Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Ariel23 07-07-05, 01:59 PM	I've searched for an explanation but can't find one. This is not in the official errata. The discrepancy is in bold. Dungeon Master's Guide, 3.5, p. 127: Gnome, Forest: -2 Str, +2 Con, +2 Cha. +2 Craft (Alchemy),+4 hide, +2 Listen. Small. Speed 20 ft. Monster Manual, 3.5, p.132-3: Forest Gnome (Nothing about +2 Cha.) I think it would be nice if Gnomes got a CHA mod since 3.5 drastically changed the nature of the Gnome. The Forest Gnome could even lose the +2 Con and I wouldn't mind. However, I'd generally prefer an "official" explanation. It's fine that/if it's a typo, but why does the errata correct so much meaningless stuff and not this? As an aside, there is an odd passsage in the DMG on p.126, 2nd column, 1st full paragraph under "ADJUSTMENTS BY RACE OR KIND"...it says "See...The Dungeon Master's Guide for other traits by race or kind."Keep in mind that this is the DMG!
eggplantm 07-08-05, 02:15 PM	Weird. Looking at the SRD the forest gnome does not get any different ability modifiers than the rock gnome. It does however, get a bunch of other stuff to put it ahead of the rock gnome. Is your question concerning wether the forest gnome should have this bonus without a LA adjustment? or is your question that this is a mistake?
BelRex 07-08-05, 02:28 PM	Looking at the SRD, and even Races of Faerun(which has a good entry for forest gnomes) they don't get a bonus to CHA. So I would say that the DMG is in error. The only difference between the SRD gnome and Races of Faerun, is that in Faerun they get speak with animals at will instead of the type of speech described in the SRD for them, and they have a +1 LA. I personally think a forest gnome should have druid as favored class and a +2 to Wis.
Ariel23 07-09-05, 12:58 AM	Yes, my main question was that this needs to be in the Errata. Regardless of which is correct, they are in conflict and it isn't listed in the Errata for either the DMG or MM. I would agree about the Druid favored class part: that makes a lot more sense. The WIS is debatable--why not give "base" Gnomes a +2 CHA if they're so...entertaining? :P I don't have my books on me, but IIRC (which I probably don't) The Races of Faerun also gave them Pass Without Trace at will, all the time, while the MM version only grants it in wooded settings. And maybe PWT changed from 3 to 3.5? I would have no problem with giving them a +1 LA for +2 CHA for the simple reason that every race with a CHA bonus has a Level adjustment. And, frankly, it would be a relief to have one more available. Not to mention that their favored class is Bard, so that would actually make sense. Odd considering that CHA, despite WotC's best efforts, remains the traditional dump stat, while STR bonuses--considered to be top tier--do not automatically incur a LA. I always thought, if you have Human (no adjustment) and 6 races to pair with 6 stats, why wouldn't there be one race for each stat and vice versa? If you were making D&D from scratch, or writing a computer game, undoubtedly you would do that.
StormCrow42 07-09-05, 04:52 PM	Remember that the erratta defines reasonably clearly which source should be considered correct if there is a difference between the two (although this seems to be a cop-out to make the erratta seem shorter than it actually should be). In any event, it is reasonably clear that the MM should be considered correct (over the DMG) when looking for stats for races.
Ariel23 07-10-05, 03:04 AM	Oh, I agree, MM definitely takes precedence here. Still no reason not to include it in the errata, though.