PDA

View Full Version : My explanation on the PHB kicking out the Gnomes



Scalenex
2007-12-22, 05:41 AM
WotC nerfed gnomes without (seemingly) intending to do so in 3.0 and 3.5.

2nd ed, gnomes got +1 Int, -1 Wis. They could be fighters, clerics, theives, and illusionists and most multiclass combinations of any two of those. They were the only 2nd ed race who could be a specialist wizard and a multiclass character (barring simple house rules). My group of friends lived and died by invocation. A friend of mine said illusion is a sucky school to specialize in (it's opposition were all our most used schools), so I played a gnome illusionist just to show him. I liked the 19 intelligence. I liked it, and most of my subsequent characters and my first 3.0 were multiclassed illusionists.

While I bet many people would rather have a +2 Int rather than +2 Con, what really hurt gnomes in 3.0 and 3.5 is halflings. Here's why. 2nd ed was even more based of Tolkien's work then 3rd ed is. The halflings were very hobbitlike and sedentary (though they were somewhat more prone to adventure then hobbits). The main vestige of that left in 3.5 is Yondalla's holy symbol, one of those horn shaped things full of agricultural goods, not particularly contrary to a nomadic people but not suggesting that either. Then in the closing days of 2nd ed the gnomes and halflings began to merge. All the classes in the PHB had their own handbook and all the races had their own handbook, except for two. Gnomes and halflings were lumped together into one book. The book had separate chapters for each but the introduction emphasized their similarities.

Now 3.0 comes out. Halflings are nomadic travelers and gnomes stay at home though most of my first 3.0 games houseruled in +2 Int, -2 Wisdom in addition to the modifiers given and also houseruled that most non-PC halflings are stay at home hobbit-like creatures, but gradually that went away.

Gnomes are small, those with min-maxing goals are not going to want to play a gnome warrior class of any sort. The Constitution is helpful but Dwarf is a better build for warriors. Small size is good for sneaky types, but why be a gnome when you can be a halfling? Most people would consider Dexterity far more useful then Constitution for Rogues. Halfling get the favored class there, and they get a number of bonuses to more skill checks that are very important for Rogues. Gnomes have a class abilities that make their illusion spells better, but now that gnomes don't have a favored class of illusionist anymore, it's hard to have what is in my mind an ideal Rogue, one who can be a Rogue/Illusionist without worrying about keeping the two classes within a level of each other. That, and now players can play any class with any race. I think this is a good thing overall, but it weakens gnomes desireability to be played. In the old days gnomes were the only non-human, non-elven option for arcane spell casting, now they aren't.

Furthermore bards, the new favored class, (as the PHB PSAs among other sources attest, are not particularly popular). From my observations, when people do play bards, they want to play sexy bards. Humans or half elves that either charm or seduce (player choice depending on how mature the gaming group is) the opposite sex at every oppurtunity. It is virtually impossible to have gnomes do that without the group cracking up and the ability to suspend disbelief be lost. I believe there was a gnome gigilo in one of the Balder's Gate games that comes up whenever we get off track in our D&D games with gnomes.

Tieflings have replaced gnomes in 4e because halflings and to a lesser extant the other races were made more playable in 3.0 and 3.5. If everyone else moves ahead and you stay still, then you have fallen behind without immediately realize it.

Pronounceable
2007-12-22, 05:59 AM
That, or the devs are also fed up with the worthless, wool headed, dung faced speedbumps of organic waste called suckers. The little addle brained bastards got what's coming to them. I hope they trade places with goblins to become the universally most slaughtered tweeps.


This would be my explanation, but it's probably not true.

Chronicled
2007-12-22, 06:00 AM
Gnomes are small, those with min-maxing goals are not going to want to play a gnome warrior class of any sort. The Constitution is helpful but Dwarf is a better build for warriors. Small size is good for sneaky types, but why be a gnome when you can be a halfling? Most people would consider Dexterity far more useful then Constitution for Rogues. Halfling get the favored class there, and they get a number of bonuses to more skill checks that are very important for Rogues.

Dwarves do it better, but gnome barbarians aren't horrible. There's also the wonderful image of one with Improved Grapple doing something like this: http://goblinscomic.com/d/20070709.html. For a one-night only session, I rolled a gnome barbarian that attempted to clamber onto people and do pretty much that. It didn't work especially well, but the group enjoyed the idea.

I actually find Constitution to be just as important in most of my rogue builds as Dexterity. Probably because the DM I ran my longest-lived rogue with had a fondness for traps, and every last hit point really made a difference on a failed check.

Premier
2007-12-22, 06:54 AM
No, he meant the only characters who could be multiclassed specialist wizards.

EDIT: Wait, where did the post I just replied to go???

Dhavaer
2007-12-22, 06:55 AM
I don't agree about gnomes being mechanically weak; they're the strongest sorcerer/wizard race in the PHB. Maybe equal to halflings.

ghost_warlock
2007-12-22, 07:03 AM
No, he meant the only characters who could be multiclassed specialist wizards.

EDIT: Wait, where did the post I just replied to go???

Bwa ha ha ha ha ha!

I realized where I made my mistake after posting but I'm too tired to go through a lengthy editing process so I just deleted the post.

In any case, I don't remember there being a restriction on multiclass wizards not being able to specialize...I can remember at least a few elven evoker/fighters. Maybe my group either didn't notice that restriction or just ignored it. Eh.

Talic
2007-12-22, 07:09 AM
Unless you want the extra feat. Then it's human.

That said, the reason small races are used, isn't for the Con boost, or the Dex boost. It's for the +1 hit/+1 AC. The halfling gets the boost of +1 saves, and another +1 AC, and +1 hit at range.

Thus, ranged touch attacks:

Human - +1 (weapon focus - ray)
Gnome - +1 (size)
Halfling - +2 (size, dex)

Edge - Halfling

HP

human - 1d4
gnome - 1d4+1
halfling - 1d4

Edge - Gnome

Saves
Human - FRW - 0 0 2
Gnome - FRW - 1 0 2
Halfling - FRW - 1 1 3

Edge - Halfling


As I see it, halflings have a bit more to go with. I mean gnomes get some lowbie illusion spells, but hardly anything that'll carry them past 5th level. Unless I'm missing the Gnome secret advantage?

Chronicled
2007-12-22, 07:12 AM
Unless I'm missing the Gnome secret advantage?

Actually, you are. Let's see a Halfling try to match this:


Spell-Like Abilities: 1/day—speak with animals (burrowing mammal only, duration 1 minute).

:smallcool:

JackMage666
2007-12-22, 07:21 AM
How can to possibly top being able to speak to a badger.

Gnomes are weak for most things, but think about it, really. Small Size means you use smaller weapons (damage die decreased by one), and generally have less Str (attack/damage reduced by one). So, you'll probably be doing about 2 Less Damage, on average, than a Medium race (Human, for example). YOu'll hit just as often, thanks to the +1 Bonus from size, and you'll be hit less, also from size. So, you'll normally do about as much damage as a Human, -2 points.

And who expects the Gnome to whoop up on you in combat? Seriously, no one. That's an edge right there. It's the same with Half-Orc Thieves. No one expects it.

Trust me, after about level 5, race really begins to not matter mechanically speaking.

MammonAzrael
2007-12-22, 07:22 AM
And of course:

Add +1 to the Difficulty Class for all saving throws against illusion spells cast by gnomes. This adjustment stacks with those from similar effects, such as the Spell Focus feat.

Gnomes still like their illusions!

Chronicled
2007-12-22, 07:28 AM
Gnomes make sickeningly good Beguilers. Half the Beguiler spell list is illusions, in addition to all the benefits gnomes already give to casters.

nerulean
2007-12-22, 07:32 AM
To quote a friend on seeing the gnome vs. tiefling video:

Tieflings are in because they are popular, and they help fill the "pictures of scantily clad women in the PHB" quota.
Gnomes are out because they are unpopular, and nobody wants to see them naked.

Dhavaer
2007-12-22, 07:56 AM
To quote a friend on seeing the gnome vs. tiefling video:

Tieflings are in because they are popular, and they help fill the "pictures of scantily clad women in the PHB" quota.
Gnomes are out because they are unpopular, and nobody wants to see them naked.

Rubbish. I'd like to see the female gnome from the male/female races illustration naked.
Wouldn't it be nice if the artists read the racial descriptions?

Swooper
2007-12-22, 01:17 PM
Perhaps the reason gnomes are actually popular in my group is that we played 2nd Edition back in the days, and when 3rd Edition came we immediately house ruled them in a similar way to your group - We switched the Con bonus to Int (and we never used the silly multiclassing XP penalty anyway, so favoured classes never mattered). That way, they're the best race for a wizard in the PHB, and damn good rogues too (an extra skill point at each level + small size).

Also, they make excellent comic relief. Really, there should be one comic relief character in ever party. Or most parties at least. I remember my gnome sorcerer sovereign-gluing a bell to the local grumpy dwarf's helmet. Good times... :smallbiggrin:

Triaxx
2007-12-22, 01:34 PM
Or applying universal solvent to the inside of the helmet, so it kept sliding down into said dwarf's face. :smallbiggrin:

Of course, who doesn't like Gnomes? I always assumed the Con bonus was because of the tendency to blow things up in their faces. I've always played with the house variant of +1 CON +1 INT -2 WIS.

horseboy
2007-12-22, 01:44 PM
And of course:

Add +1 to the Difficulty Class for all saving throws against illusion spells cast by gnomes. This adjustment stacks with those from similar effects, such as the Spell Focus feat.

Gnomes still like their illusions!
Never let the gnome illusionist have Phantasmal Killer. They'll shut down the adventure right quick.

LibraryOgre
2007-12-22, 02:02 PM
Gnomes were likely axed for a variety of reasons. One is the culture of gnome hate which cnsvnc so admirably showed us; it's popular to hate gnomes, especially with the release of World of Warcraft.

The second is that they are mechanically weak and narrow; they are best suited to playing spellcasters who focus on illusions. They are the only race that has racial benefits dependent upon their stats (and two different stats, at that, neither of which is a bonus and only one of which is important to their favored class), and can easily lose several of their benefits by not picking their class "correctly"; in fact, they are guaranteed to not have use of at least one, as they either have their weapon familiarity or racial bonuses with illusion. Mix that with a favored class that is sub-par, and you've got a race that few want to play for mechanical reasons.

Third, and perhaps most damning, is that they weren't really given a clear roleplaying directive in 3.x. This has been a consistent problem for gnomes since 1st edition, especially with the introduction of Dragonlance and the tinker gnome type (which many then generalized to all gnomes). Their racial description is fairly fuzzy, and even Races of Stone didn't give them a lot of distinctiveness, and abandoned the distinctiveness from earlier editions.

ghost_warlock
2007-12-22, 02:06 PM
Never let the gnome illusionist have Phantasmal Killer. They'll shut down the adventure right quick.

Gnome illusionist 3/master specialist 7 (Complete Mage)/shadowcraft mage 5 (Races of Stone)/dread witch 5 (Heroes of Horror). Weird!

Going epic? Tack on a few levels of Nightmare Spinner (also from Complete Mage) and/or shadowcrafter (Underdark).


The second is that they are mechanically weak and narrow; they are best suited to playing spellcasters who focus on illusions.

Third, and perhaps most damning, is that they weren't really given a clear roleplaying directive in 3.x.

So, essentially, rather than work to fix these issues, WotC is just going to demote them to monsters and focus their attention elsewhere. It makes me sad, but I can't honestly blame them. :smallfrown:

Maybe some of this is actually what attracted me to gnomes recently. The lack of concrete, consistant fluff has led me to the conclusion that, when I play a gnome, I can just make up whatever I want for my background, racial or otherwise, and the DM isn't going to argue much. :smallbiggrin:

LibraryOgre
2007-12-22, 03:12 PM
So, essentially, rather than work to fix these issues, WotC is just going to demote them to monsters and focus their attention elsewhere. It makes me sad, but I can't honestly blame them. :smallfrown:

In some ways, it makes sense. Most monster races are narrowly focused in concept, without a lot of development; that's part of what made me want to work on "Races of Savagery" is that goblinoids and orcs had so little development.

Kobolds, on the other hand, have gotten a lot of development in 3.x; Races of the Dragon puts as much emphasis on them as Races of Stone does on gnomes. They've also got the popularity that gnomes lack.

Fax Celestis
2007-12-22, 03:39 PM
Kobolds, on the other hand, have gotten a lot of development in 3.x; Races of the Dragon puts as much emphasis on them as Races of Stone does on gnomes. They've also got the popularity that gnomes lack.

Probably thanks to Deekin et al.

Zenos
2007-12-22, 03:55 PM
Probably thanks to Deekin et al.

Don't forget Pun-Pun.

EDIT: Wait, maybe not popularity, notoriety, for Pun-Pun.

....
2007-12-22, 04:54 PM
Am I the only person in the world who dosn't pay attention to a race's crunch benifits and just plays whatever I want?

Crow
2007-12-22, 05:01 PM
Am I the only person in the world who dosn't pay attention to a race's crunch benifits and just plays whatever I want?

No. I do like you do.

Zenos
2007-12-22, 05:02 PM
Am I the only person in the world who dosn't pay attention to a race's crunch benifits and just plays whatever I want?

You're just the only one who doesn't turn into a crunch-O-maniac while posting at these forums.

Xefas
2007-12-22, 06:02 PM
My group doesn't really like playing as any of the non-human PHB races, though there seems to be a special kind of absurdity to suggesting someone play a gnome. In truth, I can see their point. They play to be heroes, and it's a little difficult to see gnomes as heroes when you can't get the image of those red pointy-hatted garden gnomes that old people put in their yards out of your head.

Character creation often goes-

"So, I was thinking of being a half-elf"
"Okay, write down all these bonuses."
"Huh...yeah, on second thought, I'd rather get that bonus feat and *say* I have elven blood"

"So, I was thinking of being an elf"
"Androgyny"
"Ah, well, that bonus feat looks good over there..."

"So, I was thinking of being a drow"
"Awkward implied sexual female domination in your background-"
"Right, about that bonus feat"

"So, I was thinking of being a gnome"
"..."
"BAHAHAHAHAH!"

I usually end up homebrewing low-LA or no-LA variants of other races for the people who are tired of being human but still can't bare to be any of the other PHB demihumans.

Roderick_BR
2007-12-22, 07:22 PM
In short: Gnomes are less popular than the others races.
Makes sense. While many players like gnomes, and many I know play damn cool gnomes, the majority can't make the gnome fill a niche, and prefer to play halflings or one of the taller folks.
So they are being kicked off by a "non-written popular demand."

Ulrichomega
2007-12-22, 11:27 PM
What ever happened to just playing a gnome because it's fun?

I like playing gnomes, the squeaky voices and the need to set funny traps on enemies is a great Roleplaying opprotunity.

Roderick_BR
2007-12-22, 11:45 PM
Apparently, because of "optmization", playing something useful is far more important than being fun. As I said, I saw some friends playing awesome gnomes. But their abilities doesn't synergise well anymore, so they are inherently "bad".

As an example, check the clerics and bards. In precious editions, the cleric was the "divine spellcaster". He was all around being a primary spellcaster, and secondary meeler. Then payers started playing it as both primary caster and primary meeler. Then you see complaints that clerics waste too much time casting spells, when they want to go directly to the fight. And 4e indicates that they'll add abilities to the cleric so he can fight while casting cure. Likewise, in battle the bard had to choose between fight or buff the group, and in 4e they will make the bard do both at the same time. It's all about increasing powers now.

dentrag2
2007-12-22, 11:56 PM
Probably thanks to Deekin et al.
yeah. i had a player that rolled a kobold rouge. we have a house rule that states the stupid str detractment is to be honest, stupid, and we had them lose 1 to intelligence and 1 to Wis/Cha, depending on the campaign

:roach: is my favorite character!

Crow
2007-12-22, 11:57 PM
Apparently, because of "optmization", playing something useful is far more important than being fun. As I said, I saw some friends playing awesome gnomes. But their abilities doesn't synergise well anymore, so they are inherently "bad".

As an example, check the clerics and bards. In precious editions, the cleric was the "divine spellcaster". He was all around being a primary spellcaster, and secondary meeler. Then payers started playing it as both primary caster and primary meeler. Then you see complaints that clerics waste too much time casting spells, when they want to go directly to the fight. And 4e indicates that they'll add abilities to the cleric so he can fight while casting cure. Likewise, in battle the bard had to choose between fight or buff the group, and in 4e they will make the bard do both at the same time. It's all about increasing powers now.
The thing I do not understand is why does every class need to be able to wade into melee every round? The choice of whether to go into melee or to cast a spell is one of the most basic tactical choices in the game. "If I go into melee now, will Chuck be able to hang on long enough to take this guy down? Or should I play it conservative and try to heal him?"

Townopolis
2007-12-23, 12:15 AM
Long story short:

A lot of people can't handle gnomes. Some of them play them like kender, some of them just don't understand them, and some of them can't wrap their minds around how a bard could be a heroic character, much less a gnome. Because they don't understand gnomes/take themselves way too seriously, a lot of people opt to hate them, because let's face it, you always need someone to hate, and why not the person you don't understand?

Wizards doesn't understand gnomes. After screwing around with the race a bit, they realized they had no idea what to do with the race. Luckily for them, lots of people hate gnomes, so it was easy to axe them. After all, we have elves and halflings and eladrin fulfilling all your adventuring needs.

If you like gnomes, you're going to have to be a little bit creative, a little bit innovative, and a little bit independant. You're going to have to homebrew them. I'm lucky enough that my group loves my gnomes, and will be more than happy to run them in games I play in. However, I'm not sure how much online 4e I'm going to play.

MeklorIlavator
2007-12-23, 12:29 AM
The thing I do not understand is why does every class need to be able to wade into melee every round? The choice of whether to go into melee or to cast a spell is one of the most basic tactical choices in the game. "If I go into melee now, will Chuck be able to hang on long enough to take this guy down? Or should I play it conservative and try to heal him?"

I see the above more like this:
Chuck is hurt; do I
A)Use magic to kill the monster(100% offensive/0% defensive)
B)Use it to Heal Chuck(0%offensive/100% defensive)
C)Use it both ways(50%/50%)
In this way you have more options, and can tailor your response to more situations. If Chuck has just a flesh wound, use it offensively. If his arm is hanging by a thread, more healing might be in order. However, if he took a hard blow, but is still hammering away at the enemy, doing a bit of both may be in order.

Suzuro
2007-12-23, 12:33 AM
Gnomes are awsome! I think I've done almost every class as a gnome, it's just funny to end up hitting someone with a club in the ankle, and then ducking under a return swing.




-Suzuro

Yami
2007-12-23, 01:51 AM
I have cultivated my hate towards other races than gnomes. I think the Con bonus is silly, but then, alot of 3.5 is. I think that your right about the gnomes getting the axe just because few people seemed to be playing them.

I personally still use gnomes as studious NPC's in my campaigns, but I've never been fond of them as a race. While I don't always choose my races for crunch, what I do do is pick a concept and ask myself "how much does WotC hate me today?" If my build is too sub-par, I just axe it off the bat. Save for the few cases where I've loved the concept too much to care, but that mostly only happens with goblins.

LibraryOgre
2007-12-23, 02:38 AM
I have cultivated my hate towards other races than gnomes. I think the Con bonus is silly, but then, alot of 3.5 is. I think that your right about the gnomes getting the axe just because few people seemed to be playing them.

I have a lot of problems with the mechanical representation of gnomes, given what has gone before. They're amongst some of the earliest posts on the Cranky Gamer.

Tallis
2007-12-23, 02:46 AM
Gnomes suffer a lack of support that probably stems from a lack of source material outside the game. Dwarves and elves in D&D are based on Tolkien's versions of them. Halflings were invented by Tolkien. Gnomes were not present in Middle earth as far as I know.
Now, for 4e, WotC seems to be looking at folklore and mythology and adding more of that flavor to the game. Unfortunately when you look at where these races come from you find out that gnome is just another name for dwarf, so there is really nothing to base them on. They don't fit into either a Tolkienish or a mythological game.

Don't get me wrong, I like gnomes and I'm sad to see them go, but who are they? That's something that's never really been decided. Rather than make something up for the PHB, it seems like WotC has decided to concentrate on races that have a mythological background (elves, dwarves, demons, and dragons) with one more place saved for Tolkien's ever-popular hobbits.

Animefunkmaster
2007-12-23, 03:10 AM
3.5:
Want to be a rogue and a gnome... be a whisper gnome click me for the excerpt (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20040807a&page=3). It is basically a gnome race that is tailored to rogues.

Normal gnomes are very good and very playable. Want to be a rogue caster?

Gnome
Wizard 3 (Illusionist)/Rogue2/Unseen seer 3/Mindbender 1/Unseen Seer 7/Anything (Arcane Trickster is a good one or even a dip in lore master)

Sublime Cord fixes bards that want to be full casters and not just performers, which fixes your casting problem and still utilizes all that bonus to illusions.

I might be tiny but your dead (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=633443) Logicninja's Killer Gnome.

I think that gnomes are just fine if people wanted to play them... but as stated before gnomes are not the most attractive race. Besides race is not AS important as class levels.

Edit: It is also my belief that a +2 con beats a +2 dex any day of the week.

SoD
2007-12-23, 03:35 AM
I look at gnomes and think...who cares? If I want to play as a gnome (and I'll play anything except a human), I'll play as it. If I want to play as a kobold barbarian who can speak 20 languages, but can't read or write any and specialises in sheild bashing...I will. So what if your character isn't an insanely combat orientated, DnD is a roleplaying game, and I personally only include minor amounts of rollplaying when creating my characters.

Dervag
2007-12-23, 03:54 AM
I sure hope they release gnomes in a supplement or as a Monster Manual race designed for easy playing. I don't think it would be that hard for them to do, and it would at least restore the situation for the people who like playing gnomes.

shadowdemon_lord
2007-12-23, 03:58 AM
Ahhh gnomes, I've always wanted to play a gnomic bard, but the campaigns I join as a gnomic bard I always have to leave as RL interferes. con is IMO the second most useful stat to just about everyone (with the exception of gish's and mystic theurges). It affects hit points, hit points man. It may be that my main character in my favorite living campaign is a crazy rage tank who's AC hits 2 when he goes all out (and he's built to go all out every round, but he gets to max power attack with a strength of 33 or 40, so it all balances out in the end), but hit points are something I always want to drive skyward with my characters.

ghost_warlock
2007-12-23, 05:39 AM
The second is that they are mechanically weak and narrow; they are best suited to playing spellcasters who focus on illusions. They are the only race that has racial benefits dependent upon their stats (and two different stats, at that, neither of which is a bonus and only one of which is important to their favored class), and can easily lose several of their benefits by not picking their class "correctly"; in fact, they are guaranteed to not have use of at least one, as they either have their weapon familiarity or racial bonuses with illusion. Mix that with a favored class that is sub-par, and you've got a race that few want to play for mechanical reasons.

I've been thinking more about this and I've decided that I disagree. :smalltongue:

What, exactly, to you mean when saying 'can easily lose several of their benefits by not picking their class "correctly."' Seriously, when playing a gnome of any type all you really risk "losing" is either proficiency with the gnome hooked hammer or a +1 DC for illusion spells. And, considering practially all caster types have at least a few illusion spells, the +1 DC isn't really lost either. So you lose proficiency with a mediocre and poorly supported exotic weapon. Big whoop.

Regardless of class, you still have +2 Con, low-light vision, a bonus on saves vs. illusions, a bonus to hit kobolds and goblinoids, a dodge bonus to AC against giants, and a bonus on Listen and Alchemy checks. None of this is really class-dependent. (Well, maybe Alchemy...but meh.)

The racial SLA's are Cha-dependent, but all you need to have them all is a 10 - hardly a tall order. They might not be "win" buttons but, when used with any creativity, the can certainly be helpful and they surely don't hurt. A recent OotS comic pointed out a creative use for dancing lights, and prestidigitation practically has a cult of fanboys claiming (perhaps a bit tongue-in-cheek) that it's the best spell EVAH.

Small size, -2 Str, and 20 ft. movement aren't really factors considering the "superior" halfling has the same traits.

I'm starting to think that the real reason gnomes got the axe is that they call for players to be creative in how they play. Instead of being a race where you're handed a bunch of mindless, passive racial abilities, gnomish racials encourage/require the player to actually think! And WotC, being an evil empire out soley to take money, wants obediant clones for customers; customers who will happily slurp down the latest swill without a thought or complaint!!! Gnomish racial abilities undermine WotC's supreme control over the gaming industry and actively work against their carefully wrought plans for world domination!!!! And WotC CAN'T HAVE THAT!!!!! :smallfurious:

To be honest, though, ever think about how much creative play has been penalized or discouraged? Someone goes to the trouble to come up with an ingenious spell/class combo that lays waste to an adventure, either one that the DM spent a lot of time planning or some canned adventure that was simply purchased and run as-is. In response to watching the adventure go down in flames, everyone cries "ZOMG!!! TAHT IS TEH UBER BROKAN!!1!!" and runs to post about it on some gaming forum, warning other potential players/DMs about the heinous combo. Public outcry snowballs. Soon, everyone believes that the combo, and maybe even the components, should obviously be banned from the game and every book containing them be burned.

Notice that several of the spells that players/DMs have the most complaints about are the ones that encourage the most creativity or have the most options for use (e.g., polymorph). It's as if the gaming community isn't bright enough to handle a bit of leeway in the descriptions of spells and classes, can't apply common sense or determine intent vs. RAW, and just wants every ability to come with a concise list of static bonuses that take effect when the ability is used and allow no wiggle room for the creative mind to innovate. Especially in the realm of spells, the ones that leave the most room for creativity are either endlessly nerfed by errata (once again, polymorph) or avoided like the plague by the majority of players (e.g., the various image illusion spells). I find it even more relevant that WotC has, in at least one 4e article I've read, stated that they're moving the focus for spellcasting more towards damage/blaster spells. In other words, they're giving players a vote of no confidence that we can responsibly handle any other possible application of magic. It makes me sad to think that they may be right... :smallfrown:

Okay...maybe that's a bit of an extreme viewpoint (and I'm not entirely sure I believe it, myself). In my defense, it's 4:56 am and I've had a lot of coffee. :smallbiggrin:

/rant

LibraryOgre
2007-12-23, 04:34 PM
I've been thinking more about this and I've decided that I disagree. :smalltongue:


Nothing wrong with disagreeing with me. That's more fun, in fact. :smallamused:

First, look at the core lists of illusions for non arcane classes. Clerics have 1 (Silence). Druids, Paladins, and Rangers have None (d20srd.org has a spell filter' I used that to reach this conclusion). So, unless you are a Bard, Sorcerer, or Wizard, you DO lose your +1 DC for illusions (except for Ghost Sound). And, if you're not a spellcaster at all, you don't get much benefit from a +2 to Craft (Alchemy), since you have to be a spellcaster to create items with that skill (and spell-like abilities do not make you a spellcaster).

Spell like abilities are counted as a benefit, yet require you to have certain stats in order to receive them. Sure, 10 isn't a lot, but in a point-buy game, that's the difference between a 15 and a 16, IIRC. Similarly, weapon familiarity with gnome hooked hammer is counted as a benefit, despite being utterly stupid and useless, especially to those who don't get all martial weapons for free.

What do you have no matter what? A +1 to hit kobolds and goblinoids. This is VERY campaign specific... if your DM seldom uses them, or doesn't put a lot of class levels on them (so you don't see them much after the first few levels), this disappears quickly. Similarly, the +4 to Dodge vs. Giants, while useful, is limited by campaign. In an anti-undead campaign, or even an anti-human campaign (politics, etc.), this will seldom come up. They're left with Low Light Vision, a bonus to Con, and a bonus to listen, making them slightly above Half-orcs.

Zenos
2007-12-23, 04:42 PM
The recent posts remind me that I am the only one who ever plays bard in my group and the only one who uses illusion spells at a higher frequency than continental drift:smallfrown: .

And when I choose a whip as a weapon to make ranged trip attacks they start making lots of jokes.
And when I get masterwork manacles, which are realy meant for use together with several gallons of oil and alchemists fire and a chair...

tyckspoon
2007-12-23, 06:14 PM
I sure hope they release gnomes in a supplement or as a Monster Manual race designed for easy playing. I don't think it would be that hard for them to do, and it would at least restore the situation for the people who like playing gnomes.

As far as I know they're confirmed for the first Monster Manual, and while it's been said that there won't be as many assorted monsters with LAs/'how to be a PC' entries, there will still be some. Gnomes seem a likely candidate for having a PC entry... really, now, 'not in the PHB' is not the same thing as 'no longer in the game'. I would expect most humanoid races to still become available as PCs sooner or later.

kamikasei
2007-12-23, 06:41 PM
As far as I know they're confirmed for the first Monster Manual, and while it's been said that there won't be as many assorted monsters with LAs/'how to be a PC' entries, there will still be some. Gnomes seem a likely candidate for having a PC entry... really, now, 'not in the PHB' is not the same thing as 'no longer in the game'. I would expect most humanoid races to still become available as PCs sooner or later.

They'll pretty much have to be in the 4e Eberron book, right?

Xuincherguixe
2007-12-23, 07:12 PM
I'd like to think that I can make any race interesting, or at least badass. Gnomes and Halflings? Pretty hard. Sure, you could have them all become Barbarians, and go around eating the hearts of rival warriors... but that doesn't really fit.

I think that Gnomes can be combined with Hobbits. The best thing about this is that it creates a race that has much more definition. They might have a tendency towards sitting around farming, but a number of them take to invention. Creating a better plow, or trying to come up with an irrigation system. And, you'd end up with a race good at illusions and sneaking, which is an obvious direction to go in.

Hey, if dwarves are so awesome(racial features wise), why can't Gnomelings?


I like the idea of a small character managing to still be heroic despite the fact that everything around them is so much bigger, using the strengths they have to overcome obstacles. (Rather than say, just say, giving them a high strength score) But, it seems like the Small races are just built for comic relief.

Which now that I think about it, may well be why they don't have a lot of definition.

BardicDuelist
2007-12-23, 07:59 PM
My opinion (which is similar to that allready stated):

Gnomes don't really exist in most people's idea of fantasy. Namely, Tolkien. Because they don't, if you havn't been playing RPGs for a while, you don't really know that they exist (except for the garden variety, and the thrown ones in Harry Potter). I don't play WoW, but I also get the feeling that they are disliked for some annoying representation. I never really got an annoying vibe from gnomes. I always saw them as mad scientists or woodland pranksters (and have no problem with different cultures existing within races, infact, I think it is needed more, especially without mechanical representations).

horseboy
2007-12-23, 09:53 PM
What ever happened to just playing a gnome because it's fun?

I like playing gnomes, the squeaky voices and the need to set funny traps on enemies is a great Roleplaying opprotunity.
The joy of taking Weapon proficiency: Door!

Collin152
2007-12-23, 10:42 PM
I like Gnomes; their small size and constitution bonuses make wizarding safer at low levels, and the ability to speak with mice? Invaluable.
Yes, mice burrow.

JadedDM
2007-12-24, 02:32 AM
Gnomes don't really exist in most people's idea of fantasy. Namely, Tolkien.

D&D hasn't been Tolkien since 2E. And with 4E, they are moving even further away from that.

Rift_Wolf
2007-12-24, 07:24 AM
To me gnomes are the mad professors of the game. I think elves are the least well defined in terms of fluff as they're trying to smush together two archetypes (Wood Elf ranger type and High Elf wizard type) without seeming to notice they're mutually exclusive. Also, in PHB, is there ANY bonus Elves give to spellcasters? Any save DC bonuses? Spell-likes? Bonuses to Spellcraft? In my opinion, the -2 CON is going to hit the wizard hardest, as -1hp when you're already on a d4 hit-dice is just asking for a poisoned crossbow bolt. Sure the +2 DEX means yours rays are going to hit more often, but gnomes get that and the AC bonus (through size) as well as +1hp.
So far two of the three paper characters I've rolled up have been gnomes. While I'm still searching for the best gnome character (I fancied playing a gnome fighter with an inferiority complex), I like gnomes more than halflings.
However, if my DM hadn't ruled out me playing a lizardfolk, I'd be playing as them instead :-D

LibraryOgre
2007-12-24, 12:41 PM
Personally, I felt that Elves should've had a favored class: Bard and gnomes should've been favored class: Wizard. It fit in with their descriptions MUCH better. (Read the PH entry on elves. Count the number of times it says "Music" and "Magic". Read the PH entry on gnomes, and then count the number of times it references knowledge and learning).

Collin152
2007-12-24, 08:10 PM
Nah, I still say Elf--> Druid

Scalenex
2007-12-24, 10:19 PM
I guess I was too verbose. The main deal isn't min-maxing (though that seems very important on any D&D forum I've seen anywhere). The main issue is that they eliminated the cultural differences between halflings and gnomes, so people play halflings.

They have another niche, at least in a world where elves and dwarves don't get along. They can be go betweens. In my Second Ed days, my group had many elven fighter/wizards and dwarven fighter/clerics. I created a kit called Gnomish Peacemaker which I made a fighter/illusionist kit and gave their kit miscelaneous diplomacy related things. Well I liked the idea.

LibraryOgre
2007-12-24, 11:02 PM
Nah, I still say Elf--> Druid

If you read the meat they gave elves, Bard fits very well; it mentions a reverence for nature, but not quite an obsessive one like druids have. Besides, it doesn't fit well with their racial proficiencies.

And scalenex, the main reason you see so much min-maxing on forums is because you can really only discuss the concrete on a forum... it's much harder to deal with the abstract issues of characterization. I don't think they gave halflings and gnomes the same meat... the descriptions are very different, with halflings being gypsies and gnomes being homebody scholars... but they didn't do much to make gnomes stand out, IMO.

CactusAir
2007-12-25, 02:17 AM
Waltz Tango Foxtrot?

Gnomes are AWESOME in 3.5. Illusion DC boost, some of the most brokenly good prestige classes ever (Go google "Killer Gnome" if you don't believe me), SLA's, and bonuses to CON, which is almost as important as your casting stat for a Arcane caster.

Admittedly, I think that gnomes should have favored class Bard or Illusionist, but hey, Bards are plenty awesome enough if you know how to use them.