fighters, elves are good wizards/rangers, halflings are good thieves etc."? In that case, I'd argue that you are, indeed, talking entirely about mechanics which brings me back to my original question.

Why does the race have to stereotypically fall into one role?

As Fax said, we're totally talking about 3rd edition (since the actual point is to say why they won't be in 4th edition, which, you know, follows 3rd and thus we base our reactions of 4e on 3e).

If you'd like to make the same argument using 3e sources, go right ahead.

AKA_Bait
2007-11-09, 12:24 PM
Why gnomes won't be in the PHB in 4e in 5 simple words: The Designers Don't Like Them.

We can be happy or sad that gnomes are gone. We can disagree with the decision to take them out. In the end, though, the reason they are gone is just that simple.

I, for one, am not sad. I have had only one player in any 3ed game I have ever played in or DMed play a gnome. Only one. Which means I've had an equal number of characters that were Griggs, Ogres, Thi-keen, Minotaurs, Ogre/Orcs, Eladrins and Pseudodragons. I have had many more Drow and Tieflings. In terms of use, therefore, it seems perfectly reasonable for Gnomes to be in the MM instead.

Morty
2007-11-09, 12:36 PM
Not unique? I'm sorry, but that's simply incorrect.

Quoted from second edition:



Wow, that's pretty unique sounding to me.

Or how about the PHB



Seems very cool and very well placed in the ecological niche that is not covered by either halflings or dwarves.

I could go on to pull material from the Complete Guide to Gnomes and Halflings (another 2e sourcebook), but that's not core.

They don't have a specific role, but claiming that they're not unique or that they don't have a place in the world is flat out incorrect. Just seems that they got no love at all from WOTC.

Or, are you saying that they don't have a role as in "dwarves are good fighters, elves are good wizards/rangers, halflings are good thieves etc."? In that case, I'd argue that you are, indeed, talking entirely about mechanics which brings me back to my original question.

Why does the race have to stereotypically fall into one role?

Maybe gnomes were unique in Ad&D. But in 3ed, they aren't, there's just some stuff about pranksters, tinkers and the like.They're just there, putting them on par with MM races. And no, races shouldn't fall stereotypically into one role. But they should have some good distingushing characteristing and a "typical" role.

hamlet
2007-11-09, 12:55 PM
Maybe gnomes were unique in Ad&D. But in 3ed, they aren't, there's just some stuff about pranksters, tinkers and the like.They're just there, putting them on par with MM races. And no, races shouldn't fall stereotypically into one role. But they should have some good distingushing characteristing and a "typical" role.

Then I suppose that's a basic and underpinning failure of 3rd edition (yet another one). But the claim was that gnomes have no place, not that gnomes in third edition have no place.

If you want to argue that in third edition materials that gnomes got short shrift, then yes, I'll agree with you and lament that fact. But gnomes in general from previous editions had plenty of material to support them and make them a good race to play (have played several myself).

Maybe the argument shouldn't be whether or not it's good that they're dropping gnomes for the new edition because the third edition designers can't be bothered to write about them, but why can't WOTC ressurrect some of the previous edition material's fluff (which still belongs to WOTC) and give gnomes a new birth?

It just seems to me another example of the cruddy mentality and quality of the designers in charge at WOTC. As somebody said above, WOTC doesn't like gnomes, therefore, nobody gets them. In place, we get WOOT NEW KEWL RACES like the tiefling and eladrin because they're either cooler in the view of the designers or clear up something that confused the designers and so must have obviously confused everybody else.

Morty
2007-11-09, 01:07 PM
Then I suppose that's a basic and underpinning failure of 3rd edition (yet another one). But the claim was that gnomes have no place, not that gnomes in third edition have no place.

If you want to argue that in third edition materials that gnomes got short shrift, then yes, I'll agree with you and lament that fact. But gnomes in general from previous editions had plenty of material to support them and make them a good race to play (have played several myself).

Maybe the argument shouldn't be whether or not it's good that they're dropping gnomes for the new edition because the third edition designers can't be bothered to write about them, but why can't WOTC ressurrect some of the previous edition material's fluff (which still belongs to WOTC) and give gnomes a new birth?

It just seems to me another example of the cruddy mentality and quality of the designers in charge at WOTC. As somebody said above, WOTC doesn't like gnomes, therefore, nobody gets them. In place, we get WOOT NEW KEWL RACES like the tiefling and eladrin because they're either cooler in the view of the designers or clear up something that confused the designers and so must have obviously confused everybody else.

It all boils down to single thing: if a race doesn't contribute to the setting, it shouldn't be there- either it should be given the flavor that allows it to contribute, or removed. Gnomes may have contributed to core 2ed setting, if there was such, but it's not the case in 3ed. If it repeats itself in 4ed, it's better if there are no gnomes there, unless WoTC can make them actually iteresting.

YPU
2007-11-09, 01:11 PM
Wow, have I missed the gnome getting kicked out of the basic game? Is that in any way official?

Swooper
2007-11-09, 01:45 PM
Wow, have I missed the gnome getting kicked out of the basic game? Is that in any way official?
Not exactly, but based on playtest blogs and such, it has been deduced that the only stats for gnomes currently existing in 4e were made by a single DM to let one of his players convert a 3.5 char over to his new game.

I'm completely with hamlet on this - furthermore, there's nothing that forces you to use the (crappy) 3E fluff for gnomes. My group always ignored the new fluff for gnomes when 3E came out, and shifted the Con bonus to Int as it had been in 2nd Edition. There, bam. Both a fluff niche and mechanical niche for the gnomes (since they make better wizards than even grey elves this way).

I imagine gnomes will be just about the first thing I'll have to homebrew for 4E when/if I play it. :smallfrown:

Dullyanna
2007-11-10, 02:55 PM
Personally, I agree with AKA_Bait: I want playable Yuan-Ti!

@Swooper:Did you switch the strength penalty back to wisdom as well?

Telok
2007-11-10, 06:31 PM
What, they're ganking the gnomes again? Bloody wimps.

While gnomes weren't common in 2e people did play them on a reliable basis. I've seen no gnomes in 3e and 3.5e untill I played one myself (two NPCs in the last five years don't count). Personally I belive that the shift from illusionist (small, smart, magical/tinker) to bard (small, weak, song & dance) really destroyed interest in them.

Here, let's see them change dwarves favored class from fighter to paladin. That fits with the fluff right? And we'll ditch stonecunning and replace it with a couple cantrips and move that weapon famaliarity to halberds since those are a type of axe.

When you mess with stuff like that you need to expect a reaction. In this case the reaction was for people to stop playing gnomes.

But I'll always treasure my gnomish double sidewheeler spelljammer powered by giant space hamsters.