Post/Author/DateTime	Post
JulesCARV 04-17-08, 06:35 PM	Okay, slightly overdramatic title, but anyway, pages eight (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1013790&page=8) through (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1013790&page=9) ten (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1013790&page=10) of the "Why all the anti 4th Edition (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1013790)" thread have gotten somewhat sidetracked into a discussion of gnomes on the part of myself and a few others. Anyway, here's a new thread, since some people liked the idea, and a lot of our discussion didn't specifically pertain to 4th edition. So... this is partly to continue the discussion that we had going before. Or just rant about gnomes generally if you'd prefer.
ChaosWolf1982 04-17-08, 06:46 PM	Here's a question. Since Blizzard came out with "World of Warcraft" a few years back, has anyone else other than me found it hard to picture a gnome without at least a brief urge to include pink hair and/or complex and volatile machinery in the mix?
Hellsbells 04-17-08, 08:08 PM	first of i disagree with you. Secondly, Gnomes=Kick ass! They are amazing
Jaxgaret 04-18-08, 12:21 AM	JulesCARV, I liked your comparison in that thread of Elves vs. Humans as being similar to Gnomes vs. Halflings. Could you repost it here? IMO the only reason that people equate Gnomes with Halflings is laziness. They're really quite distinct if you take the time to look.
Cpt_Micha 04-18-08, 12:44 AM	Gnomes, were abominations to the game in my opinion. They were like this dwarven elven crossbreed that was left best in the ditch somewhere. I do not like the 'small' player races anyway, one they were too small. (Come on like a humanoid that size could be even remotely adult strong) And for another, I feel they (in the gnome case) tread far too much on the dwarves and elves. Heck they are even more magical than the Elves who were allegedly grand awesomes at magic (shame they did not turn out that way) My gnome wound up a small sized purple and black skinned thing with beedy little solid black eyes, sharp teeth and clawed hands that I called the Gnurlocs. They are a chaotic evil type of race that loved to eat things like babies and what not. The gnome did not deserve to be a player's race, and I think I have seen more complaining about them leaving, than I ever did people playing them. I even played a gnome at one point and I still am glad they are being altered and shoveled into the monster manual.
abyssalmole 04-18-08, 01:12 AM	I personally feel like there are already too many races (and monsters for that matter) that are all too much alike. Dragonborn do not help the matter (just saying). Tritons, Sahaugin, Kua-toa, lizardfolk, argonians, all them types **** me off. So does a gnome deserve to be imprinted as more important than some of the others. Humans are a must. Elves and dwarves, amazingly well known in history (although Tolkien's original "wood elves" (not lothlorien) were referred to as gnomes in some of his earlier works (gasp)) Halflings... Well, this is, far more than we like to admit, based of Tolkien. But gnomes... Historically (if my memory serves me), gnomes were an excuse for random bad things happening, they would do stuff like hide your keys, and, in the case of "A man from Chelm" would turn your boots around so you didn't know which way you were going. Trouble is, trolls come from the exact same background. So why has the gnome developed into something so different from the troll? Robert Jordan had a miniature troll creature known as a trolloc, and they were interesting, so when I hear about Gnurlocs, I am very happy. You please me my friend, jolly good work with your disgusting purple things.
Traya 04-18-08, 01:43 AM	Blizzard didn't start the gnomes as engineers , Dragonlance had gnome engineers way before them. Thats even a dnd setting. I have always seen gnomes as the most technilogical of all the races.
Lappy9000 04-18-08, 07:01 AM	Tritons, Sahaugin, Kua-toa, lizardfolk, argonians, all them types **** me off. Yeah, but those races have a LA +1 or greater which makes them useless to me except as monsters. Personally, I love gnomes. I've always wondered why they never got the respect they deserve. Everyone always says that they are just a mix of elf and dwarf traits. ...Which is awesome! Think about it; as a race of humanoids who are both attuned to nature and magic(more so than elves) and take interest in underground mining (not as much as dwarves, but hey, they still get a Constitution bonus) who used this mesh of traits and their natural diplomacy (they seem to favor Charisma), to make alliances with almost all of the common races. From this position of power, the gnomes were free to create their own sovereign kingdom and rise up as one of the most power races in the world (with war machines). That's basically how it turns out in my campaign. Eberron was pretty awesome too, because it exposed gnomes as the sneaky, manipulative little so-and-so's that they really are. I'm cool with 4th Edition's decision on gnomes, however, the resounding dislike of gnomes just opens a window for a new monster race, anyway. I'll probally only buy a PHB and a MM from 4th Edition (there's a lot more to my decision than a lack of gnomes as a Common Race; it never stopped anyone from playing a bugbear), take some rules I like and convert some monsters back to 3.5 and call it a day.
HernetheHunter 04-18-08, 11:45 AM	I think Gnomes get the shaft in peoples opinions because they were not really a part of Tolkiens works (besides the previously mentioned) and other authors have not really focused on them. I believe Brooks' Gnome Hunters from some of the Shannara books were well described but I really can't remember a memorable character. I think there was a FR novel that had Gnomes in it called Soldiers of Ice and it had some interesting stuff, but what I remember is the special spiked armor used by the Gnome clan in the book. I never had a problem with Gnomes, just thought they should be more of a Fey creature since they were more in tune with nature than the elves were.
Ecalsneerg 04-18-08, 12:00 PM	I don't like Gnomes... as written. Stonehunter Gnomes from Dragon Magic, on the other hand, are the predominant race both martially and politically in my homebrew setting.
Roac 04-18-08, 12:30 PM	I think that gnomes have had a hard time fitting in because most people were confused as to their place in the world. Some people saw them as the little fey lepprechaunesque creatures of the forest, others as the tinkers and alchemists in halls of stone. This largely comes form authors who have had very different takes on the gnomes when they are even included and no one is able to get a consensus on what a stereotypical gnome is supposed to be. I personally like the 4th editions idea of gnomes from what I've seen, showing them more fey like and finally swinging them to one side. As for removing them from the players handbook I personally will miss the gnomes presence in these pages but understand the need to make room in the book for new races that deserve a shot. Putting them in the monster manual shows them as being more removed from general society and I think it helps build the gnome niche in the world. One of my first actions when getting 4th edition will be to check the gnome and evaluate whether or not I want to rule it a players race for myself possibly home ruling some aspects of it. I like the idea of it being a nonstandard race though so I would be very upset if they have given it racial HD or a lvl adjustment as a play deterrent just out of spite.
Mercurius 04-18-08, 12:50 PM	I must admit that my appreciation for gnomes came sometime during 3.0/3.5, and that I still haven't played one (of course, I haven't played a halfling, half-elf, half-orc, or most any other character either, since I'm usually a DM...). Part of the general problem people have (at least, I think) with gnomes is that they are sort of schizophrenic when people put them into settings. In DL, they're crazy tinkerers, in GH, they're sorta fae nature lovers, in FR they're kinda similar, only with some of that tinkering, and in Eb they're super spies. I started looking closely at gnomes after a particularly prominent argument about how D&D got elves wrong in 3rd edition way back when. The arguments about how elves were supposed to be these inherently magical super superior beings was being bandied around, and I realized that, despite some fluff support, the mechanics of both 2nd and 3rd edition didn't support it. Rather, gnomes - with their penchant for illusions, their innate magical abilities, etc - actually were an inherently magical race, and I decided to work with that a bit when it came time to find their place in my world. What I wound up with was that gnomes are highly magical - both with arcane magic and with psionics, due to their chaotic bent and their illusions, which tie into dreams quite well, IMHO. Looking at the 3.5 favored class of Bard, I took it to mean that the designers thought of gnomes as being lore-mongers. They like learning, and pick up all manner of odd information, while also approaching illusions and magic as an art form and tool. So I had these inherently magical, curious, and creative creatures that fit all the data that gnomes are given (well, except I got rid of the Kobold and giant rivalries, because they didn't fit geographically, and replaced them with the Educated feat to reinforce the "learning" flavor and added some psionic power points to make them an actual psionic race in exchange). Honestly, I think people who hate gnomes and are all for them going away are people who aren't willing to look at something and see how it works. Most of the arguments stem from the fact that they haven't seen it work to their tastes yet, but a lot of people don't want to figure out how to do so. Now, I'll be the first to say I'm not exactly stoked about a lot of the random races that have cropped up throughout D&D. I don't love Dragonborn, Raptorans, Illumians, etc. And I admit that part of my reasoning for looking at the gnome and actually seeing what made them tick was brought on because they were a "core" race, and therefore kinda default. But they do work, as long as you don't just play them like a charicature.
Kadasbrass 04-18-08, 12:52 PM	I'm in favor of ditching the halfling and redistrubuting the halflings fluff with the Gnome.
Lappy9000 04-18-08, 01:52 PM	I'm in favor of ditching the halfling and redistrubuting the halflings fluff with the Gnome. ...Interesting (sincere).
Zousha_Omenohu 04-18-08, 02:12 PM	I agree with Mercurius. Gnomes are a lot more interesting than they appear at first glance. My brother found this out when he played a gnome rogue, who instead of a childish prankster was a daring badass. He described his character getting into all sorts of mishaps, and dashing, jumping and tumbling his way out of them in style. He want's to play a gnome bard/rogue in a future game, and I have no doubt he'd be miffed to learn that gnomes aren't considered cool enough to hang with the other core races. Halflings honestly have never made much sense to me. I keep imagining a hobbit, but D&D makes them into basically short, skinny gypsies. I've never really gotten a good feel for halfling culture, even from Races of the Wild, which discusses their society in detail.
Stado 04-18-08, 10:09 PM	As for removing them from the players handbook I personally will miss the gnomes presence in these pages but understand the need to make room in the book for new races that deserve a shot. Putting them in the monster manual shows them as being more removed from general society and I think it helps build the gnome niche in the world. The thing is, however, tieflings don't deserve a spot in the Player's Handbook over that of gnomes. And dragonborn? Well, they don't deserve it at all. The developers basically took the gnomes out because they were "too similar" to halflings (which is entirely false, and you'd think the developers would understand this best of all). Instead, they add half-demons/devils and half-dragons in order to pander to a younger audience. If anything, such things are far more removed from society than that of your average gnome. And it's not like they couldn't have easily established a solid niche for the gnomes without making them "monsters".
Nathreet 04-18-08, 10:49 PM	Good point. I like gnomes but I don't think they're essentially. I won't be terribly miffed, but wth tieflings?? I think wotc is giving in to a fad. I'd keep gnomes over tieflings.
JulesCARV 04-18-08, 10:52 PM	JulesCARV, I liked your comparison in that thread of Elves vs. Humans as being similar to Gnomes vs. Halflings. Could you repost it here? Okay. Sure. (For those who haven't been reading the other thread -- the point was basically that if halflings and gnomes are similar enough to not merit two seperate races, the same is true of humans and elves.) Elf Human Gnome Halfling -Centuries-long -Live on the -Centuries-long -Live on the lifespan timeframe of lifespan timeframe of about a century about a century -Dextrous, at -Average -Healthy, at -Average* expense of expense of health dexterity* -Low-light -Normal vision -Low-light -Normal vision vision vision -Medium -Medium -Small -Small -Naturalistic, -Flexible, -Technological, -Nomadic, artistic, wise, diverse, humorous, resourceful, aloof, good morally curious, good opportunistic. ambiguous naturalistic Morally ambiguous/neutral. *Considering the effects of the reduce person spell, I consider -2 str, +2 dex as "average" for a small humanoid.
Rebel7284 04-19-08, 02:34 AM	Given gnome vs. halfling, I'd much rather see Halflings go. They hold no flavor for me. At all. Apparently people at Wizards see differently. Oh well.
Jaxgaret 04-19-08, 03:38 AM	Given gnome vs. halfling, I'd much rather see Halflings go. They hold no flavor for me. At all. Apparently people at Wizards see differently. Oh well. +1. The 4e fluff for Halflings is kind of ridiculous - they're the only river merchants? They've cornered that market how exactly? Gnomes have inherent magical ability, which makes them far more differentiated from the other races than 3e Halflings - which are basically just small Humans who are patroned by a luck god.
Ecalsneerg 04-19-08, 06:14 AM	The thing is, however, tieflings don't deserve a spot in the Player's Handbook over that of gnomes. And dragonborn? Well, they don't deserve it at all. The developers basically took the gnomes out because they were "too similar" to halflings (which is entirely false, and you'd think the developers would understand this best of all). Instead, they add half-demons/devils and half-dragons in order to pander to a younger audience. If anything, such things are far more removed from society than that of your average gnome. And it's not like they couldn't have easily established a solid niche for the gnomes without making them "monsters". You could say that, but then you make the assumption that older gamers on't like half-dragons (I do, but i'll agree they're not PHB races) or Tieflings (you could even argue they're there for older gamers. Planescape, anyone?)
Xiuhcoatl 04-19-08, 07:52 AM	Gnomes play an important part in my campaign setting - while they were comically added in my previous one, in the new one they are almost predominant. That said, mechanically I would prefer them to a halfling ... if only because halflings are so overused.
Hellsbells 04-19-08, 08:28 AM	I actually like halflings... I just like gnomes a hell of a lot more
Scipion Emilien 04-19-08, 10:47 AM	Since there is too much gnome love here and after all this thread is suppose to be a debate, I'll add some of the post of the others thread here. In the hope it motivate you to rad the whole thing.
Scipion Emilien 04-19-08, 10:48 AM	How do they contrast any more than any other race, such as dwarves or elves or anything else? Euh dunno, perhaps because they are not enough present in Tolkiniesque fantasy? Okay I know I have got tolkien and every one will now think I am a purist, but still I don't see the point in the existence of gnome. Human are the farmers and builders of kingdoms and civilisations by excellence. Dwarf are the miners and crafters of shiny armor and weapons. Elves are the nearly-magic people with tie to nature. Halfling are the nomads of the world and by extension the traders. What remain for the gnome? Crafting is get by human and dwarf, nature is get by the elves, and being short and ostracised by the halfing. What role have the gnome? Comic relief! How do you build a whole race on comic relief and not have it strecht the versimilitude of the world? I remember seing the gnome in Eberron and having the impression of a scene like that at a WoTC meeting: "Keith Baker: Okay guy, we have place every core race in Khorvaire and the dragonmarked that goes with them, the only one left is the gnome. *Awkward silence in the room* Keith Baker: Anyone, an idea for god sake? Developper 1: Euh well, gnome are crafters, we could make them craft the ubermagic item. Keith Baker: Already cover by house Cannith, and do you really want warforged coming from gnomes? *Awkward silence once again in the room* Developper 2: You know Gnome have tie with nature, they could grow crop! Keith Baker: Already cover by house lyrandar with half-elves being incline to travel. And with the new twist we give orc, it will be all the more redundant. *Despair seem to get the board room* Developper 3: I have an idea, if we gave them something that no one else want, like communication and paperwork! The gnome could do the boring thing of the judiciary system. That way, even if we must include them, they will not be that important! Keith Baker: Excellent idea, and we could give them a nation in the south of Khorvaire with some commercial link with the others, but that nobody really care about because, well, they are gnome!" I know I caricature a lot, but it is the way that I feel it while reading Eberron book, they seem to have been force to include the gnome and even while they try their best, it sound artificial. If it is the actions of the race then the blame belongs to the player of that gnome, not on the gnome. If they become a deadweight pain-in-the-ass then that is once again the fault of the player and not the race. How do you explain that those players are normal with any other race but run amok when they play a gnome? Comic relief, they don't have a serious character and doesn't care if he die so they bring the rest of the party with them... Maybe the thousands of people who have not only seen a gnome character but who have also played a gnome character? Remember that your experience in D&D is not the only experience. So by that logic we must cater to those race that are the most play first and who more people would like to play them. I think that Tiefling and Dragonborn are and will be more popular than gnome. And why did I advance myself with this bold affirmation? First, my personnal experience: - Tiefling and dragon-flavor character were always more popular at my table than gnome. - I played a lot on Neverwinter night (the first of the two) roleplaying server. Saw at least 500 role play character in my NWN carriers (character played for at least 100hours online in a roleplay setting). I thing it s the better sampling one individual can have when not link directly to the gaming industry. And gnome were almost never a choice and I never saw a gnome guild leader. Worst, race with no mechanical support from the game like tieffling, dragon-like things and Drow where three time more popular than gnomes! Finally, WoTC say it themselves that those races were more popular and I guess that their market studie is more rigourous and accurate than what you or me can never achieve. Don't get me wrong, if you absolutely want to play a gnome, I have no problem if they appear in a future splatbook or the PHB2, but i just find this race weird as a core race and think it should be an option rather than something that must be in the game by default.
Scipion Emilien 04-19-08, 10:49 AM	I probably put the most development of culture into the Gnomes of my campaign world. Have you wondered why you had to do that? Because the gnome culture is the less developped of all in core D&D. I am really disapointed that they chose to do away with them as a PC race in 4E. I'll be staying with 3.5 or bringing the Gnomes aboard my way. I don't know why they would dump them like that... especially for something so non-sensical and flash as the Tiefling. Number, simply number of people (can look at my long post if you want to know how I came to this conclusion). But gnome still get a treatement of How to play as a race in 4e MM and will probably be the first race in PHB2. You still have the choice to use them...
Scipion Emilien 04-19-08, 10:51 AM	Originally post by High_Octane Let me ask you to do this: think about all the situations where you were using or playing a gnome. Now imagine those same situations where you instead had a halfling. Does anything fundamentally change in the event? Now imagine instead it was a dwarf, human, or elf. Is there a wider difference?
Scipion Emilien 04-19-08, 10:52 AM	Most of the D&D "world" is NOT part of Tolkien's "world." I know, but it is deeply inspire by it. And you conviniently forget the rest of my demonstration applying to a D&D world... I don't see them as having been written up as comic relief (and I'm talking about standard gnomes and not tinker gnomes). Well can someone explain me in what they are written then? I just don't understand the point. The only one that try to explain to date is Jules CARV and while I understand what he mean, I just don't like that 3rd person feel they bring in the game. I'm not saying we need to cater to anything. I was making the point that because you don't enjoy gnomes or have never seen them that that doesn't mean that no one has ever seen them or that no one plays them. You do realize that by your logic the gnome is just as out of place as is the Tiefling and the half-dragon? Well, on a broad sense, tieffling and Half-dragon are bound to happen in a world where magic fly everywhere, it will finish by having side effect on people and create freak of nature. On a more specific sense, Tieffling are by core flavor the descendant of an long lost empire who made a pact with the devil. Then Tieffling aren't a new culture with a new roleplay, they just are some human with an hereditary difformity. Same could be argue with half-dragon. But I agree with you, a dragon sleeping with human female is in my opinion akind to a human trying to mate with a dog. Just disguting and plain wrong. On the other hand, dragonborn are an entire different species that as an original lineage. They aren't really integrate to society as a whole and have their own. Then, while gnome are like a mix of human, elves, dwarf and halfling put into a mixer. Tieffling and Dragonborn are a lot easier to explain how they exist in the campaign setting. Tieffling by being mix with human bloodline and Dragonborn by tribe in far reach of the world while gnome are like the organised society that was always there but nobody pay to it attention. While the gnome competition with the other core race for an original niche, the dragonborn and tieffling have their own different niche: the one of the strange and bizarre. And what is wonderful with that niche, is by it very definition, it encompass all the freak of nature and there is then no "thematic" fight as to why those race have that niche over these one.
Scipion Emilien 04-19-08, 10:53 AM	Originally post by The_Flax I have not read the whole thread, so maybe this has already been mentioned. Personaly I tend to agree with the explaination from Races and Classes. Scipion Emilien mentioned it, the gnomes don't really have a niche in the core books. Now I'm not saying they have no flavor or that you can't do something cool with gnomes, but to a first time player they don't mean much. They don't come out with a clear identity. The only race I can think of with that same problem is the half-elf, but then again, its a bastard race so it does not need to have its own unique identity needed for a unique race. Now if in your campaign the gnome has its own wicked identity, that's great, and I'm not saying they can't. What I'm saying is it was pretty absent from the 3.X published books. Now since the PHB will be probably the first contact new players will have with DnD, WoTC decided to put races with strong unique identities in that book, hoping these new players will find them cool. I'm pretty sure in the long run the gnome will not be abandonned, it is a classical race of DnD after all.
Scipion Emilien 04-19-08, 10:55 AM	Originally Posted by Cuindless I hate to do this, High Octane, especially because I hate it when people do it to me, but... every time I've (A)played a gnome or (B)seen a gnome played, they were vastly different than halflings. Now, granted, I put a lot of work into the various races and cultures associated with them. They have fighting styles, musical genres, language, food, alcohol, customs and taboos all their own. I work hard to make each race distinct and interesting. Still, your argument doesn't point to a problem with the mechanics, it points to a fault in the players of those races. Most people see "a short race" and think, "Hmm... they're exactly the same." I wonder if those people think of little people (pejoratively called "midgets") as "just like children". Anyway, the point is, you're talking about playing styles, which are 100% player controlled. Mechanics and flavor are provided by WotC and make the two races (gnomes and halflings) completely different. Read Races of Stone and Races of the Wild for comparison. I know they're generally considered two of the least valuable books in 3.X, but their flavor is worth volumes. Gnomes are like Scots/Irish or perhaps rural English/Cornish types (anywhere in the West of England, really). Halflings are like caravan Romani (or "Gypsies" in the pejorative). Players and DMs don't bother making a difference between them. The difference is evident in the splatbooks. High Octane Answer: You are the exception, not the rule. Plus, like you said, you put a lot of emphasis on racial and cultural differences. And I'm guessing you have a lot of houseruling put into these cultural differences and distinctions. It has been my experience that people as a whole have a tendency to treat them the same simply because gnomes have no niche that other races haven't picked up, or borderlines outside the genre. Technology and alchemy pushes the steampunk line, which is a valid setting (Eberron) but not really found in core D&D (Greyhawk/Faerun). Engineering is also covered largely by dwarves. Pranks and silliness is easily covered by halflings. Everything else seems more like gnomes are just a mix of halfling and dwarf cultural tendencies and mechanics. The gnome niche has always been far too narrow. Think about their favored class in 3.0: Illusionist. Not even a full class, but a specific specialization within a class. In 3.5 they gave gnomes bard as their favored class, but in the end the mechanics and flavor did little to help that niche. Nothing about gnomes help them be bards. In reality the halfling background supports the bard lifestyle more than gnomes (Halflings have a wandering background)
Scipion Emilien 04-19-08, 11:02 AM	And now to continue the debate, I must say that I agree with High Octane and this thread seem to confort that trend. Gnome players seem to put a lot of work into the gnome culture and seem to overcompensate the lack of fluf in the core. While this is great for a homebrew, it still doesn't help gnome situation in core D&D. While a Gnome super-power with great war machine can be fun, I doubt that it can become the official stance of core D&D. Gnome lack identity and the designers seem to have seen it while they were reworking all the race. Im personnally glad they took the time to try to find a true gnome identity and wait for the PHB2 to do it instead of rushing it and being at the same place than in 3rd edition.
Eldritch_Lord 04-19-08, 11:26 AM	This is going to be a long one. Hold onto your hats. Given the choice between dropping the halfling or dropping the gnome, I'd say drop the halfling. "But why," you ask, "when gnomes aren't in Tolkien!?" That's exactly the point. If you want everything to be like LotR, you have elves and dwarves, both very far from their mythological roots and almost exactly like LotR versions of each. While the halflings started in 1e as hobbits-by-another-name, they have changed sufficiently since then that "They're Tolkien!" isn't a valid excuse. The gnomes, on the other hand, are different from their mythological roots and from LotR. I'm glad to see an original race in 3e core, probably just as much as those who want the gnome out of 4e are glad to see him go. Most of the complaints revolve around "But we don't know what gnomes are supposed to be!" My answer to that: Great! The elven stereotype is either the nature-loving wild guy with a longbow or a powerful wizard who's been studying for centuries; the dwarven stereotype is either a hard-drinking Scottish bearded man with a big axe or a perfect crafter and miner with skills unmatched by any other. The halfling/hobbit stereotype is either the fat, hairy-footed homely guy with no shoes (1e) or the wandering gypsy-esque trader (3e). What does the gnome get? Well, just looking at "official" interpretations he could be a maniacal tinkerer (Dragonlance); he could be a sneaky spy (Eberron); he could be an innately-magical being (FR); he could be a homely trickster (base fluff); or several other interpretations. The gnome isn't "bad" because he doesn't have a stereotype that players wish to either slavishly adhere to or play extremely against type to "break the mold" but rather it is good because it can accommodate many different playstyles and many different interpretations. If you want everything strictly Tolkien, or you can't deal with a non-stereotyped race, don't play gnomes! If, as a DM, you can't decide what role they're going to have in your world, don't run gnomes! However, don't hate on others who do like gnomes--I like using gnomes, but they aren't my favorite race, so please don't just dismiss my post as that of a big gnome fan. Rather, take it as someone who didn't really care either way until a few years ago, and then took a hard look at the gnomes and found that he liked the gnomes better than the halflings and liked their lack of pigeonholing better than the elves and dwarves, but still appreciates those other races' roles and appeals. Finally, in regard to those who (A) are glad gnomes are being dropped in favor of tieflings and dragonborn, (B) don't like either gnomes or dragonbonr but would prefer to keep tradition, or (C) want to keep gnomes because they hat tieflings or dragonborn: Why are these two inextricably linked? The devs could just as easily have removed half-elves in favor of teiflings and/or dragonborn, for example, and no one is saying that the tieflings and/or dragonborn are specifically included to replace the half-orc. I'm personally glad tieflings are in, not because they are "WoW-ish" or they "pander to anime fanboys" or whatever; I like them because I played 2e Planescape, and I liked playing all of the planetouched in there. The only complaint I have is that they don't have the Aasimar at the same time. I also like the dragonborn, not because they are "uber cool" or because they're like Draconians, but because it's refreshing to have a draconic race that isn't (A) made from dragons, (B) made from mortals pledged to dragons, or (C) associated with a specific dragon variety. So that's my rant. Thanks for reading.
Bringer of autumn 04-19-08, 11:47 AM	Why does this even matter, they're in the MM.
Eldritch_Lord 04-19-08, 02:26 PM	Why does this even matter, they're in the MM. They're in the MM, but: 1) Some DMs (more like many DMs) don't let PCs play things from the MM because they aren't PHB races, simple as that, no matter how much the devs say "it's okay to do this" 2) They don't have the same number of racial abilities, and since they aren't a PHB race they probably won't get racial weapons, Paths, etc. like the elves, dwarves, etc. may get. I personally don't have a problem with either of those, since I homebrew a lot, and am fine with the current race lineup. But if you ask me "Why do you like/dislik gnomes?" and "Should it have been dropped?" I'll give my opinion; whether or not that opinion affects my like or dislike of 4e is another issue entirely.
Mercurius 04-19-08, 02:33 PM	One thing that I've found rather odd regarding the drop of gnomes is that they had to completely make up the Eladrin. Elves as magical is one thing, sure, but where did this dimension-hopping, sorta fay elf really come from. They could just as easily have taken all the fluff they made up for the Eladrin, apply it to the gnome (who already had most of it, anyway) and be done with it. But they decided that 4e needed four types of elf right out of the gate (elf, eladrin, drow, half-elf), and then they went "Gee, we stole all the gnome's stuff for the Eladrin, what do we do now? We don't want two races that are too similiar..." Honestly, it's stupid, because the existing fluff and mechanics make the gnome an almost perfect fit for the niche that the new-to-4.0 Eladrin have staked a claim in. Honestly, I think it boils down to one thing - elves are pretty, and gnomes are sorta weird looking, and people like pretty things more.
Bringer of autumn 04-19-08, 02:37 PM	They're in the MM, but: 1) Some DMs (more like many DMs) don't let PCs play things from the MM because they aren't PHB races, simple as that, no matter how much the devs say "it's okay to do this" 2) They don't have the same number of racial abilities, and since they aren't a PHB race they probably won't get racial weapons, Paths, etc. like the elves, dwarves, etc. may get. I personally don't have a problem with either of those, since I homebrew a lot, and am fine with the current race lineup. But if you ask me "Why do you like/dislik gnomes?" and "Should it have been dropped?" I'll give my opinion; whether or not that opinion affects my like or dislike of 4e is another issue entirely. Good point (s). :) personally, I think they should have just redesigned them and have them make sense and keep them in the main race line up.
Jaxgaret 04-19-08, 02:43 PM	One thing that I've found rather odd regarding the drop of gnomes is that they had to completely make up the Eladrin. Elves as magical is one thing, sure, but where did this dimension-hopping, sorta fay elf really come from. They could just as easily have taken all the fluff they made up for the Eladrin, apply it to the gnome (who already had most of it, anyway) and be done with it. But they decided that 4e needed four types of elf right out of the gate (elf, eladrin, drow, half-elf), and then they went "Gee, we stole all the gnome's stuff for the Eladrin, what do we do now? We don't want two races that are too similiar..." Honestly, it's stupid, because the existing fluff and mechanics make the gnome an almost perfect fit for the niche that the new-to-4.0 Eladrin have staked a claim in. Honestly, I think it boils down to one thing - elves are pretty, and gnomes are sorta weird looking, and people like pretty things more. You make a good point. I didn't even think about that... the Eladrin does steal much of the Gnome's thunder.
Optimator 04-19-08, 02:57 PM	I think people only hate gnomes because it's fashionable. Honestly, though, this is coming from a WoW state of mind. But people have been making gnome-punting jokes forever now and not just with the advent of WoW, so I stand by what I say. Remember Cartman and the Underpants Gnomes? He just starts wailing on one with a stick and his reason is something like "I dunno, look at 'em. I mean he's all... look at 'em." There is something unconscious going on in the minds of people. Something about gnomes makes them easy targets, and people just jump on the opportunity. For instance, I work at a fitness equipment store. When people walk by and see the one and three pound weights there is about a %70 chance that someone in the group will pick one up and curl it, pretending to strain heavily while slowly bringing it up, all while making that constipated face and looking at his friends. Then he laughs, his friends laugh, and I die a little inside. If I'm in a particularly bad (or particularly good) mood, I'll recite the some of the spiel Stewie gives Olivia after she says "You are the weakest link. Goodbye." He then goes "Oh, wow, you are so funny. Nobody has ever made that joke before. You're the first. Do you write your own material... etc." Anyway, what that anecdote has to do with gnomes is that I feel a lot of gnome hate is some sort of instinctual, subconscious reaction to an easy target for bashing, and people just leap on it.
Bringer of autumn 04-19-08, 03:32 PM	I think people only hate gnomes because it's fashionable. Honestly, though, this is coming from a WoW state of mind. But people have been making gnome-punting jokes forever now and not just with the advent of WoW, so I stand by what I say. Remember Cartman and the Underpants Gnomes? He just starts wailing on one with a stick and his reason is something like "I dunno, look at 'em. I mean he's all... look at 'em." There is something unconscious going on in the minds of people. Something about gnomes makes them easy targets, and people just jump on the opportunity. For instance, I work at a fitness equipment store. When people walk by and see the one and three pound weights there is about a %70 chance that someone in the group will pick one up and curl it, pretending to strain heavily while slowly bringing it up, all while making that constipated face and looking at his friends. Then he laughs, his friends laugh, and I die a little inside. If I'm in a particularly bad (or particularly good) mood, I'll recite the some of the spiel Stewie gives Olivia after she says "You are the weakest link. Goodbye." He then goes "Oh, wow, you are so funny. Nobody has ever made that joke before. You're the first. Do you write your own material... etc." Anyway, what that anecdote has to do with gnomes is that I feel a lot of gnome hate is some sort of instinctual, subconscious reaction to an easy target for bashing, and people just leap on it. Someone should reveal to them that all strength and power are not exclusive to brute force.
Scipion Emilien 04-19-08, 05:27 PM	personally, I think they should have just redesigned them and have them make sense and keep them in the main race line up. this is what they are doing. They lack time to do it at the 4e deadline so the gnome will be the first race in PHB2.
angryscrub 04-19-08, 05:36 PM	personally, i don't care if they drop gnomes, cause they already ruined them. gnomes with an int bonus/wis penalty were cool. gnomes with illusionist favored class were cool. con bonus/str penalty? LAME. bard favored class? WTF! unless/until they bring back real gnomes, not these half assed 3.5 edition pansies, i say good riddance. gnomes are smart, but not very wise, and until the rules reflect that again, RAW gnomes don't exist for me anyway.
Mercurius 04-19-08, 06:37 PM	this is what they are doing. They lack time to do it at the 4e deadline so the gnome will be the first race in PHB2. But if they'd actually put on their thinking caps for three minutes and put away their bias against gnomes, they probably could have found a perfect niche for them right away, rather than spending all that time working on making up new races that steal their most obvious niche (see: Eladrin), or porting in new monstrous races to be in the PHB (Tiefling, Dragonborn). Honestly, the designers at WotC have a bit of a history of just flipping gnomes off (see: Miniatures line), and the complete "well, we couldn't think of a place for them, even though the most obvious one, even considering all the fluff we've already written for them, we gave to a new elf race" is just bollocks.
Auspex7 04-19-08, 10:00 PM	i hate gnomes. almost everything about the way they are generally portrayed makes them look silly. big noses, very small stature, the 'quirky tinkerers/inventors' stigma, etc. nothing about the way they are supposed to be portrayed makes me look at them and feel that the race as a hole is worth crusading for. i also have to give a nod to those who have mentioned not liking the sheer volume of 'intelligent races' in the game as it stands. i completely agree that there are far too many, and my homebrew settings will continue to feature drastically reduced numbers of humanoid races. in related news: f**k dragonborn.
The Ubbergeek 04-19-08, 11:22 PM	In related news; Dragonborn? F*** yeah! Gnomes need a retooling. Feyish beings... It's a nice idea. Druidic link? They have to be not silly. You have to picture seriously yourself playing a Gnome. And you can see it as a badass or at least a cool character....
BugBytes 04-20-08, 12:07 AM	The gnomes are an amazing race. A tyfling is no match for a gnome. I play a gnome druid and in our last dungeon I as the only one who kept fighting when we encountered some over-average PCs. The rest just gave up. We're talking about a paladin, a cleric and a bard/druid mix. Most people just don't like the gnome because they're a small sized character, they get a -2 stregnth and this makes them pretty useless when it comes to one on one fistfight type battles, but with their +2 constitution, they make great spellcasters and performers. With their +1 ratial bonus against goblinoids and their +1 size bonus to AC, the gnomes also do quite well whe it comes to fighting kobolds (which are one of the most encountered enemies for 1st to 3rd lvl parties). Their constitution bonus is a great advantage in the later levels because it gives such a great HP count. With this, the gnomes can last much longer in a battle than most characters of equivelent lvl. Pregisditation is also very usefull for distracting. We (my party) have used it numerous times to get out of what would have been sticky situations. You also menthion gnomes being ridiculed by pop culture? Is it not also true that elves have been manipulated so much that more often than not, they end up looking like gnomes? Take Santa for example, are his helpers not described as elves? Al my questions were rethorical. Ido not expect an answer, although I want you to take into consideration what I have just said.:D
Rosisha 04-20-08, 12:34 AM	I'm going to wade in on this one. First, a confession: I'm an almost exclusive Gnome player. For the past 15 years of playing D&D, gnomes have been my race of choice. I liked them because they were underdogs: small characters, short in stature, who could do great things cause they were the PC race. So here are my thoughts on 4E: I'm going to take a looooooong look at the books. Very long. And it better be DAMN impressive. IF, and ONLY IF, I am deeply impressed with the mechanics and rules, and systems, then maybe, MAYBE, I will buy them. Loosing the gnomes was a big "Con" on my Pros and Cons list. So why is loosing gnomes a con? Is it just because I play them almost exclusively? No. Actually it isn't. If there was a valid reason for loosing the gnome, I could understand it and go along with it. A lack of imagination and creativity is not a valid reason, and is sadly, a major problem I see cropping up all over these boards, especially in the "Whats a DM to do?" Forum. As has already been said, Gnomes are not stuck in any single mold, like elves or dwarves. Gnomes can be anything: alchemists, inventors, tricksters, assassins, lore keepers, nature lovers, miners. It doesn't matter. The only limitation is the creativity of the player. And of course the DM. Further, to play pop-psychologist, but I think there are some psychological issues here. For a lot of people, for some reason, small = weak. This is totally untrue. Ignoring that this is a fantasy realm for a second, the fact that a gnome is smaller would actually make a grown, healthy Gnome stronger then a human being. Assuming no hormone problems. Check out this link for why: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_weight_can_an_ant_carry Of course, the drastic difference between an ant and human really point out the difference that size has on muscle effectiveness. So, maybe we should be thinking that gnomes should get a +2 to strength! "But Gnomes are small! Like my little brother! and he isn't stronger then me!" Of course he can't. But you're little brother isn't a fully developed organism. He is a partially developed organism with no hormone development in the muscles (hormones like adrenaline, and testostorone). How about your dog? Want to put your arm in its jaw and wrestle? So, what we see is misunderstanding, coupled by wilful ignorance, and perhaps a fear of acknowledging that small isn't necessarily bad (this is a general American fear anyway, look at sales of SUVs vs. Compacts while gas prices continue to skyrocket. Heck, we had the crisis in the '70s, and people STILL went for SUVs... which can't even really go off road!!!!!). Then you combine this with a total lack of imagination... and bam, gnomes are gone. This is a shame, because what is wrong with saying: "Look! We've provided a race that ISN'T tied in to steriotypes! AND it isn't human! So you can play it without people giving you odd looks!" As a response I am working on a fully developed campaign world (litterely: a campaign handbook, some supplements) that responds by wiping out elves and dwarves, and keeps only small races and humans. I might add other races later, but not dwarves or elves. Death to stereotypes! Halflings needed radical changes to get rid of the damn Tolkien imagry, or influence from Kender. And I like Dragonlance, but Kender are DRAGONLANCE. Frankly, I don't want to play nothing but stereotypes. I want to explore new avenues of fantasy. Heck, my "asian" world is a combination of ancient Korean cultures mixing it up with ancient Indus valley cultures. That is just my view. Go Gnomes. Rosisha
Kuros81 04-20-08, 02:09 AM	Frankly, I don't want to play nothing but stereotypes. I want to explore new avenues of fantasy. Heck, my "asian" world is a combination of ancient Korean cultures mixing it up with ancient Indus valley cultures. I like gnomes, too. You have created an Asian world with Korean cultures? 진자? Is it Paekche, Silla, Gorguryeo era?
Zousha_Omenohu 04-20-08, 08:42 AM	I'm going to wade in on this one. First, a confession: I'm an almost exclusive Gnome player. For the past 15 years of playing D&D, gnomes have been my race of choice. I liked them because they were underdogs: small characters, short in stature, who could do great things cause they were the PC race. So here are my thoughts on 4E: I'm going to take a looooooong look at the books. Very long. And it better be DAMN impressive. IF, and ONLY IF, I am deeply impressed with the mechanics and rules, and systems, then maybe, MAYBE, I will buy them. Loosing the gnomes was a big "Con" on my Pros and Cons list. So why is loosing gnomes a con? Is it just because I play them almost exclusively? No. Actually it isn't. If there was a valid reason for loosing the gnome, I could understand it and go along with it. A lack of imagination and creativity is not a valid reason, and is sadly, a major problem I see cropping up all over these boards, especially in the "Whats a DM to do?" Forum. As has already been said, Gnomes are not stuck in any single mold, like elves or dwarves. Gnomes can be anything: alchemists, inventors, tricksters, assassins, lore keepers, nature lovers, miners. It doesn't matter. The only limitation is the creativity of the player. And of course the DM. Further, to play pop-psychologist, but I think there are some psychological issues here. For a lot of people, for some reason, small = weak. This is totally untrue. Ignoring that this is a fantasy realm for a second, the fact that a gnome is smaller would actually make a grown, healthy Gnome stronger then a human being. Assuming no hormone problems. Check out this link for why: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_weight_can_an_ant_carry Of course, the drastic difference between an ant and human really point out the difference that size has on muscle effectiveness. So, maybe we should be thinking that gnomes should get a +2 to strength! "But Gnomes are small! Like my little brother! and he isn't stronger then me!" Of course he can't. But you're little brother isn't a fully developed organism. He is a partially developed organism with no hormone development in the muscles (hormones like adrenaline, and testostorone). How about your dog? Want to put your arm in its jaw and wrestle? So, what we see is misunderstanding, coupled by wilful ignorance, and perhaps a fear of acknowledging that small isn't necessarily bad (this is a general American fear anyway, look at sales of SUVs vs. Compacts while gas prices continue to skyrocket. Heck, we had the crisis in the '70s, and people STILL went for SUVs... which can't even really go off road!!!!!). Then you combine this with a total lack of imagination... and bam, gnomes are gone. This is a shame, because what is wrong with saying: "Look! We've provided a race that ISN'T tied in to steriotypes! AND it isn't human! So you can play it without people giving you odd looks!" As a response I am working on a fully developed campaign world (litterely: a campaign handbook, some supplements) that responds by wiping out elves and dwarves, and keeps only small races and humans. I might add other races later, but not dwarves or elves. Death to stereotypes! Halflings needed radical changes to get rid of the damn Tolkien imagry, or influence from Kender. And I like Dragonlance, but Kender are DRAGONLANCE. Frankly, I don't want to play nothing but stereotypes. I want to explore new avenues of fantasy. Heck, my "asian" world is a combination of ancient Korean cultures mixing it up with ancient Indus valley cultures. That is just my view. Go Gnomes. Rosisha :clap: Well spoken, Rosisha!
Scipion Emilien 04-20-08, 11:37 AM	, rather than spending all that time working on making up new races that steal their most obvious niche (see: Eladrin), or porting in new monstrous races to be in the PHB (Tiefling, Dragonborn). I doubt that they build the eladrin while thinking they would ostracize the gnome by doing so. Eladrin are only what high elves are supposed to be in the first place and the fact that it affect gnome only show that the gnome were on high elve turf... As for the dragonborn and Tieffling, as I have pointed out, they are simply more popular than gnome and from my experience in great number. Why WoTC would have to cater to a minority of players when they can give what more people want? Tradition?
Kuros81 04-20-08, 11:41 AM	As for the dragonborn and Tieffling, as I have pointed out, they are simply more popular than gnome and from my experience in great number. Why WoTC would have to cater to a minority of players when they can give what more people want? Tradition? 1) Because core races should be prevalent if not common in the world. Dragonborn and tieflings would be rare, and if they are not, something is wrong. 2) Because the DM should be able to deny dragonborn and tieflings. 'You want to have fiendish parents? You want to be the son of a dragon? I'll consider it . . . " 3) Yes, tradition and continuity matter, if WotC wants to keep its customers coming back.
Scipion Emilien 04-20-08, 11:42 AM	The gnomes are an amazing race. A tyfling is no match for a gnome. I play a gnome druid and in our last dungeon I as the only one who kept fighting when we encountered some over-average PCs. The rest just gave up. We're talking about a paladin, a cleric and a bard/druid mix. Most people just don't like the gnome because they're a small sized character, they get a -2 stregnth and this makes them pretty useless when it comes to one on one fistfight type battles, but with their +2 constitution, they make great spellcasters and performers. With their +1 ratial bonus against goblinoids and their +1 size bonus to AC, the gnomes also do quite well whe it comes to fighting kobolds (which are one of the most encountered enemies for 1st to 3rd lvl parties). Their constitution bonus is a great advantage in the later levels because it gives such a great HP count. With this, the gnomes can last much longer in a battle than most characters of equivelent lvl. Pregisditation is also very usefull for distracting. We (my party) have used it numerous times to get out of what would have been sticky situations. I never say that the gnome where mechanically inferior to the others race. They suffer like the dwarf and halfling of the sybdroma of being stat boost by WoTC in 3.5 to encourage people to play them. I rather prefer they took the time to make interesting races rather than trying to boost uninteresting one mechanically in the hope that they will be played...
Scipion Emilien 04-20-08, 12:11 PM	I liked them because they were underdogs: small characters, short in stature, who could do great things cause they were the PC race. I always thought that the halfling was already fulfilliong this role, with at his best the example of Frodo and Sam Gamegie in LoTR. As for the PC race status, I find it odd that the simple fact of being a PC race give you an advantage in a Darwinist environnement. The lvl 1 boost in 4e is one of my pet peeves with this edition... As has already been said, Gnomes are not stuck in any single mold, like elves or dwarves. Gnomes can be anything: alchemists, inventors, tricksters, assassins, lore keepers, nature lovers, miners. It doesn't matter. The only limitation is the creativity of the player. And of course the DM. While this status is good for a supplement, this is bad for a book that should actually give new players an idea about the D&D world. Just placing a bland race into a world isn't going to help new players to have an impression about the world. Further, to play pop-psychologist, but I think there are some psychological issues here. For a lot of people, for some reason, small = weak. Okay here I follow you. This is totally untrue. Ignoring that this is a fantasy realm for a second, the fact that a gnome is smaller would actually make a grown, healthy Gnome stronger then a human being. Assuming no hormone problems. Okay here I have lost you Check out this link for why: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_weight_can_an_ant_carry Of course, the drastic difference between an ant and human really point out the difference that size has on muscle effectiveness. So, maybe we should be thinking that gnomes should get a +2 to strength! Okay you're comparing en entirely different order of the natural realms, the insect, to mamal. For what I know gnome doesn't have exosquelette and doesn't have any link with insect. Then again, I remember learning in my physic class that it was easier when you are small to lift more of your weight in percentage than when you were bigger simply because gravity is an accelaration to square and the surface on which this strenght is applie is smaller. It is not a linear process but a square one. An ant can lift 3 time it s weight but I can still lift more than a leaf with one hand even if I can't lift 3 times my weight... But Gnomes are small! Like my little brother! and he isn't stronger then me!" Of course he can't. But you're little brother isn't a fully developed organism. He is a partially developed organism with no hormone development in the muscles (hormones like adrenaline, and testostorone). Then I agree with you, comparing yo your little brother isn't a valid comparison, you should compare to your shot in stature neigbhor that have the same age as you, preferably adult to avoid bias in the hormonal developpement. And then you'll probably realise that you have the same strenght as him because you have the same human genetic and similar muscle. So a +2 strenght isn't a good representation of this, on the other hand I can concede that the minus 2 can be disputed. How about your dog? Want to put your arm in its jaw and wrestle? Most people can't be compared to dog because dog are generally in better shape than the urban population. Get a farmer or a soldier, and they will probably be as strong as your dog. And do not forget that a dog have a predatory bodie, can use four paw instead of 2 and have a lower grabity center than an human. If I follow your logic to the extreme, Human would be weaker than cat but stronger than an elephant, hippopotamus or lion... So, what we see is misunderstanding, coupled by wilful ignorance, and perhaps a fear of acknowledging that small isn't necessarily bad (this is a general American fear anyway, look at sales of SUVs vs. Compacts while gas prices continue to skyrocket. Heck, we had the crisis in the '70s, and people STILL went for SUVs... which can't even really go off road!!!!!). Then you combine this with a total lack of imagination... and bam, gnomes are gone. On this I can't really comment, Im not american and in my region economic car are more popular than SUV. This is a shame, because what is wrong with saying: "Look! We've provided a race that ISN'T tied in to steriotypes! AND it isn't human! So you can play it without people giving you odd looks!" And that is the problem in a core book, everything should be consistent. After that, with the splatbook, you can give option. As a response I am working on a fully developed campaign world (litterely: a campaign handbook, some supplements) that responds by wiping out elves and dwarves, and keeps only small races and humans. I might add other races later, but not dwarves or elves. Death to stereotypes! Halflings needed radical changes to get rid of the damn Tolkien imagry, or influence from Kender. And I like Dragonlance, but Kender are DRAGONLANCE. Frankly, I don't want to play nothing but stereotypes. I want to explore new avenues of fantasy. Heck, my "asian" world is a combination of ancient Korean cultures mixing it up with ancient Indus valley cultures. Oh then again, this is not because you have overcome the shotcoming of the gnome with your own creativity in your own campaign world that this solution can apply to all the gaming community...
Ecalsneerg 04-20-08, 12:47 PM	2) Because the DM should be able to deny dragonborn and tieflings. 'You want to have fiendish parents? You want to be the son of a dragon? I'll consider it . . . " If a DM isn't able to say, 'No, not in my game' to a core race, is the race really the problem? I, for one, have no elves in my homebrew setting (not out of any dislike, I just wanted to be different :D Oh, and Con penalty in the arctic = bad) 3) Yes, tradition and continuity matter, if WotC wants to keep its customers coming back. You can use thar argument for Dragonborn, yes, but not if you consider how popular Planscape used to be, and to a degree, still is.
Rosisha 04-20-08, 01:26 PM	Hello again, I just wanted to reply to a few things! Kuros81: The korean culture is based off what little is known about the Gaya Confederacy combined with an overarching feel of the Silla. The idea is that it is still small city states surrounded by dangerous wilderness, with some cultural unity though no political unity (Silla, on the other hand, was a powerful central state which rocked the socks of its neighbors). The bone system is used, as is various aspects of Buddhism. Scipion Emilien: Okay! You wrote a lot, so let me respond, these are in the order you presented your own comments cause I'm to lazy to quote: 1) Halflings: Yeah, but I don't like hobbits! 2) New players will get an idea for the world based on their gaming group, based on the setting. It is okay to say in a book about imagination: "You can do anything you want!" Heck, I'd be happy if they said "Look here is the basic race, and then we're including these terrain variants in the PHB." Thus combining the PHB and Unearthed Arcana section on Racial Variants. That would be fine cause it would give more options. A game like this is about options, not about restricting options. Stereotypes restrict options. 3) Awesome! Following me is always good ;) 4) Aww I lost ya! I'll pick you up again in the next comment... 5) I wasn't comparing ants to gnomes, I was using the muscle calculation that you summed up so nicely :D So you didn't actually loose me, you just said what I was saying really clearly! Go you! Serious, not sarcastic! 6) I used a child to highlight that a lot of people compare gnomes to children, which links back to my comment about pop psychology. I see it happening like this: New Player: "OMG like yo, like wow, like this game rocks like. Oh wow. Gnomes, like, yo. I can't play a kid yo. I'm not a kid, like that would be totally uncool, like." hehe okay sorry. That was mean! But let me insert a serious one: New Player: "Okay. I'm young and exploring a new hobby. This looks like fun, except I hate being called a kid, and these gnomes are like kids, so I don't want to play a gnome because I don't want to reinforce my own internal identity with anything that can be mistaken as a kid. This is the same reason I won't wear the sweater my grandmother got for me for christmas, and why I rebel against my parents to establish what will become my adult identity." This is a guess of course. I majored in poli sci, not psychology. I study sociopaths that go out of their way to take my tax money! 7) "Most people can't be compared to dog because dog are generally in better shape than the urban population. Get a farmer or a soldier, and they will probably be as strong as your dog." -- Yes. 'As strong as' thank you :D That is my point, a small animal, a dog, is as strong as a farmer or soldier, just as a small humanoid, a gnome, is as strong as a human farmer or soldier! HURAH! 8) Where are you from if you don't mind me asking? I am American. I bought a sweet little car, and get teased for not having a huge truck or SUV. Of course I like to ask "So how is your gas bill?" I fill up for 25 USD. Most of my neighbors are at 40 or 50. 9) I respectfully disagree. I don't think there is a problem, again, in a book on fantasy and imagination saying "Look there are more options, limited only by YOU." I think a huge problem with DnD today is the dependency on the RAW. To many people go "OMG it isn't raw its HORRIBLE." This isn't a video game. If you want strict adherence to numbers, go play a video game. This if imagination, this is pen and paper... or pencil and paper...with erasers. Or blank paper. The only limitations should come from the imagination of the players, not from the company. I hate to say it, but all it encourages are small minded people who can't move beyond a limited scope. "I saw LotRs! everything should be that way" or "If it isn't Dragonlance it isn't real!" or "If it isn't FR, then OMG WHAT?!" 10) My solution is creativity. My solution is to use my imagination and think of something new, and that is something that should apply to the whole gaming community, and if not, I have to scratch my head at why they are gaming with pen and paper games. Rosisha
Scipion Emilien 04-20-08, 02:58 PM	Hello again, I just wanted to reply to a few things! Godamnit were are gone my old wizards boards, people are so much civil! I remember a time when everyone would stupidly overheat in an argument abotu a game! (just kidding it's actually great to have a civil argument) I change a little the order of your original post, but i think it s to better answer you. 1) Halflings: Yeah, but I don't like hobbits! What not to love from hobbit! They are small hearty folk that love beer and good companie! 3) Awesome! Following me is always good ;) 4) Aww I lost ya! I'll pick you up again in the next comment... 5) I wasn't comparing ants to gnomes, I was using the muscle calculation that you summed up so nicely :D So you didn't actually loose me, you just said what I was saying really clearly! Go you! Serious, not sarcastic! 7) "Most people can't be compared to dog because dog are generally in better shape than the urban population. Get a farmer or a soldier, and they will probably be as strong as your dog." -- Yes. 'As strong as' thank you :D That is my point, a small animal, a dog, is as strong as a farmer or soldier, just as a small humanoid, a gnome, is as strong as a human farmer or soldier! HURAH![ Then it seem that I just don't correctly understand you, the reason while I follow you. But still, I don't understand why you were giving gnome a +2. As for the dog example, the fact that an human is as strong as dog show that by muscle only, human are stronger because they have the disavantage of having 2 paw instead of 4 and a higher gravity center. And you still didn't answer the fact that by your logic cats should be stronger than us and us stronger than elephant... 6) I used a child to highlight that a lot of people compare gnomes to children, which links back to my comment about pop psychology. I see it happening like this: New Player: "OMG like yo, like wow, like this game rocks like. Oh wow. Gnomes, like, yo. I can't play a kid yo. I'm not a kid, like that would be totally uncool, like." hehe okay sorry. That was mean! But let me insert a serious one: New Player: "Okay. I'm young and exploring a new hobby. This looks like fun, except I hate being called a kid, and these gnomes are like kids, so I don't want to play a gnome because I don't want to reinforce my own internal identity with anything that can be mistaken as a kid. This is the same reason I won't wear the sweater my grandmother got for me for christmas, and why I rebel against my parents to establish what will become my adult identity." Well, in my opinion what make me think of them as kids is more their immaturity than stature, or rather a combination of the two. but from my experience, people who actually want to play kids (yeah saw that), they usually take the halfling rather than the gnome. And this will be solve in 4e with halfling who will gain one feet of height and thus being on par with the dwarf. And then, since you could be what you want to be in this game, it is a little normal that most people prefer to be strong exemplar of already powerfully established race than to the one that people don't really know nothing about. This is a guess of course. I majored in poli sci, not psychology. I study sociopaths that go out of their way to take my tax money! Then your guess is as good as mine since im doing my major in history. I prefer to look at the content rather than the appearance as my arch-nemesis political science people do! (just kidding again, I precise it's difficult to show emotion on the net) As for the physics background, I studied 2 years in Engeenering. 8) Where are you from if you don't mind me asking? I am American. I bought a sweet little car, and get teased for not having a huge truck or SUV. Of course I like to ask "So how is your gas bill?" I fill up for 25 USD. Most of my neighbors are at 40 or 50. The Quebec province in Canada. Here with governemental taxes, fulling an SUV tank will cost like 150$ (and actually both canadian and US dollars are at nearly the same exchange rate). More importantly, we don't have a strong background of power like the one in american culture and our fondation myth (the quiet revolution) came later with more progressive value. Thus the "green" movement have taking roots here more rapidly than in others countries. Of course, this is a generalisation, we still have our Cow-Boy like characters or racers full of testerone for who bigger is better and who like SUV. But seing a hummer on the road here is like seing a yellow car on the road, it happen often enough to not find it strange, but not often enough to not take notice of it. I think a huge problem with DnD today is the dependency on the RAW. To many people go "OMG it isn't raw its HORRIBLE." This isn't a video game. If you want strict adherence to numbers, go play a video game. This if imagination, this is pen and paper... or pencil and paper...with erasers. Or blank paper. The only limitations should come from the imagination of the players, not from the company. Ha the famous debate about the RAW. Personnally, I like to have a strong RAW even if I house rule afterward for two reasons: - It give a common language to all D&D groups and players and is thus essential to make the integration of new players into the game. -Those new players would probably be lost or abuse by having too much libertie. For the DM having the RAW as a line of defense is often a good solution. I DM both type of group, with the first one, I stick to RAW, if I even have the misfortune of house ruling into this game, it will be after that a pain in the but because the players will see that I am flexible and try to use that flexibility only to pwn the game world and win the game. On the others, when I get experience players who have been DM too, I can trust them to not abuse and lauch the reliance on the RAW. Usually the game are better than with the first type of group. But the RAW have it's importance. 2) New players will get an idea for the world based on their gaming group, based on the setting. It is okay to say in a book about imagination: "You can do anything you want!" Heck, I'd be happy if they said "Look here is the basic race, and then we're including these terrain variants in the PHB." Thus combining the PHB and Unearthed Arcana section on Racial Variants. That would be fine cause it would give more options. A game like this is about options, not about restricting options. Stereotypes restrict options. 9) I respectfully disagree. I don't think there is a problem, again, in a book on fantasy and imagination saying "Look there are more options, limited only by YOU." ]I think a huge problem with DnD today is the dependency on the RAW. To many people go "OMG it isn't raw its HORRIBLE." This isn't a video game. If you want strict adherence to numbers, go play a video game. This if imagination, this is pen and paper... or pencil and paper...with erasers. Or blank paper. The only limitations should come from the imagination of the players, not from the company. I hate to say it, but all it encourages are small minded people who can't move beyond a limited scope. "I saw LotRs! everything should be that way" or "If it isn't Dragonlance it isn't real!" or "If it isn't FR, then OMG WHAT?!" 10) My solution is creativity. My solution is to use my imagination and think of something new, and that is something that should apply to the whole gaming community, and if not, I have to scratch my head at why they are gaming with pen and paper games. I think alot about that, and why did I still continue to defend the position of gnome being a bad thing for being bland and thus leaving a lot of creativity even if it make look me bad. And then I got the answer, it is justly because gnome are out of the boxe. I am really but really sick of people using stupid and non-pertinent out of the boxe thinking while making their character. For me, perhaps it's an historian deformation, the fun of D&D is how the players character interact with the world and how the world interact with them. So when people try to take the thing that is not in the world to avoid the environnement to have any grasp on them, it totally destroy for me the point of the game. Why do people always think that thinking outside of the boxe is always the best solution? Sometime, creating something inside the boxe (i.e. the game world) ask for a lot more creativity thant simply taking the option that come from nowhere and strangely stick with the party. And the gnome is really BAD at this because they are everything and nothing at he same time. And now before you start to say that I narrow your creativity, remember that the most bland race that D&D have is the one too that need the more work to be great and to be cool is the human. You know, it take a lot more creativity to play a human in a D&D world than any of the others demi-human race including the gnome. But for whatever reason, people seem to forget it because they are themselves human...
Scipion Emilien 04-20-08, 03:15 PM	1) Because core races should be prevalent if not common in the world. Dragonborn and tieflings would be rare, and if they are not, something is wrong. And PC are know to be rare examplar in the world, so I don't see why this contradict the basic premise of Dragonborn and tiefling being rare in the world. 2) Because the DM should be able to deny dragonborn and tieflings. 'You want to have fiendish parents? You want to be the son of a dragon? I'll consider it . . . " First, tieffling don't have fiendish parent but a fiendish lineage that go back to like 3000 years, same more or less for dragonborn. I don't see how this will not have a place in the typical high-fantasy of a D&D world. And if you prefer low-fantasy, you will already have house rule a lot of thing of the basic ruleset, so pursuing by one race or two should'nt be a problem... 3) Yes, tradition and continuity matter, if WotC wants to keep its customers coming back. You make me think of the catholic churche in my countrie. By trying to stick absolutely to tradition and contuinity, they totally alienate their worshipper base. Only old people go at the churches now and parish are going in bankruptcy one after the other. Heck the main churches of my native town have difficultie to find funding to repair they're roofs! And this all the while the majority of the population still consider itself catholic... Tradition and continuitie matter, but not at any cost. Tradition is something people use to have common ground, not an end in itself. Sometime, this common ground change and if you don't follow, you're left in the dust.
Jaxgaret 04-20-08, 03:41 PM	2) Because the DM should be able to deny dragonborn and tieflings. 'You want to have fiendish parents? You want to be the son of a dragon? I'll consider it . . . " Just wanted to correct a few misconceptions here. Tieflings in 4e are not the same as Tieflings in 3e. 4e Tieflings are humans with an infernal pact dating back thousands of years. They're actually much more similar to Hellbred (from FCII) Humans than they are to 3e Tieflings. Dragonborn are not the offspring of dragons. They are their own race. They aren't even dragons, really, they're a completely separate race that was created to be servants to the dragons. AFAIK there is no interbreeding between Dragons and Dragonborn, or if there was, it would be a half-breed itself, like any other Half-Dragon.
Cpt_Micha 04-20-08, 06:37 PM	The problem with the Gnome is the fact that out of the box it both infringes upon Elves and the Dwarves. Heaven forbid you make your Elves more fey or magic like because the gnome interferes! Heaven forbid your dwarves are the engineers and master craftsman because the gnome interferes! These are the reasons I do not like the gnomes. They had to suck some of the elven and dwarven personality away just to make the gnome even exist. The dwarves and elves I felt both suffered inadequate (at best) story in the phb, thanks in part of wotc trying so desperately to make a role for the gnome who was a joke anyway. The Elves were not beings of magic (like they allegedly are) nor are they fey like (which is another good alternative) the dwarves really apparently are not martial craftsman (because the gnome gets the same perks and one ups by being small size giving him a +1 to ac and hitting along with hide and move silently perks) I enriched the elves and dwarves considerably for my campaign worlds giving them countries, government etc etc and found that honestly the gnome was more of a "me too" add on in the default game. And when looking at my campaign worlds I decided that I did not want a "Me too" to be a player race. So I had to recreate them, into something so vastly different than what they are now (while still playing to the trickster theme.. just alot more cruel at it and with it. ) While the halflings to me felt inadequate as well so I made them for one of my campaign worlds literally created out of nothing by a decadent nation of humans because they wished to have a small slave race to attend all of the dirty jobs they themselves would not be willing to do. The halflings and their half breeds were not evil though they were undeniably created by evil, and they have learned to retain a sense of humor or else their lives would be forfeit either by their own hand or by their master's. You are expected as a Dm if you are making your own world to make things as indepth as you feel they have to be, I think many dms like myself came to similar conclusions not on any hate of small things because they are small, but because they felt that in order to take their elves or dwarves into a direction they felt they needed to go in the gnome by default got in the way.
Kuros81 04-20-08, 07:15 PM	Tieflings in 4e are not the same as Tieflings in 3e. 4e Tieflings are humans with an infernal pact dating back thousands of years. They're actually much more similar to Hellbred (from FCII) Humans than they are to 3e Tieflings. Dragonborn are not the offspring of dragons. They are their own race. They aren't even dragons, really, they're a completely separate race that was created to be servants to the dragons. AFAIK there is no interbreeding between Dragons and Dragonborn, or if there was, it would be a half-breed itself, like any other Half-Dragon. Ah, thanks for the correction. And PC are know to be rare examplar in the world, so I don't see why this contradict the basic premise of Dragonborn and tiefling being rare in the world. Meh. You make me think of the catholic churche in my countrie. By trying to stick absolutely to tradition and contuinity, they totally alienate their worshipper base. Only old people go at the churches now and parish are going in bankruptcy one after the other. Heck the main churches of my native town have difficultie to find funding to repair they're roofs! And this all the while the majority of the population still consider itself catholic... Tradition and continuitie matter, but not at any cost. Tradition is something people use to have common ground, not an end in itself. Sometime, this common ground change and if you don't follow, you're left in the dust. Nice tangent. But I don't think keeping the gnomes would be anything like the Catholic Church in your country. If a DM isn't able to say, 'No, not in my game' to a core race, is the race really the problem? I, for one, have no elves in my homebrew setting (not out of any dislike, I just wanted to be different Oh, and Con penalty in the arctic = bad) Then we're on the same page. I mean, obviously, this thread is much ado about nothing. So I'll pretend to really care and advance the ridiculous argument that the Core Races represent not only integral player races, but also default races which a DM needs to think about and place throughout his world. I mean, this thread is really about how awesome gnomes are, and knowing what I have just learned now about the new tieflings and dragonborn . . . Gnomes > Dragonborn > Tieflings
Malicea 04-20-08, 07:59 PM	I've seen repeated posts here claiming the deficiencies of gnomes that rely on nothing but unsupported and dubious claims to know the 'statistics' on the (non)playability or lack of flavor of gnomes, or purely personal, anecdotal evidence. Making grand claims about the state of gnomes based on your personal experience is as valid as mine to the contrary. I could tell you for example, in all honesty and with great conviction, that halflings are by far more ignored than gnomes in the games I've run and played, but that would be worth exactly the same in this discussion: nothing. Nothing you have posted about gnomes Scipion, cannot be simply and immediately refuted by saying, 'No, that just isn't true, in MY experience.' Your experiences with tieflings and dragonborn have NOT been shared by everyone else, as you imply. Such rhetorical strategies might fool some, but I doubt intelligent readers will be taken in by what comes across as some kind of personal crusade against the viability of gnomes as a core race.
Scipion Emilien 04-20-08, 08:03 PM	Nice tangent. But I don't think keeping the gnomes would be anything like the Catholic Church in your country. The example I have taken is a little bit extreme, but I guess my point of illustrating that tradition isn't always the best thing has been made.
Sines 04-20-08, 11:20 PM	So alot of people complain that Gnomes steal from elves and dwarves and halflings. People say to give them thier 'thing' people have to make it up themselves. Am I the only one who doesn't see a problem here? Elves are ancient hippies with strong ties to magic. Dwarves like order and prefer visible concrete achievements, things that are created and tangigble, and thus boast the best smiths, architechs and miners. Halflings are sly and sneaky buggers who don't like sticking in one place (In this case, they are NOTHING like Hobbits. Even Tolkiens 5 Star Hobbits weren't really adventurers. They were just willing to when they needed). So some people say gnomes take magic away from elves. They take making things from dwarves. They take being annoying little buggers from halflings. And yet no-one makes this claim about humans. Humans love magic as much as elves, love building great empires and magnificent structures like dwarves, and moving around as much as halflings. Yet no-one says humans steal the Dwarf, Elf and Halfling 'shtick'. In the end, Gnomes are whatever you want them to be. They don't appear to have a niche EXACTLY BECAUSE THEY DON'T. They may not be as versatile and adaptable as humans, but that the humans shtick, humans are adaptable to any circumstances and change readily. Gnomes are the middle ground. They don't have the specific 'racial hat' that the others due, but lack the humans sheer adaptability. Not to say they aren't thier own people. But you don't need a hat to be unique. The way I read into races of stone, Gnomes are the race most likely to be doing something because they find it fun. Of all races, Gnomes are the most likely to declare 'I LOVE MY JOB!' after some dramatic event. But they don't tie thier whole race down to a couple of jobs. Yes, they have some things thier race is just better at, but other than +1 Illusion DC, they can be enjoyed by all classes. Even a fighter might enjoy the distractionary uses of dancing lights. So that leaves two choices for gnomes. Either decide that sometimes you can have people who are markedly different culturally but not mechanically, or decide that you want gnomes to occupy some niche and take the diverse little buggers so full of potential and squeeze them in to one of the many places they can occupy. Me personally? I believe that not all non-human races need to have some hat to hide behind, a common problem in fantasy and very common in sci-fi. Thats what I liked about gnomes, a gnome has the potential to be good at anything (Even in melee, what they lack in damage, they make up for in size bonuses to AC and Hit as well as that nifty +2 Con. I've seen some good Gnome Barbarians), as well as add a few useful quirks in terms of alchemy and magical abilities on the side. People don't use them alot because if thier concept doesn't fit into the niches of dwarves, elves or halflings they just immediately opt for the free feat, thinking only humans have the happy ability to be unique.
Rosisha 04-21-08, 12:36 AM	A gnome warrior slowly stalks through the two opposing armies. Orcs on one side, elves on the other. The battle is brutal, arrows fly back and forth, steel clashes against steel, and the gnome warrior fights bravely with his elven friends. Finally, the battle is won, the orcs fall back, retreating in poor order. A single Orc stays behind to curse the elven pointy eared scum. An elven warrior kneels down on the ground, to give thanks that he and his friends lived through the day, but bursts into tears over the great number of elven lives estinguished. The gnome stops, removes his helmet, and runs his hand through his hair. He shakes an orc skull off his blade, and then shoves the gore covered sword into the ground. Letting out a deep breath he looks around and shakes his head: "Damn do I love my job." *** I'm doing this. At some point, at some time, I'm having a gnome declare that they love their job. That was awesome Sines.
pawtucket_pat 04-21-08, 03:01 PM	I'm doing this. At some point, at some time, I'm having a gnome declare that they love their job. That was awesome Sines. That might actually make an interesting short-fiction meme. Everybody writes a story involving a gnome adventurer, with the last words of the story being "I love my job." Best one wins a cookie.
Sines 04-21-08, 03:25 PM	Oh dear lord, I didn't intend this XD I can just imagine some horrifyingly gory / explicit scene with the travelocity gnome photoshopped in being put on 4chan now. I may have to commit seppukku to save my honor. Anyway... feel free to ignore my interpretation of gnome society, the rest of my points still stand. But that doesn't change that I will not be able to get the image of the Travelocity Gnome committing attrocities out of my head for ages. So please ignore any maniacal laughter I engage in... All I need now is a picture of that T. Gnome and a copy of SAW III.
JulesCARV 04-21-08, 07:20 PM	One thing that interests me is the view that for gnomes to be viable, they can't be humorous. I admit the idea of them as perennial pranksters isn't so great, because pranks are often irritating for the person being pranked. I don't see what's so bad about them being funny, though. Or at least, I don't have a problem with them having a reputation for humor, even if it doesn't work for every individual gnome. (Sorta like, say, Ashkenazi Jews have a reputation for having a better sense of humor than, say, Germans, even though there are some very funny Germans and some very humorless Ashkenazim -- and those are just two groups of humans. Two overlapping groups, in fact!) Personally, I kinda like the idea of gnomes generally being funnier than most others. I had a post on my specific interpretation of gnome humor, (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=15633796&postcount=261) so I'm not going to repost it here. Haven't y'all enjoyed playing a character with a penchant for snappy one-liners once in a while, gnome or not?
ravenshrike 04-22-08, 12:29 AM	Blizzard didn't start the gnomes as engineers , Dragonlance had gnome engineers way before them. Thats even a dnd setting. I have always seen gnomes as the most technilogical of all the races. PS:Torment had 'ficer gnomes.
Alcalientre 04-22-08, 12:46 AM	The races included in the player's handbook are all about selling books. Wizards is a company. The fact is that this community is not really representative of the gaming community at large. Market research obviously shows that the people buying Dnd products think that tieflings and half-dragons are far more bada** than gnomes. So if the question is "Should gnomes be included in the Players Handbook", the answer is a definitive no. If the question is "Do gnomes represent an interesting race that is really very different from halflings that experienced gamers will want to include in their campaigns", the answer is undoubtedly yes. Make up your own stats for gnomes, or use the ones from the MM, or whatever. But for God's sake stop complaining and let Wizards make their money.
Sines 04-22-08, 11:19 AM	Alcalientre, I will not deny your argument. But the pro-gnome complaints is not that wizards is dropping gnomes, but that too many players drop or ignore them. Wizards IS just making thier money, so they're not to blame, these complaints are directed at players. And I agree with JulesCARV, just because gnomes are more lighthearted than other races doesn't mean they're not to be taken serious. Though gnomes do get hurt there, I've heard complaints that every time someone plays a gnomes, they just play an annoying prankster with no point. Kind of the racial equivalent to the Miko Miyazaki Paladin.
JulesCARV 04-22-08, 01:43 PM	PS:Torment had 'ficer gnomes. Really? I remember Planescape: Torment not really having any of the traditional D&D races besides humans -- just githzerai/githyanki, tieflings, aasimar, and such. I thought that it was a conscious decision on the part of Chris Avellone to avoid the more conventional fantasy tropes (dwarves and elves, swords, etc). The races included in the player's handbook are all about selling books. Wizards is a company. The fact is that this community is not really representative of the gaming community at large. Market research obviously shows that the people buying Dnd products think that tieflings and half-dragons are far more bada** than gnomes. So if the question is "Should gnomes be included in the Players Handbook", the answer is a definitive no. If the question is "Do gnomes represent an interesting race that is really very different from halflings that experienced gamers will want to include in their campaigns", the answer is undoubtedly yes. Make up your own stats for gnomes, or use the ones from the MM, or whatever. But for God's sake stop complaining and let Wizards make their money. I'm not clear on exactly what you're saying here. Are you saying that WotC's decisions cannot be criticized, so long as it is plausible -- if not proven -- that their decision is more profitable than some alternative route? If Wizards doesn't approve of threads like this, it is well within their power to lock them down. I see no reason why they need you to claim that no decision they make should ever be criticized.
Galaxyspinner 04-22-08, 03:46 PM	I feel that gnomes have a significant niche, in fourth edition more than ever. Previously they have always been second to elves as the magically-inclined race, second to halflings as the small-and-stealthy race, and second to dwarves as the hearty race, but now that the cast of races has widened and thematic redundencies are going to be common in any case it becomes clear to me what the true role of the gnome is. Each race is important not in what class they specialize in, but in what aspect of high fantasy they represent. For example, the dragonborn bring the "dragon" type to the playable humanoids. Elves have been the "fae" humanoids, half-orcs were the "monsterous humanoid" humanoids, dwarves were akin to "giants", halflings were "vermin", warforged are "constructs", and so on. What made humans special was that they were the only really, truely humanoid-humanoids, while all the others allow players to bring some salient aspect of the greater D&D world to their own character. That being said, what are gnomes? I would make the argument that they were the aberrant humanoids. Admit it: if you have any sense of humor at all you have, in one game or another, had your gnome wizard thoroughly abuse the parameters of prestidigitation. Or maybe you had him turn an ally into an elephant seal right in the middle of combat, or build a cannon that fires Daerin’s Instant Fortresses, or place geas after geas on the party’s paladin that starts with “Step One: gimme your pants...” It doesn’t matter what you did, all that matters is that when the most **** player in the group demanded to know why you were doing it, you responded, “Because I’m a gnome!” If this doesn’t fit into the aberration’s definition of “an alien mindset,” I don’t know what does. Consider the possibility that gnomes are of an aberrant origin. They don’t have a special niche in the game because nobody knows where they came from. Did they come from the earth? The wild? The stars? Do they have an agenda? Maybe they’re as harmless as they seem, but then again maybe they’re not and there’s something dark and horrible behind their appearance. Whatever the case, the gnomes are quite characteristically acting like there’s absolutely nothing strange going on.
WizardStu 04-24-08, 06:50 PM	I feel that the division in the elves was a silly move. I think that WoTC should have picked one either nature or magic for the Elves and given the other to gnomes. I perfer magic to gnomes and nature to elves.
sciborg3 04-24-08, 07:11 PM	Pathfinder has gnomes as being more related to fey: Gnomes Where the elves have a tie to nature, gnomes are linked to the fey that inhabit the quiet corners of the world. While many can seem whimsical and distant, gnomes that dwell alongside other races often take to one craft or profession with obsessive zeal, using that passion to root them in their surroundings. Many view such gnomes as eccentric, as their passions tend toward invention, alchemy, or other technical pursuits. Those that dwell with fey are often the opposite, their lives full of frivolous endeavors, making them seem odd and fickle to outside observers. Even these gnomes take to one passion or another, usually music, song, or poetry. Some theorize that without passion, a gnome fades into the wild to join the fey forever.